WT Sampson Unit School SY 2015--2016 · 2016-03-01 · page 1 of 27 department of defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools south carolina/fort stewart/dodds-cuba

Page 1 of 27

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOMESTIC DEPENDENT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SOUTH CAROLINA/FORT STEWART/DoDDS-CUBA DISTRICT

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE

Telephone (912) 369-6691 Fax (912) 876-8417

WT Sampson Unit School

SY 2015--2016

School Profile and Status Report

USING RESULTS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

CSI Goal Assessments

Annual Student Performance Report

Mr. Brian Perry, Principal

PSC 1005 Box 49

FPO AE 09593

http://www.am.dodea.edu/cubaweb/

http://www.am.dodea.edu/cubaweb/


Continuous School Improvement Annual Student Performance Report

WT Sampson Elementary/Middle/High School

SY 2014-2015

W.T. Sampson Page 2 of 27

U.S. Naval Base Guantánamo Bay History and Mission

In February 1903, the United States leased 45 square miles of land and water at Guantánamo Bay for use as a

coaling (fueling) station. The treaty between the United States and Cuba was finalized and the

document ratified by both governments and signed in Havana in December 1903.

A 1934 treaty, reaffirming the lease, granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay,

modified the lease payment from $2,000 in gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 U.S.

Treasury dollars, and added stipulation that termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and

Cuban governments, or the U.S. abandonment of the base property.

U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay (GTMO) serves as the cornerstone of U.S. military operations in the

Caribbean theater, providing logistics support to both U.S Navy and Coast Guard vessels and aircraft. The

station has a unique posture in the western Hemisphere in that it is the oldest U. S. naval station outside the

continental U. S. Due to the current political climate between the United States and Cuba, GTMO is a closed,

insulated community with no access to Cuba proper. All personnel assigned to GTMO reside on the base.

The military mission of U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay is to maintain the following: US treaty obligations,

a naval base for refueling ships, the fence line surrounding the base and the international shipping channel

through Guantánamo Bay, and a forward presence near the Windward Passage to the Caribbean. The military

also provides contingency logistics and logistic support through maintaining port facilities, naval airfield and

staging areas on the base in support of US contingency operations in the Caribbean. The base provides logistic

support to ships and aircraft conducting counter-drug operations in the Caribbean as well as logistic support to

Joint Task Force (JTF) Operations in the Caribbean. Additionally, the base supports migrant operations by

conducting steady state operations to accommodate up to 40 migrants (100 with augmentation) at the base and

Migrant Ops for up to 400 migrants and to support migrant surge for up to 10,000 migrants.

The JTF is a military tenant command of the naval base whose mission is to conduct safe, humane, legal and

transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered

released. They conduct intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination for the protection of detainees and

personnel working in JTF Guantánamo facilities, and in support of the Global War on Terror. They provide

support to the Office of Military Commissions and support law enforcement and war crimes investigations.

W.T. Sampson Unit School History

Our school at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba opened in 1931, making this the oldest operating overseas

Department of Defense Dependents School in the world. In 1931, there was just one staff member, five

students, and a single classroom located in an office of the base chapel. By the next year, the school had a

growing enrollment of over 30 students. The newly arrived faculty of five teachers taught grammar school in

the morning and high school in the afternoon. The high school moved into a new building on Chapel Hill in

1941 and remained there until August 1985, when construction of the present facilities were complete.

In 1956, the elementary and high schools of Guantánamo Bay were named in honor of Rear Admiral William

Thomas Sampson, commander of the North Atlantic Squadron during the Spanish American War. Originally

managed by the U.S. Navy, in 1976 W.T. Sampson School led the way as all other overseas DoD schools were

re-organized into a new, worldwide DoD educational system, the Department of Defense Dependents Schools

system, DoDDS.




SY 2014-2015


From its origins in 1931 until now, the school has been temporarily evacuated three times: for World War II

from December 1941 to October 1945, from October to December of 1962 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and

most recently from September 1994 through January 1996 during the Cuban and Haitian refugee influx.

W. T. Sampson is a Unit School providing educational opportunities for 234 students from Sure Start through

12th grade. Our students are primarily the children of military and civilian families stationed at Naval Station

Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. W. T. Sampson School has been accredited continuously since our 1931 inception.

Currently, North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA), now part of AdvancED, is the accrediting

agency for our school.

W.T. Sampson Unit School Overview

W. T. Sampson School, home of the Sharks (elementary mascot) and the Pirates (secondary mascot), is proud to

serve the children of all of our uniformed service families and our DoD civilian families. W.T. Sampson is also

proud of its School Advisory Committee, SAC, which is the elected body of parents, school employees, and

students who advise the principal and help the school maintain the highest educational standards possible.

