WASL Mathematics: 2006-2008 Grade 6 Specific Title Slide for School. 7

WASL Math: Where are we now? Questions to answer: How are we doing? Compared to district & state? Compared to previous years? Use these starter questions as a framework for the presentation. Subsequent slides and their information should stimulate discussions about appropriate and necessary comparisons to make for identifying your school’s data-driven priorities. 8

Levels of Analyzing Our Data Broad findings Specific findings Percent Meeting the Standard Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Performance Levels Strand Scores This slide will be used again and again as a transition slide. The check marks designate what information is about to be shown. In the beginning of the presentation, the data will focus on broad bits of information, e.g., overall student achievement. Later the data become more specific and related to instructional targets, e.g., Number Sense vs. Making Connections. 9

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematics Performance

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematics Performance This is the third of the three slides that show the overall trend data. In this slide the trend for the state scores is added. Now the school pattern can be contrasted with both the pattern for the district and that of the state. Is the school pattern similar to both those of the district and state? Is it more like one or the other? Is it different than both? If it is different than either of the other patterns, is it dramatically different? Remember, the alignment of the performance levels across grades 4, 7, and 10, all other things remaining equal, would result in an increase of 3.2 percentage points for students meeting the standard in 2003-2004 for the school, district, and state. 10

Questions about Our Math Performance What do these comparisons seem to tell us? Celebrations: Challenges: What do these comparisons not tell us? What else do we need to know? These questions have been adapted from the work of Edie Holcomb (Getting Excited About Data). They are not the only questions that could be used to structure a discussion of the prior three slides. You can change any of the text or add new text. Just click and highlight the text you wish to edit. Ask participants in the discussion to draw on the analyses of the prior three slides to answer the questions raised in this slide. What are the implications for your school's mathematics improvement plan? Note: Starting in spring 2010, students will be assessed on the new 2008 standards. 14

Levels of Analyzing our Data Broad findings Specific findings Percent Meeting the Standard Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Performance Levels Strand Scores This slide will be used again and again as a transition slide. The red check mark designates what information is about to be shown. Information already shown has a yellow bullet, while information yet to be shown has a white bullet. 9

Adequate Yearly Progress: Math Annual Targets for Grades 6, 7 & 8 Mathematics 2002 baseline = 17.3% In 2004 Washington State requested, and was granted approval of, a modified AYP model. In this revised model, improvement increments are blocked into four three-year intervals between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013. The uniform increment for these four intervals is 20.7 percentage points. In the final year, 2013-2014, the increment needed to reach 100% is also 20.7 percentage points.

AYP Subgroups In addition to the all continuously enrolled students category, the subgroups include: the five major racial/ethnic groups, special education, English Language Learners, and low income students. The performance of a subgroup is considered if there is a minimum of 30 continuously enrolled students, a change from 2007. The next slide reflects your AYP status based on continuously enrolled students. As a further protection against misclassification due to random errors, for the performance of a group to be considered for AYP purposes, that group must contain a minimum of 30 students for the racial/ethnic and low income subgroups and 40 students for the special education and English language learners subgroups. The subgroups to be considered are: All students; the five ethnic/racial subgroups (African American, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic, and White); English Language Learners (ESL); Special Education: Low Income.

Grade 6 WASL–Mathematics: Adequate Yearly Progress Goals This chart portrays the school's progress against the state’s uniform yearly progress goals based on continuously enrolled students. These yearly goals are based on a 2002 baseline starting value, derived by a formula specified in the NCLB legislation, and stepped increments between the 2002 baseline and the ultimate goal in 2014 of 100% of all students meeting the state’s performance standard. The stepped line reflects the yearly targets (state uniform bar), grouped in three year intervals and a final one year interval. The school’s performance (percent meeting standard) in each year is represented by a bar. Extended above each bar is a “whisker” that reflects a 95% confidence interval or error band for the years 2002 & 2003 and the 99% confidence interval for 2004. If the bar plus the whisker equals or exceeds the line, the school is deemed to have made “adequate yearly progress” (AYP). In actually determining whether or nor a school has made AYP, the progress of as many as nine separate groups within the school is evaluated against the uniform yearly goals for reading and mathematics. If any one of the subgroups fails this test in either subject, the school is said to have failed to have made AYP. However, before the performance of a subgroup is considered, there must be at least 30 continuously enrolled students in the group. Detailed information about this school's AYP can be found at: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us

