CURRICULUM MAPPING AND

REAL TIME ASSESSMENT

When schools’ and teachers’ share no common beliefs about
what constitutes a desired set of skills for a particular grade
or course, the issue of effective schooling or effective
teaching is irrelevant.

2/17/2010

By Michael D. King
OVERVIEW

In this article, time will be devoted to discussions on designing models to improve curriculum
alignment and mapping curriculum through applied technologies. The article will provide
information on how educators can develop technology tools to monitor real-time assessment
of their schools’ progress toward the improvement of student learning. It should be noted that
sensible discussion of effectiveness cannot be measured unless the skills and knowledge of
instruction are convergent to the desires and responsibilities of teachers to give each child an
opportunity to learn the skills desirable. Any achievement test used as an indicator of school
effectiveness must be linked logically to the curriculum that is delivered. The meaning of an
opportunity to learn is when students are successfully engaged in task that is related to skills
they will be assessed on in the future.

The article will also be devoted to the development of curriculum management models that
target specific elements of learning within the context of what is desired. The models
presented for curriculum assessment are designed to be interactive with one another or viewed
as a single entity. It will be strictly up to the designers on how to apply these models as they
relate to the application of technology. Although each model can be applied separately, the
authors will disseminate information on how to blend individual assessment tools into the big
picture of the school improvement process. The models discussed will include the
development of assessment tools in the areas of real-time reporting on achievement of
curriculum expectations through curriculum mapping strategies and identifying student
performances in key content areas.
USING TECHNOLOGY TO MANAGE THE CURRICULUM

Today, more than ever before, educators are faced with the idea that in order to improve
instruction, they will need to create newer, faster and better systems to assess their schools
strengths and weaknesses. Teachers and school administrators are now responsible for
gathering an array of measures, including formative academic assessments, attendance rates,
suspension rates, public opinion ratings, and school climate surveys. Principals must determine
how they will assess progress and plan instruction that expands beyond the data achieved
through state-standardized testing. New National and State school accountability reports are
now including such indicators as attendance rates, suspension rates, at risk student
performance rates, and student and community perceptions of school safety.

To accomplish the growing demand on data retrieval, educators will need to rethink their
approaches to the gathering of accountability data, and how they will use that data, for the
improvement of student learning. The day has arrived when teachers and principals will need to
have the skills necessary in making multi-measure data useful in the facilitation of change. To
facilitate positive changes, the school educators will need a number of data analysis tools for
tracking the school improvement process. Such data analysis tools would include monitoring
curriculum delivery, measuring student performances through content analysis, tracking at-risk
student performance, and providing real-time student assessment information.

Accountability

Under the new standards of the No Child Left Behind Act, effective schooling will be assessed
by judging whether classroom or schooling process are related to the intentions of the state in
terms of curriculum delivery. School districts or individual schools now caught with a curriculum
guide and a state test that are not carefully matched to each other are in great trouble as they
report their effectiveness to both the state and their communities. Now more than ever, it will
be important for schools to grasp the idea of alignment to state standards. It will be a critical
factor to school effectiveness reporting and should be noted that it will be impossible for
teachers and schools to be found effective if they teach one thing and find the students tested
on another. If students are to take a test that will be used to judge the schools effectiveness
then students must have the opportunity to learn what it is that is on the test.

The issue of outcomes accountability is one of the oldest issues faced in education. Determining
what knowledge is of most worth sparks continuous debate. Because of the complexity of the
issue and the difficulty of adequately resolving these fundamentally philosophic questions,
schools and teachers within the same district may not share the belief that particular standards
are expected for students at a given grade or given course. When schools’ and teachers’ share
no common beliefs about what constitutes a desired set of skills for a particular grade or
course, the issue of effective schooling or effective teaching is irrelevant. The present notion to
offset this irrelevant notion of school and teacher effectiveness is now more relevant than ever
as legislation begins to promote higher degrees of accountability. In essence, the new No Child
Left Behind Act requires schools to make clearer judgments on curriculum delivery and the
measurement of individual obtainment of specific skills. As restated from the Official U.S.
Department of Education web site, Under No Child Left Behind, each state must measure every
public school student's progress in reading and math in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least
once during grades 10 through 12 including science. These assessments must be aligned with
state academic content and achievement standards. They will provide parents with objective
data on where their child stands academically. Advancements in real-time technology now
provide schools with an opening to systematically account for engagement on specific skills, as
well as the ability to monitor individual progress.
CURRICULUM EXPECTATIONS AND REAL TIME REPORTING

