Math Task Force - Glenview Community Consolidated … · · 2017-03-07Math Task Force...

Superintendent Math Task Force

Recommendation to the Board of Education

March 6, 2017

Task Force Charge

The Advanced and Accelerated Math Identification Task Force

will research, design, and recommend a REPEATABLE,

PREDICTABLE, COLLABORATIVELY DESIGNED student

identification process for advanced and accelerated math.

Philosophy

● Assure the OPPORTUNITY to master critical knowledge, skills and reasoning competencies at every grade level.

● Provide the necessary RESOURCES to give every student access to an appropriately leveled math program.

● Provide ACCESS to advanced and accelerated programming to all students believed likely to benefit from that path, with no fixed targets or caps.

Task Force Process● Representative Membership● Facilitated by Consultants from the Consortium for Educational Change

Meetings

● November 2016 to February 2017● Talking points regularly shared with staff and community● Research, data review, product and process development● Voting with students at the center of the process

Data AnalysisWhat data did the task force review?

● PARCC data

● NWEA MAP data

● Demographic data (gender, ethnicity)

● GBS placement data (initial, appeal, and level changes)

● D34 sample population data

● Neighboring and comparative district math placement processes

● Matrix simulation data

Backward Map Approach to Matrix Development What is your Advanced/Accelerated Program?

What are the characteristics of a student who is successful in the program?

What measures help identify students with these characteristics?

● Academic ● Social ● Work habits

What measures should be included in the Identification Matrix?

Components for Recommendation The task force has completed its research and is recommending four products/processes for a repeatable, predictable identification process.

● Identification Process

● Identification Matrix

● Appeal Process

● Provisional Placement (w/Exit Criteria)

Identification Process● Expands opportunity for student participation in

advanced/accelerated programs.

● Utilizes a multi-phase process gathering multiple data points.

● Incorporates an additional phase to re-evaluate students who do

not initially/automatically qualify for advanced placement.

● The District increases its advocacy for students who may find

success in the advanced/accelerated program.

Identification Process FlowchartLet’s refer to Appendix B of the Board Memo.

Identification Process Flowchart

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3/Appeal

Prior vs. Proposed Placement MethodsPrior placement methods have included matrices and a projection methodology.

Strengths to continue utilizing in the proposed matrix:

● Use of multiple types of data● Use of historical data points● Use of teacher input

Matrix Measures● NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) - Math

● NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) - Reading

● Student Performance Rating Scale

● Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) - Non-Verbal

● Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) - Quantitative

Identification Matrix, Grades 4-5

Identification Matrix, Grades 6-8

Measure of Academic Progress (MAP):Math and ReadingHistorical MAP Math and Reading data will be used in our matrix:

● Five most recent MAP math percentile scores (rather than the RIT scores), dropping the lowest score of these five

● Average of the four remaining percentile scores

● Five most recent MAP reading percentile scores (rather than the RIT scores), dropping the lowest score of these five

● Average of the four remaining percentile scores

Never/With Support

1

Occasionally2

Frequently3

Always4

MATHEMATICAL SKILLS/CONCEPTS

Understands new math concepts and processes more easily than peers

Displays strong number sense, estimating and judging the reasonableness of strategies and solutions easily and accurately (MP1 & 5)

Generalizes mathematical relationships and discovers patterns (MP7)

MATHEMATICAL PRACTICES

Shows a high level of interest and perseverance when approaching a non-routine task (MP1)

Draws from a wide range of strategies and switches strategies easily, when necessary (MP1)

Successfully communicates and defends mathematical reasoning using objects, drawings, diagrams, actions, and verbal and written communication (MP3)

WORK HABITS & HABITS OF MIND

Completes homework on time and with accuracy (MP6)

Completes in class work independently and with accuracy (MP6)

Self directed learner who enjoys challenges and math extension opportunities

Exhibits curiosity and seeks creative ways to approach and solve problems that are unique

ADD COLUMN TOTAL

MULTIPLY COLUMN TOTALS BY THE WEIGHT: X1 X2 X3 X4

OVERALL SCORE (Total of this row)

Performance Rating Scale

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)CogAT appraises the level and pattern of cognitive development of students. We will use two batteries of this assessment.

● Non-verbal○ Appraises inductive reasoning skills

○ Appraisal of student ability to use cognitive resources in new situations

● Quantitative ○ Appraises general abstract reasoning skills, particularly inductive reasoning and specific

mathematical reasoning skills

○ Performance on this battery has high positive correlations with both reading and mathematics achievement.

Matrix - Determining Weights

Through research of our prior matrix and methodology results, the task force determined that MAP Math and the Student Performance Rating Scale are the two strongest indicators of student readiness and success in advanced/accelerated math.

