1. Presentation to the Board of Education on 2012-2013 Standardized Assessment Results Michael Emmett, Superintendent Timothy Howes, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Finance Sally Dastoli, Director of Curriculum & Instruction Keith Rafaniello, Director of Technology Emily Daigle, Director of Special Education Darla Miner, Instructional Supervisor for Literacy 1 Wethersfield Public Schools September 24, 2013

2. Overview Binder Organization ◦ Types of Reports ◦ How to Read Reports Data Highlights ◦ Strengths ◦ Focus Areas ◦ What has contributed to our success? ◦ Action Plan 2013-15 2 Overview of Presentation

3. CMT State-Wide Results Student performance data on the CMT show decreases in all grades and content areas as compared to last year. 3

4. 2012-13 CMT State Performance GradeYear Math Percent At/Above Goal Reading Percent At/Above Goal Writing Percent At/Above Goal Science Percent At/Above Goal 3201266.859.262.7 3201361.656.960.0 Change -5.2-2.3-2.7 4201268.264.165.3 4201365.462.763.1 Change -2.8-1.4-2.2 5201271.867.768.164.1 5201369.466.965.662.5 Change -2.4-0.8-2.5-1.6 6201269.574.267.5 6201367.273.365.2 Change -2.3-0.9-2.3 4

5. 2012-13 CMT State Performance GradeYear Math Percent At/Above Goal Reading Percent At/Above Goal Writing Percent At/Above Goal Science Percent At/Above Goal 7201268.379.965.6 7201365.778.965.0 Change -2.6-0.6 8201267.476.868.462.1 8201365.276.367.360.6 Change -2.2-0.5-1.1-1.5 5 * Excerpt from 2013 CAPT Results Show Increases and CMT Results Show Decreases

6. CAPT State-Wide Results The state-wide results of the 2013 CAPT were generally positive. Performance increased slightly in mathematics, science and reading, but decreased slightly in writing. 6

7. 2011-2013 CAPT State Performance Year Math Percent At/Above Goal Science Percent At/Above Goal Reading Percent At/Above Goal Writing Percent At/Above Goal 201149.647.244.861.3 201249.347.347.563.1 201352.649.048.562.1 Change+3.3 %+1.7 %+1 %-1 % 7 *Excerpt from 2013 CAPT Results Show Increases and CMT Results Show Decreases

8. CSDE School Performance Index CSDE has not released SPI (School Performance Index). Expected to release scores late October/November. CSDE recalculating the 3 year baseline SPI based on audit. 8

9. SMARTER Balanced Assessment (SBAC) Highly likely that Wethersfield will only administer Science CMT/CAPT (grades 5, 8, & 10) and SBAC (grades 3-8 and 11) this spring. District has already shifted instructional focus away from CMT/CAPT towards the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and SMARTER Balanced (SBAC) Assessment to prepare for this new national assessment. 9

10. (as of December 2011) 45 States Adopted CCSS

11. SBAC Member States 11

12. CMT & CAPT Scoring and Performance Levels Five levels Level 5- Advanced Level 4- Goal (State Goal) Level 3- Proficient Level 2- Basic Level 1- Below Basic  Our goal is to significantly decrease the % of students at basic and below basic  And significantly increase the % of students at or above goal 12 % Students at Goal or above

13. Binder Walk Overview ◦ Executive Summary ◦ CSDE Press Release regarding CMT and CAPT ◦ ESEA Waiver Amendment ◦ DRG Rankings 13

14. Binder Walk High School Standardized Scores ◦ CAPT ◦ AP (Advanced Placement) ◦ ACT ◦ SAT ◦ ECE (Early College Experience) 14

15. Binder Walk - Grade 4 4-1 and 4-2 ◦ Overall Summary State vs. Wethersfield ◦ Graph – percent by level ◦ Number of students taking standard CMT, Skills Checklist, MAS, ELL exempt 4-3 ◦ Comparison of State vs. Wethersfield over 4 years ◦ % at/above goal and % at/above proficiency 15

16. Binder Walk – Continued 4-4 ◦ Results by Content Strand ◦ State vs. Wethersfield vs. School 4-18 ◦ Table with school data from 2011-13 4-19 ◦ Performance Level Report (Line Graph) ◦ % at/above Goal ◦ State vs. Wethersfield vs. School ◦ Math, Reading, & Writing 16