One method of real-time reporting of curriculum expectations is to develop curriculum-

mapping software that integrates effective teaching practices as ordinances for tracking time
engaged on individual curriculum standards. This type of software program, once developed,
would make provisions for an evaluative means by which teachers can analyze the curriculum
as it is delivered in a real-time format. This type of curriculum reporting would give teachers
and curriculum designers insurance that students receive a balanced instructional program.
Real-time assessment and evaluation of student achievement could provide teachers with an
opportunity to think critically about their choice of content and the overall effectiveness of
instruction. Real-time reporting of curriculum progression would provide the necessary
frameworks for teachers and principals to systematically review course content, instructional
strategies, and assessment procedures to make identified program changes to improve student
learning. One method for managing the real-time assessment of curriculum would be to design
a curriculum-mapping model that blends both content decision-making with effective
instructional delivery strategies.

Procedures for developing real-time curriculum mapping strategies is a simple process that can
be achieved by using software packages now made available on most home computers. One
example of a home software program that could be used to develop real-time tracking of
curriculum delivery is the Microsoft Excel software application.

CURRICULUM MAPPING

Curriculum mapping is a systematic approach to monitoring, the implementation of the

curriculum and the gathering of feedback. In other words, it is the reconstruction of the real
curriculum that teachers have taught. This type of curriculum monitoring was first introduced
by the Long Branch, New Jersey School District in September of 1980. The primary problem that
plagued the system was the lack of technology to support real-time tracking of the curriculum
and its failure to processes timely data.
Most mapping procedures are based upon at least two constants: content taught and time
spent. The intent of a curriculum map is to show exactly how much time is devoted to each
major learning task within each classroom or subject area. This is done through a self-log of
units of topics, time, and/or sequence. The two most common approaches for the self-log
procedures are the blank sheet and the checklist. Both the checklist approach and the blank
sheet approach can only emulate what already currently exist in every day teaching of the
curriculum. Both procedures for mapping can, with effective design, address the concept that
the single most important factor in predicting whether or not a teacher is delivering to students
a curriculum that is linked empirically to the outcomes that are desired. The heart of curriculum
mapping is to insure that each student is given the opportunity to learn what is expected of him
or her. Thus both the teacher and the student must hold with crystal clarity a conception of the
desired skills for the student in a class or course. Modern technology now makes it possible to
register more complete information about the effectiveness of instruction and how it relates to
student performance.

The Blank Sheet Approach to Curriculum Mapping

The blank sheet approach gives the school or district a greater amount of flexibility, but once it
is developed, there are a greater number of uncertainties to its value. Blank sheet maps are
usually designed by asking teacher teams to use a calendar to pre-chart the curriculum to be
delivered as it is aligned to district or state standards. The charting is primarily based upon
collecting basic information on a calendar grid about individual curriculum plans such as units,
types of assessment, skills taught, content, activities and interdisciplinary connections. (See
Curriculum Mapping Template Exhibit 1) Once this process is finalized then the data for time
and delivery are compared across the school or district to determine future potentials for
curriculum alignment to desired outcomes. The benefits from the blank sheet approach is to
bring about awareness of individual approaches to curriculum delivery and how these individual
approaches compare to what is desired by the district or state. The blank sheet approach
requires a great deal of time and decision making from professionals during the compilation
stage and has no guarantee that an equal opportunity for learning will occur.

Exhibit 1
CURRICULUM MAPPING TEMPLATE

Team Members:
________________________________________ Grade Level __________________
________________________________________
________________________________________ Unit Topic ___________________

Week Content: List the content Activities: Design activities that Assessment: Determine the
standards and sequence them as will require students to appropriate evaluation
they will be presented demonstrated in the selected procedure for measuring
content. Activities are task that content. Decide when to use
students perform in order to traditional or authentic
reinforce their learning methods.
Week Content: Activity Assessment:
One

