I MEMORANDUM - School Information System

APPENDIX KKK-1l-9 

May ll. 2009 

MADISON MHROPOllTAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 

• 

Y 

045 West Dayton St. 

• 

Madison. Wisconsin 53703-1995 • 608.663-1607 www.mmsd,org 

• 

Danie! A. Nerad, Superintendent of Schools 

April 30, 2009 

I MEMORANDUM 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Members of the Board of Education 

Daniel A. Nerad, Superintendent 

WKCE Data 

The following information is attached 

• Executive Summary 

• WKCE Proficiency Performance by Grade and Year 

• 2009 WKCE Madison vs. Wisconsin 

• Example agenda for a data workshop provided for Principals and IRTs

Executive Summary 

Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts (WKCE) Test 

Introduction 

The 2008-09 school year marked the fourth consecutive year in which testing in grades 3 through 8 and 

10 was conducted in fulfillment of the federal No Child left Behind law. The Wisconsin Knowledge and 

Concepts Exams (WKCE) is a criterion-referenced test (CRT) where a student's performance is 

compared to a specific set of learning standard outcomes. The WKCE-CRT includes testing in all seven 

grade levels reading and math and in grades 4, 8 and 10 additional testing in language arts, science and 

social studies. Just under 12,400 MMSD students participated in this year's WKCE-CRT. 

Under NClB, schools are required to test 95% of their full academic year (FAY) students in reading and 

math. Madison's test participation rates exceeded 95% in all grade levels. Grades 3 through 8 achieved 

99% test participation or higher while the District's 10th graders reached 98% in test participation. 

In general, performance was relatively unchanged in the two academic areas tested across the seven 

grade levels. In reading, across the seven grades tested four grade levels had an increase in the 

percentage of students scoring at the proficient or higher performance categories compared with the 

previous year while three grades showed a decline in the percentage. In math, three grades increased 

proficient or higher performance, three grades declined, and one remained the same. 

WKCE Reading and Math Performance b y Grade Level 

Percentage of Scoring Proficient or Higher - All Students Tested 

Subject 

Reading 

Year 

2006-07 

Math 2008-09 

KEY -> PM No Change 

I Improve 

The changing demographics of the district affect the overall aggregate achievement data. As the district 

has experienced a greater proportion of students from subgroups which are at a disadvantage in testing, 

e.g., non-native English speakers, or English language learners (Ells), the overall district averages have 

correspondingly declined. Other subgroups which traditionally perform well on student achievement 

tests, i.e., non-low income students and white students, continue to perform very high relative to 

statewide peer groups. Therefore, it is important disaggregate the data to interpret and understand the 

district results. 

Unlike the previous years when MMSD students had a higher percentage of students perform at the 

highest proficiency level - Advanced - when compared with their statewide peers, in 2008-09 this 

occurred in just over half of the grade levels tested in reading and math. In general, students scoring at 

1

the highest performance level are students who are not low income, who are Asian, or who are white. As 

these student subgroups become a smaller proportion of the total MMSD student population it is 

predictable that the overall percentage of students scoring in the Advanced category would decline. 

What is also clear from the data is that despite the change in the proportion of these subgroups within the 

total MMSD student population there has been no decrease in the percentage scoring at the Advanced 

level. This percentage point difference ranges from 8 to 15 points across all grade levels in reading when 

comparing non-low income students in the MMSD with their statewide peers, and between 7 and 13 

points in math. For Asian students this differential between MMSD students and their statewide peers is 

between 2 and 19 percentage points in reading, and between 2 and 20 percent in math across all grades 

tested. For the white subgroup MMSD averages over 14 percentage points more students scoring 

Advanced in reading performance compared to their statewide peers, and over 12 percentage points 

more students scoring Advanced in math across all tested grades. 

Percentage Scoring Advanced 

M M SO vs. Wisconsin w Reading 

Non Economically Disadvantaged Students 

I I 

DMadlson _Wlscol'6!n 

00 -- 

70 

i 

OO c--- I-- 

~ 

~50 l- e- 0- f- - f- 

~40 l- e- f- r- - r- 

f~ l- f- f- - - 

8:20 - l- f- - - 

1) - l- I- - - - 

0 L,.. ~ 

Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl 

3 4 5 6 7 8 1) 

70 

0 

Percentage Seo ring Advanced 

M M SO vs. Wisconsin M Math 


! o MadIson IlIWISCOI'6!n! 

