1. Principal’s Meeting
October 23, 2014

2. Reflection How do you use data at your school to inform instruction?
What data sources do you look at?
WorkKeys
NCFE Results
PLAN
ACT
EVAAS
PSAT
EOC Results
ACCESS
AP Scores
AP Potential

3. EOC & NCFE Data
How do you use data to inform instruction? What data sources do you look at?

4. Measuring Proficiency

5. 2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet
EOC scores sorted by Difference between Percent Proficient and Percent Proficient
NCFE scores sorted by Difference if NCFE given both years, otherwise sorted by Percent Correct
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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.
Note that percent proficient with banked scores is much higher – the overall 12% increase in proficiency for the district can be attributed mainly to middle school students taking Math I. High school only increased about 1% in proficiency rate.

9. This can also be seen by looking at the proficiency levels by grade level

10. Measuring Growth

11. EVAAS Reports
Value Added Summary (in spreadsheet) – summary of overall growth – trend over time
This year for Math I, the district met expected growth, but did not exceed like the previous two years (Note 2012 – old Algebra I EOC, 2013 – new Math I EOC)

12. We looked at both middle and high schools to see if there was also a difference in growth What do you notice?

13. EVAAS Reports Digging deeper:
Diagnostic Report – growth by achievement group: Lowest, Low-Mid, Middle, Mid-High, Highest
Performance Diagnostic Report – growth by predicted achievement level (1-5)
Reports can be disaggregated by race, gender, and demographics
For the Diagnostic Report, students across the state were divided into 5 equal-sized achievement groups based on prior achievement on EOGs. Pay attention to how many students you have in each group – e.g. high schools tend to have very few students in the Highest group, while middle schools tend to have few students in the Lowest group taking Math I.
For the Performance Diagnostic report, students are divided into groups based on their predicted achievement level on the EOC.

14. Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement
Note, this report combines both middle and high school students’ data. Across the district, we can see that 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; on the other hand, we saw the highest growth with the lowest group.
Unfortunately, EVAAS does not let us separate middle and high school data for a district-level report. However, school reports do not include banked scores.

15. Interpreting Report Patterns

16. Sanderson: All Students
Opportunity Gap

17. Athens Drive: All Students
“V” Pattern

18. Green Hope: All Students
Shed Pattern – sort of . . .

19. Broughton: All Students
Reverse Shed Pattern

20. District Diagnostic Report – Disaggregated Data
What do you notice?
What stands out to you?
What can we celebrate?
What alarms you?

21. Performance Diagnostic Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level
Be careful with this report – since groups are not divided equally, but by predicted level, growth may be masked if there is a wide range across a particular group.
No previous cohort because they switched from 4 to 5 levels.
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 – not surprising since predicted levels would be on a normal distribution, but the band for Level 3 is small.
By clicking on the number of students, you will get a list of those students and what level they actually scored. For example, of the 1,071 students predicted to be Level III – students on the “bubble” – 69% of them scored Level III or higher. Of the 1,222 students predicted to be Level I, 32% scored higher than Level I.

22. Looking from the Past to the Future . . .
School Academic Preparedness Report
Reports projections on students scoring a Level 3 on the Math I EOC
By grade level
By probability of proficiency

23. 40% of our 9th grade students already passed the Math I EOC in middle school
For 9th graders who still need to take the Math I EOC, only 14% are on track to be proficient
24% of our 9th grade students across the district have a 40% or less probability of achieving proficiency on the Math I EOC – that is 3,206 students!
11% - 1,419 of our 9th grade students are on the bubble
The good news is that we have generally been doing a good job in our high schools growing these students.
With EVAAS, we can simply click on the pie sections to see who these students are

24. This can serve as an early warning/watch list for Math I teachers
Can be sorted with a click on any of the column titles

25. 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 and ?
What strategies/interventions do you use for struggling students?
Does math placement factor in?

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. What Can We Do to Improve?
Group Analysis
Divide cards into:
What teachers can control
What administration controls
What we both own
What 2-3 strategies can you implement in your building for the most impact?
What 2-3 things can you take back to your building for the most impact?