Celebrating our AchievementsAnd where do we go next?

The Four Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation

Student Growth and Development

(45%)

Whole-school Student Learning

Indicators or Student Feedback

(5%)

Observations of Performance and

Practice (40%)

Peer or Parent Feedback (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

WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012

Math and Science

WHS’s hard work pays off!Improvements from 2011-2012

Reading and Writing

The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Mathematics

Cohort MAP Reading CAPT Reading MAP Math CAPT Math

2010

Cohort NA 13 NA 16

2011 Cohort 13 (Winter) 6 26 (Winter) 9

2012

Cohort 14 (Winter) 13 (Winter) 13 7

MAP + Intervention Works

Percent of Grade 10 Students Below Proficiency MAP vs. CAPTDark Blue= Introduction of Math Lab

Most students who entered math lab were not predicted to be proficient on the CAPT based on MAP testing. With intervention, 79 percent were at or above proficiency.

Math Lab: Another Success Story

Math Lab Student CAPT Scores Grades 10 and 11 (53 tested)

SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEAREST

WHOLE PERCENT)

Percent Advanced 4 Percent Goal 26

Percent Proficient 47 Percent Basic/Below Basic 21

How do we measure up?CAPT Math Goal Performance

Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State

+/- 13.0 1.4 4.0

10 (2012) 64.4 57.5 6 49.310 (2011) 57.7 58.4 16 49.6

10 (2010) 50.4 58.2 20 48.9

10 (2009) 47.4 57.6 22 48.0

10 (2008) 54.7 60.0 18 50.2

10 (2007) 51.4 56.1 17 45.3

8

The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Science

How do we measure up?CAPT Science Goal Performance

Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State

+/- 13.0 0.1 2.8

10 (2012) 64.4 55.8 2 47.310 (2011) 57.7 55.8 12 47.2

10 (2010) 50.4 52.8 11 45.5

10 (2009) 47.4 50.3 9 43.0

10 (2008) 54.7 56.2 10 46.5

10 (2007) 51.4 55.7 4 44.5

10

Math and Science: Boys vs. Girls

The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012Writing

Writing: Boys vs. Girls

Grade

Writing

Wtfd DRGDRankIn

DRGSTATE

+/- 16.7 7.7 10.1

10(2012) 82.0 72.7 4 63.1

10(2011) 76.3 71.6 11 61.3

10(2010) 61.8 68.7 20 59.6

10(2009) 62.5 64.7 14 55.0

10(2008) 63.0 67.4 16 57.9

10(2007) 65.3 65.0 11 53.0

How Do We Measure Up?Writing Goal Performance Summary

Writing Lab is an intervention offered by the history department.

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 Writing Lab successes.

Writing Lab

The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012Reading

Improvements in both tests:

A Close Look at Reading

Reading: Boys Vs. Girls

SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEAREST WHOLE PERCENT)

ADVANCED 3%

GOAL 21%

PROFICIENT 55%

BASIC/BELOW BASIC 17%

Reading: Our Intervention Courses Move Many Students to Proficiency and Goal!

Students placed in English Workshop and Literacy Lab are reading below grade level and are not projected (by MAP) to be proficient on the CAPT. Yet, 83 percent of those students were successful after intervention.

How do we measure up?CAPT Reading Goal Performance

Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State

+/- 17.2 2.7 2.0

10 (2012) 68.6 56.8 1 47.510 (2011) 60.3 52.9 4 44.8

10 (2010) 49.6 53.7 18 45.9

10 (2009) 49.8 56.0 19 47.5

10 (2008) 49.2 52.7 17 45.5

10 (2007) 51.4 54.1 17 45.5

20

MAP testing to identify struggling students has been in place since 2010.

Students have been identified and placed in interventions such as Academic Study Halls, Literacy Lab, English Workshop, and Math Lab as they have become available.

The Success: Years in the Making

School-wide implementation of Reading for Information assessments (2010-present)

School-wide literacy strategies professional development (2010-present)

Commitment of all teachers to implement literacy strategies into classroom instruction (2010-present)

Increase in amount of reading and writing opportunities for our students (2010-present)

Grade 6-12 professional development that led to increased articulation of course content/student expectation (2011-present)

What New Actions Led to Our Dramatic Improvement?

The implementation of the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) begins this year. These standards require students to interpret and evaluate complex texts. Students must be able to write well in a variety of formats. Math is increasingly rigorous as well.

