Literacy and Justice For All 2011 Session 3. Parameters 2

Literacy and Justice For All 2011Session 3

Parameters• We will value team members and their

input.• We are willing to ask questions, get

outside our current mindset and be open to new ideas and solutions.

• We are committed to being totally present.

• We will stay focused and use our time wisely to meet specified outcomes.

2

OutcomesARI School Teams will:

1. Reflect on the year’s learning to plan for next year.

2. Understand how to analyze WNP data and use the data in planning for

2011-2012.

3. Pose questions related to data (instruction/formative assessments).

4. Work as a school team to plan using data. 3

Reflect & Review• Individually, take a few minutes to

complete the Reflect and Review Form:– What actions did your team feel compelled to

share with your faculty regarding the information shared from Session 2:• System of Meaning• System of Language• Formative Assessment

• As a team, compile all reflections to create one reflection form to turn into the ARI team. 4

System: ______________________________School: __________________________________

Reflect and ReviewWhat have we done related to System of

Meaning, System of Language and/or Formative Assessment?

What have we learned from our actions?

Collaborative Leadership

Assessment

Effective Instruction

Professional Development

Intervention

One question we still have is….

We need to deepen our understanding of formative assessments and how to use them for adjusting instruction.

During a faculty meeting ,we read the article on Formative and Summative Assessment and we sorted our assessments into these two categories.

We learned that we have more summative assessments and we need to look at increasing the formative assessments in our building

We are asking teachers to bring samples of formative assessments they are using to grade level meetings.

Today’s Agenda• Morning –

Looking at State Data

Learning About Weighted Non-Proficiency (WNP)

• Afternoon –

Looking at Your School’s WNP

Planning

7

A Word from Dr. Joseph Morton,Alabama’s State Superintendent of

Education

8

9

What are some benefits of looking at data?

(be more specific than “to drive instruction”)

• Seek information that shows a pattern of improvement or value added

4

10



4

• Seek information that shows a pattern of improvement or value addedValue added lets us determine whether the students in

a class, school or district are making enough academic growth each year.

(Ted Hirschberg)

11



4

• Seek information that shows a pattern of improvement or value added

• Seek snapshots that help us accelerate progress, take learning to the next level and guide our work

REMEMBER:• Each assessment (ARMT, SAT, DIBELS, NAEP)

has a different purpose and a different definition for proficiency.

• ARMT set the proficiency bar at a level over which all students can jump. We need to keep the ARMT bar where it is because of its purpose.

• NAEP set the proficiency bar at the level needed to make the United States competitive in the world market. Alabama wants to be part of that kind of accelerated learning.

12

REMEMBER: (CONTINUED)

• The Stanford and DIBELS set the proficiency bars at levels between ARMT and NAEP.

• Level 2 on ARMT corresponds to Stanines 1-3 on Stanford and “At-Risk” on DIBELS. Students scoring at these levels are at grave risk of never achieving grade-level proficiency.

• If we want to accelerate student learning, we must increase “Advanced” performance on ARMT, Stanines 5-9 performance on Stanford, and “Benchmark” performance on DIBELS.

13

Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) Levels 3 and 4 - Reading

Grade Spring 2006

Spring 2007

Spring 2008

Spring 2009

Spring 2010

Grade 3 84% 85% 85% 86% 87%Grade 4 84% 85% 87% 87% 87%Grade 5 81% 85% 84% 85% 86%Grade 6 83% 85% 86% 86% 86%Grade 7 75% 77% 79% 81% 83%Grade 8 72% 72% 74% 75% 74%

14

Stanford Achievement Test – 10th Edition Reading Comprehension Scores

Percentage of Students Scoring in Stanines 5-9

Grade Spring2006

Spring2007

Spring2008

Spring2009

Spring2010

Grade 3 67% 68% 69% 70% 71%

Grade 4 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%

Grade 5 65% 67% 67% 69% 70%

Grade 6 59% 61% 62% 64% 64%

Grade 7 62% 64% 65% 67% 67%

Grade 8 60% 61% 62% 64% 64%15

DIBELS

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills AssessmentPercent of Students at Benchmark

Grade Spring 2006

Spring 2007

Spring 2008

Spring 2009

Spring 2010

K (NWF) 86% 83% 89% 89% 88%

1 (ORF) 76% 79% 80% 81% 80%

2 (ORF) 71% 64% 67% 66% 75%

3 (ORF) 64% 67% 69% 69% 69%

16

Comparison of DIBELS, Stanford and ARMTPercent Proficient and Percent at Benchmark

