Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAyanna Gamage Modified over 2 years ago

1
Grinnell High School Student Achievement Data

2
Definition of terms AIG: Annual Improvement Goals (Set by the district, must be measurable, approved by the School Improvement Advisory Committee and then by the board) SIAC: School Improvement Advisory Committee (District Employees, Community Members who look at student achievement data and make a recommendation to the board for student achievement goals). AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB stair-step model of proficiency) which is reported to the state. Schools must meet AYP or go on a watch list, then become a SINA school

3
District Annual Improvement Goals Decrease the percentage by 50% of non-proficient students in grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grade 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

4
GHS Reading Data (AIG) In , 23 students were considered non-proficient in Reading Comprehension in the 10 th Grade. 17 of those students improved their percentile ranking as 11 th Graders However, only 12 of the 23 students become proficient. RESULT: Goal to reduce number of non-proficient students by 50% was met by 1 student in Reading Comprehension. IF we look at the same cohort FAY % of student non- proficiency from (21.5%) to (18.7%), we did not meet the goal.

5
Reading Proficiency: Class of 2011

6
Reading Proficiency: Class of 2012

7
Reading Proficiency: Class of 2013

8
Reading Proficiency: Class of 2014

9
9 th Reading Comp. Biennium

10
10 th Reading Comp. Biennium

11
11 th Reading Comp. Biennium

12
11 th Reading Comp. Biennium (F/R)

13
11 th Reading Comp. Biennium (Non F/R)

14
11 th Reading Comp. Biennium (IEP)

15
11 th Reading Comp. Biennium (Non-IEP)

16
AYP (NCLB) Trajectory

17
District Annual Improvement Goals Increase the percentage of students whose reading comprehension NSS are above the typical NSS increase for grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grades 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

18
GHS Reading Data (AIG) In , 47 students had a National Standard Score “less than typical” (268) in Reading Comprehension in the 10 th Grade. 40 of those students improved their NSS as 11 th Graders However, 18 of the 47 students improved their scores to meet the typical NSS of 275. RESULT: Goal to increase the percentage of students scoring above the typical NSS was met in Reading Comprehension.

19
Reading: Less Than Typical NSS

20
Reading: Exceeding NSS Growth

21
Reading: NSS Average Growth

22
9 th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

23

24

25

26
10 th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

27

28

29

30
11 th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

31

32

33

34
District Annual Improvement Goals Decrease the percentage by 50% of non-proficient students in grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grade 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

35
GHS Math Data (AIG) In , 21 students were considered non-proficient in Math in the 10 th Grade. 13 of those students improved their percentile ranking as 11 th Graders However, only 5 of the 21 students become proficient. RESULT: Goal to reduce number of non-proficient students by 50% was not met by 6 students in Math IF we look at the same cohort FAY % of student non- proficiency from (16.8%) to (19.6%), we did not meet the goal.

36
Math Proficiency: Class of 2011

37
Math Proficiency: Class of 2012

38
Math Proficiency: Class of 2013

39
Math Proficiency: Class of 2014

40
9 th Math Biennium

41
10 th Math Biennium

42
11 th Math Biennium

43
11 th Math Biennium (F/R)

44
11 th Math Biennium (Non F/R)

45
11 th Math Biennium (IEP)

46
11 th Math Biennium (Non-IEP)

47
AYP (NCLB) Trajectory

48
District Annual Improvement Goals Increase the percentage of students whose reading comprehension NSS are above the typical NSS increase for grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grades 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

49
GHS Math Data (AIG) In , 33 students had a National Standard Score “less than typical” (268) in Math in the 10 th Grade. 24 of those students improved their NSS as 11 th Graders However, 9 of the 33 students improved their scores to meet the typical NSS of 275. RESULT: Goal to increase the percentage of students scoring above the typical NSS in Math was met.

