Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT Board Review: June 12, 2012 Approved Not Approved POLICY TYPE: Ends Report POLICY STATEMENT: To provide a high quality educational system that inspires all students to vigorously pursue educational excellence and become responsible citizens. Each student will (Policy 2012): Demonstrate skills in ten content areas (in alphabetical order): (1) Citizenship: Students contribute to the betterment of school and community, and understand their responsibility to contribute to both family and society. They demonstrate knowledge and skills that reflect responsible citizenship in a democratic society. (2) Fine Arts: Each student will demonstrate understanding and application of Arts knowledge and skills; application of thinking skills using artistic processes; ability to communicate through the Arts; and ability to make connections within the Arts, across the Arts and to issues and disciplines outside the Arts. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate knowledge and skills beyond the requirements above. (3) Health and Fitness: Each student will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to maintain an active and healthy life; ability to analyze and evaluate the impact of real-life influences on health; and the ability to analyze health and safety information. (4) Language Arts Reading: Each student will demonstrate understanding, comprehension, application, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and evaluation of what is read; each student will read different materials for a variety of purposes. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate the ability to verbalize the understanding, comprehension, and application abilities in college level reading. Speaking: Each student will demonstrate interpretation, synthesis and evaluation of ideas of increasing complexity. Writing: Each student will demonstrate the ability to convey in writing understanding, comprehension, application, interpretation, synthesis and evaluation of ideas of increasing complexity. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate these abilities in college level writing. (5) Math: Each student will demonstrate the ability to understand, comprehend, interpret, synthesize and evaluate mathematical concepts and procedures. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate these abilities in relation to college level mathematics. (6) Practical Life Skills: Each student will demonstrate initiative, organization, punctuality, dependability, responsibility and commitment in completing tasks. They understand the importance of work and how performance, effort and decisions directly affect their future educational and career opportunities. Through academic and career planning and development, students will Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 1
Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT graduate prepared to compete and succeed in postsecondary education and work. (7) Science: each student will demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, and evaluation of scientific concepts and principles, and the ability to use scientific inquiry to investigate systems and the nature of science. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate these abilities in relation to college level scientific concepts. (8) Social Studies: Each student will demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of civics, history, economics and geography concepts. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate these abilities in relation to college level history and civics concepts. (9) Technology: Each student will demonstrate the ability to use and apply current technology appropriately. (10) World Languages: Each student will demonstrate a working knowledge of a language other than English and an understanding of the role of World Languages in a global community. At the student s initiative, the student will demonstrate these abilities beyond the requirements above. EXPECTATIONS (WSSDA School Board Standards): Standard: Standard 3: Create conditions district-wide for student and staff success c. Provide for learning essentials, including rigorous curriculum, technology, and high quality facilities d. Ensure management of the organization, operations, and resources for an efficient and effective learning environment Guiding Principles: Ensure a course of study and graduation requirements that align with the community s high expectations for students achievement Provide policies and budget for necessary curriculum materials, supplemental tools, resources, and staff development to maximize student learning Ensure curriculum adoption cycle and review process that involves community and parents Support, evaluate and update technology Ensure organizational structure that supports the district as a learning organization Communicate and expect that effective instructional resources and strategies are used consistently in all classrooms Interpretation/Evidence: In July 2011, Washington adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics. Teacher groups will need targeted and ongoing professional development to fully implement these new K 12 standards by the end of the 2014 15 school year when new accountability measures go into effect. In order to implement the new standards, the district has created district-wide leadership Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 2
Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT teams to support this work. teams work to ensure the development of vision, professional development, coaching, resource allocation, and technical assistance. The team works collaboratively to establish training capacity so that the district can support its implementation of various initiatives. The goals of these leadership teams are as follows: Create a district-level vision of mathematics, English language arts, and science instruction in the Washougal School Create curriculum maps and pacing guides for each content area identified Create communication and feedback loops to inform district professional development Develop implementation plan and develop capacity for supporting implementation of the CCSS and other state standards In addition to new standards, Washington is adopting a new Teacher and Principal Evaluation Process (TPEP), enacted during the 2010 Legislative Session, and known as Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6696 (E2SSB 6696). This new legislation seeks to create a new system for measuring teacher and leadership performance, a system in Washington that has been unchanged for over 25 years. The legislation revised the evaluation criteria for both classroom teachers and principals; created a fourlevel rating system; and requires that all districts adopt new systems in the 2013 14 school year. The Superintendent of Public Instruction has recommended that in the 2012 13 school year, that school districts submit a description of the proposed evaluation system they intend to implement the following year. Under this new evaluation system, teachers will be required to implement the district s research-based instructional framework that clearly describes practice and performance. On-going professional development and coaching supports will be necessary to ensure implementation of this new evaluation system. 0.5% of expenditures (~$135,000) has been set aside to purchase curricular materials, supplemental tools and resources, and for professional development in support of curriculum implementation. Policy 2020 provides for policy and procedures related to the selection of instructional materials. The Instructional Materials Review Committee (IMRC) is in the process of reviewing teacher selected mathematics materials to support Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 instruction at the high schools and the middle schools. This team is also reviewing the AP Government text that has been selected. The estimated costs of these materials are $65,000. The IMRC is expected to bring recommendations to the Board on 6.26.12. These new materials are aligned to the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. In addition to reviewing materials, the IMRC is developing an adoption handbook to support not only the review of core instructional materials, but also the selection and adoption of supplemental and open educational resources, which are free digital materials that can be re-used for teaching, learning, and research. As a component of the handbook, the group will recommend a review and adoption process, based upon the State revision cycle (LS Development and Revision Cycle). Currently, the IMRC consists of six members two principals, two teachers, a parent, and the Director of C & I. As this work proceeds, it will be important to expand the composition of the group and include a larger number of teachers and community members. It is anticipated that the Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 3
Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT group will rely upon the support and recommendations of the various content area leadership teams, and may use temporary sub-committees to complete the work. The district utilizes a Professional Learning Communities (PLC) model. There is consistent and powerful quantitative research that sustained school improvement occurs when school personnel function as a PLC. PLCs operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous, job-embedded learning for educators. A shared mission, vision, values, and goals, as well as an on-going collective inquiry process that is dedicated to achieving results characterize them. The four questions of PLCs are as follows: What do students need to know and be able to do? How will we know when they have learned it? What will we do if they haven t learned it? What will we do if they already know it? The development, implementation, and evaluation of district created protocols and tools to support teacher driven decision making is important for support the PLC process and assuring academic/behavioral gains for students. High School graduation requirements for the Washougal School are described in Policy 2410. WSD requires an additional 3 credits beyond those prescribed by the State. In May 2012, the social studies requirements for Washington changed. Students in the class of 2016 and beyond are required to earn 3 credits in social studies. 0.5 of this credit must be in Civics. The social studies department is defining where in the curriculum this 0.5 credit will be added. Civics will be a component of the new AP Government course. Standard 4: Hold school district accountable for meeting student learning expectations a. Committing to continuous improvement in student achievement at each school and throughout the district c. Measuring student academic progress and needs based on valid and reliable assessments Establish and follow a schedule for the timely review of the district improvement plan, at least annually Ensure a high degree of coherence between the district s improvement plan and individual school improvement plans, at least annually Publicly recognize and celebrate efforts of schools and individuals in improving student learning Expect and model the effective use of data in monitoring student achievement and district performance, including using disaggregated data Evaluate and adjust resources and strategies for closing achievement gaps Understand the criteria, assessment tools, and methods to measure student achievement and district performance Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 4
