West Haven School District “Monitoring for Improvement” 2011-2012
description
Transcript of West Haven School District “Monitoring for Improvement” 2011-2012
West Haven School District “Monitoring for Improvement”
2011-2012
Agenda
• Annual Yearly Progress(AYP)
• West Haven vs. District Reference Group(DRG)
• Matched Cohorts: Same Student Analysis
• Performance Level: Same Grade Analysis
Agenda Continued
• Subgroup Data 2011
• District Improvement Plan 2009-2013
• Kindergarten-Grade 2
• Reading and Mathematics
• English Language Learners and Special Education
• Professional Development
Annual Yearly Progress(AYP)
Performance Levels
There are 5 levels of performance on the CMT/CAPT tests
• Advanced• Goal• Proficient• Basic• Below Basic
Students scoring in the top three levels have met AYP requirements
District Reference Group(DRG) Comparison
• Other school districts in our DRG:– Ansonia– Danbury– Derby– East Hartford– Meriden– Norwalk– Norwich– Stamford
DRG Comparison 3rd Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 788 88.6
Norwalk 814 83.7
Stamford 1110 80.4
Ansonia 176 79.0
Meriden 632 75.5
West Haven 460 75.2
Derby 92 69.6
Norwich 360 68.3
East Hartford 482 67.0
DRG Comparison 3rd Grade ReadingTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 810 70.9
Danbury 780 70.5
Stamford 1087 67.7
West Haven 451 63.4
Ansonia 177 61.0
Derby 91 57.1
Norwich 355 56.9
Meriden 622 56.6
East Hartford 478 47.3
DRG Comparison 3rd Grade WritingTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 825 79.6
Danbury 805 78.5
Stamford 1129 77.1
Ansonia 183 76.5
West Haven 474 74.3
Derby 93 72.0
Meriden 648 65.4
Norwich 373 63.8
East Hartford 493 60.9
DRG Comparison 4th Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 738 86.9
Ansonia 201 85.6
Norwalk 744 84.3
Stamford 1090 81.3
West Haven 457 79.0
Derby 109 75.2
Meriden 620 73.9
Norwich 366 68.9
East Hartford 519 66.9
DRG Comparison 4th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 738 70.1
Ansonia 196 69.4
West Haven 450 68.0
Danbury 716 68.0
Stamford 1071 67.0
Derby 107 61.7
Meriden 608 60.7
East Hartford 514 50.4
Norwich 363 53.2
DRG Comparison 4th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Ansonia 207 89.9
Norwalk 753 85.7
Danbury 768 82.8
Stamford 1152 82.6
Derby 114 81.6
West Haven 488 80.9
East Hartford 530 78.1
Meriden 638 74.8
Norwich 383 66.8
DRG Comparison 5th Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 751 91.7
Norwalk 741 88.4
Stamford 1057 87.4
Ansonia 192 86.5
Meriden 640 77.7
West Haven 472 75.6
Norwich 325 74.8
East Hartford 498 68.7
Derby 124 63.7
DRG Comparison 5th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 737 76.0
Danbury 734 71.3
Stamford 1049 64.2
Ansonia 193 62.7
West Haven 468 59.6
Norwich 324 57.1
Meriden 624 56.7
Derby 124 54.0
East Hartford 496 44.2
DRG Comparison 5th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 774 90.6
Ansonia 200 90.0
Danbury 773 85.8
Stamford 1116 85.7
West Haven 497 84.1
Derby 129 82.9
East Hartford 517 76.4
Meriden 680 75.6
Norwich 345 74.8
DRG Comparison 5th Grade Science
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 741 87.3
Danbury 751 79.6
Stamford 1057 76.3
West Haven 472 72.7
Ansonia 192 71.8
Derby 124 70.8
Norwich 344 67.7
Meriden 640 65.6
East Hartford 498 61.5
DRG Comparison 6th Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Ansonia 193 91.2
Stamford 962 86.9
Norwalk 724 85.9
Danbury 681 84.6
West Haven 413 81.8
Derby 98 78.6
Meriden 426 75.4
East Hartford 438 71.2
Norwich 355 68.2
DRG Comparison 6th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Ansonia 187 88.8
Norwalk 723 84.1
Stamford 951 82.2
West Haven 407 82.1
Danbury 673 80.2
Norwich 350 75.7
Derby 98 75.5
East Hartford 435 72.2
Meriden 441 68.0
DRG Comparison 6th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Ansonia 201 89.6
