Transcript Slide 1
Manassas City Public Schools Grace E. Metz Middle School Academic Review School Improvement Plan Mathematics March 13, 2007 State Summary 3 Year Average Mathematics SOL Performance Grade Level 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 * Grade 8 80 81 78 Grade 7 -- -- 44 Grade 6 -- -- 49 •First Year of End of Course Math Test Grades 6,7 & 8 •Data from DOE State Report Card DOE Middle School MathmaticsTask force findings: •Sixth grade 50-item test, only 20 items (40 percent) were answered correctly by the majority of students (70 percent or more). •Seventh grade 50-item test, only eight (8) items were answered correctly by the majority of students (70 percent or more). •More than 70 percent of the students did not meet expectations as defined by the Virginia Standards of Learning on 84% of the seventh grade test items. Grace E. Metz Middle School Accreditation Pass Rates 2004-2007 Subject 2004-2005 2005-2006 English 82 80 83 * Mathematics 90 90 48 ** History 86 86 85 Science 94 85 87 Fully Accredited Fully Accredited Accredited with Warning in Math Accreditation Status * First Year of End of Course English Test Grades 6,7 & 8 ** First Year of End of Course Math Test Grades 6,7 & 8 Data from School State Report Card 2006-2007 Why did so many students fail the test? 1 Lack of Understanding of the Test Blueprints 2 Instructional Pacing Issues 3 Unexpected Higher Level Thinking and Strategic Test Skill Questions What does the blueprint say? There must be a high performance in these three categories in order for students to pass. 1 A lack of understanding of the blueprint 2 Instructional Pacing Issues The “New” 6th and 7th Grade SOL Mathematics Tests: Turning Failure into Success for ALL students… (Hint: It’s NOT about the math) Presenter: Paula Brown, Benchmark Assessment Specialist Hampton City Schools 3 Unexpected Higher Level Thinking and Strategic Test Skill Questions Real life situations are not always real life… Can you buy carpet in minimum amounts? In real life “D” is the correct answer choice. Also to note: this is an area problem with no mention of area in the question stem. The “New” 6th and 7th Grade SOL Mathematics Tests: Turning Failure into Success for ALL students… (Hint: It’s NOT about the math) Presenter: Paula Brown, Benchmark Assessment Specialist Hampton City Schools Academic Review & School Improvement Planning The Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, in 8 VAC20-131-300.C.2, require a school to be “Accredited with Warning (in specified academic area or areas)” if its pass rate on any SOL test does not meet required benchmarks to qualify for any other accreditation rating. Any school rated Accredited with Warning must undergo an academic review in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Board of Education and in accordance with 8 VAC 20-131-315 of the regulations. The school-level academic review is designed to help schools identify and analyze instructional and organizational factors affecting student achievement. The focus of the review process is on the systems, processes, and practices that are being implemented at the school and division levels. Metz Middle School Academic Review Visit Agenda January 29, 2007 8:00 8:15 Welcome and Introductions Status Report Dr. Michaelene Meyer and Mrs. Melissa Saunders 9:15 – 10:00 Focus Group Interview with 8th grade math teachers Joanne Speaks, Emily Thornton, Susan Kiessling, Chris Hulme, JoAnne Alexander, Tammy Warner 9:15 – 11:30 11:30 – 1:00 Classroom Observations Working Lunch – Principals Interview Mrs. Melissa Saunders and Mr. Jeff Abt 1:00 – 3:00 2:00 – 2:45 Classroom Observations Focus Group Interview with 7th grade math teachers Kathy Hassanzadeh, Amory Hatch, Mae Guzman, Kimnada Bobb, Terre Carson-Jones, Eric Mauck Mary Jane Boynton 2:45 – 4:15 4:30 Site Team Worktime Report Out Division and School Level Review of Tasks Curriculum Alignment Use of Instructional Time and School Scheduling Practices Use of Data for Making Instructional and Planning Decisions Professional Development School Improvement Planning Instructional Method or Model/Program Curriculum Alignment Division •Curriculum Management Process (CAMP) •K-8 horizontal math curriculum teams •Targeted professional development in math •Curriculum writing •K-12 Comprehensive plan for assessment School Level •School level action plans •Teacher resources •Teacher team data analysis •Classroom observations •Measurement of Academic Progress Assessment data used to impact instruction 5-8 Use of Instructional Time and School Scheduling Practices Division School Level •K-8 Grade level teams aligning curriculum scope and sequence •K-12 Targeted professional development to re-examine use of instructional time •Extended learning opportunities funded at schools •Block schedule proposed for the 20072008 school year increasing instructional minutes in math •Professional development planned for all staff in February in “ Teaching in the Block” •Targeted before school learning opportunity for 6th grade students Use of Data for Making Instructional Decisions Division •Collecting multi-source data for development of division and school improvement plans •Curriculum/Assessment Management Plan ( CAMP) •Targeted professional development in using data to make instructional decisions •Division improvement of new teacher induction program School Level •ARDT Testing •MAP Assessment •Student goal setting •Guided review and analysis of math SOL data with math teachers Professional Development Division •Division development and delivery of professional development guidelines •Division review and alignment of teacher evaluation tool School Level •Targeted professional development in math through the department of instruction ( Dan Mulligan, curriculum review and alignment workshop days, DOE sponsored opportunities) School Improvement Division •Division SMART goals and action plans implemented at all school levels School Level •SACS school improvement process •SMART goal and action plans developed for curriculum, instruction and assessment in math Instructional Method or Model Program Division •Employing a backwards design process in implementing Standards-based education •Re-aligning policy and practices for school improvement planning and implementation and professional development School Level •No formal model/program in place at this time •Core strategy is to align curriculum to the SOLs, build common assessments to track progress of students in a formal manner, improve classroom assessment practices, enhance instructional practices by providing extended learning in math, and improving the quality of instruction through focused staff development Academic Review Report Findings Many areas of strengths noted throughout the report ( 26 indicators noted) Recognized our immediate response to addressing the Mathematics SOL performance issues Developed 7 Essential Actions with Projected Timelines - 3 Actions in Curriculum Alignment - 1 Action in Use of Time and Scheduling - 1 Action in Professional Development - 2 Actions in School Improvement Planning School Improvement Plan 3 Year Math Action Research Plan/Smart Goal: “80% of 7th and 8th Grade Students will pass the Math SOL Test in Spring 2007” Math Assessment Action Plan Data-driven decision-making based on assessment to determine whether students and teachers are reaching their goals. Math Curriculum Action Plan Align curriculum, identification of core vocabulary words, use blue prints to sequence pacing guides. Math Instructional Strategies Action Plan Instructional Indicator, using researched best practices to increase higher level thinking skills in the mathematics classroom. Instructional Time and Scheduling Action Plan Reconfiguration of instructional day to increase instruction in mathematics. Professional Development Action Plan “ Teaching in the Block”