Secondary WOLT Grading Committee Recommendations to Support District Benchmarking Initiative.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Advertisements

Grading and Reporting Grade PLUS 4 th and 5 th Grade.
Freehold Borough Teacher Evaluation System Freehold Intermediate School Friday – February 15, 2013 Rich Pepe Director of Curriculum & Instruction.
0 From TN Department of Education Presentation RTII: Response to Instruction and Intervention.
Mount Pleasant Middle School Placement Process What is the purpose? What is the process? Assessments/Data Rubric Wando's Academic Expectations Public Comment.
October 9 th, 2013 Curriculum Presentation: State Assessments Grades 3-8.
Manasquan Elementary School State Proficiency Assessments Spring 2010 results Presented by: Richard Kirk Assistant Principal Manasquan Elementary School.
A ccountability R esearch and M easurement 1 Overview of Proposed School Grading Formula for :
Accountability Services North Carolina Department of Public Instruction January 14, 2015 School Performance Grades.
Leader & Teacher SLTs 2014 – ComponentEvaluation for TeachersEvaluation for School Leaders Setting GoalsTeachers set two SLTs in collaboration with.
1. 2 What tests will students have to take? High School COURSES with EOCs MathEnglishScienceSoc. Studies Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Eng. I-R&W Eng.
Creating a Movement Creating a Movement. Secondary Mathematics News and Next Steps Staff Development Day March 18, 2011.
Silas Deane Middle School Steven J. Cook, Principal Cynthia Fries, Assistant Principal October 22, 2013 Wethersfield Board of Education.
Information provided by LISD Assessment Office.  STAAR stands for: › State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness  Implemented in for school year.
M.Greenaway. Analysing Data.
2012 Secondary Curriculum Teacher In-Service
Assessment Update 2008 GACIS Fall Conference. Transition of Assessments to the GPS Two major tasks: 1.Content alignment “What students must know” Make.
Changes to Assessing and Reporting Shawn Whyte Assessment Coach.
Assessing Tomorrow’s Leaders Today in an Integrated Reading and Writing Course NADE 2015 – Greenville, SC Kina Lara and Tina Willhoite San Jacinto College.
Lansing Central School District District Assessment Results Presentation January 24, 2011 Dr. Stephen L. Grimm, Superintendent District Leadership Team.
Elementary Assessment Data Update Edmonds School District January 2013.
Student Achievement Data Data by School Board of Education Presentation October 14,
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Predicting Patterns: Lenawee County's Use of EXPLORE and PLAN DataDirector 2011 User Conference Dearborn, Michigan.
Top-performing urban school district in Florida State Assessment & Accountability.
Assessment Dashboard August 2012 Page Unified School District Curriculum AssessmentInstruction Data.
Department of Research and Planning Leadership Meeting January 16, 2013 ASSESSMENT CORRELATIONS.
Principal’s Mid-Year Report Shelley Jusick Napoleon Middle School Math Goal.
End of Year Report_ DataSet 1 Lodi Unified School District Year-End Benchmark Assessment Results (Student Achievement Monitoring)
Warren Roane Jamie Hicks Mary Kay Gianoutsos Humble ISD Warren Roane Jamie Hicks Mary Kay Gianoutsos Humble ISD EOC and Algebra I: A District Perspective.
ELA & Math Scale Scores Steven Katz, Director of State Assessment Dr. Zach Warner, State Psychometrician.
Standards-Based Assessment Overview K-8 Fairfield Public Schools Fall /30/2015.
Standard Setting Results for the Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program Dr. Michael Clark Research Scientist Psychometric & Research Services Pearson State.
CIRCLE Progress Monitoring Training School Year.
KKC’s Assessment Academy Project Update August 2012.
2009 Report Card and TVAAS Update Recalibration 2009 October 26, 2009.
Understanding AzMERIT Results and Score Reporting An Overview.
Grades 3-8 Assessment Results. English Language Arts.
Proposed End-of-Course (EOC) Cut Scores for the Spring 2015 Test Administration Presentation to the Nevada State Board of Education March 17, 2016.
Overview Plan Input Outcome and Objective Measures Summary of Changes Board Feedback Finalization Next Steps.
{ SAGA & Teacher Evaluation Fall 2014 Student Academic Growth Assessment & the Teacher Evaluation System
End of Course Examination Program (“EOCEP”). Why EOCEP exists State Board of Education Regulation states that students scheduled to complete.
October 17, What is the primary purpose(s) and responsibility of our committee?
November 15, 2010 Camdenton R-III School District.
1 Testing Various Models in Support of Improving API Scores.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
PARCC Results Summary Report.
Teacher SLTs
Tracy Miller September 13, 2017
K-6 Benchmark Assessment Inservices
Parent Forum – Elementary Report Card
High School State Assessment Update
Average is Officially Over!
Reports for Data & Progress Monitoring
FY12 Accountability Updates
School Improvement Plans and School Data Teams
Standards Based Grading
Delaware Department of Education
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
IFs and Nested IFs =IF(R3<60,”F”,”P”)
Teacher SLTs
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR OVERVIEW
School Improvement Ratings Rule 6A , F.A.C.
Split-Block Class Schedule at Yorktown High School
District and School Accountability System: Proposed Modifications
JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT Middle School Math Informational Night
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Grading Guidelines - Gradebook
Mayra Perez, Ed. D. October 10, 2016
Presentation transcript:

Secondary WOLT Grading Committee Recommendations to Support District Benchmarking Initiative

Secondary WOLT has determined that benchmarking will begin fall 2007 Secondary WOLT has determined that benchmarking will begin fall th Grade: Math and ELA 6 th Grade: Math and ELA 9 th Grade: Algebra, English I, and Biology 9 th Grade: Algebra, English I, and Biology Committee created to determine grading changes that will support and facilitate benchmarking Committee created to determine grading changes that will support and facilitate benchmarking Current proposal represents significant research coupled with large number of meetings, discussions, and feedback Current proposal represents significant research coupled with large number of meetings, discussions, and feedback Secondary Grading Committee Brief Overview

Secondary Grading Recommendations Letter Grades Continue to use letter grades to communicate student achievement (A, B, C, D, I, F) Continue to use letter grades to communicate student achievement (A, B, C, D, I, F) Letter grades will result from the consistent application of common weighting standards across departments. Letter grades will result from the consistent application of common weighting standards across departments. Common Weighting: Common Weighting: Minimum of 70% for common assessments Minimum of 70% for common assessments Remaining 30% considers other factors with a cap of 10% on homework. Remaining 30% considers other factors with a cap of 10% on homework.

Mastery of the viable curriculum Mastery of the viable curriculum Track mastery of the expectations that define the viable curriculum via common assessments. Track mastery of the expectations that define the viable curriculum via common assessments. Mastery of the viable curriculum results in a grade no lower than “C”. Mastery of the viable curriculum results in a grade no lower than “C”. Note: Ongoing reporting would reflect “current status”. Override would be applied to final grade. Secondary Grading Recommendations Letter Grades

Mastery of the viable curriculum – Example Mastery of the viable curriculum – Example Mastery of the Viable Curriculum Rationale % Assessments = 765/900 70% Assessments = 765/900 10% Homework = 0/130 10% Homework = 0/130 20% Other = 0/260 20% Other = 0/260 Total = 765/1290 = 59% F Total = 765/1290 = 59% F Override would apply and the student would receive a “C” for a final grade Override would apply and the student would receive a “C” for a final grade

Secondary Grading Recommendations Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Benchmarking Expectations – The viable curriculum is defined by specific, well articulated expectations that students are to master. Benchmarking Expectations – The viable curriculum is defined by specific, well articulated expectations that students are to master. Mastery of individual or groupings of benchmarking expectations will be set between 70% and 80% as determined by the needs of each department. (Most departments will use 75%.) Mastery of individual or groupings of benchmarking expectations will be set between 70% and 80% as determined by the needs of each department. (Most departments will use 75%.) Note: Scores on a given rubric will be equated to mastery. These scores can be converted into numbers or percentages.

Secondary Grading Recommendations Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Common assessments will provide benchmarking data to allow: Common assessments will provide benchmarking data to allow: Intervention MS & HS Intervention MS & HS Course repeat HS Course repeat HS Benchmarking data must be collected to plan for, provide, and measure student achievement relative to state standards. Benchmarking data must be collected to plan for, provide, and measure student achievement relative to state standards.

Secondary Grading Recommendations Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Common assessments will continue to be created to measure student achievement relative to benchmarking expectations. Common assessments will continue to be created to measure student achievement relative to benchmarking expectations. Benchmarking data will come from individual expectations OR groupings of expectations as determined by the needs of the department. Benchmarking data will come from individual expectations OR groupings of expectations as determined by the needs of the department.

Examples: Scenario 1 Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations %78%50% Individual Expectations Support/Intervention Change score when mastered All scores used in grade calculation

Examples : Scenario 2 Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Groups of ExpectationsT1E1E2E383xxx Overall test score > 74% (Mastery level at 75%) All expectations mastered Score used to calculate grade

Examples : Scenario 2 Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Groups of ExpectationsT1E1E2E350xx Overall test score < 75% (Mastery Level at 75%) Record individual expectations Score used to calculate grade Support/Intervention Score changed when mastered

Examples : Scenario 2 Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Infinite Campus Gradebook Score above the cut – all expectations mastered.

Examples : Scenario 2 Mastery of Benchmarking Expectations Infinite Campus Gradebook Score below the cut – enter the expectations mastered.

Secondary Grading Recommendations Summary 1.Letter grades from common weighting A, B, C, D, I, F A, B, C, D, I, F Minimum 70% from common assessments Minimum 70% from common assessments Maximum 10% from homework Maximum 10% from homework 2.Benchmarking Expectations Mastery between 70% and 80% as determined by needs of department Mastery between 70% and 80% as determined by needs of department Mastery of the viable curriculum results in a grade no lower than “C” Mastery of the viable curriculum results in a grade no lower than “C” 3.Benchmarking Data  Individual or groups of benchmarking expectations as determined by the needs of the department