Wethersfield Public Schools
Presentation to the Board of
Education on 2012-2013
Standardized Assessment
Results
Michael Emmett, Superintendent
Timothy Howes, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Finance
Sally Dastoli, Director of Curriculum & Instruction
Keith Rafaniello, Director of Technology
Emily Daigle, Director of Special Education
Darla Miner, Instructional Supervisor for Literacy
September 24, 2013
1
Overview of Presentation
Overview
 Binder Organization

◦ Types of Reports
◦ How to Read Reports

Data Highlights
◦
◦
◦
◦
Strengths
Focus Areas
What has contributed to our success?
Action Plan 2013-15
2
CMT State-Wide Results

Student performance data on the CMT
show decreases in all grades and content
areas as compared to last year.
3
2012-13 CMT State Performance
Grade
Year
3
3
Change
4
4
Change
5
5
Change
6
6
Change
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
Math
Percent
At/Above
Goal
66.8
61.6
-5.2
68.2
65.4
-2.8
71.8
69.4
-2.4
69.5
67.2
-2.3
Reading
Percent
At/Above
Goal
59.2
56.9
-2.3
64.1
62.7
-1.4
67.7
66.9
-0.8
74.2
73.3
-0.9
Writing
Percent
At/Above
Goal
62.7
60.0
-2.7
65.3
63.1
-2.2
68.1
65.6
-2.5
67.5
65.2
-2.3
Science
Percent
At/Above
Goal
64.1
62.5
-1.6
4
2012-13 CMT State Performance
Grade
Year
Math
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Reading
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Writing
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Science
Percent
At/Above
Goal
7
7
Change
8
8
Change
2012
2013
68.3
65.7
-2.6
67.4
65.2
-2.2
79.9
78.9
-1.0
76.8
76.3
-0.5
65.6
65.0
-0.6
68.4
67.3
-1.1
62.1
60.6
-1.5
2012
2013
*Excerpt from 2013 CAPT Results Show Increases and CMT Results Show
Decreases
5
CAPT State-Wide Results

The state-wide results of the 2013 CAPT
were generally positive. Performance
increased slightly in mathematics, science
and reading, but decreased slightly in
writing.
6
2011-2013 CAPT State Performance
Year
Math
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Science
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Reading
Percent
At/Above
Goal
Writing
Percent
At/Above
Goal
2011
49.6
47.2
44.8
61.3
2012
49.3
47.3
47.5
63.1
2013
52.6
49.0
48.5
62.1
Change
+3.3 %
+1.7 %
+1 %
-1 %
*Excerpt from 2013 CAPT Results Show Increases and CMT Results Show Decreases
7
CSDE School Performance Index
CSDE has not released SPI (School
Performance Index).
 Expected to release scores late
October/November.
 CSDE recalculating the 3 year baseline SPI
based on audit.

8
SMARTER Balanced Assessment
(SBAC)
Highly likely that Wethersfield will only
administer Science CMT/CAPT (grades 5,
8, & 10) and SBAC (grades 3-8 and 11)
this spring.
 District has already shifted instructional
focus away from CMT/CAPT towards the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
and SMARTER Balanced (SBAC)
Assessment to prepare for this new
national assessment.

9
45 States Adopted CCSS
(as of December 2011)
SBAC Member States
11
CMT & CAPT
Scoring and Performance Levels
Five levels
 Level 5- Advanced
 Level 4- Goal (State Goal)
 Level 3- Proficient
 Level 2- Basic
 Level 1- Below Basic
% Students at Goal
or above
Our goal is to significantly decrease the % of students
at basic and below basic
And significantly increase the % of students at or
above goal
12
Binder Walk

Overview
◦ Executive Summary
◦ CSDE Press Release regarding CMT and
CAPT
◦ ESEA Waiver Amendment
◦ DRG Rankings
13
Binder Walk

High School Standardized Scores
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
CAPT
AP (Advanced Placement)
ACT
SAT
ECE (Early College Experience)
14
Binder Walk - Grade 4

4-1 and 4-2
◦ Overall Summary State vs. Wethersfield
◦ Graph – percent by level
◦ Number of students taking standard CMT,
Skills Checklist, MAS, ELL exempt

4-3
◦ Comparison of State vs. Wethersfield over 4
years
◦ % at/above goal and % at/above proficiency
15
Binder Walk – Continued

4-4
◦ Results by Content Strand
◦ State vs. Wethersfield vs. School

4-18
◦ Table with school data from 2011-13

4-19
◦
◦
◦
◦
Performance Level Report (Line Graph)
% at/above Goal
State vs. Wethersfield vs. School
Math, Reading, & Writing
16
Binder Walk - Continued