17. Binder Walk - Continued 4-40 ◦ Vertical Scales – Bar Graph ◦ Math & Reading 4-42 ◦ Sub-Group Graphs & Charts ◦ State vs. Wethersfield ◦ Male vs. Female ◦ Special Education ◦ Free/Reduced Meals ◦ ELL 17

18. Binder Walk Vertical Scales ◦ Math ◦ Reading District Assessments ◦ District Assessment Calendar 2012-13 ◦ Benchmarks for Math and Language Arts 2012-13 ◦ Grades K-9 18

19. WHS CAPT Strengths Increase in writing at/above goal (2.8%) Increase in math at/above goal (2.7%) Statistically same range in reading Historically we see trends that girls outperform boys in reading and writing. Whereas, the males are continuing to outperform the females in math and science. However, with this traditional gender gap we are starting to see a closer grouping of the data in writing. Overall, increase in ACT and SAT scores Have decreased number of AP exams, but this is due to the increased number of students taking ECE in place of the AP exam. 19

20. WHS CAPT Focus Areas Science declined in % at goal (6.3%), but consistent at/above % proficiency Sub-groups (ELL, Free/Reduced, Special Education) continue to underperform their peers. However, you will see in the subgroup graphs that there have been some improvements. These subgroups are also generally outperforming the state subgroup average. 20

21. WHS CAPT What has contributed to our success? Game Film (Zmuda Cohort) has grown from 12 teachers to the entire school in 2013-14. Revised Algebra curriculum to align with CCSS Algebra 1 support class and new math sequence including Algebra for all students in grades 8 or 9 Increase in AP and ECE enrollment Addition of a K-12 Instructional Supervisor for Literacy Start focus on CCSS in English, Social Studies and Math 21

22. WHS Action Plan 2013-15 Add Academic Leaders & K-12 Instructional Supervisors for Math and Science Continue CCSS work in Math, English, and Social Studies ◦ Implement CCSS Geometry and Integrated Math Introduce CCSS to all teachers for integration of skills Data Teams to analyze student learning and improve instructional strategies Game Film (Zmuda Cohort) will involve the entire high school 2013-14 Continue to grow ECE/AP enrollment Focus on sub-groups such as ELL, Special Education, Free/Reduced, etc. Implement Advisor/Advisee Continue curriculum writing 22

23. DRG Comparison 2013 CAPT DRG Ranking using % at or above Goal WHSMathReadingWritingScience 201321201723 20122019 16 20119947 20101813 10 20091381611 23 24 Towns in DRG D (including Wethersfield)

24. 24 Towns in DRG D (District Reference Groups) Berlin Bethel Branford Clinton Colchester Cromwell East Granby East Hampton East Lyme Ledyard Milford Newington New Milford North Haven Old Saybrook Rocky Hill Shelton Southington Stonington Wallingford Waterford Watertown Wethersfield Windsor 24

25. GRADES 3-8 CMT 25

26. DRG Comparison 2013 DRG Ranking using % at or above Goal MathReadingWritingScience Grade 3 15 (21)18 (24)23 (22) Not Tested Grade 4 7 (19)14 (23)21 (22) Not Tested Grade 5 22 (14)22 (12) 21 (14) Grade 6 17 (10)10 (16)16 (22) Not Tested Grade 7 8 (9)18 (15)23 (18) Not Tested Grade 8 10 (14)18 (15)21 (20) 23 (21) 26 24 Towns in DRG D (including Wethersfield) Scores in ( ) are prior year DRG ranking Red was lower DRG rank in 2012 Blue was higher DRG rank 2012

27. Grade 3 Strengths Moved from 21 st to 15 th in the DRG in Math Moved from 24 th to 18 th in the DRG in Reading Increases in writing at/above goal: Hanmer (2.3%) and Webb (5.6%) Significant increases in reading at/above goal Charles Wright (11.8%), Hanmer (2%), and Webb (7.9%) showed Hanmer (11.8%) and Charles Wright (1.2%) showed increases math at/above goal Was above the state average for reading and math at/above goal 27