West Haven 438 84.2
Stamford 1030 82.7
Norwalk 747 81.9
Danbury 714 78.6
Derby 101 78.2
Norwich 381 77.2
East Hartford 461 76.4
Meriden 473 74.8
DRG Comparison 7th Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 736 86.8
Ansonia 177 84.7
Danbury 659 82.7
Stamford 973 82.6
West Haven 479 82.3
Derby 96 77.1
Norwich 355 74.9
East Hartford 438 74.7
Meriden 483 73.3
DRG Comparison 7th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 727 84.5
Danbury 663 81.9
Stamford 963 81.5
West Haven 482 79.3
Derby 95 78.9
Ansonia 175 74.9
Norwich 358 70.7
Meriden 490 66.5
East Hartford 441 63.0
DRG Comparison 7th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Derby 102 77.5
Norwalk 751 75.1
Danbury 674 74.8
Stamford 1036 73.6
Ansonia 180 72.2
West Haven 513 71.2
East Hartford 460 70.2
Norwich 371 61.7
Meriden 513 61.4
DRG Comparison 8th Grade MathTown Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Ansonia 178 86.5
Danbury 677 85.4
Norwalk 788 82.4
Stamford 954 80.9
Norwich 352 79.3
Meriden 504 75.6
West Haven 444 73.6
Derby 116 73.3
East Hartford 477 65.0
DRG Comparison 8th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 669 83.0
Stamford 949 78.0
Norwalk 785 75.5
West Haven 447 74.3
Derby 118 73.7
Ansonia 178 71.3
Norwich 347 67.7
Meriden 518 66.0
East Hartford 480 57.3
DRG Comparison 8th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 701 80.7
Derby 119 79.8
Norwalk 815 76.8
Stamford 1018 76.7
West Haven 470 72.3
East Hartford 488 71.5
Ansonia 182 71.4
Meriden 547 61.4
Norwich 359 58.5
DRG Comparison 8th Grade Science
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Danbury 677 73.3
Norwalk 788 71.2
Stamford 954 68.4
West Haven 444 67.2
Norwich 361 61.8
Derby 116 55.5
Ansonia 178 53.8
Meriden 504 50.4
East Hartford 477 42.2
CAPTDRG Comparison 10th Grade Math
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Norwalk 762 72.8
Stamford 1105 68.9
Meriden 480 62.7
Danbury 751 61.3
West Haven 355 60.3
Ansonia 187 56.1
East Hartford 472 50.2
Derby 68 42.6
Norwich 25 24.0
CAPTDRG Comparison 10th Grade Reading
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
Stamford 1102 79.2
Norwalk 760 75.9
West Haven 363 70.8
Meriden 488 65.2
Derby 69 65.2
Ansonia 180 62.8
Danbury 717 61.6
East Hartford 470 54.9
Norwich 26 15.4
CAPTDRG Comparison 10th Grade Writing
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
West Haven 366 87.4
Stamford 1121 87.3
Norwalk 752 85.2
Derby 71 81.7
Meriden 499 79.0
Ansonia 175 74.3
East Hartford 469 74.2
Danbury 737 68.7
Norwich 28 17.9
CAPTDRG Comparison 10th Grade Science
Town Number Tested % At/Above Proficiency
West Haven 374 76.2
Norwalk 756 72.4
Stamford 1135 75.5
Derby 73 69.9
East Hartford 482 66.4
Ansonia 185 65.9
Danbury 774 64.3
Meriden 501 63.1
Norwich 29 34.5
Matched Cohort Comparison
Provides a two way table to show the number/percent of students in each performance level across two years/grades for matched cohorts
A matched cohort is the same group of students tested over a defined period, better indicator of district growth
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 3, 2010 to Grade 4, 2011
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 3, 2010 to Grade 4, 2011
Mathematics
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 20 students - 9 students 11 students
Basic 54 students 11 students 22 students 21 students
Proficient 137 students 25 students 71 students 41 students
Goal 135 students 30 students 84 students 21 students
Advanced 65 students 24 students 41 students -
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 3, 2010 to Grade 4, 2011
Reading
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 81 students x 59 students 22 students
Basic 48 students 9 students 16 students 23 students
Proficient 56 students 20 students 10 students 26 students