50
Math: Less Than Typical NSS

51
Math: Exceeding NSS Growth

52
Math: Average NSS Growth

53
9 th Math: % Correct Comparisons

54

55

56

57
10 th Math: % Correct Comparisons

58

59

60

61
11 th Math: % Correct Comparisons

62

63

64

65
GHS Science Data (AIG) In , 23 students were considered non-proficient in Science in the 10 th Grade. 21 of those students improved their percentile ranking as 11 th Graders However, 16 of the 23 students become proficient. RESULT: Goal to reduce number of non-proficient students by 50% was met by 4 students in Science IF we look at the same cohort FAY % of student non- proficiency from (18.9%) to (7.5%), we did meet the goal.

66
Science Proficiency: Class of 2011

67
Science Proficiency: Class of 2012

68
Science Proficiency: Class of 2013

69
Science Proficiency: Class of 2014

70
9 th Science Biennium

71
10 th Science Biennium

72
11 th Science Biennium

73
11 th Science Biennium (F/R)

74
11 th Science Biennium (Non F/R)

75
11 th Science Biennium (IEP)

76
11 th Science Biennium (Non-IEP)

77
District Annual Improvement Goals Increase the percentage of students whose reading comprehension NSS are above the typical NSS increase for grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grades 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

78
GHS Science Data (AIG) In , 38 students had a National Standard Score “less than typical” (268) in Science in the 10 th Grade. 35 of those students improved their NSS as 11 th Graders However, 24 of the 33 students improved their scores to meet the typical NSS of 275. RESULT: Goal to increase the percentage of students scoring above the typical NSS in Science was met.

79
Science: Less Than Typical NSS

80
Science: Exceeding NSS Growth

81
Science: Average NSS Growth

82
9th Science: % Correct Comparisons

83

84

85

86
10 th Science: % Correct Comparisons

87

88

89

90
11 th Science: % Correct Comparisons

91

92

93

94
ACT Data (Does not include 10-11)

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102
Student Failure Data (% of Single F Grades)

103
Student Failure Data (% of Multiple F Grades)

104
GHS Total % of Failing Grades

105
At-Risk Information & Criteria At-Risk is a term defined by the Dept. of Ed.as students “who need supports in order to ensure they make sufficient academic progress to graduate.” Criteria are set locally as: 1) Chronic failure (1 core or 1+ elective courses) 2) Excessive absenteeism (below building ADA %) 3) Disciplinary Referrals (above average for building) 4) 2 years non-proficient on ITED Reading or Math 5) No extracurricular involvement in school events * Students must meet 2 of the previous criteria

106
10-11 At-Risk Percentages

107
Average Daily Attendance Trends

108
% of Absences: Unexcused

109
Tardiness & Truancy: Raw Totals

110
% Of Students in “tardy bands”

111
% Of Students in “truancy bands”

112
Trends... What did you see that constituted a trend (movement of data in one direction or another?) - From our discussion Tuesday, our faculty noted that Reading Comprehension has lacked focus over the past few years and it would behoove us to review strategies to address this Without gearing our whole professional development for toward ITED scores, what are some very simple things we could be doing in our classes to help improve these numbers? - Looking at some different kinds of strategies to help students read for a purpose, be held accountable to the reading, and simply reading more often for a variety of reasons in class will help students get in the habit of reading more in school and to help them understand that this will be an expectation in all of their classes.

113
Tentative Action Plan for GHS Departments will continue to look at data from ITED to determine what skill areas can be addressed seamlessly within existing curriculum and implement strategies to address deficient skills Reading comprehension strategies will be reviewed and accountability strategies will be introduced to increase the amount of reading done in the content areas GHS faculty will continue to develop and strengthen relationships with students through the Seminar program to reduce the number of unexcused absences and increase average daily attendance

114
District AIG All FAY students in grades 4, 8, and 11 will meet or exceed typical NSS growth on Iowa Testing in math and reading. All FAY students in grades 8 and 11 will meet or exceed typical NSS growth on Iowa Testing in science. The district will develop a common language and process to assist students in goal setting to promote individual growth K-12.

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google