Levels of Analyzing Our Data Broad findings Specific findings Percent Meeting the Standard Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Performance Levels Strand Scores This slide will be used again and again as a transition slide. The red check mark designates what information is about to be shown. Information already shown has a yellow bullet, while information yet to be shown has a white bullet. 9

Results by Performance Levels Four Levels in Mathematics “Meets the Standard” 4. Well above the standard 3. Above the standard “Does Not Meet the Standard” 2. Below the standard 1. Well below the standard Washington State has designated groups of achievement: Levels 1 & 2 represent achievement below the standard, and Levels 3 & 4 reflect meeting or exceeding the performance standard. 15

Picture of Ideal Trends for Levels Over time, as instruction becomes better aligned with the achievement standards, the number/percent of students in the lower performance levels should decrease and the numbers/percent in the two higher levels should increase. 16

Grade 6 WASL Mathematics: Performance Levels Trends Ask the participants what they see in the trends for each of the of the performance levels. Over time, does it appear that students have been moving into higher performance levels? What conclusions might be drawn from the patterns in these trends? Due to the revisions to the performance standards needed to make them more vertically aligned, if all other factors remained the same, you would expect the percent in Level 3 in 2004 to increase by 3.2 percentage points. You would also expect to see 1.2 and 2.0 percentage point decreases in Levels 2 and 1 respectively, but you would not expect that Level 4 would be affected. 17

Questions about the Performance Levels What do these trends seem to tell us? Celebrations: Challenges: What do these trends not tell us? What else do we need to know? These questions have been adapted from the work of Edie Holcomb (Getting Excited About Data). They are not the only questions that could be used to structure a discussion of the trend patterns for the two types of levels data. You can change any of the text or add new text. Just click and highlight the text you wish to edit.   Ask participants in the discussion to reflect on the school's progress to decrease the numbers/percentages of students in the lower levels and to increase the schools learning improvement index as they answer the questions raised in this slide. What are the implications for your school's mathematics improvement plan? 18

Levels of Analyzing Our Data Broad findings Specific findings Percent Meeting the Standard Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Performance Levels Strand Scores Starting in spring 2009 grades 3 to 8 students will have shorter math tests, without strand scores. This slide will be used again and again as a transition slide. The red check mark designates what information is about to be shown. Information already shown has a yellow bullet. 9

6th Grade WASL Mathematics Strands Mathematical Content Number Sense Measurement Geometric Sense Probability/Statistics Algebraic Sense Mathematical Processes Solves Problems and Reasons Logically Communicates Understanding Makes Connections Use this slide to remind everyone about what is included in the Mathematics test. A “meets standard” performance level, comparable to that set at the whole test level, has not been set for the strands. Student performance at the strand level is described as either performance similar to, or better than, that of students at the standard or as performance below that of students at the standard. These categories of the strand level performance dichotomy are labeled respectively “a strength” and “a weakness.” On the “group list report” students strand level performance is reported as a “+” or a “–” reflecting these two performance categories. The summary performance indicator for any particular strand is the percent of students in a group “who performance on that strand is similar to, or better than, that of students at the standard.” That is, the percent of students who show a strength (+) on that strand. Performance at the strand level is based on a small number of total points. For this reason, and others, strand level data from year to year are not directly comparable. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These difference scores are more comparable across years. For each strand there is a slide that contains two charts portraying strand level performance data. One chart shows the “percent of students with performance similar to or exceeding those who met the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. The other chart shows the trend for the comparisons (differences) between school and state data for recent years. Defensible strand score analysis tracks the difference between school and state. 20

