1 / 21

EOC & NCFE Data

EOC & NCFE Data. 2013-14. Measuring Proficiency. 2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet. EOC scores sorted by Difference between Percent Proficient 2013-14 and Percent Proficient 2012-13.

uriah-holmes
Download Presentation

EOC & NCFE Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EOC & NCFE Data 2013-14

  2. Measuring Proficiency

  3. 2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet • EOC scores sorted by Difference between Percent Proficient 2013-14 and Percent Proficient 2012-13. • NCFE scores sorted by Difference if NCFE given both years, otherwise sorted by Percent Correct 2013-14. • Performance Composite & Percent Proficient colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the proficiency rate relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle. • Percent Correct colored columns: The brighter the green the higher the average percent correct relative to other schools. The darker the red, the lower. Yellow/Orange in the middle.

  4. 2013-14 Results for EOCs and NCFEs Spreadsheet • Difference column: • Positive indicates increase in proficiency rate; negative indicates decrease in proficiency rate. • The brighter the green the larger the increase in proficiency rate relative to other schools. • The darker the red, the larger the decrease in proficiency rate relative to other schools. • Yellow/Orange indicate the increase or decrease in proficiency rate is not large relative to other schools.

  5. NC Final Exam Data • Difference column - Precalculus: • All differences positive – everyone increased in percent correct! • The brighter the green, the larger the increase in percent correct relative to other schools

  6. Math I EOC

  7. Measuring Growth

  8. EVAAS Reports • Value Added Summary (in spreadsheet) – summary of overall growth – trend over time • Digging deeper: • Diagnostic – growth by achievement group • Performance Diagnostic – growth by predicted achievement level • Can be disaggregated by race, gender, and demographics

  9. Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement

  10. Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level

  11. Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement

  12. Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level

  13. Diagnostic Report: groups divided by achievement

  14. Diagnostic Performance Report: groups divided by predicted EOC Performance Level

  15. Reflecting on the Data:Math Dept. Chairs Meeting • What factors may have influenced the increase or decrease in percent proficient for EOCs at your school? • What factors may have influenced the increase or decrease in percent correct for NCFEs at your school? • What implications does this have for instruction at your school?

  16. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting • Schools with high proficiency rates, high increases in proficiency rates, high growth, or significantly increasing growth asked to share at PLT Team Leaders meeting. • Questions they were asked to address: • How does your PLT operate effectively? • What changes did you make in Math I curriculum/instruction between 2012-13 and 2013-14? • What strategies/interventions do you use for struggling students? • Does math placement factor in?

  17. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting Strategies & ideas they shared: • PLT Structures: • same teachers teaching Math I each year • mostly veteran teachers; few beginning teachers • teachers dedicated to teaching Math I all day • common planning for EOC PLTs • daily communication/reflection on how lessons are going • visited feeder Middle Schools for vertical alignment and better understanding

  18. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting • Established high expectations from Day 1 • modeled expectations • gave frequent feedback on progress • Curriculum adjustments • focused on critical standards • slowed down when needed • felt they know the curriculum better now that they are in the 3rdyear of implementation • weekly cumulative review (Problem Attic, Math XL)

  19. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting • Support for struggling students • established remediation structures within school day (Knight Time, Smart Lunch, etc.) • students who failed Math IA placed into Intro Math in the spring • Instructional adjustments • balance between direct instruction and activities • strategic EOC preparation • literacy development

  20. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting • Strategic preparation for EOC test: • spiraled review throughout course • practice with EOC-type questions with attention to gridded-response and calculator inactive items • Coach Book for Math I EOC Review • last 3 weeks devoted to EOC review • multiple practice EOCs to build stamina • strategically grouped students based on mock-EOC performance in order to differentiate preparation

  21. Reflecting on the Data:Math I PLT Team Leaders’ Meeting • Attention to literacy development: • Required students to write – e.g. explanations of how they solved a problem/why a procedure works • Focus on contextual (word) problems, offering specific strategies for how to unpack problems

More Related