2012 capt presentation rev

212 views

Published on

This is how we shared our CAPT success to the staff.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
212
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 50% OUTCOME50% PRACTICEMention SPI as it relates to the 5% whole school student indicator
  • 2012 capt presentation rev

    1. 1. Celebrating our AchievementsAnd where do we go next?
    2. 2. The Four Core Requirements of Teacher EvaluationStudent Growthand Development(45%)Whole-schoolStudent LearningIndicators orStudent Feedback(5%)Observations ofPerformance andPractice (40%)Peer or ParentFeedback (10%)Practice Rating(50%)Outcome Rating(50%)All of these factors are combined to reach your final annualrating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).5/9/20132
    3. 3. WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012Math and Science
    4. 4. WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012Reading and Writing
    5. 5. The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Mathematics
    6. 6. Cohort MAP Reading CAPT Reading MAP Math CAPT Math2010Cohort NA 13 NA 162011 Cohort 13 (Winter) 6 26 (Winter) 92012Cohort 14 (Winter) 13 (Winter) 13 7MAP + Intervention WorksPercent of Grade 10 Students Below Proficiency MAP vs. CAPTDark Blue= Introduction of Math Lab
    7. 7. Most students who entered math lab were not predicted to be proficient onthe CAPT based on MAP testing. With intervention, 79 percent were at orabove proficiency.Math Lab: Another Success StoryMath Lab Student CAPT ScoresGrades 10 and 11 (53 tested)SCORE BANDPERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEARESTWHOLE PERCENT)Percent Advanced 4Percent Goal 26Percent Proficient 47Percent Basic/Below Basic 21
    8. 8. How do we measure up?CAPT Math Goal PerformanceGrade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State+/- 13.0 1.4 4.010 (2012) 64.4 57.5 6 49.310 (2011) 57.7 58.4 16 49.610 (2010) 50.4 58.2 20 48.910 (2009) 47.4 57.6 22 48.010 (2008) 54.7 60.0 18 50.210 (2007) 51.4 56.1 17 45.38
    9. 9. The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Science
    10. 10. How do we measure up?CAPT Science Goal PerformanceGrade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State+/- 13.0 0.1 2.810 (2012) 64.4 55.8 2 47.310 (2011) 57.7 55.8 12 47.210 (2010) 50.4 52.8 11 45.510 (2009) 47.4 50.3 9 43.010 (2008) 54.7 56.2 10 46.510 (2007) 51.4 55.7 4 44.510
    11. 11. Math and Science: Boys vs. Girls
    12. 12. The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Writing
    13. 13. Writing: Boys vs. Girls
    14. 14. GradeWritingWtfd DRG DRank InDRGSTATE+/- 16.7 7.7 10.110 (2012) 82.0 72.7 4 63.110 (2011) 76.3 71.6 11 61.310 (2010) 61.8 68.7 20 59.610 (2009) 62.5 64.7 14 55.010 (2008) 63.0 67.4 16 57.910 (2007) 65.3 65.0 11 53.0How Do We Measure Up?Writing Goal Performance Summary
    15. 15. Writing Lab is an intervention offered by the historydepartment.Quarter-long classes were offered beginning last year.There is not enough data yet to show CAPT gains.After this year we will be able to report on WritingLab successes.Writing Lab
    16. 16. The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Reading
    17. 17. Improvements in both tests:A Close Look at Reading
    18. 18. Reading: Boys Vs. Girls
    19. 19. SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TONEAREST WHOLE PERCENT)ADVANCED 3%GOAL 21%PROFICIENT 55%BASIC/BELOW BASIC 17%Reading: Our Intervention Courses MoveMany Students to Proficiency and Goal!Students placed in English Workshop and Literacy Lab are reading belowgrade level and are not projected (by MAP) to be proficient on the CAPT.Yet, 83 percent of those students were successful after intervention.
    20. 20. How do we measure up?CAPT Reading Goal PerformanceGrade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State+/- 17.2 2.7 2.010 (2012) 68.6 56.8 1 47.510 (2011) 60.3 52.9 4 44.810 (2010) 49.6 53.7 18 45.910 (2009) 49.8 56.0 19 47.510 (2008) 49.2 52.7 17 45.510 (2007) 51.4 54.1 17 45.520
    21. 21. MAP testing to identify struggling students has beenin place since 2010.Students have been identified and placed ininterventions such as Academic Study Halls, LiteracyLab, English Workshop, and Math Lab as they havebecome available.The Success: Years in the Making
    22. 22. School-wide implementation of Reading forInformation assessments (2010-present)School-wide literacy strategies professionaldevelopment (2010-present)Commitment of all teachers to implement literacystrategies into classroom instruction (2010-present)Increase in amount of reading and writingopportunities for our students (2010-present)Grade 6-12 professional development that led toincreased articulation of course content/studentexpectation (2011-present)What New Actions Led to OurDramatic Improvement?
