Data-Driven Conversations with Special Education Teachers and Administrators to

Improve Student Outcomes and State Accountability

Emily Wolk

Department of Research and Evaluation

Santa Ana Unified School District

1

Quick Overview

• Who We Are – SAUSD Demographic Data

• The Problem– Low achievement of Students Participating in

Special Education

• The Study and What We Found

• What We Did to Improve Our Outcomes

2

Santa Ana Unified School District At a Glance

• 53,104 Enrolled in K-12– 36 elementary; 9 intermediate; 10 high schools– 95.4% Hispanic– 58.3% English Learner– 77.3% Socio-Eco Disadvantaged– 9.1% Special Education

• 68% Mild/Moderate and 32% Moderate/Severe• 79% Special Ed. and English Learners

– 89% at or below Intermediate on CELDT

3

The ProblemLow Achievement of Students Participating in Special Education State and Federal Accountability Indicators

API 4 Year Summary

2007 Growth

2008 Growth

2009 Growth

2010 Growth

TLL 4-yr Growth

SAUSD 669 685 706 723 54Students with

Disabilities 479 488 497 519 40

4

  STAR ELA 2009 STAR ELA 2010

 Percent Proficient Target:

45%Percent Proficient Target:

56%

District District-wide Spec Ed District-wide Spec Ed

SAUSD 38.4% 18.5% 40.5% 21.9%

  4.7% 2.9% 2.1% 3.4%

Total # 32,961 2,960 31,855 3,026

Our Challenges . . . • Use of Accommodations and Modifications

– Rarely used– But, if used, what was used may not have been the most effective at

supporting students during testing • “supervised breaks” and “beneficial time of day”

• Issues with the Special Education Information System (SEIS)– Drop down menus did/do not match up with CDE Accommodations and

Modifications Matrix– No drop down menu for CMA, teachers must type

• Sites received conflicting information regarding testing regulations and guidelines related to accommodations and modifications

• Alignment of instruction to how students were being tested• IEP goals• Training, training, training

– Fully trained and the “right” training– Creating IEP

5

What did we do to address these issues?

• Analyzed data from STAR file to determine

– which students were given which test

– which accommodations and modifications were used and how these students performed

– How students with various disabilities performed based on the test they took and accommodations or modifications that were provided

• Created reports to make the data accessible to and understandable for administrators, program specialists and special education teachers

• Provided overall findings based on students’ primary disability

• And, training, training and training for every administrator, program specialist and special education teacher

6

Frequency Percent

CAPA I 94 2.4

CAPA II-V 384 10.0

CMA with Accommodations 531 13.8

CMA Only 731 19.1

CST with Accommodations & Modifications 25 .7

CST with Modifications Only 12 .3

CST with Accommodations Only 380 9.9

CST (with Disability Code) No Accommodations or Modifications

1,680 43.8

Total * STAR File 3,837 100

SAUSD Special Education2009-2010 STAR ELA File by Test Taken

7

Most Common CMA Accommodations: Test Read Aloud (n=296), Supervised Breaks (n=225), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=109)Most Common CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=300), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=97), Tested More than One Day (n=40)

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2009-2010

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 528CST Refusals

(n=311)CMA Refusals

(n=226)

8

We also examined:Students with the following primary disabilities:•Autism•Intellectual Disability•Speech and Language•Etc.

SAUSD Special Education (Specific Learning Disability)STAR ELA 2009-2010

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 328

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 9

The Layout of Your Report

Fields J-Y: 2009-10 Disability Information, Test Taken, Score,

Accommodation/Modifcation

Field I: English

Proficiency

Field Z-AB: 2008-09

(previous year test, scale score

Field AC: Case Manager

10

The Process for Looking At The Data: Next Steps

Review the District Special Education Data

Look for trends and patterns by

test taken

Look for trends and patterns by

disability

Look at your site level Special

Education report, student by

student

IEP team may decide student may be best

served taking the same test with the

same accommodations

[modifications]

Student scored

proficient or advanced

Student’s

score

increased

from previous

year

IEP team may decide student is best served taking the same test

with the same accommodations

[modifications]

Student scored Basic

IEP team should review students’ performance and

decide whether student should be tested using an

alternate test and/or different accommodation

[modification]Student

scored Below

Basic or Far

Below Basic IEP team should review students’ performance and

decide whether student should be tested using an alternate test [or different

accommodation/modification]

Look for trends and patterns by

test performance level

Look for trends and patterns by

disability performance level

How does EL proficiency come into play?

11

Easy to Use Usage Forms

12

Our ResultsSAUSD STAR Percent Proficient

District-wide and Special Education2009-2010 and 2010-11

API 4 Year Summary

2007 Growth

2008 Growth

2009 Growth

2010 Growth

TLL 4-yr Growth

2011 Growth

TLL 5-yr Growth

SAUSD 669 685 706 723 54 740 71Students with

Disabilities 479 488 497 519 40 584 105

13

  STAR ELA 2010 STAR ELA 2011

 Percent Proficient Target:

56%Percent Proficient Target:

67%District District-wide Spec Ed District-wide Spec EdSAUSD 40.5% 21.9% 44.3% 32.4%

  2.1% 3.4% 3.8% 10.5%Total # 31,855 3,026 32,062 3,276

What We Learned

• Creating access to data and making it understandable improves student performance on state and federal indicators

• Discussing findings with special education teachers and administrators increases their knowledge about testing and testing accommodations and modifications

• Working closely with special education improves the consistency and accuracy of the information being disseminated to sites

• Providing student lists disaggregated at the school and case manager level assists with monitoring student achievement and “best fit”

14

Contact Information

Department of Research and Evaluation

Emily Wolk

714-558-5793

emily.wolk@sausd.us

15

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 1491

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 16

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2010-2011 2nd Grade Only

Performance Levels by Test Taken

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 17

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2009-2010 and 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 109

18

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2009-2010 and 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 528

Most Common ‘10-’11 CMA Accommodations.: Read Aloud (n=1256), Supervised Breaks (n=549), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=206)Most Common ‘09-’10 CMA Accommodations: Read Aloud (n=296), Supervised Breaks (n=225), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=109)

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis

CMA ‘09-’10 Refusals (n=226)

CMA ‘10-’11 Refusals (n=175)

19

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR ELA 2009-2010 & 2010-2011Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 6

Most Common ‘10-’11 CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=202), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=69), Tested More than One Day (n=67)Most Common ‘09-’10 CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=300), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=97), Tested More than One Day (n=40)

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis

CST ‘09-’10Refusals (n=311)

CST ‘10-’11(n=172)

20

SAUSD Special Education (Intellectual Disability)STAR ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 11

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 21

SAUSD Special Education (Specific Learning Disability)STAR ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 1077

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 22

SAUSD Special Education (Autism)STAR ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 84

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 23

SAUSD Special Education (Speech & Language)STAR ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels by Test Taken

n= 57

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 24

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR CMA ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels of Students Using Accommodations

n= 1709

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 25

SAUSD Special EducationSTAR CST ELA 2010-2011

Performance Levels of Students Using Accommodations

n= 1060

*Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 26