Criterion3
-
Upload
wsu-cougars -
Category
Documents
-
view
394 -
download
1
Transcript of Criterion3
THE USE OF DATA TO INFORM INSTRUCTION AND AS AN ARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPAL EVALUATION
Unpacking Criterion 3
CRITERION 3
Element 3.1: Recognizes and seeks out multiple data sources
Element 3.2 Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-level improvement efforts
Element 3.3: Implements data driven plan for improved teaching and learning
Element 3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning
Context: Everett High School
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
Everett HS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Change per Year (student
s)
Enrollment 1714 1672 1619 1565 1489 1424 -59
for the school year ending: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Eve
rett
HS
Eve
rett
HS
Eve
rett
HS
Eve
rett
HS
Eve
rett
HS
Eve
rett
HS
Change per Year
(in percenta
ge points)American Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% -0.05
Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35
Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33
Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74
White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31
Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55
Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14
Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10
Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00
On-Time Graduation Rate 77.7% 77.5% 74.2% 85.8% 80.8% 82.1% 1.24
CEE DATA
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Impr
ovem
ent:
3-Y
ear T
rend
Performance: Reading-Math Proficiency 2011
Improvement vs Performance: High Schools- 2011(N=308)
State of WA
Everett PS
Everett High School
LEADINGGAINING
LAGGING SLIPPING
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc., 2011
Comparison Schools
ELEMENT 3.1: RECOGNIZES AND SEEKS OUT MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES
AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
PERCEPTUAL DATA STAFF- 2012
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Collaboration and Communication
Clear and Shared Focus
High Standards and Expectations
Effective Leadership
Supportive Learning Environment
Parent and Community Involvement
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
Focused Professional Development
Cultural Responsiveness
District Support for Improvement
Comparison with High-Performing Schools
Everett HS High Performing (Top 20%) at Your Level
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
STAFF PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Collaboration and Communication
Clear and Shared Focus
High Standards and Expectations
Effective Leadership
Supportive Learning Environment
Parent and Community Involvement
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
Focused Professional Development
Cultural Responsiveness
District Support for Improvement
Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive
Nov 2012 Nov 2011 Nov 2010
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
RESISTANCE FACTOR, CHANGE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
52%
7%
41%
46%
2%
33%
0%
7%
0%
4%
5%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I welcome new ideas and change
My colleagues welcome new ideas and change
Openness to New Ideas
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GAP: "I" vs. "They"
78%
27%
20%
41%
0%
24%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am willing to work at changing my school for the better
My colleagues are willing to work at changing this school for the better
Willingness to Work at Change
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GAP: "I" vs. "They"
31%
9%
36%
34%
15%
32%
0%
7%
2%
5%
15%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I am willing to be held accountable for student learning
My colleagues are willing to be held accountable for student learning
Willingness to Be Held Accountable
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GAP: "I" vs. "They"
16%
19%
44%
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Clear and Shared Focus
High Standards and Expectations
Effective Leadership
Collaboration and Communication
Community and Parent Involvement
Supportive Learning Environment
Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive
Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PARENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Clear and Shared Focus
High Standards and Expectations
Effective Leadership
Collaboration and Communication
Community and Parent Involvement
Supportive Learning Environment
Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive
Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010
Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
ACHIEVEMENT INDEX
School Year 2011-2012
OUTCOMES
AverageINDICATORS Reading Writing Math ScienceExt Grad
Rate
Achievement of non-low income students
7 7 6 6 5 6.20
Achievement of low income students
4 5 4 3 3 3.80
Achievement vs. peers 5 4 4 7 4 4.80
Improvement from the previous year
4 4 5 7 4 4.80
Index Scores5.00 5.00 4.75 5.75 4.00
