This document provides data and analysis on student performance at a high school over several years. It shows improvements in math, science, reading, and writing scores on standardized tests from 2007-2012. Interventions like math lab, literacy lab, and writing lab helped move more students to proficiency. The school outperformed its district reference group and state averages in most subjects and years. Ongoing professional development focused on literacy strategies is credited for gains. Moving forward, the school will focus on moving more students from proficiency to advanced levels, with close attention to subgroups. Analysis of current 9th graders' prior test data will guide instruction.

1. Celebrating our Achievements
And where do we go next?

2. The Four Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation
Student Growth
and Development
(45%)
Whole-school
Student Learning
Indicators or
Student Feedback
(5%)
Observations of
Performance and
Practice (40%)
Peer or Parent
Feedback (10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Outcome Rating
(50%)
All of these factors are combined to reach your final annual
rating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).
5/9/20132

3. WHS’s hard work pays off!
Improvements from 2011-2012
Math and Science

4. WHS’s hard work pays off!
Improvements from 2011-2012
Reading and Writing

5. The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012
Mathematics

6. Cohort MAP Reading CAPT Reading MAP Math CAPT Math
2010
Cohort NA 13 NA 16
2011 Cohort 13 (Winter) 6 26 (Winter) 9
2012
Cohort 14 (Winter) 13 (Winter) 13 7
MAP + Intervention Works
Percent of Grade 10 Students Below Proficiency MAP vs. CAPT
Dark Blue= Introduction of Math Lab

7. Most students who entered math lab were not predicted to be proficient on
the CAPT based on MAP testing. With intervention, 79 percent were at or
above proficiency.
Math Lab: Another Success Story
Math Lab Student CAPT Scores
Grades 10 and 11 (53 tested)
SCORE BAND
PERCENT (ROUNDED TO NEAREST
WHOLE PERCENT)
Percent Advanced 4
Percent Goal 26
Percent Proficient 47
Percent Basic/Below Basic 21

8. How do we measure up?
CAPT Math Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 13.0 1.4 4.0
10 (2012) 64.4 57.5 6 49.3
10 (2011) 57.7 58.4 16 49.6
10 (2010) 50.4 58.2 20 48.9
10 (2009) 47.4 57.6 22 48.0
10 (2008) 54.7 60.0 18 50.2
10 (2007) 51.4 56.1 17 45.3
8

9. The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012
Science

10. How do we measure up?
CAPT Science Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 13.0 0.1 2.8
10 (2012) 64.4 55.8 2 47.3
10 (2011) 57.7 55.8 12 47.2
10 (2010) 50.4 52.8 11 45.5
10 (2009) 47.4 50.3 9 43.0
10 (2008) 54.7 56.2 10 46.5
10 (2007) 51.4 55.7 4 44.5
10

11. Math and Science: Boys vs. Girls

12. The Scores in Perspective :2007-2012
Writing

13. Writing: Boys vs. Girls

14. Grade
Writing
Wtfd DRG D
Rank In
DRG
STATE
+/- 16.7 7.7 10.1
10 (2012) 82.0 72.7 4 63.1
10 (2011) 76.3 71.6 11 61.3
10 (2010) 61.8 68.7 20 59.6
10 (2009) 62.5 64.7 14 55.0
10 (2008) 63.0 67.4 16 57.9
10 (2007) 65.3 65.0 11 53.0
How Do We Measure Up?
Writing Goal Performance Summary

15. Writing Lab is an intervention offered by the history
department.
Quarter-long classes were offered beginning last year.
There is not enough data yet to show CAPT gains.
After this year we will be able to report on Writing
Lab successes.
Writing Lab

16. The Scores in Perspective: 2007-2012
Reading

17. Improvements in both tests:
A Close Look at Reading

18. Reading: Boys Vs. Girls

19. SCORE BAND PERCENT (ROUNDED TO
NEAREST WHOLE PERCENT)
ADVANCED 3%
GOAL 21%
PROFICIENT 55%
BASIC/BELOW BASIC 17%
Reading: Our Intervention Courses Move
Many Students to Proficiency and Goal!
Students placed in English Workshop and Literacy Lab are reading below
grade level and are not projected (by MAP) to be proficient on the CAPT.
Yet, 83 percent of those students were successful after intervention.

20. How do we measure up?
CAPT Reading Goal Performance
Grade Wtfd DRG D Rank in DRG State
+/- 17.2 2.7 2.0
10 (2012) 68.6 56.8 1 47.5
10 (2011) 60.3 52.9 4 44.8
10 (2010) 49.6 53.7 18 45.9
10 (2009) 49.8 56.0 19 47.5
10 (2008) 49.2 52.7 17 45.5
10 (2007) 51.4 54.1 17 45.5
20

21. MAP testing to identify struggling students has been
in place since 2010.
Students have been identified and placed in
interventions such as Academic Study Halls, Literacy
Lab, English Workshop, and Math Lab as they have
become available.
The Success: Years in the Making

22. School-wide implementation of Reading for
Information assessments (2010-present)
School-wide literacy strategies professional
development (2010-present)
Commitment of all teachers to implement literacy
strategies into classroom instruction (2010-present)
Increase in amount of reading and writing
opportunities for our students (2010-present)
Grade 6-12 professional development that led to
increased articulation of course content/student
expectation (2011-present)
What New Actions Led to Our
Dramatic Improvement?

