Criterion3
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Criterion3

on

  • 610 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
610
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
610
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Criterion3 Criterion3 Presentation Transcript

    • THE USE OF DATA TO INFORMINSTRUCTION AND AS ANARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPALEVALUATIONUnpacking Criterion 3
    • CRITERION 3Element 3.1: Recognizes Element 3.3: Implements and seeks out multiple data driven plan for data sources improved teaching andElement 3.2 Analyzes and learning interprets multiple data Element 3.4 Assists staff sources to inform school- to use data to guide, level improvement efforts modify and improve classroom teaching and learning
    • Context: Everett High School
    • DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES Change per Year Everett HS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (student s)Enrollment 1714 1672 1619 1565 1489 1424 -59for the school year ending: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change Everett HS Everett HS Everett HS Everett HS Everett HS Everett HS per Year (in percenta geAmerican Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% points) -0.05Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00On-Time Graduation Rate 77.7% 77.5% 74.2% 85.8% 80.8% 82.1% 1.24
    • CEE DATA Improvement vs Performance: High Schools- 2011 State of WA (N=308) Everett PS 20.00% Everett High School GAINING LEADING 15.00% Improvement: 3-Year Trend 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% -10.00% -15.00% LAGGING SLIPPING -20.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Performance: Reading-Math Proficiency 2011 Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc., 2011
    • Comparison Schools
    • ELEMENT 3.1: RECOGNIZESAND SEEKS OUT MULTIPLEDATA SOURCESAWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
    • PERCEPTUAL DATA STAFF- 2012 Comparison with High-Performing Schools Everett HS High Performing (Top 20%) at Your Level Collaboration and Communication 100% District Support for 90% Clear and Shared Focus Improvement 80% 70% 60% 50% High Standards and Cultural Responsiveness 40% Expectations 30% 20% 10% 0% Focused Professional Effective Leadership Development Monitoring of Teaching and Supportive Learning Learning Environment Curriculum, Instruction, and Parent and Community Assessment Involvement Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • STAFF PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive Nov 2012 Nov 2011 Nov 2010 Collaboration and Communication 100% District Support for 90% Clear and Shared Focus Improvement 80% 70% 60% 50% High Standards and Cultural Responsiveness 40% Expectations 30% 20% 10% 0% Focused Professional Effective Leadership Development Monitoring of Teaching and Supportive Learning Learning Environment Curriculum, Instruction, and Parent and Community Assessment Involvement Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • RESISTANCE FACTOR, CHANGE ANDACCOUNTABILITY Openness to New Ideas 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GAP: "I" vs. "They" 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I welcome new ideas and change 52% 41% 2% 0% 5% 40% My colleagues welcome new ideas 7% 46% 33% 7% 4% 4% and change Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 44% Willingness to Work at Change 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GAP: "I" vs. "They" 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I am willing to work at changing my 78% 20% 0% 2% school f or the better 29% My colleagues are willing to work at 27% 41% 24% 5% 0% 4% changing this school f or the better Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 19% Willingness to Be Held Accountable 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GAP: "I" vs. "They" 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I am willing to be held accountable 31% 36% 15%0% 15% 2% f or student learning 24% My colleagues are willing to be held 9% 34% 32% 7%5% 13% accountable f or student learning 16% Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • STUDENT PERCEPTIONSLONGITUDINAL Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010 Clear and Shared Focus 100% 90% 80% Monitoring of Teaching and 70% High Standards and Learning 60% Expectations 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Supportive Learning Effective Leadership Environment Community and Parent Collaboration and Involvement Communication Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • PARENT PERCEPTIONSLONGITUDINAL Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010 Clear and Shared Focus 100% 90% Curriculum, Instruction, and 80% High Standards and Assessment 70% Expectations 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%Monitoring of Teaching and 0% Effective Leadership Learning Supportive Learning Collaboration and Environment