View
32
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Woodland Hills Junior High Planned Instruction District Results & Implications. February 7, 2007. May 23, 2007. Goals. Overview of PSSA Data (3 year trend – Reading ) 4Sight Benchmark Data Terra Nova GLE Corrective Action II Changes in Reading Curriculum. Background. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Woodland Hills Junior High Planned Instruction
District Results & Implications
February 7, 2007May 23, 2007
Goals
Overview of PSSA Data (3 year trend – Reading) 4Sight Benchmark Data Terra Nova GLE Corrective Action II Changes in Reading Curriculum
Background
3. Performance – 45% proficient in math 54% proficient in reading
PSSA Reading - 3 Year Trend, Grade 8
52%
48%
52%
66%68%
75%
41%
32%34%
17%
6%
13%
43%
36%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004 2005 2006
Testing Year
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
Aggregate
White
Black
IEP
EcDis
45% Adv/Pro
54% Adv/Pro
PSSA Reading - 3 Year Trend, Grade 8
52%
48%
52%
66%68%
75%
41%
32%34%
17%
6%
13%
43%
36%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004 2005 2006
Testing Year
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
Aggregate
White
Black
IEP
EcDis
2006: Approximately half of all students
were not proficient
2006: 1 out of every 4 white students
were not proficient
2006: 2 out of every 3 black students
were not proficient
2006: 9 out of every 10 students with IEPs
were not proficient
2006: 3 out of every 5 EcDis students
were not proficient
SIP 1 SIP 2 Corrective Act. 1
PSSA Reading - 3 Year Trend, Grade 8
52%
66%
41%
17%
43%
48%
68%
32%
6%
36%
52%
75%
34%
13%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aggregate White Black IEP EcDis
Subgroup
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
2004
2005
2006
Of the students
in this total subgroup, 3 out of every 5 did not
reach the Advanced level
PSSA Reading - 3 Year Trend, Grade 8
52%
66%
41%
17%
43%
48%
68%
32%
6%
36%
52%
75%
34%
13%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aggregate White Black IEP EcDis
Subgroup
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
2004
2005
2006
63% Adv/ProIn 2008
PSSA Reading - 3 Year Trend, Grade 8
52%
66%
41%
17%
43%
48%
68%
32%
6%
36%
52%
75%
34%
13%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aggregate White Black IEP EcDis
Subgroup
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
2004
2005
200652.14%
69.66%
38.81%42.04%
54% Adv/ProIn 2007
January 20074Sight Benchmarks
2/5/07
2006-20074Sight Benchmarks
Correlation Coefficient = .86
West Junior High School
Grade 7 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 40 98 + 58
Proficient 109 79 - 30
Basic 72 39 - 33
Below Basic 50 33 - 17
55% 71%
Grade 8 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 0 0 0
Proficient 93 110 + 17
Basic 78 65 - 13
Below Basic 91 76 -15
35% 44%
2006-20074Sight Benchmarks
Correlation Coefficient = .86
West Junior High School
Grade 7 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 40 98 + 58
Proficient 109 79 - 30
Basic 72 39 - 33
Below Basic 50 33 - 17
Grade 8 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 0 0 0
Proficient 93 110 + 17
Basic 78 65 - 13
Below Basic 91 76 -15
49 GIEP
46 GIEP
2006-20074Sight Benchmarks
Correlation Coefficient = .86
East Junior High School
Grade 7 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 14 38 + 24
Proficient 35 47 + 12
Basic 18 14 - 4
Below Basic 54 18 - 36
Grade 8 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 0 0 0
Proficient 29 44 + 15
Basic 46 41 - 5
Below Basic 66 46 - 20
40% 73%
21% 34%
2006-20074Sight Benchmarks
Correlation Coefficient = .86
East Junior High School
Grade 7 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 14 38 + 24
Proficient 35 47 + 12
Basic 18 14 - 4
Below Basic 54 18 - 36
Grade 8 Benchmark 3rd Test Difference
Advanced 0 0 0
Proficient 29 44 + 15
Basic 46 41 - 5
Below Basic 66 46 - 20
13 GIEP
10 GIEP
Terra Nova – Grade 8GE East West Total
-1 2 3 5
1 2 3 5
2 10 12 22
3 11 16 27
4 24 26 50
5 3 12 15
6 11 12 23
7 10 18 28
Sub total 64% 45% 51%
8 7 22 29
9 9 15 24
10 8 16 24
11 5 16 21
12 3 11 14
12+ 9 47 56
Sub total 36% 55% 49%
Corrective Action 2
PSSA – 3 Measures
2. Participation – 95% of students
3. Performance – 45% proficient in math 54% proficient in reading
1. Attendance – 90% or growth Graduation – 80% or growth
Corrective Action 2