Interpretation/Evidence: Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT The district s comprehensive assessment system is composed of the following metrics: state outcome assessments (MSP, HSPE, EOC, WAAS, CBAs); easycbm; districtcreated writing and science assessments. Teachers have created common formative assessments that inform them of students progress towards benchmarks and learning targets. At the high school, all students take the PSAT at Grade 10. Students also take the SAT, ACT, and AP exams. State outcome assessment data and easycbm data are disaggregated by race/ethnicity and also special student populations (Title I, SpEd). These disaggregated data are used by the district and buildings to inform improvement plans that address academic achievement gaps. Building level leadership teams have been provided with data protocols to support their review of the achievement data. A composite of the state outcome assessment data, the district, disaggregated results, and a copy of the protocol are attached to this report. The Superintendent has led a comprehensive process to develop a district strategic plan. Board Policy 1810 outlines the goals and process to be used by the to develop a long-range plan that will assist in focusing our organization s resources and effort. The major goal for this strategic planning process is student learning and the preparation of each student for success in post-secondary education and work in a democratic society and the global community. The second goal for the process is to assure that the is involved in continuous improvement as an educational system in which the priorities are safe learning and work environments, communication, collaboration and protection of the community s investment in its schools. The Strategic Planning and Goal Setting policy also calls for the involvement of representative staff and community in the development process. The adopted a four-year 2007 2011 Strategic Plan that ended in June 2011. The process outlined below would create a and community involvement process that would lead to the creation of major strategic goals that would provide the framework guidance for the s annual improvement and development goals for the next five years. October 2011: November 2011 February 2012: March 2012: Establish a Strategic Planning Process Steering Committee Gather Board input regarding key questions Develop online survey to gather data Conduct staff and community input meetings at each site Conduct a general community meeting and a community leader meeting Conduct one targeted meeting for underrepresented students/families Work with the data collected so that it can be published and shared with a committee convened to study the input Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 5
Washougal School BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT received. Convene a representative committee to: Review feedback provided Develop the major strategic goals Review Vision and Mission statements May September 2012 Standard 2: Set and communicate high expectations for student learning with clear goals and plans for meeting those expectations a. Articulating the conviction that all students can learn and the belief that student learning can improve regardless of existing circumstances or resources c. Adopting a collaboratively developed district plan focused on learning and achievement outcomes for all students Present strategic, goals, mission and vision to Board Develop 2012-13 district improvement goals to support 2011 16 Strategic Plan Articulate high expectations for all students Create conditions that foster a culture of collaboration around a shared purpose of improving student achievement Align policy development, decision making, and budgeting to district improvement plan Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the district and progress towards the goals and outcomes d. Ensuring non-negotiable goals for student achievement are established and aligned to the district s plan Interpretation/Evidence: I would recommend that the Board incorporate the WSSDA Benchmarks of Success and Indicators for Evaluation as a component of the Ends Report. Furthermore, I would recommend that the Board adopt a set of indicators based upon the s Strategic Plan. Broad categories for these indicators might include the following: Academics, Citizenship, Technology, Personal Awareness and Expression, and Life Management. Within the categories, the Board could target specific data indicators to evaluate the implementation and alignment of district/school efforts towards attaining the goals of the 2012 16 Strategic Plan. Data collected through this process could then be used to inform policy that is informed by practice. Ends Policy Revised 6.5.12 6