W.T. Sampson strives to consistently increase student achievement through continuous commitment to

improving instructional techniques. The Continuous School Improvement (CSI) Plan, aligned with the DoDEA

Community Strategic Plan, is designed to help students improve their writing skills in all content areas by using

a 6+1 Writing Strategy to clearly and effectively write across the curriculum, as well as to help students

improve their problem-solving and reasoning abilities in all content areas by evaluating arguments, generalizing

solutions, explaining answers and connecting skills to solve real world problems.

Although officially designated as a Unit School, W.T. Sampson is housed on two separate campuses located

about 2 miles apart. The school has an enrollment of 234 students, with 123 in Pre-K through 5th grade at the

elementary campus and 110 in 6th through 12th grade at the secondary campus. Despite our small size, W. T.

Sampson provides all students with the highest quality education and a safe environment. The dedicated and

highly qualified faculty remain focused on the mission, vision and philosophy of our school. The community is

predominantly composed of military and civil service personnel, as well as civilian contractors.

Middle and high school courses are varied and challenging to prepare students for meaningful post-secondary

opportunities. For those students needing or desiring courses not taught on campus, W. T. Sampson provides

access and guidance to online education opportunities for many regular-curricular and college-preparation

courses. Extra-curricular activities, clubs, and after-school sports programs are also offered at both campuses.




SY 2014-2015


MAKING CONNECTIONS:

SUMMARY SHEET: ASSESSMENTS, MEASURES, STRATEGIES

School Goal 1: By 06/11/2015, all students will increase communication skills through the use of the 6+1

Traits of writing with a focus on Organization and Word Choice to write clearly and effectively across the

curriculum as measured by selected system-wide (TerraNova 3 Language Arts Subtest) and local assessments

(Writing Prompts and 6+1 Traits of Writing Rubrics)

Assessments

Assessment 1.1: TerraNova Language Subtest

o Measurable Objective: By 06/11/2015, all students will increase communication skills through the

use of the 6+1 Traits of writing with a focus on Organization and Word Choice to write clearly and

effectively across the curriculum

Assessment 1.2: K-12 Writing Prompts

o Measurable Objective: By 06/11/2015, all students will increase communication skills through the

use of the 6+1 Traits of writing with a focus on Organization and Word Choice to write clearly and

effectively across the curriculum

Strategies

Implemented research-based and best practice strategies:

Strategy 1: 6+1 Traits of Writing with a focus on organization and word choice through 6+1 Traits

writing rubrics

o Research and Writing with the 6+1 Traits by Peter C. Bellamy

o Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Research (NWREL)

Data Analysis Procedures:

Baseline data and all subsequent data are collected at the same time each year of the school improvement cycle.

The length of the cycle is the amount of time it takes to meet the chosen objectives on each assessment in the

goal area. Baseline data are collected prior to the use of the stated activities/interventions/strategies.




SY 2014-2015


GOAL 1: DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Assessment 1.1: TerraNova Language Subtest

Measureable Objective: By the end of the school year, all students will increase communication skills through

the use of the 6+1 Traits of writing with a focus on Organization and Word Choice to write clearly and

effectively across the curriculum.

Table 1: Change in Student Performance

Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years)

Number

of

Students

Statement of Findings

Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

3 -1.7% 2009-2015 19

Grade 3 demonstrated no measurable difference

across seven school years in the percent of

students scoring in the Top Two Quarters. From

SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level no measurable

difference (-5.8%) in the percent of students

scoring in the Top Two Quarters.

No, grade level

did not meet goal

of 80% in the

Top Two

Quarters.

4 +10.7% 2009-2015 20




SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level displayed a

moderate decrease (-15.7%) in the percent of

students scoring in the Top Two Quarters.

No, grade level

did not meet goal

of 80% in the

Top Two

Quarters.

5 +22.5% 2009-2015 20

Grade 5 demonstrated a fairly large increase across

seven school years in the percent of students

scoring in the Top Two Quarters. From SY 2014

– 2015, this grade level displayed no change

(0.00%) in the percent of students scoring in the

Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met goal of 80%

in the Top Two

Quarters.

