1. CMSD Fall Data Check In
November 3, 2017

2. Session Objectives
Provide information regarding district and school report card results.
Comparison between 2017 SY Spring Ohio State Test results, 2018 SY Fall NWEA MAP results, and school goals for 2018 SY.
Increase understanding of how NWEA relates to Ohio State Test performance levels and report card metrics.
Discuss best practices around cascading school level goals to individual student targets.
Demo tools built to help buildings understand their data and set student level targets.
Review expectations for the upcoming November AAP meeting.

3. District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA
District Reading Proficiency (Grades 3-10)
GOAL:
Increase from 29.2% to 36.9% (7.7% point increase)
FALL NWEA
22% Proficient (14.9% gap between current and goal)

4. District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA
District Math Proficiency (Grades 3-10)
GOAL:
Increase from 26.6% to 33.5% (6.9% point increase)
FALL NWEA
20% Proficient (13.5% gap between current and goal)

5. District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA
District Performance Index
GOAL:
Increase from 59.1 (49.2%) to 65.3 (54%) (6.2 point increase)
FALL NWEA
52 (43%) (13.3 point gap between current and goal)

6. District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA
District Value Add Reading (Grades 4-10)
FALL NWEA
-8.93 (F Grade)
19% of students improved by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA
56% of students stayed at the same performance level from Spring OST to Fall NWEA
29% of students declined by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA

7. District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA
District Value Add Math (Grades 4-10)
FALL NWEA
-5.42 (F Grade)
11% of students improved by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA
65% of students stayed at the same performance level from Spring OST to Fall NWEA
24% of students declined by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA

8. School Level Performance
After the webinar, we will be sharing with all schools a sheet showing:
Performance on the major academic metrics from the report card
Proficiency in Reading and Math
Value Added in Reading and Math
Performance Index Scores
End of 2017 SY Data
Predicted 2018 SY Results (based on Fall NWEA)
2018 SY Targets

9. Student Movement between performance levels
We are seeing significant backwards movement from Spring OST to the Fall NWEA.
Potential explanations:
Summer slide
SLOs
Have been seeing spring to spring patterns of backwards movement that have significant consequences for district performance.

10. NWEA Quintile Report
NWEA report that divides students into groups based on the percentile a student scored in.
Percentile rankings are based on a national sample of NWEA test takers.

11. NWEA Quintile Report Quintile reports give an indication of:
Students that are at similar performance levels as teachers consider grouping or intervention strategies.
Whether students are growing from one administration of the test to the next.
Movement in quintiles does not necessarily indicate movement on OST though.

12. NWEA Quintiles vs. OST Proficiency
Low
(1 – 20th %)
Low Mid
(21 – 40th %)
Mid
(41 – 60th %)
Mid High
(61 – 80th %)
High
(81 – 99th %)
Limited / Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Accelerated
Advanced

13. NWEA Quintiles vs. OST Proficiency
Low
(1 – 20th %)
Low Mid
(21 – 40th %)
Mid
(41 – 60th %)
Mid High
(61 – 80th %)
High
(81 – 99th %)
Reading
Limited / Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Accelerated
Advanced
(0 – 29th%)
(30 – 54th%)
(54 – 73th%)
(74 – 84th%)
(85 – 99th%)
Mathematics
Limited / Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Accelerated
Advanced
(0 – 36th%)
(37 – 47th%)
(48 – 65th%)
(66 – 80th%)
(80 – 99th%)

14. NWEA Expected Growth
All growth measures are rooted in some “expectation” of how much students should move.
This expectation can vary, based on the growth measure used.

15. NWEA Expected Growth
ODE growth measure bases expectations on whether a student maintained their position relative to every other student in the state of Ohio.

16. Value Add
Average Spring 2016 Score for a school

17. Value Add
Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

18. Value Add
Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

19. Value Add
Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

20. NWEA Expected Growth
NWEA expected growth is based on the average growth other students in the same grade and same baseline performance have historically shown.
A 6th grade student scoring a 208 (12th percentile) on NWEA MAP Math has:
A Spring to Spring expectation of 5 points of growth.
A Fall to Spring expectation of 4 points of growth.

21. NWEA Expected Growth
The student could meet the NWEA growth expectation (208 to 213) and still not move in terms of predicted OST performance levels.
is Limited on NWEA Math for 6th grade
Students significantly below proficient could meet NWEA growth expectations and actually get further and further away from proficiency.

22. NWEA Expected Growth
Shift in thinking is required so that student targets are in terms of OST.
Need to think of how many students can move performance levels.

23. OST Performance Level Movement

24. Moving One or More Perf. Levels
How does last year’s movement compare historically?
The percentage of students in 2017 increasing one or more performance level was higher than any year since 2011 for Reading
The percentage of students in 2017 decreasing one or more performance level was lower than any year since 2011 in both Math and Reading
However, the percentage of students not moving at all was substantially higher than any years since 2011 in both Math and Reading

25. Moving Perf. Levels & Value Added
How does a school’s ability to move student’s OST performance levels from 2016 to 2017 interact with a schools’ 2017 Value Added rating?
To begin:
Calculated the percentage of students in both Reading and Math at each school that:
Increased their performance level by one or more (Increased Group)
Decreased their performance level by one or more (Decreased Group)
Did not increase nor decrease their performance level (No Movement Group)
Then subtracted the Increased from the Decreased Group to arrive at a Net Positive Movement Group

26. Overall Value Added & Perf. Levels
“C” Rating

27. Math Value Added & Perf. Levels
To obtain a Math Value Added Score of a “C”, it appears ~10% of its students need to be in the Net Positive Performance Level Group
“C” Rating

28. Math Value Added & Perf. Levels
Net Movement Up
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5% 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Predicted Value Add Score
-8.6
-7.7
-6.7
-5.8
-4.9
-3.9
-3.0
-2.1
-1.1
-0.2
0.7
1.7
2.6
Predicted Value Add Grade F D C B A

29. Reading Value Added & Perf. Levels
To obtain a Reading Value Added Score of a “C”, it appears ~30% of its students need to be in the Net Positive Performance Level Group
“C” Rating

30. Reading Value Added & Perf. Levels
Net Movement Up
-5% 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
Predicted Value Add Score
-8.8
-7.8
-6.8
-5.8
-4.7
-3.7
-2.7
-1.7
-0.7
0.3
1.3
2.3
3.3
Predicted Value Add Grade F D C B A

31. Cascading School Goals to Students
Getting specific
Be intentional
Provide support for all students

32. Cascading School Goals to Students
If school’s goal is to increase proficiency in reading from 26% to 36%, how many students must be proficient at end of the year?
Where are students at right now?
What performance level targets do we have for each student?

33. Cascading School Goals to Students
We have put together a worksheet to help your building leadership teams do this work.

34. Cascading School Goals to Students
Building principal took this work to their teachers to then drive these goals down to a student level.
Provides principals and teachers clarity with what is expected.