10 th Grade Analytic Geometry and GPS Geometry

10 th Grade Analytic Geometry and GPS Geometry and Math II 2012, 2013, 2014 By: Kellie Avery ITEC 7305

The Purpose of this Data Overview is to analyze the data from the last three years and to investigate the achievement data of students in the 10 th grade Geometry. The data will be based on three different curriculum changes, which means three different tests. The 2014 data on the EOC will not be released until tomorrow 11/16/2015. Again, it would represent a 4 th curriculum change but will not be available for this presentation. The demographic information will be posted and shared.

Demographics White/Caucasian Ethnicity Multiracial Enrollment: 2012 – 2, 039 2013 – 2, 104 2014 – 2, 145 Hispanic Black Asian 0 200 400 600 800 Number of Students 2014 2013 2012 1000 1200 1400

Subgroups at Hillgrove 500 450 Number of Students 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2012 Economically Disadvantaged 2013 Subgroups Limited English Proficient 2014 Students with Disability

§ Economically Disadvantage Students: only 17% in 2012, 22% in 2013, and 18% in 2014 § Limited Proficiency is so low it is not worth analyzing § Students with disabilities: only 11% in 2012, 11% in 2013, and 9% in 2014 This is Hillgrove’s 10 th year, we opened in 2005, since opening the school has been a diverse school, however, a very high achieving school. These low categories in the sub group are one reason this has occurred.

Hillgrove Staff Information 120 Number of Teachers 100 80 60 40 20 0 Black White Hispanic Ethnicity 2012 2013 2014

Hillgrove Staff Experience 70 Number of Teachers 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 <1 1 to 10 11 to 20 Years of Experience 2012 2013 2014 21 to 30 > 30

One area of needs improvement is staff diversity. We have on average in these 3 years a 29% African American population with only a 15% African American staff. The gap needs to be closer to our demographics. I believe this would help with our culture at the school. On the other hand, one area of strength is our staff experience. I believe we have an average of 10 -15 years experience. This is a strength because we are young enough to have great, new, innovative teachers and enough experience to handle classroom management.

Math II 2012 Ethnicity 100% Percentage of Students 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17 169 25 12 307 Asian Black Hispanic Number of Students Multiracial White/Caucasian Did Not Meet Exceed Total Tested: 530

2012 Math II Subgroups 70 Number of Students 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Did Not Meet Exceed Performance Economically Disadvantaged 107 Students with Disability 49

2013 GPS Geometry Ethnicity 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Did Not Meet Black 126 Hispanic 26 Exceed White/Caucasian 231 Total tested: 398

2013 GPS Geometry Subgroups 80 70 60 50 40 30 Number of Students 90 20 10 0 Did Not Meet Exceed Performance Economically Disadvantaged 101 Students with Disability 33

2014 CC Analytical Geometry Ethnicity 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 154 44 17 287 Black Hispanic Multiracial White/Caucasian Did Not Meet Exceed Total Tested: 508

2014 CC Analytical Geometry Subgroups 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Did Not Meet Economically Disadvantaged 114 Exceed Students with Disability 34

As frustrating as it is to complete this project with the three curriculum changes , it was just as frustrating to teach! I cannot really compare the data from year to year because of the three different curriculum changes and the three different test. It gets no better for last year and this year as once again another change and a different test. I did observe that over the three years our students were meeting the standards, it looks like we need to be pushing our students more into the exceeds category. Hopefully, the changes are complete and we can begin shifting our focus to the exceeds category. The question will be how are we going to change our teaching strategies to move these students forward to the exceeds classification?