Grade 3

Test Spring2006

Spring2007

Spring2008

Spring2009

Spring2010

DIBELS 64% 67% 69% 69% 69%

Stanford 67% 68% 69% 70% 71%

ARMT 84% 85% 85% 86% 87%

17

ARMT – SAT – DIBELS – NAEPComparison

4th Grade

ARMT0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13%

33%

53%

ARMTPercent of Students Scoring at each

Level - 4th Grade 2009

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

ARMT SAT0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13%

15%

33%

37%

53%

34%

14%

ARMT and SAT ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at each Level - 4th Grade

2009


ARMT SAT DIBELS (3rd Grade)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13%

15% 20%

33%

37%

69%

53%

34%

14% 11%

ARMT-SAT-DIBELS ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at each Level 4th Grade

2009


22

ARMT SAT DIBELS (3rd Grade) NAEP0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1%14% 11%

38%13%

15% 20%

34%

33%

37%

69%

22%53%

34%

6%

ARMT-SAT-DIBELS-NAEP ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at each Level - 4th

Grade 2009


23

ARMT SAT DIBELS (3rd) NAEP0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15%

15% 21%

33%

32%

36%

67%

22%

53%

33%

7%

16% 12%

38%

SAT-ARMT-DIBELS-NAEP ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at each

Level 4th Grade Reading2007


24

ARMT SAT DIBELS (3rd ) NAEP0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

16% 25%

30%

33%

36%

61%

18%

50%

31%

4%

17% 14%

47%

SAT-ARMT-DIBELS-NAEP ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at each Level

4th Grade Reading2005


ARMT – SAT – NAEPComparison

8th Grade

ARMT – SAT – NAEP ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at Each Level – 8th Grade

2009

26

ARMT SAT NAEP0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1%18%

34%24%

18%

42%

38%

38%

22%37%

26%

1%


27

ARMT SAT NAEP0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

27%

18%

41%

39%

37%

20%33%

24%

21%

38%

ARMT - NAEP - SAT ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at Each Level - 8th Grade

2007


ARMT – SAT – NAEP ComparisonPercent of Students Scoring at Each Level – 8th Grade

2005

28

ARMT SAT NAEP0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2%

26%37%29%

21%

41%

35%

31%

20%35%

22%

2%


Stanford Achievement Test (10th Edition) Spring 2010

Grade 3/Reading

29

Percentage of Alabama students scoring in Stanines 1-3

18.9%School with the highest percentage

scoring in Stanines 1-3

67.7%

They made AYP!!!

30

16 of the 20 schools made AYP

Stanford Achievement Test (10th Edition) Spring 2010

Grade 3/Reading

20 schools had over 50% of their students scoring in stanines 1-3

Break Time

Measuring A School’s Progress Using

Weighted Non-Proficiency

32

Weighted Non-Proficiency

• WNP measures a school’s progress at moving all students to increasingly higher levels of proficiency.

• Weighted Non Proficiency is reviewed to avoid overly focusing on students closest to benchmark and to give credit for moving any student who is not fully proficient.

33

34

Why Use Weighted Non-Proficiency?

Fully proficient student : weight of zero

Partially proficient student : given partial credit

Non-Proficient Student : given greatest weight

35

5 20

Grade Total Matched Pct WNP 1 2 3 4 WNP 1 2 3 4

ARMT (Grades 3+) and DIBELS (K-3) Analysis

K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6

SAT Analysis - Grades 3 - 83 49 48 98% 29% 10 8 30 18% 5 7 21 15

4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10

WNP is Weighted Non-Proficiency

Spring 2009 - (K is fall 2009)Students at Level

Spring 10Students at Level

Go back 1 year

36

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10




Non-proficient

Fully proficientPartially proficient

37

HOW DOES ARI LOOK AT PROFICIENCY DATA?

Non- Partially Fully Proficient Proficient Proficient

ARMT Level 1 Level 2-3 Level 4

Stanford Stanines 1-3 Stanine 4 Stanines 5-9

DIBELS At-risk Strategic Benchmark

If a student is (non-proficient, partially proficient, fully

proficient) then the student _________________.14

38

WNP Levels

WNP 1 2 3 4 Levels

ARMT 1 2 3 4 Stanines

Stanford 1-3 4 5-6 7-9

DIBELS At-Risk Strategic Benchmark XX

39

Weight Values/Tests Used• DIBELS * Weight Values WNP Levels

– Fully Proficient – Benchmark 0 Point Level 3– Partially Proficient – Strategic .5 Point Level 2– Non-Proficient – At-risk 1 Point Level 1

• ARMT (Reading)– Fully Proficient – Level 4 0 Point Level 4– Partially Proficient – Level 3 .33 Point Level 3– Partially Proficient – Level 2 .67 Point Level 2– Non-Proficient – Level 1 1 Point Level 1