Resource Links:
Description:
URL:
Description:
URL:
Source: Author

Reinforcing Performance Standards through Curriculum Mapping

To reinforce performance standards teachers should identify the skills, activities, and
experiences they will use in the instruction of the specific learning and to design appropriate
assessment strategies for evaluating them. This can be accomplished through a curriculum
mapping process using the blank sheet approach in Exhibit 1 Curriculum Mapping Template.
The process of mapping requires a teacher to select content, choose instructional activities and
strategies, and design assessments. The mapping process also requires teachers to sequence
all the elements of the curriculum into a coherent, workable framework. The end result of the
mapping process will be an aligned curriculum in which students are tested on what they are
expected to learn, and what they are expected to learn is included in the instruction they
receive.
By focusing instruction on essential performance standards, alignment-mapping activities can
play an important role in improving student achievement when reinforcing a desired
curriculum. Teachers can use the information from the mapping process to develop individual
lesson plans that support the desired curriculum and the integration of technology into their
classrooms. Individual lesson plans should include: the learning objective, the steps necessary
for executing the lesson, the length of time in days needed to complete the lesson, and a list of
technology links that will support the lessons.

The Check List Approach to Curriculum Mapping

The checklist approach to mapping the curriculum requires more time during the planning and
organizing phases as a design for inventorying the practices of teachers is developed and
tested. The checklist approach starts with the design of an instrument that will allow teachers
to mark their progression on the delivery of the curriculum within a given time frame. Specific
elements of the checklist approach would include the development of a data collection
instrument, specific procedures on how the data is to be recorded and how that information
would be compiled and reported. The checklist approach is a real-time monitoring program
that allows individuals to observe the curriculum as it is being delivered on a daily or weekly
basis. An example of this type of approach would be to compile a skills chart for each teacher to
record data on as they teach specific skills listed on the chart. The information could be
recorded by placing a simple check mark next to the skill taught or by recording a specific time
spent on a specific skill. The teachers would then submit their charts to the designated data
collection site for recording and reporting. A criticism of the checklist approach is that it gives
teachers the feeling of the lack of flexibility to teaching, slights the uniqueness of the
curriculum and promotes the idea that every teacher should be on the same page at the same
time. (See Curriculum Mapping Checklist Exhibit 2)
 Exhibit 2
CURRICULUM MAPPING CHECKLIST

Check Skills Taught

Standard 1.0: Number Sense and Algebraic Operations - The student will use expressions and
equations to model number relationships.
1.1 Translate word phrases and sentences into expressions and equations and vice versa.
1.2a Expressions: Use the laws of exponents to perform operations on expressions with integer
exponents.
1.2b Expressions: Simplify and evaluate linear, absolute value, rational and radical expressions
1.2c Expressions: Simplify polynomials by adding, subtracting or multiplying.
Standard 2.0: Relations and Functions - The student will use relations and functions to model
number relationships.
2.1a Relations and Functions: Distinguish between linear and nonlinear data.
2.1b Relations and Functions: Distinguish between relations and functions
2.1c Relations and Functions: Identify dependent and independent variables, domain and range.
2.1d Relations and Functions: Evaluate a function using tables, equations or graphs.
2.2 Recognize the parent graph of the functions y = k, y = x, y = |x|, and predict the effects of
transformations on the parent graph (e.g., y = |x| + 2, change slope, change intercepts, change slope
and intercept).
2.3 Calculate the slope of a line using a graph, an equation, two points or a set of data points.
2.4 Develop the equation of a line and graph linear relationships given the following:
2.4a. slope and y-intercept
2.4b. slope and one point on the line
2.4c. two points on the line
2.4d. x-intercept and y-intercept
2.4e. a set of data points
2.5a Slope Interpretation: Use the slope to differentiate between lines that are parallel,
perpendicular, horizontal, or vertical.
2.5b Slope Interpretation: Interpret the slope and intercepts within the context of everyday life (e.g.,
telephone charges based on base rate [y-intercept] plus rate per minute [slope]).
2.6. Linear Equations and Inequalities
2.6a. Solve linear equations by graphing or using properties of equality.
2.6b. Solve linear inequalities by graphing or using properties of inequalities.
2.6c. Match appropriate equations or inequalities (with 1 or 2 variables) to a graph, table, or
situation and vice versa.
2.7. Solve a system of linear equations by graphing, substitution or elimination.
2.8. Problem Solving
2.8a. Use the formulas from measurable attributes of geometric models (perimeter,
circumference, area and volume), science, and statistics to solve problems within an algebraic
context.
2.8b. Solve two-step and three-step problems using concepts such as rules of exponents,
probability, rate, distance, ratio and proportion, measures of central tendency and percent.
Standard 3.0: Data Analysis and Statistics - The student will use data analysis and statistics to
formulate and justify predictions from a set of data.
3.1. Data Analysis
3.1a. Translate from one representation of data to another and understand that the data can be
represented using a variety of tables, graphs, or symbols and that different modes of
representation often convey different messages.
3.1b. Make valid inferences, predictions, and/or arguments based on data from graphs, tables,
and charts.

