Data: The Afternoon Presentation

Brian Boughagain

Goals of the Data Unit

• Work to get the data to the schools in a usable format! – Data Dashboard– Data Warehouse

• Work more closely with the Special Education Unit

• Continue to push forward the reporting calendar to stop last-minute reporting (see: Table 2)

Special Education Enrollment by Year

SY 2008-09 6,730SY 2009-10 6,747SY 2010-11 6,801

15-17% of the overall BIE population.

SpEd Enrollment by Age and by Year

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

SY 2008-09SY 2009-10SY 2010-11

SpEd Enrollment by Disability

SPEC

IFIC LE

ARNING DISABILIT

IES

SPEE

CH OR LA

NGUAGE IMPAIRMEN

TS

OTHER

HEALTH

IMPAIRMEN

TS

DEVELO

PMENTA

L DELA

Y

EMOTIO

NAL DIST

URBANCE

MENTA

L RET

ARDATION

MULTIPLE

DISABILIT

IES

AUTISM

HEARING IM

PAIRMENTS

TRAUMATIC

BRAIN INJU

RY

ORTHOPED

IC IMPAIRMEN

TS

VISUAL IM

PAIRMENTS

DEAF-B

LINDNES

S0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Disability Trend

SPEC

IFIC LE

ARNING DISABILIT

IES

SPEE

CH OR LA

NGUAGE IMPAIRMEN

TS

OTHER

HEALTH

IMPAIRMEN

TS

EMOTIO

NAL DIST

URBANCE

MENTA

L RET

ARDATION

DEVELO

PMENTA

L DELA

Y

MULTIPLE

DISABILIT

IES

AUTISM

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

SY2008-09SY2009-10SY2010-11

Environments

SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-110.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

A (80+%)B (40-79%)C (<40%)D-H

Percent of time spent with peers in regular classroom environment.

Assessment Type - Mathematics

G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 HS0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

RegReg w AccAlt-GLAlt-ModAlt-Alt

Assessment Type - Reading

G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 HS0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

RegReg w AccAlt-GLAlt-ModAlt-Alt

Assessment ResultsPercent Proficient or Advanced

AllGenEd

LEPSpEd

SpEd&LEP

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

MathReading

Reading Achievement by Group

G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 HS0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

AllGenEdLEPSpEdSpEd+LEP

Percent Proficient or Advanced

Mathematics Achievement by GroupPercent Proficient or Advanced

G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 HS

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

AllGenEdLEPSpEdSpEd+LEP

Why no trend lines?• Many states changed tests between SY 2008-

09 and SY 2009-10. • Data Unit changed how it collected student

information in SY 2009-10 (student level rather than aggregated to subgroup level by grade).

• No major differences across years.• Continued theoretical qualms with assessment

comparisons.

No Child Left Behind - AYP

AYP Indicators

Elementary Middle High

Math Participation

Math Achievement

Reading Participation

Reading Achievement

Science Administration

Other Attendance Attendance Graduation

AYP???

• More assessments?• Writing, Science, Social Studies?• Music and Arts?

Two Reauthorizations• IDEA is due for reauthorization – leave that

discussion to the professionals.• ESEA is also due for reauthorization.• BIE advocates:– Using the Smarter and Balanced Assessment

Consortium Common Core Standards– Use the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)

assessment– Specifically, move to a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT)– Implement a Growth Model

Vision• Accountability system is meaningful• Accountability system is consistent across BIE• Accountability system, course standards

(curricula), and assessments are all aligned• Intervention in curricula and instruction are

well-defined• DPA serves as a comprehensive statewide

system of support for schools on matters of program implementation and school improvement

What about Special Education?• NCLB was good in the fact that it established

measurable goals and assessments to measure progress toward those goals

• NCLB was good in the fact that it held all sub-groups (such as Special Education) to the same standards as the All Student group

• What should a new accountability system do to address the question of whether Special Education Programs are education their students?