1. Nexus Schools – Algebra I Data Created by: Kaylin Hansen © 2014 Connections Education LLC. All Rights Reserved.

2. Enrollment in Algebra I 282 Total

3. Escalation Status

4. Escalation by School % of Students

5. Math Intervention Indicators

6. Math Intervention Indicators by School % of Students

7. Only 1 failing student across schools has Math intervention indicator. Only 1 likely to be successful in Math?

8. Operations & Algebraic Thinking MAP Skill

9. Ops. and Alg. Thinking MAP Skill by School % of Students

10. Documented Math Interventions for Students % of Students in Each Tier

11. Reading Intervention Indicators

12. Reading Intervention Indicators by School % of Students

13. Only 3 failing Algebra I students have d Reading intervention indicators. Only 3 likely to be successful in Reading?

14. Algebra I Performance Average % of Students

15. Performance by School % of Students

16. How bad are students failing Algebra I? Number of Failing Students in 40%- 59% Range: School 1: 23/28 = 82% School 2: 26/32 = 81% School 3: 34/63 = 54%

17. Documented Interventions for Failing Students % of Failing Students in Each Tier

18. How are students with Math IEPs doing in Algebra I? School 1: 0 IEPs School 2: 2 IEPs (1 passing, 1 failing) School 3: 10 IEPs (8 failing, 2 passing)

19. What % of Algebra I students are in Foundations? % of Students in Each Level

20. How do Standards and Foundations passing rates compare? % of Students in Each Level

21. Algebra I Completion Average % of Students

22. Completion by School % of Students

23. How many students behind in lesson completion are passing? School 1: 4/10 = 40% School 2: 3/9 = 33% School 3: 3/9 = 33%

24.  Low passing rate (53%)  Lowest on track completion rate (66%)  Consider: – Lowest enrollment (60) – Low intervention indicators in math and reading – High % of students in alarm (32%) – High % of students in low range for Algebra MAP skill (65%) – Zero students in Foundations level – 8% of failing students documented as “progressing w/out intervention” School 1

25.  Highest passing rate (71%)  Highest on track completion rate (84%)  Consider: – Fairly high enrollment (105) – Low intervention indicators in math and reading – Highest % of students in alarm (44%) – Highest % of students in low range for Algebra MAP skill (68%) – Highest % of students in Foundations (52%) – 41% of failing students documented as “progressing w/out intervention” School 2

26.  Lowest passing rate (46%)  High completion rate (83%)  Consider: – Highest enrollment (117) – Lowest intervention indicators in math and reading – Lowest % of students in alarm (22%) – High % of students in Foundations (21%) – Most SPED students (10 – 80% failing) – 8% of failing students documented as “progressing w/out intervention” School 3

27.  43% failing Algebra I  80% on track in Algebra I completion  63% in low range for Algebra MAP skill  33% of students in alarm for escalation Summary

28.  20% of failing students need to be enrolled in interventions  Assess and adjust current interventions  Consider moving more students to Foundations level (especially School 1)  Need more support for the 81% SPED students unsuccessful in Algebra I Next Steps

29. Questions? Discussion

30. Data Dashboard Plan Manager of Blended Data Processes Interview, Kaylin Hansen. © 2014 Connections Education LLC. All Rights Reserved.

31. 1.Graduation requirements escalation 2.Past grad. requirements indicators 3.Interventions for students in alarm 4.% in Alarm by subject 5.Past success by school Dashboard Data Sets

32.  Measures % of students on track for earning 2.5 credits/semester (based on course completion and performance)  Displays average % of students at each level (On Track, Approaching Alarm, Alarm) Graduation Requirements Escalation

33. On Track: On track with current completion and performance in 5+ courses Approaching Alarm: On track in 4+ courses Alarm: Not on track in less than 4 courses

34. Past Grad. Requirements Indicators  Measures students’ past history of earning required credits to predict likelihood for success  Identifies average % of students at each level (Likely to be Successful, May be Successful, & Unlikely to be Successful)

35. Past Grad. Requirements Indicators Likely to be Successful: Earned 5+ credits previous year May be Successful: Earned 4.5+ credits previous year Unlikely to be Successful: Earned less than 4.5 credit previous year

36. Documented Interventions for Students in Alarm  Displays documented Math and English interventions for students in Alarm for Grad. requirements  Compares % enrolled in tiered English and Math interventions across schools

37. English Interventions for Alarm % of Alarm Students in Tiered Interventions

38. Math Interventions for Alarm

39. % in Alarm by Subject  Measures % of students in Alarm by subject  Identifies students in Alarm based on performance and completion in each course

40. % In Alarm by Subject

41. Past School Success  Displays % of Nexus students who completed 5+ credits years prior – 2012-13 – 2013-14  Compares schools

42. Past School Success % of Students Achieving Goal Years Prior

43.  Overall school data could be available in Connexus dataview  Individual student dashboards could be linked in gradebooks – Grad requirements escalation by subject – History of grad. requirements success by subject – List of courses on track and not on track Dashboard Accessibility

44. Questions? Discussion