Profile of Services
Reflect On and Analyze Data
Data Analysis Process for ESU 16 as an Agency
(ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
Beginning with the 2011-2016 improvement cycle and continuing into the current 2017-2021 cycle, ESU 16 has committed to implementation of a systematic process for analyzing and applying multiple forms of data including demographic, achievement, perceptual, and program evaluation data to inform the design and delivery of agency programs and services. We have been intentional and consistent in our efforts to build the capacity of ESU staff to identify, analyze and establish, in response to the implications surfaced in the data analysis process; both agency level and department/Job Alike level goals for ongoing and continuous improvement.
(ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
The ESU 16 data analysis process happens at both an agency level as well as at the program/department level.
Agency level Data Analysis
At the agency level the continuous improvement data analysis process has three primary components
Monthly meetings of the Steering Committee
The Steering Committee includes representation from each of the agency departments and in the case of the Special Education department there is one representative for each SPED program (Job Alike group). This committee oversees and facilitates the continuous improvement process. They are also responsible for planning the bi-monthly All Staff meetings.
(ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
Bi- monthly All Staff meetings (5 days total)
All Staff days have been used to build staff capacity around the continuous improvement process in general, use of data, as well as provide an opportunity for Job Alike groups to engage with each other to assess progress on their respective action plans. The entire ESU 16 staff has been meeting bi-monthly since 2011. Each of these five annual meetings includes a focus on some aspect of the continuous improvement process. In the previous CIP cycle (2011-2016) staff were introduced to the "Six Stages of the Cycle of Data Inquiry" process. (ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
Beginning in the fall of 2016, as part of the agency action plan to address the recommended goal of systematic use of data for decision making, the Six Stages work was expanded to include the Victoria Bernhardt, Education For the Future (EFF): Continuous School Improvement Model, ("Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement," by Victoria Bernhardt, 2013). The adoption of the EFF process was agency-wide and reflected a statewide EFF adoption as well. From August 2016 to August 2018, All Staff days included an EFF training component. Each Job Alike group then utilized the same data analysis process in their program level CIP work. (ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
August All Staff, 2016 August All Staff, 2017
November All Staff, 2016 November All Staff, 2017
January All Staff, 2017 January All Staff, 2018
April All Staff, 2017 March All Staff, 2018
Steering Committee's Data Day in February to review agency level data.
Agency level data ( achievement, program/process, demographic and perceptual) is reviewed by the Steering Committee members each February. Steering Committee members work in small groups to analyze each of the four types of available data to identify challenges, and successes. The small group data partners work together to identify trends/patterns in their various assigned data sets and to hypothesize implications for practice. The smaller data partner groups share their strengths, challenges and implications with the larger Steering Committee for further large group processing. Implications that have surfaced in these review protocols are considered in the context of the current ESU 16 agency goals and their respective action plans. Action plans are modified annually in response to the data reviews. (ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
February, 2018 Data Retreat Day
2018 Data Retreat Agenda-Our communication goal emerged from data work at the Data Retreat in 2018. This document shows a summary of analyzed data and creation of the goal.
2018 School Quality Factors Data Strengths and Challenges
2018 Data Retreat Implications and Commonalities - Program/Processes highlighted
The 2018 data retreat resulted in the identification of a new communication goal: To continually improve service and leadership through effective communication. Review of the data compiled in the SQF Planning tool, staff surveys, stakeholder surveys, and staff culture surveys revealed a communication theme. When this data was examined and implications were identified in the Implications Commonalities chart, communication emerged as a secondary agency goal.
February, 2019 Data Retreat Day
2019 Data Retreat System Quality Factors Work
One of the results of this data retreat was the refining of the agency communication goal. A survey (results are here) was given to ESU 16 staff at the October 26, 2018, All Staff Day, asking for their views on internal/external agency communication. This data was examined at the Steering Committee's February 2019, data retreat. It was concluded that staff were satisfied with internal agency communication, however there was an on-going need to target external communications with stakeholders. The communication action plan was then modified to reflect a focus on communication to stakeholders. (Communication Action Plan is here.)
May 14, 2019, a subgroup of the Steering Committee met to examine and compare the Nebraska Frameworks and the AdvancEd continuous improvement processes. This rubric was used to guide discussion. (Nebraska Framework compared to AdvancEd rubric - used with permission from ESU 11.) Based on the group's comparison of the two models, the Steering Committee made a recommendation to the ESU 16 Board of Directors to adopt the Nebraska Frameworks. The ESU 16 Board of Directors approved the Nebraska Frameworks model for continuous improvement at their June 27, 2019, board meeting.