Fortunately, the work that we have done to create Reading for Information assessments has prepared us well to meet this challenge.

How Can We Continue Our Growth?

As we transition to the Common Core, we will be hearing more about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK). This aligns to Bloom’s Taxonomy but is more helpful in determining the depth and rigor of questions and tasks.

Going forward, it will be more important than ever to find challenging articles and ask students to answer probing text- dependent questions in multiple choice and open-ended formats.

Continuing our Growth…

Continue to administer two Reading for Information assessments.

Use the assessment results to guide your class instruction.

Regularly offer reading opportunities and give students opportunities to answer questions in multiple formats.

Plan instruction around how to annotate and make sense of the texts.

Review the work with students.

Have the students understand the scoring process so that they can peer and self-score.

Use PLC time to score more formal critical reading assessments together so that expectations are calibrated.

More about Critical Reading

Students should be reading and writing every day.

Text choices should be purposeful. Text should be

Appropriately challenging

Engaging to you and your students

Tied to your content

Selecting the right texts and finding strategies to help students comprehend them is process that will take time and support from the literacy and media specialists. It is a goal to work toward over time.

Continue to Teach Your Content Through Reading and Writing Tasks

Here are a few of the effective strategies observed:

Socratic Seminar

Summary Creation

Fishbowl text discussion

Close reading analysis

Annotation, note-taking, and/or graphic organizers

Purposeful before, during and after reading strategies

Metacognition

Writing to learn and respond to text

Exemplary Strategies Demonstrated During Instructional Rounds

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 at least one score band (for example, from goal to advanced, 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 gone

away. The NCLB waiver has lead to new ways of reporting and measuring growth. In addition, the new professional growth pilot begins this year.

Subject GroupWtfd

2011

Waterford

2012

DRG

2012

Rankin

DRG

STATE

2012

MathF/RMeals 30.0 50.0 36.4 2/19 20.2

FullPrice 61.8 66.1 61.0 9 61.5

ScienceF/RMeals 40.6 36.0 33.3 8/19 18.9

FullPrice 58.6 66.7 59..4 3 59.6

ReadingF/RMeals 29.0 50.0 35.3 1/19 20.3

FullPrice 64.9 71.1 60.2 4 59.0

WritingF/RMeals 54.8 52.0 51.5 11/19 36.4

FullPrice 79.5 86.1 75.9 4 74.6

GOAL FREE/REDUCED LUNCH PERFORMANCE

Special Education

YearNumber Tested

Total Math % Goal Range

Total Math % Proficient

Total science % Goal Range

Total science % Proficient

Total Reading % Goal Range

Total Reading % Proficient

Total Writing % Goal Range

Total Writing % Proficient

2007 24 8.3 37.5 33.3 58.3 8.3 50 12.5 70.8

2008 26 0 26.9 3.8 61.5 0 57.7 8 60

2009 21 4.8 38.1 14.3 52.4 4.8 52.4 9.5 52.4

2010 28 10.7 25 17.9 50 7.7 50 14.3 57.1

2011 20 15 50 8.3 41.7 4.5 63.6 16.7 62.5

2012 13 7.7 46.2 6.7 60 13.3 60 26.7 73.3

Special Education CAPT Performance

Core areas will spend several weeks looking closely at CMT, CAPT and other data in order to learn more about how we are performing.

Shift will be not just to look at how we did, but to look at the data for the students in our classrooms this year to see where they are and make plans for how to move them to the next level.

What’s Next?

Current 9th Graders:

What CMT’s Can Tell Us

MATH:

Areas for 9th grade that most need improvement:

Word problems

Computing with whole numbers and fractions

Estimating solutions to problems

Mathematical applications

READING:

Developing an interpretation

Key CMT Findings:Guiding our ninth graders

2012 PCAPT Summary

ASSESSMENT % BELOW BASIC

% BASIC % PROFICIENT % GOAL %ADVANCED

READING 11 14 32 19 24

MATH 9 14 41 27 11

WRITING 3 5 28 15 49

SCIENCE 11 15 37 29 8

Math:

Open-ended responses

Reading:

Open-ended responses (RFI short answer)

Reading stamina

Key PCAPT Concerns:

9/13 PLC devoted to learning about SEED (new professional growth plan)

9/20 Departments will get an opportunity to look at CMT/PCAPT/CAPT data in depth and begin to create goals

Upcoming Events