FREE Sample Awesome PowerPoint Background Template

1
(No Transcript)
2
Making Numbers Work
To Improve Instruction

• NHSAA Living with the NCLB Act
• Ann Remus
• September 21, 2004

3
Where to Begin?one analysis at a time

• Examples
• I. Program evaluation
• II. Authentic assessment that fosters good
  teaching
• III. Diagnosis to allow differentiated
  instruction/value-added assessment

4
I. Program Evaluation

• Growth by Grade on a Norm-referenced test
  Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests
• We used to disaggregate by hand for Title I and
  SPED led to program improvements
• Difficulty keeping consistency of early skills
  program when grades were split among three
  schools in 99-00.

5
Growth By Grade, Gates-MacGinite
5th Grade 1
3rd Grade 4
2nd Grade 9
1st Grade 16
Note Black lines indicate national median Total
Battery ESS for each grade level. 1st Grade
391, 2nd Grade 446, 3rd, Grade 472, 5th Grade
507.
6
Growth By Grade Observations

• District focus/professional development on early
  skills may account for growth in grades 1 and 2
• The data
• identifies the need to investigate upper level
  elementary grades potential for increased growth
• Identifies the need to disaggregate data
• By cohort
• By NCLB categories

7
Disaggregation Stanine Ranges of Cohorts
Gates-MacGinite Average Total Battery ESS Grade 2
540
520
508
507
502
498
500
480
472
468
Middle
464
Higher
Total Battery ESS
455
460
440
420
400
Going into 6th
Going into 5th
Going into 4th
Going into 3rd
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Cohort
8
Growth by Cohort, Disaggregated by Stanine
Ranges Conclusions

• Disaggregating cohorts helps us see which groups
  are growing more or less quickly
• The middle stanine range improved more than did
  the higher stanine range
• Progress of high and middle ranges against
  national median score has improved across time
• Instructional implication
• To catch up, the lower and middle groups must
  continue to grow more quickly
• Need focused attention on best practices for the
  upper group as well

9
Introduction of Open Court Reading Program

• Prior series no longer available wanted to make
  use of the research from the National Reading
  Panel in our programming
• 2002-2003 pilot, with one teacher in each grade,
  grades 1-4, in all three schools
• 2003-2004 first year of full district-wide
  implementation, grade 1

10
18
16
11
Disaggregating grade 1 by NCLB categories after
our first year of Open Court reading
12
II. Authentic Assessment to Encourage Good
Teaching

• In the mid-1990s, the district looked closely at
  its curriculum, deciding on essential questions
  and grade level expectations.
• That work was continued with detailed curriculum
  maps.
• One of the outcomes expected of grade 2 science,
  is understanding mass and volume.

13
Grade 2 Authentic Assessment
Source Market Research
14
Leadership Seminar Presented by
Barbara Gondek May 4, 2004
Another Example of Authentic Assessment
Impact of Process Writing on Writing
Assessment
15
Hypothesis

• Students assigned to strong writing instructors
  in grades 7 and 8 will be shown to perform better
  on the Bedford Formal Writing Assessment than
  those who had average or weak writing instructors.

16
Parameters

• Grades Seven and Eight
• Two years of scores (2002 and 2003)
• Sorted by Language Arts teachers
• Teachers were classified on the basis of the
  extent to which they used all the steps of the
  Writing Process in their classrooms during 2002
  and 2003.

17
Writing Process Steps

• 1. Find an idea or topic.
• 2. Formulate a thesis - narrow the topic.
• 3. Generate details - facts, examples, and
  support.
• 4. Outline if it seems helpful.
• 5. Write your first draft.
• 6. Let things rest for a day or two.
• 7. Revise - look at the paper from the
  reader's point of view
• reorganize and add explanations where
  necessary.
• 8. Let things rest again.
• 9. Revise again and edit for conventions.
• 10. Type or write the final draft.
• 11. Proofread at least three times - once aloud,
  once for any errors you habitually make, and once
  backwards.

18
Classification of Teachers
19
Extent of Process Writing vs. Student Writing
Skills
20
Extent of Process Writing vs. Special Education
Student Writing Skills
21
Current Writing Assessment

• Writing prompt is given at the beginning of the
  class.
• Students are given a limited time to organize
  ideas, brainstorm, and draft an essay.
• Final copy is completed by the end of the testing
  session.

22
Writing Assessment Team

• Representatives from Grades 1 8 worked together
  over the summer
• Developed an assessment format and rubric that
  lines up with process writing.

23
Writing Process Steps

• 1. Find an idea or topic.
• 2. Formulate a thesis - narrow the topic.
• 3. Generate details - facts, examples, and
  support.
• 4. Outline if it seems helpful.
• 5. Write your first draft.
• 6. Let things rest for a day or two.
• 7. Revise - look at the paper from the
  reader's point of view
• reorganize and add explanations where
  necessary.
• 8. Let things rest again.
• 9. Revise again and edit for conventions.
• 10. Type or write the final draft.
• 11. Proofread at least three times - once aloud,
  once for any errors you habitually make, and once
  backwards.

24
Assessment Plan for Fall 2004

• Pre-assessment in September
• Post assessment in May-June
• Analytical scoring as opposed to holistic
• Assessment given in stages similar to process
  writing, over a period of days

25
Assessment is not the end of the writing process.
26
It is the bridge to revision.
27
III. Diagnostic/Value-Added Assessment

• NWEA - given in grades 3 through 8 each fall and
  spring piloted in 02-03, full implementation in
  03-04.
• Fall administration gives information necessary
  for immediate differentiation of instruction
• Yearly growth by RIT ranges shows effectiveness
  of differentiation

28
Grade 7 Math NWEA Fall to Spring Growth
2003-2004
20
29
Grade 7 Language Usage NWEA Fall to Spring Growth
2003-2004
16 80 143
60
30
Gates-MacGinite total battery ESS vs. NWEA
reading RIT total
31
What to do?

• Collect data, backwards and forwards
• Zero in on groups, smaller groups, and then
  individuals
• Talk about what you see in the data different
  people may see different things
• Keep at it