Goal 168 students 29 students 123 students 16 students
Advanced 52 students 26 students 26 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 3, 2010 to Grade 4, 2011
Writing
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 37 students x 21 students 16 students
Basic 55 students 6 students 19 students 30 students
Proficient 107 students 17 students 39 students 51 students
Goal 150 students 36 students 93 students 21 students
Advanced 88 students 47 students 41 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grades 4, 2010 to Grade 5, 2011
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 4, 2010 to Grade 5, 2011
Math
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 19 students x 13 students 6 students
Basic 68 students 17 students 30 students 21 students
Proficient 127 students 30 students 59 students 38 students
Goal 144 students 31 students 95 students 18 students
Advanced 61 students 19 students 42 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 4, 2010 to Grade 5, 2011
Reading
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 87 students x 64 students 25 students
Basic 55 students 25 students 10 students 20 students
Proficient 87 students 30 students 38 students 19 students
Goal 144 students 31 students 97 students 16 students
Advanced 40 students 11 students 29 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 4, 2010 to Grade 5, 2011
Writing
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 22 students x 15 students 7 students
Basic 58 students 11 students 14 students 33 students
Proficient 157 students 17 students 62 students 78 students
Goal 161 students 37 students 88 students 36 students
Advanced 44 students 15 students 29 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grades 5 2010 to Grade 6 2011
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 5, 2010 to Grade 6, 2011
Math
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 16 students x 8 students 8 students
Basic 37 students 7 students 19 students 11 students
Proficient 111 students 24 students 65 students 22 students
Goal 159 students 39 students 106 students 14 students
Advanced 60 students 24 students 36 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 5, 2010 to Grade 6, 2011
Reading
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 75 students x 22 students 53 students
Basic 41 students 1 student 6 students 34 students
Proficient 87 students 8 students 28 students 51 students
Goal 134 students 7 students 101 students 26 students
Advanced 40 students 4 students 36 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 5, 2010 to Grade 6, 2011
Writing
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 18 students x 13 students 5 students
Basic 42 students 7 students 15 students 20 students
Proficient 88 students 17 students 42 students 29 students
Goal 187 students 54 students 101 students 32 students
Advanced 73 students 39 students 34 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 6 2010 to Grade 7 2011
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 6, 2010 to Grade 7, 2011
Math
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 23 students x 9 students 14 students
Basic 49 students 9 students 20 students 20 students
Proficient 133 students 15 students 78 students 40 students
Goal 171 students 24 students 118 students 29 students
Advanced 59 students 10 students 49 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 6, 2010 to Grade 7, 2011
Reading
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 44 students x 29 students 15 students
Basic 48 students 14 students 7 students 27 students
Proficient 69 students 16 students 17 students 36 students
Goal 211 students 22 students 145 students 44 students
Advanced 62 students 5 students 57 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 6, 2010 to Grade 7, 2011