    23. 23. The implementation of the new Common Core StateStandards (CCSS) begins this year. These standardsrequire students to interpret and evaluate complextexts. Students must be able to write well in a varietyof formats. Math is increasingly rigorous as well.Fortunately, the work that we have done to createReading for Information assessments has prepared uswell to meet this challenge.How Can We Continue Our Growth?
    24. 24. As we transition to the Common Core, we will behearing more about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge(DOK). This aligns to Bloom’s Taxonomy but is morehelpful in determining the depth and rigor ofquestions and tasks.Going forward, it will be more important than ever tofind challenging articles and ask students to answerprobing text- dependent questions in multiple choiceand open-ended formats.Continuing our Growth…
    25. 25. Continue to administer two Reading for Informationassessments.Use the assessment results to guide your class instruction.Regularly offer reading opportunities and give studentsopportunities to answer questions in multiple formats.Plan instruction around how to annotate and make senseof the texts.Review the work with students.Have the students understand the scoring process so thatthey can peer and self-score.Use PLC time to score more formal critical readingassessments together so that expectations are calibrated.More about Critical Reading
    26. 26. Students should be reading and writing every day.Text choices should be purposeful. Text should beAppropriately challengingEngaging to you and your studentsTied to your contentSelecting the right texts and finding strategies to helpstudents comprehend them is process that will take timeand support from the literacy and media specialists. It is agoal to work toward over time.Continue to Teach Your ContentThrough Reading and Writing Tasks
    27. 27. Here are a few of the effective strategies observed:Socratic SeminarSummary CreationFishbowl text discussionClose reading analysisAnnotation, note-taking, and/or graphic organizersPurposeful before, during and after reading strategiesMetacognitionWriting to learn and respond to textExemplary Strategies Demonstrated DuringInstructional Rounds
    28. 28. Key Ideas• Proficiency is no longer the critical measure.• Moving students from proficiency to goal is the focus.• Close attention will be paid to moving every child atleast one score band (for example, from goal toadvanced, or from basic to proficient).• More attention will be paid to sub-groups of gender,socioeconomics, and special education designation.Serving Two Masters…While the SBAC assessment is on the horizon, CAPT has not yet goneaway. The NCLB waiver has lead to new ways of reporting and measuringgrowth. In addition, the new professional growth pilot begins this year.
    29. 29. Subject GroupWtfd2011Waterford2012DRG2012Rank inDRGSTATE2012MathF/R Meals 30.0 50.0 36.4 2/19 20.2Full Price 61.8 66.1 61.0 9 61.5ScienceF/R Meals 40.6 36.0 33.3 8/19 18.9Full Price 58.6 66.7 59..4 3 59.6ReadingF/R Meals 29.0 50.0 35.3 1/19 20.3Full Price 64.9 71.1 60.2 4 59.0WritingF/R Meals 54.8 52.0 51.5 11/19 36.4Full Price 79.5 86.1 75.9 4 74.6GOAL FREE/REDUCED LUNCHPERFORMANCE
    30. 30. Special Education
    31. 31. YearNumberTestedTotal Math% GoalRangeTotal Math%ProficientTotalscience %Goal RangeTotalscience %ProficientTotalReading %Goal RangeTotalReading %ProficientTotalWriting %Goal RangeTotalWriting %Proficient2007 24 8.3 37.5 33.3 58.3 8.3 50 12.5 70.82008 26 0 26.9 3.8 61.5 0 57.7 8 602009 21 4.8 38.1 14.3 52.4 4.8 52.4 9.5 52.42010 28 10.7 25 17.9 50 7.7 50 14.3 57.12011 20 15 50 8.3 41.7 4.5 63.6 16.7 62.52012 13 7.7 46.2 6.7 60 13.3 60 26.7 73.3Special Education CAPT Performance
    32. 32. Core areas will spend several weeks looking closely atCMT, CAPT and other data in order to learn moreabout how we are performing. Shift will be not just to look at how we did, but tolook at the data for the students in our classroomsthis year to see where they are and make plans forhow to move them to the next level.What’s Next?
    33. 33. Current 9th Graders:What CMT’s Can Tell Us
    34. 34. MATH:Areas for 9th grade that most need improvement:Word problemsComputing with whole numbers and fractionsEstimating solutions to problemsMathematical applicationsREADING:Developing an interpretationKey CMT Findings:Guiding our ninth graders
    35. 35. 2012 PCAPT SummaryASSESSMENT % BELOWBASIC% BASIC % PROFICIENT % GOAL %ADVANCEDREADING11 14 32 19 24MATH9 14 41 27 11WRITING3 5 28 15 49SCIENCE11 15 37 29 8
    36. 36. Math:Open-ended responsesReading:Open-ended responses (RFI short answer)Reading staminaKey PCAPT Concerns:
    37. 37. 9/13 PLC devoted to learning aboutSEED (new professional growth plan)9/20 Departments will get anopportunity to look atCMT/PCAPT/CAPT data in depth andbegin to create goalsUpcoming Events

    ×