Week 2: Application Assignment

D. Deming L20357497

Week 2 Assignment

EDLD 5333 Leadership for Accountability

Week 2 Assignment: Mining for Data

Overview

In this week’s lecture, we reviewed the Texas Accountability System, a school improvement tool. The 2014 Accountability System meets both federal and state requirements as discussed in an excerpt from a September 13, 2013 TEA announcement:

Commissioner of Education Michael Williams today announced that the State of Texas has secured a conditional waiver from the U.S. Department of Education for specific provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Commissioner Williams initiated the waiver process earlier this year to give the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and more than 1,200 school districts and charters additional flexibility.

Under key components of the state’s NCLB waiver, Texas schools will no longer be designated as having met or made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Instead of federal designations for all schools in Texas, only the lowest performing 15 percent of schools will be identified as Priority or Focus Schools. Those schools will be subject to a series of federally-prescribed interventions.

Additionally, Texas school districts will no longer be required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I federal dollars to provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES). A district will now be free to use those funds on academic intervention programs it deems most effective for its students. This week, you will perform another step in the comprehensive needs assessment, which you will use later to develop a campus action plan.

From the beginning of the waiver process, Commissioner Williams pointed out to federal officials that Texas has been a national leader in the college- and career-readiness movement. Texas was the first state to develop and implement college- and career-readiness curriculum standards, the first state to assess those standards, and is the first state to implement an accountability system to hold schools accountable for preparing students for postsecondary success.

The waiver is effective for the 2013-2014 school year. The complete waiver request – including the approval letter from Secretary Duncan – is available for viewing on the Texas Education Agency website.

In this assignment, you will further explore the 2014 Accountability data, locate reports that are critical to your campus improvement team, and compare your selected campus’ performance to the Accountability standards. Your goal in completing this data analysis is to determine areas of strength and weakness and identify patterns and trends at your selected campus.

You will use the campus reports that you pulled up in Week 1 (see directions in week 1 assignment if you did not print those reports). You will also pull up the 2013 Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) which you will use to compare your campus’s 2012 and 2013 STAAR results to determine patterns and trends in the data.

If you are an out of state student, you will continue to work with data from the Texas campus you selected for the Week 1 assignment. The objective of this exercise is to learn to mine data from a data report and use it to target areas of strength and weakness.
Rubric

Use the following rubric to guide your work.

Tasks / Accomplished / Proficient / Needs Improvement / Unacceptable
Week 2 Assignment: Mining for Data (ELCC 2.2 a., b., c.; 2.3 a., c.)
Part 1: Campus Data Summary / Conducts detailed comparison of 2012 and 2013 scores in each subject & subgroup to the standards
(10 points) / Compares scores in each subject, subgroup to the standards
(8 points) / Does not compare scores in each subject, subgroup to the standards
(7 points) / Does not summarize Campus Report.
(0 points)
Part 2: Distinction Designation/ Comparison Group Summary / Compares performance of selected campus on Index 2: Student Progress to others with same or similar demographics (comparison group). Writes a detailed summary noting trends & patterns by indicator.
(10 points) / Compares performance of selected campus on Index 2: Student Progress to others with same or similar demographics (comparison group). Summary of trends & patterns lacks details by indicator
(8 points) / Does not compare performance of selected campus on Index 2: Student Progress to others with same or similar demographics (comparison group).
(7 points) / Does not complete the assignment.
(0 points)
Part 3: Area of Strength/Need / Identifies one area of campus strength and two areas of need from data, and explains choices with detailed elaboration.
(10 points) / Identifies one area of campus strength and two areas of need from data, and explains choices with some elaboration.
(8 points) / Identifies one area of campus strength and two areas of need with no elaboration
(7 points) / This portion of assignment is not addressed.
(0 points)
Mechanics / Responses are relevant to course content. Student adheres to APA stylistic guidelines. Writing is clear, concise, and well organized. Excellent sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation. / Responses are relevant to course content. Student adheres mostly to APA stylistic guidelines. Writing is mostly clear, concise, and well organized. Good sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are three or fewer errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation. / Responses do not reflect knowledge of course content. Student adheres loosely to APA stylistic guidelines. Writing is unclear and/or disorganized. Weak sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are not expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are four or more errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation. / Responses do not reflect knowledge of course content, lack clarity and depth, and/or include multiple errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation, including APA errors.
(0 points)
Discussion Board due dates and postings criteria
APA format required / Posts a substantive response to each discussion prompt by the 4th day of each week (2 points), and responds to two colleagues in by the 7th day @ 11:59 p.m. (1 point). Total = 3 points each week.
Use APA format to cite. / See first column. / (0 points) / (0 points)

