Criterion3

THE USE OF DATA TO INFORM
INSTRUCTION AND AS AN
ARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPAL
EVALUATION

Unpacking Criterion 3

CRITERION 3

Element 3.1: Recognizes Element 3.3: Implements
and seeks out multiple data driven plan for
data sources improved teaching and
Element 3.2 Analyzes and learning
interprets multiple data Element 3.4 Assists staff
sources to inform school- to use data to guide,
level improvement efforts modify and improve
classroom teaching and
learning

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
Change
per Year
Everett HS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(student
s)
Enrollment 1714 1672 1619 1565 1489 1424 -59

for the school year ending: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Change

Everett HS

Everett HS

Everett HS

Everett HS

Everett HS

Everett HS
per Year
(in
percenta
ge
American Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% points)
-0.05

Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35

Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33

Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74

White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31

Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55

Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14

Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10

Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00

On-Time Graduation Rate 77.7% 77.5% 74.2% 85.8% 80.8% 82.1% 1.24

CEE DATA

Improvement vs Performance: High Schools- 2011 State of WA
(N=308) Everett PS
20.00% Everett High School
GAINING
LEADING
15.00%
Improvement: 3-Year Trend

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

-5.00%

-10.00%

-15.00%
LAGGING SLIPPING
-20.00%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Performance: Reading-Math Proficiency 2011
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc., 2011

ELEMENT 3.1: RECOGNIZES
AND SEEKS OUT MULTIPLE
DATA SOURCES

AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data

PERCEPTUAL DATA STAFF- 2012

Comparison with High-Performing Schools
Everett HS High Performing (Top 20%) at Your Level

Collaboration and
Communication
100%
District Support for 90% Clear and Shared Focus
Improvement 80%
70%
60%
50% High Standards and
Cultural Responsiveness 40% Expectations
30%
20%
10%
0%
Focused Professional
Effective Leadership
Development

Monitoring of Teaching and Supportive Learning
Learning Environment

Curriculum, Instruction, and Parent and Community
Assessment Involvement

Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

STAFF PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL
Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive
Nov 2012 Nov 2011 Nov 2010

Collaboration and
Communication
100%
District Support for 90% Clear and Shared Focus
Improvement 80%
70%
60%
50% High Standards and
Cultural Responsiveness 40% Expectations
30%
20%
10%
0%
Focused Professional
Development

Monitoring of Teaching and Supportive Learning
Learning Environment

Curriculum, Instruction, and Parent and Community
Assessment Involvement


RESISTANCE FACTOR, CHANGE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
Openness to New Ideas
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GAP: "I" vs. "They"
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I welcome new ideas and change 52% 41% 2%
0%
5%
40%
My colleagues welcome new ideas
7% 46% 33% 7% 4%
4%
and change

44%

Willingness to Work at Change
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GAP: "I" vs. "They"
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am willing to work at changing my
78% 20% 0%
2%
school f or the better
29%
My colleagues are willing to work at
27% 41% 24% 5%
0%
4%
changing this school f or the better

19%

Willingness to Be Held Accountable
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GAP: "I" vs. "They"
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am willing to be held accountable
31% 36% 15%0% 15%
2%
f or student learning
24%
My colleagues are willing to be held
9% 34% 32% 7%5% 13%
accountable f or student learning

16%

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
LONGITUDINAL
Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010

Clear and Shared Focus
100%
90%
80%
Monitoring of Teaching and 70% High Standards and
Learning 60% Expectations
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Supportive Learning
Environment

Community and Parent Collaboration and
Involvement Communication


PARENT PERCEPTIONS
LONGITUDINAL
Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010

Clear and Shared Focus
100%
90%
Curriculum, Instruction, and 80% High Standards and
Assessment 70% Expectations
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Monitoring of Teaching and
0% Effective Leadership
Learning

Supportive Learning Collaboration and
Environment Communication

Community and Parent
Involvement

School Year 2011-2012
OUTCOMES

Ext Grad
INDICATORS Reading Writing Math Science Rate Average
Achievement of non-low income
7 7 6 6 5 6.20
ACHIEVEMENT students

INDEX
Achievement of low income
4 5 4 3 3 3.80
students
Achievement vs. peers 5 4 4 7 4 4.80
Improvement from the previous
4 4 5 7 4 4.80
year
Index Scores 4.90
5.00 5.00 4.75 5.75 4.00
Good

