1. Documenting Current Practice and Defining Key Dimensions Ann-Marie Faria, Ph.D. & Jessica Heppen, Ph.D. American Institutes for Research

2. Jessica Heppen Ann-Marie Faria Katherine Sawyer Kerri Thomsen Melissa Kutner Wehmah Jones Anestine Hector-Mason Suzanne Stachel Monika Townsend American Institutes for Research Sharon Lewis Amanda Horwitz Candace Simon Renata Uzzell Michael Casserly Council of the Great City Schools

3.  Focused on the Use of Interim Assessment Data for Instructional Improvement Timely and relevant:  Increase in use and investment  Data-driven decision making  ARRA funds

4.  To document current practice across urban districts in use and availability of data, particularly interim assessment data.  To generate empirical evidence about the relationships between data use practices and improvements in student achievement.

5.  Documenting Current Practices in Urban Districts  Focus on general trends as reported by Council member districts, and more detailed information gleaned from “deep dives” in four example districts.  Links among Key Dimensions  Focus on factors that predict teachers’ data-driven changes in instruction.

7. DISTRICT SURVEYS PRINCIPAL & TEACHER SURVEYS  Summer 2009; Invited all 67 CGCS member districts 54 Research Directors 35 Curriculum Coordinators 62 districts represented SITE VISITS  4 participating districts 56 teachers 28 principals 40 district level staff  4 participating districts  3 waves of surveys during 2009-2010  Grades 4, 5, 7, and 8  Wave 1:  112 Schools  574 Teachers (4 th & 5 th )  Wave 2:  111 Schools  566 Teachers (4 th & 5 th )

8.  Nearly all districts administer some sort of interim assessment  Especially at state accountability testing grade levels  Goals are consistent: To increase accountability for what is taught in the classroom. To ensure more consistent monitoring of school and student progress To provide teachers and staff with a tool that will help guide instructional practices in the classroom. To prepare students for and predict their performance on the state assessment. To inform school improvement planning.  Disconnect between district goals and teacher perceptions Source: District Surveys; Site Visits

9.  Data Infrastructure Timeliness of Data Dissemination  Teachers reported that infrastructure does matter  Professional Development Frequency of training in using interim assessment data  Teachers expressed the need for more training on data analysis and specifically on using data to inform instructional practices in the classroom. Source: District Surveys; Site Visits

10. COLLABORATION ATTENTION TO DATA  District staff work in collaboration with schools on interim assessment data  School-based collaboration and data meetings Elementary: Grade level Middle: Subject area  Item analysis is a common approach to analyzing data  Content Did I teach this?  Wording Did my students understand this question? Source: Site Visits

11.  Review and Re-teach Most common teacher approach to student level test results Review for the entire class  School Improvement Planning Across all 4 districts, interim assessment data was incorporated into school improvement plans  Professional Development Targeted Professional Development based on interim results  PD based on the content areas that a majority of students missed  Not necessarily PD to support use of data (i.e. how to review or retrieve data) Source: Site Visits

12.  Greatest Barriers to Data Use: Lack of time to study and think about data, and to collaborate with others Curriculum pacing pressures Source: Teacher and Principal Surveys; Site Visits

14. Source: Teacher Surveys

16.  Contextual conditions and concrete supports for data use are linked with actually reviewing interim assessment data  In turn, actually reviewing data is linked with teachers changing their instruction. Teachers who engage in more practices related to reviewing data engage in more collaboration around data. Attention to data is related to change in teachers’ instruction. Data Infrastructure and Collaboration were not connected to the data use process as expected.

17.  Most districts conduct interim assessments to gauge student progress in a consistent way.  Infrastructure to support data use is in place and continuously improving.  Using data to inform decisions is a stated priority by urban districts across the nation In the 4 districts, communication varies and at the school level there are different data cultures and perceptions about the importance of data that are related to actual use.

18.  Improve communication with school-level staff by clearly articulating the goals of the interim assessment approach.  Continue to work to garner support from principals and other school leaders.  Allow enough time to gauge the effectiveness of interim assessment strategies.  Report interim assessment results as quickly as possible, and increase teacher access to varied forms and levels of data.  Provide structured time for teachers to review data and consider how the results should inform their instruction.  Increase opportunities for professional development on how to use student achievement data to inform instructional decisions.

19.  Next steps include: Collecting Spring 2010 student achievement data (Fall 2010) Producing future reports that focus on how data use practices are linked with student achievement

20. Thank you! Contact Information: Ann-Marie Faria, Ph.D. Research Analyst American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-403-5356 Email: afaria@air.orgafaria@air.org