Strike Up the (Proficiency) Bands! (Data Director FAQ)

Data Director Frequently Asked Question #2: Why are the percentages on the pre-test proficiency bands different than the post-test proficiency bands?

Proficiency bands in Data Director are not just visual representations of how your students performed on an assessment; they are a useful tool in terms of making MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) decisions to enhance your students' learning.

The main reason that the proficiency bands change from the pre-test to the post-test in Data Director is because the data from those tests are used in different ways.

Unit pre-tests are formative assessments designed to guide instruction during the unit. The color bands indicate what sort of instruction the students within each level will need.



Starting in the middle, the students in the yellow Core band (students who scored between 69-79% on the pre-test) are the students who are ready for regular instruction during the unit. In other words, these are the students whose prior skills and knowledge make it likely that they'll be proficient at the end of the unit without extra support beyond your regular instruction.

Above them are the green Enrichment band for students who scored between 79-89%, and the blue Enrichment+ band for students who scored above 89%. These students have already demonstrated proficiency on the knowledge and skills that will be taught throughout the unit; they are ready for enriched instruction above and beyond what is normally taught during the unit.

Students in the orange Core+*classroom support* band scored between 49-69% on the pre-test. These students may need extra support beyond regular classroom instruction to become proficient by the end of the unit. Students in the red Intensive Core+ band scored below 49% on the pre-test, and will definitely need extra support throughout the unit in order to bring their knowledge and skills up to proficiency for the post-test.

Unit post-tests are formative assessments designed to guide re-teaching after the unit. The color bands indicate your students' proficiency on the knowledge and skills taught throughout the unit. For students who aren't proficient at the end of the unit, the bands indicate how much re-teaching they will need to reach proficiency.



Students in the green Proficient band (79-99%) and the blue Advanced band (at least 99%, which essentially means a perfect score for our unit post-tests) have demonstrated their proficiency on the skills and knowledge taught during the unit, and are not in need of any re-teaching.

Students in the remaining three bands need some sort of re-teaching to reach proficiency. In the yellow Close to Proficient band (69-79%) are students who probably don't need much re-teaching in order to demonstrate proficiency for the unit. On a 20-question post-test, a student in the yellow band only needed one or two more correct answers to make it to green.

Students in the orange Needs Additional Intervention band (49-69%) and the red Needs Substantial Intervention band (49% and below) will need more help to reach proficiency. These are students with significant gaps in their understanding of the skills and knowledge taught throughout the unit, and will likely need a considerable amount of re-teaching in order to become proficient.

One of the best ways to ensure that more of your students reach proficiency on the post-test is to formatively assess their skills and knowledge throughout the unit, and then use the information gained from those formative assessments to guide your instruction. Regular formative assessments that are connected to the Iowa Core standards that your students are working on will keep you better informed on their progress throughout the unit, and will make it easier for you to meet their individual learning needs in your classroom.

Shanahan on Literacy: 10 Arguments Against Common Core that Presidential Hopefuls Should Avoid

If you've spent much time on social media, you probably have more than one Facebook friend or fellow tweeter who posts all sorts of warnings about the common core. This blog post by Tim Shanahan provides an excellent response to so many of those CC conspiracy theories:

Shanahan on Literacy: 10 Arguments Against Common Core that Presidential Hopefuls Should Avoid

Data Celebration: Statistics and Probability in 6th Grade Math

One of my goals for the second half of the 2014-2015 school year is to use this blog to celebrate some of the growth we can see through our student data at Southeast Polk. I'll kick off those celebrations with the growth we've seen from our sixth grade math students in the area of statistics and probability.

For the past three years, our sixth graders have been assessed on four statistics and probability standards:

• MA.6.6.SP.1 Recognize a statistical question as one that anticipates variability in the data related to the question and accounts for it in the answers.
• MA.6.6.SP.2 Understand that a set of data collected to answer a statistical question has a distribution which can be described by its center, spread, and overall shape.
• MA.6.6.SP.4 Display numerical data in plots on a number line, including dot plots, histograms, and box plots.
• MA.6.6.SP.5 Summarize numerical data sets in relation to their context.

AVERAGE SCORES

The average scores of our sixth grade math students rose in all four students, including a jump of 14 percentage points from last year in standard SP.2.

PROFICIENCY LEVELS

Last year, sixth grade math students met our district proficiency goal by scoring at least 80% in only two of the four statistics and probability standards. This year, they met that goal in all four standards, including a fantastic leap from 52% to 83% of our students testing proficient for standard SP.2.

STUDENTS WITH IEP's

Another impressive gain was made by our special education students. Last year, only one-third of IEP students tested proficient in unit 5, where all four statistics and probability standards were assessed. This year, 44 out of 55 IEP students scored at least 80% on the unit 5 post-test. 

