WSU Cougars, profile picture
Uploaded byWSU Cougars
PPTX, PDF1,386 views

Criterion3

This document discusses the use of multiple data sources to inform instruction and principal evaluation. It provides an overview of Criterion 3 which focuses on recognizing and seeking out various data sources, analyzing and interpreting data to guide school improvement efforts, and assisting staff to use data to modify teaching and learning. Specific data on demographic changes and performance at Everett High School is presented, including comparisons to other high performing schools and longitudinal staff perception surveys. Resistance to change and accountability is also examined.

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
THE USE OF DATA TO INFORM INSTRUCTION AND AS AN ARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPAL EVALUATION Unpacking 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 -59 for 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 ge American Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% points) -0.05 Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35 Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33 Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74 White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31 Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55 Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14 Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10 Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 On-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: RECOGNIZES AND SEEKS OUT MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES AWSP 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 AND ACCOUNTABILITY 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 PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL 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 PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL 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 6.20 ACHIEVEMENT students INDEX 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 Students NUMBER 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 PROFICIENCY AMAO - 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 Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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% Meeting 30% 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 Meeting Standard -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 Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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 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.
10TH GRADE WRITING Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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 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.
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
DISCIPLINE DATA
TABLE Element 3.1: Recognizes TALK and seeks out multiple data sources What other data sources do you suggest?
3.2 ANALYZES AND INTERPRETS MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES TO INFORM SCHOOL-LEVEL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
8-STEP MODEL •Summative •Teach Assessment Instructional Focus •Instructional from Calendar Calendars •Effective Teaching •Academic Strategies Groupings •ALC Meetings •Academic Groupings •Summative and Formative •Re-teaching Assessment •Enrichment •Review Concepts •Test Talks •Test Talks •ALC Meetings •ALC Meetings
PLAN: COMMON CALENDAR Successes: 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 Level 100% 2011 2012 2013 90% 100% 80% 80% 381 sophomores tested 70% 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 class 10% 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 RATES EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14 Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37 Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58 Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23 Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30 White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605 Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
COORDINATED SCIENCE ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS • Physics unit assessments sorted by standards • Target student content strengths and weaknesses Building a Championship Culture
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Successful turnout for after school review sessions. • connect-Ed message • teacher contact • meeting w/ success coordinator Hands-on experiences and demonstrations as standard is re-taught
FINC RATES EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14 Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37 Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58 Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23 Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30 White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605 Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005 520 1284
SCREENSHOT FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDENT
BIOLOGY END OF COURSE ASSESSMENT 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-level TABLE improvement efforts TALK What other methods do you suggest that support teachers in the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources?
3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATA DRIVEN PLAN FOR IMPROVED TEACHING AND LEARNING AWSP 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 as measured by MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured by AMO Target: 63.9% Enrolled (CE)* Low Income standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured by AMO Target: 50.8% Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously Special students will meet as measured by AMO 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 Timeline Data on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be Teachers will have extensive Assistant Time for Data Talks gathered 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 5/1 held with the teacher and administrator to The data is converted to an Teachers Principal to create a plan for getting each student to action plan and shared with meet standard. the administrator. (PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation) Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will Each teacher will have a clear Math District Initial target design, develop, and implement instructional understanding of the tested teachers developed calendar calendars for each target. GLE's 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 and TALK 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 USE DATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY AND IMPROVE CLASSROOM TEACHING AND LEARNING AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
Algebra 1 teachers meet every Friday Plan lessons Create common formative assessment summative activities assessments so all classes doing the same Adjust lessons based on students Formative assessments
DO: Writing Instruction Thesis Statement Analysis Commentary ? Evidence Concrete Details Transitions Bridges Body Topic Paragraph Sentence Concluding Sentence Attention- Hooks grabber Closing Sentence
DO: SCHAFFER TRAINING
DO: COMMON LANGUAGE
DO: COMMON PARAGRAPH STRUCTURES
DO: INTRODUCE COLOR CODING
PLAN: LEVELING Successes: – Backwards planning Next 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 questions ES2B Level 4- 2 questions 14 35% Energy transfer Level 3- 4 question Level 2- 8 question ES2C Level 4 – 1 question 2 5% Carbon cycle Level 3 – 1 questions Level 2 – 0 questions ES3B Level 3 - 1 question 2 5% Methods of Level 2 – 1 question determining past climates ES3D Level 4 – 1 questions 10 25% Constructing Level 3 – 5questions Explanations Level 2 – 4 questions Past Climates
DO: CONTENT AREA READING Successes: – Incorporating AVID skills Next Steps: – Refining assignments and assessments
CHECK Successes: – Common district assessments on LMS • Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions – Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training session Next 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 data TALK to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning What other methods do you use to achieve this goal?
EVERETT HIGH IS A GOOD SCHOOL….. on the path to EXEMPLARY status…through the use of data to inform instruction Destination Everett

