Search: Keyword:
District  

 

Title I School-wide Project/School Improvement Plan Evaluation

EastGadsden High School

School Year 2012

Evaluation of the Goals and Processes for Mathematics 

Mathematics Goals:

  1. In June 2012- Projected 19% (35 students) Algebra I EOC students of (187 total) will score FCAT Level 3 or higher on Algebra 1 EOC
  2. In Spring (May) 2012- State results: 33% of students (total) scored at proficiency level on the Algebra 1 EOC
  3. In Spring (May) 2013 - Projecting 50% (200 students) Algebra 1 students will score FCAT Level 3 or higher on the Algebra 1 EOC

Goal Met?

(Y/N)

YES

  1. In June 2012-18% (27 students) Geometry EOC students of (150 students total) will score on Geometry EOC a Level 3 or higher
  2. In Spring (May) 2012-  State results: 17% (22) students were at state average 50 or higher on the Geometry EOC
  3. In Spring (May) 2013-Projecting 35% (275 students) Geometry students will score FCAT Level 3 or higher on the Geometry EOC

NO

 CONTINUED)

  1. Our goal is for students at least 65% of East Gadsden High School to achieve learning gains overall [in mathematics].  June 2012 at least 5-15 percentage points gains from the school baseline to Weekly Algebra 1 EOC and Geometry EOC mini-assessments
  2. Projection for 2013-Our goal is for students at least 65% of East Gadsden High School to achieve learning gains overall [in mathematics].  June 2012 at least 15-20 percentage points gains from the school baseline to Quarter week Algebra 1 EOC and Geometry EOC mini-assessments

( Does the underlined goal say that at least 4-15 percentage points above the first Quarter week Algebra 1 and Geometry assessments baseline data at the EOC assessments?  IF SO, please provide the data from the Quarter-week Algebra and Geometry Assessments so that comparisons can be made.  IF NOT, please clarify the intent.)

YES

  1. Our goal is for 75 % of [students in the Lowest 25%] to achieve learning gains.
    June 2012-At least 5-15 percentage points gains from the school baseline to Algebra 1 EOC and Geometry EOC Weekly mini-assessments (Same question as above in goal 3)
  2.  

Projection for 2013-Our goal is for students at least 65% of East Gadsden High School to achieve learning gains overall [in mathematics].  June 2012 at least 15-20 percentage points gains from the school baseline to Quarter week Algebra 1 EOC and Geometry EOC mini-assessments

NO

(CONTINUED)




  1. Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce math concepts [by

           25%]. (What are the metrics to be used to determine whether or not this goal was achieved?)

  1. In June 2013 - Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce

           math concepts [by 25%] (What are the metrics to be used to determine whether or not this

           goal was achieved?)

  • Using Classroom Observation summary for all teachers on a bi-weekly basis

NO


  1. In June 2012, our goal is for students at least 50% of students taking the retake FCAT at East Gadsden High School to score a level 3 or higher on FCAT Math.
  2. No Projection for 2013 for FCAT Math (EOC testing)

NO

 (CONTINUED)


    ALGEBRA EOC GOALS

  1. Our goal is for at most, 19% (35) of 187students (9th graders) to score a level 3 (range of 55-80 points) on Algebra 1.  By June 2012, 18% (27) students of 150 in Geometry EOC will score level 3 (range 55-80 points.)
  2. In Spring (May) 2012- State results: 33% of students (total) scored at proficiency level on the Algebra 1 EOC.
  3. In Spring (May) 2013 - Projecting 50% (200 students) Algebra 1 students will score FCAT Level 3 or higher on the Algebra 1 EOC

GEOMETRY EOC GOALS

  1. In June 2012-18% (27 students) Geometry EOC students of (150 students total) will score on Geometry EOC a Level 3 or higher
  2. In Spring (May) 2012-  State results: 17% (22) students were at state average 50 or higher on the Geometry EOC
  3. In Spring (May) 2013-Projecting 35% (275 students) Geometry students will score FCAT Level 3 or higher on the Geometry EOC

 

Student Achievement Outcomes in Mathematics (2012)

  • 1. Thirty-three percent of students taking the spring 2012 Algebra 1 EOC Assessment scored at level 3.
  • 2. Seventeen percent of students taking the spring 2012 Geometry EOC Assessment scored at level state average (50) or higher.