GRADE

3

GRADE

4

GRADE

5

GRADE

6

GRADE

7

GRADE

8

GRADE

9

GRADE

10

GRADE

11

WTSAMPSONLanguage09 64.7% 59.3% 62.5% 81.5% 87.5% 56.3% 88.2% 85.7% 55.6%





WTSAMPSONLanguage14 68.8% 85.7% 85.0% 92.3% 87.5% 58.3% 100.0%

WTSAMPSONLanguage15 63.0% 70.0% 85.0% 93.0% 93.0% 81.0% 82.0%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Percent of Students Scoring in the Top Two Quarters

on the Language TerraNova, 2009-2015


Grades 3-11

CSP Goal 80%

SY 2015

CSP GOAL 75%

SY 2009 - 2014




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years)

Number

of

Students


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

6 +11.5% 2009-2015 15




SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level no measurable

difference (+.07%) in the percent of students


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80%

in the Top Two

Quarters.

7 +5.5% 2009-2015 14




SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level displayed no

measurable difference (+5.5%) in the percent of


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80%

in the Top Two

Quarters.

8 +24.7% 2009-2015 16

Grade 8 demonstrated a fairly large increase across


scoring in the Top Two Quarters. From SY 2014

– 2015, this grade level displayed a fairly large

increase (+22.7%) in the percent of students


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80%

in the Top Two

Quarters.

9 -6.2% 2009-2015 11

Grade 9 demonstrated no measurable decrease



SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level displayed a

moderate decrease (-18%) in the percent of


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80%

in the Top Two

Quarters.

Assessment 1.2: K-12 Writing Prompts




K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Spring 2013 18% 11% 23% 71% 36% 29% 28% 0% 22% 57% 38% 61%

Spring 2014 27% 50% 47% 29% 26% 48% 23% 0% 0% 28% 44% 43%

Spring 2015 25% 8% 12% 12% 35% 12% 6% 86% 39% 30% 36% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Percent of Students Scoring Proficient on the

Local Writing Assessment for Word Choice




SY 2014-2015


Table 1.2: Change in Student Performance

Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number

of Students Statement of Findings Met School Goal

K +7 2013-2015 20

Grade K has shown no difference (+7) across

the three school years in the percent of students

scoring a 4-6 on the Local Writing Assessment

for Word Choice, which meets our school goal

of all students increasing in proficiency with

their Word Choice while writing across the

curriculum.

Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

1 -3 2013-2015 24

Grade 1 has shown no difference (-3) across the

three school years in the percent of students





curriculum.

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

2 -11 2013-2015 17

Grade 2 has shown a small decrease

(-11%) across three school years in the percent

of students scoring a 4-6 on the Local Writing

Assessment for Word Choice, which meets our

school goal of all students increasing in

proficiency with their Word Choice while

writing across the curriculum.

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

3 -60 2013-2015 17

Grade 3 has shown a very large decrease






writing across the curriculum

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

4 -1 2013-2015 20

Grade 4 has shown no difference (-1) across the

three school years in the percent of students





curriculum.

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

5 -17 2013-2015 17

Grade 5 has shown a moderate decrease







No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

6 -22 2013-2015 16

Grade 6 has shown a fairly large decrease







No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


7 +86 2013-2015 14

Grade 7 has shown a very large increase

(+86%) across three school years in the percent






Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

8 +39 2013-2015 13

Grade 8 has shown a very large increase







Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

9 -27 2013-2015 10

Grade 9 has shown a large decrease







No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

10 -2 2013-2015 14

Grade 10 has shown a no difference







No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

11 -36 2013-2015 8








No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.




SY 2014-2015


Asessment 1.3: K-12 Writing Prompts





Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


K +20 2013-2015 20

Grade K has shown a fairly large increase



Assessment for Organization, which meets our


proficiency with their Organization while


Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

1 +11 2013-2015 24








Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

2 +3 2013-2015 17

Grade 2 has shown no difference (+3) across



for Organization, which meets our school goal


their Organization while writing across the

curriculum.

Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Spring 2013 0% 6% 8% 17% 36% 36% 28% 0% 22% 29% 69% 61%

Spring 2014 0% 22% 18% 36% 26% 57% 31% 13% 8% 43% 44% 43%

Spring 2015 20% 17% 12% 29% 40% 24% 6% 86% 23% 60% 57% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Percent of Students Scoring Proficient on the

Local Writing Assessment for Organization




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


3 +12 2013-2015 17







curriculum.

Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

4 +4 2013-2015 20







curriculum.

Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

5 -12 2013-2015 17

Grade 5 has shown no difference (-12) across






curriculum.

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

6 -22 2013-2015 16

Grade 6 has shown a fairly large decrease

(-22) across the three school years in the

percent of students scoring a 4-6 on the Local

Writing Assessment for Organization, which

meets our school goal of all students increasing

in proficiency with their Organization while


No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

7 +86 2013-2015 14

Grade 7 has shown a very large increase (+86)

across the three school years in the percent of

students scoring a 4-6 on the Local Writing





Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

8 +23 2013-2015 13

Grade 8 has shown a moderate increase (+23)







Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.