2011-12 Achievement Gap

Reading Math Ext Graduation Rate
Met Met Met
Peers Imp Peers Imp Peers Imp
INDICATORS Std Std Std Average
Achievement of Black, Pacific
Islander, American
4 5 7 4 5 7 2 2 1 4.11
Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic
stds
Achievement of white and Asian
6 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4.56
students
Achievement Gap 0.45

LIMITED ENGLISH (ELL)
STUDENTS Building
Number of
ELL Students
NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED Tested

Cascade HS 71
English Language Acquisition: Number of Students Cedar Wood 17
Number of Students Tested on WELPA Eisenhower MS 40
Emerson Elem 152
0 50 100 150 200 250
Everett HS 101
Everett HS 101
Evergreen MS 79
Cascade HS 71

Cedar Wood 17
Forest View Elem 35
Eisenhower MS 40
Garfield Elem 55
Emerson Elem 152 Gateway MS 4
Evergreen MS 79 Hawthorne Elem 229
Forest View Elem 35 Heatherwood MS 26
Garfield Elem 55 Henry M. Jackson HS 31
Gateway MS 4 Jackson Elem 35
Hawthorne Elem 229
Jefferson 94
Heatherwood MS 26
Lowell 81
Henry M. Jackson HS 31
Madison 128
Jackson Elem 35
Mill Creek 41
Jefferson 94

Lowell 81
Monroe 61
Madison 128 North MS 78
Mill Creek 41 Penny Creek 57
Monroe 61 Sequoia HS 12
North MS 78 Silver Firs 40
Penny Creek 57 Silver Lake 92
Sequoia HS 12
View Ridge 55
Silver Firs 40
Whittier 28
Silver Lake 92
Woodside 93
View Ridge 55

Whittier 28
Everett Average: Elems 76
Woodside 93
Everett Average: MS 45
Everett Average: HS 54

ELL STUDENTS REACHING PROFICIENCY
AMAO - 2 English Language Acquisition: Transitioning
Percent of Students Transitioning (AMAO-2)
Transitioning= Student scoring at Level-4 and Transtioning out of ELL Services
Everett HS: Total number of ELL students tested in 2012
101 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
(used in AMAO-2)
Everett HS
Cascade HS
Cedar Wood
Eisenhower MS

The percentage on this Emerson Elem
Evergreen MS
chart represents the Forest View Elem

percent of students who Garfield Elem
Gateway MS

demonstrated English Hawthorne Elem
Heatherwood MS
language proficiency by Henry M. Jackson HS

scoring a Level-4 on the Jackson Elem
Jefferson
WELPA assessment. Lowell
Madison
Mill Creek

Requires a minimum N of Monroe
North MS
20 students. Penny Creek
Sequoia HS
Silver Firs
Silver Lake
View Ridge
Whittier
Woodside

AMAO-2 Target: 7.1% of 2012 State
students transitioning Result: 11.4%

10TH GRADE READING
Grade 10 Reading: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Reading: Percent of Students by Level
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
90% 100%

80%
84.6%
83.9%

80%

81.6%
78.2%

77.9%
75.3%
70%
60%
44% 52% 58% 57%
60% 27%
40% 19%
50%
20% 30% 30%
40% 26% 24% 23% 20%
Meeting
30% Standard -14% -14% -9% -10%
-18% -24% -7%
-10% -11%
-10%
20% -16%
-17%
10%

0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Everett HS Everett PS State
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.

Grade 10 Reading: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 Reading: Program Achievement Gap
% of Students Meeting Standard % of Students Meeting Standard
100% 100%

90% Native American 90% Special Needs

80% 80%
Asian American ESL/ELL/Bilingual
70% 70%
60% African American 60%
Free/Reduced Meal
50% 50%
Eligible
40% Hispanic 40%
Migrant
30% 30%
White
20% 20%
District-All Students
10% District-All Students 10%
0% 0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

8TH TO 10TH GRADE READING
GROWTH
Reading: 8th to 10th Grade Reading: 8th to 10th Grade
8th Grade (2009) 10th Grade (2011) 8th Grade (2010) 10th Grade (2012)
100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%
41% 61% 50% 60%
40% 40%

20% 20%
30% 23% 24% 20%
Meeting Meeting
Standard -10% Standard -14% -9%
-18% -7% -11%
-12%
-11%

10TH GRADE WRITING
Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
90% 87.5% 100%
86.8%

