200607 Chats with Pat Sue John

1
2006-07Chats with Pat Sue John
and
2

• Agenda
• Nebraska-led Peer Review of STARS
• Nebraska Student and Staff Record
  System - NSSRS
• Your Questions and Concerns

3
Nebraska-led Peer Review of STARSReasons for
Changing Review Process

• Assurance of Assessment Quality and Best
  Practice, district by district.
• Better and more helpful feedback for districts.
• Increased documentation requirements for NDE and
  USDE.

4
Nebraska-led Peer Review of STARS

• Four Review Weeks
• October 30-Nov 3 -- Kearney Area
• January 22-26 --- Norfolk Area
• March 5-9 --- Lincoln Area
• April 23-27 --- Ogallala, Scottsbluff Areas
• ? 62-77 Districts Per Week
• ? 90 Reviewers Trained (Oct-Jan)
• ? External Assessment Experts Team

5
Important Considerations

• ? In 2003 the rubric was revised for
• 2006-07 updated requirements
• ? Sufficiency
• ? Consistency
• ? Two Met Categories, not three
• ? The Peer Review is based on 2006-
  07 requirements plus Assessing the
  Assessments

6

• Documentation is needed for the
  assessment to be used in reporting 2006-07
  results.
• Review Week results in Preliminary
  Ratings for Part I
• ? Continuing Review
• ? June 30, 2007
• ? September 30, 2007
• ? Assigned by External Review Team, not
  Nebraskans
• ? Public Ratings Fall 2007

7

• ? All districts will be assigned Individual
  Ratings whether working independently,
  collaboratively, or within consortiums.
• ? Each district is responsible for its own
  STARS process

8
State Board Goal

• By 2008 all Nebraska teachers will
• be assessment literate and
• involved in STARS.

9

School Improvement

K-12 Curriculum Alignment K-12 Data Analysis K-12
Instructional Strategies ILCID
10
Tips and Hints

• Reviewers come in districts are at met. Make
  it easy for them to recommend keeping you there.
• Know your process
• Speak to your process
• Unclear or Incomplete- you still have time!
• Discuss with reviewers the best review procedure
  for your district silent read time
  conversation, lunch, etc. Together, set the
  schedule. Accommodate each other.

11

• Provide copies of documentation as requested.
• Courtesy and Professionalism
• Straightforward honesty, good conversation.
  Relax.
• The reviewers task is to gather information only
  they do not judge. Reviewers are your
  advocates.

12
NSSRS

• Nebraska Student and Staff Record System

13
2006-07

• Dual submission of data
• Current reporting process (standards input)
  aggregated data by groups
• NSSRS individual student records supply the
  data
• Current system will be system of record
• Data will be compared to validate the NSSRS system

14
2007-08

• Current system (input screen) will no longer
  exist
• NSSRS will be in its place
• STARS and AYP will be calculated by NDE from
  student STARS data

15
2007-08 continued

• Data will be submitted in electronic files
• Software vendors will need to assist with this
  process

16
Reporting on Standards in the NSSRS

• State Standards full set Preloaded by NDE
• State STAR Standards Preloaded by NDE
• Local Standards full set Preloaded from
  2005-06 State of School Report
• Local STAR Standards Must be loaded by district
• Alternate Assessment Standards Preloaded by NDE

17
Grade-level Expectations in the NSSRS

• Grade level Expectations (Grades 3,5,6,7 or
  non-benchmark years) will need to be loaded and
  reported by all districts.
• All districts will report on either standards or
  grade level expectations in grades 3-8 and 11 (or
  once in the high school)

18
NSSRS Process

• Data submitted via a template
• Data verification process
• Review verification report and update records as
  appropriate (summary counts, e.g. Fall Personnel,
  Fall Membership, Aggregated Assessment Report)

19
NSSRS Process, continued

• Run validation reports and update data in the
  database (errors and warnings)
• District Administrator moves data to
  reporting/production database

20
Key Things to Note2007-2008

• Assessment data may be submitted beginning in
  January
• Deadline for assessment data submission is June
  30th
• Changes to data during 10 day window starting
  August 1 (close by August 14th)
• Calculation of STARS and AYP reports by NDE based
  on the student STARS data

