Jennifer Zajac. Online Surveys OAA Test Result Review

Jennifer Zajac

BUILDING NEEDS ASSESSMENTEFFECTING MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES AMO SCORES

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Online Surveys OAA Test Result Review

NEEDS ASSESSMENT – STUDENT RESPONSES

31 students responded 26% 6th grade, 35% 7th grade and 39% 8th

grade 48% male, 52% female 43% students with disabilities, 57%

general education


Teachers know how I learn 45% agree, 35% unsure, 19% disagree 69% of SWD are unsure or disagree

whereas 47% of general education students are unsure or disagree

Teachers take the time to help when don’t understand 76% agree


Students have a hard time keeping up in class 35% agree, 61% disagree 54% of SWD agree

Students feel lost in class 38% agree, 45% disagree

Teachers know how students learn 45% agree, 19% disagree 69% of SWD are unsure or disagree


Teachers give a variety of assignments 14% agree, 27% disagree

In class students engage in varied types of instruction 93% agree 29% whole group, 32% small group, 21%

partner work


Students believe school is doing a good job 50% agree, 13% disagree

Students’ parents believe the school is doing a good job 60% agree, 20% disagree

Students believe the state tests are important 87% agree, 3% disagree


Student Comments Offer more help, such as after school

programs (particularly in math) Offer a greater variety of activities for

students such as hands-on and more projects

Air conditioning


Points to note There’s a discrepancy in student statements

regarding varied activities indicating that differentiation may not be occurring across the board

Students with disabilities feel they need more assistance and have a difficult time keeping up in class

69% of students with disabilities either disagree or are unsure teachers know how they learn

NEEDS ASSESSMENT – PARENT RESPONSES

10 Parents Responded Student grade level: 33% 6th grade, 25%

7th grade, 42% 8th grade Student gender: 30% male, 70% female 0 response from parents of students with

disabilities


Teachers know my child’s strengths/My child believes teachers know his/her strengths 40% agree, 60% unsure or disagree

Teachers know my child’s learning style 33% agree, 66% unsure or disagree

Teachers spend adequate time helping my child 60% agree, 40% unsure or disagree


School is doing a good job 70% agree, 30% unsure or disagree

My child is challenged in school 50% agree, 50% unsure or disagree

Other parents believe school is doing a good job 50% agree, 50% unsure or disagree

State tests are important 40% agree, 60% unsure or disagree


Comments Would like to see more extension activities,

hands-on projects, new and exciting classes, and incorporate more technology into student learning

The school does a good job with communication and teachers are good

Air conditioning


Points to Note Limited sample Parents are unsure or don’t feel the

curriculum is connecting with their child or that teachers understand their learning styles

Parents are unsure of their child is being challenged

More communication regarding importance of statewide tests may be needed

NEEDS ASSESSMENT – TEACHER RESPONSES

28 Teachers Responded 66% core subject teachers, 15% intervention specialists,

19% specials teachers 27% 6th grade, 19% 7th grade, 27% 8th grade, 27% multi-

grade How many year's of teaching experience do

you have? 0-5 7% 6-10 22% 11-15 19% 16-20 4% 21+ 48%


Teachers feel confident and adequately trained to teach SWD 55% agree, 44% disagree The greatest number of disagree responses is

in the 21+ years of experience group primarily those teaching specials classes

Differentiation occurs Daily, 35% Weekly, 54% Once per month, 12%


The best way to teach differing ability levels is to: Ability group, 23% Differentiate instruction, 23% Pre-teach/Re-teach, 20% Integrate curriculum, 15%

Teachers differentiate by: Product, 32% Process, 40% Content, 21%


Teachers assess students Weekly, 61% Bi-weekly 21%

Interventions are provided In class, 38% During AE, 36%

Interventions are Small group based on need, 32% Small group based on student availability, 23% Limited due to inadequate time, 21%


Teachers believe they have adequate resources to differentiate 37% agree, 63% are unsure or disagree

Teachers believe resources are aligned with the curriculum 26% agree, 75% are unsure or disagree

Teachers are confident in their ability to write meaningful assessments 76% agree, 20% are unsure, 4% disagree


Teachers believe assessments are aligned with the curriculum 87% agree, 23% unsure or disagree

School schedule is conducive to provide interventions 41% agree, 22% unsure, 37% disagree

Teachers use data to determine interventions 49% agree, 41% unsure, 11% disagree


Teachers would appreciate more professional development in the area(s) of content specific training on differentiating instruction,

21% differentiating materials, 11% incorporating technology, 14% specific strategies to meet the needs of students with

disabilities, 13% specific strategies to meet the needs of gifted students,

14% assessment writing, 7% grouping for intervention, 9% how to use data from assessments, 4% Other, 7%


Teacher comments regarding the biggest barrier to SWD success Time (to intervene/retain subject

matter) Apathy Resources Disparity in ability level in individual

classes


Points to Note: Nearly half of the staff does not feel adequately

trained to teach students with disabilities Although 89% of the teachers say they

differentiate lessons daily or weekly, 21% would like more content specific training on differentiation

49% of teachers use data for interventions but only 32% base intervention groups on need

Teachers believe assessments are aligned to the curriculum but unsure if resources are aligned to the curriculum

OAA ANALYSIS– READING

Acquisition of Vocabulary

Reading Process

Informational Text

Literary Text

6th Grade Gen. Ed. Below Prof.

15% 21% 20% 15%

6th Grade SWD Below Prof.