Grade 2009 % Washougal School Trend Data: READING 2009 % Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds 2010 % 2010 % 2011 % 2011 % 3 71.4 74 2.6 72.1 79.6 7.5 73.1 75.7 2.6 4 73.6 77.7 4.1 67.2 76.1 8.9 67.3 75.9 8.6 5 74 73.5-0.5 69.6 67.1-2.5 67.6 70.9 3.3 6 72 70-2 64.6 61.3-3.3 70.6 73.2 2.6 7 59.3 61.9 2.6 63.4 60.7-2.7 56.4 50.4-6 8 67.5 71.2 3.7 69.4 71.1 1.7 68.6 74.1 5.5 10 81.2 80.1-1.1 78.9 84.5 5.6 82.3 82.3 0 Washougal School Trend Data: MATHEMATICS Grade 2009 % 2009 % Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds 2010 % 2010 % 2011 % 2011 % 3 66.3 72.8 6.5 61.8 63.8 2 61.5 65.4 3.9 4 52.3 69.4 17.1 53.7 65.4 11.7 59.3 67.8 8.5 5 61.9 54.3-7.6 53.6 51.4-2.2 61.2 56.7-4.5 6 50.9 49.4-1.5 51.9 51.1-0.8 58.8 54.9-3.9 7 51.8 51.8 0 55.3 57.5 2.2 56.9 48.3-8.6 8 50.8 54.1 3.3 51.6 61.1 9.5 50.3 57.8 7.5 10 EOC 1 45.4 40.7-4.7 41.7 50 8.3 62.4 58-4.4 10 EOC 2 72.9 76.9 4 Washougal School Trend Data: WRITING Grade 2009 % 2009 % Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds 2010 % 2010 % 2011 % 2011 % 4 60.4 55.9-4.5 61.1 60.4-0.7 61.4 67.3 5.9 7 69.8 72 2.2 70.3 75.2 4.9 71 69.9-1.1 10 86.7 87.9 1.2 86 86.9 0.9 86 84-2 Washougal School Trend Data: SCIENCE Grade 2009 % 2009 % Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds Meets/Exceeds 2010 % 2010 % 2011 % 2011 % 5 44.9 40.3-4.6 34 34.2 0.2 55.6 60.7 5.1 8 51.1 57.8 6.7 54.5 48.3-6.2 61.5 68.2 6.7
Washougal Elementary Schools Dispro 2011 Overview The table below will assist you in determining whether disproportionate representation exists for specific groups at your school. A. Composition Index - compares the proportion of students from a group within a disability category or special education program with the proportion of the same group of students in the general school population. B. Risk Index - allows you to determine the probability of a specific group of students being placed in special education. (In other words, what percentage of your building's Hispanic students are receiving special education compared to the percentage of Asian students?) C. Odds Ratio - compares the risk of students from a minority group to the risk of White students in your building. This provides an indicator of how much more or less likely a student from a particular minority group is to be placed in special education. This is measured as a "risk ratio". A ratio of 1.00 indicates no risk. A ratio of less than 1.00 indicates less risk (under-representation). A ratio of more than 1.00 indicates more risk (over-representation). For example, a ratio of 2.94 for Black students would indicate that Black students are nearly 3 times more likely to be identified for special education than White students in your building. *Black includes African American and students who identified as "Two or More Races"; **SPED does NOT include results of the 1% assessment Grade 3 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Overview of the School's Student Demographics Table White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 181 11 21 3 0 216 96 0 45 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 83.8% 5.1% 9.7% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0% 44.4% 0.0% 20.8% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 138 9 13 2 0 162 59 0 17 standard on the Reading MSP. A 85.2% 5.6% 8.0% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0% 36.4% 0.0% 10.5% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 76.2% 81.8% 61.9% 66.7% #DIV/0! 75.0% 61.5% #DIV/0! 37.8% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 1.07 0.81 0.87 #DIV/0! 0.82 #DIV/0! 0.50 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 118 7 13 2 0 140 50 0 18 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 84.3% 5.0% 9.3% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0% 35.7% 0.0% 12.9% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 65.2% 63.6% 61.9% 66.7% #DIV/0! 64.8% 52.1% #DIV/0! 40.0% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 0.98 0.95 1.02 #DIV/0! 0.80 #DIV/0! 0.62 Whites)
Washougal Elementary Schools Dispro 2011 Grade 4 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 173 15 15 3 7 213 89 0 34 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 81.2% 7.0% 7.0% 1.4% 3.3% 100.0% 41.8% 0.0% 16.0% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 133 10 10 3 4 160 56 0 9 standard on the Reading MSP. A 83.1% 6.3% 6.3% 1.9% 2.5% 100.0% 35.0% 0.0% 5.6% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 76.9% 66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 57.1% 75.1% 62.9% #DIV/0! 26.5% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 0.87 0.87 1.30 0.74 0.84 #DIV/0! 0.35 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 122 10 6 3 2 143 48 0 5 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 85.3% 7.0% 4.2% 2.1% 1.4% 100.0% 33.6% 0.0% 3.5% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 70.5% 66.7% 40.0% 100.0% 28.6% 67.1% 53.9% #DIV/0! 14.7% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 0.95 0.57 1.42 0.41 0.80 #DIV/0! 0.22 Whites)
Washougal Elementary Schools Dispro 2011 Grade 5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 220 13 24 4 3 264 105 0 40 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 83.3% 4.9% 9.1% 1.5% 1.1% 100.0% 39.8% 0.0% 15.2% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 158 10 11 3 3 185 66 0 10 standard on the Reading MSP. A 85.4% 5.4% 5.9% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0% 35.7% 0.0% 5.4% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 71.8% 76.9% 45.8% 75.0% 100.0% 70.1% 62.9% #DIV/0! 25.0% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 1.07 0.64 1.04 1.39 0.90 #DIV/0! 0.36 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 123 9 11 3 2 148 48 0 8 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 83.1% 6.1% 7.4% 2.0% 1.4% 100.0% 32.4% 0.0% 5.4% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 55.9% 69.2% 45.8% 75.0% 66.7% 56.1% 45.7% #DIV/0! 20.0% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 1.24 0.82 1.34 1.19 0.82 #DIV/0! 0.36 Whites)
