math task force - glenview community consolidated … · · 2017-03-07math task force...
Post on 09-May-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Superintendent Math Task Force
Recommendation to the Board of Education
March 6, 2017
Task Force Charge
The Advanced and Accelerated Math Identification Task Force
will research, design, and recommend a REPEATABLE,
PREDICTABLE, COLLABORATIVELY DESIGNED student
identification process for advanced and accelerated math.
Philosophy
● Assure the OPPORTUNITY to master critical knowledge, skills and reasoning competencies at every grade level.
● Provide the necessary RESOURCES to give every student access to an appropriately leveled math program.
● Provide ACCESS to advanced and accelerated programming to all students believed likely to benefit from that path, with no fixed targets or caps.
Task Force Process● Representative Membership● Facilitated by Consultants from the Consortium for Educational Change
Meetings
● November 2016 to February 2017● Talking points regularly shared with staff and community● Research, data review, product and process development● Voting with students at the center of the process
Data AnalysisWhat data did the task force review?
● PARCC data
● NWEA MAP data
● Demographic data (gender, ethnicity)
● GBS placement data (initial, appeal, and level changes)
● D34 sample population data
● Neighboring and comparative district math placement processes
● Matrix simulation data
Backward Map Approach to Matrix Development What is your Advanced/Accelerated Program?
What are the characteristics of a student who is successful in the program?
What measures help identify students with these characteristics?
● Academic ● Social ● Work habits
What measures should be included in the Identification Matrix?
Components for Recommendation The task force has completed its research and is recommending four products/processes for a repeatable, predictable identification process.
● Identification Process
● Identification Matrix
● Appeal Process
● Provisional Placement (w/Exit Criteria)
Identification Process● Expands opportunity for student participation in
advanced/accelerated programs.
● Utilizes a multi-phase process gathering multiple data points.
● Incorporates an additional phase to re-evaluate students who do
not initially/automatically qualify for advanced placement.
● The District increases its advocacy for students who may find
success in the advanced/accelerated program.
Identification Process FlowchartLet’s refer to Appendix B of the Board Memo.
Identification Process Flowchart
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3/Appeal
Prior vs. Proposed Placement MethodsPrior placement methods have included matrices and a projection methodology.
Strengths to continue utilizing in the proposed matrix:
● Use of multiple types of data● Use of historical data points● Use of teacher input
Matrix Measures● NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) - Math
● NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) - Reading
● Student Performance Rating Scale
● Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) - Non-Verbal
● Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) - Quantitative
Identification Matrix, Grades 4-5
Identification Matrix, Grades 6-8
Measure of Academic Progress (MAP):Math and ReadingHistorical MAP Math and Reading data will be used in our matrix:
● Five most recent MAP math percentile scores (rather than the RIT scores), dropping the lowest score of these five
● Average of the four remaining percentile scores
● Five most recent MAP reading percentile scores (rather than the RIT scores), dropping the lowest score of these five
● Average of the four remaining percentile scores
Never/With Support
1
Occasionally2
Frequently3
Always4
MATHEMATICAL SKILLS/CONCEPTS
Understands new math concepts and processes more easily than peers
Displays strong number sense, estimating and judging the reasonableness of strategies and solutions easily and accurately (MP1 & 5)
Generalizes mathematical relationships and discovers patterns (MP7)
MATHEMATICAL PRACTICES
Shows a high level of interest and perseverance when approaching a non-routine task (MP1)
Draws from a wide range of strategies and switches strategies easily, when necessary (MP1)
Successfully communicates and defends mathematical reasoning using objects, drawings, diagrams, actions, and verbal and written communication (MP3)
WORK HABITS & HABITS OF MIND
Completes homework on time and with accuracy (MP6)
Completes in class work independently and with accuracy (MP6)
Self directed learner who enjoys challenges and math extension opportunities
Exhibits curiosity and seeks creative ways to approach and solve problems that are unique
ADD COLUMN TOTAL
MULTIPLY COLUMN TOTALS BY THE WEIGHT: X1 X2 X3 X4
OVERALL SCORE (Total of this row)
Performance Rating Scale
Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)CogAT appraises the level and pattern of cognitive development of students. We will use two batteries of this assessment.
