1 / 12

MAP Final Results

MAP Final Results. Theresa Hinkebein Cape Girardeau School District Curriculum Coordinator November 15, 2010. MSIP Standard 6.2. MSIP Standard 6.2 requires the school board to annually review disaggregated performance data for all subgroups

armen
Télécharger la présentation

MAP Final Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAP Final Results Theresa Hinkebein Cape Girardeau School District Curriculum Coordinator November 15, 2010

  2. MSIP Standard 6.2 MSIP Standard 6.2 requires the school board to annually review disaggregated performance data for all subgroups with 5 or more students in order to monitor student achievement and dropout/graduation rates. Subgroup achievement data is available for review on the school board portal. • AYP Summary • AYP 2010 for each school site • Achievement level subgroup report for each school site

  3. Data Analysis Plan CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis Plan • AYP Overview • 2007-2010 • Upward movement • Downward movement • Flatline • Peaks and valleys • Content Item Analysis • GLEs below 70% • Frequency of QT and DOK • Frequency of GLE code • Discuss and summarize

  4. Data Analysis Plan CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis Plan • Instructional Goals • Short term • Long term 4. Professional Development • Current plan • District/Building • 2011-2012 • Safe Harbor • Local and State comparison

  5. MAP-Like vs. MAP Predictor MAP-Like Communication Arts (75% DRA + 25% writing assessment ) Math (benchmarks) DRA • Reading engagement • Accuracy (miscue analysis) • Fluency • Comprehension (before, during, and after reading) • questioning/prediction • literal comprehension • Summarization • Interpretation • Reflection • Metacognitive awareness • Continuum (scoring guide) • Focus for instruction District Writing Assessment • Writing prompts across writing genres • Scoring guide developed by literacy coaches and MAP graders based on MAP scoring guide • Includes 6+1 traits of writing Math • Began with benchmarks from math textbook resources • Math coach aligned to pacing

  6. Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores • 1 test 1x a year • Advanced and Proficient only • Basic • Average students • Anxiety/Stress • Teacher/Student • Test-takers

  7. Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores 4. Strictly timed portions • Practice • Quality (knowledge) vs. Quantity (how fast) 5. Changing test • GLEs • Question Type • DOK • Suspension of PE • CCS-A 6. Teach-the-Test • We do not teach the test. We teach the entire curriculum. • Prepare all year long, give tools, test-taking strategies

  8. Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores 7. Criterion-Referenced Assessments • Our local assessments are intended to be criterion-referenced; designed to provide a measure of performance that is interpretable in terms of clearly defined learning tasks. • MAP is a combination of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced. Norm-referenced assessments are designed to provide a measure of performance that is interpretable in terms of an individual’s relative standing in some known group. 8. Test Security • Strict guidelines • Cannot discuss test items • Cannot paraphrase test questions • No oral reading • Cover-up all content and process cues

  9. Local Assessment Committee CSIP I.C.2.a Form a local assessment committee • Evaluating current district required assessments • Addressing concerns • Decision making

  10. Local Assessment Schedule • 3 windows • Benchmark 1 data presented in January w/findings CSIP I.C.2.f Report local and state assessment data to the school board 2010-2011 District Assessment Schedule

  11. Common Core Standard-Assessment Two Consortiums • SBAC • PARCC CCS-A • 2 summative assessments • Expect online assessments • Expect MC, CR, PE • Optional benchmark assessments • Tools for informal assessment of student progress • Target field test-spring 2013 • Operational test-spring 2014

  12. Status • CGPS is improving scores on state testing • MAP-like required assessments to monitor student progress (3x) • Using local and state data to inform instruction • Targeting student strengths and weaknesses based on data • Professional development based on needs identified from data

More Related