1 / 16

The Year of the Quality Report October 7, 2013

The Year of the Quality Report outlines the analysis of 524 Full Individual Evaluation (FIE) reports for the 2012-13 school year in the Houston Independent School District. It highlights that 5% of reports lacked scores, while 33% misinterpreted narrows and G’s. Despite these issues, progress was made in the achievement section, with 95% of reports including both achievement and cognitive scores and 67% interpreting narrows and G’s correctly. Collaborative efforts are encouraged to further enhance FIE quality through identifying errors and using reference guides.

hazina
Télécharger la présentation

The Year of the Quality Report October 7, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Year of the Quality Report October 7, 2013 HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

  2. Sample of FIEs • Initial Referrals • 2012-13 school year • Qualified – Learning Disabled • 346 out of 524 FIEs were reviewed

  3. Issues Found • 5% of reports had no scores (achievement and/or cognitive) • 33% of reports misinterpreted narrows and/or G’s • Address/phone numbers were missing

  4. Bright Spots • Progress made in the achievement section • Not just describing the subtests • Reporting what the student can and cannot do • 95% of the reports had both achievement and cognitive scores reported • 67% of the reports interpreted the narrows and G’s correctly

  5. Activity • Work with your table mates • Identify errors in Samples 1-6 • 10 minutes • Leads will assist

  6. Sample 1 Another SR was not administered Don’t list secondary narrow

  7. Sample 2 Only one RQ narrow was assessed

  8. Sample 3 Another MA was not administered

  9. Sample 4 Another US/U3 was not administered LD doc identifies Ga as intact

  10. Sample 5 Not unitary but it is consistent Gc is a normative weakness

  11. Sample 6 Scores are not unitary but are consistent - the “G” is a normative weakness Glr: NA was not administered

  12. The Year of the Quality Report • Continue working with your Lead • Specifically to correctly identify narrows and G’s • Have Leads look at FIE before it’s finalized • Use reference guides: • FIE Checklist • FIE Rubric • FIE Guidance website

  13. Find the errors:

  14. Find the errors:

  15. Find the errors:

  16. Find the error:

More Related