Upload
armen
View
33
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MAP Final Results. Theresa Hinkebein Cape Girardeau School District Curriculum Coordinator November 15, 2010. MSIP Standard 6.2. MSIP Standard 6.2 requires the school board to annually review disaggregated performance data for all subgroups - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
MAP Final ResultsTheresa HinkebeinTheresa Hinkebein
Cape Girardeau School DistrictCape Girardeau School District
Curriculum CoordinatorCurriculum Coordinator
November 15, 2010November 15, 2010
Slide 1
MSIP Standard 6.2
MSIP Standard 6.2 requires the school board to annually review disaggregated performance data for all subgroups with 5 or more students in order to monitor studentachievement and dropout/graduation rates.
Subgroup achievement data is available for review on the school board portal. AYP Summary AYP 2010 for each school site Achievement level subgroup report for each school site
Slide 2
Data Analysis Plan
CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis
Plan1. AYP Overview
2007-2010 Upward movement Downward movement Flatline Peaks and valleys
2. Content Item Analysis GLEs below 70% Frequency of QT and DOK Frequency of GLE code Discuss and summarize Slide 3
Data Analysis Plan
CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis
Plan3. Instructional Goals
Short term Long term
4. Professional Development Current plan District/Building 2011-2012
5. Safe Harbor
6. Local and State comparison Slide 4
MAP-Like vs. MAP Predictor
MAP-LikeCommunication Arts (75% DRA + 25% writing assessment )Math (benchmarks)
DRA Reading engagement Accuracy (miscue analysis) Fluency Comprehension (before, during, and after reading)
questioning/prediction literal comprehension Summarization Interpretation Reflection Metacognitive awareness
Continuum (scoring guide) Focus for instruction
District Writing Assessment Writing prompts across writing genres Scoring guide developed by literacy coaches and MAP graders based on MAP scoring guide Includes 6+1 traits of writing
Math Began with benchmarks from math textbook resources Math coach aligned to pacing Slide 5
Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores
1. 1 test 1x a year
2. Advanced and Proficient only Basic Average students
3. Anxiety/Stress Teacher/Student Test-takers
Slide 6
Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores
4. Strictly timed portions Practice Quality (knowledge) vs. Quantity (how fast)
5. Changing test GLEs Question Type DOK Suspension of PE CCS-A
6. Teach-the-Test We do not teach the test. We teach the entire
curriculum. Prepare all year long, give tools, test-taking strategies Slide 7
Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores
7. Criterion-Referenced Assessments Our local assessments are intended to be criterion-
referenced; designed to provide a measure of performance that is interpretable in terms of clearly defined learning tasks.
MAP is a combination of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced. Norm-referenced assessments are designed to provide a measure of performance that is interpretable in terms of an individual’s relative standing in some known group.
8. Test Security Strict guidelines Cannot discuss test items Cannot paraphrase test questions No oral reading Cover-up all content and process cues
Slide 8
Local Assessment Committee
CSIP I.C.2.a Form a local assessment committee
Evaluating current district required assessments Addressing concerns Decision making
Slide 9
Local Assessment Schedule
3 windows Benchmark 1 data presented in January
w/findingsCSIP I.C.2.f Report local and state assessment data to the
school board
2010-2011 District Assessment Schedule
Slide 10
Common Core Standard-Assessment
Two Consortiums SBAC PARCC
CCS-A 2 summative assessments Expect online assessments Expect MC, CR, PE Optional benchmark assessments Tools for informal assessment of student progress Target field test-spring 2013 Operational test-spring 2014
Slide 11
Status
CGPS is improving scores on state testing MAP-like required assessments to monitor student
progress (3x) Using local and state data to inform instruction Targeting student strengths and weaknesses based on
data Professional development based on needs identified
from data
Slide 12
State Targets
2010 2011
CA 67.4 75.5
MA 63.3 72.5