Source: Author
Developing and Integrating Effective Teaching Practices into the Mapping Process
Effective teachers have standards in mind when they establish their lesson plans and they know
how to deliver specific standards to ensure higher levels of student achievement. Both the
selection of standards and effective delivery are the essential elements that support the
effective principals of instruction. When developing a mapping plan, both the standards and the
elements of delivery should be included and should be designed around the following three
prerequisites:
 Teachers must select appropriate standards for instructional delivery
 Teachers must keep students engaged in learning activities that support selected
standards
 Teachers must assess and reassess student mastery levels on standards delivered

Step One: Identifying Standards for Monitoring

The first step in the mapping process is to identify specific content standards for each subject
and grade level. Content standards are broad descriptions of the knowledge and skills students
should acquire, while performance standards define and provide concrete examples of the
desired levels of student achievement expected by the content standards. Together, content
and performance standards not only define what students should know and be able to do in
specific areas, but should guide both instruction and assessments at the classroom level.

To appropriately measure standards, it is recommended that existing state standards that are
used to measure student performance be selected and applied to the curriculum mapping
charts. Most state standards are available on the Internet and can be downloaded. Once the
standards are identified, the next step in the process is to code and transfer them to subject
and grade level charts similar to the one represented in Exhibit 2.
Step Two: Develop Strategies for Mapping Skills
The second step in developing a curriculum map is to develop tools, definitions of fields and
methods for charting curriculum delivery. It is recommended that the charting process address
the following two issues:
1. How information will be recorded to ensure students are engaged in learning activities
that support selected standards
2. How will information be recorded when teachers assess and reassess student mastery
levels on standards delivered
In other words, the terms for recording information must be well-defined and instruments must
be developed for charting instructional delivery.

Selecting an instrument for mapping the curriculum should be simple in design, easy to use and
time restrictive. The curriculum-mapping model represented in Exhibit 3, uses several distinct
features that answers the aforementioned questions on how mapping will insure student
engagement and mastery of specified standards within the curriculum. (See also Appendix A, 9-
3A for Engaged Time Curriculum Map) This type of mapping model requires teachers to record
specific instructional data as it relates to content delivery under the following categories:
 Engaged time devoted to each standard for a specific period and day.
 Proficiency level of their class after assessment occurs on a specific standard
 Time devoted to reassessing standards

Using categories for recording student-engaged time allows for some insurance that the skills
desired are being delivered. Secondly, having teacher’s record information on mastery and
reassessment of skills gives real-time indicators of the level of proficiency within a given
standard. To ensure information is recorded correctly is a process of defining the fields and will
be addressed in step three of designing the curriculum mapping process.
INSERT EXHIBIT 3 HERE
Step Three: Defining Fields and Develop Procedures for Mapping Skills

In every type of mapping program fields for recording data must be defined. Defining the
recording fields allows for some assurance that the information desired in the mapping process
is to a degree accurate and reliable. Without specific definitions, individuals responsible for
recoding information will become frustrated and confused. In the curriculum mapping model
used in Exhibit 3 Engaged Time Curriculum Mapping Chart, teaches are requested to record
information within three separate fields. These fields include the amount of time a student is
engaged in content delivery, the level of class mastery on a given standard, and the amount of
time spent reassessing a given standard. The fields for recording information would be defined
in terms of engagement, mastery and reassessment. To appropriately ensure a clear definition
of these fields, two separate events must occur. First, the designers of the mapping process
should define in writing characteristics of the fields for recording information. (See Exhibit 4)
Secondly, professional development time must be devoted to ensure teachers have a clear
understanding of field definitions and how this information will be recorded on individual maps.
 Exhibit 4
DEFINED CHARACTERISTIC FIELDS FOR CURRICULUM MAPPING
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Engaged Time: Teacher engaged time is that time which is devoted in the actual instruction of
required performance standards. Engaged time is not allotted time, organizational time or independent
activity time. Engaged time is the time the teacher spends introducing, interacting and monitoring a
group of students on required standards introduced at the onset of a lesson. Teachers are to record
daily on their curriculum-mapping chart the amount of time they are engaged in instructional activities
that support required standards for student learning. Every three weeks, individual teacher engaged
time will be transferred, averaged, and displayed graphically on the schools master curriculum mapping
chart.