9 +31 2013-2015 10

Grade 9 has shown a very large increase (+31)







Yes, did meet the

school goal of a

3% increase.




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


10 -12 2013-2015 14

Grade 10 has shown no difference (-12) across






curriculum.

No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

11 -36 2013-2015 8

Grade 11 has shown a very large decrease

(-36) across the three school years in the

percent of students scoring a 4-6 on the Local

Writing Assessment for Organization, which

meets our school goal of all students increasing

in proficiency with their Organization while


No, we did not

meet the school

goal of a 3%

increase.

OVERALL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – Goal 1

Table 3: Overall Comparative Analysis – Goal 1

Assessments

Grade

K

Grade

1

Grade

2

Grade

3

Grade

4

Grade

5

Grade

6

Grade

7

Grade

8

Grade

9

Grade

10

Grade

11

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

1

4-1

5

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

1

4-1

5

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

09

-15

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

14

-15

SY

09

-15

SY

1

4-1

5

SY

0

9-1

5

SY

1

4-1

5

1.1

TerraNova

Language

Subtest – Top

Two

SY 2008-2009

to SY 2014-

2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ -

* ↑

↑

* ↑

↑

* ↑

↑

* ↑ ↓

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.2

K-12 Writing

Assessment –

Word Choice

↑ ↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓

↓ ↑

↑

*

↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

↓

↓

↓

↓

1.3.

K-12 Writing

Assessment –

Organization

↑

↑

↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑

↑

*

↓

↓

↓

↓ ↑

↑

*

↑ ↑ ↑

↑

*

↓ ↑

↓

↓

Key: ↑ = Improved; ↓ = Declined; *=Met Objective Goal; ↔ = No Change

Overall, students in grades 4-9 at W.T. Sampson showed an increase from 2009-2015 on the TerraNova

Language Subtest. In grades 3 and 4, there was a noted decrease from SY 2013-2014 to SY 2014-2015. In

terms of the K-12 local writing assessment, the student data was inconsistent across grades levels from SY

2013-2014 to 2014-2015. The school will continue a focus in writing and implement the 6+1 Traits of Writing

program across all grade levels. The school will look for additional assessment to measure Language /

Writing. The school will assess current validity of school writing goal and determine the need to rewrite the

goal in the 2015-2016 school year.




SY 2014-2015


NEXT STEPS – GOAL 1

All teachers should be able to discuss the following based on the information from this report. This is not

an exercise for one person or a few people to complete.

Areas of Notable Achievement

(Bullets and/or short answer)

1. Which area(s) are above the expected levels of performance?

On Language Subtest-Grades 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-Grade 7

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- Grade 7

2. Describe the area(s) that show a positive trend in performance.

On Language Subtest-Grades 5, 6, 7, 8,

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-K, 4, 7, 9

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)-K, 4, 7, 9

3. Which area(s) indicate the overall highest performance?

On Language Subtest-Grades 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-Grade 7

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)-Grade 7

4. Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward increasing performance?

The data was not broken out by subgroup other than grade levels at this time. The school will look to

implement a systematic data tracker that will enable us to look at the date for different subgroups.

5. Between which subgroup is the achievement gap closing?

N/A

6. Which of the above reported findings are consistent with findings from other data sources?

These sources are the only ones that were used for current analysis. In the future, the school will look at

other assessments to include SAT, PSAT, etc. to give the school more insight on the writing performance of

High School students.

Areas in Need of Improvement


1. Which area(s) are below the expected levels of performance?

On Language Subtest-Grades 3,4

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-All Grade Levels except 7th

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- All Grade Levels except 7th




SY 2014-2015


2. Describe the area(s) that show a negative trend in performance.

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-1,2,5,6,9,10,11

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- 1,2,3,5,6,10,11

3. Which area(s) indicate the overall lowest performance?

On Language Subtest-Grade 3

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-1,2,3,5,6,

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- 1,2,6

4. Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward decreasing performance?

On Language Subtest-Grade 3

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)-1,2,5,6,9,10,11

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- 1,2,3,5,6,10,11

5. Between which subgroup is the achievement gap becoming greater?

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Word Choice)- 6 and 7

On the K-12 Writing Prompt (Organization)- 6 and 7


These sources are the only ones that were used for the current analysis. In the future, the school will look at

other assessments to include SAT, PSAT, etc. to give the school more insight on the writing performance of


All teachers, staff, students, and other stakeholders-parents should collaboratively answer the

questions/statements below. All stakeholders should use the information from the following

questions/statements in their instructional planning (teachers/staff), completing assignments (students), and

supporting the goals (other stakeholders-parents).