Writing
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 22 students x 14 students 8 students
Basic 76 students 28 students 27 students 21 students
Proficient 128 students 38 students 56 students 34 students
Goal 175 students 58 students 89 students 28 students
Advanced 67 students 22 students 45 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 7 2010 to Grade 8 2011
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 7, 2010 to Grade 8, 2011
Math
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 18 students x 11 students 7 students
Basic 62 students 16 students 36 students 10 students
Proficient 88 students 22 students 58 students 8 students
Goal 151 students 42 students 101 students 8 students
Advanced 76 students 38 students 38 students x
Matched Cohort Comparison Grade 7, 2010 to Grade 8, 2011
Reading
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 40 students x 30 students 10 students
Basic 36 students 14 students 14 students 8 students
Proficient 44 students 18 students 10 students 16 students
Goal 187 students 44 students 134 students 9 students
Advanced 93 students 28 students 65 students x
Matched Cohort ComparisonGrade 7, 2010 to Grade 8, 2011
Writing
Performance Levels
Total Number Tested
Decreased Maintained Increased
Below Basic 40 students x 20 students 20 students
Basic 58 students 9 students 22 students 27 students
Proficient 94 students 27 students 34 students 33 students
Goal 143 students 45 students 92 students 6 students
Advanced 81 students 58 students 23 students x
Grade Level Comparison
• Performance level comparison for grade levels
• The following percentages are students scoring at or above Proficiency
Grade 3 and 4 2009-2011
% at/above proficiency
Grade Math Reading Writing
Grade 3
2009 78% 67% 86%
2010 80% 66% 78%
2011 75% 63% 74%
Grade 4
2009 81% 67% 84%
2010 78% 65% 81%
2011 79% 68% 81%
Grade Math Reading Writing ScienceGrade 5
2009 81% 73% 89% 84%2010 87% 69% 86% 80%2011 76% 60% 84% 73%
Grade 62009 77% 70% 82% NT2010 81% 77% 78% NT2011 82% 82% 84% NT
Grade 5 and 6 2009-2011
% at/above proficiency
Grade 7 and 8 2009-2011
% at/above proficiencyGrade Math Reading Writing ScienceGrade 7
2009 75% 78% 73% NT2010 76% 79% 73% NT2011 82% 79% 71% NT
Grade 82009 76% 71% 79% 72%2010 76% 75% 71% 69%2011 74% 74% 72% 67%
CAPT - Performance Level Analysis2009-2011
Subgroup Data
• The following data indicates how our subgroups performed on the CMT/CAPT in 2011.
• Focus on ALL students
Black or African American Subgroup Data
2011At or Above Proficiency
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade10
Math
60%
74%
65%
70% 71%
63% 49%
Reading 54% 62% 43% 72% 70% 67% 66%
Writing 75% 76% 80% 74% 66% 64% 82%
Science N/A N/A 66% N/A N/A 57% 63%
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade10
Math
75% 71% 71% 79% 77% 68% 51%
Reading 53% 57% 49% 79% 76% 66% 70%
Writing 64% 80% 81% 79% 64% 67% 89%
Science N/A N/A 66% N/A N/A 61% 74%
Hispanic/Latino Subgroup Data
At or Above Proficiency 2011
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade10
Math 70% 74% 73% 75% 77% 67% 52%
Reading 57% 60% 50% 77% 74% 66% 65%
Writing 69% 76% 81% 79% 65% 65% 83%
Science N/A N/A 66% N/A N/A 58% 69%
Free/Reduced MealsSubgroup Data
At or Above Proficiency2011
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade10
Math 57% 42% 31% 56% 50% 29% 28%
Reading 26% 11% 23% 38% 55% 36% 17%
Writing 23% 23% 37% 46% 22% 12% 41%
Science N/A N/A 33% N/A N/A 9% 41%
Special EducationSubgroup Data
At or Above Proficiency 2011
English Language LearnersSubgroup Data
At or Above Proficiency 2011
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade10
Math 66% 56% 53% 45% 61% 47% 21%
Reading 13% 16% 14% 17% 32% 26% 36%
Writing 33% 63% 62% 42% 30% 30% 60%
Science N/A N/A 18% N/A N/A 24% 47%
And so. . .