50 

2 

ID 50 

".il 

~ 40 

0 

Ql 

~ 30 

co 

Ql 

~ 20 

Ql 

---_. 

- - -- 

Q. 

10 - -- I- - - c-- 

- 1- - c-- 

- 1- - ,- 

- 1- -- -""- - 

Gradl Grace GracE Gradl Gradl Gradl 

3 4 5 6 7 8 

- 

Gradl 

1) 


M M SD vs. Wisconsin M Reading 

Asian Students 

IOMad,on .WIS"'''I~ 

60 ---------------- 

50 - ------ 

2 

co 

Ql 

" 40 -- -- -- - 

~ 

'0 30 1- --- r- 

._- - 1- -- 

Ql 

0> 

J!l 

ID 20 - - r- I- - I- 

Q; " 

Q. 

10 - - I- I- l- I- 

0 ~ ~ L,.. L,.. L,.. L,.. 

Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl Gradl 

3 4 5 6 7 8 1) 


M M SO vs. Wisconsin - Math 


! tl Madison II Wiscorsln I 

50.---=========-=------~ 

10 - 1- 

1-- 

-. 

o _c...- _'-

- 

- 

Percentage SCOring Advanced 

M M SO vs. Wisconsin - Reading 

White Students 

! 0 Ma::ilson a WISCOT'5ln! 

80 '-' 

70 


M M SO vs. Wisconsin - Math 

White Students 

10 Ma:llson II Wiscorsl~ 

- --- 

70 --. .- 60 -- ------------- 

.Ill 

11 60 -~-. ~ .. 

- I-- -- I--- Ii 50 -- I-- I~ --- ------- 

"0 

"0 

" 

.~ 

Vl 50 f--- e- I~ -- 

Vl 40 1- - I- e- 1- -- 

'0 

'0 

" 40 - '- - '- 1·- --- - 

" 

~ 

'" 

30 ,- - ,- 

~ ~ 

J§' 30 - - 1- '-- 

1-- - - 

c 

" 

" 

20 - 

_. 

I~ I~ --- - - 

e- 1- - & 

:t. 20 - - - 

~ 

10 '-- - 

1- I~ - ,- 10 - I~ -~ - 

0 c.,. 

~ 

c.,. c.,. c.,. 

~ 0 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

Graoo Graoo Graoo G raoo G raoo G raoo G rare 

3 4 5 6 7 8 1) 3 4 5 6 7 8 1) 

Similarly, and very interestingly, a consistently higher percentage of MMSD students score at the lowest 

proficiency level - Minimal - than do students across the state. This is evidence of the higher degree of 

economic and ethnic/racial diversity in MMSD compared with other Wisconsin school districts. In other 

words, MMSD is a more "bi-modal" distribution of student achievement performance than the state as a 

whole. This reinforces the array of learning needs within the MMSD, and is descriptive of the instructional 

challenges within our classrooms and schools. 

Reading by Student Subgroup 

In general, across the tested grades levels the reading performance of white students relative to the 

percentage of the subgroup scoring at the proficient or higher performance categories is much higher 

when compared with their peers across the state, and somewhat higher among the Asian and non-low 

income subgroups. Reading performance for MMSD special education students is about equivalent to 

their statewide peers. For English Language Learners (ELLs), Hispanic, African American, and low 

income students, MMSD performance lags behind their statewide peer groups_ 

Math by Student Subgroup 

MMSD white students had a significantly larger percentage scoring in the proficient or higher performance 

categories on the math test when compared to their peers across the state. MMSD Asian and non-low 

income subgroups were somewhat higher in their proficient or better performance compared with the 

state. MMSD African American students scored very similar to the same students across the state on the 

math test Among the special education, non-ELL, ELL, and Hispanic student subgroups MMSD students 

scored somewhat lower on the math tests when compared to the same subgroups across the state. As a 

whole, low income students in MMSD score significanUy lower than their statewide peers on the math 

test 

Achievement Gap 

A key goal of the MMSD is to eliminate the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged 

students and those who are not economically disadvantaged. The gap in the percentage of students 

scoring proficient and advanced across these two socio-economic groups increased in three of the seven 

3

grades tested in mathematics between 2007-08 and 2008-09, it decreased in two other grades, and 

remained the same in two grade levels. In reading this gap increased in five of the seven grades tested, 

and decreased in the other two grade levels. 

In general, the reading gap has remained unchanged over the past four years. Some progress has been 

made in reducing the gap in math during that time. Most improvements in closing the gap have been at 

grade 10. A particularly concerning increase in gaps occurred this year in Grade 3 reading. Much 

remains to be accomplished in terms of achieving this goal. 