58% 79% 68% 79%


13% 21% 10% 17%


59% 65% 35% 59%


14% 9% 18% 14%


58% 42% 67% 42%

OAA ANALYSIS– MATH

Number, Number Sense & Operations

Measurement

Geometry & Spatial Sense

Patterns, Functions & Algebra

Data Analysis & Probability


19% 29% 13% 15% 18%


87% 100% 87% 87% 93%


22% 29% 17% 18% 27%


83% 83% 50% 92% 83%


11% 21% 11% 18% 15%


78% 67% 67% 67% 33%

STATE REPORT CARD VALUE ADDED DATATest Grade Progress Scores

Reading Math

All Grades -0.1 -4.1

6th -3.9 -13.2

7th 1.5 7.2

8th 2.6 1.2

PROBLEM

The greatest academic challenge for CMS at this time is overall math scores, additionally there is a large discrepancy between proficiency rates among SWD in the area of math.

RESEARCH-BASED SOLUTIONS

Test Analysis (Downey, Steffy, Poston & English, 2009; Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010). Analyze OAA and common assessment data.

Is what is tested being taught? Do some standards have greater weight than others on the statewide test?

Analyze questions for content, context, cognitive type and standard of performance. (What is being assessed, under what conditions, what level of blooms questioning and to what degree must the student need to show for mastery. Downey, et. al, 2009, p. 21)


Identify Barriers (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010) p. 50 Why did the student miss the question? Identify barriers and look for separators – why high

performing students answered correctly and low performing students did not (target pull out groups)

Global Questions How well did the class do as a whole? What are the strengths and weaknesses in the standards? How did the class do on old versus new standards? How were the results in different question types (multiple

choice, open-ended, reading vs. writing, etc.) Who are strong/weak students?


Identify Barriers (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010) p. 50 “Dig In” Questions

What questions did most students bomb? Did students perform similarly on questions

pertaining to specific standards? Were some questions harder? Why?

Sort data by student scores. Are there questions that separate proficient, nonproficient students?

Look horizontally by student. Are there anomalies with certain students?


Use assessment data to drive intervention group (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010). Create an action plan based on results

analysis Identify what standards need to be retaught. Why didn’t students learn it? Instruction plan – what techniques will be used to

teach it and when Intervention time should be aligned with

tested objectives (Downey, Steffy, Poston & English, 2009)


Instructional Plan – When & How? Visits to local schools indicated similar intervention practices. Focus

2 days math, 2 days reading, 1 day enrichment 2-3 weeks per subject, alternating, but with primary focus on math and

reading 1 week alternating

Groups based on OAA data and change focus based on strand based on common assessment based on unit assessments create new assessments for this purpose

All teachers provide interventions in the intervention area during the same time (i.e. all teachers provide math intervention, lesson plans provided by math teachers)


Differentiate instruction Research shows differentiating instruction to meet the needs of

student learning styles is critical for students with disabilities (Downey, Steffy, Poston & English, 2009)

Opens learning opportunities for all students Provide flexible grouping Vary complexity Vary cognition requirements Different questions on quizzes Learning centers Provide alternative assignments based on mastery/independent study Peer tutoring Tiered assignments of varying complexity Adjust pace Differentiate products


Enriching Curriculum and Remediating Learning (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009) & Teaching to Mastery (Downey, Steffy, Poston & English, 2009) Emphasis on teaching to mastery and enriching curriculum All students can learn when provided appropriate conditions Building in time for remediation may open opportunities for

enrichment of those students performing at mastery level. Enrich by:

Student interests Teacher knowledge/interests Not typical content in school Special knowledge in community, among parents Greater depth of content

ACTION PLAN

Goal Action Steps

Resources Timeline

Cost Responsibility

Identify areas where students are not learning

1. State test analysis. Identify target standards/objectives in the test and compare to curriculum map.

2. Common assessment item analysis

-State test data- copy of released test items- curriculum map-Common assessment-Item analysis sheet (Bambrick-Santoyo)

½ day release time per assessment for cooperating teachers followed by an item analysis review with the Principal

Sub costs for 2 ½ day sessions

Special Ed team

Core teachersPrincipal

ACTION PLAN

Goal Action Steps

Resources Timeline

Cost Responsibility

Identify strategies to be into classroom instruction

1. Based on test analysis determine why students with disabilities are not being successful.

2. Research strategies

3. Share ideas

- OAA test items- Common assessments- Strategy books/articles “Making math accessible to students with learning disabilities”

Ongoing, teachers discuss during PLC meeting, present to Principal

$100 budget for additional strategy resource guides if necessary

Intervention Specialists

ACTION PLAN

Goal Action Steps

Resources Timeline

Cost Responsibility

Create intervention schedule and lesson plan

1. Establish Schedule focus, when and where opportunities for intervention exist.

2. Identify groupings.

3. Create lesson plans and assessment.

- Copy of existing schedule- Present options other schools use

Ongoing, teachers discuss what they want it to look like in PLC meeting, present to Principal

Team driven

ACTION PLAN

Goal Action Steps

Resources Timeline

Cost Responsibility

Content specific professional development in differentiating instruction

1. PD with expert in content area

2. Identify opportunities for differentiation directly in curriculum map

Expert (could be teacher from building or another school), must be expert in grade-level specific content

Three 2-hour sessions on waiver days, separated by subject area

Expert fees Curriculum directorPrincipalCurriculum Liaisons

REFERENCES

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data: A practical guide to improve instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., Poston, W. K. & English, F. W. (2009). 50 ways to close the achievement gap. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Glatthorn, A. A. & Jailall, J. M. (2009). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Documents

Jennifer Zajac. Online Surveys OAA Test Result Review