Testing: Testing is a process to assess student learning and it indicates to a degree mastery (70%) of
specific content. Testing should accurately reflect the specific content taught. In other words, the
congruency between the content standard taught and what is tested must be correlated to establish
acceptable mastery. Testing should be recorded in percentage as a class average under the content area
assessed. Every three weeks, class mastery levels will be transferred, averaged, and displayed
graphically on the schools master curriculum-mapping chart.

Reassessment: Reassessment is an instructional strategy that holds students accountable for specific
content taught. It is a continual instructional process that reinforces and gives feed back to all content
standards that students are to master. Continual reassessment is the key to content standard
maintenance. Teachers should spend frequent time reassessing content. Time spent in content
reassessment should be recorded in number of minutes under individual content areas reassessed. The
amount of devoted time individual teachers spend in reassessment to specific content will be
transferred, averaged, and displayed graphically on the schools master curriculum mapping chart.

______________________________________________________________________________
Source: Author
Step Four: Tracking and Reporting Real Time Curriculum Mapping Information
Step four of the map design involves frequency decisions on how information will be retrieved
and disseminated. The frequency for data retrieval will need to be designed in a way that the
assimilation of data is reported within relative short periods of time. The frequency for data
retrieval from individual instructors should not extend beyond a four-week period of time. This
time frame for data retrieval will ensure the provision of real time information that is being
recorded from individual charts. The curriculum-mapping model presented in Exhibit 3 specifies
a three-week reporting period.

The information obtained from individual curriculum mapping charts is then transferred to a
master data collection profile sheet to map curriculum progression for a school term. Data
gained from this type of mapping program would give teachers real-time benchmarks on what
skills need to be reinforced prior to yearly assessment.

IDENTIFYING STUDENT PERFORMANCES IN KEY CONTENT AREAS

The identification and understanding of curriculum standards in terms of key content areas is
an important process in the improvement of student learning. Developing technology tools to
track how students are performing in specific content areas is one method in helping teacher’s
identity strengths and weakness in delivery choices. Such tools will allow teachers and
principals to get answers about trends in content weakness and determine gaps in learning
across specific subjects. One data analysis tool for tracking performance information would be
to design a chart that specifies the percentage of students scoring in four quadrant ranges of
specified abilities. Exhibit 5 Math Standardized Achievement Range shows the percentage of
students who are performing in a four quadrant range from advance to unsatisfactory on a
standardized math assessment.
 Exhibit 5
MATH STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT RANGE
Year Number Advanced Satisfactory Limited Unsatisfactory
2007 163(100%) 37(23%) 82(50%) 36(22%) 8(5%)
2008 152(100%) 36(24%) 88(58%) 25(16%) 3(2%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Author

This type information would be valuable as baseline data to measure the effects of the school
improvement plan as it is tracked from one year to the next. For example, if one of the goals
for school improvement was to focus on learning achievement in low performance students,
then a shift in the percentage of students scoring limited and unsatisfactory would be reduced.

A second type of data analysis tool is one that reports overall student performances in specific
content areas. This type of chart reports test analysis on specific content areas as they are
broken out under units of learning. The content analysis chart in Exhibit 6 Math Assessment
Content Analysis Chart displays student proficiency percentages within specific math content
areas tested. The content analysis chart is helpful in identifying specific content areas that are
consistently showing over time weakness in student performances within specific content areas
of the curriculum. The benchmark for proficiency should be set at 70% for each content area.
The information gained from the content analysis chart could then be transferred to a content
target area chart. (See Exhibit 6 )

Exhibit 6
MATH ASSESSMENT CONTENT ANALYSIS CHART
Proficiency 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number Sense 56% 47%
Rational Numbers 67% 51%
Exponents 17% 43%
Algebraic Operation (Reasoning) 44% 45%
Equations 55% 45%
Inequalities 50% 46%
Formulas 40% 37%
Geometry (Measurement) 71% 48%
Analyze Geometry Figures (Classify Solids) 50% 64%
Ratio/Proportion (Similar Figures) 67% 64%
 Estimate Surface Area Volume NA 43%
Data Analysis 70% 72%
Data Analysis (Data Representation) 75% 76%
Mean/Median/Mode (Central Tendency/Range) 67% 65%
Probability 84% NA
Source: Author

The purpose of the content analysis is to identify specific content areas that need additional
instructional attention. A goal for school improvement using this data would be for teachers to
allocate more time and engage students to specific content areas that fall below the 70%
benchmark. Teacher assessment strategies could also be developed to measure student
progress in low performance content areas. The result of the targeting of low performance
content areas would be measured over time to the degree of improvement by the increase in
proficiency percentages.