4-40
◦ Vertical Scales – Bar Graph
◦ Math & Reading

4-42
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Sub-Group Graphs & Charts
State vs. Wethersfield
Male vs. Female
Special Education
Free/Reduced Meals
ELL
17
Binder Walk

Vertical Scales
◦ Math
◦ Reading

District Assessments
◦ District Assessment Calendar 2012-13
◦ Benchmarks for Math and Language Arts
2012-13
◦ Grades K-9
18
WHS CAPT
Strengths
Increase in writing at/above goal (2.8%)
Increase in math at/above goal (2.7%)
Statistically same range in reading
Historically we see trends that girls outperform
boys in reading and writing. Whereas, the males
are continuing to outperform the females in math
and science. However, with this traditional
gender gap we are starting to see a closer
grouping of the data in writing.
 Overall, increase in ACT and SAT scores
 Have decreased number of AP exams, but this is
due to the increased number of students taking
ECE in place of the AP exam.




19
WHS CAPT
Focus Areas
Science declined in % at goal (6.3%), but
consistent at/above % proficiency
 Sub-groups (ELL, Free/Reduced, Special
Education) continue to underperform
their peers. However, you will see in the
subgroup graphs that there have been
some improvements. These subgroups
are also generally outperforming the state
subgroup average.

20
WHS CAPT
What has contributed to our success?






Game Film (Zmuda Cohort) has grown from 12
teachers to the entire school in 2013-14.
Revised Algebra curriculum to align with CCSS
Algebra 1 support class and new math sequence
including Algebra for all students in grades 8 or 9
Increase in AP and ECE enrollment
Addition of a K-12 Instructional Supervisor for
Literacy
Start focus on CCSS in English, Social Studies and
Math
21
WHS
Action Plan 2013-15
Add Academic Leaders & K-12 Instructional Supervisors
for Math and Science
 Continue CCSS work in Math, English, and Social Studies

◦ Implement CCSS Geometry and Integrated Math







Introduce CCSS to all teachers for integration of skills
Data Teams to analyze student learning and improve
instructional strategies
Game Film (Zmuda Cohort) will involve the entire high
school 2013-14
Continue to grow ECE/AP enrollment
Focus on sub-groups such as ELL, Special Education,
Free/Reduced, etc.
Implement Advisor/Advisee
Continue curriculum writing
22
DRG Comparison 2013 CAPT
DRG Ranking using % at or above Goal
WHS
Math
Reading
Writing
Science
2013
21
20
17
23
2012
20
19
19
16
2011
9
9
4
7
2010
18
13
13
10
2009
13
8
16
11
24 Towns in DRG D (including Wethersfield)
23
24 Towns in DRG D (District
Reference Groups)












Berlin
Bethel
Branford
Clinton
Colchester
Cromwell
East Granby
East Hampton
East Lyme
Ledyard
Milford
Newington












New Milford
North Haven
Old Saybrook
Rocky Hill
Shelton
Southington
Stonington
Wallingford
Waterford
Watertown
Wethersfield
Windsor
24
CMT
GRADES 3-8
25
DRG Comparison 2013
DRG Ranking using % at or above Goal
Math
Reading
Writing
Science
Grade 3
15 (21)
18 (24)
23 (22)
Not Tested
Grade 4
7 (19)
14 (23)
21 (22)
Not Tested
Grade 5
22 (14)
22 (12)
22 (12)
21 (14)
Grade 6
17 (10)
10 (16)
16 (22)
Not Tested
Grade 7
8 (9)
18 (15)
23 (18)
Not Tested
Grade 8
10 (14)
18 (15)
21 (20)
23 (21)
24 Towns in DRG D (including Wethersfield)
Scores in ( ) are prior year DRG ranking
• Red was lower DRG rank in 2012
• Blue was higher DRG rank 2012
26
Grade 3
Strengths






Moved from 21st to 15th in the DRG in Math
Moved from 24th to 18th in the DRG in Reading
Increases in writing at/above goal: Hanmer (2.3%)
and Webb (5.6%)
Significant increases in reading at/above goal
Charles Wright (11.8%), Hanmer (2%), and Webb
(7.9%) showed Hanmer (11.8%) and Charles
Wright (1.2%) showed increases math at/above
goal
Was above the state average for reading and math
at/above goal
27
Grade 3
Action Plan






