1

Presented by: Dr. Elliott H. Lewis, Assistant to the Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction & Professional Development David S. Lieberman, Director of Pupil Services Kenneth M. Silver, Principal, New Hope-Solebury LES Amy K. Mangano, Principal, New Hope-Solebury UES Charles M. Malone, Principal, New Hope-Solebury MS Christina D. Lang, Principal New Hope-Solebury HS

2

Pennsylvania students in grades 3 through 8 and 11 take one of three state assessments in reading and mathematics: 1. The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment

(PSSA). 2. The Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment

(PASA), administered to the most severely, cognitively disabled students.

3. The Pennsylvania Modified Alternate Assessment (PSSA-M), administered to certain students with special needs (PSSA-M is not administered to students in grade 3).

3

In 2001 the federal government enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) to ensure that states/districts/schools are on track to have all children perform at a proficient or advanced level in reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year as demonstrated on state assessments. To ensure that schools/districts are making progress toward that goal, states measure if Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is made.

4

1) First Measure – Participation in the state math and reading assessment

a. Participation goal as per NCLB is 95 percent of all eligible students were administered the state assessment

2) Second Measure – Performance on the state math and reading assessment. There are three ways to meet the performance measure:

a. Status • Percentage of students advanced or proficient:

78 percent in math (2012 target) 81 percent in reading (2012 target)

b. Improvement • Safe Harbor – reduce the percentage of students below

proficient the previous year by at least 10 percent c. Growth

• Pennsylvania’s Growth Model is a projection to proficiency model

Participation and Performance of Subgroups NCLB is designed to ensure that all students achieve; thus,

schools/districts are held accountable for all of the students in the tested grades PLUS every measurable subgroup (at least 40 students) in the school.

1) Six major racial/ethnic groups 2) Students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 3) Students who are English Language Learners (ELL) 4) Students who are economically disadvantaged

Third Measure – Other academic indicators 1) Attendance a. Attendance is always based on the previous school year’s data b. For 2012 measure, the 2010-11 attendance rate for the entire

school where the test was administered is used c. Goal – 90 percent attendance rate d. Target – any improvement/growth

5

2) Graduation a. Graduation is always based on the previous school year’s data b. For 2012 measure, the 2010-11 four-year cohort graduation rate was used for the first time c. Goal – 85 percent graduation rate d. Target – 10 percent reduction of the difference between the 2009-10 rate and the 85 percent goal

Note: 2012 was the first year that all subgroups had to meet either the graduation goal or target in order to make AYP

A School is measured on one indicator in determining AYP

a. Schools with a graduating class are measured by graduation rate

b. Schools without a graduating class are measured by attendance rate

A District is measured on both indicators in determining AYP

a. Graduation is measured by the graduation rate of all the schools in the district that have a graduating class

b. Attendance is measured by the attendance rate of all the schools in the district that do not have a graduating class

6

Schools Performance and participation

• Measured for the tested population in a school

Other academic indicator

1) Graduation rate (four-year cohort)

OR

2) Attendance (entire school population)

Note: AYP for full-time Career and Technical Centers is calculated using the formula for schools

Districts Performance and participation

• Measured using grade spans across the district Other academic indicator

• 1) Graduation rate (four-year cohort)

AND

2) Attendance (entire district population)

Note: AYP for charter schools is calculated using the formula for schools EXCEPT that their performance and participation is measured using grade spans

7

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MATH

READ

9

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)

Spring 2012

Percentage of Student Proficient and Advanced

Subject State - AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 78 75.7 89.4 90.2 91 83.8

Reading 81 71.9 88.4 86.5 89.4 92.2

Science 61.4 84.8 96 82.8 76.4

Writing 73.2 88.5 76.4 94 96.1

Spring 2011

Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced

Subject State - AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 67 77.1 89.2 90.5 91.5 77.2

Reading 72 73.5 86.6 81.3 91.7 87.8

Science 60.8 82.7 86.7 87.1 73.7

Writing 75 90.5 83.1 92.1 97.4

Spring 2010

Percentage of Student Proficient and Advanced

Subject State - AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 56 76.3 90.8 93 91.7 84.4

Reading 63 71.9 86.6 83.9 89.5 89.5

Science 59.4 79.2 87.8 83.2 67.5

Writing 72.6 93.5 92.4 94.6 93.6

10

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)

Spring 2012

Percentage of Student Proficient and Advanced

Subject State - AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 78 75.7 89.4 90.2 91 83.8

Reading 81 71.9 88.4 86.5 89.4 92.2

Science 61.4 84.8 96 82.8 76.4

Writing 73.2 88.5 76.4 94 96.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

State - AYP

State

District

UES

MS

HS

Writing

Science

Reading

Mathematics

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)

Spring 2011

Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced

Subject State AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 67 77.1 89.2 90.5 91.5 77.2

Reading 72 73.5 86.6 81.3 91.7 87.8

Science 60.8 82.7 86.7 87.1 73.7

Writing 75 90.5 83.1 92.1 97.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

State AYP

State

District

UES

MS

HS

Writing

Science

Reading

Mathematics

11

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)

Spring 2010

Percentage of Student Proficient and Advanced

Subject State AYP State District UES MS HS

Mathematics 56 76.3 90.8 93 91.7 84.4

Reading 63 71.9 86.6 83.9 89.5 89.5

Science 59.4 79.2 87.8 83.2 67.5

Writing 72.6 93.5 92.4 94.6 93.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

State AYP

State

District

UES

MS

HS

Writing

Science

Reading

Mathematics

12

13

. . .It all begins here!

