Rod Hardy Hanover-Horton High School Math Data Retreat Results: Beginning the Process

 Perspective Overall…  Positive comparisons (v. state)… exception math  Struggle with math  Major demographic differences exist in the academic success of our students (Changes in our perspective)  Special Ed results (gap in #)  Economically Disadvantaged results  Presumption: These are the same students (False)  Weakness in area of “Figures and Properties”  Display state reporting system with emphasis on % performance in each strand area (new slide)

 Math Scores Year# Students MeanLevel 4 Not Proficient Level 3 Partially Proficient Level 2 Proficient Level 1 Advanced Levels 1 & /38/20/16/38/37/6/10/44/ /38/22/16/33/36/6/10/39/ /36/21/15/41/37/13/12/54/49 HH/St

YearStudent Group # Students MeanPL #4 PL #3 PL #2 PL #1 PL 1&2 2007S wo D SWD S wo D SWD S wo D SWD

 Our lowest performance levels were in the largest portions of the test (2009 Test) StrandMean Points Points Possible Percent Correct Percent of Test L1: Reasoning About Numbers L2: Calculations, Algorithms L3: Math Reasoning, Logic and Proof A1: Expressions and Equations A2: Functions A3: Families of Functions G1: Figures and Properties G2: Relationships Between Figures G3: Transformations of Figures S1: Univariate Data: Distributions S2: Bivariate Data: Relationships S4: Probability Models

 …improvement in student performance (all grades) working with “Properties and Figures” as measured on the 2010 MME  …60% of non disabled students assessed at “proficient” and “advanced”  …accelerating performance of “students with disabilities” (gap) to reflect a 40% proficient assessment  …accelerating performance of “economically disadvantaged” students (gap) to reflect a 50% “proficient” rate on the MME  …reduce the performance gap between economically disadvantaged and student with disability performance scores by 50% when compared with scores of non disadvantaged/disabled students

 Objective 1: Review alignment of math curriculum with the HSCEs  Objective 2: Development of quarterly formative assessments  Objective 3: Identify ED and SWD students  Objective 4: Improved professional development and planning  Objective 5: Better prepare students for the MME  Objective 6: Interventions with students struggling with Algebra II

 The first objective had the following statements…  “…review and revise course content…”  We are aligned, but it needs ongoing review and editing.  Review and realign the curriculum to…  ACT College Readiness standards  MMC benchmarks  With emphasis on “Figures and Properties”  Status: Complete (review has occurred, changes are made, documents are edited) Partially complete in that I would like more definition and detail than what I think is there.  “…document evidence on ‘Figures and Properties’… through unit plans… aligned… according to a format we design”  Promote a common effort with a common direction (common plans)  The documentation (in Data Director public file)  A common format (not yet acceptable)  Status: Partially Complete (…Some thinking has been done… in on-line Data Director folder… issue: focus on “Figures and Properties, common format)  Organizing new class in curriculum for students that need a 4 th credit from a practical, everyday math perspective

 Objective 2: Development of quarterly assessments  Dropped (a timing issue for 2009… Already have semester assessments)  What do we focus on for formative assessment? Revisit: Formative assessment related to “Figures and Properties” only… (Current semester exam results are being reviewed)  Objective 3: Identify EDS and SWD  Partially complete: SWD are identified. We are having more problems with ED students (FERPA)  Lists are identified according to math teacher  Do we have any discussion concerning strategies of how to approach these students in our classrooms?

 “…providing common planning and afterschool opportunities for professional learning and instructional development.”  Common planning is in schedule (may soon be smoke…)  Staff meetings were reduced significantly (1/2) to provide time for after school department meetings  ½ day mini retreats  Status: Complete  “…research best practices and differentiated instruction for working with SWD and EDS.”  Co-teaching assignments with general ed and special ed staff working together… (Special ed support in the general ed classroom in PreAlgebra)  With these students, “relationship (s)” (three R’s) may be the most important element (Discussed in a department meeting this week)  Status: Not complete

 Post ACT College readiness standards in classrooms (cross curricular)  Complete (Some are used/referenced more than others…)  MSU Algebra project  Provides a more “hands on”, creative (“outside the box”) approach to Algebra instruction and learning  Moves the instructor away from a heavy dependence on a textbook  Moves creative (v. repetitive) thought processing  Multiple dates and hours of professional development for ½ of the math staff  External monitor  A budget to investigate new learning models  Partially complete: training and implementation in these instructional strategies are an ongoing process

 Improved student preparation for improved performance on the ACT/MME  ACT prep sessions on Wednesdays after school  Certified instructors (Math teachers rotate)  identified content (Calendar and agenda)  Pre and Post testing (Pretesting complete, post testing coming)  Classroom warm-ups (daily “problem [s] of the day”)  Good participation (Staff and students: 1 st five minutes of each class)  Algebra II… Immediate reassignment of students who do not achieve credit in first semester Algebra II to restart first semester over again in semester 2… (project, “hands on” approach)  Result of first attempt… All passed with 69% average  Reassignment of grade level based on credits  Discussion of two week extensions for students with grade averages of

 Achievement data with analysis (Have not yet taken the MME for 2010)  In the process of looking at semester exam results  MME results: March 9 – 11  All students retaking Algebra II (sem. 1) in the fall of 2009 passed with a class average of 69%.  Perception Surveys  Survey of cross curricular math instruction from each teacher (75% of staff, All list a number of math activities that are regularly completed during the course of instruction.))  Observations:  In the process of scheduling visits to the classroom from our MSU mentor  Warm-up ACT activities are being completed regularly  20 – 25 students have been showing up for the after-school ACT prep sessions on Wednesdays  Student Work (List)

 Other Tangible Products  Lesson Plans (Unit plans)  Assessments  SWD lists in hands of Department Chair/teachers…  Common Planning is in schedule  After school department meetings more than once a month  Documented editing of curricular alignment with filed results  College Readiness Standards are posted  MSU algebra strategies have been used in the classrooms of four math teachers (Emphasis on visual learning, multiple approaches to a solution, patience on the part of the instructor)  Algebra II students who need additional semester I work have been reassigned according to the limits of the schedule.

 Implementation: Is the objective implemented as expected in the Plan? (See prior comments)  Teachers implementing strategies (% - complete for each strategy… (Classroom warm-up activities… Survey on cross curricular use of math concepts)  Average amount of time by each teacher in implementing the strategy, compared to the expectation of the plan? (minutes / % of class period)

 Shifts that have occurred in student perception? (numerical survey results, qualitative comments)  We are encouraged by the number of students who do show up for the Wednesday afternoon ACT prep sessions (20 – 24… Exception in last session).  Changes in student achievement / skills outlined in goal (numerical data) 2010 testing is not yet complete… We will know more about the answers to these questions when we take the ACT Prep post-test and the MME in March (…another reason why we need to expand the assessments we use…)

 Specific/Additional “Action Steps” required to complete implementation of the objectives/strategies in the plan to ensure success in attaining the student goal…  Formal unit plans in a common structure need to be completed.  We need to complete research concerning instructional and intervention strategies for use with ED and SWD students.  We need greater emphasis in knowing the content of the ACT College Readiness Standards and in the development of instructional strategies to prepare students to master those skills.  Complete the MSU project and begin teaching the strategies to other teachers in the department.  We need to reassess the success of the Wednesday ACT sessions and develop methods to better market the opportunity.

 Revisions or expansions to the plan… This has not been an item of discussion. But… We should alter the “goal” to include assessment results from the Explore, PLAN, and Work Keys tests.  Better references “all students”  Becomes more proactive in nature