Writing moved from the 22nd to 23rd in the DRG
Wethersfield performed below state average in
writing
Significant drops in writing at/above goal:
Emerson-Williams (25.9%), Charles Wright (23.8%)
and Highcrest (5.2%)
Decreased in reading at/above goal: Highcrest (3.3%)
and Emerson-Williams (4%)
Decreased in math at/above goal: Emerson-Williams
(8.5%), Webb (15.4%) and Highcrest (5.6%)
Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL,
free/reduced, special education and students who are
scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT
28
Grade 4
Strengths
Moved from 19th to 7th in the DRG in Math
Moved from 23rd to 14th in the DRG in Reading
Moved from 22nd to 21st in the DRG in Writing
Above state average for all areas
Increases in math at/above goal: Emerson-Williams
(19.5%), Hanmer (10.5%), Charles Wright (11.5%), and
Webb (9.8%)
 Increases in reading at/above goal: Emerson-Williams
(11.7%), Hanmer (20.3%), Charles Wright
(maintained), Highcrest (6.6%), Webb (17.2%)
 Increases in writing at/above goal: Charles Wright
(1.4%)





29
Grade 4
Action Plan
Decreases in writing at/above goal:
Emerson-Williams (3.6%), Hanmer
(10.8%), Highcrest (4%), Webb (2.5%)
 Decrease in math at/above goal: Highcrest
(6.8%)
 Sub-groups such as ELL, free/reduced,
special education continue to
underperform

30
Grade 5
Strengths
Above the state average for math and
reading (at/above goal)
 Increased in writing at/above goal:
Hanmer (4%)

31
Grade 5
Action Plan

Dropped in DRG
◦
◦
◦
◦
Math from 14th to 22nd
Reading from 12th to 22nd
Writing from 12th to 22nd
Science from 14th to 21st
Wethersfield is below the state average for writing and
science (at/above goal)
 Decreased in math at/above goal: Hanmer (8.9%), Charles
Wright (18.7%), Highcrest (5.1%), and Webb (16.6%)
 Decreased in reading at/above goal: Emerson-Williams
(2.2%), Hanmer (1.2%), Charles Wright (27.6%), Highcrest
(11.5%), Webb (8.2%)
 Decreased in writing at/above goal: Emerson-Williams
(20.5%), Charles Wright (18%), Highcrest (8.9%), Webb
(30.4%)

32
Grade 6
Strengths

Improved in DRG ranking
◦ Reading from 16th to 10th
◦ Writing from 22nd to 16th
Above the state average for math, reading and
writing (at/above goal)
 Increased in math: Hanmer (13.7%)
 Increased in reading at/above goal: Charles Wright
(11.3%), (Emerson-Williams, Webb, and Highcrest
maintained their scores)
 Increased in writing at/above goal: Hanmer (3.6%),
Charles Wright (20.7%) (Highcrest statistically
maintained their scores)

33
Grade 6
Action Plan

Dropped in DRG
◦ Math from 10th to 17th
Decreased in math at/above goal:
Emerson-Williams (7.1%), Charles Wright (15.2%),
Highcrest (3.2%), and Webb (3.5%)
 Decreased in reading at/above goal:
Hanmer (3.5%)
 Decreased in writing at/above goal:
Emerson-Williams (7%) and Webb (10.8%)
 Continue to focus on sub-groups such as ELL,
free/reduced, special education and students who
are scoring in level 1 and 2 on the CMT

34
Grade 7
Strengths

Improved in DRG ranking
◦ Math from 9th to 8th
Above the state average for math and
reading (at/above goal)
 Static scores in math

35
Grade 7
Action Plan

Dropped in DRG
◦ Reading from 15th to 18th
◦ Writing from 18th to 23rd
Slightly below state goal for writing
 Decreased in reading (4.1%) at/above goal
 Decreased in writing (7.2%) at/above goal
 Continue to focus on sub-groups such as
ELL, free/reduced, special education and
students who are scoring in level 1 and 2 on
the CMT

36
Grade 8
Strengths

Improved in DRG ranking
◦ Math from 9th to 8th
Above the state average for math, reading
& writing (at/above goal)
 Maintained in math

37
Grade 8
Action Plan

Dropped in DRG
◦ Reading from 15th to 18th
◦ Writing from 20th to 21st
Decreased in reading (2.5%) at/above goal
 Decreased in writing (9.1%) at/above goal
 Continue to focus on sub-groups such as
ELL, free/reduced, special education and
students who are scoring in level 1 and 2
on the CMT

38
What has contributed to our success?
Starting 3rd year of Reader’s Workshop
 New math curriculum implemented 2012-13 (K-4,
and Algebra 1)
 New SRBI process and guidelines