Achievement Gap Between Low Income and Non-Low Income Students 

Difference in Percentage of Subgroups Scoring Proficient or Higher 

Subject 

Year 

Reading 1-;;;;;;:;-';;;;- 

Math 

1_ 

2006-07 

KEY~> No 

Change 

Improve 

4

Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) Proficiency Performance 

Students in District Full Academic Year (FAY) 

Grade 3 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR PERFORMANCE DETAIL KEY·> ~_I No Change Improve 

HISTORICAL TRENDS 

2005-06 2006..(17 2007.(18 2008-09 

90% 

85% 

80% 

75% 

70% 

65% 

60% 

55% 

50% 

45% 

40% 

GAP ANALYSIS 

Proficient + Advanced Performance 

INCOME Reading I Mathematics 

GAP ANALYSIS 


ELL Reading I Mathematics 

I ELL I Non-ELL I Gap I . Gap _Cha~~e I ELL I I I Gap Change 

2009 W,. _ Proficiency Summary Reports· District FAY Final

• Test conducted!n February of 2002. Calculatk1ns are different than subsequent years . 

. , 



Grade 4 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR PERFORMANCE DETAIL 

KEY·> 11il9,m1_1 No Change 

Improve 

HISTORICAL TRENDS E~;:d~i~iiii~~t~~I~iiii 

2000-01 2001-02 2002·03 2.003-04 2004-05 2005-06 200&.07 2007·00 2008-09 

~ 

M% 

'" 

~ '" -+-Readi"ll 

-ll--Languago Arts 

'5% 

Math 

eo% -»(--$cionco 

-."'-'"-,~~- ,,% """"'-Scx:lal Studion; 

" 60% 

,,% 

. '''' 

INCOME 

GAPANAL~S~IS~ __-f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~ 

Gap Change Low Income Gap Change 

Gap from Prior Year Students Gap from Prior Year



Grade 5 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR PERFORMANCE DETAIL KEY~> MAIlL_1 NoCh;;g~-r'mprove 


A-VearchanQel----- ---NA---F ----r;rA --1 

3YearChange riWr4_C 1~ 

200;.00 2006-07 

2007..(18 2008-09 

90"10 

85% 

80% 

75% 

70"10 

65% 

60% I -&-Math 

55% 

50% 

45% 

40% 

GAP ANALYSIS 



Gap Change 

from Prior Year 

GAP ANALYSIS 


ELL Reading I Mathematics 

... __ .... L ___ _ 

2009 V'v. _ Proficiency Summary Reports - District FAY Final

~ __ 



Grade 6 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR PERFORMANCE DETAIL KEY.> _ •• -NoCh~ng.. CImP~.w.-J 


6 Year Chanae f NA NA 

3 Year Chanae 1I11i!li!!li!li!i!li!!iI 1% 2005-06 20()6.07 2007-08 2008-09 

90% 

85% 

80% 

75% 

70% 

65% ! ____ Math 

SO% 

55% 

50% 

45% 

40% 

GAP ANALYSIS 



I low Income I Not low Incomel I Gao Chanae I low Income I Not low Incomel G I Gao Channa 

ap 

GAP ANALYSIS 


ELL Reading .1. Mathematics 

1"1.._--- ,..__ ,.... ____ 

Non.ELL 

Gap 

2009 Vv, . Proficiency Summary Reports - District FAY Final



Grade 7 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEAR PERFORMANCE DETAIL KEY -> fa:.. No Change Improve 


rSYear Chi:mge --, NA- 1 NA 

3 Year Change 0% 2% 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

90% 

B5% 

60% 

75% 

0% [ , 

65,. 

60% 

55% 

50% 

45% 

40% 

__&_Math 

GAP ANALYSIS 



low Income I Not Low 

Students 

Gap 

Gap 

Gap Change 

from Prior Year 

"6 Year Change 

3 Year Change 

NlA 

1% 

NlA 

3% 

NlA 

8% 

GAP ANALYSIS 

ELL 

~ __ "'L____ 

Non~ELL 

6 Year Change 

3 Year Change 

NlA 

2% 

NlA 

NlA 

NlA 

0% 1% 

NlA 

1% 

2009 'Iv, _ Proficiency Summary Reports - District FAY Final



Grade 8 


Improve 


-------------_______________ W% 

-- ----- '" 

-------------------------------+ "'. 