More Related Content

KEY
2007-11 Cooper Assessment Data
byvinceevans
 
PDF
YPLA Strategic Analysis: South West Summary
bySouth West Observatory
 
PDF
School Data with Charts Dec 15 Presentation
byKeene School District
 
PPT
Responding to Rising Food Prices in Eastern and Southern Africa
byILRI
 
PDF
Ict education & job trends august 2011
byGarry Roberton
 
PPTX
SACS Presentation
byjbhockett
 
PDF
Bear River Area Economic Update
byState of Utah, Salt Lake City
 
PPTX
Elementary Success
byE3 Alliance
 
2007-11 Cooper Assessment Data
byvinceevans
 
YPLA Strategic Analysis: South West Summary
bySouth West Observatory
 
School Data with Charts Dec 15 Presentation
byKeene School District
 
Responding to Rising Food Prices in Eastern and Southern Africa
byILRI
 
Ict education & job trends august 2011
byGarry Roberton
 
SACS Presentation
byjbhockett
 
Bear River Area Economic Update
byState of Utah, Salt Lake City
 
Elementary Success
byE3 Alliance
 

Similar to Criterion3

PPTX
Fairfax County Public Schools: Board of Superverisors Update Nov. 29, 2011
byFairfax County
 
PDF
AEIS 2012 Georgetown ISD Presentation
byGeorgetown Independent School District
 
PPTX
Middle School Success
byE3 Alliance
 
PDF
11578 Costigan Lane - 4th Floor Condo in Charlotte, NC
byDSummerfield
 
PPT
The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness
byCASDANY
 
PPTX
3.20.12 ed trust successful schools
byChris Stewart
 
PPTX
2012 Academic Achievement Report
byJay Marino
 
PPTX
Middle School Success
byChristin007
 
PPTX
Wsu 11.15 Presentation
byGlenn E. Malone, EdD
 
PPTX
Awsp 2.19.13
byGlenn E. Malone, EdD
 
PDF
Springboard swp july09-rev3
bybase65
 
PPTX
Parent data night
byLance Lane
 
PPTX
2012.10.08 school board meeting
byroverdust
 
PPTX
Sample data presentation
bymarlaphillips3
 
PDF
WPS Enrollment Report
byWellesley Public School
 
PDF
Havelock snapshot
bysmithlori24
 
PDF
Havelock snapshot
bysmithlori24
 
PPTX
Leadership Development Nashua, NH
bychottel
 
PDF
FMP Northwest Planning Area
bypsnotebook
 
PPTX
PTISD District Report Oct. 2012
byPine Tree ISD
 
Fairfax County Public Schools: Board of Superverisors Update Nov. 29, 2011
byFairfax County
 
AEIS 2012 Georgetown ISD Presentation
byGeorgetown Independent School District
 
Middle School Success
byE3 Alliance
 
11578 Costigan Lane - 4th Floor Condo in Charlotte, NC
byDSummerfield
 
The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness
byCASDANY
 
3.20.12 ed trust successful schools
byChris Stewart
 
2012 Academic Achievement Report
byJay Marino
 
Middle School Success
byChristin007
 
Wsu 11.15 Presentation
byGlenn E. Malone, EdD
 
Awsp 2.19.13
byGlenn E. Malone, EdD
 
Springboard swp july09-rev3
bybase65
 
Parent data night
byLance Lane
 
2012.10.08 school board meeting
byroverdust
 
Sample data presentation
bymarlaphillips3
 
WPS Enrollment Report
byWellesley Public School
 
Havelock snapshot
bysmithlori24
 
Havelock snapshot
bysmithlori24
 
Leadership Development Nashua, NH
bychottel
 
FMP Northwest Planning Area
bypsnotebook
 
PTISD District Report Oct. 2012
byPine Tree ISD
 

More from WSU Cougars

PDF
Moneyball
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Wsu presentation 3 17(2)
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Teena’s top ten
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Looking back and looking forward[1]
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Jim kowalkowski presentation to wsu supt certification program group
byWSU Cougars
 
