Principal’s Meeting October 23, 2014

Reflection How do you use data at your school to inform instruction? What data sources do you look at? WorkKeys NCFE Results PLAN ACT EVAAS PSAT EOC Results ACCESS AP Scores AP Potential

EOC & NCFE Data 2013-14 How do you use data to inform instruction? What data sources do you look at?

Measuring Proficiency

2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet EOC scores sorted by Difference between Percent Proficient 2013-14 and Percent Proficient 2012-13. NCFE scores sorted by Difference if NCFE given both years, otherwise sorted by Percent Correct 2013-14. Performance Composite & Percent Proficient colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the proficiency rate relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle. Percent Correct colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the average percent correct relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle. Applied 5-color conditional formatting.

2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet Difference column: Positive indicates increase in proficiency rate; negative indicates decrease in proficiency rate. The brighter the green the larger the increase in proficiency rate relative to other schools. The darker the red, the larger the decrease in proficiency rate relative to other schools. Yellow/Orange indicate the increase or decrease in proficiency rate is not large relative to other schools.

NC Final Exam Data Difference column - Precalculus: All differences positive – everyone increased in percent correct! The brighter the green, the larger the increase in percent correct relative to other schools

Math I EOC Note extra columns for Banked and Not Banked scores. We noted a wide range of increases and decreases on the percent proficient. Similar for all EOC courses. Note that percent proficient with banked scores is much higher – the overall 12% increase in proficiency for the district can be attributed mainly to middle school students taking Math I. High school only increased about 1% in proficiency rate.

This can also be seen by looking at the proficiency levels by grade level

Measuring Growth

EVAAS Reports Value Added Summary (in spreadsheet) – summary of overall growth – trend over time This year for Math I, the district met expected growth, but did not exceed like the previous two years (Note 2012 – old Algebra I EOC, 2013 – new Math I EOC)

We looked at both middle and high schools to see if there was also a difference in growth . . . What do you notice?

EVAAS Reports Digging deeper: Diagnostic Report – growth by achievement group: Lowest, Low-Mid, Middle, Mid-High, Highest Performance Diagnostic Report – growth by predicted achievement level (1-5) Reports can be disaggregated by race, gender, and demographics For the Diagnostic Report, students across the state were divided into 5 equal-sized achievement groups based on prior achievement on EOGs. Pay attention to how many students you have in each group – e.g. high schools tend to have very few students in the Highest group, while middle schools tend to have few students in the Lowest group taking Math I. For the Performance Diagnostic report, students are divided into groups based on their predicted achievement level on the EOC.

Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement Note, this report combines both middle and high school students’ data. Across the district, we can see that although the largest percentage of our students fall in the highest achieving groups for math, we saw the lowest amount of growth with these students; on the other hand, we saw the highest growth with the lowest group. Unfortunately, EVAAS does not let us separate middle and high school data for a district-level report. However, school reports do not include banked scores.

Interpreting Report Patterns

Sanderson: All Students Opportunity Gap

Athens Drive: All Students “V” Pattern

Green Hope: All Students Shed Pattern – sort of . . .

Broughton: All Students Reverse Shed Pattern

District Diagnostic Report – Disaggregated Data What do you notice? What stands out to you? What can we celebrate? What alarms you?

Performance Diagnostic Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level Be careful with this report – since groups are not divided equally, but by predicted level, growth may be masked if there is a wide range across a particular group. No previous cohort because they switched from 4 to 5 levels. Highest growth occurred with our students predicted to be Level I on the Math I EOC. Majority of students predicted to be either Level II or Level IV – not surprising since predicted levels would be on a normal distribution, but the band for Level 3 is small. By clicking on the number of students, you will get a list of those students and what level they actually scored. For example, of the 1,071 students predicted to be Level III – students on the “bubble” – 69% of them scored Level III or higher. Of the 1,222 students predicted to be Level I, 32% scored higher than Level I.

Looking from the Past to the Future . . . School Academic Preparedness Report Reports projections on students scoring a Level 3 on the Math I EOC By grade level By probability of proficiency

40% of our 9th grade students already passed the Math I EOC in middle school For 9th graders who still need to take the Math I EOC, only 14% are on track to be proficient 24% of our 9th grade students across the district have a 40% or less probability of achieving proficiency on the Math I EOC – that is 3,206 students! 11% - 1,419 of our 9th grade students are on the bubble The good news is that we have generally been doing a good job in our high schools growing these students. With EVAAS, we can simply click on the pie sections to see who these students are

This can serve as an early warning/watch list for Math I teachers Can be sorted with a click on any of the column titles

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Schools with high proficiency rates, high increases in proficiency rates, high growth, or significantly increasing growth asked to share at PLT Team Leaders meeting. Questions they were asked to address: How does your PLT operate effectively? What changes did you make in Math I curriculum/instruction between 2012-13 and 2013-14? What strategies/interventions do you use for struggling students? Does math placement factor in?

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Strategies & ideas they shared: PLT Structures: same teachers teaching Math I each year mostly veteran teachers; few beginning teachers teachers dedicated to teaching Math I all day common planning for EOC PLTs daily communication/reflection on how lessons are going visited feeder Middle Schools for vertical alignment and better understanding

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Established high expectations from Day 1 modeled expectations gave frequent feedback on progress Curriculum adjustments focused on critical standards slowed down when needed felt they know the curriculum better now that they are in the 3rd year of implementation weekly cumulative review (Problem Attic, Math XL)

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Support for struggling students established remediation structures within school day (Knight Time, Smart Lunch, etc.) students who failed Math IA placed into Intro Math in the spring Instructional adjustments balance between direct instruction and activities strategic EOC preparation literacy development

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Strategic preparation for EOC test: spiraled review throughout course practice with EOC-type questions with attention to gridded-response and calculator inactive items Coach Book for Math I EOC Review last 3 weeks devoted to EOC review multiple practice EOCs to build stamina strategically grouped students based on mock-EOC performance in order to differentiate preparation Spiraled review - often through warm-ups & homework –e.g. at Leesville they gave the same three types of problems all week - one easy, medium, high - with different numbers each day - goal for lower students to get 2 of 4 correct - 50% equates to passing on EOC – motivates students - goal for stronger students to get 3 of 4 correct

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Attention to literacy development: Required students to write – e.g. explanations of how they solved a problem/why a procedure works Focus on contextual (word) problems, offering specific strategies for how to unpack problems

What Can We Do to Improve? Group Analysis Divide cards into: What teachers can control What administration controls What we both own What 2-3 strategies can you implement in your building for the most impact? What 2-3 things can you take back to your building for the most impact?