4.90
Good
2011-12 Achievement Gap
Reading MathExt Graduation
Rate
AverageINDICATORS
Met Std
Peers ImpMet Std
Peers ImpMet Std
Peers Imp
Achievement of Black, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic stds
4 5 7 4 5 7 2 2 1 4.11
Achievement of white and Asian students
6 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4.56
Achievement Gap 0.45
LIMITED ENGLISH (ELL) STUDENTSNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED
BuildingNumber of
ELL Students Tested
Cascade HS 71Cedar Wood 17Eisenhower MS 40Emerson Elem 152Everett HS 101Evergreen MS 79Forest View Elem 35Garfield Elem 55Gateway MS 4Hawthorne Elem 229Heatherwood MS 26Henry M. Jackson HS 31Jackson Elem 35Jefferson 94Lowell 81Madison 128Mill Creek 41Monroe 61North MS 78Penny Creek 57Sequoia HS 12Silver Firs 40Silver Lake 92View Ridge 55Whittier 28Woodside 93Everett Average: Elems 76Everett Average: MS 45Everett Average: HS 54
101
71
17
40
152
79
35
55
4
229
26
31
35
94
81
128
41
61
78
57
12
40
92
55
28
93
0 50 100 150 200 250
Everett HS
Cascade HS
Cedar Wood
Eisenhower MS
Emerson Elem
Evergreen MS
Forest View Elem
Garfield Elem
Gateway MS
Hawthorne Elem
Heatherwood MS
Henry M. Jackson HS
Jackson Elem
Jefferson
Lowell
Madison
Mill Creek
Monroe
North MS
Penny Creek
Sequoia HS
Silver Firs
Silver Lake
View Ridge
Whittier
Woodside
English Language Acquisition: Number of StudentsNumber of Students Tested on WELPA
ELL STUDENTS REACHING PROFICIENCY AMAO - 2
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Everett HS
Cascade HS
Cedar Wood
Eisenhower MS
Emerson Elem
Evergreen MS
Forest View Elem
Garfield Elem
Gateway MS
Hawthorne Elem
Heatherwood MS
Henry M. Jackson HS
Jackson Elem
Jefferson
Lowell
Madison
Mill Creek
Monroe
North MS
Penny Creek
Sequoia HS
Silver Firs
Silver Lake
View Ridge
Whittier
Woodside
English Language Acquisition: TransitioningPercent of Students Transitioning (AMAO-2)
Transitioning= Student scoring at Level-4 and Transtioning out of ELL Services
AMAO-2 Target: 7.1% of students transitioning
2012 State Result: 11.4%
The percentage on this chart represents the percent of students who demonstrated English language proficiency by scoring a Level-4 on the WELPA assessment.
Requires a minimum N of 20 students.
101Everett HS: Total number of ELL students tested in 2012
(used in AMAO-2)
10TH GRADE READING7
8.2
%
83
.9%
84
.6%
75
.3%
81
.6%
77
.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Reading: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard
Everett HS Everett PS State
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
-14% -18% -24%-14% -9% -10%
-10%-16%
-17%
-10%-7% -11%
26% 30% 30% 24% 23% 20%
44%27% 19%
52% 58% 57%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Reading: Percent of Students by Level
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Reading: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Native American
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Reading: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Special Needs
ESL/ELL/Bilingual
Free/Reduced Meal Eligible
Migrant
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
8TH TO 10TH GRADE READING GROWTH
-18% -10%
-11%-7%
30% 23%
41% 61%
8th Grade (2009) 10th Grade (2011)
Reading: 8th to 10th Grade
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
-14% -9%
-12%-11%
24% 20%
50% 60%
8th Grade (2010) 10th Grade (2012)
Reading: 8th to 10th Grade
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
10TH GRADE WRITING8
1.2
%
86
.8%
87
.5%
83
.4%
82
.2%
79
.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard
Everett HS Everett PS State
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
-13% -21% -22%-6% -7% -12%
-7%-10% -9%
-4% -5%-5%
38% 36% 39%28%
37% 34%
37%22% 15%
56% 45% 46%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Native American
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Special Needs
ESL/ELL/Bilingual
Free/Reduced Meal Eligible
Migrant
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
10TH GRADE WRITING8
1.2
%
86
.8%
87
.5%
83
.4%
82
.2%
79
.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard
Everett HS Everett PS State
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
-13% -21% -22%-6% -7% -12%
-7%-10% -9%
-4% -5%-5%
38% 36% 39%28%
37% 34%
37%22% 15%
56% 45% 46%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Native American
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Special Needs
ESL/ELL/Bilingual
Free/Reduced Meal Eligible
Migrant
District-All Students
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
GRADE 10 CRITICAL THINKING : COMPARISON OF SCHOOL TO STATE
-3.7 -5.1 -6.8
-50.0
-25.0
0.0
25.0
50.0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Difference Between School and State Percents
Everett HighSchool
District State
% 78.7 85.0 85.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
% w
ith
sim
ilar
per
form
ance
Reading - Critical Thinking
STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT
STUDENT SELF-REFLECTION
DISCIPLINE DATA
DISCIPLINE DATA
DISCIPLINE DATA
Element 3.1: Recognizes and seeks out multiple data sources
What other data sources do you suggest?