Using the Results

(The information below will need to be more expansive than bullets or short answer.)

1. What inference can be made about the impact of the strategy on student performance based on the data?

Based on the writing data, The 6+1 Traits of writing program has been inconsistent across the grades over

the past three years. The school will need to determine the useful of the 6+1 Writing Trait program to meet

our need in writing.

2. Was the measurable objective met?

The measurable objective for writing was not met across all assessments. All students did not make a 3%

gain in both areas of writing (organization and word choice). Over the past three years only grades K and

7 have made gains in both Organization and Word Choice. Grades 5-9 met the DoDEA performance

measure by having at least 80 percent of students score in the top two quartiles on the TerraNova Language

Subtest.

3. Will the strategy(s) continue? Be modified? Change?-Change

a. If the answer to this question is yes, the strategy(s) will continue state why.




SY 2014-2015


b. If the answer to this question is the strategy(s) will be modified, describe the modifications.

c. If the answer to this question is the strategy(s) will change, detail the new strategy and why this

strategy will better address the needs of the students.

The writing strategy of the 6+1 Traits of Writing should be changed. Our data has been inconsistent over the

past three years. Our students have not made the growth we would like to see. We also believe that we need

more specific writing goals that are geared toward grade level groups. When considering that W.T. Sampson is

a unit school, we must take in to account the different academic needs of our students. We have students

ranging from Sure Start to grade 12 and we must vary our strategies to ensure that each student is able be

successful writers. It is our belief that we must vary our strategies across the grade levels to ensure the best

possible growth within our school.

MAKING CONNECTIONS:

SUMMARY SHEET: ASSESSMENTS, MEASURES, STRATEGIES

School Goal 2: By 06/11/2015, students will improve their problem solving and reasoning abilities in all

content areas by evaluating arguments, generalizing solutions, explaining answers and connecting skills to solve

real world problems, as measured by an increase in percent of students by grade level in the top two quarters

according to the Terra Nova 3rd Edition Mathematics and Science Subtests and percent of students at or above

the standard on selected local assessments (Grades PK-2).

Assessments

Assessment 2.1: TerraNova Math Subtest, Grades 3-9

o Measurable Objective: By 06/11/2015, students will improve their problem solving and reasoning

abilities in all content areas by evaluating arguments, generalizing solutions, explaining answers

and connecting skills to solve real world problems, as measured by an increase in percent of

students by grade level in the top two quarters according to the Terra Nova 3rd Edition

Mathematics Subtests

Assessment 2.2: TerraNova Science Subtest, Grades 3-9





Mathematics Subtests

Assessment 2.3: TerraNova Math Subtest, Grades 3-9, Objective Performance Indicator (OPI) –

Patterns, Functions, & Algebra





Mathematics Objective Performance Indicator (OPI)

Assessment 2.4: TerraNova Math Subtest, Grades 3-9, Objective Performance Indicator (OPI) –

Problem Solving & Reasoning





Mathematics Objective Performance Indicator (OPI)




SY 2014-2015


Strategies

Implemented research-based and best practice strategies: (whole group and targeted sub group)

Strategy 1: Students will use the problem solving rubric to improve problem solving and reasoning skills,

utilizing The Problem Solver strategies.

Problem Solving Strategies:

o Use or make a table,

o Make an Organized List,

o Act Out or Use Objects,

o Use or Look for a Pattern,

o Use or Make a Picture or Diagram,

o Guess and Check,

o Work Backwards,

o Use Logical Reasoning,

o Make it Simpler,

o Brainstorm

Research supporting this strategy/intervention: Introduction to Problem Solving by Joy Bronston-Schackow & Susan O’Connell (2008)

The Problem Solver by Judy Goodnow and Shirley Hoogeboom (2008)

o Both support principles and standards articulated by NCTM (2002).

o The NCTM states, “A major goal of school mathematics programs is to create autonomous

learners. Students learn more and learn better when they can take control of their learning by

defining their goals and monitoring their progress.

o Effective learners recognize the importance of reflecting on their thinking and learning from

their mistakes.”

Data Analysis Procedures:

Baseline data and all subsequent data are collected at the same time each year of the school improvement cycle.

The length of the cycle is the amount of time it takes to meet the chosen objectives on each assessment in the

goal area. Baseline data are collected prior to the use of the stated activities/interventions/strategies.




SY 2014-2015


GOAL 2: DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Assessment 2.1: TerraNova Math Subtest

Measureable Objective: A 3% increase of All Students will demonstrate a proficiency to solve problems,

through developing number sense, communicating the problem, and identifying appropriate strategies to find a

solution in Mathematics.