-M>' 

ZOOQ..{)1 ZOOl..(l2 2002..(13 2003-04 20{l4-05 2005..(1(1 ZOOO..(/7 2007..(18 2008-09 

'" 

---,- '" 

............. '-'"'Il""ll6Mn 

'" 

.$5% ---,- 

60% M •• 

-ll-Soo\tIISlud ... 

• Test conduc;!ed in Februaf)' ofl002. Calculatlons are different than sUbsequent years.



Grade 10 



"- 

""" 

2000-01 

"- 

/ 

'X 

2001-02 

/ 

2002.(13 201n-04 ,.,.". 2005-06 

'" -+-RondI"9 

eo. 

-a--Ln~/Ir~ 

~- 

M .. 

·00% 

-l+-Sole

2009 WKCE Madison vs. Wisconsin table_1 

Group: All Students 

I 

AlI MMSD stud~1s tested In grades 3 through 6 and 10 inleilding and math performed between 4and 9 pe!"OO1tage lXlints lower 

Jthan students across Wisconsin in the proficl~t or higher perronnance levels. 

BIeilkin 9 out the data into the highest performaJ1Ce ~I only - the advanced level- MMSD studems perrormed higher than 

Wiso:msln students as a whole in reading ingrades 1 and 8, and in math in grades 4, 1, 6, and 10. MMSD students trailed the 

Jstate as a whole in advanced performance In grades 3 and 4 ion reading and in grades 5 aod 6 in math. 

00 

00 

ro 

1 ;00 

i~ 

,~ 

i- 

IT(lre students than the state as a whole sewing in the lowest performaJ1Ce category - minima! - across 

from 2 to 6 percentage points. 

Percentage Scoring Proficient or Higher 

MMSD vs. Wisconsin - Reading 

) OMadison mwlSCOnsin) 

i-;: 

I- '- I- - '- l- 

i- 

i- - I- - I- 

- - 

~ 

" 

L,- 

Grn

G ... 

Grade 3 IFteading 

SllbjGct 

I 

~ 

J 

Madison FAY I 1479 

. .. 

g~ 

]• " I ~ 

ill • 

i! 

~i5 

• ~ * 

1j 

j; "'-"'1;; '-0, j:-.5 t '10-':/;:~;- 

":flit".l ' 84'::~" 

Grade7 IRaading IMadisonFAY 114551 0 I I 0 I 6 I 11 I 32 

" " 

" " 

'Gra.d(l,7nSIn-:":' rS;581! __ ,II-'l :::1'; ;o,:---l'~-'(I" 1':,,8: 1 Sj :,48,:'--ltf!ir~i}:~k-79:dmt~' 

Grad,,6 IMathema~cs 1MadisonFAY 11548 o ! 17 I 11 1 34 I 36 ! I 70 

-9i.$' 67]P.a,lIi9iriatiCa'/:]Wi$iEMATICS 

Giilda-8> '>00', 45 ':- 4 8S ,~"'~ 1.8 "Awrage Diff"rence In Adwnced Across All Grades 

G:ada 10 Social S\ud;as Mad~n FAY 1663 HI 22 411 71 -5.3 "'Averag" Dilferenoo in ProfociantorHighar Across All GmdllS 

'omde,10: SoclalSlud,aoi, ~risl~':' 61790 1: ;/1': - "'0.' .;1,3' 7, '31" ',,47 6 2 '78 ~;g~,' 4.4 "Al'Ilrag(lDilferoncelnMinimaiAcrossAlIGmd&s 

H 

.. 

Gt_lO 

OOi 

00,- 

joo 

• 

~31) 

f 

Jw 

'" 

&_, 

t 

~ 

:1 n...-r- 

'$ 

100 

j= 

: 15 

" 

t 

1= 


MMSD VS. WisconsIn - ReadIng 

I O~F~Y .w"",""," I 

rn~~ 

GmSe4 G""'o5 Grodo6 Glodo7 


MMSD vs. WisconsIn. Math 

I CM~ FAY mWlsSln I 

&-. -'" 

G

I- "1°. 1°10,1· 10 .10 

I· I· I· .I. ,I" I" 

I 

I- 

I- I- 

l"l 

1- 1° 1° :J ° %N,W'" 

I·I~ I· ';:;1"1" ,. ',''"''",,, 

He I~loI~ 1+1+ 10 %, ",LEe' 

I" I~H~ 

I' l~i"I~ 

'" 

I'I~ 

'" '" . 