28. Grade 3 Action Plan Writing moved from the 22 nd to 23 rd in the DRG Wethersfield performed below state average in writing Significant drops in writing at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (25.9%), Charles Wright (23.8%) and Highcrest (5.2%) Decreased in reading at/above goal: Highcrest (3.3%) and Emerson-Williams (4%) Decreased in math at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (8.5%), Webb (15.4%) and Highcrest (5.6%) Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced, special education and students who are scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT 28

29. Grade 4 Strengths Moved from 19 th to 7 th in the DRG in Math Moved from 23 rd to 14 th in the DRG in Reading Moved from 22 nd to 21 st in the DRG in Writing Above state average for all areas Increases in math at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (19.5%), Hanmer (10.5%), Charles Wright (11.5%), and Webb (9.8%) Increases in reading at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (11.7%), Hanmer (20.3%), Charles Wright (maintained), Highcrest (6.6%), Webb (17.2%) Increases in writing at/above goal: Charles Wright (1.4%) 29

30. Grade 4 Action Plan Decreases in writing at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (3.6%), Hanmer (10.8%), Highcrest (4%), Webb (2.5%) Decrease in math at/above goal: Highcrest (6.8%) Sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced, special education continue to underperform 30

31. Grade 5 Strengths Above the state average for math and reading (at/above goal) Increased in writing at/above goal: Hanmer (4%) 31

32. Grade 5 Action Plan Dropped in DRG ◦ Math from 14 th to 22 nd ◦ Reading from 12 th to 22 nd ◦ Writing from 12 th to 22 nd ◦ Science from 14 th to 21 st Wethersfield is below the state average for writing and science (at/above goal) Decreased in math at/above goal: Hanmer (8.9%), Charles Wright (18.7%), Highcrest (5.1%), and Webb (16.6%) Decreased in reading at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (2.2%), Hanmer (1.2%), Charles Wright (27.6%), Highcrest (11.5%), Webb (8.2%) Decreased in writing at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (20.5%), Charles Wright (18%), Highcrest (8.9%), Webb (30.4%) 32

33. Grade 6 Strengths Improved in DRG ranking ◦ Reading from 16 th to 10 th ◦ Writing from 22 nd to 16 th Above the state average for math, reading and writing (at/above goal) Increased in math: Hanmer (13.7%) Increased in reading at/above goal: Charles Wright (11.3%), (Emerson-Williams, Webb, and Highcrest maintained their scores) Increased in writing at/above goal: Hanmer (3.6%), Charles Wright (20.7%) (Highcrest statistically maintained their scores) 33

34. Grade 6 Action Plan Dropped in DRG ◦ Math from 10 th to 17 th Decreased in math at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (7.1%), Charles Wright (15.2%), Highcrest (3.2%), and Webb (3.5%) Decreased in reading at/above goal: Hanmer (3.5%) Decreased in writing at/above goal: Emerson-Williams (7%) and Webb (10.8%) Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced, special education and students who are scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT 34

35. Grade 7 Strengths Improved in DRG ranking ◦ Math from 9 th to 8 th Above the state average for math and reading (at/above goal) Static scores in math 35

36. Grade 7 Action Plan Dropped in DRG ◦ Reading from 15 th to 18 th ◦ Writing from 18 th to 23 rd Slightly below state goal for writing Decreased in reading (4.1%) at/above goal Decreased in writing (7.2%) at/above goal Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced, special education and students who are scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT 36

37. Grade 8 Strengths Improved in DRG ranking ◦ Math from 9 th to 8 th Above the state average for math, reading & writing (at/above goal) Maintained in math 37

38. Grade 8 Action Plan Dropped in DRG ◦ Reading from 15 th to 18 th ◦ Writing from 20 th to 21 st Decreased in reading (2.5%) at/above goal Decreased in writing (9.1%) at/above goal Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced, special education and students who are scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT 38

39. What has contributed to our success? Starting 3 rd year of Reader’s Workshop New math curriculum implemented 2012-13 (K-4, and Algebra 1) New SRBI process and guidelines ◦ Math Universal Screens Commitment to Columbia’s Workshop model (including purchasing of leveled readers, professional development, coaching, curriculum, assessments, teacher resources, etc.) Implemented a minimum of 130 minutes for a daily literacy block Increased volume of “just right books” 39