21
Key Things to Note, continued

• Changes to data during 10 day window starting
  August 1 (close by August 14th)
• Calculation of STARS and AYP reports by NDE based
  on the student STARS data

22
NSSRS Templates

• Student Templates
• Student
• Student Snapshot
• School Enrollment
• Student Summary Attendance

23
NSSRS Templates

• Assessment Templates
• Standard (Assessment Item Response)
• Student Indicators (Assessment Fact)
• Student Achievement (Assessment Response)

24
Start Page
Click on the this box to enter assessment Template
s.
25
Assessment Item Response
Click on the Assessment Item Reponse (Standard)
26
Standard (Assessment Item Response)

• County District Number
• Assessment STARS
• School Year 2007 - 06-30
• Identify Subject/Grade Select math or reading
  and grade level like Reading 04 or Mathematics
  08

27
Standard (Assessment Item Response)

• Standards preloaded - Standard Code (4.1.1) and
  Standard Description (Local and State Standards)
• State STARS Standards
• State Standards full slate
• Local STAR Standards
• Local Standards full slate
• Alternate State STAR Standards
• State and Local Grade level expectations loaded
  by district (non benchmark)

28
State or Local STANDARDS

• Districts with STATE standards will have
  standards preloaded for the benchmark years will
  be 4, 8, and 11.
• Districts with LOCAL standards will be loaded
  from the Assessment 2006 input web site.
  Benchmark years have been determined by district.
• All districts will report either standards or
  grade-level expectations for grades 3-8 and 11
  (or once in the high school)

29
Assessment Fact
Click on Assessment Fact (Student Indicators)
30
Student Indicators(Assessment Fact)

• County District Number
• Assessment STARS or STARS alternate
• School Year
• Subject/Grade
• Test Date
• NDE Student ID 10-digit NDE student identifier
• School Number

31
Student Indicators(Assessment Fact)

• Assessment Status
• Assessed
• Not Assessed - Other
• Medical waiver
• Parent waiver
• Testing Modification (1-yes 2-no yesout of
  grade level)

32
Student Indicators(Assessment Fact)

• District Full Academic Year Indicator (1-yes 2-
  no 3- no, new immigrant)
• Testing Accommodation (1-yes 2-no)
• School Full Academic Year Indicator (1-yes 2-no
  3- no, new immigrant)

33
Assessment Response
34
Student Achievement(Assessment Response)

• County District Number
• Assessment (STARS or STARS Alternate)
• School Year 2007- 06-30 (pre-populated in the
  desktop database)
• Subject/Grade
• Test Date 2007-06-30 (pre-populated in the
  desktop database)
• NDE Student ID

35
Student Achievement(Assessment Response)

• Standard Code from Standard Template
• School Number
• Achievement Level Code (Title One Schools)
• Advanced 4
• Proficient 3
• Progressing 2
• Beginning 1
• Not Assessed N
• Moved M

36
Student Achievement(Assessment Response)

• Achievement Level Code (Non Title One Schools)
• Met 9
• Not Met 8
• Not Assessed N
• Moved M

37
Feedback from the Field Reviewer Observations

• Best Practice Poor Practice

38
District Quotes

• Overall it was good. The reviewers stated
  that they were only going to collect data and
  provide feedback. This was much better than the
  paper portfolio process. I liked the
  conversations and the dialogue was good. It gave
  us an opportunity to add what we needed in the
  process. This was very helpful.

39

• It went great. The reviewers provided good
  information. We liked the conversational
  exchange of information. It was very positive.
  We were anxious but within five minutes, the
  reviewers lowered our anxiety levels. This
  process needs to be continued for all subjects.
  We have gone full circle in the last few years.
  We were dead set against STARS but now we are
  100 in support. We thought that you would send
  out gray-haired, retired superintendents to
  review us, so we really appreciated having peers.

40
Less painful than we thought. The reviewers
were human and compassionate and they didnt have
horns and tails like we thought they might. They
(reviewers) were very amicable. It was
great.The review went very well. They were
intense, insightful questions and they gave us
good suggestions about reliability. They let us
tell our story. It (the review) was
professional.
41
It went pretty well. The reviewers were
friendly. It was a good experience.