80% 80%

83.4%

82.2%
81.2%

79.3%
70% 60% 45%
37% 56% 46%
60% 22% 15%
40%
50%
20% 38% 36% 39% 37% 34%
28%
40%
Meeting
Standard -13% -6% -7% -12%
30% -21% -22% -4% -5%
-7% -5%
-10% -9%
20%

10%

0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap
100% 100%

80% 80%
Asian American ESL/ELL/Bilingual
70% 70%
Free/Reduced Meal
50% 50%
Eligible
40% Hispanic 40%
Migrant
30% 30%
White
20% 20%
District-All Students
10% District-All Students 10%
0% 0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

GRADE 10 CRITICAL THINKING :
COMPARISON OF SCHOOL TO STATE

Difference Between School and State Percents
Reading - Critical Thinking
100
% with similar performance

50.0

80
25.0
60

40
0.0
20 -3.7 -5.1 -6.8
0 -25.0
Everett High
District State
School
% 78.7 85.0 85.5 -50.0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

TABLE Element 3.1: Recognizes
TALK
and seeks out multiple data
sources

What other data sources do
you suggest?

3.2 ANALYZES AND
INTERPRETS MULTIPLE DATA
SOURCES TO INFORM
SCHOOL-LEVEL
IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

8-STEP MODEL

•Summative •Teach
Assessment Instructional Focus
•Instructional from Calendar
Calendars •Effective Teaching
•Academic Strategies
Groupings
•ALC Meetings

•Academic
Groupings •Summative and
Formative
•Re-teaching Assessment
•Enrichment •Review Concepts
•Test Talks •Test Talks
•ALC Meetings •ALC Meetings

PLAN: COMMON CALENDAR
Successes: Next Steps:
• Common core activities • Increasing frequency of
• Common formative assessments formative assessments
• Common learning targets and common learning
targets

10TH GRADE SCIENCE – BIO EOC
Grade 10 EOC-BIology: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Percent of Students by Level
100%
2011 2012 2013
90% 100%

80%
80%

381 sophomores tested
70%
60%

69.6%
60% 37%
40%
50% 74 students NOT in BIO (19.4%) 20% 32%
40%

30% 20 met standard* Meeting
Standard -17%
20% -10%
*16 had already passed the Biology class
10%

0%
2011
54 did not meet standard 2012 2013


Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Program Achievement Gap
100% 100%
80% 80%
70% Asian American 70%
ESL/ELL/Bilingual
60% 60%
40% 40% Free/Reduced Meal
Eligible
30% Hispanic 30%
20% 20%
Migrant
10% White 10%
0% 0%
2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

FINC RATES

EHS FINCs Semester 1
SY 2013
Student FINC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total
American Indian or
Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14
Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37
Black or African
American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58
Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23
Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30
White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605
Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005

COORDINATED SCIENCE
ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS
• Physics unit
assessments sorted
by standards

• Target student content
strengths and
weaknesses

Building a Championship Culture

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Successful turnout for
after school review
sessions.
• connect-Ed message
• teacher contact
• meeting w/ success
coordinator

Hands-on experiences
and demonstrations as
standard is re-taught

FINC RATES

EHS FINCs Semester 1
SY 2013
Student FINC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total
American Indian or
Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14
Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37
Black or African
American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58
Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23
Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30
White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605
Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
520 1284

SCREENSHOT FOR INDIVIDUAL
STUDENT

BIOLOGY END OF COURSE
ASSESSMENT PREP

• Biology, district-
wide, common
assessment used for
1st semester final
• Using data to target
weaknesses prior to
EOC in spring
screenshot of classroom results

PLAN: DATA TALKS
– Algebra 2 teachers with administrator

– Informing instructional decisions for next
year and current year

– Led to discussion on grading

PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME

– Discussion of common grading of the
subject, and assessments
– Rotating weekly
– Creating an ELL version of the final in
Algebra 1
– Integration of GLAD strategies into
lessons and activities

PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME
– Creating manipulative and graphic organizers for student use
– Creating of common formative and summative assessments in
Algebra 1, Geometry,Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.

Analyzes and interprets
multiple data sources to
inform school-level
TABLE improvement efforts
TALK

What other methods do you
suggest that support teachers
in the analysis and
interpretation of multiple data
sources?