Discussion Board Overview: A thorough response is more than “I agree,” or “Awesome comments.” Be specific (e.g., “I agree with your comment about the first question because . . .,” or “Awesome comments – I really like your suggestions for involving parents, community members, along with teachers and students because. . .”) We encourage you to write three or more sentences in responding to other students’ posts. The professors will be monitoring your Discussion Board responses and we look forward to learning from one another. We grow from sharing insights and suggestions with one another.

Reference Citations

Reference citations should be specific and preferably in APA format in order to receive full credit. General statements such as "Research indicates" or "Marzano points out" do not constitute a reference citation. Remember, the purpose of an appropriate citation is to allow readers of your work to easily identify the written work and author. For example, if you use a phrase like, “The Marzano guidelines emphasize . . .”, guide the reader to the source of this comment, Marzano (2009).

Part 1: Campus Data Summary (ELCC 2.1 a.; 2.2 a., & c.)

A critical skill for an instructional leader is the ability to use data-based decision making. You will practice this skill in this Application assignment as you continue to collect data in preparation for creating an action plan for school improvement. In week 1, you selected a school and began the review of accountability data. The principal certification exam will have questions referring to a data report, so you should be familiar with reading and interpreting data reports. In this assignment, you will continue to mine data reports to determine areas of strength and need.

Texas Performance Reporting System (TPRS) provides additional performance reports and results for student groups not previously reported on 2012and 2013 state accountability reports, the Texas Academic Performance Reports (TAPR), or the School Report Card. Most reports are available at the Campus, District, Region, and State.

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tprs/2013/index.html

Directions

1. In week 1, you navigated the TEA website http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2014/index.html and printed the following reports:

a. Accountability Summary and the Explanation

b. Index Calculations and Data Tables

c. Distinction Designation

d. System Safeguards

This week, you will also need the 2013 Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR). You will use this report to compare the 2012 and 2013 test results by All Students, Subject, and student subgroup as you look for trends and patterns in performance over a two year period.

Go to http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/2013/srch.html

Click on Campus Report in the left menu.

On the next screens, answer the questions. Click on View Report.

Choose Print PDF.

2. Carefully review the data, and familiarize yourself with the format. Study the information by row title, and column heading so that you know where to locate specific information on the report (tested on the TeXes exam).

· Review and compare the 2013 and 2014 data by subject and grade level, paying specific attention to the performance of each group and subgroup (e.g., All students, AA, H, White, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, 2 or more races, Sp. Ed., Eco. Dis., and ELL.

3. A data summary captures patterns and trends in the data. A summary of findings is a way to synthesize the outcome of the data analysis to create the basis for the needs assessment process. Look for increases and decreases which may indicate trends and patterns in student performance. Discuss trends and patterns, strengths and weaknesses in your summary (e.g., by subject and student group).

Summarize your findings in the workspace below.

