K OU R T N E Y B E T L E R

U N I V E R S I T Y OF MOU N T U N I ON
EQUITY AUDIT & ROOT
CAUSE ANALYSIS
DATA SET DESCRIPTION
Class of 2015, 3-year longitudinal analysis
Mathematics OAA, Grade 7
Mathematics OAA, Grade 8
Mathematics OGT, Grade 10

Data Set
157 students
Analysis Categories: Gender, Ethnicity,
Socioeconomic Status, IEP/Gifted Status

DATA SET SNAPSHOT
SUBGROUP DESCRIPTION
Racial Subgroups
White (85.4 %)
African American (7.0 %)
American Indian or Alaskan Native (0.6 %)
Hispanic/Latino (2.0 %)
Multiracial (5.1 %)
Economically Disadvantaged (42.0 %)
IEP & Gifted Status (1.27 %)
Gifted Status (27.4 %)
IEP Status (7.0 %)
Male (47.8 %)
Female (52.2 %)
SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
OBSERVATIONS
African American subgroup mean lowest of all subgroups
(excluding IEP only students)
Female scores higher than male mean scores for all three
assessments
White student mean scores highest of all racial subgroups
(excluding the 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native student)
Economically disadvantaged students an average of 10 or
more points lower than entire student population
Gifted students average is above general student population,
but some students identified as gifted scored notably lower
than unidentified students
IEP students scoring below the Proficient performance (on
average) for all three assessments
American Indian or Alaskan Native makes up only 0.6 % of
student population (1 student)

SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
OBSERVATIONS
Mean score for all students in grades 7 and 8 falls at the
Proficient performance level while the OGT mean scores fall at
the Accelerated performance levelOAA math scores and
OGT scores correlation appears to be that the student scores
one performance level higher on average on the OGT than
they do on the OAA grade 7 and 8 assessments
15.7% of students performance levels dropped at least one
level from OAA grade 7 to grade 8, 21.3% of students
performance levels increased at least one level from grade 7
to grade 8, 63% of students performance levels did not
change
15% of students in grade 7 scored below PROFICIENT, 44%
PROFICIENT
13.6% of students in grade 8 scored below PROFICIENT, 44%
PROFICIENT
10% of students in grade 11 scored below PROFICIENT, 15%
PROFICIENT

SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
African American Subgroup: 7 of the 11 African American
students whose mean fell below the mean of the entire student
population are male, males fell below the mean for females and
all students and 9 of the 11 are also in the economically
disadvantaged subgroup cannot make claims that race is the
sole factor for low achievement levels
Males v. Females: Females have been scoring higher than male
subgroups in districts at large (several factors such as behavior,
parental support, etc. could be considered as well as large scale
psychological factors impacting the male race in todays society)
White Subgroup: White student scores being highest of all racial
subgroups could be attributed to socioeconomic status (with
further analysis) and/or the culture of the school favoring the
white middle class, specifically a staff population that is majority
white middle class
Gifted Subgroup: Gifted students being dispersed across score
levels could be attributed to an inaccurate gifted identification
assessment may need to re-evaluate gifted identification
assessment, should it be administered more than once? (OLSAT)

SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
OAA/OGT Correlation: From this analysis, we could conclude that in
general, students achieve higher performance levels on the Ohio
Graduation Test than the OAA grade 7 and 8 Math assessments, on
average the students score at least one performance level higher on the
OGT than on the OAA grade 7 and 8 assessments which is most likely due
to content of the tests
Grade 7 v. Grade 8: At first glance, the trends appear to dip between
grade 7 and grade 8 scores, but the percentages suggest that the
number of students scoring in each performance level are fairly
equivalent the state performance level scores dropped during the
year of the Grade 8 test in this data set, which may explain the lower
scores but similarity in performance levels
Student Growth: It would be helpful to compare the number of students
that increase by 1 or more performance levels from grade 7 to grade 8
with other similar districts data---63 % of our students did not grow a
performance level but this does not necessarily mean they did not show
growth so the district would need to compare with other schools to see if
the majority of their students are staying at the same performance level
from year to year or moving up/down performance levels
IEP Subgroup: IEP students scoring below the proficient level, on average,
may cause for examination of each individual students IEP and
disaggregated data to determine student needs, students may not be
receiving the support needed to achieve at the proficient level

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
What are the districts greatest strengths and weaknesses
in regards to equity? Are there specific subgroups that
need to be addressed? If they are being addressed, how
so?
What do you believe to be the communitys perception
of equity in our schools?
Does the district consider equitable issues when hiring
staff and other personnel? If so, how and under what
circumstances?
How consistent are the districts racial subgroups? Do
they change year to year? If so, which ones fluctuate?
What is the greatest misconception regarding equity in
our district?
What are some next steps we could take (or are taking)
as a district to become more equitable?