3. Performance – 45% proficient in math 54% proficient in reading
3. Performance – 2008-2010 56% proficient in math 63% proficient in reading
3. Performance – 2008-2010 56% proficient in math 63% proficient in reading
Corrective Action 2
But, we have been planning:Warning School Improvement 1 School Improvement 2 Corrective Action 1
Corrective Action 2
…and plans were in placeWarning School Improvement 1 School Improvement 2 Corrective Action 1
Corrective Action 2
Distinguished Educators
School ChoiceSES
Corrective Action 2
Still, we must consider the futureWarning School Improvement 1 School Improvement 2 Corrective Action 1 Corrective Action 2
Distinguished Educators
School ChoiceSES
School Restructuring
Corrective Action 2 (www.ed.gov)
Corrective Action 2
Corrective Action 2 (
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pas/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=121334&pasNav=|10429|&pasNav=|)
Changes in Reading CurriculumGrade 7
Exploratory Rotation (9 weeks each)
712 French
732 Spanish
276 Keyboarding and Computer Usage
Grade 8
Core Curriculum (semester each)
084 Exploring Technology
284 Family & Consumer Science
Grade 7
Exploratory Rotation (9 weeks each)
084 Exploring Technology
284 Family & Consumer Science
276 Keyboarding and Computer Usage
Grade 8
Core Curriculum (semester each)
XXX Reading 8
Changes in Reading Curriculum
Grade 7
Exploratory Rotation (9 weeks each)
084 Exploring Technology
284 Family & Consumer Science
276 Keyboarding and Computer Usage
Grade 8
Core Curriculum (semester each)
XXX Reading 8
Other changes:
Grade 7
Math Plus – Math Workshop
Grade 8
Math Plus – Math Workshop
086 Reading 8 Communications Course (opposite French I, Spanish I)
- Reading Workshop
Changes in Reading Curriculum A question of planned instruction
This year: there are 125 students taking Developmental Reading 8 there are 430 students in Grade 8 29% of 8th graders are in developmental reading 53% of last year’s 7th graders (this year’s 8th graders) were not proficient in reading on the PSSA
How do we verify that our planned course of instruction is aligned to students’ core instructional needs based on student performance?
Changes in Reading Curriculum A question of rigor
On average, last year’s 8th graders evidenced 63% accuracy given PSSA Reading questions from Reporting Category R.8.A. – Comprehension and Reading Skills
How do we verify that our proficient 8th grade students are challenged to move to the advanced level in reading?
Changes in Reading Curriculum A question of planned instruction
The last approved developmental reading planned course of instruction dates back to July 12, 1995 – prior to the release of the PA Academic Standards in Reading
With the learning needs evident, what actions should be taken to improve reading performance in our schools that have reached Corrective Action 1?
Changes in Reading Curriculum Reminder about mandates
Chapter 4 (§ 4.22) indicates that planned instruction in prescribed areas may be provided as an instructional unit within a course or other interdisciplinary activities.
Yet, the District is proposing that it maintains a course in Technology Education and Family & Consumer Science at the 7th grade level. Yet, the District is proposing to keep Foreign Languages at the 8th grade level, exceeding the requirement of a 4 year sequence (§
4.25).
Changes in Reading Curriculum
The GOAL
STRONG RESULTS FOR STUDENTS
Every student by name…1Is proficient in the core subjects
2Graduates from high school, ready for college and career
3Achieves high outcomes, regardless of background, “condition” or “circumstance”
The GOAL
STRONG RESULTS FOR STUDENTS
Every student by name…1Is proficient in the core subjects
2Graduates from high school, ready for college and career
3Achieves high outcomes, regardless of background, “condition” or “circumstance”
Getting Results
Changes in Reading Curriculum
8th Grade Reading
A skills centered approach
A skills centered approach
Specific sequencing to ensure coverage of skills
Specific sequencing to ensure coverage of skills
Differentiated instruction to support all learners
Differentiated instruction to support all learnersAligned to PA Standards
and eligible content
Aligned to PA Standardsand eligible content
Built-in assessment thatinforms instruction
Built-in assessment thatinforms instruction
Evidenced basedEvidenced based
Recommended