• SAT 10 (Reading Comprehension)– Fully Proficient – Stanines 7-9 0 Point Level 4– Fully Proficient – Stanines 5-6 0 Point Level 3– Partially Proficient – Stanine 4 .5 Point Level 2– Non-Proficient – Stanines 1-3 1 Point Level 1

* Tests Used (DIBELS) Kindergarten Fall LNF Spring NWF

1st Spring NWF Spring ORF 2nd – 3rd Grade Spring ORF Spring ORF

WNP Formula

• Take the number of matched students at each level• Multiply by the value for each level• Add the numbers for each level together• Divide by the total number of matched students

40

41

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10




WNP Formula• Take the number of matched students at each level• Multiply by the value for each level• Add the numbers for each level together• Divide by the total number of matched students

Example for DIBELS 3rd grade:(8 x 1) + (7 x .5) + (30 x 0)

45

8 + 3.5 + 0

45

11.5

45

.26 = 26% weighted non-proficiency 42

Students at Level

WNP 1 2 3 4

26% 8 7 30

43

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10





Example for SAT 6th grade:(4 x 1) + (10 x .5) + (18 x 0) + (7 x 0)

39

4 + 5 + 0 + 0

39

9

39


Students at Level

WNP 1 2 3 4

23% 4 10 18 7

45

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10





Example for ARMT 8th grade:(3 x 1) + (10 x .67) + (18 x .33) + (16 x 0)

47

3 + 6.7 + 5.94 + 0

47

15.64

47


Students at Level

WNP 1 2 3 4

33% 3 10 18 16

47

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10




17 + 8 = 25 (out of 47 students)

48

Important Points for WNP

• A powerful way to look at student test results is to follow individual students over time.

• WNP is a measure of school success; schools are measured not so much by the absolute level of scores but by their ability to move their strugglers forward.

• WNP shows if the school is moving all students to increasingly higher levels.

• By converting scores from different tests to four levels, it is possible to follow student progress from test to test, from kindergarten through 8th grade.

• Weighted Non-Proficiency is reviewed to avoid overly focusing on students closest to benchmark and to give credit for moving any student who is not fully proficient.

Taking a Closer Look

• Fill your percentages of WNP in on the worksheet

49

Your School’s Data

50

Weighted Non-Proficiency System: _________________________School:_________________________

Grade Level/ Assessment

Spring of 2009(except K is Fall 2009)

Spring of 2010 Change in percentage(increase or decrease )

% Non-Proficient % Non-Proficient % Non-proficient

% Non-Proficient % Non-Proficient % Non-proficient

% Non-Proficient % Non-Proficient % Non-Proficient



What do you notice?

What are you wondering?

Your School’s Data

K DIBELS 6%41% Decrease 35%

16%7 SAT7 ARMT 30% Increase 14%

Increase 17% 34%17%

ABC Co. Schools Bay Elementary School

LUNCH

TRAVEL

What color form will I need?

• Raise your hand if you live in _____________.• If you have your hand raised you do not need to fill

out a form.• The other participants from each school need to take

1 minute to decide who will get travel because only one person from each school will get mileage.

• Raise your hand if you are the person from your school who will get travel. Pull the pink form from your folder.

• People who do not live in ______ and don’t have a pink form, get a white form.

Pink Forms and White Forms

(Front Page)• Take your pen and fill out the box at the top right hand

corner. Make sure that you print legibly. It must be able to be read. (Check the person beside you.)

Now:• Look at #2B. Write in the first blank the time you left

your house. Then, circle a.m.Time of departure to meeting from home base: ____________a.m./p.m.

Estimated time of return to home base : ____________a.m./p.m.

Pink Forms and White Forms

(Back Page)• Find the box in the top right hand corner. Print your

name legibly as it is on your legal documents and STOP.

• Next, print your physical address legibly. This is the actual address where you live. (This is not a

P.O. Box.) Write your street address, city, state, and zip code and STOP.

• Then, write your SS# legibly and STOP. This must be on your form if you are to receive reimbursement.

• (Check your partner.)

(Back Page)• Find the box in the bottom right hand corner. Put

your finger on the blank above where it says Signature of Traveler.

• Sign your name EXACTLY as it is written in the top right hand corner.

• (Check your partner to see if the signature the same as the name at the printed in the top right hand box?)

(Back Page)• Raise your hand if you receive your mail at a P. O.

Box.• If your hand is not raised, turn your form in.• If your hand is raised, find the box in the bottom left

hand corner on the 2nd page. Under where you see “Literacy & Justice for ALL Training” and the month, you will print legibly your mailing address.