INTERVIEW #1, INSIGHTS
LITERACY SPECIALIST
Our largest population that repeatedly shows a gap in achievement is
our economically disadvantaged subgroup

We have employed a new central office staff member that has been
assigned to go out into some of our most impoverished parts of the
community and work with students and parents on literacy skills

Yes, it is a struggle to balance what our district used to be and what it is
nowa lot of people are living in the past and trouble to accept the
changing demographics

Community support varies, but for various reasonsa lot of times
socioeconomic has the greatest impact on involvement rather than
racial background

The biggest problem we face in identifying subgroups is the fact that
students self-identifyone year they could register themselves as
multiracial and the next year register as African Americanwe find that
not all students accurately identify their ethnicity





INTERVIEW #2, INSIGHTS
DIRECTOR OF DATA & TECHNOLOGY
Within the racial subgroups, the African American male subgroup
has always stood out to be lower-achieving than other racial
subgroups

The large majority of our staff are a part of the white middle class
and there appears to be a disconnect between the different
parts of the communitywe are both largely rural and urban

I hear people say a lot that our transient population is to blame
for some of our lower numbers but many of these students have
been in and out of the district for a long time and are coming
from a variety of school districts in the area

I really believe our implementation of the RTI program will help us
to individualize learning for all students, which in turn, will
hopefully increase all subgroup achievement levels




SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS
SURVEY ANALYSIS
With 95% of the respondents being Caucasian, the responses may not be a balanced
representation of minority voices

Out of approximately 75 ALL staff members, 40 responses were submitted, 53%
respondent rate

It should be noted that 59.52% of respondents described the community in which they
live as suburban implying over half of the respondents could be considered middle
class or live in the more affluent areas of the district (this excludes a large income
housing population of students that attend schools in the district)

The highest percentage of disagreement (53.85% disagree, 17.95% strongly disagree)
was with the statement, Parent and/or guardian involvement in the school is consistent
across student backgrounds. implying the district may want to consider how to
incorporate more programs and/or events that are inviting to all parents/guardians and
does not favor particular groups In addition, it should be noted that only 15.38 % of
respondents disagree with the statement, We reach out to community members and
parents/guardians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. implying the a large majority
of the respondents believe the district is making attempts to involve parents/guardians of
all backgrounds without much success

SURVEY ANALYSIS
The highest percentage of agreement (74.36% agree, 20.51% strongly
disagree) was with the statement, Our communication strategies (posters,
websites, etc.) are appropriate for our diverse community. implying almost
95% of the respondents feel we are making efforts to maintain diverse
communication strategies through our language, use of technology, etc. that
are a benefit to all members of the community regardless of background

46.15% disagree and 2.56% strongly disagree with the following statement:
Our celebrations reflect various cultures and introduce the community to
new cultures. implying our celebrations of holidays and other religious-
affiliated celebrations favor a particular viewpoint, however, I believe this is
true for nearly every district in the United States and may not be unique to our
district in how we are choosing to celebrate such culturally-relevant events

PLAN OF ACTION
TRIANGULATING TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, AND PARENT DATA
Areas of Weakness (inferred from data analysis, district leader interviews, &
staff/community survey)
IEP subgroup achievement levels
Economically disadvantaged subgroup
achievement levels
African American male subgroup achievement
levels
Parent/guardian involvement of minority subgroups
(specifically racial & economically disadvantaged
subgroups)
Disconnect between the cultural nature of the staff
and the students

PLAN OF ACTION
TRIANGULATING TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, AND PARENT DATA
Areas of Strength (inferred from data analysis, district leader interviews, &
staff/community survey)
All student population achievement levels for each of
the three assessments showed at least 85% scoring at the
proficient level or higher
Cultural awareness of the changing community
making attempts to reach out to all stakeholders
High quality assessments: consistently evaluating
current assessments and researching for assessments
that can do more with fewer tests
Consistency across grade levels students scoring in
predictable performance levels reliability of data
PLAN OF ACTION
TRIANGULATING TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, AND PARENT DATA
Starting with a stated commitment to becoming a more data-
driven district across all grade levels and content areas

Evaluation of Special Services department to obtain more
detailed data on IEP subgroups need to evaluate the process:
How are students placed on IEPs? How are IEPs being updated?
Who is involved in the process? What does the assessment data
tell us about the quality of the IEP process?


Professional development needed for entire staff regarding
poverty in education Examining our who How do our
students feel? How are our students impacted academically
growing up in low-income homes? What are the needs of
economically disadvantaged students and how can we take
steps to meet those needs?

PLAN OF ACTION
TRIANGULATING TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, AND PARENT DATA
Professional development in TestingWerks with a SPECIFIC PURPOSE
and GOAL at the TEACHER LEVEL teachers and staff need to be
given a task-analysis that allows them to focus on one data set at a
time What question do we want to answer by looking at this data?

Survey all community members and parents/guardians of students
regarding involvement in the school and how the district could
improve in this area rather than trying to initiate events that may
draw them in, lets ask them what would draw them in! Use current
Superintendent Chats that are held monthly to also be a place
where staff can interact with community members not just district
leaders

Celebrate more consistently the achievements of the staff and
students in a way that is data-based!

Implement Data Teams in each building to become leaders with data
analysis and training in TestingWerks