Spring 2014 Results Focus: Subgroups All Grades Measure: District Annual Writing Prompt Time frame for Target Monitoring Spring 2015 Results Percent Expected To Meet / Exceed Standard Subgroups: Base-line Data Current Data Targets Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 End of Year % ELL 40% 1 50 2 65 3 75 Spec. Ed. 25% 30 40 FRL 32% 60 Writing Grade: B+ Time: 75 min. (7/15 slides – 5 min. of 30 min. for complete exercise) Resources Required: Chart paper and markers Purpose: Illustrate the product for this activity – Dissecting the target template Lecture Notes: This is a picture of what we’re going to ask you to do with one of your target templates in just a few minutes. You’ll post it on a piece of chart paper and then identify all the important pieces of your template. Activity Notes: Show this slide while they are working. Walk through the example so they can see how the “anatomy” is based on their decisions about how they put their target templates together. They should be able to explain their target template decisions. This exercise pushes them to not just review but to justify why they decided to complete the template the way they did. And, if they can’t, what they need to do to improve or refine it. Read the summary box – rationale for their grade. Facilitator Note: The teams will remain at their own tables but the charts should be posted at the end of the activity so others can see what they have done. Summary: We believe these targets are challenging but attainable because we have already begun to focus on these subgroups and have writing interventions in place. They leave us short of our goal and we can only measure annually. The whole target needs to be supplemented with formative results. @2015 SMART Learning Systems 1

Current Data (# of ALL students) Baseline Results Number of Students In Algebra I Subject: Algebra I (Operations) Grade: Department: Subject: Subgroup: N= 105 Students Current Data (# of ALL students) Forms Target (# of ALL students) Blue 8 Baseline 14 Green 24 30 Yellow 28 36 Red 44 25 23 Progress Check 35 27 45 15 10 Results What Now? 52 Measure: District Math Benchmark Assessment District Benchmark Projected # of Students on Mid-point Exam Projected # of Students on Final Exam Actual # of Students On Mid-point Exam Time: 75 minutes (8/15 slides) Resources Required: Not in participant manual Purpose: Common Assessment Targets by zone/student Lecture Notes: Walk through this example to show how formative assessments using zone analyses are used to create the targets. In this example, the end result still leaves 4 students short of meeting the standard. Additional supports would need to be provided for those students. Activity Notes: Plan Forward Actual # of Students On Final Exam Grade: A- Summary: Formative measure allows for periodic monitoring and adjustment of practice. Targets are realistic, measurable and time-bound. @2015 SMART Learning Systems 2

Spring 2014 Results (D) Focus: Grades 3-5 Spring 2015 Results Measure: DEA Time frame for Target Monitoring Percent Expected To Meet / Exceed Standard Focus: Reading Grades 3-5 Base-line Data Spring 2014 % Levels 3 & 4 Current Year Actual Data -Spring Targets Yearly Spring Data 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Cohort 1 Grade 3 2014-15 56% 62% 70% 77% 2015 60% 2016 65% 2017 75% Cohort 2 Grade 4 48% 58% 55% 63% Cohort 3 Grade 5 72% Reading Grade: B Time: 75 min. (9/15 slides – 5 min. of 30 min. for complete exercise) Resources Required: Chart paper and markers Purpose: Illustrate how cohort analyses can be used to create targets. Lecture Notes: Walk through this example. Facilitator Note: The teams will remain at their own tables but the charts should be posted at the end of the activity so others can see what they have done. Summary: We believe these targets were not challenging enough and should probably have been increased after the 2014-15 results came in. We also would like a target template that allows us to monitor more frequently using A and B data during the year. We would also like to follow our Cohort 2 and 3 groups into middle school to see if they are continuing to improve. @2015 SMART Learning Systems 3