23. The implementation of the new Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) begins this year. These standards
require students to interpret and evaluate complex
texts. Students must be able to write well in a variety
of formats. Math is increasingly rigorous as well.
Fortunately, the work that we have done to create
Reading for Information assessments has prepared us
well to meet this challenge.
How Can We Continue Our Growth?

24. As we transition to the Common Core, we will be
hearing more about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
(DOK). This aligns to Bloom’s Taxonomy but is more
helpful in determining the depth and rigor of
questions and tasks.
Going forward, it will be more important than ever to
find challenging articles and ask students to answer
probing text- dependent questions in multiple choice
and open-ended formats.
Continuing our Growth…

25. Continue to administer two Reading for Information
assessments.
Use the assessment results to guide your class instruction.
Regularly offer reading opportunities and give students
opportunities to answer questions in multiple formats.
Plan instruction around how to annotate and make sense
of the texts.
Review the work with students.
Have the students understand the scoring process so that
they can peer and self-score.
Use PLC time to score more formal critical reading
assessments together so that expectations are calibrated.
More about Critical Reading

26. Students should be reading and writing every day.
Text choices should be purposeful. Text should be
Appropriately challenging
Engaging to you and your students
Tied to your content
Selecting the right texts and finding strategies to help
students comprehend them is process that will take time
and support from the literacy and media specialists. It is a
goal to work toward over time.
Continue to Teach Your Content
Through Reading and Writing Tasks

27. Here are a few of the effective strategies observed:
Socratic Seminar
Summary Creation
Fishbowl text discussion
Close reading analysis
Annotation, note-taking, and/or graphic organizers
Purposeful before, during and after reading strategies
Metacognition
Writing to learn and respond to text
Exemplary Strategies Demonstrated During
Instructional Rounds

28. Key Ideas
• Proficiency is no longer the critical measure.
• Moving students from proficiency to goal is the focus.
• Close attention will be paid to moving every child at
least one score band (for example, from goal to
advanced, or from basic to proficient).
• More attention will be paid to sub-groups of gender,
socioeconomics, and special education designation.
Serving Two Masters…
While the SBAC assessment is on the horizon, CAPT has not yet gone
away. The NCLB waiver has lead to new ways of reporting and measuring
growth. In addition, the new professional growth pilot begins this year.

29. Subject Group
Wtfd
2011
Waterford
2012
DRG
2012
Rank in
DRG
STATE
2012
Math
F/R Meals 30.0 50.0 36.4 2/19 20.2
Full Price 61.8 66.1 61.0 9 61.5
Science
F/R Meals 40.6 36.0 33.3 8/19 18.9
Full Price 58.6 66.7 59..4 3 59.6
Reading
F/R Meals 29.0 50.0 35.3 1/19 20.3
Full Price 64.9 71.1 60.2 4 59.0
Writing
F/R Meals 54.8 52.0 51.5 11/19 36.4
Full Price 79.5 86.1 75.9 4 74.6
GOAL FREE/REDUCED LUNCH
PERFORMANCE

30. Special Education

31. Year
Number
Tested
Total Math
% Goal
Range
Total Math
%
Proficient
Total
science %
Goal Range
Total
science %
Proficient
Total
Reading %
Goal Range
Total
Reading %
Proficient
Total
Writing %
Goal Range
Total
Writing %
Proficient
2007 24 8.3 37.5 33.3 58.3 8.3 50 12.5 70.8
2008 26 0 26.9 3.8 61.5 0 57.7 8 60
2009 21 4.8 38.1 14.3 52.4 4.8 52.4 9.5 52.4
2010 28 10.7 25 17.9 50 7.7 50 14.3 57.1
2011 20 15 50 8.3 41.7 4.5 63.6 16.7 62.5
2012 13 7.7 46.2 6.7 60 13.3 60 26.7 73.3
Special Education CAPT Performance

32. Core areas will spend several weeks looking closely at
CMT, CAPT and other data in order to learn more
about how we are performing.
 Shift will be not just to look at how we did, but to
look at the data for the students in our classrooms
this year to see where they are and make plans for
how to move them to the next level.
What’s Next?

33. Current 9th Graders:
What CMT’s Can Tell Us

34. MATH:
Areas for 9th grade that most need improvement:
Word problems
Computing with whole numbers and fractions
Estimating solutions to problems
Mathematical applications
READING:
Developing an interpretation
Key CMT Findings:
Guiding our ninth graders

35. 2012 PCAPT Summary
ASSESSMENT % BELOW
BASIC
% BASIC % PROFICIENT % GOAL %ADVANCED
READING
11 14 32 19 24
MATH
9 14 41 27 11
WRITING
3 5 28 15 49
SCIENCE
11 15 37 29 8

36. Math:
Open-ended responses
Reading:
Open-ended responses (RFI short answer)
Reading stamina
Key PCAPT Concerns:

37. 9/13 PLC devoted to learning about
SEED (new professional growth plan)
9/20 Departments will get an
opportunity to look at
CMT/PCAPT/CAPT data in depth and
begin to create goals
Upcoming Events