Post on 02-Jul-2015
description
transcript
Celebrating our AchievementsAnd where do we go next?
The Four Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation
Student Growth and Development
(45%)
Whole-school Student Learning
Indicators or Student Feedback
(5%)
Observations of Performance and
Practice (40%)
Peer or Parent Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating (50%)
Outcome Rating (50%)
All of these factors are combined to reach your final annualrating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).
5/9/20132
WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012
Math and Science
WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012
Reading and Writing
The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Mathematics
Cohort MAP Reading CAPT Reading MAP Math CAPT Math
2010
Cohort NA 13 NA 16
2011 Cohort 13 (Winter) 6 26 (Winter) 9
2012
Cohort 14 (Winter) 13 (Winter) 13 7
MAP + Intervention Works
Percent of Grade 10 Students Below Proficiency MAP vs. CAPTDark Blue= Introduction of Math Lab
Most students who entered math lab were not predicted to be proficient on the CAPT based on MAP testing. With intervention, 79 percent were at or above proficiency.
Math Lab: Another Success Story
Math Lab Student CAPT Scores Grades 10 and 11 (53 tested)
SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEAREST
WHOLE PERCENT)
Percent Advanced 4 Percent Goal 26
Percent Proficient 47 Percent Basic/Below Basic 21
How do we measure up?CAPT Math Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 13.0 1.4 4.0
10 (2012) 64.4 57.5 6 49.310 (2011) 57.7 58.4 16 49.6
10 (2010) 50.4 58.2 20 48.9
10 (2009) 47.4 57.6 22 48.0
10 (2008) 54.7 60.0 18 50.2
10 (2007) 51.4 56.1 17 45.3
8
The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Science
How do we measure up?CAPT Science Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 13.0 0.1 2.8
10 (2012) 64.4 55.8 2 47.310 (2011) 57.7 55.8 12 47.2
10 (2010) 50.4 52.8 11 45.5
10 (2009) 47.4 50.3 9 43.0
10 (2008) 54.7 56.2 10 46.5
10 (2007) 51.4 55.7 4 44.5
10
Math and Science: Boys vs. Girls
The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Writing
Writing: Boys vs. Girls
Grade
Writing
Wtfd DRGDRankIn
DRGSTATE
+/- 16.7 7.7 10.1
10(2012) 82.0 72.7 4 63.1
10(2011) 76.3 71.6 11 61.3
10(2010) 61.8 68.7 20 59.6
10(2009) 62.5 64.7 14 55.0
10(2008) 63.0 67.4 16 57.9
10(2007) 65.3 65.0 11 53.0
How Do We Measure Up?Writing Goal Performance Summary
Writing Lab is an intervention offered by the history department.
Quarter-long classes were offered beginning last year.
There is not enough data yet to show CAPT gains.
After this year we will be able to report on Writing Lab successes.
Writing Lab
The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Reading
Improvements in both tests:
A Close Look at Reading
Reading: Boys Vs. Girls
SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEAREST WHOLE PERCENT)
ADVANCED 3%
GOAL 21%
PROFICIENT 55%
BASIC/BELOW BASIC 17%
Reading: Our Intervention Courses Move Many Students to Proficiency and Goal!
Students placed in English Workshop and Literacy Lab are reading below grade level and are not projected (by MAP) to be proficient on the CAPT. Yet, 83 percent of those students were successful after intervention.
How do we measure up?CAPT Reading Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 17.2 2.7 2.0
10 (2012) 68.6 56.8 1 47.510 (2011) 60.3 52.9 4 44.8
10 (2010) 49.6 53.7 18 45.9
10 (2009) 49.8 56.0 19 47.5
10 (2008) 49.2 52.7 17 45.5
10 (2007) 51.4 54.1 17 45.5
20
MAP testing to identify struggling students has been in place since 2010.
Students have been identified and placed in interventions such as Academic Study Halls, Literacy Lab, English Workshop, and Math Lab as they have become available.
The Success: Years in the Making
School-wide implementation of Reading for Information assessments (2010-present)
School-wide literacy strategies professional development (2010-present)
Commitment of all teachers to implement literacy strategies into classroom instruction (2010-present)
Increase in amount of reading and writing opportunities for our students (2010-present)
Grade 6-12 professional development that led to increased articulation of course content/student expectation (2011-present)
What New Actions Led to Our Dramatic Improvement?
The implementation of the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) begins this year. These standards require students to interpret and evaluate complex texts. Students must be able to write well in a variety of formats. Math is increasingly rigorous as well.
Fortunately, the work that we have done to create Reading for Information assessments has prepared us well to meet this challenge.