Communication Community and Parent Involvement Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • School Year 2011-2012 OUTCOMES Ext Grad INDICATORS Reading Writing Math Science Rate Average Achievement of non-low income 7 7 6 6 5 6.20ACHIEVEMENT studentsINDEX Achievement of low income 4 5 4 3 3 3.80 students Achievement vs. peers 5 4 4 7 4 4.80 Improvement from the previous 4 4 5 7 4 4.80 year Index Scores 4.90 5.00 5.00 4.75 5.75 4.00 Good 2011-12 Achievement Gap Reading Math Ext Graduation Rate Met Met Met Peers Imp Peers Imp Peers Imp INDICATORS Std Std Std Average Achievement of Black, Pacific Islander, American 4 5 7 4 5 7 2 2 1 4.11 Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic stds Achievement of white and Asian 6 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4.56 students Achievement Gap 0.45
    • LIMITED ENGLISH (ELL)STUDENTS Building Number of ELL StudentsNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED Tested Cascade HS 71 English Language Acquisition: Number of Students Cedar Wood 17 Number of Students Tested on WELPA Eisenhower MS 40 Emerson Elem 152 0 50 100 150 200 250 Everett HS 101 Everett HS 101 Evergreen MS 79 Cascade HS 71 Cedar Wood 17 Forest View Elem 35 Eisenhower MS 40 Garfield Elem 55 Emerson Elem 152 Gateway MS 4 Evergreen MS 79 Hawthorne Elem 229 Forest View Elem 35 Heatherwood MS 26 Garfield Elem 55 Henry M. Jackson HS 31 Gateway MS 4 Jackson Elem 35 Hawthorne Elem 229 Jefferson 94 Heatherwood MS 26 Lowell 81 Henry M. Jackson HS 31 Madison 128 Jackson Elem 35 Mill Creek 41 Jefferson 94 Lowell 81 Monroe 61 Madison 128 North MS 78 Mill Creek 41 Penny Creek 57 Monroe 61 Sequoia HS 12 North MS 78 Silver Firs 40 Penny Creek 57 Silver Lake 92 Sequoia HS 12 View Ridge 55 Silver Firs 40 Whittier 28 Silver Lake 92 Woodside 93 View Ridge 55 Whittier 28 Everett Average: Elems 76 Woodside 93 Everett Average: MS 45 Everett Average: HS 54
    • ELL STUDENTS REACHING PROFICIENCYAMAO - 2 English Language Acquisition: Transitioning Percent of Students Transitioning (AMAO-2) Transitioning= Student scoring at Level-4 and Transtioning out of ELL Services Everett HS: Total number of ELL students tested in 2012 101 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 (used in AMAO-2) Everett HS Cascade HS Cedar Wood Eisenhower MS The percentage on this Emerson Elem Evergreen MS chart represents the Forest View Elem percent of students who Garfield Elem Gateway MS demonstrated English Hawthorne Elem Heatherwood MS language proficiency by Henry M. Jackson HS scoring a Level-4 on the Jackson Elem Jefferson WELPA assessment. Lowell Madison Mill Creek Requires a minimum N of Monroe North MS 20 students. Penny Creek Sequoia HS Silver Firs Silver Lake View Ridge Whittier Woodside AMAO-2 Target: 7.1% of 2012 State students transitioning Result: 11.4%
    • 10TH GRADE READING Grade 10 Reading: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Reading: Percent of Students by Level100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201390% 100%80% 84.6% 83.9% 80% 81.6% 78.2% 77.9% 75.3%70% 60% 44% 52% 58% 57%60% 27% 40% 19%50% 20% 30% 30%40% 26% 24% 23% 20% Meeting30% Standard -14% -14% -9% -10% -18% -24% -7% -10% -11% -10%20% -16% -17%10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Everett HS Everett PS State Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Grade 10 Reading: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 Reading: Program Achievement Gap % of Students Meeting Standard % of Students Meeting Standard 100% 100% 90% Native American 90% Special Needs 80% 80% Asian American ESL/ELL/Bilingual 70% 70% 60% African American 60% Free/Reduced Meal 50% 50% Eligible 40% Hispanic 40% Migrant 30% 30% White 20% 20% District-All Students 10% District-All Students 10% 0% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
    • 8TH TO 10TH GRADE READING GROWTH Reading: 8th to 10th Grade Reading: 8th to 10th Grade 8th Grade (2009) 10th Grade (2011) 8th Grade (2010) 10th Grade (2012) 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 41% 61% 50% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 30% 23% 24% 20%Meeting MeetingStandard -10% Standard -14% -9% -18% -7% -11% -12% -11%
    • 10TH GRADE WRITING Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201390% 87.5% 100% 86.8%80% 80% 83.4% 82.2% 81.2% 79.3%70% 60% 45% 37% 56% 46%60% 22% 15% 40%50% 20% 38% 36% 39% 37% 34% 28%40% Meeting Standard -13% -6% -7% -12%30% -21% -22% -4% -5% -7% -5% -10% -9%20%10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Everett HS Everett PS State Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap % of Students Meeting Standard % of Students Meeting Standard100% 100% 90% Native American 90% Special Needs 80% 80% Asian American ESL/ELL/Bilingual 70% 70% 60% African American 60% Free/Reduced Meal 50% 50% Eligible 40% Hispanic 40% Migrant 30% 30% White 20% 20% District-All Students 10% District-All Students 10% 0% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