,- 

t- 

•.. ~ 

.... I.. 

,_,_ . I· 

%Bo" 

P


Group: Not Econ Disadvantaged 

Grado ! Subject 

1 

j i 

l ~ 

il ~: ~ 

i 

I 1 ~ • 8 ~§ 

w 

~ .. ~ 

E: OW 

~ .~ 

0 Ii 

" 

eg 

W 0 :i •• 

~ 

~ 

* ~ ~ ~ :E''::: 

Z g:.!! !- * • 

B 0 

.0 

* 

* * I 

• 

j~ ~ • * 

I • 

~ ~ 

I l~ 0 

"• 0 

* 

I Grade 3 IReading /Madison' 913 1 o 

~ * * • 

" 

• * 

j 

I j 

-/,: ,; I, ,,: -;-,1, :':: "j ,::' ,1;--:';:"0,, -:~ "I 3 

I GredE>4--IReading- Mad!son 884- 1 0 -'--1 0 2--6 ---30' 61 ---" 91 I 

I~eai!{ni(';" V(;sP;oIj8J_n" _~7.~ 'Sr!;> >;;;'2::/ 7 ! Reading IM""~ I '" o 232471 95 

15 ; 9 " 1 I 

o 

o 

o 

642662 88 

• 

4 

4 

, 

5 

5 

7 

, 

Among the non«OnOmlcally dfsadvant:aged students in MMSO a higher pen::entage of students score In the highest proficiency 

level - Advanced· On the state test compared with similar students across the state. This percentage point difference ranges from 

8 to lS points across aU grade levels in reading, alld between 7 and 13 points In math. 

Among the non-ecooomicaHy disadvantaged students, MMSD has a slightly larger percentage of students scoring In the proficlerlt 

or higher perofrmance levels compared to the same subgroup of students across the entire state. This finding occurs In both 

readl- -~ 

i 

AlSO amOflg non--economicaHy disadvantaged students, MMSD has roughly the same proportion of students scoring at the lowest 

performance !evel- Minimal - as the same subgroup of studentsacross the state (less than 3 percellt in reading and less than 6 

percent In math). 

100 

90 

~ 

80 

~ 

70 

80 

"• 

50 

~ 40 

10 

~ 

30 

8: 

20 



Non Economically Disadvantaged students 

I CII.ad;son IIWisco1l$;n ! 

11 

( III!I 

Grade 3 G'ade4 GradeS Grada!> G,ade7 GradeS G,aOO10 


MMSD vs. Wisconsin - Math 


Je Madison IIIwisconsin! 

':;::.32/': ,':_~/;: ::,::':0', ,;- 7 "c-':87;'< 100T~~==~~;=~~==~~==~~==~~======~ 

00,1..... DO ,-= c: c:: 

35 54 89 

1;\:.;-,4;P : 45 -:;'0'< 9 {~"'~ 3 

37 53 90 

-1 11 ~4 

41 48 

S9 

43 38 

11 1:,::_:86:,/1 3 

S1 

11 r':;'4a\d 3 

• SO 

~ 70 

g • 60 50 

~ 40 

~ 30 

:. 20 

10 

~ 

13_3 13"",.4 Grnd.5 Grade5 Gra


Group: African American 

~ 

E~ 

Jl • 


Group: Hispanic 

I ~ 1* ltil ~ I ~ I I * I ; I i ~ 

!!l 

• 

Q 

~ 

~ 

" j " ~ 

B 

c 

,. 

S 

~ 

11 

~ 

~ 

• B 

c 

~ 

" < 

• 

~ 

~ 

e 

~ 

SO 

70 

Percentage ScorIng Proficient or HIgher 

MMSD vs. WisconsIn - ReadIng 

Hls!!!!n!c Students 

I OMad


Groups: Asian 

Grade I Subject 

I Grade 3!ReadiflQ 

I Grade 4 I Reading 

.! ~ 

e ;:: 

Ji _ z 0 

! I> 

* * 

!. w.5 .. "l- m !il 

 

~ 

g ;: 

...I e IXI ~ 

~ :e * e 

.... ------! 

10 

o .l-UIIL.-LJlil.,..L.IIL,..L 

Grada3 Grade4 GradeS Grado6 Grade7 Grade6 Grade 10 

Percentage Scoring AdVanced 

MMSD vs. Wisconsin· Math 


I CMa


Group: White 

Grade I Subject 

I II ~ ~ 

-. •• i i • i ~ ~ II B· 

.~ 

~E 

• <


Group: Special Education 

" I " " 

e • 

~ 

" .. 

