Developing a Data Informed Culture Derry Cooperative School District’s “Story” Presented by: Mary Ellen Hannon, Superintendent, Derry Cooperative School District Norah Alexander, SunGard Public Sector, K12 Education

Agenda Introductions Overview of vision and software tool Derry Cooperative School District’s Story –Review of process over the past 4 years –How easily accessing data has changed the culture? Questions and Answers

Where Did The “Derry” Story Begin? Derry began not making AYP in Math in in the Educational Disabilities’ subgroup The math program was two years old, but was not standards-based or well aligned to the math GLEs Identified students spent more time in pull out instruction not being given access to the curriculum which aligned to our general education curriculum Curriculum was looked at separately, not in conjunction with assessment data Schools were site-based in most areas, including instructional practices Teachers worked independently, not collaboratively Data was brought to schools by central office staff, not analyzed on site by teachers, no central location for all data Data was all summative and rarely used for instruction Professional development was focused after school, not job embedded

This Is How the Data Looked Math All Groups Grades 3-8

This is How the Data Looked Math Subgroups- IEP

We Began to Focus What should our focus be to ensure our students are learning? Our Four Focus Questions based on the Dufour’s PLC model: 1.What do we expect students to learn? 2.How do we know if students are learning? 3.How will we respond when students are not learning? 4.How will we respond if they already know it?

The Work Began… Adopting Performance Plus (Pathways) Adopting Tech Paths-Curriculum Mapping Year I Curriculum Mapping Trainers were recruited at each school site Training began on the purpose of mapping- Heidi Hayes Jacobs conferences, videos, training days provided Volunteers were given an opportunity to use the Tech Paths software and map their instruction Sharing the information began, but collaboration was not expected

Performance Tracker Introduction to Performance Tracker Year I Administrators were introduced to the power of Performance Tracker Along with introduction to mapping, administrators were trained on becoming proficient using Tracker to analyze assessment data Administrators began using Performance Tracker to access their own data rather than waiting for its arrival by central office staff

The Journey Continued Year 2: Teachers Developed Core Maps over the summer with a team of teachers Began to “Diary Map” over the Core Map Met each week during one planning period to collaboratively plan using the curriculum map Began an extensive professional development program using early release days Rolled out Performance Tracker, only for informational purposes

The Journey Continued Year 2: Administrators Continued to deepen understanding in using data to drive instruction Added NECAP data (state assessment), NWEA testing, and DRA testing to Performance Tracker Requested principals to begin sharing data using Performance Tracker with teachers at grade level/team meetings

The Third Year Maps were updated and ‘fine-tuned’ in the summer by the Math Curriculum Team “Mapping Expectations”were rolled out which added more detail required in maps Principals held teachers accountable for completing maps Teachers received access to Performance Tracker and began training on the connection between assessment data and mapping data Training also began on the difference between summative and formative assessment and using data to differentiate instruction

Assessment Builder: Year 4 Need was noted for benchmark assessments to be used as formative assessment throughout the year Benchmark assessment training began and trimester assessments were developed using Assessment Builder and Content Library based on the standards, content, and skills in the Tech Path Curriculum Maps Assessment results were used to form intervention groups at each grade level Teachers used Performance Tracker to form groups according to the standards that students did not meet

So What Has Happened? District scored below the state in both Whole School and Educational Disability subgroup in 2005 In , District scored above state in both groups. Whole school’s index increased by 7.9 points Educational Disability subgroup index increased by 7.7 points During the same time frame the state’s index has increased by 3.9 points and 7 points respectively

Curriculum Maps Curriculum maps have developed into a rich and dynamic document The District has used the mapping process to bring focus to curricular weaknesses All teachers, general ed and special ed, work together collaboratively on maps for a stronger more aligned curriculum for all students

Curriculum Mapping Initiative Grade 5 Math Map- As we began our journey…

Updated Curriculum Map Grade 5 Map that has a focus…

Data Overview Stronger Results: Math All Grades

Data Overview Stronger Results: Math Subgroup- Students with IEPs

Challenges Understanding the Need- Early on, teachers struggled learning the technology and understanding the need for mapping Time- Finding the time has always been a challenge and the teachers’ union pushed back Training- Changing the culture that PD should be done during an after school workshop rather than job embedded Changing the Culture- Moving to a data driven culture required lots of professional development

Putting the Puzzle Pieces Together? Continue work on updating maps to make them dynamic and relevant Connecting data to curriculum continues to be a struggle for some staff Making AYP in all subgroups

Questions Thank you for your time and attention.