Understanding AYP and the Assessment Process

1. Understanding AYP and the Assessment Process Luella Middle School: A Success Story Presenter: Aaryn Schmuhl, Principal

2. Prime Time:Please write your answers on the index card provided. • What is FAY and how does it apply to academic performance and AYP determinations? • If Luella Middle School had 44.5% of SWD meet and exceed in Math in 2009, what percentage of students need to meet and exceed to make Safe Harbor in 2010?

3. PT Answers 1. Full Academic Year- Currently, it is students enrolled continuously from FTE 1 in October through the Spring Testing Window. In addition, any student who received special education services at any time during the year is in SWD. 2. LMS needs 40% of students in the Did Not Meet category to make AYP through Safe Harbor. 44.5 – 44.5(.10) = 40%

4. Essential Questions • How can the AYP process help inform continuous school improvement? • Is AYP data enough to drive improvement in my school? • What ways can AYP be used as a catalyst for changing the way we do school?

5. Georgia’s AYP Determination Steps *Adapted from PPT Understanding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Georgia Student Information System User Group Conference February 12, 2008

6. AYP Data – What does it offer? • Understanding Second Looks and how they can help you make AYP • Identify High Impact Students • For LMS, it was SWD Math kids who had lots of absences • Could include Economically disadvantaged kids or black students depending on your data • Make sure your data reporting is accurate • FAY Kids, Speech Only kids, Subgroup numbers

7. Luella Middle School

8. Where were we? • In 2005-2006 School Year we were in NI-2 • 1800 students and 50 portable classes • We served a diverse and transient population. • 50% of teaching staff in 05/06 were new to LMS and HCS. • High Staff Turnover Rate • Low credibility in the community

9. 2005-2006Community and CollaborationFinding out who we are and where we want to go • Developed Belief and Vision Statements • Needs Assessment of faculty skill and knowledge of GPS curriculum and Assessment For Learning best practices • Began to engage teachers in collaborative planning processes and looking at only AYP Data. • Established B-Teams to build community and buy-in • Better Seeking (Instruction) • Better Communication (PR with parents/comm.) • Behavior Management Team (4 step and referral review) • Building Operations Team (managing flow of students)

10. LMS-Our Beliefs All learners learn best when they are engaged, motivated, and intellectually challenged. All learners learn best when they feel safe both physically and mentally. All learners need effective, timely, and specific feedback to meet mastery learning targets based on performance standards. All learners need to feel ownership and membership in a community that they are both a part of and contributor to in tangible and intangible ways.

11. LMS-Our Vision We will utilize technology as a means of organization, communication, and creativity to close the feedback loop, monitor and track student progress toward mastery targets, and to engage students in meaningful standards-based learning projects. We will make demonstrating mastery learning the primary and ultimate focus of everything we do and constantly measure our actions against the question; How will it help my students to demonstrate mastery learning? We will make learning constant and time flexible. By utilizing block scheduling, flexible grouping strategies, and pyramids of academic intervention we will meet students where they are and move them to mastery of the performance standards.

12. 2006-2007 NI 3 When AYP Data isn’t enough • Large School in NI-3 • Still high turnover on staff, but lower rate of 30% • Only 26% of SWD Meet/Exceeded in Math CRCT • We didn’t know why our kids weren’t meeting expectations, just that they weren’t

13. 2006-2007 Improving with Assessment Tools • Collaborative planning teams initiated the use of Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) to monitor student progress • Introduced MAP assessment to monitor student ability levels with norm referenced data and showed growth • Began focus on data analysis and targeting high impact students and providing interventions • Those who are bubble students who are statistically close to meeting standards. • Interventions included EAR Math and EAR Reading Classes • Flexible Grouping based on MAP scores • Focus on attendance in subgroups

14. Summer 2007Focus on using CFA, MAP, and AYP Assessment Data • Domain data from CRCT helped us to target areas of staff development, not necessarily student weakness • PEP caused teachers to take personal responsibility for student achievement • CFAs gave us ways to compare teachers, teaching strategies, and student learning in real time. • MAP helped us target student areas of weakness and to create flexible grouping and differentiated instruction.

15. 2007-2008 - NI 4 and Corrective ActionAggressive School Reform based on Data Analysis • Collaborative Planning time was an essential part of making data discussions impactful • Continued using CFAs and MAP in all classes • Block Scheduling to provide kids more time in Math and Language Arts • House Model to create schools within a school • Performance Evaluation Process (PEP) with Student Achievement Portion focused on student data • Pushing Co-teaching model as LRE for most SWD • Analysis and Targeting of Bubble kids • EAR Math focused on use of ALEKS and individualized instruction

16. 2007-2008 Results are In! Made AYP with Safe Harbor!

17. 2008-2009 Continue and Refine • Continue Collaborative Planning Time and Expectations • Refine and extend use of CFAs, MAP and PEP • Monitor student progress • Catalyst for identifying weak points of instruction for discussion in CAM • Targeted students were given additional interventions • Working Lunches, SIEP before and after school, mandatory intervention classes • SWD Specific Changes • Co-Teaching increased and reduced resource model • Converted 2 regular education math teachers to special education teachers to co-teach math • Full Time Math Coach focused training on performance tasks and students making meaning of math concepts, not just practicing basic skills • Continued Block Schedule and House Model

18. 2008-2009 Results are In! Made AYP for the second year with Safe Harbor! We are off the NI LIST!!!

19. Historical Perspective: Demographics

20. Historical Perspective: Attendance * Unofficial Results

21. Historical Perspective- R/ELA CRCT

22. Historical Perspective- Math CRCT

23. Essential Questions • How can the AYP process help inform continuous school improvement? • Is AYP data enough to drive improvement in my school? • What ways can AYP be used as a catalyst for changing the way we do school?

24. Summary Points • Understanding who your kids are and what they need/don’t have to be successful • Understanding who your teachers are and what they need/don’t have to be successful. • Understanding what the available data tells you and what it doesn’t. • Creating your own assessment data points if you don’t have what you want/need.