Use multiple measures of assessment to identify strengths and areas of need in reading

Kindergarten • GRADE- Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic

Evaluation • Harcourt/Trophies Early Reading Skills Assessment • Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (Formal

running record individually administered)

Grades 1 and 2 • GRADE (Group Reading Assessment & Diagnostic

Evaluation) • Harcourt End of Selection Assessments • Reading and Language Skills (Harcourt phonics, vocabulary

and reading comprehension)

14

Use of multiple measures to identify strengths and areas of need for improvement in mathematics - Grades K-2 Everyday Mathematics Unit Assessments

Mid-year/End of year Assessment

Periodic Skill Assessment

Anecdotal Notes, Observations and Parent Input

15

Utilize assessments to inform instruction and provide intensive opportunities for proficiency in reading and math before entering third grade for all students

Assessment plan reflective of everyday math and interventions

Bridge current curriculum maps to Pennsylvania core standards

Staff professional development on the use of the SAS (Standards Aligned System)

16

…State Assessments begin…

Grades 3, 4, 5

17

Curriculum • Balanced Literacy program- RELA • Title 1 reading and math support • Tiered instruction blocks, differentiated blocks (DB) for math

and RELA • Inclusionary practices in all subject areas for problem solving

Professional Development • Providing support to teachers to improve instruction

86% of all students, grades 3-5, proficient or above in reading

89% of all students, grades 3-5, proficient or above in math 96% of all grade 4 students, proficient or above in science 76.4% of all grade 5 students, proficient or above in writing

18

Target improvement in the area of writing

• 76.4% of all grade 5 students, proficient or above in writing

Target improvement in the area of math, specifically with the IEP sub-group

• In the 3-5 span the IEP sub-group did not make AYP in math

19

Assessment Drives Instruction

• Data team to review with teachers all PSSA data in conjunction with curriculum based data

• Allocate time, resources and planning to provide

intensive opportunities for remediation/ proficiency in reading, math and writing: oResponse to Intervention (RTII) - Tiered

instruction, Differentiated Blocks (DB) oReading/Title program expanded to include

math this year and breakfast program o Balanced Literacy o Study Island o School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan

(SWPBSP)

20

Review all curriculum to ensure connections with common core standards

Staff professional development on Understanding by Design (UBD), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Differentiated Instruction (DI), Formative Assessments (FA) and co-teaching, common core standards, the Standards Aligned System (SAS) and core areas of instruction

Co-teaching and improving instructional practices

Continue school-wide pro-social work such as WHALE

DONE!

21

…State Assessments…

Grades 6, 7, 8

22

Reading, Math in all grades in the MS at high levels • Advanced % approaching and exceeding 70%

Growing Inclusive Environment

Parallel Support Programs

Balanced Literacy approach

RTII Model – Response to Intervention

Data Driven Decisions

Peer Tutoring - Math

Homework Club – Study and Organization

Whole Child Concept – Advisory, Pro-Social Planning, SWPBSP

23

24

Bridge the divide between Learning Support and General Education

Expose students to high level curriculum and dynamic instruction

Professional Development in Best Practices to improve student achievement

Reduce the distractions to learning – behaviors, environment, climate

Streamline curriculum to bridge gaps and eliminate overlap

Provide more supports for students who are in need or at risk

Involve all stakeholders in making lasting improvements

Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to support teachers

More Co-taught classes with Learning Support teacher

Rigor and expectations in all classes.

Professional Development in DI, UBD, UDL, FA, Co-Teaching

Continual Improvements in the area of Pro-social programs (R.O.A.R)

25

Targeted and Global approaches • Data Driven Decision Making

Interventions for Non-proficient students • Utilization of Study Island and PSSA

workbooks • Parallel Programs (Math Prep)

RTII – • Monitoring via Child Study Team and

Data Analysis • In class supports and interventions

26

…State Assessments…

Grades 9, 10, 11, 12

27

One Hundred Fifty Eight (158) students took SAT subject tests. Mean scores appear below.

Literature 608

US History 663

Math, Level 1 632

Math, Level 2 692

Chemistry 719

28

2012 Critical Rdg Mathematics Writing

NHS 542 561 532

State 491 501 480

Nation 496 514 488

29

2011 Critical Rdg Mathematics Writing

NHS 562 578 547

State 493 501 479

Nation 497 514 489

2010 Critical Rdg Mathematics Writing

NHS 555 564 548

State 492 501 480

Nation 501 516 492

Excellent achievement in the areas of Reading & Writing Co-Teaching in all levels of English Co-Teaching in Algebra 1 & Geometry Creation of Math Lab Support Classes Significant improvement in Math PSSA Continued improvement in Science PSSA Excellent performance on SAT & SAT

subject area testing Excellent participation and performance

on AP testing

30

1st Year of Keystone Exams for AYP

Replacing the 11th

grade Pennsylvania System of School

Assessment (PSSA) tests in mathematics, reading, and

science for purposes of satisfying No Child Left Behind

(NCLB)/Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements.

• Algebra 1

• English Literature

• Biology

31

Utilize assessments to drive instruction and provide intensive opportunities for proficiency in Keystone exams

District summative and formative core assessments

PVAAS and E-metric reporting data

Study Island & Classroom Diagnostic Tools (CDT) benchmark assessments for all Keystone Exams

Individualized target instruction for gaps or areas of weakness

32

Individualized support for all Keystone Core subject areas

Junior Diagnostic Benchmarking

Senior Skill seminars for non-proficient students

Individualized target instruction for gaps or areas of weakness

Continue co-teaching in English/math

Consider co-teaching in biology

33

34

Data is a starting point,

not an ending point.

Questions/comments