Strategy/Activity

Fidelity Status

(Indicate High, Moderate or Low)

Analysis of Fidelity Status

(Explain why You selected that Status )

Completed?

(Y/N)

Principal, Assistant Principals and the Mathematics Coach. Provide more interactive lessons from smart board website lessons, motivational activities. Lesson studies for teachers to visit each other's classroom to see effective and motivating lessons once a month.

High

*6 out of 6 in attendance to Monthly lesson study and PLCs and all teachers participated and math coach facilitated. Teachers implemented effectively the strategies that were presented

*Professional development was provided by the school

Yes

Teachers will use differentiated instruction. Teachers will integrate student centered learning activities into their bi-weekly lesson plans

Low

 

Only 1 out of the 6 (17%) teachers implemented this strategy with consistently on a bi-weekly basis

NO

Teachers will align assessments with Next Generation standards making the lessons and tests rigorous. EOC Exams and EOC practice materials will be used. Including textbook complexity problems and released state tests.

Moderate

3 out of 3 (100%) of the teachers with Algebra and Geometry courses used all materials with effectively.

YES

Board configuration, classwork displayed, student artifacts will be noted in the class. Student Portfolios will be kept by teacher to ensure students are completing assignments.

Moderate

 

Classroom walkthrough resulted in measuring  5 out of 6 (83%) teachers implemented this strategy with fidelity

YES

 CONTINUED

Strategy/Activity

Fidelity Status

(Indicate High, Moderate or Low)

Analysis of Fidelity Status

(Explain why You selected that Status )

Completed?

(Y/N)

Teachers will be requested to integrate extra credit for assignments designed to enrich high performing students. Teachers will be using the Classroom Mobility grouping model in their classroom

 

Level 1 students (low performing level students)- teachers will teach, reteach, remediate

Level 2 (medium performing) students-teachers will teach and reteach

Level 3 (high performing students)-teachers will teach and enrich.

HIGH

6 out of 6 teachers (100%) provided extra credit assignments.

 

5 out of 6 teachers (83%) used classroom mobility strategy

YES

Teachers will be requested to review assignments periodically through Lesson study. Teachers will be required to align assessments to the Next Generation standards. Teachers will be given model assessments aligned to Item Specifications for Algebra 1 EOC and Geometry EOC.

HIGH

3 out of 3 (100%) of the Algebra and Geometry course teachers assessed students using aligned mini-assessments provided by coach. Item specs were followed to review assessments during bellringers and on weekly classwork materials.

YES

 Continued

Strategy/Activity

Fidelity Status

(Indicate High, Moderate or Low)

Analysis of Fidelity Status

(Explain why You selected that Status )

Completed?

(Y/N)

Differentiated Instruction will be addressed through the model classroom which will be done through lesson study with teachers. 4th period planning teachers will observe 3rd period teachers teaching and 3rd period planning teachers will observe 4th period teachers teaching on a bi-weekly basis. At the end of each lesson study a meeting will be held once a month to debrief with math coach. Focus on the planning, delivery, assessment, and extension activities of each lesson will be the discussion. Classroom Mobility grouping model in their classroom

Level 1 students (low performing level students)- teachers will teach, reteach, remediate

Level 2 (medium performing) students-teachers will teach and reteach

Level 3 (high performing students)-teachers will teach and enrich. Designing more standard aligned assessments lessons in Lesson Study PLCs.
Data Chats between principal and teachers.
IPDP meetings with coaches.

Moderate

2011-2012-4 out 6 (67%) teachers learned how to implement this strategy during professional development and lesson study. Teachers will still be implementing this strategy.

NO

 Continued

Strategy/Activity

Fidelity Status

(Indicate High, Moderate or Low)

Analysis of Fidelity Status

(Explain why You selected that Status )

Completed?

(Y/N)

Principal, Assistant Principals and the Mathematics Coach will routinely review lesson plans and implementation. Mathematics Coach will provide modeling and opportunities for practice for teachers during co-teaching/modeling, lesson study and PLCs

Moderate

5 out 6 (83%) of the teachers effectively progress in the target instructional strategies presented as focused during lesson study, PLCs and co-teaching/modeling

 

YES

Teachers and Mathematics Coach will have data chats and pull out sessions with students and monitor data.