How Can We Continue Our Growth?
As we transition to the Common Core, we will be hearing more about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK). This aligns to Bloom’s Taxonomy but is more helpful in determining the depth and rigor of questions and tasks.
Going forward, it will be more important than ever to find challenging articles and ask students to answer probing text- dependent questions in multiple choice and open-ended formats.
Continuing our Growth…
Continue to administer two Reading for Information assessments.
Use the assessment results to guide your class instruction.
Regularly offer reading opportunities and give students opportunities to answer questions in multiple formats.
Plan instruction around how to annotate and make sense of the texts.
Review the work with students.
Have the students understand the scoring process so that they can peer and self-score.
Use PLC time to score more formal critical reading assessments together so that expectations are calibrated.
More about Critical Reading
Students should be reading and writing every day.
Text choices should be purposeful. Text should be
Appropriately challenging
Engaging to you and your students
Tied to your content
Selecting the right texts and finding strategies to help students comprehend them is process that will take time and support from the literacy and media specialists. It is a goal to work toward over time.
Continue to Teach Your Content Through Reading and Writing Tasks
Here are a few of the effective strategies observed:
Socratic Seminar
Summary Creation
Fishbowl text discussion
Close reading analysis
Annotation, note-taking, and/or graphic organizers
Purposeful before, during and after reading strategies
Metacognition
Writing to learn and respond to text
Exemplary Strategies Demonstrated During Instructional Rounds
Key Ideas
• Proficiency is no longer the critical measure.
• Moving students from proficiency to goal is the focus.
• Close attention will be paid to moving every child at least one score band (for example, from goal to advanced, or from basic to proficient).
• More attention will be paid to sub-groups of gender, socioeconomics, and special education designation.
Serving Two Masters…While the SBAC assessment is on the horizon, CAPT has not yet gone
away. The NCLB waiver has lead to new ways of reporting and measuring growth. In addition, the new professional growth pilot begins this year.
Subject GroupWtfd
2011
Waterford
2012
DRG
2012
Rankin
DRG
STATE
2012
MathF/RMeals 30.0 50.0 36.4 2/19 20.2
FullPrice 61.8 66.1 61.0 9 61.5
ScienceF/RMeals 40.6 36.0 33.3 8/19 18.9
FullPrice 58.6 66.7 59..4 3 59.6
ReadingF/RMeals 29.0 50.0 35.3 1/19 20.3
FullPrice 64.9 71.1 60.2 4 59.0
WritingF/RMeals 54.8 52.0 51.5 11/19 36.4
FullPrice 79.5 86.1 75.9 4 74.6
GOAL FREE/REDUCED LUNCH PERFORMANCE
Special Education
YearNumber Tested
Total Math % Goal Range
Total Math % Proficient
Total science % Goal Range
Total science % Proficient
Total Reading % Goal Range
Total Reading % Proficient
Total Writing % Goal Range
Total Writing % Proficient
2007 24 8.3 37.5 33.3 58.3 8.3 50 12.5 70.8
2008 26 0 26.9 3.8 61.5 0 57.7 8 60
2009 21 4.8 38.1 14.3 52.4 4.8 52.4 9.5 52.4
2010 28 10.7 25 17.9 50 7.7 50 14.3 57.1
2011 20 15 50 8.3 41.7 4.5 63.6 16.7 62.5
2012 13 7.7 46.2 6.7 60 13.3 60 26.7 73.3
Special Education CAPT Performance
Core areas will spend several weeks looking closely at CMT, CAPT and other data in order to learn more about how we are performing.
Shift will be not just to look at how we did, but to look at the data for the students in our classrooms this year to see where they are and make plans for how to move them to the next level.
What’s Next?
Current 9th Graders:
What CMT’s Can Tell Us
MATH:
Areas for 9th grade that most need improvement:
Word problems
Computing with whole numbers and fractions
Estimating solutions to problems
Mathematical applications
READING:
Developing an interpretation
Key CMT Findings:Guiding our ninth graders
2012 PCAPT Summary
ASSESSMENT % BELOW BASIC
% BASIC % PROFICIENT % GOAL %ADVANCED
READING 11 14 32 19 24
MATH 9 14 41 27 11
WRITING 3 5 28 15 49
SCIENCE 11 15 37 29 8
Math:
Open-ended responses
Reading:
Open-ended responses (RFI short answer)
Reading stamina
Key PCAPT Concerns:
9/13 PLC devoted to learning about SEED (new professional growth plan)
9/20 Departments will get an opportunity to look at CMT/PCAPT/CAPT data in depth and begin to create goals
Upcoming Events