PDF
Presentation1
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Wsu%20 superintendents%201.6.12[1]
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Wsu interns 12 final
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
TPEP WSU October 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
NCLB Presentation
byWSU Cougars
 
PPT
Don't Count Us Out Presentation Public Agenda October 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
WSU SUPT. Dr. Jim Busey September 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
PPT
Pursuing the position september
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Grading Schools
byWSU Cougars
 
PDF
Testing cartoon
byWSU Cougars
 
PPT
WSU Leadership Part I August
byWSU Cougars
 
PPT
WSU Superintendent Certification Program Overview
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Reframing Organizations
byWSU Cougars
 
PPT
Mental Models & Leadership
byWSU Cougars
 
PPTX
Leadership%20 talk%20 1[1]
byWSU Cougars
 
Moneyball
byWSU Cougars
 
Wsu presentation 3 17(2)
byWSU Cougars
 
Teena’s top ten
byWSU Cougars
 
Looking back and looking forward[1]
byWSU Cougars
 
Jim kowalkowski presentation to wsu supt certification program group
byWSU Cougars
 
Presentation1
byWSU Cougars
 
Wsu%20 superintendents%201.6.12[1]
byWSU Cougars
 
Wsu interns 12 final
byWSU Cougars
 
TPEP WSU October 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
NCLB Presentation
byWSU Cougars
 
Don't Count Us Out Presentation Public Agenda October 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
WSU SUPT. Dr. Jim Busey September 2011
byWSU Cougars
 