3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATA
DRIVEN PLAN FOR
IMPROVED TEACHING AND
LEARNING

MSP/HSPE Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 74.8 percent of students will meet standard in Mathematics as
measured by MSP/HSPE.
of the Continuously students will meet as measured by
AMO Target: 63.9% Enrolled (CE)* Low Income standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE.
of the Continuously students will meet as measured by
AMO Target: 50.8% Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE.
of the Continuously Special students will meet as measured by
AMO Target: 34.8% Enrolled (CE)* Education standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE.
S.M.A.R.T. GOAL:
Increase the number of students passing Algebra 1 and Geometry by 5% as compared to 2011-2012 data.

Evidence of Person(s) Resources
SIP Actions implementation Responsible Needed
Timeline

Data on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be Teachers will have extensive Assistant Time for Data Talks
gathered and compiled through common data showing where each Principal Math Teacher held by 12/15,
assessments. A "Data Talk" conference will be student is performing. Math and Assistant and 5/1
held with the teacher and administrator to The data is converted to an Teachers Principal to
create a plan for getting each student to action plan and shared with meet
standard. the administrator.
(PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation)
Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will Each teacher will have a clear Math District Initial target
design, develop, and implement instructional understanding of the tested teachers developed calendar
calendars for each target. GLE's and how they align with instructional developed
(PDCA Steps 2 & 3) the Common Core State calendar 9/12
Standards.
Common Ongoing
Work Time to development
further refine of calendar

TABLE Implements data driven plan
for improved teaching and
TALK learning

Relate this cycle for
implementing a data driven
plan to the process that
occurs in your district. What
recommendation or
suggestion would you make?

3.4 ASSISTS STAFF TO USE
DATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY AND
IMPROVE CLASSROOM
TEACHING AND LEARNING

Algebra 1 teachers
meet every Friday

Plan lessons
Create common formative
assessment
summative activities
assessments so all classes doing
the same

Adjust lessons based
on students
Formative
assessments

DO: Writing Instruction Thesis
Statement
Analysis
Commentary

?
Evidence Concrete
Details
Transitions Bridges

Body Topic
Paragraph Sentence
Concluding
Sentence
Attention- Hooks
grabber Closing
Sentence

DO: COMMON
PARAGRAPH
STRUCTURES

PLAN: LEVELING
Successes:
– Backwards planning

Next Steps:
– Adjust instruction based
on knowledge of leveling
– Develop common district
assessments based on
leveled standards

Standard Question Level and # questions Assessment Weight
Number (1pt/question)

ES2A Level 3 – 7 questions 12 30%
Uneven heating Level 2- 5 questions

ES2B Level 4- 2 questions 14 35%
Energy transfer Level 3- 4 question
Level 2- 8 question

ES2C Level 4 – 1 question 2 5%
Carbon cycle Level 3 – 1 questions
Level 2 – 0 questions

ES3B Level 3 - 1 question 2 5%
Methods of Level 2 – 1 question
determining past
climates
ES3D Level 4 – 1 questions 10 25%
Constructing Level 3 – 5questions
Explanations Level 2 – 4 questions
Past Climates

DO: CONTENT AREA READING
Successes:
– Incorporating AVID skills

Next Steps:
– Refining assignments and
assessments

CHECK
Successes:
– Common district assessments on LMS
• Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions
– Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training session

Next Steps:
– Increase common
formative
assessments
among EHS
classes

ACT

Successes: Average Summative Assessment
– Teaching reading strategies: Scores, Biology 2011-2012
Marking the text and questions Summative Average Score
Assessment
Classification 69.85%
Cells 72.25%
DNA/Cell Cycle 64.05%
Semester 2 Final Breakdown Protein Synthesis 67.9%
Genetics/Meiosis 64.45%
Section of Final Average Score
Semester 1 Final 68.4%
Evolution 90% Evolution 76%
Photosynthesis 75.75 Photosynthesis 69.2%
Ecology 74.2%
Ecology 74.24%
Semester 2 Final 79%

TABLE 3.4 Assists staff to use data
TALK
to guide, modify and improve
classroom teaching and
learning

What other methods do you
use to achieve this goal?

EVERETT HIGH IS A
GOOD SCHOOL…..

on the path to EXEMPLARY
status…through the use of data to
inform instruction

Destination Everett

Criterion3

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Criterion3

Similar to Criterion3 (20)

More from WSU Cougars

More from WSU Cougars (20)

Criterion3