Table 2:1 Change in Student Performance

Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number

of Students Statement of Findings

Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

3 +13.2% 2009-2015 18

Grade 3 demonstrated a small increase across


scoring in the Top Two Quarters. From SY

2014 – 2015, this grade level no measurable

difference (+3.2%) in the percent of students


No, grade level did

not meet goal of

80% in the Top

Two Quarters.

4 +18% 2009-2015 20

Grade 4 demonstrated a moderate increase



From SY 2014 – 2015, this grade level

demonstrated a large decrease (-27.1%) in the

percent of students scoring in the Top Two

Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet goal of

80% in the Top

Two Quarters.

GRADE

3

GRADE

4

GRADE

5

GRADE

6

GRADE

7

GRADE

8

GRADE

9

GRADE

10

GRADE

11

WTSAMPSONMath09 58.8% 37.0% 62.5% 81.5% 70.8% 56.3% 82.4% 71.4% 22.2%

WTSAMPSONMath10 68.0% 85.7% 45.8% 57.9% 91.3% 90.0% 78.9% 80.0% 58.3%

WTSAMPSONMath11 64.3% 69.6% 50.0% 75.0% 47.1% 64.7% 72.7% 85.7% 70.0%

WTSAMPSONMath12 82.4% 52.4% 77.3% 64.3% 89.5% 86.7% 70.6% 60.9% 63.6%

WTSAMPSONMath13 75.0% 88.2% 62.5% 76.2% 81.8% 94.7% 80.0% 72.7% 77.3%

WTSAMPSONMath14 68.8% 82.1% 80.0% 69.2% 93.8% 83.3% 100.0%

WTSAMPSONMath15 72.0% 55.0% 95.0% 87.0% 100.0% 94.0% 82.0%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Percent of Students Scoring in the Top Two Quarters

on the Math TerraNova, 2009-2015


Grades 3-9

CSP Goal 80%

SY 15

CSP GOAL 75%

SY09-14




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

5 +32.5% 2009-2015 20

Grade 5 demonstrated a very large increase




demonstrated a small increase (+15.0%) in the


Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

6 +5.5% 2009-2015 15

Grade 6 demonstrated no measurable

difference across seven school years in the


Quarters. From SY 2014 – 2015, this grade

level demonstrated a moderate increase

(+17.8%) in the percent of students scoring in

the Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

7 +29.2% 2009-2015 14

Grade 7 demonstrated a large increase across



2014 – 2015, this grade level no measurable

difference (+6.2%) in the percent of students


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

8 +37.7% 2009-2015 16

Grade 8 demonstrated a very large increase




demonstrated no measurable difference



Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

9 -0.4% 2009-2015 11





level demonstrated a moderate decrease

(-18.0%) in the percent of students scoring in


Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.




SY 2014-2015


Assessment 2.2: TerraNova Science Subtest




Table 2:2 Change in Student Performance

Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

3 -10.4% 2009-2015 18





level demonstrated a small decrease (-15.5%)

in the percent of students scoring in the Top

Two Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet goal of

80% in the Top

Two Quarters.

4 -1.7% 2009-2015 20





level demonstrated a fairly large decrease (-

20.7%) in the percent of students scoring in the

Top Two Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet goal of

80% in the Top

Two Quarters.

GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GRADE 6 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9GRADE

10GRADE

11

WTSAMPSONScience09 82.4% 66.7% 62.5% 85.2% 75.0% 75.0% 76.5% 78.6% 55.6%





WTSAMPSONScience14 87.5% 85.7% 80.0% 84.6% 87.5% 66.7% 100.0%

WTSAMPSONScience15 72.0% 65.0% 85.0% 93.0% 93.0% 75.0% 82.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Percent of Students Scoring in the Top Two Quarters on the Science TerraNova, 2009-2015

WT Sampson Elementary/Middle/High School Grades 3-9

CSP GOAL 80%

SY 15

CSP GOAL 75%

SY09-14




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

5 +22.5% 2009-2015 20

Grade 5 demonstrated a fairly large increase







Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

6 +7.8% 2009-2015 15

Grade 6 demonstrated no measurable increase







Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

7 +18.0% 2009-2015 14








Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.

8 0.0% 2009-2015 16





level demonstrated no measurable difference



No, grade level did

not meet goal of

80% in the Top

Two Quarters.

9 +5.5% 2009-2015 11





level demonstrated a moderate decrease (-

18.0%) in the percent of students scoring in the

Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met goal of 80% in

the Top Two

Quarters.