Pursuing the position september
byWSU Cougars
 
Grading Schools
byWSU Cougars
 
Testing cartoon
byWSU Cougars
 
WSU Leadership Part I August
byWSU Cougars
 
WSU Superintendent Certification Program Overview
byWSU Cougars
 
Reframing Organizations
byWSU Cougars
 
Mental Models & Leadership
byWSU Cougars
 
Leadership%20 talk%20 1[1]
byWSU Cougars
 

Criterion3

  • 1.
    THE USE OFDATA TO INFORM INSTRUCTION AND AS AN ARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPAL EVALUATION Unpacking Criterion 3
  • 2.
    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
  • 3.
  • 4.
    DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES Change per Year Everett HS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (student s) Enrollment 1714 1672 1619 1565 1489 1424 -59 for 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 ge American Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% points) -0.05 Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35 Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33 Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74 White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31 Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55 Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14 Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10 Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 On-Time Graduation Rate 77.7% 77.5% 74.2% 85.8% 80.8% 82.1% 1.24
  • 5.
    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
  • 6.
  • 7.
    ELEMENT 3.1: RECOGNIZES ANDSEEKS OUT MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
  • 8.
    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.
  • 9.
    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.
  • 10.
    RESISTANCE FACTOR, CHANGEAND ACCOUNTABILITY 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.
  • 11.
    STUDENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL 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.
  • 12.
    PARENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL 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.
  • 13.
    School Year 2011-2012 OUTCOMES Ext Grad INDICATORS Reading Writing Math Science Rate Average Achievement of non-low income 7 7 6 6 5 6.20 ACHIEVEMENT students INDEX 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
  • 14.
    LIMITED ENGLISH (ELL) STUDENTS Building Number of ELL Students NUMBER 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
  • 15.
    ELL STUDENTS REACHINGPROFICIENCY AMAO - 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%
  • 16.
    10TH GRADE READING Grade 10 Reading: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Reading: Percent of Students by Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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% Meeting 30% 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.
  • 17.
    8TH TO 10THGRADE 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 Meeting Standard -10% Standard -14% -9% -18% -7% -11% -12% -11%
  • 18.
    10TH GRADE WRITING Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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 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.
  • 19.
    10TH GRADE WRITING Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level 100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 90% 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 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.
  • 20.
    GRADE 10 CRITICALTHINKING : 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
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
  • 24.
  • 25.
  • 26.
    TABLE Element 3.1: Recognizes TALK and seeks out multiple data sources What other data sources do you suggest?
  • 27.
    3.2 ANALYZES AND INTERPRETSMULTIPLE DATA SOURCES TO INFORM SCHOOL-LEVEL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
  • 28.
    8-STEP MODEL •Summative •Teach Assessment Instructional Focus •Instructional from Calendar Calendars •Effective Teaching •Academic Strategies Groupings •ALC Meetings •Academic Groupings •Summative and Formative •Re-teaching Assessment •Enrichment •Review Concepts •Test Talks •Test Talks •ALC Meetings •ALC Meetings
  • 29.
    PLAN: COMMON CALENDAR Successes: Next Steps: • Common core activities • Increasing frequency of • Common formative assessments formative assessments • Common learning targets and common learning targets
  • 30.
    10TH GRADE SCIENCE– BIO EOC Grade 10 EOC-BIology: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Percent of Students by Level 100% 2011 2012 2013 90% 100% 80% 80% 381 sophomores tested 70% 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 class 10% 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.
  • 31.
    FINC RATES EHS FINCsSemester 1 SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14 Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37 Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58 Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23 Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30 White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605 Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
  • 32.
    COORDINATED SCIENCE ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS •Physics unit assessments sorted by standards • Target student content strengths and weaknesses Building a Championship Culture
  • 33.
    STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Successful turnoutfor after school review sessions. • connect-Ed message • teacher contact • meeting w/ success coordinator Hands-on experiences and demonstrations as standard is re-taught
  • 34.
    FINC RATES EHS FINCsSemester 1 SY 2013 Student FINC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s Total Total American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14 Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37 Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58 Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23 Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30 White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605 Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005 520 1284
  • 35.
  • 36.
    BIOLOGY END OFCOURSE ASSESSMENT 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
  • 37.
    PLAN: DATA TALKS –Algebra 2 teachers with administrator – Informing instructional decisions for next year and current year – Led to discussion on grading
  • 38.
    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
  • 39.
    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.
  • 40.
    Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-level TABLE improvement efforts TALK What other methods do you suggest that support teachers in the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources?
  • 41.
    3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATA DRIVENPLAN FOR IMPROVED TEACHING AND LEARNING AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
  • 42.
  • 43.
  • 44.
    MSP/HSPE Annual MeasurableObjective (AMO): 74.8 percent of students will meet standard in Mathematics as measured by MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured by AMO Target: 63.9% Enrolled (CE)* Low Income standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously students will meet as measured by AMO Target: 50.8% Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic standard in mathematics MSP/HSPE. of the Continuously Special students will meet as measured by AMO 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 Timeline Data on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be Teachers will have extensive Assistant Time for Data Talks gathered 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 5/1 held with the teacher and administrator to The data is converted to an Teachers Principal to create a plan for getting each student to action plan and shared with meet standard. the administrator. (PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation) Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will Each teacher will have a clear Math District Initial target design, develop, and implement instructional understanding of the tested teachers developed calendar calendars for each target. GLE's 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
  • 45.
    TABLE Implements data driven plan for improved teaching and TALK 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?
  • 46.
    3.4 ASSISTS STAFFTO USE DATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY AND IMPROVE CLASSROOM TEACHING AND LEARNING AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
  • 47.
    Algebra 1 teachers meet every Friday Plan lessons Create common formative assessment summative activities assessments so all classes doing the same Adjust lessons based on students Formative assessments
  • 48.
    DO: Writing Instruction Thesis Statement Analysis Commentary ? Evidence Concrete Details Transitions Bridges Body Topic Paragraph Sentence Concluding Sentence Attention- Hooks grabber Closing Sentence
  • 49.
  • 50.
  • 51.
  • 52.
  • 53.
    PLAN: LEVELING Successes: – Backwards planning Next Steps: – Adjust instruction based on knowledge of leveling – Develop common district assessments based on leveled standards
  • 54.
    Standard Question Level and # questions Assessment Weight Number (1pt/question) ES2A Level 3 – 7 questions 12 30% Uneven heating Level 2- 5 questions ES2B Level 4- 2 questions 14 35% Energy transfer Level 3- 4 question Level 2- 8 question ES2C Level 4 – 1 question 2 5% Carbon cycle Level 3 – 1 questions Level 2 – 0 questions ES3B Level 3 - 1 question 2 5% Methods of Level 2 – 1 question determining past climates ES3D Level 4 – 1 questions 10 25% Constructing Level 3 – 5questions Explanations Level 2 – 4 questions Past Climates
  • 55.
    DO: CONTENT AREAREADING Successes: – Incorporating AVID skills Next Steps: – Refining assignments and assessments
  • 56.
    CHECK Successes: –Common district assessments on LMS • Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions – Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training session Next Steps: – Increase common formative assessments among EHS classes
  • 57.
    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%
  • 58.
    TABLE 3.4 Assists staff to use data TALK to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning What other methods do you use to achieve this goal?
  • 59.
    EVERETT HIGH ISA GOOD SCHOOL….. on the path to EXEMPLARY status…through the use of data to inform instruction Destination Everett