Sixth grade math students include most of the students at Spring Creek, as well as 35 accelerated fifth graders. 

Common Core Mythbusting

If you've been on Facebook for any amount of time, one of your online friends has probably posted a video similar to this one:

There is a plethora of videos similar to this one, and most of them have sensationalized, click-bait titles:

• Arkansas Mother Obliterates Common Core in Four Minutes!
• COMMON CORE MATH MAKES SIMPLE ARITHMETIC AS COMPLEX AS CALCULUS!
• Proof Common Core is Killing Common Sense
• Teaching Math in Bizarro World
• New Common Core Math Doesn't Add Up
• Common Core Teacher Takes Nearly a Minute to Solve 9+6=15
• Common Core Assignment Makes No Sense to Dad
• Common Core Makes Me Mad

Along with the headlines, these videos tend to share a common two-pronged thesis: There is a specific Common Core method in math, and it is ridiculously hard and confusing in comparison to how math has traditionally been taught. 

For anyone who accepts the information in these videos at face-value, this is an effective argument. The method shown in the video I've posted and in so many others does seem at first to be overly-complicated, especially when explained in a confusing manner by someone whose intent is to make you believe that it is. And we're all familiar enough with basic addition and subtraction that when the video goes on to make a comparison to the carry and borrow method we learned in grade school, our initial reaction is probably agreement with the narrator that it doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, in education, we're not in the business of accepting information at face value, and a critical look at either part of the argument shows that there is nothing complex about it, that it does add up in a way that is far more natural for the human brain than borrowing and carrying, and that it makes perfect sense when explained well by a good teacher. 

The first part of the anti-Core argument--that there is a specific method prescribed by the Core--is patently false. There isn't one, and I would challenge anyone who says there is to go to the Common Core website or the excellent Iowa Core website and find it. (For that matter, I would encourage anyone to explore these sites whether they believe the myth or not, just to be more informed about the standards that have become so vital in American education.)

The second part of the argument--that "Common Core math" is confusing and over-complicated--involves a little more critical thinking. In the case of the video above, it took a second viewing for me to realize that what was being shown was simply how I do math in my head. It's been said that there are three kinds of people: Those who are good at math, and those who aren't. (On Facebook, that sentence would be followed by an obligatory "LOL.") That may be true to an extent, but for many people who struggle with mental math, it's possible they're trying to carry and borrow in their heads. That method works well on paper, but poorly when attempted mentally. Mental math is a different animal, and it looks like the method that is ridiculed in so many anti-Core videos. 

In fact, when it's explained by a teacher whose purpose is for his students to learn an effective math strategy, it's not complicated at all.

For more information on debunking Common Core mythology, google "Common Core myths."

The Signal and the Noise

The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth.
--Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise

The Signal and the Noise is my favorite book about statistical analysis. (Yes, I have a favorite book about statistical analysis. Don't judge.) The book's author Nate Silver runs a website called FiveThirtyEight.com, a name derived from the number of electoral votes in United States presidential elections. Silver is most famous for correctly predicting the electoral results of 49 out of 50 states in the 2008 presidential election, and then topping that feat by correctly predicting all 50 in 2012.

In the book, Silver discusses how we humans naturally observe and seek out patterns, and how we often fail to successfully make accurate predictions based on those observations. This is in part because there is so much information out there, and much of the information is noise. It distracts us from what we really need to know to accurately analyze the information available to us.

Thanks to unit pre and post tests in math and ELA (as well as those that are now being developed in other subject areas), we have a wealth of data about our students and their proficiency on a wide range of Iowa Core standards. As Southeast Polk's assessment coordinator, I have been looking for ways to share more and more data with teachers, coaches, and administrators to help facilitate our common goal of raising student achievement. Using Data Director, Infinite Campus, and Excel, I've been able to develop reports not only on overall test data, but also on subgroups based on IEP, ELL, TAG, and gender. I've gone back and found historical data in these areas as well. And I think this is probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what sort of data could be available to everyone.

The problem becomes how to deal with all of that data. How do we decide what is important right now, what needs to be observed for future patterns, and what can be dismissed? How do we separate the signal from the noise?

The answer lies in the data team process. A strong data team has the ability to hone in on the signal, on the important truths that our unit assessment data can tell us about what our students are doing well, and in what areas they need more help. I've been privileged enough to attend a few data team meetings since the start of the school year, and I'm looking forward to hopefully making them a more regular part of my schedule as the year progresses.

If you're interested in reading The Signal and the Noise, it's available at Amazon.com and many other retailers. I also have a copy of it in my office that I would love to loan out. Send me an email if you want to borrow it!