Data Analysis 30
Data Analysis for School Improvement:
Academic Improvement of Students at Buckman Heights Elementary School
Lisa Farina, Daniel Fontanez, Andrew Grantham, Suzanne Maxim, Daniel McAlpin, Amy McGinn, Jamie Naple, James Tiffin, & Sean VanHatten
St. John Fisher College
GEDA: 563
Dr. Diane Reed and Professor Shaun Nelms
February 26, 2011
Table of Contents:
Introduction 3
Demographics 6
Comparison Report 10
Perceptions 14
Candidates Learning 17
School Processes 18
Interaction and Analysis of Data for School Improvement Plan 22
References 28
Appendix A: Buckman Heights Student Ethnicity 30
Appendix B: School Culture Survey 31
Appendix C: School Improvement Plan – Walk to Excellence 33
Appendix D: School Improvement Plan – Peer Coaching 35
Introduction
“Data provide the power to…make good decisions, work intelligently, work effectively and efficiently, change things in better ways, know the impact of our hard work, help us prepare for the future, and know how to make our work benefit all children” (Bernhardt, 2004). Although school leaders and teachers may feel trepidation as they begin to embark on the venture of data-driven decision-making, they have been called to do so at the national level. President Obama has initiated “Race to The Top,” the largest investment into school reform in history. The Federal Government has allocated more than a billion dollars in order to provide incentive for success in today’s schools. One aspect of the “Race to The Top” program includes using data to inform decisions to improve instruction. By fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system, and by providing training and support, educators can begin to use data to improve instruction, and make information more accessible to parents, teachers and other key stakeholders (Whitehouse.gov).
Schools across the nation are swimming in data, but may not have the skills or knowledge to how to use it correctly. Bernhardt (2004) asserts that “Schools do not deliberately ignore data. Typically, schools say we have lots of data; we just don’t know what data to use, or how or when to use them” (p. 6). Data really gives educators a global perspective or aerial view of the business and the school system. Bernhardt suggests, “….businesses not properly analyzing and using data, more often than not, are not successful” (p. 2). School systems are no different. Both quantitative and qualitative data gives the historical perspectives of the school in order to see what has occurred over a given time period. Data allows leaders to interpret what to do next. Ken Blanchard states, “People without information cannot act. People with information cannot help but act” (as cited in Bernhardt, 2004, p. 2). With the increase of innovative technology and databases designed specifically for schools, data should be natural and comfortable for all involved. However, Bernhardt (2004) states that very few schools within the United States take the time to use data to understand the needs of children being served (p. 3). Data has to be given to stakeholders and discussed. Staff should be made aware that data is not punitive; rather, it should drive instruction. Data provides guidance in establishing a new purpose for school(s) and in understanding how to reach its goals. Data must be analyzed using multiple measures versus analyzing just clusters or through item analysis on a test. In order to gain an understanding of all of the stakeholders involved we must look at the demographics of a school, the perceptions of the school, student learning within the school, and the school processes (Bernhardt, 2004).
This study will use Victoria’s Bernhardt’s (2004) approach to analyzing data as a guideline to the evaluation of school processes and student success. The approach she takes “…is a systematic, systemic, continuous improvement approach-we want to systematically gather and analyze data that will help us understand the system that produces the results we are getting. Then use the data to continually improve the system and, ultimately, to improve our results” (p. 13).
Greece Central School District is the largest suburban school district in Monroe County and seventh largest in New York State. The district is similar to many others that struggle with accountability, curriculum development, and implementation of instructional programs that demonstrate positive results for all of its students. Greece Central School District is in good standing for the 2008-2009 school year and met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). However, the district is currently not making AYP on the ELA assessment at the secondary level involving the subgroups of students with disabilities. All of the elementary schools in the district, including Buckman Heights Elementary, the focus of this study, are currently in good standing and made AYP on all measures. However, recent assessment results indicate that there are areas that necessitate improvement. In the 2008-2009 school year 73% of students received a Level 3 on the New York State English Language Arts test indicating that the students met grade-level proficiency. Only 1% received a Level 4, indicating student knowledge is above grade-level proficiency, on the same test which is a 3% decrease from the prior year. The decrease in the rate of level 4’s does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in program or staff ability, but does offer an opportunity for improvement and growth in the building.
A single data measure, such as the NYS ELA test, will not provide the road map for school improvement. Real analysis must be done on a sufficiently large collection of items so they can arrive at a reasonable and accurate judgment about a student’s mastery of a skill (Popham, 2011). Real analysis must also include the context, how students, staff, and families are feeling about teaching and learning, the methods and practices of instruction, and the variety of quality programs available to students. As Bernhardt (2004) states,
Analysis of demographics, perceptions, student learning and school processes provide a powerful picture that will help us understand the school’s impact on school achievement. When used together, these measures give schools the information they need to improve teaching and learning and get positive results (p.20).
Using the ideology of Bernhardt (2004) as a basis, this study will evaluate and quantify current issues in the building to better understand the lack of improvement on State mandated ELA exams at the fourth-grade level. Also, this study will evaluate the various contributing factors that will eventually lead to improvement of school processes and student learning.