40. What has contributed to our success? Implementation of full day Kindergarten ELL program improvements Introduction of Data Teams Administrative Walk-Throughs – with a district focus on improving instruction and implementation of curriculum expectations Implementation of standards-based elementary progress reports Addition of a K-12 Instructional Supervisor for Literacy 40

41. Robotics, K-6 Art, 7-8 Science, 7-8 Technology Education, Accounting, French 7-8, Italian 7-8, Spanish 7-8, French I, III & IV, Spanish III & IV, Italian I, II & III, K- 8 LA, Algebra 1, Introduction to Computer Science, K- 4 Math, 7-8 Math, Civics, US History, K-6 Health, 6-12 Developmental Guidance, Art Discovery, Art I Foundations, Art Design, Art II, Art III, Advanced Placement (AP) Art, World History, Child Care Skills, Child Development, Foods I, Foods II, Culinary Arts, K-6 PE, K-6 General Music, English 10, ECE/AP Language and Composition, Chemistry in the Community, Integrated Science and Biology, International Studies, ECE English/AP Language and Literature, 5-6 Math, 7-8 Social Studies, Integrated Math, Geometry, Humanities, English 9 Honors, World History 41 K-12 Curriculum Revisions

42. New Courses at WHS ◦ Italian V ◦ Introduction to Computer Science ◦ Integrated Algebra 1 & Geometry ◦ Integrated Algebra 2 & Geometry ◦ Computer Integrated Applications: Word Processing and Publishing ◦ Computer Integrated Applications: Excel and Multimedia Development ◦ E-Commerce and Website Development ◦ ECE US History 42 New Courses at WHS

43. Focus Areas 2013-15 Focus on Writer’s Workshop coaching and professional development ◦ For example, 50 teachers and administrators attended a 5 day summer institute in July 2013 focused on improving writing K-6. Teachers will be implementing new instructional strategies for Writer’s Workshop ◦ Implementation of new Units of Study for Writing ◦ Curriculum Specialists coaching institute ◦ Calendar days (workshops on new reading and writing units) 43

44. Focus Areas 2013-15 Professional development on: ◦ Using new writing rubrics K-8 ◦ Small group instruction K-6 ◦ Conferring Training on Sitton Spelling (May 2012) to address areas of word work, spelling, grammar, proofreading, editing, revising, and vocabulary. 44

45. Focus Areas 2013-15 Implement revised 7-8 Social Studies curriculum, aligned to CCSS Implement new district writing assessments Columbia Teacher’s College Project School – Staff developers will work with staff and students to improve Reader’s and Writer’s workshop (Hanmer and SDMS) Columbia’s Teacher College Senior Staff will do three (3) workshops for administrators and teacher leaders 45

46. Focus Areas 2013-15 Refine new math curriculum and assessments aligned to CCSS (K-4, Algebra 1) Implement new math curriculum aligned to CCSS (Grades 5-8, Geometry) ◦ Professional development ◦ Common assessments New Integrated Math course at WHS Convene a math committee to review potential new math programs aligned to CCSS for purchase for grades K-6 46

47. Focus Areas 2013-15 SRBI interventions for math and reading ◦ Increase tutor support ◦ Increase high quality resources aligned to CCSS ◦ Work collaboratively with special education department Improve performance of sub-groups Improve Data Team structures to analyze student learning and improve instructional strategies Prepare for the SMARTER Balanced assessment ◦ Keyboarding skills ◦ Hardware ◦ Increased curriculum rigor 47

48. Focus Areas 2013-15 Add K-12 Instructional Supervisor for Math Add K-12 Instructional Supervisor for Science Implement Teacher and Administrator Evaluation plan with fidelity Update District Improvement Plan 48

49. CCSS Goals & Standards Reader’s/ Writer’s Workshop & Curriculum Data-Driven Decision Making Professional Development

50. Monitoring Update District Improvement Plan School Improvement Plans Grade level and school level analysis of District assessments Grade level meetings with principal, reading consultants and curriculum specialists Data Team analysis Coaching Feedback from Stakeholders Administrative Team meetings and Walk-Throughs 50