Matrix - Determining WeightsMAP Math:

● Highest value in matrix

● Two pathways in grades 4-5 and three potential pathways in grades 6-8

● A wider percentile range (80-93%) on 6-8 matrix

● Smaller incremental ranges exist for more points in the 6-8 matrix

Matrix - Determining WeightsStudent Performance Rating Scale:

● A higher weight was given to the Student Performance Rating Scale than the prior matrix or methodology

● Students can receive up to three points

● 30 remains the lowest score to receive points on the matrix

Matrix - Determining WeightsCogAT:

● Matrix includes Quantitative and Non-Verbal CogAT scores

● Batteries have been separated (rather than use of composite score)

● Based on review of data and to expand opportunities for placement, the value of the CogAT score was lowered

Matrix - Determining WeightsMAP Reading:

● Informational text, vocabulary, and problem-solving

● Problem-solving and ability to critique other’s thinking

● Analyze problems and explain their reasoning

Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 4th - 5th Grade

Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)

Local Percent of Students in 4th Grade (2017-2018)

Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)


Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%

Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%

Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%

Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%

Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%

Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%

CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%

CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%

S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%

S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%

S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%

S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%

S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%

Total students in Grade Level 526 514


Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)


Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)


Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%

Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%

Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%

Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%

Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%

Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%

CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%

CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%

S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%

S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%

S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%

S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%

S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%

Total students in Grade Level 526 514


Matrix Indicator

Number of 6th Grade Students

(2017-2018)

Local Percent of Students in 6th

Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)

Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%

Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%

Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%

Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%

Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%

Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%

CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%

CogAT (Quantitative) 85-99% (1) 192 34% 176 30% 211 36%

S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%

S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%

S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%

S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%

S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 6 1% 1 0% 12 2%

Total students in Grade Level 557 585 593


Matrix Indicator


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)

Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%

Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%

Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%

Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%

Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%

Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%

CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%


S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%

S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%

S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%

S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%




Matrix Indicator


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)


(2017-2018)


Grade (2017-2018)

Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%

Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%

Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%

Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%

Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%

Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%

CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%


S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%

S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%

S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%

S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%



Matrix - Determining Cut Scores

The task force used simulation data to inform the matrix cut scores.

The following slides show:● Cut Score Tables ● Potential enrollment for each

course after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Identification Process.

Identification Matrix - Cut Score Tables

Identification Matrix - Cut Score Tables

Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores

Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores

Phase 1● Begins in January each year● Phase 1/Initial math placements are determined based on students’

scores calculated using the Identification Matrix.● Parents are informed by letter of student’s placement

○ Automatic qualification into advanced/accelerated OR○ Student moves into Phase 2 for additional evaluation OR○ Parent is informed of Appeal Process

● If a student does not automatically qualify for an advanced/accelerated placement based on the matrix cut scores in Phase 1, parents will be notified of additional phases in the process through which the student can be re-evaluated.

Phase 2Phase 2 is a NEW STEP, included in the identification process to expand opportunities for students who may benefit from the advanced/accelerated program but did not automatically qualify in Phase 1.

The District advocates for these students and the following steps occur:

● Supplemental math test● Student survey● Additional teacher input

Parents are informed by letter of the student’s results of Phase 2

● Provisional placement into advanced/accelerated OR● Parent is informed of Appeal Process

Phase 3/Appeal PhaseThe following information will be gathered and evaluated by a District Appeal Committee (consisting of Asst. Supt. for Curriculum, Dist. Math Coach, and Teachers):

● Appeal Form● Student Survey● Supplemental Math Test● Additional Teacher Input (including classroom performance data)

The District Appeal Committee will make a final decision and results will be mailed home to parents.

Provisional Placement/Exit CriteriaMid-Point of Trimester 1

Parents will receive a midpoint progress check of provisionally placed students sharing updates on:

● Student’s classroom work habits

● Performance levels

● Test scores

End of Trimester 1

Students must meet two of the three criteria below to remain in the advanced/accelerated course:

● Class average of test scores of 70% or higher

● Student Performance Rating Scale of 30 or higher

● District Trimester 1 Math Assessment of 75% or higher

Identification Timeline

January

Students complete Winter NWEA MAP Math and Reading

tests

February

Student Performance

Rating Scales are completed

Phase 1 Math Placements are

calculated

March

Phase 1 Placement Letters

mailed home to parents

Phase 2 supplemental test administered to

qualifying students

April

Phase 2 provisional placements determined

(letters sent home to parents)

Phase 3 appeal forms due by April

30th

Identification Timeline

May

Phase 3 appeal supplemental

tests administered

End of May

Appeal committee determines results

of appealed placements

Parents are notified of results

of appeals

Trimester 1Mid-Term

Mid-point progress check

letter mailed home to parents of provisionally placed students

Trimester 1End of Term

Decisions on provisional

placements are determined

How do we measure success of our process?● Number of appeals submitted

● Number of students exiting after provisional placement period

● Student growth and achievement data

● Successful transition to GBS math program

Current Math Pathways in Grades 4-8

Pathways Continued from D34 to GBS

Next Steps1) Board approval on March 20

2) Placement process immediately begins

3) All placements will be determined prior to the end of this school year for the 2017-2018 school year.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the Math Placement Identification Process (including the Identification Matrix, Appeal Process, and Exit Process) as proposed by the Superintendent Math Task Force.

Questions?

Math Task Force - Glenview Community Consolidated … · · 2017-03-07Math Task Force...

Documents

Transcript of Math Task Force - Glenview Community Consolidated … · · 2017-03-07Math Task Force...