~ 

~ 

• u 

.. • 

~ 

;; 

~ 

I " ~ 

8 

.. 

.. ~ 

" + 

~ 

50 

Percentage ScOring Proficient or Higher 

MMSD vs. Wisconsin· Reading 

Students with Disabilltles 

C~ 

"""""'"" 

45 J 

~40 f- l- f- 

~ 

~35 f- f- l- f- 

il30 l- I- 

~ 25 l- I- 

f 20 I- 

~ 15 

• 

l- I-- 

.. 10 

f- f- f- f- f- 

5 f-f-f-f-f-f- i 

0 I..,. t.,. '"- LI 

Grade$ Grade4 GradeS GladeS Grade7 Grode$ Grade10 


MMSD VS. Wisconsin· ReadIng 

~:: In 

Students with OlsablUtles 

1 CMa:!-. IIW1$eenS1n ! 

I , 

~ 

~ 15 

"15 

• ~ 

~ 10 

E 

.. • 5 

0 

l- I- r 

Ij~ 

I-- I-- l- I- 

LRJ 

Grade 3 Grode>l Grade 5 Grad\l6 G",d(l7 Grode 6 Grade 10 

60 T , 

Percentage Scoring Proficient or HIgher 

MMSO VS. Wisconsin' Math 

________ Isw~d~.ms~fw~·5h~D~"~'~b!"w~'J'~ ! CMs:liun aW!«


Group: English Language Learners (ELL) 

i 

AmOng non-native English speaking students, the students from the MMSD score at roughly equivalents rates In the 

highest proficiency level catEgory - Advanced - In both reading and math when compared with other non-native 

Enalish SPeakers across the state. 

AmOng not-native English speaking students, a consistently higher percentage of MMSO students perform at the 

jlowest proficiency level on the WKeE telts - Minimal· than do other non-native English speakJng students across 

'Tilisls Ihe case in both reading and math. The difference is higher in reading than 


MMSO VS. Wisconsin· Reading 

ELL Students 

,OT'____________ lcc="~;.=···~~····~=;.-~w= .... 

60 

• 

1-1-::= I 

'50 

~ 

~ 40 

R'" 

1 

20 

=······==~d_ ________________ -, 

" o 

GmdeS Gtade4 GradeS Gfade1l Gtad97 GradeS Grade 10 



ELL Students 

rc~~ Q~~ 

~~tfl~------------------------------_1 

'* 16 

~ 14 

W 12 

~ 10 

j , 

l 

" 6 

4 

, 

o 

Gmd83 Gm!e4 Gta:lo5 G._a Gm:IB7 G"""S G",,",10 


MMSO vs. Wisconsin· Math 

ELL Students 

'OT'____________ bl=C~== .. ====.=w ... ==_~.LI _________________, 

60 

•

Principal/IRT Professional Development Meeting 

WKCE DATA ANALYSIS WORKSHOP 

May 1, 2009 

Olson Elementary School, Rooms 135 & 136 

Key Outcomes: 

• Be able to navigate Turnleafto "mine" information from a school's WKCE data. 

• Based upon a school's questions, customize analysis through Turnleaf's tools. 

• Demonstrate a way to "close the data loop" by connecting test results to a school's 

instructional practices. 

• Develop a plan to share data with school's staff. 

8:15 Welcome! 

Overview of morning's work 

8:30 WKCE Data on WINSS: Common Questions 

8:45 WKCE Test Item Experience 

- What do students experience in taking the test? 

- Why is this important in understanding the data? a school's test 

preparation practices? 

9:00 Navigating Turnleaf: Basics of the Tool 

- How is the analysis tool designed? 

- How can I use the tool to answer questions? 

- How can I best discern trends and patterns? 

9:15 Navigating Turnleaf: Proficiency Summary and Longitudinal Data

- How did a school/groups of students perform this fall? 

- How has a school/groups of students performed over time? 

9:30 Navigating Turnleaf: Analysis by Standards 

- How do reading and math results break down by standards? 

- What might these findings mean for instruction? 

9:4S Navigating Turnleaf: Analysis by Items 

- How do standards break down by test items? 

- What might these findings mean for instruction 

10:00 

BREAK 

10:15 

Customized Analysis/Consultation with Instructional Expertise 

11:00 

Planning: How to share the data with your staff? 

11:15 

Next Steps 

Adjourn

I MEMORANDUM - School Information System

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?