1 / 114

Grinnell High School Student Achievement Data

This report analyzes the achievement data of Grinnell High School for the 2010-2011 academic year, focusing on reading and math proficiency. The report evaluates the progress made towards the Annual Improvement Goals and AYP targets, highlighting areas of improvement and areas that require further attention.

Télécharger la présentation

Grinnell High School Student Achievement Data

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. Grinnell High School Student Achievement Data 2010-2011

  2. Definition of terms • AIG: Annual Improvement Goals (Set by the district, must be measurable, approved by the School Improvement Advisory Committee and then by the board) • SIAC: School Improvement Advisory Committee (District Employees, Community Members who look at student achievement data and make a recommendation to the board for student achievement goals). • AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB stair-step model of proficiency) which is reported to the state. Schools must meet AYP or go on a watch list, then become a SINA school

  3. District Annual Improvement Goals Decrease the percentage by 50% of non-proficient students in grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grade 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

  4. GHS Reading Data (AIG) • In 2009-10, 23 students were considered non-proficient in Reading Comprehension in the 10th Grade. • 17 of those students improved their percentile ranking as 11th Graders • However, only 12 of the 23 students become proficient. • RESULT: Goal to reduce number of non-proficient students by 50% was met by 1 student in Reading Comprehension. • IF we look at the same cohort FAY % of student non-proficiency from 09-10 (21.5%) to 10-11 (18.7%), we did not meet the goal.

  5. Reading Proficiency: Class of 2011

  6. Reading Proficiency: Class of 2012

  7. Reading Proficiency: Class of 2013

  8. Reading Proficiency: Class of 2014

  9. 9th Reading Comp. Biennium

  10. 10th Reading Comp. Biennium

  11. 11th Reading Comp. Biennium

  12. 11th Reading Comp. Biennium (F/R)

  13. 11th Reading Comp. Biennium (Non F/R)

  14. 11th Reading Comp. Biennium (IEP)

  15. 11th Reading Comp. Biennium (Non-IEP)

  16. AYP (NCLB) Trajectory

  17. District Annual Improvement Goals • Increase the percentage of students whose reading comprehension NSS are above the typical NSS increase for grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grades 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

  18. GHS Reading Data (AIG) • In 2009-10, 47 students had a National Standard Score “less than typical” (268) in Reading Comprehension in the 10th Grade. • 40 of those students improved their NSS as 11th Graders • However, 18 of the 47 students improved their scores to meet the typical NSS of 275. • RESULT: Goal to increase the percentage of students scoring above the typical NSS was met in Reading Comprehension.

  19. Reading: Less Than Typical NSS

  20. Reading: Exceeding NSS Growth

  21. Reading: NSS Average Growth

  22. 9th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  23. 9th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  24. 9th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  25. 9th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  26. 10th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  27. 10th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  28. 10th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  29. 10th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  30. 11th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  31. 11th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  32. 11th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  33. 11th Reading: % Correct Comparisons

  34. District Annual Improvement Goals Decrease the percentage by 50% of non-proficient students in grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grade 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY percentile scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

  35. GHS Math Data (AIG) • In 2009-10, 21 students were considered non-proficient in Math in the 10th Grade. • 13 of those students improved their percentile ranking as 11th Graders • However, only 5 of the 21 students become proficient. • RESULT: Goal to reduce number of non-proficient students by 50% was not met by 6 students in Math • IF we look at the same cohort FAY % of student non-proficiency from 09-10 (16.8%) to 10-11 (19.6%), we did not meet the goal.

  36. Math Proficiency: Class of 2011

  37. Math Proficiency: Class of 2012

  38. Math Proficiency: Class of 2013

  39. Math Proficiency: Class of 2014

  40. 9th Math Biennium

  41. 10th Math Biennium

  42. 11th Math Biennium

  43. 11th Math Biennium (F/R)

  44. 11th Math Biennium (Non F/R)

  45. 11th Math Biennium (IEP)

  46. 11th Math Biennium (Non-IEP)

  47. AYP (NCLB) Trajectory

  48. District Annual Improvement Goals • Increase the percentage of students whose reading comprehension NSS are above the typical NSS increase for grades 4, 8, and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 3, 7, and 10 in reading comprehension and mathematics, and in grades 8 and 11 as compared to their matched cohort FAY NSS scores in grades 7 and 10 in science, as measured by the appropriate ITBS and ITED subtests.

  49. GHS Math Data (AIG) • In 2009-10, 33 students had a National Standard Score “less than typical” (268) in Math in the 10th Grade. • 24 of those students improved their NSS as 11th Graders • However, 9 of the 33 students improved their scores to meet the typical NSS of 275. • RESULT: Goal to increase the percentage of students scoring above the typical NSS in Math was met.

  50. Math: Less Than Typical NSS

More Related