DLT September 28, 2011

State Indicators and Rating for OFCS (have) Key Factors and Points to Keep in Mind (have) This power point presentation (will get)

Our district performance on the 2011 Ohio Report Card Student achievement performance on the OAA and OGT Specific subgroup performances Student growth data (Value-Added Assessment) at the building, grade and subject level FOR THE PURPOSES OF: Celebration and identify areas of need Providing context to our previous professional development efforts

4 Copyright ©2006. Battelle for Kids. We must expect progress for all students. Student A Student B Proficient

Considerations for Gauging Effectiveness: 1) External Standard (proficiency level) 2) Student’s Ending Point of Achievement ? (Yes/No) … sets a proficiency level students are expected to meet.

Asks the question, “How did students perform at a particular point in time?”

Follow along with your handout titled: 2011 State Indicators & Rating for OFCS

Collectively, OFCS students met the ODE achievement indicators for reading In grades where reading achievement is measured by the ODE, 5 out of 8 grades had achievement at the 90% passage rate or greater In grades 3 and 8, over 40% of students had performances categorized as Advanced

Follow along with your handout titled: 2011 State Indicators & Rating for OFCS

Collectively, OFCS students met the ODE achievement indicators for math In grades where math achievement is measured by the ODE, 7 out of 8 grades had achievement at the 90% passage rate or greater In grades 4, 5, 6 and 10, over 40% of students had performances categorized as Advanced

Remember that NCLB only tracks data for Reading and Math

We met Federal AYP indicators for the following subgroups Asian or Pacific Islander students Hispanic students Multi racial students Economically disadvantaged students in grades 4, 8 and 10 for READING and 3, 7, 8 and 10 for MATH

We missed Federal AYP indicators for the following subgroups Economically Disadvantaged Students (357 students) READING in grades 3, 5, 6 & 7 MATH in grades 4, 5 and 6 African American Students (30 students) READING in grades 3, 5 & 7 MATH in grades 3, 4, 5 and 7 Students with IEPs (262 kids) READING in grades 3 through 10 MATH in grades 3 through 10

In general OFCS students achieve at high levels READING—5 out of 8 grades had achievement at the 90% passage rate or greater MATH—7 out of 8 grades had achievement at the 90% passage rate or greater We have some specific subgroup needs that should be addressed with the following populations: Economically Disadvantage Students African American Students Students with IEPs

Follow along with your handout titled: 2011 State Indicators & Rating for OFCS

Collectively, OFCS students met the ODE achievement indicators for science Our science achievement on the OAA/OGT was: 5 th grade—89.8% passage 8 th grade—90.3% passage 10 th grade—92.4% passage 11 th grade—94.2% passage On the Terra Nova (NRT), the majority of students in grades 2 & 4 scored at the Above Average range or greater In grade 10, over 55% of students had performances categorized as Advanced

Follow along with your handout titled: 2011 State Indicators & Rating for OFCS

Collectively, OFCS students met the ODE achievement indicators for social studies in grades 10 and 11 Our science achievement was: 10 th grade—92.4% passage 11 th grade—94.2% passage On the Terra Nova (NRT), the majority of students in grades 2, 4, 5 and 8 scored at the Above Average range or greater In grades 10, over 55% of students had performances categorized as Advanced

Asks the question, “How well did students perform over time given their previous testing history?”

Students in 5 out of 6 grades met expected levels of growth In grade 4, students who have not traditionally done well on tests demonstrated more than expected levels of growth

In general OFCS students who have traditionally struggled did not make expect levels of growth As a group, 3 rd grade students did not meet the growth standard BLTs are strongly encouraged to further explore their EVAAS data at the group and subgroup levels.

Asks the question, “How well did students perform over time given their previous testing history?”

Students in grades 4 th and 7 th had greater than anticipated academic growth for 2 consecutive years. In grades 4 and 7, our highest achieving students made more than anticipated growth In grade 4, students who have traditionally not performed well on tests had more than expected levels of growth

In grades 3, 5, 6 and 8 students made less than expected growth As a group, 8 th graders didn’t make expected growth 2 years in a row BLTs are strongly encouraged to further explore their EVAAS data at the group and subgroup levels.

Asks the question, “How well did students perform over time given their previous testing history?”

Students in all grade levels met the growth standard (in grades where growth is measured) Students in grades 4 th : exceeded the growth standard; exceeded standard for 2 consecutive years; lowest performers demonstrated more than expected growth 5 th : exceeded the growth standard; exceeded standard for 2 consecutive years; lowest performers demonstrated more than expected growth 6 th : exceeded the growth standard; lowest performers demonstrated more than expected growth 7 th : exceeded the growth standard; lowest performers demonstrated more than expected growth 8 th : exceeded the growth standard; lowest performers demonstrated more than expected growth

BLTs are strongly encouraged to further explore their EVAAS data at the group and subgroup levels Teachers should discuss their share instructional practices that brought about these levels of growth

Asks the question, “How well did students perform over time given their previous testing history?”

Students in 6 out of 7 grade levels, made at least anticipated growth Students in grades: 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 student growth levels exceeded the growth standard meaning students more than expected levels of growth In grades 3, 4 and 7 this has happened for 2 consecutive years In 5 th grade, all students made more than expected levels of progress

Grade Level Diagnostic Reports