EOC & NCFE Data 2013-14

Measuring Proficiency

2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet EOC scores sorted by Difference between Percent Proficient 2013-14 and Percent Proficient 2012-13. NCFE scores sorted by Difference if NCFE given both years, otherwise sorted by Percent Correct 2013-14. Performance Composite & Percent Proficient colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the proficiency rate relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle. Percent Correct colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the average percent correct relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle. Applied 5-color conditional formatting.

2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet Difference column: Positive indicates increase in proficiency rate; negative indicates decrease in proficiency rate. The brighter the green the larger the increase in proficiency rate relative to other schools. The darker the red, the larger the decrease in proficiency rate relative to other schools. Yellow/Orange indicate the increase or decrease in proficiency rate is not large relative to other schools.

NC Final Exam Data Difference column - Precalculus: All differences positive – everyone increased in percent correct! The brighter the green, the larger the increase in percent correct relative to other schools

Math I EOC Note extra columns for Banked and Not Banked scores. We noted a wide range of increases and decreases on the percent proficient. Similar for all EOC courses.

Measuring Growth

EVAAS Reports Value Added Summary (in spreadsheet) – summary of overall growth – trend over time Digging deeper: Diagnostic – growth by achievement group Performance Diagnostic – growth by predicted achievement level Can be disaggregated by race, gender, and demographics

Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement Although the largest percentage of our students fall in the highest achieving groups for math, we saw the lowest amount of growth with these students. Highest growth with lowest group. As you look at the Diagnostic and Performance Diagnostic reports, take note of which group(s) the majority of your students fall within.

Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level Highest growth occurred with our students predicted to be Level I on the Math I EOC. Majority of students predicted to be either Level II or Level IV.

Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement Increase in growth for our lowest achieving group on the Biology EOC.

Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level Not as much growth with students predicted to be Level 5 on the Biology EOC.

Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement Most growth with the Middle and Mid-High achieving groups; improvement in growth for highest achieving group, but still below the other groups growth.

Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level Growth for students predicted to score a Level 5 in the negative.

Reflecting on the Data: Math Dept. Chairs Meeting What factors may have influenced the increase or decrease in percent proficient for EOCs at your school? What factors may have influenced the increase or decrease in percent correct for NCFEs at your school? What implications does this have for instruction at your school? At the time, we only had proficiency data to share. Chairs of higher achieving schools asked to touch base with PLTs and be prepared to share best practices.

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Schools with high proficiency rates, high increases in proficiency rates, high growth, or significantly increasing growth asked to share at PLT Team Leaders meeting. Questions they were asked to address: How does your PLT operate effectively? What changes did you make in Math I curriculum/instruction between 2012-13 and 2013-14? What strategies/interventions do you use for struggling students? Does math placement factor in?

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Strategies & ideas they shared: PLT Structures: same teachers teaching Math I each year mostly veteran teachers; few beginning teachers teachers dedicated to teaching Math I all day common planning for EOC PLTs daily communication/reflection on how lessons are going visited feeder Middle Schools for vertical alignment and better understanding

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Established high expectations from Day 1 modeled expectations gave frequent feedback on progress Curriculum adjustments focused on critical standards slowed down when needed felt they know the curriculum better now that they are in the 3rd year of implementation weekly cumulative review (Problem Attic, Math XL)

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Support for struggling students established remediation structures within school day (Knight Time, Smart Lunch, etc.) students who failed Math IA placed into Intro Math in the spring Instructional adjustments balance between direct instruction and activities strategic EOC preparation literacy development

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Strategic preparation for EOC test: spiraled review throughout course practice with EOC-type questions with attention to gridded-response and calculator inactive items Coach Book for Math I EOC Review last 3 weeks devoted to EOC review multiple practice EOCs to build stamina strategically grouped students based on mock-EOC performance in order to differentiate preparation Spiraled review - often through warm-ups & homework –e.g. at Leesville they gave the same three types of problems all week - one easy, medium, high - with different numbers each day - goal for lower students to get 2 of 4 correct - 50% equates to passing on EOC – motivates students - goal for stronger students to get 3 of 4 correct

Reflecting on the Data: Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Attention to literacy development: Required students to write – e.g. explanations of how they solved a problem/why a procedure works Focus on contextual (word) problems, offering specific strategies for how to unpack problems