● Non-verbal○ Appraises inductive reasoning skills
○ Appraisal of student ability to use cognitive resources in new situations
● Quantitative ○ Appraises general abstract reasoning skills, particularly inductive reasoning and specific
mathematical reasoning skills
○ Performance on this battery has high positive correlations with both reading and mathematics achievement.
Matrix - Determining Weights
Through research of our prior matrix and methodology results, the task force determined that MAP Math and the Student Performance Rating Scale are the two strongest indicators of student readiness and success in advanced/accelerated math.
Matrix - Determining WeightsMAP Math:
● Highest value in matrix
● Two pathways in grades 4-5 and three potential pathways in grades 6-8
● A wider percentile range (80-93%) on 6-8 matrix
● Smaller incremental ranges exist for more points in the 6-8 matrix
Matrix - Determining WeightsStudent Performance Rating Scale:
● A higher weight was given to the Student Performance Rating Scale than the prior matrix or methodology
● Students can receive up to three points
● 30 remains the lowest score to receive points on the matrix
Matrix - Determining WeightsCogAT:
● Matrix includes Quantitative and Non-Verbal CogAT scores
● Batteries have been separated (rather than use of composite score)
● Based on review of data and to expand opportunities for placement, the value of the CogAT score was lowered
Matrix - Determining WeightsMAP Reading:
● Informational text, vocabulary, and problem-solving
● Problem-solving and ability to critique other’s thinking
● Analyze problems and explain their reasoning
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 4th - 5th Grade
Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 4th Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 5th Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%
Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%
Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%
Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%
CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%
Total students in Grade Level 526 514
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 4th - 5th Grade
Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 4th Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 5th Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%
Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%
Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%
Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%
CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%
Total students in Grade Level 526 514
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 4th - 5th Grade
Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 4th Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 5th Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%
Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%
Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%
Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%
CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%
Total students in Grade Level 526 514
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 4th - 5th Grade
Matrix IndicatorNumber of 4th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 4th Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 5th Grade Students (2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 5th Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 95-99% (4) 31 6% 47 9%
Math MAP 90-94% (3) 51 10% 59 11%
Math MAP 85-89% (2) 49 9% 45 9%
Math MAP 80-84% (1) 38 7% 47 9%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 343 65% 306 60%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 312 59% 317 62%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 312 59% 277 54%
CogAT (Quantitative) 80-99% (1) 175 33% 148 29%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 135 26% 124 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 51 10% 29 6%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 33 6% 50 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 303 58% 310 60%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 4 1% 1 0%
Total students in Grade Level 526 514
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 6th - 8th Grade
Matrix Indicator
Number of 6th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 6th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 7th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 7th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 8th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 8th
Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%
Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%
Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%
Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%
CogAT (Quantitative) 85-99% (1) 192 34% 176 30% 211 36%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 6 1% 1 0% 12 2%
Total students in Grade Level 557 585 593
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 6th - 8th Grade
Matrix Indicator
Number of 6th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 6th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 7th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 7th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 8th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 8th
Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%
Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%
Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%
Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%
CogAT (Quantitative) 85-99% (1) 192 34% 176 30% 211 36%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 6 1% 1 0% 12 2%
Total students in Grade Level 557 585 593
Potential Enrollment of Students Based on Percentile Ranges / Weights in Matrix 6th - 8th Grade
Matrix Indicator
Number of 6th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 6th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 7th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 7th
Grade (2017-2018)
Number of 8th Grade Students
(2017-2018)
Local Percent of Students in 8th
Grade (2017-2018)
Math MAP 98-99% (4) 19 3% 36 6% 24 4%
Math MAP 96-97% (3) 35 6% 34 6% 25 4%
Math MAP 94-95% (2) 22 4% 11 2% 35 6%
Math MAP 80-93% (1) 152 27% 135 23% 158 27%
Math MAP 0-79% (0) 321 58% 359 61% 342 58%
Reading MAP 70-99% (1) 345 62% 363 62% 382 64%
CogAT (Non-Verbal) 65-99% (1) 320 57% 293 50% 305 51%
CogAT (Quantitative) 85-99% (1) 192 34% 176 30% 211 36%
S.P. Rating Scale 35-40 (3) 133 24% 252 43% 127 21%
S.P. Rating Scale 32-34 (2) 54 10% 62 11% 62 10%
S.P. Rating Scale 30-31 (1) 45 8% 30 5% 141 24%
S.P. Rating Scale 1-29 (0) 319 57% 240 41% 251 42%
S.P. Rating Scale (incomplete) 6 1% 1 0% 12 2%
Total students in Grade Level 557 585 593
Matrix - Determining Cut Scores
The task force used simulation data to inform the matrix cut scores.