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Content – Strand #1 Defining what we are measuring Number Sense Targets NS01-05 Understand and apply concepts and procedures from number sense: number and numeration ratio and proportion conceptual understanding of operations computation estimation Use this slide to define the content tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Number Sense: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Content – Strand #2 Defining what we are measuring Measurement Targets ME01-04 Understand and apply concepts and procedures from measurement: attributes and dimensions units and systems procedures estimated measurements Use this slide to define the content tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Measurement: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Content – Strand #3 Defining what we are measuring Geometric Sense Targets GS01-02 Understand and apply concepts and procedures from geometric sense: properties and relationships locations and transformations Use this slide to define the content tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Geometric Sense: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Content – Strand #4 Defining what we are measuring Probability and Statistics Targets PS01-03 Understand and apply concepts and procedures from probability and statistics: probability data collection and central tendencies data representation and interpretation Use this slide to define the content tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Probability & Statistics: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Content – Strand #5 Defining what we are measuring Algebraic Sense Targets AS01-03 Understand and apply concepts and procedures from algebraic sense: patterns and functions symbols and notations evaluating and solving Use this slide to define the content tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Algebraic Sense: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Processes – Strand #6 Defining what we are measuring Solves Problems and Reasons Logically Targets SR01-05 Uses mathematics to define and solve problems and reason logically: define the problem construct solutions analyze information conclude construct solutions and justify Use this slide to define the processes tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Solves Problems/Reasons Logically: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Process – Strand #7 Defining what we are measuring Communicates Understanding Targets CU01-02 Communicate knowledge and understanding in both everyday and mathematical language: gather information organize, represent and express Use this slide to define the processes tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Communicates Understanding: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Grade 6 WASL: Mathematical Process – Strand #8 Defining what we are measuring Makes Connections Targets MC01 Understand how mathematical ideas connect within mathematics, to other subject areas, and to real-life situations: connect within mathematics Use this slide to define the processes tested. How do these strands align with your school’s curriculum map? …with classroom instruction? 21

Grade 6 Make Connections: Comparison of School to State This slide contains two charts that portray several comparisons for the strand level data.   The chart at the bottom right shows the “percent of students whose performance is equal to or exceeds that of students meeting the standard” for the school, district, and state for the most current year. This chart provides comparisons of the school performance to that of the district and the state. It also allows a comparison of the district with the state. All of these comparisons are for the most current year. Performance data for this strand is based on a small number of total points. For this reason and others, strand “percents” are not directly comparable from year to year. One approach that partially addresses this issue is to always compare (take the difference between) the school percent and the state percent. These differences are more comparable across years. The chart at the top left shows the trend in the differences between the school percent and the state percent for recent years for this strand. It is this chart, and those for the other strands within this content area, that should be most helpful in identifying curricular strengths and weaknesses. Has the percent of students identified as having “a strength” on this strand changed compared to that for the state? What does the trend tell you? 22

Questions about Grade 6 Mathematics Strand Data and Trends What do these strand data seem to tell us? Celebrations: Challenges: What do these trends not tell us? What else do we need to know? These questions have been adapted from the work of Edie Holcomb (Getting Excited About Data). They are not the only questions that could be used to structure a discussion of the trend patterns for the strand data. You can change any of the text or add new text. Just click and highlight the text you wish to edit. Ask participants in the discussion to reflect on the school's trend patterns across the various strands as they answer the questions raised in this slide. What are the implications for your school's mathematics improvement plan? 18

Grade 6: Our WASL Strengths List areas where students were proficient. How about the subgroups? What did we do to contribute to their successes? What do we need to continue to do to ensure success with our students in the future? Can we use these strategies to improve areas where our students are not proficient? Now it is time to write ideas down. Start with the good things that are happening. Lead a discussion around what the data have told you. What patterns have continued or popped up and need to be watched? What do we need to do more often? 27

Grade 6 WASL Targets: Where do we want to go? List challenges: What do we need to do differently to improve student performance in these areas? What other data do we need to consider? What can we learn from our successes? Next focus on the things that could be better. Lead a discussion around what the data have told you. What patterns have continued or popped up and need to be watched? What do you need to do differently? 28