Due to the fact the 2013-2014 Texas Academic Performance Report was not available, the 2012-2013 Texas Academic Performance Report was used to identify trends and patterns in student performance over a two year period for Taylor Middle School, campus number 246911041, district: Taylor ISD. Their 2013 accountability rating was “Met Standard”. Taylor Middle School earned an academic distinction in Mathematics.
In 2013, Taylor Middle School had 655 students, grades 6-8. Grade 6 was comprised of 249 students, grade 7 had 217 students, and grade 8 contained 189 students. The 2013 ethnic distribution of students at Taylor Middle was: African Americans-64 students, 9.8% of campus population (less than state average of 12.7%); Hispanic-404 students, 61.7% of campus population (greater than state average of 51.3%); White-168 students, 25.6% of campus population (less than state average of 30.0%); American Indian- 2 students, 0.3% of campus population (less than state average of 0.4%); Asian- 1 student, 0.2% of campus population (less than state average of 3.6%); 0% Pacific Islander; and Two or More Races-16 students, 2.4% of campus population (greater than state average of 1.8%). Other vital 2013 student subgroup information to consider at Taylor Middle School includes: 435 of the students were identified as Economically Disadvantaged, 66.4% of the campus population (greater than state average of 60.4%); 220 of the students were Non-Educationally Disadvantaged, 33.6% of the campus population (less than state average of 39.6%); and 56 students were recognized as English Language Learners (ELL), 8.5% of the campus population (less than state average of 17.1%). Student enrollment in Bilingual/ESL Education was 51 students, or 7.8%, significantly less than state average of 16.6%. There were 49 students identified in Gifted & Talented, or 7.5% of the campus, less than state average of 7.7%. Lastly, 76 students have been identified for Special Education, 11.6% of the campus, far greater than the state average of 8.5%.
In the 2011-2012 year, 40 students were Students with Disciplinary Placements, 5.7% of the campus population (greater than state average of 1.7%); 301 students were At-Risk, 46.0% of the campus population (greater than state average of 44.7%); and Mobility for the 2011-2012 year were 93 students, 13.2% of the campus population (less than state average of 17.9%).
The number of students to teachers is 14.1, which is less than the state average of 15.5. 75.9% of the teaching staff are females and 92.3% of the teachers are ethnically identified as White; significantly greatly than state average of 62.8%. The majority of the teaching staff has 1-5 years of experience and their pay scale is less than state average.
Reading scores for 6th grade decreased slightly in 2013 from 68% to 67%. Even though White and Special Education subgroups increased their scores, African American students’ scores dropped from 68% to 56% and Economically Disadvantaged students declined from 63% to 58%. More concerning is the noticeable drop in 6th grade Mathematic scores from 83% to 78%. As with Reading, African American and Economically Disadvantaged students had the most significant decline. The African American subgroup scores decreased 30% from 89% to 59% and the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup declined 8 % from 82% to 74%.
The 7th graders decreased in all areas; Reading, Mathematics, and Writing, with the most substantial decrease in Writing from 73% to 63%. No subgroups improved their scores in Writing. The White subgroup declined the most in Writing, going from 86% to 73%, and African American students experienced the second greatest decline with scores dropping from 79% to 67%. Another noteworthy concern was a decline in Mathematic scores for the Special Education subgroup; 71% to 43%. This is significant because the following subgroups increased their scores in Mathematics- African Americans, White, and Economically Disadvantaged students. Economically Disadvantaged students were also the only group to increase in their Reading scores from 2012 to 2013.
The 8th graders increased their Reading and Science scores, declined in Mathematics, and remaining identical in Social Studies. For Reading, all subgroups increased except ELL students. African American students experienced the greatest Reading growth, increasing 30% from 63% to 93%. Mathematic scores uniformly declined across all subgroups from 81% to 77%, with the greatest decrease being in recorded in the White subgroup. Science scores improved from 62% to 73%. The strongest improvement were the African American student scores; 48% to 63%. Social Studies scores were recorded as 57% for both years. African American and Special Education students noted the greatest decline in Social Studies and White students had the only increase in this subject area.

Part 2: Distinction Designation Summary (ELCC 2.1 a.; 2.2 a., b.; 3.3 c.)