Effective Projects Case Study

Tools for Data Driven Decisions at Keene School District

www.sau29.org

This is a story about a project that started 12/5/2006.

For more information, please contact: Beverly Straneva at bstraneva@sau29.org.

Provide training and tools to help Teacher Trainers implement the NWEA test and analyze this data.

Funding: This project was supported by $9,974 from NCLB Title II-D (Educational Technology) and $8,000 in local funds. The project illustrates how federal funding supports “Data collection and analysis – Implementing individualized instruction by collecting, managing, and analyzing data to inform and enhance teaching and school improvement efforts.” The project addressed the following grades and content areas: 

PreK-2 Gr3-5  Gr6-8  Gr9-12  EngLangArts  Math       

The Setting: Keene School District is a small city in the southwestern corner of the state. Recent budget problems have put a brake on the district’s rich history of supporting technology and professional development, although the district does have technology throughout the district.  The increased emphasis on data analysis through NWEA MAP testing has tied up the computer labs, thus this request to buy more laptops with grant funds, particularly for the middle school.   Training is essential to understand these tests.

The plot: In 2006/07, the middle school walked groups of students to the SW Center for testing, as there were not enough labs to offer this onsite testing. This resulted in a great deal of out of class time, resulting in the loss of instruction time. Many other staff members have requested additional circulating laptops so the plan was to also circulate these throughout the year. Training in the use of data, particularly with NWEA data, consistently came up as a need  during the 2006/07 school year.  The biggest planning challenges for this project was to find the right person to offer data training, specifically with the MAP data, at a time during the summer when teachers could attend this training. All grade levels were invited, but the schools were at different places in the implementation of the MAP test, so the needs were different.   The challenge was to find a trainer skilled in NWEA across all grade levels. Therefore we hired a trainer from NWEA but it was more expensive than originally thought. This was difficult to work with various grade levels at various stages of implementation as far as the training. It was also difficult to offer training in schools  as some schools, and some teachers, were in such different stages of using the MAP tests.  Using the hardware at KMS proved to be easy and it was very helpful to have an additional lab set up with an airport. No classes walked to the SW Center this year. The laptops have been checked out often by district staff members.

The teachers: 20 teachers were directly involved. At the elementary level, the reading teachers and a classroom teacher or the Media Specialists attended the training.  At the middle and high school, teachers from English, Math, Guidance, Special Education and Media Specialist  participated in the training.

The students: All of the Teacher/Trainers agreed to bring information to at least 75% of their building staff prior to the end of Nov. 2007, through staff meetings, one-on-one training or presentations at professional development days.   The training helped teachers analyze the data to create appropriate instruction groups, and set student goals, a direct impact on students. Training also helped classroom teachers understand the reports, view class breakdown by RIT, thereby again helping target instruction to students.  Training was also given to parent groups to help them understand student reports.

The data: Teacher/Trainers  collected data on the numbers of staff trained in each building and submitted their reports to the project manager and their building administrator.  They collected informal feedback from the teachers who attended training, via small focus groups in staff or department meetings, on the impact training offered and new training needed.  The program manager collected data on the summer training and on the staff training from the Teacher/Trainers via hard copy surveys, telephone consults, through standardized questionnaires distributed via email, and also with small focus groups of the trainers.

The difference: NWEA results, fall to spring, will be used as a measure of student achievement. This testing will occur with the same group in the spring.  Additional training needs are being measured in February, 2008, via a district wide Professional Development survey. This data will help drive future Professional Development sessions and help determine other data analysis training. The impact of this project’s training is evident in the number of staff that the Teacher/Trainers have impacted. At the middle school training was done on 1/18 for parents, 10/23 for teachers and during the workshop day of 11/6/07. The various elementary schools offered training at different times all fall, and also many one on one sessions. The high school teachers offered training after school at department meetings.  Data analysis and using data to differentiate instruction is vital to affecting student achievement. The need for in house data teams to help peers examine data as a basis for classroom instruction is needed.

Essential conditions: Essential conditions included the ability to cost share for the laptops and the airport so the mobile lab was useful, and also to cost share for the training, as part came from the grant and part from the SW Center’s fund. This sharing of costs also helped develop a group of local teachers who are potential trainers for the SW Center in future sessions for other districts.

Changes for the future: Implementation changes  The data training would have been more effective if it had been targeted to a school which had been using NWEA MAP for a longer time, giving the Teacher/Trainers more data to examine during the August training.  It may have also been more effective to have this right after a fall test, so the information could be shared immediately with staff as they were looking at their class data. This would have pulled the teacher leaders out of their own classes for training, but the just in time training might have been more useful. A standardized evaluation of the Teacher/Trainers staff training would have been helpful. Several teacher leaders did get feedback on their training, but it was mostly informal.

Recommendations: Utilize local or area trainers as a cost savings measure. More training can be done at a lower cost, and availability of local trainers offers more sustained support.

Telling our story: In January 2008, the Director and Associate Director of CIRTT and one of the teacher leaders, Tracy Shalit, presented current practices in using NWEA data to the School Board.  Information on this grant has also been presented to the principals and SAU professional development committee, and the district’s NWEA implementation committee.

Documents to share:  none at this time