MATH DATA

OVERVIEW

FOR LO

A FACULTY

N O V E M B E R 20 1 3

Lake Oconee Academy

PURPOSE

Lake Oconee Academy

• To provide an overview of the performance of students at LOA in comparison to the county and state in the area of math. Longitudinal CRCT data from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 is examined.

• To compare 2012 and 2013 CRCT math data at LOA, looking for possible trends in student achievement.

• To review and break down 2013 CRCT math data from LOA, in order to determine current strengths and weaknesses of students in grades 3-8.

LOA STUDENT BODY

Lake Oconee Academy

LOA is a young school and only 4 years of longitudinal data exists. The chart below gives grades and number of students tested each year at LOA. These low numbers easily affect percentages.

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013Grades present

3 3,4,5 3,4,5,6 3,4,5,6,7

Number of

students tested (n)

16 73 126 169

LOA ETHNIC DEMOGRAPHICS

Lake Oconee Academy

1% 7% 3% 5

%84%

LOA Ethnic Demographics 2013

n = 324 studentsAsian African Amer-

icanHispanic 2 or more

racesCaucasian

LOA GENDER DEMOGRAPHICS

Lake Oconee Academy

Female55%

Male45%

LOA Gender Demographics 2013

n = 324 students

FemaleMale

LOA STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES DEMOGRAPHICS

Lake Oconee Academy

In 2013, there were 18 students with disabilities enrolled in LOA. This is 5% of LOA’s student population of 324 students.

THE BIG PICTURE

Lake Oconee Academy

Did Not Meet

Meets Exceeds Did Not Meet

Meets Exceeds Did Not Meet

Meets Exceeds Did Not Meet

Meets Exceeds

2010 2011 2012 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Distribution of Student CRCT Math Proficiency

LOA

Greene County

Georgia

Years Tested and Proficiency Levels

Perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts

LOA CRCT MATH PROFICIENCY

Lake Oconee Academy

2010 2011 2012 20130%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0 4 1 1

39 41 4929

61 55 5070

Distribution of Student CRCT Math Proficiency

ExceedsMeetsDid Not Meet

Years Tested

% o

f stu

dent

s

2010 2011 2012 2013n=16 n=73 n=126 n=169

2012 GRADE LEVEL BREAKDOWN AT LOA

Lake Oconee Academy

3rd 4th 5th 6th 0

20

40

60

80

2012 Math CRCT Scores by Grade Level

Did Not MeetMeetsExceeds

Grade Level of Students Tested

% o

f stu

dent

s

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Graden=41 n=41 n=22 n=22

2013 GRADE LEVEL BREAKDOWN AT LOA

Lake Oconee Academy

3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th0

20

40

60

80

2013 Math CRCT Scores by Grade Level

Did Not MeetMeetsExceeds

Grade Level of Students Tested

% o

f Stu

dent

s

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

n=40 n=40 n=44 n=22 n=23

COHORT GRADE COMPARISON AT LOA

Lake Oconee Academy

% Did Not Meet

% Meets % Exceeds

3rd Grade 2012 0 28 724th Grade

20130 15 85

4th Grade 2012 0 58 435th Grade 2013 0 34 665th Grade 2012 8 58 336th Grade 2013 0 50 506th Grade 2012 0 59 417th Grade 2013 0 18 82

See previous two slides for number of students in each

grade for both years.

COHORT COMPARISON IN MATH CRCT

Lake Oconee Academy

Meets59%

Ex-ceeds41%

6th Grade 2012 (n=22)

Meets18%

Exceeds82%

7th Grade 2013 (n=22)

CRCT DOMAIN DATA FROM 2013

Lake Oconee Academy

algebradata analysis and probability

geometrymeasurement

numbers & operations

0% 50%

100%

93100969896

LOA CRCT Math Domain Data 2013 for Students in Grades

3-8

Did Not MeetMeetsExceeds

% of studentsCRCT

Mat

h D

omai

ns

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

n=40 n=40 n=44 n=22 n=23

CRCT DOMAIN EXCEEDS DATA FROM 2013

Lake Oconee Academy

algebradata analysis

geometrymeasurement

numbers & operations

0 40 8015262334

19

78747364

77

LOA CRCT Math Percentage of Ex-ceeds Category in 2013 in Grades 3-

8

51 -75%76 - 100%

% of students

CRCT

Mat

h D

omai

ns

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

n=40 n=40 n=44 n=22 n=23

TASK FOR FACULTY

Lake Oconee Academy

• Where do we go from here?

• Our percentage of students in the exceeds category on the math CRCT was the highest ever last year. What caused this and how can we ensure that we do the same or better this year?

• While LOA students did very well in all math domains, the measurement domain had the lowest percentage of students in the 76-100% category. What caused this and how can we improve in this domain this school year?