As the principal at your (elementary, middle, or high) school, explore, analyze, and describe the school setting and the types of assessment data available for your analysis, and write a narrative describing the specific assessment data analysis in which you will engage.
Data analysis, technology, curriculum, and instruction. (NELP 4.1, 4.4) In part 1, as the principal at your (elementary, middle, or high) school, explore, analyze, and describe the school setting and the types of assessment data available for your analysis, and write a narrative describing the specific assessment data analysis in which you will engage. To demonstrate your ability to use technology to monitor, analyze, and evaluate curriculum, instruction and use of technology (NELP 4.4), you will access performance management system data and use an appropriate technology tool (e.g. Excel, SPSS), to analyze summative assessment data related to your schools’ curriculum, including students’ learning scores for standardized or diagnostic tests, and any other appropriate data available. Look for patterns and areas of concern linked to specific standards. Identify any indicators for which the data indicate students’ learning gaps. Based on the data you analyze, write SMART goals to address the concern. Include an analysis and description of the school setting and the types of data available for your analysis, the link/s to the tools used to analyze data, and a table with the data. Also, display the data in a graphical representation. Gather the standards-the State instructional expectations-related to the data (NELP 7.4). Write a narrative that names and explains the standards that are areas of concern. After completing these steps, read the School Improvement Plan or other improvement plans. Analyze the problems addressed by the plan. Do they address the issue you identified as an area of concern? Explain (NELP 4.1).
Next, you will demonstrate your ability to engage faculty in synthesizing and using data to evaluate the school’s curriculum (NELP 4.4). Describe the collaboration and communication strategies and technology tools you will use to share the information you analyzed with the teachers who teach the classes related to the identified areas of concern and how you will share the data to engage faculty in the process of synthesizing the data and using it to improve the curriculum. Explain and support the strategies you will use to engage your faculty in analyzing and synthesizing the data and relating it to the corresponding standards. Explain how you will engage faculty in analyzing the knowledge, reasoning, skills, product, and disposition targets that are included in the standards identified as areas of concern. Use the table below to display these components of the curriculum.
Standard:
Types of learning targets
LTs included in the standard
Knowledge Target (what students will know. For example, facts, a definition, a concept, a rule.)
Reasoning Target (synthesis, analysis, classification, comparison, inference, deduce/ induce, evaluation)
Performance Skill Target (real time demonstration or physical performance, such as a read aloud, dribble the ball, converse in a second language)
Product Target (create a product) See textbook, pages 56 to 58.
Disposition (attitudes, interests, motivation, send of academic self-confidence.) See textbook, pages 58-59.
Requirements: open
Week Three: Data Analysis & Curriculum Design _ Part 1
By
Student A
EDL 702 or 506
Standards Based Curriculum and Assessment
University
November 1, 2018
School
Orange Blossom High School is a public school and provides service to high school students Grade 9 through Grade 12. There are 2,489 students enrolled. The school is classified as a Title 1 campus. Graduation rate is at 82%. The student population contains 81% marked as economically disadvantaged. The ethnic student population is 96% non-White. Course selection includes core content, electives, credit recovery, virtual school, industry certification, dual enrollment, Advance Placement (AP), Cambridge Advanced International Certificate of Education (AICE) and Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID).The teacher-student ratio averages 1:30 per classroom (School District of the County, 2017).
This paper shows Cambridge’s score results in our school and contextualizes them in regards with scores across the world, including the United States. Of the one million global student participants, the pass rate was 54%.The tool used to analyze data was excel and data extracted from At the school level, there were 120 student participants, of which the pass rate reflected 45%. This paper analyses summative assessment. The areas of concern centered on Standard C1: Evaluate events surrounding the creation of League of Nations and its successes/failures. As see below in Table 1, results show Orange Blossom HS performed below average (-17%) compared to global results.