District Improvement Plan2009-2013
1. To increase math proficiency by a minimum of 10 % as measured by CMT/CAPT in order to meet or increase AYP targets established by the Connecticut State Department of Education for whole group and sub-groups
2. To increase reading and writing proficiency by a minimum of 10% as measured by CMT/CAPT in order to meet AYP targets established by the Connecticut State Department of Education for whole group and sub-group
3. To actively engage parents of students in the educational process and planning for students
4. To meet the AMAO targets established by the Connecticut State Department of Education for achievement in English Proficiency
District Improvement Plan2009-2013
• Focus on research based instructional strategies – explicitly and deliberately included throughout the curriculum
• Triangulation of data from state tests, universal screens, and common formative assessments
• Nonfiction Reading/Writing across the content areas
• Organization of effective school based data teams
• Instructional Rounds- Are we all looking for the same things?
Kindergarten Plans2011-2012
• What does kindergarten registration look like in our district?
• How are we using the results of the Pre-Literacy Assessment?
Kindergarten Plans2011-2012
Who will be involved in the support services for ALL kindergarten students?
• Reading department• Speech and Language Pathologist• ELL teacher• Special Education teacher• Classroom teacher
Kindergarten Plans2011-2012
Literacy Stations
• Oral Language• Phonemic Awareness• Letter/Sound Identification• Words Their Way
Grade 1 and 2 Plans2011-2012
• Revised assessment plan to be more focused• Implemented Words Their Way• Focus on nonfiction reading and writing across
the content areas• Increased language arts instruction time to
120 minutes per day
Reading Plans2011-2012
• Focus on nonfiction reading/writing in all content areas
• Words Their Way- Grades K-6
• New vocabulary resources Grades 5 & 6
• Increased focus on Guided Reading and Independent Reading
• Literacy How Wireless Generation K-3
Reading Plans2011-2012
• Beginning adoption process for new reading resources
• Reading staff in classrooms (Push-In Model) • More targeted intervention• Revised assessments• Focus on instructional strategies• WHHS- Gains analysis through focus groups
Mathematics Plans2011-2012
• Curriculum- K and 1 now aligned with Common Core State Standards – transition process will continue until 2014
• Universal Screens/Common Formative Assessments –revised, in place and being used to better meet the needs of ALL students
• District Wide Math Coach and Facilitators- utilize resources, model lessons, write/revise curriculum/assessments, analyze data/document progress, assist with integration of technology
• Small Guided Math Groups- differentiate instruction in a meaningful way, review, reteach and enrich, creates a more balanced math program
English Language LearnersPlans
2011-2012
• Professional development on strategies for ELL students for ALL teachers
• Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) training
• ELL teachers will help support Kindergarten program (literacy stations)
• ELL teachers will conduct Guided Reading -Grades 1-4
• Increased ELL staff from 10 teachers to 12 teachers
Special Education Plans2011-2012
• Co-Teaching Model• “Push-In” vs. “Pull-Out”• Continue to actively participate in all district
professional development• Identify other professional development needs specific
to special education staff(i.e. IEP’s, restraint training)• Embedded professional development through
collaborative team meetings• Strengthening of partnership/communication between
special education, reading, and math support staff
Special Education Plans2011-2012
• Deliberate alignment of remediation with core curriculum
• Utilization of research based strategies and interventions
• Support staff teaching whole group lessons to increase positive school climate
• Modifications to assessments being addressed at the district level
Professional Development
Stay the Course. . .
Professional Development 2011-2012
CALI
• Data Driven Decision Making/Data Teams, Power Strategies for Effective Teaching, Making Standards Work
• School Climate to Increase Student Achievement/National Survey
• Scientific Research Based Interventions(SRBI) Implementation
• CSDE/SERC /CAS– In district Data Team Facilitator and Executive Coaches – to assist with fidelity of implementation
“We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the light of every
passing ship.”-Omar N. Bradley
Thank You