TABLE TALK
3.2 ANALYZES AND INTERPRETS MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES TO INFORM SCHOOL-LEVEL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS
AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
8-STEP MODEL
• Summative Assessment
• Instructional Calendars
• Academic Groupings
• ALC Meetings
• Teach Instructional Focus from Calendar
• Effective Teaching Strategies
• Summative and Formative Assessment
• Review Concepts
• Test Talks
• ALC Meetings
• Academic Groupings
• Re-teaching
• Enrichment
• Test Talks
• ALC Meetings
Successes: • Common core activities• Common formative assessments• Common learning targets
PLAN: COMMON CALENDARNext Steps:
• Increasing frequency of formative assessments and common learning targets
10TH GRADE SCIENCE – BIO EOC
69
.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 EOC-BIology: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard
Everett HS Everett PS State
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
-17%
-10%
32%
37%
2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Percent of Students by Level
20%
40%
60%
80%
MeetingStandard
100%
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Native American
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013
Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard
Special Needs
ESL/ELL/Bilingual
Free/Reduced Meal Eligible
Migrant
Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.
381 sophomores tested 74 students NOT in BIO (19.4%)
20 met standard* *16 had already passed the Biology class
54 did not meet standard
EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Students Total
FINC Total
American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
FINC RATES
COORDINATED SCIENCEACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS
Physics unit assessments sorted by standards
Target student content strengths and weaknesses
Building a Championship Culture
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Successful turnout for after school review sessions.
• connect-Ed message• teacher contact• meeting w/ success
coordinator
Hands-on experiences and demonstrations as standard is re-taught
EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Students Total
FINC Total
American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005
520 1284
FINC RATES
SCREENSHOT FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDENT
• Biology, district-wide, common assessment used for 1st semester final
• Using data to target weaknesses prior to EOC in spring
BIOLOGY END OF COURSE ASSESSMENT PREP
screenshot of classroom results
– Algebra 2 teachers with administrator
– Informing instructional decisions for next year and current year
– Led to discussion on grading
PLAN: DATA TALKS
– Discussion of common grading of the subject, and assessments
– Rotating weekly – Creating an ELL version of the final in
Algebra 1– Integration of GLAD strategies into
lessons and activities
PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME
PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME– Creating manipulative and graphic organizers for student use– Creating of common formative and summative assessments in
Algebra 1, Geometry,Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.
Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-level improvement efforts
What other methods do you suggest that support teachers in the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources?
TABLE TALK
3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATA DRIVEN PLAN FOR IMPROVED TEACHING AND LEARNING
AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
AMO TARGETS
SIP CYCLE
MSP/HSPE Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 74.8 percent of students will meet standard in Mathematics as measured by MSP/HSPE.
AMO Target: 63.9%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)* Low Income
students will meet standard in
mathematics
as measured by MSP/HSPE.
AMO Target: 50.8%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic
students will meet standard in
mathematics
as measured by MSP/HSPE.
