The Tipping Point: Using Student-Level Value-Added Data to Influence School Improvement Action Planning

• In Event: Value-Added in Arizona: Specifics, Statistics, and Impact

Abstract

Purpose

Researchers have argued that educators must be proficient in analysis of data to lead to actionable change in instructional design and implementation. A critical factor in these data-informed discussions is the action orientation of the collaborative team (DuFour, 2004, DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Huffman, Hipp, Pankake, & Moller, 2001). It is not simply the process of analyzing data that impacts student learning, rather the educators’ use of the data to influence their instructional decisions. Data are necessary but insufficient to improve student achievement; failure to effectively utilize data to influence school improvement action planning will result in inadequate improvement outcomes (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Power, & Killion, 2010; Guskey, 1995, 2003; Kelleher, 2003).

Perspectives

This study evaluated the impact of teacher and administrator professional development regarding data analysis on student achievement gains as measured by changes to student growth percentiles. Analyses was conducted using student growth percentile data (the rate at which the average student learned at their school compared to academic peers throughout the state) from participating schools who engaged in two distinct professional development opportunities. These professional development sessions included Data Boot Camp workshops (N=28 schools) and Data Basic Training (N=16 schools). Each of these professional development workshops engaged participants in evidence-based (data-informed) collaborative discussions, specifically focused on action planning that was based on student level growth percentile data.

Methods

Student growth percentile data were used to evaluate the impact of these professional development sessions on student achievement. Growth percentiles use multiple years of a students’ test scores to show how students are progressing from year-to-year and to estimate the students’ expected future academic performance (Betebenner, 2008). School data were analyzed for change in student growth percentiles as measured by any positive change in the schools’ median growth percentile scores from 2009 to 2010. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if participating schools were capable of making large changes to their median growth percentiles as well. For this, an increase of ten (10) percentile rank points was deemed significant.

Results

Results indicated that more than half of the participating schools, regardless of the type of workshop attended, increased their median growth percentile ranks in both math and reading. Additionally, results indicate that when schools participated in the more intense professional development, the Data Basic Training, they showed larger increases in median student growth than those that participated in the less intensive Data Boot Camp.

Significance

As schools continue to make decisions regarding professional development for teachers and administrators it is critical that they choose wisely. Although they have financial and resource limitations, failure to choose effective professional development may result in limited impact on student learning and achievement. Findings from this study support the continued use of professional development that focuses on data analysis for data use. But, more importantly, these learning opportunities must include a significant portion of action planning based on individual student achievement data. Furthermore, for schools to accomplish considerable improvement requires additional coaching and intense support to monitor the implementation of their action plans.

Author

• Ildiko I. Laczko-Kerr, Arizona Charter Schools Association