The following slides show:● Cut Score Tables ● Potential enrollment for each
course after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Identification Process.
Identification Matrix - Cut Score Tables
Identification Matrix - Cut Score Tables
Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores
Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores
Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores
Potential Enrollment Based on Cut Scores
Phase 1● Begins in January each year● Phase 1/Initial math placements are determined based on students’
scores calculated using the Identification Matrix.● Parents are informed by letter of student’s placement
○ Automatic qualification into advanced/accelerated OR○ Student moves into Phase 2 for additional evaluation OR○ Parent is informed of Appeal Process
● If a student does not automatically qualify for an advanced/accelerated placement based on the matrix cut scores in Phase 1, parents will be notified of additional phases in the process through which the student can be re-evaluated.
Phase 2Phase 2 is a NEW STEP, included in the identification process to expand opportunities for students who may benefit from the advanced/accelerated program but did not automatically qualify in Phase 1.
The District advocates for these students and the following steps occur:
● Supplemental math test● Student survey● Additional teacher input
Parents are informed by letter of the student’s results of Phase 2
● Provisional placement into advanced/accelerated OR● Parent is informed of Appeal Process
Phase 3/Appeal PhaseThe following information will be gathered and evaluated by a District Appeal Committee (consisting of Asst. Supt. for Curriculum, Dist. Math Coach, and Teachers):
● Appeal Form● Student Survey● Supplemental Math Test● Additional Teacher Input (including classroom performance data)
The District Appeal Committee will make a final decision and results will be mailed home to parents.
Provisional Placement/Exit CriteriaMid-Point of Trimester 1
Parents will receive a midpoint progress check of provisionally placed students sharing updates on:
● Student’s classroom work habits
● Performance levels
● Test scores
End of Trimester 1
Students must meet two of the three criteria below to remain in the advanced/accelerated course:
● Class average of test scores of 70% or higher
● Student Performance Rating Scale of 30 or higher
● District Trimester 1 Math Assessment of 75% or higher
Identification Timeline
January
Students complete Winter NWEA MAP Math and Reading
tests
February
Student Performance
Rating Scales are completed
Phase 1 Math Placements are
calculated
March
Phase 1 Placement Letters
mailed home to parents
Phase 2 supplemental test administered to
qualifying students
April
Phase 2 provisional placements determined
(letters sent home to parents)
Phase 3 appeal forms due by April
30th
Identification Timeline
May
Phase 3 appeal supplemental
tests administered
End of May
Appeal committee determines results
of appealed placements
Parents are notified of results
of appeals
Trimester 1Mid-Term
Mid-point progress check
letter mailed home to parents of provisionally placed students
Trimester 1End of Term
Decisions on provisional
placements are determined
How do we measure success of our process?● Number of appeals submitted
● Number of students exiting after provisional placement period
● Student growth and achievement data
● Successful transition to GBS math program
Current Math Pathways in Grades 4-8
Pathways Continued from D34 to GBS
Next Steps1) Board approval on March 20
2) Placement process immediately begins
3) All placements will be determined prior to the end of this school year for the 2017-2018 school year.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the Math Placement Identification Process (including the Identification Matrix, Appeal Process, and Exit Process) as proposed by the Superintendent Math Task Force.
Questions?
top related