HIGH

Twice during the school year teacher's provided pull-out sessions with students and explained state test results and college board state results (ACT/SAT) and Entrance exam results to their students

YES

Increase the use of manipulatives and hands-on activities to reinforce math concepts.

LOW

2 out of 6 teachers implemented this strategy

 

Math teachers will have more interactive lessons from smartboard and other technological tools (i.e. using response clickers). Incorporate tutorials provided by Glencoe site.

LOW

Although data was provided to improve instruction. Upper level teachers need more assistance with differentiated activities and integration lessons on smartboard technology and response clickers.

 

Student Achievement Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier

Lack of student motivation to be in attendance and attentive to class activities

Impact on this barrier is measured by total percentage of teachers and data results on weekly assessments and state results.

  • High Impact: Attendance in math teacher's classroom were at 80% or above weekly
  • Moderate Impact: Data results on weekly assessments from baseline were at 20-40 point increase on Algebra and 20-30 point increase on Geometry as compared to FCIM 1 to FCIM 2 ( re-assessments) 15-25 points increase on the standard benchmark
  • Moderate Impact: D/F student grades increased with the "C" and makeup work policy

  High Impact: 5 out of 6 (83%) teachers report students focused in classroom with class activities with implementation of extra credit assignments

Lack of student focused in classroom centered learning environment. Due to outside factors (i.e. jobs, extra responsibilities at home)

Impact on this barrier is measured by total percentage of students attending class.

  • Attendance in math teacher's classroom were at 80% or above weekly

  D/F student grades increased with the "C" and makeup work policy

  • Surveys were given by district on classroom environment/safety (see results)

 

Continued

Student Achievement Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier


Lack of reading word problems and using the 8-step process. Lack of using test taking strategies on state assessments and classroom assessments

Impact on this barrier is measured by total percentage of teachers and data results on weekly assessments and state results.

  • State results : 41% Percentage of students making learning gains
  • State results: 45% Percent of lowest 25% making learning gains at proficiency level in mathematics
  • State Results: 49% Percentage of students (total) scoring at proficiency level in mathematics
  • State Results: 17% of students in Geometry performed at state avg 50 or higher on Geometry EOC
  • State Results: 33% of students in Algebra performed at Level 3 or higher on Algebra EOC

School Results

  • 100% of teachers implemented test-taking strategies with fidelity
  • Over 82 out of 187 students in math courses based on weekly assessments improved passing over 6 mini-assessments in Algebra (20-40 points range on each benchmark from baseline)
  • Over 66 out of 127 students in math courses based on weekly assessments improved passing over 6 mini-assessments in Geometry (20-30 point range from baseline)

 

Continued

Student Achievement Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier

Lack of completing FCIM - "DO" portion for completing bell ringers, Lesson activities, classwork, proper note-taking technique and focus.

Impact on this barrier is measured by total percentage of teachers and data results on weekly assessments and state results.

  • State results : 41% Percentage of students making learning gains
  • State results: 45% Percent of lowest 25% making learning gains at proficiency level in mathematics
  • State Results: 49% Percentage of students (total) scoring at proficiency level in mathematics

School results      

  • 67% of teachers (4 out 6) completed FCIM model in classroom and used classroom mobility.
  • 100% (6 out of 6) teachers provided opportunities for students to complete activities: bellringers, lesson activities, classwork and proper note-taking

Lack of student's completing projects and enrichment opportunities as higher performing students.

 

School results:

  • Low Impact: 20% of walk-though observations indicated project and enrichment activities were implemented in the mathematics classroom
  • 2 out of 6 teachers implemented projects and activities throughout the year on a bi-monthly basis

 

Continued


Student Achievement Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier

Students lack test-taking strategies for aligned standard assessments. Lack of use of standard aligned assessments.