• (Partners check to see if the information is filled out correctly and legible?)

• All forms should be turned in.

Reimbursement

Expect reimbursement to come from

the State Department of Education

in several months.

Additional data• We have additional data for you to look at

today. Some of this is from colleges and universities. (On pink and yellow paper)

• You can find additional data at the following sites:

http://parca.samford.edu/

http://www.ache.alabama.gov/ • Are our students college and career ready?

59

http://parca.samford.edu/

http://www.ache.alabama.gov/

60

5 20



K - DIBELS 43 41 95% 41% 14 6 21 6% 2 1 38

1 45 37 82% 0% 0 0 37 7% 1 3 33

2 55 46 84% 7% 0 6 40 13% 3 6 37

3 - DIBELS 54 45 83% 26% 8 7 30 18% 4 8 33

3 - ARMT 51 44 86% 26% 8 7 29 17% 0 5 12 27

4 55 47 85% 18% 0 4 17 26 21% 0 6 18 23

5 46 42 91% 24% 0 7 16 19 21% 0 6 14 22

6 40 39 98% 29% 0 9 16 14 19% 0 3 16 20

7 58 56 97% 16% 0 4 19 33 30% 0 12 27 17

8 52 47 90% 33% 3 10 18 16 43% 0 19 22 6


4 55 52 95% 18% 7 5 23 17 23% 9 6 21 16

5 46 43 93% 24% 7 7 15 14 26% 8 6 16 13

6 40 39 98% 29% 7 9 15 8 23% 4 10 18 7

7 58 56 97% 17% 5 9 32 10 34% 14 10 22 10

8 52 47 90% 44% 17 7 17 6 45% 17 8 17 5

ARI Cohort 8

Studs Tested 10




Partially proficientNon-proficient

Fully proficient

61

Grade LevelSpring 2010

# non-proficient

# partially proficient

Where are they now?Current Grade Level 2010-2011) Names of students

(NP or PP)

Grade Level in 2011-2012

Based on this information, what do we need to do next?.

4th ARMT

4th SAT

0 24 5th 6th

Annette PP Alan PP Allison PPCarolyn PP Doyle PP Kara PPKelly PP Kevin PP Turk PPYolonda PP Vladimir PP John PPBeverly PP Parker PP Jacob PPVicki PP Doug PP Lauren PPDebbie PP Rick PP Callie PPKaren PP Bill PP Christen PP

Rick NP Kara NP Allison NPCarolyn NP Doyle NP Christen NPBeverly NP Vicki NP Alan NPYolonda PP Vladimir PP John PPDoug PP Parker PP Jacob PP

6th 5th 69

Make sure we have the right names. Find out who we are missing. Are there new students we need to add? We need to meet with our feeder school to look at data.

62

Questions to Guide our Planning

What did we learn?

Specific Actions to Take

Timeline Who will be responsible?

(and for what?)

What adjustments need to be made for the Fall of 2011?

Team Planning Form

(Be sure to answer this question and any others you choose)

What interferences do these students have?

We don’t know the interferences that all of our non proficient students have and the system that they fall under (Meaning, Language, Print)

We have other assessments that we can give to see what the interferences are; we will do that in addition to listening to those students read grade level material aloud.

• Prior to Feb.22, teachers will identify interference

• Data meeting in 2 weeks (February 22) – we will have teachers determine the interferences of the NP students and bring the assessments so we can discuss how we can adjust instruction

• Principal and team plan data meeting; confirm students; give list of students to teachers; Principal leads data meeting

• Reading Coach leads a discussion during grade level meeting of ideas for addressing interferences from team; supports teachers through coaching cycle

• Teachers – bring interferences for each student (NP, PP)

• Were we able to list all of our non-proficient students? If not, how will we gather that information?

• What interferences do these students have? How do we know?• What structures are in place to address the interferences? (text,

additional time, providers of instruction, intensity of instruction, etc.)• What does the daily instruction they are receiving look like?• What has been working for us? What needs adjustment?• What instructional adjustments do we need to make immediately?• What adjustments need to be made for the fall of next year?• How many students moved from non- or partially proficient to

proficient? What helped them to do this?• How many students slid from proficient to partially proficient? Why?• What other forms of data do we need to look at for these students?• What does the data tell us about our professional development

needs?You may have other questions. Refer to Team to Teach, Tool 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4,

for additional questions to consider. This will connect to your PLU assignment.63

Possible Questions to Consider

Share out

64

65

If you are participating in the PLU, then please stay

afterwards to discuss assignments for this

session.

66

PLU

Documents

Literacy and Justice For All 2011 Session 3. Parameters 2