February 2020 Data Retreat Day
2020 Data Retreat Demographic Data Folder
2020 Data Retreat Program /Process Data Folder
2020 Data Retreat Perceptual Data Folder
2020 Data Retreat Student Learning Data Folder
2020 Data Retreat Implications and Commonalities
Both agency goals were evaluated at the February 2020 Data Retreat Day. The "Measuring Program or Process" EFF protocol was used. 2020 Evaluation of Goals - Measuring Program or Process protocol.
The data goal was evaluated through the examination of SIMPL data (Service Implementation Model Process and Log), Steering Committee's data retreat work, and staff work in their Job Alike folders. Website and social media data was also examined. It was determined that a program-centered evaluation tool was needed for all departments. SPED and Distance Learning data was not included in SIMPL. And SIMPL data only includes usage of programs, not the impact of the programs themselves. Data showed engagement on the part of staff in all staff days professional development (see below) and an increase in the use and impact of our website and social media in communication with stakeholders.
Progress on the effective communication goal was evaluated using All Staff day exit surveys, usage data from the web and social media sites and stakeholder perceptual data. After review of accumulated data and in consideration of some member district feedback on programming, the Steering Committee determined that the communication goal should be refined to include a specific focus on communications with superintendents and their respective boards of education.
4. SIMPL Annual Data Dig
ESU 16 Service Planning Report 2019-20
ESU 16 Service Planning Report 2020-21
ESU 16 Service Planning Report 2021-22
Job Alike Level Data Analysis
In general, the Job Alike groups are responsible for their own CIP process and action plans. That process includes periodic review of program specific data, setting goals, and development of an action plan. (ESU Standards A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C1 ,C2)
Groups identify a question/problem of practice, gather relevant data and research and then formulate their action plans accordingly. Job Alike groups do their CIP work at the five all staff days. Some groups also have their own data days outside of those all staff days. ( for example: Mental Health, Early Childhood, NO, and others). In this cycle, Job Alike teams that have successfully addressed their action plans have identified a new question or problem of practice.
CIP work of each Job Alike group can be found in their respective folders. Inside the Job Alike folder, action plans, agendas for the group's breakout work and their data evidence is further organized in a folder titled External Visit April 2021. The rest of the information is a collection of their work over the past five years at the All Staff work days. It is included as evidence of practice.
Technology and Distance Learning
All Staff Directed Job Alike Work in Break Outs
Examples of Job Alike Break out work below.
August 2018 Programs and Processes All Staff Job Alike Analysis
Job Alike roles were selected for work during the all staff days' break outs. An example of that would include this google doc, filled out by each group and in their respective Job Alike folders - Work Group Member Positions.
At the January 2019 All Staff day, Job Alike groups were asked to complete a reflection rubric. An example of that is here. This rubric data was to inform their Action Plans when they revisited them. Each Job Alike folder contains a self reflection rubric google document.
Looking Ahead
One of the successful outcomes of the past two CIP cycles is that data protocols are embedded in our work, particularly in terms of accessing and analyzing aggregate data. As an agency we need to be more intentional and targeted about what that data is telling us. For example, we haven't done a lot of reflection on disaggregated data at the Job Alike level. Agency and Job Alike fluency with data could be further built out by inclusion of disaggregated data and consideration of the implications of those data sets for the entirety of our program and service design.
As the Steering Committee looks ahead to next steps in the agency's continuous improvement work we anticipate a continued focus on the use of data to drive programming provided to districts. As part of the current data goal ESU 16 has adopted the SIMPL process. We actively partner with districts to evaluate district and agency level data to prioritize needs and relevant programming across the region. To date that work has primarily been used for program planning in the Teaching and Learning department. We are looking at ways to make the top five priorities for the 2021-22 school year that were surfaced in this year's SIMPL protocols a part of the Special Services Job Alike goal setting and action planning. We are just beginning Steering Committee level discussion about the implications/impact of tasking the various Job Alike groups with aligning their action plans to one of the SIMPL priorities. As Job Alike groups complete their current set of action plans we would ask them to ground their next problem of practice and the relevant/related data in one of the priority areas as it aligns to the work they do in the schools.
The top five SIMPL priorities for school districts going into the 2021 - 2022 school year are:
Curriculum Development
Content/Pedagogy Trainings
Data Analysis
Mental Health Supports
Assessment Literacy
The agency's communication goal to this point has focused on enhancing communication about available ESU programs/services, trainings, department resources and supports, mission/vision, ESU policy and internal procedural information, i.e. 'all things ESU 16' out to stakeholders. Should the Steering Committee and ESU staff identify communication as an on-going area of focus, it may be important to consider communication from stakeholders back to the agency and how that can be supported, prioritized and practiced.