 

State Results

  • State results : 41% Percentage of students making learning gains
  • State results: 45% Percent of lowest 25% making learning gains at proficiency level in mathematics
  • State Results: 49% Percentage of students (total) scoring at proficiency level in mathematics
  • State Results: 17% of students in Geometry performed at state avg 50 or higher on Geometry EOC
  • State Results: 33% of students in Algebra performed at Level 3 or higher on Algebra EOC

 

School results

  • 100% of all students in Algebra and Geometry took weekly school mini-assessments were that were aligned to standards. All were multiple-choice and not fill-in response after all math teachers presented test-taking strategies (ie. Math unravel and 8-step to problem solving and KAPLAN strategies).
  • 1 out of 2 -Algebra 1 Teachers implemented item specs examples.
  • 4 out of 6 (67%) math teachers provided test taking strategies for EOC and other college standards tests.

 

Continued


Student Achievement Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier

Differentiated Instruction is not evident in all classrooms being served, specifically the following:                               1. grouping of students in levels
2. reteaching at grouping levels
3. making target groups

  • High Impact: Teacher Implementation: Student performance will increase as stated in goals statement once this strategy is fully implemented with fidelity
  • Moderate Impact: PLCs and Lesson Study informed teachers and gave instructional strategies and examples of differentiated instruction in each course.
  • High Impact: Providing data to teachers on a timely basis on state results help teachers group students and target level 1 and 2 students.

[Insufficient] use of manipulative and hands-on activities to reinforce math concepts

  • Moderate Impact: Increase from 20% of teachers implemented this strategy by 80% will ensure students build conceptual knowledge and retain skills
  • High Impact: Linking skills/Chunking skills strategies through hands-on were demonstrated during monthly PLCs and Lesson studies as facilitated by Math Coach

 Consistently identifying and closely monitoring the progress of the lowest 25th percentile and revising instruction and intervention groups.

  • High Impact: Weekly mini-assessments were given and data results emailed and hardcopied to teachers to inform instruction on reteaching and enriching students.
  • Moderate Impact: Classroom Mobility 4 out of 6 teachers (67%): Full implementation

 

 

 

Professional Development Implemented to Support Mathematics Instruction

Content/Topic/Focus

Date Conducted

Analysis of Participation

(Who, How Many and Effectiveness)

Completed?

(Y/N)

Updated Technology Trainings (i.e. Clickers all others)

Oct 31, 2012 and monthly PLCs

  • Math Coach and Math Teachers
  • Total trainings: 13
  • Moderate Effectiveness: 4 out of 6 (67%) teachers implemented in mathematics

YES

Classroom Mobility grouping training

September 26 and October 28 and monthly thereafter during monthly PLCs and lesson study

  • Math Coach and Math Teachers
  • 2 (PDs for all teachers Sept. 26 and Oct 28)
  • 8 Lesson study/PLCs
  • Moderate Effectiveness:
  • 4 out 6 (67%) teachers implemented in mathematics

 

YES

Lesson Study demonstrations

 

  • Math Coach and Math Teachers
  • 8 Lesson study/PLCs
  • Moderate Effectiveness:
  • 4 out 6 (67%) teachers implemented in mathematics

 

YES

 

 

 

 

Professional Development Barriers

Impact of Strategy on Neutralizing the Barrier

Teacher professional development needed School-wide and through PLC on Grouping students for differentiation and using differentiated activities (weekly)

  • Low Impact: More Teacher motivational activities will increase performance of students especially, honors and upper level courses
  • Formatting lessons for lesson study that involve grouping and differentiation of activities.

Technology trainings: More one on one interventions for teachers Using Smarttech interactive lessons and other technological tools

  • Moderate Impact: More teachers implementing the technology

 

 

 

What changes are anticipated for the next school year?

  • Weekly assessments will be given quarterly to teachers by the math coach
  • Monthly Lesson studies using more technology and differentiated instruction
  • Use of more reading using classroom libraries in every classroom which will result in reading with a purpose and support instruction
  • Use of more text complexity in the classroom: Implement strategies: cognitive development to explain concepts, use more complex vocabulary and be able to critically think
  • Identify the % percentage of the categories the students will be tested on. Teach Smarter the Categories to which the test will be and make the test type items according to the category. Standard based curriculum (Not measurement based curriculum)
  • Ask High order and with rigor on tests and in classrooms (Webb's depth of knowledge posted in each teacher's classroom)
  • Increase use of hands-on manipulatives, graphic/scientific calculators, smarttech interactive lessons and computer instruction to motivate and enrich students