This title summarizes the key elements of our plan to achieve excellence in writing. Each strategy will be addressed in detail throughout this Power Point. 1
Rydal’s SPP is shown in this slide. An SPP score of 90 or higher was a prerequisite for participation in the grant. Rydal earned an SPP score of 92.4. The percent of students scoring proficient/advanced on the Writing PSSA for the 2012 ‐ 2013 school year was 87.78. 2
This slide details the demographic data for Rydal Elementary School in 2012 ‐ 2013. 3
The goal of this plan is to increase the number of students attaining proficient/advanced scores on curriculum ‐ based assessments as well as on the writing component of the ELA PSSA. 4
In order to justify and successfully promote student achievement in any discipline, specifically writing in this case, it is important to consider the research and plan accordingly. Research related to teaching and learning clearly indicates that the strategies set forth in this plan are research ‐ based. In addition to standards ‐ based curricula, guidelines, and assessments, it is also important to support implementation of the strategies. This support should take the form of local policy (i.e., procedures and policies that mandate number of minutes weekly of instruction per content area, pacing requirements, etc.), professional development, equitable instruction, and high expectations. 5
To increase student achievement it is critical to examine a variety of the contributing factors. These include recent achievement data, alignment of the curriculum to the PA Standards, and the alignment of instruction and assessments to the PA Standards. Each of these strategies will be detailed further in this presentation. 6
Ongoing analysis of Rydal’s Writing data is used to drive instruction. This analysis is completed on several levels. First, the data are analyzed to identify building ‐ level trends over several years. This includes a cohort analysis as well as a look at the data from one group of students to the next. The data are then analyzed in a way that will give insight into the curriculum. Are students consistently performing higher on one Assessment Anchor over another? Does it vary from one group of students to another? How do our students perform on multiple ‐ choice items, as compared to open ‐ ended items? Next , the data are analyzed to help us identify the needs of individual and small groups of students. This diagnostic analysis is used to provide remediation or enrichment to those individuals and small groups. Finally, the data are analyzed in terms of the teachers. Do teachers demonstrate a certain strength in a given Assessment Anchor? In open ‐ ended versus multiple choice? This information is used to identify teachers who might share strategies that they have found successful as well as to identify areas of need for teachers in terms of professional development. This data analysis was shared with teachers at weekly grade ‐ level meetings, faculty meetings, and Response to Intervention and Instruction (RtII) grade level meetings held approximately every 6 weeks. The data analysis is detailed further in this presentation. 7
PSSA Writing Results for Rydal Elementary, specifically in terms of building ‐ level trends, are detailed on this slide. At Rydal, 87% to 93% of our students have been proficient/advanced on the Writing PSSA from 2012 ‐ 2014. Our students have shown a steady increase in the percent of students scoring “advanced” with over 50% more scoring advanced in 2014 than the percent of students who scored advanced in 2013. This trend is one we would like to continue by continuing to provide professional development to teachers in terms of how to push students from proficient to advanced. However, the trend data also show a decrease in the percent of students overall who fall in the proficient/advanced range. These data were analyzed in further detail (see Slides 9 ‐ 12) to identify curricular, student, and teacher data to address the issue. The data were analyzed in terms of all students and also in terms of specific subgroups: IEP, HUS, and African ‐ American. 8
An analysis of multi ‐ year PSSA data showed several curriculum ‐ related trends. Both Anchor A.1 (Narrative) and A.2 (Informational) reflect Focus/Content/Organization/Style on writing prompts, while Anchors B.1 (Narrative) and B.2 (Informational) reflect Revise/Edit on writing prompts. Anchor B.3 relates to performance on multiple ‐ choice questions assessing understanding of Conventions 1) In 2014, Rydal students performed higher on narrative writing when compared to informational writing. This is a change over the previous two ‐ year trend when students performed better on informational writing. This trend was also true for the school district, as a whole. This may have been due to the emphasis on improving narrative writing scores that resulted from the above ‐ referenced trend. This pattern was consistent in terms of scores related to Focus/Content/Organization/Style when compared with Revise/Edit. 2) As related to Conventions scores only (exclusive of Focus/Content/Organization/Style), Rydal students performed higher on multiple ‐ choice questions than on the writing prompts themselves. This indicates a need for students to apply their understanding of the conventions skills to their own writing. 3) In 2014, on Narrative writing Rydal students performed the same in terms of Revise/Edit as than they did on Focus/Content/Organization/Style. This changed a trend over the previous two years where they scored lower on Revise/Edit with Narrative writing . 4) In 2014, on Informational writing Rydal students performed the same in terms of Revise/Edit as on Focus/Content/Organization/Style. This changed a trend over the previous two years where they scored higher on Revise/Edit with Informational writing. 9
The next step in data analysis ,after looking at building ‐ level trends and curriculum ‐ related analysis ,is to identify needs in terms of individual students, as well as small groups of students. The data above show a selection of students from Rydal Elementary. Both Anchor A.1 (Narrative) and A.2 (Informational) reflect Focus/Content/Organization/Style on writing prompts, while Anchors B.1 (Narrative) and B.2 (Informational) reflect Revise/Edit on writing prompts. Anchor B.3 relates to performance on multiple ‐ choice questions assessing understanding of Conventions. The data analysis for these students show several important pieces of information that will be used to drive instruction for these particular students: Individual Student Data (sample analysis): 1) Student C was Basic on all tasks (writing prompts and multiple ‐ choice) and will need remediation in many areas related to writing 2) Student A was marginally proficient on the assessment, as a whole. However, Student A was not proficient in terms of revising/editing on the Narrative prompt, nor on Focus/Content/Organization/Style for Informational writing prompt, nor for revising/editing on the Informational prompt. However, Student A did score 10/12 (83%) on the multiple ‐ choice items; this may indicate an understanding of revising/editing skills but difficulty applying them to his/her own writing prompts. 3) Despite showing a relative need in the area of multiple ‐ choice revising/editing questions, Student F may benefit from enrichment in terms of Narrative writing, as evidenced by his/her scores on Focus/Content/Organization/Style and Revise/Edit for Narrative writing. Small Group Data Analysis (sample analysis): 1) Students A, E, F, and G would benefit from targeted instruction on Focus/Content/Style/Organization on their Information Writing, as evidenced by their higher score on Narrative prompts. 2) Students C, E, F, and G would benefit from targeted instruction on revising/editing as related to Informational writing since they all scored higher on revising/editing on their Narrative writing. 3) Students C, E, and F would benefit from instruction related to revising/editing and/or multiple ‐ choice test ‐ taking strategies as evidenced by scores of less than 80% on multiple ‐ choice questions. Student C was not proficient on any tasks, either open ‐ ended nor multiple choice. Students E and F, however, were proficient on either one or both writing prompts and may need focus on test ‐ taking skills. 10
Recommend
More recommend