Washougal Elementary Schools Dispro 2011 Total 3-5 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 574 39 60 10 10 693 290 0 119 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 82.8% 5.6% 8.7% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0% 41.8% 0.0% 17.2% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 429 29 34 8 7 507 181 0 36 standard on the Reading MSP. A 84.6% 5.7% 6.7% 1.6% 1.4% 100.0% 35.7% 0.0% 7.1% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 74.7% 74.4% 56.7% 80.0% 70.0% 73.2% 62.4% #DIV/0! 30.3% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 0.99 0.76 1.07 0.94 0.85 #DIV/0! 0.41 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 363 26 30 8 4 431 146 0 31 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 84.2% 6.0% 7.0% 1.9% 0.9% 100.0% 33.9% 0.0% 7.2% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 63.2% 66.7% 50.0% 80.0% 40.0% 62.2% 50.3% #DIV/0! 26.1% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 1.05 0.79 1.27 0.63 0.81 #DIV/0! 0.42 Whites)
Washougal Middle Schools Dispro 2011 Overview of the School's Student Demographics Table Overview The table below will assist you in determining whether disproportionate representation exists for specific groups at your school. A. Composition Index - compares the proportion of students from a group within a disability category or special education program with the proportion of the same group of students in the general school population. B. Risk Index - allows you to determine the probability of a specific group of students being placed in special education. (In other words, what percentage of your building's Hispanic students are receiving special education compared to the percentage of Asian students?) C. Odds Ratio - compares the risk of students from a minority group to the risk of White students in your building. This provides an indicator of how much more or less likely a student from a particular minority group is to be placed in special education. This is measured as a "risk ratio". A ratio of 1.00 indicates no risk. A ratio of less than 1.00 indicates less risk (under-representation). A ratio of more than 1.00 indicates more risk (over-representation). For example, a ratio of 2.94 for Black students would indicate that Black students are nearly 3 times more likely to be identified for special education than White students in your building. *Black includes African American and students who identified as "Two or More Races"; **SPED does NOT include results of the 1% assessment Grade 6 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 183 15 10 6 0 214 103 0 27 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 85.5% 7.0% 4.7% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0% 48.1% 0.0% 12.6% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 129 12 10 4 0 155 68 0 9 standard on the Reading MSP. A 83.2% 7.7% 6.5% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0% 43.9% 0.0% 5.8% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 70.5% 80.0% 100.0% 66.7% #DIV/0! 72.4% 66.0% #DIV/0! 33.3% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 1.13 1.42 0.95 #DIV/0! 0.91 #DIV/0! 0.46 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 96 8 9 4 0 117 45 0 5 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 82.1% 6.8% 7.7% 3.4% 0.0% 100.0% 38.5% 0.0% 4.3% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 52.5% 53.3% 90.0% 66.7% #DIV/0! 54.7% 43.7% #DIV/0! 18.5% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 1.02 1.72 1.27 #DIV/0! 0.80 #DIV/0! 0.34 Whites)
Washougal Middle Schools Dispro 2011 Grade 7 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 195 21 15 5 3 239 108 0 39 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 81.6% 8.8% 6.3% 2.1% 1.3% 100.0% 45.2% 0.0% 16.3% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 102 9 4 3 1 119 41 0 7 standard on the Reading MSP. A 85.7% 7.6% 3.4% 2.5% 0.8% 100.0% 34.5% 0.0% 5.9% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 52.3% 42.9% 26.7% 60.0% 33.3% 49.8% 38.0% #DIV/0! 17.9% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 0.82 0.51 1.15 0.64 0.76 #DIV/0! 0.36 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 99 8 3 3 1 114 44 0 4 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 86.8% 7.0% 2.6% 2.6% 0.9% 100.0% 38.6% 0.0% 3.5% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 50.8% 38.1% 20.0% 60.0% 33.3% 47.7% 40.7% #DIV/0! 10.3% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 0.75 0.39 1.18 0.66 0.85 #DIV/0! 0.22 Whites)
Washougal Middle Schools Dispro 2011 Grade 8 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 189 15 13 5 3 225 107 0 27 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 84.0% 6.7% 5.8% 2.2% 1.3% 100.0% 47.6% 0.0% 12.0% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 139 9 12 3 3 166 67 0 3 standard on the Reading MSP. A 83.7% 5.4% 7.2% 1.8% 1.8% 100.0% 40.4% 0.0% 1.8% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 73.5% 60.0% 92.3% 60.0% 100.0% 73.8% 62.6% #DIV/0! 11.1% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 0.82 1.26 0.82 1.36 0.85 #DIV/0! 0.15 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 113 5 7 2 2 129 51 0 0 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 87.6% 3.9% 5.4% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 59.8% 33.3% 53.8% 40.0% 66.7% 57.3% 47.7% #DIV/0! 0.0% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 0.56 0.90 0.67 1.12 0.83 #DIV/0! 0.00 Whites)