SY 2014-2015


Assessment 2.3: TerraNova Math Subtest Objective Performance Indicator (OPIs) – Patterns, Functions,

Algebra Measureable Objective: A 3% increase of All Students will demonstrate a proficiency to solve

problems, through developing number sense, communicating the problem, and identifying appropriate strategies

to find a solution in Mathematics.


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

3 -37% 2012-2015 18

Grade 3 demonstrated a very large decrease

across four school years in the percent of



demonstrated a fairly large decrease (-24%) in

the percent of students scoring in the Top Two

Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet the goal

of a 3% increase in

the Top Two

Quarters.

4 +17% 2012-2015 20





demonstrated a moderate decrease (-17%) in


Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet the goal

of a 3% increase in

the Top Two

Quarters.

5 +21% 2012-2015 20

Grade 5 demonstrated a fairly large increase




demonstrated no descriptive difference (+30%)

in the percent of students scoring in the Top

Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two Quarters.

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9

SY12 76% 38% 59% 36% 68% 73% 59%

SY13 67% 82% 50% 71% 55% 84% 70%

SY14 63% 71% 50% 38% 81% 50% 70%

SY15 39% 55% 80% 47% 71% 69% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Students Scoring Mastery in Objective Perofrmance Indicator (OPI): Patterns, Functions, Algebra on the TerraNova Math Subtest, SY 2012 -2015




SY 2014-2015


Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years) Number


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

6 +11% 2012-2015 15

Grade 6 had no descriptive difference across

four school years in the percent of students


2014 – 2015, this grade level demonstrated a

no descriptive difference (+9%) in the percent

of students scoring in the Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two Quarters.

7 +3% 2012-2015 14





no descriptive difference (-10%) in the percent

of students scoring in the Top Two Quarters.

No, grade level did

not meet the goal

of a 3% increase in

the Top Two

Quarters.

8 -4% 2012-2015 16





moderate increase (+19%) in the percent of


Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two Quarters.

9 +5% 2012-2015 11





moderate increase (-6%) in the percent of


No, grade level did

not meet the goal

of a 3% increase in

the Top Two

Quarters.

Assessment 2.4: TerraNova Math Subtest Objective Performance Indicator (OPIs) -




Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9

SY12 76% 38% 55% 36% 58% 67% 53%

SY13 67% 88% 56% 52% 64% 84% 70%

SY14 50% 57% 50% 38% 88% 50% 70%

SY15 50% 40% 70% 40% 71% 69% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Students Scoring Mastery in Objective Performance Indicator (OPI): Problem Solving and Reasoning on the TerraNova Math Subtest, SY 2012- 2015

Grades 3-9




SY 2014-2015



Grade

% Change

(base to most

recent)

Achievement

(Years)

Number

of

Students


Met

DoDEA/School

Goals

3 -26% 2012-2015 18

Grade 3 had a large decrease across four school

years in the percent of students scoring in the Top

Two Quarters. From SY 2014 – 2015, this grade

level demonstrated no descriptive difference (0%)

in the percent of students scoring in the Top Two

Quarters.

No, grade level

did not meet the

goal of a 3%

increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

4 +2% 2009-2015 20

Grade 4 had no descriptive difference across four

school years in the percent of students scoring in

the Top Two Quarters. From SY 2014 – 2015,

this grade level demonstrated a moderate

decrease (-17%) in the percent of students scoring

in the Top Two Quarters.

No, grade level

did not meet the

goal of a 3%

increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

5 +15% 2009-2015 20

Grade 5 had a small increase across four school



level demonstrated a fairly large increase (+20%)

in the percent of students scoring in the Top Two

Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

6 +4% 2009-2015 15




this grade level demonstrated no descriptive

difference (+2%) in the percent of students


No, grade level

did not meet the

goal of a 3%

increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

7 +13% 2009-2015 14

Grade 7 had a small increase across four school



level demonstrated a moderate decrease (-17%) in


Quarters.

No, grade level

did not meet the

goal of a 3%

increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

8 +2% 2009-2015 16




this grade level demonstrated a moderate increase

(+19%) in the percent of students scoring in the

Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.

9 +11% 2009-2015 11




this grade level demonstrated a small increase

(+14%) in the percent of students scoring in the

Top Two Quarters.

Yes, grade level

met the goal of a

3% increase in the

Top Two

Quarters.