◦ Math Universal Screens
Commitment to Columbia’s Workshop model
(including purchasing of leveled readers,
professional development, coaching, curriculum,
assessments, teacher resources, etc.)
 Implemented a minimum of 130 minutes for a
daily literacy block
 Increased volume of “just right books”

39
What has contributed to our success?






Implementation of full day Kindergarten
ELL program improvements
Introduction of Data Teams
Administrative Walk-Throughs – with a
district focus on improving instruction and
implementation of curriculum expectations
Implementation of standards-based
elementary progress reports
Addition of a K-12 Instructional Supervisor
for Literacy
40
K-12 Curriculum Revisions
Robotics, K-6 Art, 7-8 Science, 7-8 Technology
Education, Accounting, French 7-8, Italian 7-8, Spanish
7-8, French I, III & IV, Spanish III & IV, Italian I, II & III, K8 LA, Algebra 1, Introduction to Computer Science, K4 Math, 7-8 Math, Civics, US History, K-6 Health, 6-12
Developmental Guidance, Art Discovery, Art I
Foundations, Art Design, Art II, Art III, Advanced
Placement (AP) Art, World History, Child Care Skills,
Child Development, Foods I, Foods II, Culinary Arts, K-6
PE, K-6 General Music, English 10, ECE/AP Language and
Composition, Chemistry in the Community, Integrated
Science and Biology, International Studies, ECE
English/AP Language and Literature, 5-6 Math, 7-8 Social
Studies, Integrated Math, Geometry, Humanities, English
9 Honors, World History
41
New Courses at WHS

New Courses at WHS
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Italian V
Introduction to Computer Science
Integrated Algebra 1 & Geometry
Integrated Algebra 2 & Geometry
Computer Integrated Applications: Word Processing
and Publishing
◦ Computer Integrated Applications: Excel and
Multimedia Development
◦ E-Commerce and Website Development
◦ ECE US History
42
Focus Areas 2013-15

Focus on Writer’s Workshop coaching and
professional development
◦ For example, 50 teachers and administrators
attended a 5 day summer institute in July 2013
focused on improving writing K-6. Teachers will
be implementing new instructional strategies for
Writer’s Workshop
◦ Implementation of new Units of Study for Writing
◦ Curriculum Specialists coaching institute
◦ Calendar days (workshops on new reading and
writing units)
43
Focus Areas 2013-15

Professional development on:
◦ Using new writing rubrics K-8
◦ Small group instruction K-6
◦ Conferring

Training on Sitton Spelling (May 2012) to
address areas of word work, spelling,
grammar, proofreading, editing, revising,
and vocabulary.
44
Focus Areas 2013-15




Implement revised 7-8 Social Studies
curriculum, aligned to CCSS
Implement new district writing assessments
Columbia Teacher’s College Project School
– Staff developers will work with staff and
students to improve Reader’s and Writer’s
workshop (Hanmer and SDMS)
Columbia’s Teacher College Senior Staff will
do three (3) workshops for administrators
and teacher leaders
45
Focus Areas 2013-15


Refine new math curriculum and assessments
aligned to CCSS (K-4, Algebra 1)
Implement new math curriculum aligned to
CCSS (Grades 5-8, Geometry)
◦ Professional development
◦ Common assessments
New Integrated Math course at WHS
 Convene a math committee to review
potential new math programs aligned to
CCSS for purchase for grades K-6

46
Focus Areas 2013-15

SRBI interventions for math and reading
◦ Increase tutor support
◦ Increase high quality resources aligned to CCSS
◦ Work collaboratively with special education
department



Improve performance of sub-groups
Improve Data Team structures to analyze student
learning and improve instructional strategies
Prepare for the SMARTER Balanced assessment
◦ Keyboarding skills
◦ Hardware
◦ Increased curriculum rigor
47
Focus Areas 2013-15
Add K-12 Instructional Supervisor for
Math
 Add K-12 Instructional Supervisor for
Science
 Implement Teacher and Administrator
Evaluation plan with fidelity
 Update District Improvement Plan

48
CCSS
Goals &
Standards
Data-Driven
Decision
Making
Reader’s/
Writer’s
Workshop
&
Curriculum
Professional
Development
Monitoring
Update District Improvement Plan
School Improvement Plans
Grade level and school level analysis of
District assessments
 Grade level meetings with principal, reading
consultants and curriculum specialists
 Data Team analysis
 Coaching
 Feedback from Stakeholders
 Administrative Team meetings and
Walk-Throughs



50