Data-Driven Decision Making in Special Education: Meeting AYP Goals

1. DATA Project:Using Data to make decisionsEdl 630a Holly Cronin

2. A Burning Question… • Does the special education subgroup fail to meet AYP in Elementary School X? • If so, by what percentage could a district increase the proficiency of special education students in order to meet AYP in anyone one of the four ways? • Is there a correlation between the performance of special education students in reading and math?

3. Research of Burning Question: Important of AYP • “No Child Left Behind requires that each state establish an accountability plan calling for all students to meet required levels of academic performance by the 2013-2014 school year” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004). • “Schools must show they are making ‘adequate yearly progress,’ (AYP), toward the goal of all students achieving proficiencyin mathematics and reading/language arts by the year 2014” (Choi, 2007).

4. Research of Burning Question:Conflicting Message of AYP • “Most accountability tests end up measuring what students bring to school, not what they learn once they arrive” (Popham, 2010). • “Some schools that failed to meet AYP who were making exceptional progress, relative to the district, for their average and above-average initial status students. These successes were masked by their AYP designation” (Choi, 2007).

5. Research of Burning Question:Moving Forward • “Schools already constrained by limited resources…will have to develop innovative strategies to meet the conflicting mandates of NCLB, IDEA, and 504” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004). • School districts need resources to develop these innovate strategies.

6. DATA

7. What data can we use to answer these questions? • A look at the history of one school’s (referred to as Elementary School X) subgroups’ performance. • AYP projected percentages for current 6th Grade Students (based on their 5th grade data). • A closer look into the performance of students in a the special education subgroup. • A correlation between reading and math performance.

8. DATA: History of Subgroup’s Performance History of Subgroup’s Percent Proficient or Above at Elementary School X in Reading and Math from the 2006-2011 school years.

9. Elementary School X: AYP Results from 2011-2012

10. AYP Projected Percentages

11. Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading There are 4 ways that a school can reach AYP 1. Meet Expectations: Reaching Target Proficient Percentage 2. 2-Year Average 3. Safe Harbor:10% or greater reduction in Non- Proficient 4. Growth Calculation • Reading 40% of 27 students = 11 students. Meaning at least 16 students need to reach proficient Math 60% of 27 students = 16 students. Meaning at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

12. Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading Reading Math • The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 50%. In order to meet AYP based on… • Meeting Expectations: needs to increase by30.5% to reach target of 85.5% • Safe Harbor: 40% of 27 students can be non-proficient so that means at least 16 students need to reach proficient. • The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 29.2%. In order to meet AYP based on… • Meeting Expectations: needs to increase by 43.9% to reach target of 73.1% • Safe Harbor: 60% of 27 students can be non-proficient. That means at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

13. Special Education Subgroup Performance Reading Standards Math Standards • Informational Text • Literary Text • Reading Process • Acquisition of Vocabulary • Number Sense • Geometry and Spatial Sense • Measurement • Patterns, Functions and Algebra • Data Analysis and Probability

14. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

15. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

16. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

17. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

18. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

19. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

20. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

21. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

22. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

23. Reading and Math Correlation

24. Integrating Reading and Math • “By taking advantage of some natural parallels between reading and mathematics, teachers can enhance students’ learning of individual content areas and their ability to make generalizations across them” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012). • One of those parallels is comprehension strategies: “We want students to make predictions, monitor understanding, determine importance, and make connections” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012).

25. Integrating Reading and MathCommon Language Comprehension Strategies Problem Solving Skills • Metacognition • Schema • Determining Importance • Inferences • Connections • Synthesis • Monitor Understanding throughout the problem. • Have you seen a problem like this before? • What information do you need to solve the problem? • Predictions for answers. • Apply problem to real-world • Does your answer make sense?

26. Critiques of Integrating Content Areas • If a common language is not in place this may confuse students when trying to integrate the subjects. • There are “some concerns about too much integration” (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). It is important that teachers work together in order to create a comprehensive integrated unit. There have often been units that were poorly designed and loosely connected (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). • In order to prevent “poorly designed and loosely connected” units, collaboration amongst teachers becomes critical.

27. Conclusions • Special Education students historically struggle to meet AYP at Elementary School X. • Meeting AYP by the Safe Harbor expectation is the most probable way for Elementary School X to meet AYP. • There is a correlation between reading and math scores • 43% of the math scores can be predicted based on their reading scores

28. Next Steps… • What percentage do the other grade levels need to shoot for in order to meet AYP? • Do the teachers need to alter their curriculum maps based on their special education students’ breakdown of standards? • More time on units compared to others? • Resources needed to meet the needs of that unit? • Who do the teachers need to collaborate with in order to create more integrated math and reading classrooms? • What resources do they need to have these conversations?

29. Citations Choi, K. (2007). Children Left Behind in AYP and Non-AYP Schools: Using Student Progress and the Distribution of Student Gains to Validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, p. 21-32 Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2009). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping what is Taught and Tested. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Halladay, J. L., & Neumann, M. D. (2012). Connecting Reading and Mathematical Strategies. The Reading Teacher, 471-476. Measure Up Ohio. Retrieved on November 5, 2012. http://measureup.edresourcesohio.org/ayp.php Popham, J.W. (2010). Everything School Leaders Need to Know About Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sorrentino, A., & Zirkel, P. (2004). Is NCLB Leaving Special Education Students Behind? National Association of Elementary School Principals, p26-29