Demographics
“Demographics build the context of the school and help to predict future conditions.” (Bernhardt, 2004, p. 32). Demographic data such as enrollment, attendance, grade level, ethnicity, gender, and native language are vital to the understanding of the education system of Buckman Heights School. The demographic data provided in this study will glean information and trends for purposes of predictions and planning. The demographics presented in this study for Buckman Heights, taken from the school report card and Common Formative Assessments, will provide clarity as to who the “clients” of this school are and the human characteristics of the school (Bernhardt, 2004). An analysis and review of poverty, teacher turn-over, number of students with disabilities as well as ethnicity will be presented.
Buckman Heights Elementary school is one of thirteen elementary buildings in the Greece Central School District. The Greece Central School district is located in Monroe County in Central New York State. It is the largest suburban school district in Monroe County and seventh largest in New York State, serving 12,298 students in the 2008-2009 school year. In addition to the thirteen elementary schools which serve students in grades pre-kindergarten through fifth grade, the district has four middle schools and four high schools. The district also has the International Bacchorelaute primary years programme at the elementary level and the secondary year programme at one high school.
The total enrollment in the 2007-2008 school year was 12,733 students, which was a decrease of 1% compared to the 2008-2009 year. In the 2008-2009 school year, the district employed 1,058 teachers, 134 other professional staff, 342 paraprofessionals, 29 assistant principals, and 20 principals. The annual attendance rate has increased from 93%in the 2006-2007 school year to 94% in the 2007-2008 school year. The student suspension rate has increased 1% from 2006-2007 school year from 8% to 9% in the 2007-2008 school year.
According to The New York State 2008-2009 School Report Card, the amount of free and reduced lunch, which is an indicator of poverty, vary greatly amongst schools within the district. For the 2008-2009 school year, 23% of students were eligible for free lunch. This percentage was an increase of 1% from the 2007-2008 school year. Additionally, 11% were eligible for reduced lunch which has increased by 1% from the 2007-2008 school year as well.
Buckman Heights School is an intermediate building housing students in grades 3-5 and is primarily dominated by a white student population (see Appendix A). According to the New York State School Report Card reporting for the 2008-2009 school year, the total population at Buckman Heights was 348 students. Third grade had six sections, fourth grade had five sections, and fifth grade had six sections. Each grade has one inclusion classroom. Within the inclusion classrooms there is a general education teacher and a special education consultant teacher. There is an 8:1:1 classroom as well as a 12:1:1 classroom in the building.
Buckman Heights is the only intermediate, elementary building in the district that was authorized as a Primary Years Programme (PYP) in February, 2007. There are only three other PYP schools in New York State and346 PYP schools worldwide. The goal for the International Bacchorelaute Organization is to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people who help create a better and more peaceful world though intercultural understanding and respect (IBO, 2000). The school’s own curriculum is developed on an ongoing basis within the framework of the Primary Years Programme, which is designed for students between the ages of 3-12 years. The PYP curriculum framework provides for the development of the whole child with an emphasis on internationalism. The PYP combines the best research and practice from a range of national systems with a wealth of knowledge and experience from international schools to create a significant, relevant, engaging and challenging educational framework for children. It is important to note that even though the school was authorized in 2007, the initial planning took place in the 2003-2004 school year. During the 2004-2005 school year, teachers began writing the IB planners and partially implementing them. This varied from grade level to grade level. During the 2005-2006 school year, IB was fully implemented into the school and all staff were expected to be implementing the curriculum. During the 2006-2007 school year, the IB authorization committee came to Buckman Heights for two days to evaluate and grant authorization.
There are a few different trends that occurred in relation to this timeline. In the 2005-2006 school year, the staff turnover rate was at 22%. During the same school year, 17% of students scored a level 4 (exceeding state standard) on the ELA, but in the years to come the scores dropped significantly. Table 1 displays the percentages of students who scored a level 4 and the total teacher turnover rate at Buckman Heights School.
Table 1: IB Implementation Timeline, Teacher Turn-Over, and Student Proficiency
School Year / IB Implementation Stage / NYS ELA- Percents of students that scored a 4 / Total Teacher Turn-over rate2003/04 / Initial planning phase and training / 13% / N/A
2004/05 / Partial implementation of IB. Teachers begin to write planners in teams / 17% / N/A
2005/06 / IB unofficially implemented in its entirety / 4% / 11%
2006/07 / IB authorization committee comes to authorize Buckman Heights / 4% / 22%
2007/08 / B.H. is an authorized IB school / 4% / 14%
2008/09 / B.H. is an authorized IB school / 1% / Not available
Buckman Heights is a title I school. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the purpose of Title 1 funding, “is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education. The expectation is that students reach, at minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.” The basic principles of Title 1 state that schools with large concentrations of low-income students will receive supplemental funds to assist in meeting student’s educational goals. Low-income students are determined by the number of students enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. For an entire school to qualify for Title 1 funds, at least 40% of students must enroll in the free and reduced lunch program. Forty-three percent of students are eligible for free or reduced lunches at Buckman Heights School.
Buckman Heights has seen a steady decline in its student suspensions with a 3% student suspension rate for the 2007-2008 school year (9 students). Buckman Heights is currently in the training phase of implementing Positive Behavior Interventions and supports (PBIS) to address student behavior and positive social skills. The annual attendance rate at Buckman Heights was 98% for 2008-2009.
According to the New York State Report Card, for the 2008-2009 school year Buckman had 29 teachers, 1 vice principal, and 1 principal. Amongst staff members, racial diversity is nearly non-existent. The majority of staff members are of Caucasian decent and the staff is predominately female. There are four male members of the instructional/professional staff and one male member of the paraprofessional staff.