*Math- Majority of students did not make the math target. Most students just made their target (*)

Wondering: 

With readjusted norms, does the growth projection also readjust?

What is the National Growth Percentile Rank? and how does this play a role with their actual percentile?

Many of our higher-performing students who barely made math target growth, we are wondering what contributed to their overall performance

* Many students that did not meet reading target are not in Academic Studies

Math:based on our observations so far-no surprises

Academic Support: like to move some students into/out of the program

-discrepancy in National/Local percentiles

Data suggests: certain students are good test-takers; certain students perform well on MAP and in the classroom

- Nationally students appear higher than they are locally

- Most of the lowest scoring (red) students are instructional students

- Students struggle more with reading literature than informational text/vocabulary

- Wide range of students 1% and 99% in same class

Math

- Stats and Probability is lowest area

- Math 7 and Algebra 7 not a clear cut off score between two levels

Interpreting Data

- We focused curriculum on informational text which has improved but fiction reading has now become lower

- Locally student achievement is very competative

- Most of the students with IEP's met their goal

-Some students in Academic Support were very high in terms of growth.

- A lot of our higher-performing students who barely made it, we are not sure if it was due to the complications/ tech issues we had that day

- More of our students our in the green in the National percentile but not in the Local percentile.

-For certain assignments, we plan on leveling the students.

- In Math, we would like to group students by MAP scores, so they are working with students that perform at the same level.

*Lowest scoring students are SPED. *Lowest scoring students are all minorities.

Math- 

*Low MAP scores students are recognizable in class to Mr. Taylor. *Lowest scores have a correlation to class behavior.

The data suggests that some form of formalized math remediation could be effective.

About 40% of our students scored high on vocabulary acquisition and reading literature.

One assumption we made is that students are lacking in and therefore need to be taught specific study skills/soft skills.

* Reading Observations:

- There is data to show that a significant amount of students scored high on "informational text."

- For students whose RIT is under 210, literature is a challenge.

-For the students who scored 215 or lower on reading, they had significant drops in their scores. A potential reason might be lack of reading over summer.

- In the reading, kids under 200

* Math Observations:

- Kids that scored below 215 on Math were consistently low in all of the mathematics strands.

- There does not seem to be a significant difference between Algebra 8 and AA8 Students' scores. A potential question arising from this is how we make the determination of who is going where.

Implications

1) The test data seems to indicate that scaffolding and differentiation is critical to student success.