    • 10TH GRADE WRITING Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201390% 87.5% 100% 86.8%80% 80% 83.4% 82.2% 81.2% 79.3%70% 60% 45% 37% 56% 46%60% 22% 15% 40%50% 20% 38% 36% 39% 37% 34% 28%40% Meeting Standard -13% -6% -7% -12%30% -21% -22% -4% -5% -7% -5% -10% -9%20%10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Everett HS Everett PS State Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap % of Students Meeting Standard % of Students Meeting Standard100% 100% 90% Native American 90% Special Needs 80% 80% Asian American ESL/ELL/Bilingual 70% 70% 60% African American 60% Free/Reduced Meal 50% 50% Eligible 40% Hispanic 40% Migrant 30% 30% White 20% 20% District-All Students 10% District-All Students 10% 0% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
    • GRADE 10 CRITICAL THINKING :COMPARISON OF SCHOOL TO STATE Difference Between School and State Percents Reading - Critical Thinking 100% with similar performance 50.0 80 25.0 60 40 0.0 20 -3.7 -5.1 -6.8 0 -25.0 Everett High District State School % 78.7 85.0 85.5 -50.0 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
    • STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT
    • STUDENT SELF-REFLECTION
    • DISCIPLINE DATA
    • DISCIPLINE DATA
    • DISCIPLINEDATA
    • TABLE Element 3.1: RecognizesTALK and seeks out multiple data sources What other data sources do you suggest?
    • 3.2 ANALYZES ANDINTERPRETS MULTIPLE DATASOURCES TO INFORMSCHOOL-LEVELIMPROVEMENT EFFORTSAWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
    • 8-STEP MODEL•Summative •TeachAssessment Instructional Focus•Instructional from CalendarCalendars •Effective Teaching•Academic StrategiesGroupings•ALC Meetings•AcademicGroupings •Summative and Formative•Re-teaching Assessment•Enrichment •Review Concepts•Test Talks •Test Talks•ALC Meetings •ALC Meetings
    • PLAN: COMMON CALENDARSuccesses: Next Steps: • Common core activities • Increasing frequency of • Common formative assessments formative assessments • Common learning targets and common learning targets
    • 10TH GRADE SCIENCE – BIO EOC Grade 10 EOC-BIology: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Percent of Students by Level100% 2011 2012 201390% 100%80% 80%381 sophomores tested70% 60% 69.6%60% 37% 40%50% 74 students NOT in BIO (19.4%) 20% 32%40%30% 20 met standard* Meeting Standard -17%20% -10% *16 had already passed the Biology class10% 0% 2011 54 did not meet standard 2012 2013 Everett HS Everett PS State Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Ethnic Achievement Gap Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Program Achievement Gap % of Students Meeting Standard % of Students Meeting Standard 100% 100% 90% Native American 90% Special Needs 80% 80% 70% Asian American 70% ESL/ELL/Bilingual 60% 60% 50% African American 50% 40% 40% Free/Reduced Meal Eligible 30% Hispanic 30% 20% 20% Migrant 10% White 10% 0% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use. Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
    • FINC RATESEHS FINCs Semester 1SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total TotalAmerican Indian orAlaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or AfricanAmerican 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian orOther Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
    • COORDINATED SCIENCEACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS• Physics unit assessments sorted by standards• Target student content strengths and weaknesses Building a Championship Culture
    • STUDENT ENGAGEMENTSuccessful turnout forafter school reviewsessions. • connect-Ed message • teacher contact • meeting w/ success coordinatorHands-on experiencesand demonstrations asstandard is re-taught
    • FINC RATESEHS FINCs Semester 1SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total TotalAmerican Indian orAlaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or AfricanAmerican 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian orOther Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005 520 1284
    • SCREENSHOT FOR INDIVIDUALSTUDENT
    • BIOLOGY END OF COURSEASSESSMENT PREP• Biology, district- wide, common assessment used for 1st semester final• Using data to target weaknesses prior to EOC in spring screenshot of classroom results
    • PLAN: DATA TALKS– Algebra 2 teachers with administrator– Informing instructional decisions for next year and current year– Led to discussion on grading
    • PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME– Discussion of common grading of the subject, and assessments– Rotating weekly– Creating an ELL version of the final in Algebra 1– Integration of GLAD strategies into lessons and activities
    • PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME– Creating manipulative and graphic organizers for student use– Creating of common formative and summative assessments in Algebra 1, Geometry,Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.
    • Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-levelTABLE improvement effortsTALK What other methods do you suggest that support teachers in the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources?
    • 3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATADRIVEN PLAN FORIMPROVED TEACHING ANDLEARNINGAWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
    • AMO TARGETS
    • SIP CYCLE
    • MSP/HSPE Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 74.8 percent of students will meet standard in Mathematics asmeasured by MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured byAMO Target: 63.9% Enrolled (CE)* Low Income standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured byAMO Target: 50.8% Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously Special students will meet as measured byAMO Target: 34.8% Enrolled (CE)* Education standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE.S.M.A.R.T. GOAL:Increase the number of students passing Algebra 1 and Geometry by 5% as compared to 2011-2012 data. Evidence of Person(s) Resources SIP Actions implementation Responsible Needed TimelineData on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be Teachers will have extensive Assistant Time for Data Talksgathered and compiled through common data showing where each Principal Math Teacher held by 12/15,assessments. A "Data Talk" conference will be student is performing. Math and Assistant and 5/1held with the teacher and administrator to The data is converted to an Teachers Principal tocreate a plan for getting each student to action plan and shared with meetstandard. the administrator.(PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation)Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will Each teacher will have a clear Math District Initial targetdesign, develop, and implement instructional understanding of the tested teachers developed calendarcalendars for each target. GLEs and how they align with instructional developed(PDCA Steps 2 & 3) the Common Core State calendar 9/12 Standards. Common Ongoing Work Time to development further refine of calendar
    • TABLE Implements data driven plan for improved teaching andTALK learning Relate this cycle for implementing a data driven plan to the process that occurs in your district. What recommendation or suggestion would you make?
    • 3.4 ASSISTS STAFF TO USEDATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY ANDIMPROVE CLASSROOMTEACHING AND LEARNINGAWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
    • Algebra 1 teachers meet every Friday Plan lessonsCreate common formative assessment summative activities assessments so all classes doing the same Adjust lessons based on students Formative assessments
    • DO: Writing Instruction Thesis Statement AnalysisCommentary ? Evidence Concrete DetailsTransitions Bridges Body Topic Paragraph Sentence Concluding Sentence Attention- Hooks grabber Closing Sentence
    • DO: SCHAFFER TRAINING
    • DO: COMMON LANGUAGE
    • DO: COMMONPARAGRAPHSTRUCTURES
    • DO: INTRODUCECOLOR CODING
    • PLAN: LEVELING Successes: – Backwards planningNext Steps: – Adjust instruction based on knowledge of leveling – Develop common district assessments based on leveled standards
    • Standard Question Level and # questions Assessment Weight Number (1pt/question)ES2A Level 3 – 7 questions 12 30%Uneven heating Level 2- 5 questionsES2B Level 4- 2 questions 14 35%Energy transfer Level 3- 4 question Level 2- 8 questionES2C Level 4 – 1 question 2 5%Carbon cycle Level 3 – 1 questions Level 2 – 0 questionsES3B Level 3 - 1 question 2 5%Methods of Level 2 – 1 questiondetermining pastclimatesES3D Level 4 – 1 questions 10 25%Constructing Level 3 – 5questionsExplanations Level 2 – 4 questionsPast Climates
    • DO: CONTENT AREA READINGSuccesses: – Incorporating AVID skillsNext Steps: – Refining assignments and assessments
    • CHECKSuccesses: – Common district assessments on LMS • Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions – Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training sessionNext Steps: – Increase common formative assessments among EHS classes
    • ACT Successes: Average Summative Assessment – Teaching reading strategies: Scores, Biology 2011-2012 Marking the text and questions Summative Average Score Assessment Classification 69.85% Cells 72.25% DNA/Cell Cycle 64.05% Semester 2 Final Breakdown Protein Synthesis 67.9% Genetics/Meiosis 64.45%Section of Final Average Score Semester 1 Final 68.4%Evolution 90% Evolution 76%Photosynthesis 75.75 Photosynthesis 69.2% Ecology 74.2%Ecology 74.24% Semester 2 Final 79%
    • TABLE 3.4 Assists staff to use dataTALK to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning What other methods do you use to achieve this goal?
    • EVERETT HIGH IS AGOOD SCHOOL….. on the path to EXEMPLARY status…through the use of data to inform instruction Destination Everett