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

MAP Final ResultsTheresa HinkebeinTheresa Hinkebein

Cape Girardeau School DistrictCape Girardeau School District

Curriculum CoordinatorCurriculum Coordinator

November 15, 2010November 15, 2010

Slide 1

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 studentachievement 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

Slide 2

Data Analysis Plan

CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis

Plan1. AYP Overview

2007-2010 Upward movement Downward movement Flatline Peaks and valleys

2. Content Item Analysis GLEs below 70% Frequency of QT and DOK Frequency of GLE code Discuss and summarize Slide 3

Data Analysis Plan

CSIP I.C.1. Annually complete the district Data Analysis

Plan3. Instructional Goals

Short term Long term

4. Professional Development Current plan District/Building 2011-2012

5. Safe Harbor

6. Local and State comparison Slide 4

MAP-Like vs. MAP Predictor

MAP-LikeCommunication 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 Slide 5

Reasons to Use Caution When Using Local Assessment Data to Predict MAP Scores

1. 1 test 1x a year

2. Advanced and Proficient only Basic Average students

3. Anxiety/Stress Teacher/Student Test-takers

Slide 6

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 Slide 7

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

Slide 8

Local Assessment Committee

CSIP I.C.2.a Form a local assessment committee

Evaluating current district required assessments Addressing concerns Decision making

Slide 9

Local Assessment Schedule

3 windows Benchmark 1 data presented in January

w/findingsCSIP I.C.2.f Report local and state assessment data to the

school board

2010-2011 District Assessment Schedule

Slide 10

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

Slide 11

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

Slide 12

State Targets

2010 2011

CA 67.4 75.5

MA 63.3 72.5