Tara High School
Mathematics Department
College and Career
Readiness Plan
EOY REPORT
2011-2012
Course Implementation
School Environment
Tara High School is a public high school in the East Baton Rouge Parish School System. School
enrollment ranges from 900 – 1200 in any given year, with a high level of socio-economically
disadvantaged students. The school uses a semester system and offers the standard selection of
high school courses. To graduate, students are required to have 24 units of credit with 4 units in
math, science, English, and social studies, 2 units in a foreign language, 2 units in physical/health
education, 1 unit in the arts, and the remaining 3 units coming from electives. In addition, the
standard curriculum, Tara offers 4 college-level Advanced Placement courses and 4 dual
enrollment courses, permitting students to earn college credit for their work. The school year is
divided into six 6-week grading periods. Students are required to take seven classes for the
duration of the school year. The average class size is 30 students. The school day, from 7:05
a.m. to 2:23 p.m., which includes eight 47-minute academic periods plus lunch and three minute
class changes.
Background (Timeline)
2008 - 2009
LSU/SELU AMCAT (MathXL)
Advance Math DE Started
2009 - 2010
LSU/SELU AMCAT (MathXL)
Added AP Calculus AB
2010 - 2011
LSU CRP (MML)
Added Algebra I, Geometry,
Algebra II
2011 - 2012
LSU CRP (MML)
Added LEAP Remediation,
Math Essentials, Financial
Math
Observations:

Projection for 2012 – 2013 is to revert back to a traditional model for Math Essentials and
Financial Math due to a cut in budget.
Course Design
Courses were divided into three separate schedules (5:5, 2:3, 3:2) to be able to maximize our
limited computer labs.
5:5
Leap21
Algebra I
Algebra I Repeat
2:3
Geometry
Geometry Repeat
Financial Math
Math Essentials
3:2
Algebra II
Advanced Math
AP Calculus
5:5  Students in this group are enrolled in a mathematics course and a seminar course. The
mathematics course is mainly a teacher-centered instructional environment utilizing the
traditional instructional model. The seminar course meets in a dedicated computer lab that
allows students to access to MML as a means to individualize intervention strategies. The
teachers of these two courses were assigned the same subset of students and used common
planning time to plan and analyze data to team teach these students.
2:3  Students in this group are enrolled in a mathematics course that has three days (T, Th, F)
of teacher-centered instruction and two days (M, W) of student-centered labs.
3:2  Students in this group are enrolled in a mathematics course that was two days (M, W) of
teacher-centered instruction and three days (T, Th, F) of student-centered labs.
Observations:

Schedule went well, but for lower level courses the assignments need to be broken into
smaller parts that can be completed in class. Lower level course students seem to lack
the drive to complete assignments outside of class and many do not have the means
readily available to do so.
Use of MyMathLab
Courses were setup in a course group, using the coordinator course to organize and monitor the
implementation and integration of technology into the mathematics curriculum. MML is used
for homework, unproctored quizzes, proctored tests, including practice tests and personalized
assignments. Some instructors also assign custom exercises to address the individual needs of
their students. View an example, help me solve this, and other learning aids are used throughout
the homework assignments. The gradebook and export data features are used to constantly
monitor student progress and design intervention strategies.
Observations:



Although the coordinator oversaw all the technical issues and global policies it was
useful to have course specific liaisons for the courses that had multiple instructors.
Courses need to be finalized by July 1 to allow teachers time to review material and plan
for effective instruction.
Although it made it easier to run repeat sections through the same coordinator course, the
different assignments that were needed added work to both the regular and repeat
instructors. Need to have repeat sections run through another coordinator course. This
will also help facilitate data collection from MML.
Assessment Plan
We will compare historical data from previous years to data gathered at the end of the 2011-2012
school year or longitudinal data from the same student gathered before and after enrollment in a
MyMathLab integrated classroom. The goal is to find out if student learning outcomes improved
because students were enrolled in a course with a teacher who participated in the LSU College
Readiness Program using MyMathLab and who followed the program guidelines.
Course
Leap21
Algebra I
Geometry
Financial Math
Math Essentials
Algebra II
Advanced Math
AP Calculus
Primary
Measure
Pre/Post Test
EOC
EOC
Pre/Post Test
Pre/Post Test
Pre/Post Test
Pre/Post Test
Pre/Post Test
Secondary
Measure
Supporting
Data
Benchmark Tests
Benchmark Tests
Pre/Post Test
Pre/Post Test
Plan/MACT
Plan/MACT
Plan/MACT
DE Credit
AP score of 4,5
Other Data
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Course Grades
Observations:


Pre/Post test data unavailable since codes came in late and administration waived the pretest.
Current EOC/GEE scores have not been posted to the LADOE website.
 AP scores have not been released as of date.
Results and Data
EOC (Alg I)
100
90
Percentage %
80
70
60
2007 - 2008
50
2008 - 2009
40
2009 - 2010
30
20
2010 - 2011
10
2011 - 2012
0
Excellent
Good
Fair
Needs
Improvement
Score
EOC (Alg I)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Needs Improvement
TOTAL
PASSING
PROFICIENT
2007 - 2008
3
1%
51
21%
82
33%
112
45%
248
55%
22%
2008 - 2009
3
1%
46
19%
78
32%
117
48%
244
52%
20%
2009 - 2010
6
2%
32
11%
73
25%
179
62%
290
38%
13%
2010 - 2011
15
7%
67
30%
86
39%
54
24%
222
76%
37%
2011 - 2012
Notes:



Passing is considered Fair or better and Proficient is considered Good or better.
Traditional model used from 2007 – 2010.
MML model used from 2010 – present.
EOC (Geom)
100
90
Percentage %
80
70
60
50
2009 - 2010
40
2010 - 2011
30
2011 - 2012
20
10
0
Excellent
Good
Fair
Needs
Improvement
Score
EOC (Geom)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Needs Improvement
TOTAL
PASSING
PROFICIENT
2007 - 2008
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
2008 - 2009
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
-%
2009 - 2010
1
0%
24
9%
80
30%
163
61%
268
39%
9%
2010 - 2011
11
5%
19
8%
99
42%
109
46%
238
55%
13%
2011 - 2012
Notes:



Passing is considered Fair or better and Proficient is considered Good or better.
Traditional model used from 2007 – 2010.
MML model used from 2010 – present.
Percentage %
GEE
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
Score
GEE
Advanced
Mastery
Basic
Approaching Basic
Unsatisfactorily
PASSING
PROFICIENT
2007 - 2008
6%
8%
36%
21%
29%
71%
50%
2008 - 2009
4%
5%
50%
24%
17%
83%
59%
2009 - 2010
6%
10%
50%
18%
17%
83%
66%
2010 - 2011
5%
6%
47%
22%
21%
79%
58%
Notes:




Passing is considered Approaching Basic or better and Proficient is considered Basic or
better.
Traditional model used from 2007 – 2010.
MML model used from 2010 – present.
Testing is started moving from GEE to EOC in 2010 – 2011 SY
Average ACT Scores
35
Score
30
25
Math ACT
Composite
20
15
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Graduating Class
Average ACT by Level of Preparation
35
Score
30
25
Core or more
Less than core
20
15
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Graduating Class
Notes:

ACT has not been a required test and a very small number of students take the ACT.
Many wait until their senior year. Starting next school year, all Juniors will be required
to take the ACT.
Pecentage of DE who received credit
Dual Enrollment Credit
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
College Algebra
College Trigonometry
2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012
School Year
Notes:

In Spring of 2012, grading policy went from Pass (>70%)/Fail (<70%) to A,B,C,D,F,W.
So students could receive credit with a 60% or higher.
% of Total AP Students with Scores 3+
AP Scores
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AP Calculus AB
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Testing year (May ####)
Notes:

Scores dropped with a change in student population and an aggressive AP policy that all
AP students test.
Notes:

Survey questions from our 5:5 students about their experience with MML.