Table 1
Global Results of 2017 AICE History Exam
Rationale
As the principal, I wanted to identify the areas of concern, create reasonable solutions with teachers, track next year’s progress, and reflect on the success and failure. To begin the process of identifying the exact areas of concern within such a broad standard as C1: Evaluate events surrounding the creation of League of Nations and its successes/failures, the standard was deconstructed into five learning targets “ranging from simple to complex” (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2017). As seen below in Table 2, the learning targets were analyzed.
Table 2
Data related to the Standard
Student results were categorized by the five learning targets. I was able to determine the un-mastered goals based on responses with fewer than 50% answered correctly, which were analyzing League of Nations (LON) successes and failures and evaluating the end of the LON.
Figure A
Learning Target Mastery Percentages
Indicators and evidence of student learning gaps were evident in the students’ ability to analyze the successes and failures because response patterns showed sporadic guessing, irrelevant emphasis on unimportant or insignificant events, and lack of use of deduction skills to eliminate wrong answer choices.
In addition, indicators of learning gaps in students’ ability to evaluate the end of the LON was evident in response patterns that showed students did not carefully read the questions asking for evaluation, instead students provided summaries and explanations. This may reflect deficiencies in the teaching of evaluation, a reasoning target in which teachers not always spend time.
The curriculum will be reviewed to identify where process improvements can be incorporated into instructional lesson plans based on the identified areas of concern. Instruction s will be redirected and new assessments to evaluate students’ mastery of these sections of the standard will be implemented.
The SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented /relevant, time bound) goal to address these issues is:
At the end of the school year, 60 % of the students will be able to evaluate events surrounding the creation of League of Nations and its successes/failures, as measured by the end of course exam.
School Improvement Plan
An analysis of the School Improvement Plan (See attachment) shows that this area for improvement has not been included in the goals or activities of the SIP. The data collected in this assignment will be presented in the next meeting of the SIP committee.
Communication
Once the area of concern is identified, it is crucial to effectively communicate the
information with History teachers. It is important to communicate effectively while
working with teachers to determine what the next steps should be for student understanding. Working collaboratively with the teachers to decide the next steps is important in having teacher
engagement and ownership of the teaching in their classrooms. It is important to remember “we
unquestionably need the help of others if we are to flourish as leaders of people” (Mazurowski,
p. 30, 2013)
The first step to communicating the data, is scheduling a time to meet with the teachers. The school has pre-determined department meetings monthly. In this meeting, the data would be shared with all history teachers using visuals to note trends, concerns, and celebrate successes. After the initial department meeting to share data, an additional meeting will be scheduled during a common plan period. All history teachers have the same planning period to assist with common planning. I would provide a calendar invitation, along with an agenda for the meeting to teachers.
Since teachers have had an opportunity to see the initial data, this meeting would focus on a more in depth unpacking of the targeted standards. At the start of the meeting, we would begin by discussing the positives in the teachers’ classrooms. Focusing on the standards the students have been successful on will embolden the teachers. Beginning with the positives, also opens the conversation for what might have been done differently in instruction between the standards. After discussing the positives, the team will move into unpacking of the targeted standards that show room for improvement. Through the discussion, it is important to remember “when students have continued learning needs after instruction, it is not necessarily an indication that something went wrong” (Chappius & Stiggins, p. 24, 2017).
I will engage the teachers by creating a Socrative game that teachers will play on their phones and the results of which they will see on the smart board. The game will show the standard and ask teachers to first separate different targets included in the standard. The rest of the questions will show each target and ask teachers to identify what type of learning target it is. To promote exchange of ideas and learning, the game will allow teachers to discuss their answers before clicking “submit.” At the end, teachers will use the smartboard to complete the right column of the table below, using the answers they submitted for the game. Once complete, the table should look like the table below, to show teacher’s ability to complete the first step in unpacking a learning standard:
Standard: Bla,xyz
Code: X.6 H1
References
Chappuis, J. & Stiggins,R. J. (2017). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning. New York, NY: Pearson.
School District of the County. (2017). School improvement plan. “Name withheld to protect anonymity”.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