Washougal Middle Schools Dispro 2011 Total Grades 6-8 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS White Black Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 567 51 38 16 6 678 318 0 93 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 83.6% 7.5% 5.6% 2.4% 0.9% 100.0% 46.9% 0.0% 13.7% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 370 30 26 10 4 440 176 0 19 standard on the Reading MSP. A 84.1% 6.8% 5.9% 2.3% 0.9% 100.0% 40.0% 0.0% 4.3% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 65.3% 58.8% 68.4% 62.5% 66.7% 64.9% 55.3% #DIV/0! 20.4% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 0.90 1.05 0.96 1.02 0.85 #DIV/0! 0.31 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 308 21 19 9 3 360 140 0 9 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A 85.6% 5.8% 5.3% 2.5% 0.8% 100.0% 38.9% 0.0% 2.5% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 54.3% 41.2% 50.0% 56.3% 50.0% 53.1% 44.0% #DIV/0! 9.7% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) 0.76 0.92 1.04 0.92 0.83 #DIV/0! 0.18 Whites)
WHS Outcome Assessment 2011- DRAFT Overview The table below will assist you in determining whether disproportionate representation exists for specific groups at your school. A. Composition Index - compares the proportion of students from a group within a disability category or special education program with the proportion of the same group of students in the general school population. B. Risk Index - allows you to determine the probability of a specific group of students being placed in special education. (In other words, what percentage of your building's Hispanic students are receiving special education compared to the percentage of Asian students?) C. Odds Ratio - compares the risk of students from a minority group to the risk of White students in your building. This provides an indicator of how much more or less likely a student from a particular minority group is to be placed in special education. This is measured as a "risk ratio". A ratio of 1.00 indicates no risk. A ratio of less than 1.00 indicates less risk (under-representation). A ratio of more than 1.00 indicates more risk (over-representation). For example, a ratio of 2.94 for Black students would indicate that Black students are nearly 3 times more likely to be identified for special education than White students in your building. *Black includes African American and students who identified as "Two or More Races"; **SPED does NOT include results of the 1% assessment Grade 10 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Overview of the School's Student Demographics Table White Black* Hispanic Asian/ Pac Islander American Indian TOTAL Free/Red Title SPED** The number of children from each ethnic or racial background in my 1 185 15 20 2 1 223 86 0 33 school. The percentages of these children in comparison to the total school 2 83.0% 6.7% 9.0% 0.9% 0.4% 100.0% 38.6% 0.0% 14.8% population. (Line 1 Total of Line 1) 3 160 13 13 1 0 187 66 0 13 standard on the Reading MSP. A 85.6% 7.0% 7.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0% 35.3% 0.0% 7.0% from each ethnic/category group. (Line 3 Total of Line 3) B 86.5% 86.7% 65.0% 50.0% 0.0% 83.9% 76.7% #DIV/0! 39.4% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 3 Line 1) 1.00 0.75 0.58 0.00 0.92 #DIV/0! 0.47 Whites; risk of Free/Red All) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 standard on the Mathematics MSP. A #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! from each ethnic/category group. (Line 4 Total of Line 4) B 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! 0.0% group, the percent meeting standard. (Line 4 Line 1) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Whites)
Data-driven Decision Making (DDDM) Protocol MSP Draft Results Reading and Mathematics Before the meeting: Review data sets provided to you by the district. Read the definitions of Composition Index; Risk Index; and Odds Ratio. Study the layout of the data There are four categories of information (1, 2, 3, and 4); two categories have sub-components (A,B, C). Line 1 and 2 contain the demographic information for the grade (or building when looking at Total ). Some subgroups will have a very small n size, keep this in mind as you reflect on your data. Individual Analysis Building Level Look Procedure Notes/Questions Review demographic information (Lines 1 and 2) for each grade level and the total for the grade span. Review total grade/grade span performance (highlighted in yellow). What gains did your grade experience? o What work within your grade level last year helped you to achieve these gains? How does student performance differ between grade levels? Describe any surprises in your overall results. Analyze subgroup (total of 8) performance in both reading and mathematics. Which groups performed the highest? Which groups performed the lowest? Were there noticeable differences between subgroup performance in reading and mathematics? Strategies: Which grade levels have strategies that we should all know about? Are there grade levels within the content area that can help inform our work? Which strategies can we use to improve building performance? How will we ensure that these strategies become regular classroom practice within the building? How will we measure ongoing progress towards increasing student achievement? How will we measure progress towards full implementation of the strategy? When will we meet again to determine if sufficient progress is being made?