SY 2014-2015


OVERALL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – Goal 2

Table 5: Overall Comparative Analysis – Goal 2

Assessments

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

SY

09-15

SY

14-15

2.1

TerraNova Math

Subtest – Top Two

SY 2008-2009 to

SY 2014-2015

↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓

2.2

TerraNova Science

Subtest - Top Two

SY 2008-2009 to

SY 2014-2015

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↔ ↑ ↑ ↓

2.3

TerraNova Math

Subtest Objective

Performance

Indicator (OPI):

Patterns, Functions,

Algebra (2012-

2015)

↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓

2.4

TerraNova Math

Subtest Objective

Performance

Indicator (OPI):

Problem Solving &

Reasoning (2012-

2015)

↓ ↔ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Key: ↑ = Improved; ↓ = Declined; *=Met Objective Goal; ↔ = No Change

NEXT STEPS – GOAL 2

All teachers should be able to discuss the following based on the information from this report. This is not

an exercise for one person or a few people to complete.

Areas of Notable Achievement


1. Which area(s) are above the expected levels of performance?

Grades 5 – 9

2. Describe the area(s) that show a positive trend in performance.

Grades 5 & 7

3. Which area(s) indicate the overall highest performance?

Grades 5, 7, 8

4. Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward increasing performance?

The data was not broken out by subgroup other than grade levels at this time. The school will look to

implement a systematic data tracker that will enable us to look at the date for different subgroups.




SY 2014-2015


5. Between which subgroup is the achievement gap closing?

N/A


These sources are the only ones that were used for current analysis. In the future, the school will look at

other assessments to include SAT, PSAT, etc. to give the school more insight on the math performance of


Areas in Need of Improvement


1. Which area(s) are below the expected levels of performance?

On Math Subtest Grades 3,4

2. Describe the area(s) that show a negative trend in performance.

On Math Subtest Grade 3 & 4

3. Which area(s) indicate the overall lowest performance?

On Math Subtest Grade 4

4. Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward decreasing performance?

On Math Subtest 3, 4

5. Between which subgroup is the achievement gap becoming greater?

N/A


These sources are the only ones that were used for the current analysis. In the future, the school will look at

other assessments to include SAT, PSAT, etc. to give the school more insight on the math performance of


All teachers, staff, students, and other stakeholders-parents should collaboratively answer the

questions/statements below. All stakeholders should use the information from the following

questions/statements in their instructional planning (teachers/staff), completing assignments (students), and

supporting the goals (other stakeholders-parents).

Using the Results

(The information below will need to be more expansive than bullets or short answer.)

1. What inference can be made about the impact of the strategy on student performance based on the data?

Grades 3 and 4 need additional assistance in implementing problem solving strategies.

2. Was the measurable objective met? Goal was met in grades 5-9

3. Will the strategy(s) continue? Be modified? Change? Yes




SY 2014-2015


a. If the answer to this question is yes, the strategy(s) will continue state why. With the addition of

CCRSM in the elementary school problem solving will continue to be implemented.

b. If the answer to this question is the strategy(s) will be modified, describe the modifications.

c. If the answer to this question is the strategy(s) will change, detail the new strategy and why this

strategy will better address the needs of the students.




SY 2014-2015


Appendix A

The Annual Student Performance Report is used to do the following:

Maintain and consistently use a comprehensive assessment system that produces data from multiple

assessment measures, including locally developed and standardized assessments about student learning

and school performance.

Ensure consistent measurement across classrooms and courses.

Ensure assessments are reliable and bias free.

Regularly and systematically evaluate its comprehensive student assessment system for reliability and

effectiveness in improving instruction, student learning, and the conditions that support learning.

Continuously collect, analyze, and apply learning from a range of data sources, including comparison

and trend data about student learning and instruction.

Ensure systematic processes and procedures for collecting, analyzing, and applying learning from data

sources are documented and used consistently by professional and support staff.

Systematically and consistently use results to design, implement, and evaluate continuous improvement

action plans related to student learning.

Use data to determine the effectiveness of strategies, modifications to or changes in research-based

strategies and strategies, faculty and staff professional development needs, and the fidelity of

implementation processes.

Ensure professional and support staffs are trained in the evaluation, interpretation, and use of data.

Engage in a continuous process to determine verifiable improvement in student learning.

Ensure policies and procedures clearly define and describe a process for analyzing data that determine

verifiable improvement in student learning.

Evaluate results for significant improvement.

Monitor and communicate comprehensive information about student learning, conditions that support

student learning, and the achievement of school improvement goals to stakeholders using multiple

delivery methods and in appropriate degrees of sophistication for all stakeholder groups.




SY 2014-2015


Appendix B – EOY Status Report Magnitude Chart

To assist schools and districts in identifying a change in growth (increases or decreases), the following chart is

being used. To calculate a change, subtract current year percentage from past year percentage; look at the N-

count for the assessment being analyzed; then see what type of “change” occurred.

Documents

WT Sampson Unit School SY 2015--2016 · 2016-03-01 · page 1 of 27 department of defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools south carolina/fort stewart/dodds-cuba