AMO Target: 34.8%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)*
Special Education
students will meet standard in
mathematics
as measured by MSP/HSPE.
S.M.A.R.T. GOAL:
Increase the number of students passing Algebra 1 and Geometry by 5% as compared to 2011-2012 data.
SIP Actions Evidence of implementation
Person(s) Responsib
le
Resources
Needed
Timeline
Data on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be gathered and compiled through common assessments. A "Data Talk" conference will be held with the teacher and administrator to create a plan for getting each student to standard. (PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation)
Teachers will have extensive data showing where each student is performing. The data is converted to an action plan and shared with the administrator.
Assistant PrincipalMath Teachers
Time for Math Teacher and Assistant Principal to meet
Data Talks held by 12/15, and 5/1
Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will design, develop, and implement instructional calendars for each target.(PDCA Steps 2 & 3)
Each teacher will have a clear understanding of the tested GLE's and how they align with the Common Core State Standards.
Math teachers
District developed instructional calendar
Common Work Time to further refine District calendar
Initial target calendar developed 9/12
Ongoing development of calendar
Implements data driven plan for improved teaching and learning
Relate this cycle for implementing a data driven plan to the process that occurs in your district. What recommendation or suggestion would you make?
TABLE TALK
3.4 ASSISTS STAFF TO USE DATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY AND IMPROVE CLASSROOM TEACHING AND LEARNING
AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data
Algebra 1 teachersmeet every Friday
Plan lessonsformative
assessmentactivities
so all classes doing the same
Adjust lessons based on studentsFormative
assessments
Create common summative
assessments
?Commentary Analysis
Evidence Concrete Details
BridgesTransitions
HooksAttention-grabber
Thesis Statement
Topic Sentence
Body Paragraph
Closing Sentence
Concluding Sentence
DO: Writing Instruction
DO: SCHAFFER TRAINING
DO: COMMON LANGUAGE
DO: COMMON PARAGRAPH STRUCTURES
DO: INTRODUCE COLOR CODING
Successes: – Backwards planning
Next Steps:– Adjust instruction based
on knowledge of leveling– Develop common district
assessments based on leveled standards
PLAN: LEVELING
Standard Question Level and Number
# questions
Assessment Weight (1pt/question)
ES2AUneven heating
Level 3 – 7 questions Level 2- 5 questions
12 30%
ES2BEnergy transfer
Level 4- 2 questions Level 3- 4 questionLevel 2- 8 question
14
35%
ES2CCarbon cycle
Level 4 – 1 questionLevel 3 – 1 questions Level 2 – 0 questions
2 5%
ES3BMethods of determining past climates
Level 3 - 1 questionLevel 2 – 1 question
2
5%
ES3DConstructingExplanationsPast Climates
Level 4 – 1 questionsLevel 3 – 5questionsLevel 2 – 4 questions
10
25%
Successes:– Incorporating AVID skills
Next Steps:– Refining assignments and
assessments
DO: CONTENT AREA READING
Successes:– Common district assessments on LMS
• Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions– Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training session
CHECK
Next Steps:– Increase common
formative assessments among EHS classes
Successes:– Teaching reading strategies:
Marking the text and questions
ACT
Average Summative Assessment Scores, Biology
2011-2012
Summative Assessment
Average Score
Classification 69.85%
Cells 72.25%
DNA/Cell Cycle 64.05%
Protein Synthesis
67.9%
Genetics/Meiosis
64.45%
Semester 1 Final
68.4%
Evolution 76%
Photosynthesis 69.2%
Ecology 74.2%
Semester 2 Final
79%
Semester 2 Final Breakdown
Section of Final Average Score
Evolution 90%
Photosynthesis 75.75
Ecology 74.24%
3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning
What other methods do you use to achieve this goal?
TABLE TALK
EVERETT HIGH IS A GOOD SCHOOL…..
on the path to EXEMPLARY status…through the use of data to inform instruction
Destination Everett