November 1, 2006 Dr. Janis Fries-Martinez, Principal Gerardo Loera, Assistant Principal

1. California Standards Testand CAHSEE CorrelationUse of Student Data for Targeted Preemptive Intervention November 1, 2006 Dr. Janis Fries-Martinez, Principal Gerardo Loera, Assistant Principal Polytechnic High School Los Angeles Unified School District 2

2. In This Presentation You Will Learn: • How to accurately identify 10th grade students who need intervention for the CAHSEE before they take it in the spring • How to identify a target group of students to strategically raise the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Above on the CAHSEE in order to meet AYP requirements • How to predict, with significant amount of certainty, which 10th grade students will pass and fail the CAHSEE on their initial try

3. No Child Left Behind and State Accountability Criteria - CAHSEE • AYP and API are dependent in large part to CAHSEE scores • AYP: Annual Measurable Objectives are measured mainly by success of 10th grade students taking the CAHSEE the 1st time • Problem: High failure rate on CAHSEE • Problem: Not enough students scoring Proficient or Above on CAHSEE

4. Guiding Questions • How do we effectively target students for pre-emptive intervention for success on the CAHSEE before they initially take it? • How do we proactively identify students that need additional support? • Do we know which students are likely to pass the test or get a proficient score ?

5. What are Passing and Proficient Scores? • A passing score on the CAHSEE is: • 350 or greater on the English Language Arts portion of the test AND • 350 or greater on the Mathematics portion of the test • A proficient score is: • 380 or greater on the English portion of the test • 380 or greater on the Mathematic portion of the test

6. Grades/Marks Demographics Socioeconomic status Learning environment CELDT Scores Language Classification Special Education Status CST Scores Periodic Assessments Etc. Some Possible Attributes Contributing To Success On The CAHSEE?

7. Studied CST/CAHSEE Correlation at Different High Schools Test Groups: Poly HS: Class of 2006 Poly HS: Class of 2007 Santee HS: Class of 2007 LAUSD Class of 2008 (37,000+ scores) LAUSD Class of 2007 (36,000+ scores)

8. Polytechnic High School Class of 2007 9th Grade ELA CST vs. 10th Grade ELA CAHSEE – Matched Scores Note: 800+ scores included Source: Secondary Student Information System

9. South LA High School #1 - Class of 2007 9th Grade ELA CST vs. 10th Grade ELA CAHSEE – Matched Scores

10. LAUSD Class of 2008 - 9th Grade ELA CST vs. 10th Grade ELA CAHSEE – Matched Scores Note: 37,000+ scores included Source: School Information Branch

11. LAUSD Class of 2008 - 9th Grade Algebra I CST vs. 10th Grade Math CAHSEE – Matched Scores Note: 23,282 scores included Source: School Information Branch

12. LAUSD Class of 2008 - 9th Grade Geometry CST vs. 10th Grade Math CAHSEE – Matched Scores Note: 8,410 scores included Source: School Information Branch

13. LAUSD Class of 2007 - 9th Grade MATH CST vs. 10th Grade Math CAHSEE – Matched Scores Note: 36,190 scores included Source: School Information Branch

14. Math CAHSEE Predictors

15. Summary of Predictors

16. ELA – “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE ELA score – 83.4% accurate Total 26985 11761 Accuracy Therefore the model for predicting a passing score or failing score on the English portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade CST is correct 83.4% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

17. ELA – “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE ELA Proficient or Above score – 84.6% accurate Therefore this model is correct 84.6% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

18. Algebra I - “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE Math Passing score – 72.9% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a passing or failing score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade CST is correct 72.9% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

19. Algebra I – “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE Math Proficient or Above score – 85.1% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade CST is correct 85.1% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

20. Geometry - “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE Math Passing score – 88.7% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a passing score or failing score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade Geometry CST is correct 88.7% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

21. Geometry – “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE Math Proficient or Above score 82.1% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a Proficient or Above score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade Geometry CST is correct 82.1% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

22. Math (ALL) - “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing score on CAHSEE Math – 72.7% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a passing score or failing score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade Math CST is correct 72.7% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

23. Math (ALL) – “Reliability” Matrix for predicting Passing CAHSEE Math Proficient or Above score 81.5% accurate Therefore the model for predicting a Proficient or Above score on the Mathematics portion of the CAHSEE based on the 9th grade Math CST (regardless of which CST test was taken such as Algebra I, Geometry, General Math etc.) is correct 81.5% of the time. This is a Confusion Matrix as described in the work of Kohavi and Provost, 1998

24. Summary of Predictors

25. Deciding Which Students To Target – Possible Action Plans For Applying the ELA Model • For Program Improvement Schools: • A Review of the 2006 AYP Progress Report needs to be made in order determine which subgroups, if any, fell short of meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) • Recall that the AMOs are directly associated with the percentages of 10th grade students that score Proficient or Above on the ELA and Math portions of the CAHSEE

26. Deciding Which Students To Target – Possible Action Plans For Applying the ELA Model • For Program Improvement Schools (cont.): • Once a subgroup has been identified, an SSIS extract can be performed to create a list of students needing pre-intervention • The extract should produce a list of 10th grade students that scored less than a 346 on their English 9th Grade CST. This list should be sorted in decreasing order by their English 9th Grade CST scaled score.

27. Deciding Which Students To Target – Possible Action Plans For Applying the Math Model • For Program Improvement Schools (cont.): • Once a subgroup has been identified, an SSIS extract can be performed to create of list of students needing pre-intervention • The extract should produce a list of 10th grade students that scored less than a 326 on their Math 10th Grade CST. This list should be sorted in decreasing order by their Math 9th Grade CST scaled score.

28. Deciding Which Students To Target – Possible Action Plans For Applying the ELA Model • For Program Improvement Schools (cont.): • The resulting lists are prioritized lists of students that will benefit from pre-intervention and would most likely not score a Proficient or Above on the CAHSEE without additional support.

29. Deciding Which Students To Target – Possible Action Plans For Applying the Predictive Model • How to identify 10th grade students that will probably fail one or both parts of the CAHSEE? • Perform an SSIS extract for 10th Grade students that scored less than a 268 on their 9th Grade Math CST • Perform an SSIS extract for 10th grade students that scored less than a 292 on their 9th Grade English CST

30. Deciding Which Students To Target –Technical Assistance • Cynthia Lim in the LAUSD School Information Branch has offered to provide schools with technical support on identifying students at-risk of not passing the CAHSEE or not getting a Proficient or Above score. Cynthia.lim@lausd.net

31. CAHSEE Preemptive Intervention Case Study – Polytechnic High School 2006 • Master schedule permitted for approximately 170 seats for CAHSEE preemptive intervention in Spring of 2006 • Selected a window of scores predicted to be 300-370 • Based on student performance this resulted in a target range as follows: For ELA: CSTs of 212 - 328 For Math: CSTs of 164 - 308

32. CAHSEE Preemptive Intervention Case Study – Polytechnic High School 2006 - Results • On average, non prepped 10th Graders matched the predicted values. • Math predicted mean score: 347.5 • Math actual mean score: 348.5 • ELA predicted mean score: 353.0 • ELA actual mean score: 352.2

33. CAHSEE Preemptive Intervention Case Study – Polytechnic High School 2006 - Results

34. CAHSEE Preemptive Intervention Case Study – Polytechnic High School 2006 - Results • CAHSEE Preemptive intervention works! • Preparation was a cost effective means of positively impacting the study group.