Exhibit 7
MATH ASSESSMENT CONTENT TARGET AREAS
2002 Identified 2003 Identified 2004 Identified 2005 Identified 2006 Identified
Target Areas: Target Areas: Target Areas: Target Areas: Target Areas:
Exponents Exponents

Formulas Formulas

Inequalities Inequalities

Geometry Figures Geometry Figures

Equations Equations

Mean/Median/Mode Central Tendency

Range

Rational Numbers Rational Numbers

Analyze Geometric Analyze Geometric

Figures Figures

Ratio/Proportion

NA Estimate Surface
Area Volume

Similar Figures

Classified Solids
Source: Author
Identifying content standards allows teachers to align specific learning standards in a priority
order. Using the content analysis chart will provide the necessary information for each teacher
within a grade level or department to select and prioritize content based on the prescriptive
needs of a group of students as identified through the schools standardized assessment
instrument. The content analysis process is based on the principle that teachers should teach
what they expect students to learn. This process requires teachers to define clearly the content
standards that students are expected to master.

The content analysis process will not be effective without the provision of information to
teachers regarding present student proficiency level students and the content they will be
expected to master at the end of any given grade level. Content proficiencies are defined as the
desired learning proficiencies that will be measured in the district’s or state’s assessment
program. Many states have developed criterion-referenced tests that specifically identify what
students are to know at certain grade levels and then apply this information to an Academic
Performance Index (API) score for individual schools. Additionally, if schools are involved in
mapping curriculum standards, then the amount of student engaged time and time devoted to
reassessment would need to be increase within specified learning domains. Blending both
content analysis strategies and curriculum mapping practices are appropriate for measuring
real-time school improvement progress.

Finally, understanding the data through formal teacher training on how to apply instruction is
the key to increased student performance. When teachers understand the criteria for which
measurement will occur, teachers will become unified in their approach to the school
improvement process and work collaboratively in the pursuit of improved student learning. The
next portion of this section will be devoted to the idea of how to use technology to
demonstrate student work in real-time applications, based on performance assessment and
real-time monitoring of a delivered curriculum.
ANALYZING STUDENT SUBGROUP PERFORMANCES

Many states are beginning to break out achievement results by subgroups such as race or
ethnicity, English proficiency, and economic disadvantage. And in the near future, state
legislation will begin to require schools to close the achievement gaps among identified student
subgroups. Present national legislation through the No Child Left Behind Act will dramatically
change the conditions on how schools approach the learning needs of the disadvantaged
student. The No Child Left Behind Act will require states to hold all schools accountable for
raising achievement and it will focus greater attention on closing persistent achievement gaps
among disadvantaged students. The accountability will require schools to report the results for
each subgroup and demand annual improvement by each group or attach consequences for
schools that fail to show improvement within identified student sub groups.

Student Subgroups Defined

Student subgroups are usually identified by social economic factors that are associated with an
increased probability of school failure and dropping out. Gathering data for student subgroups
are usually associated with demographic characteristics, especially gender, race–ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. New educational initiatives will soon require accountability measures
that address the needs of at-risk students. The No Child Left Behind Act initiates the idea that
the schools' mission with at-risk students is to enable them to become economically and
socially self-sufficient. The importance of designing analysis tools to track the school’s progress
on how identified subgroups are performing is an important part of the improvement of
student learning. Subgroup data analysis tools, as represented in Exhibit 8, should include for
each subgroup identified, the number or percentage of students who are:
 scoring below an overall grade point average of 2.0
 being retained
 absent for more than eighteen days
 scoring below state proficiency in reading and mathematics
 Exhibit 8
AT RISK DATA ANALYSIS CHART

Number Of Students By Grade Scoring Below An Overall Average Of 2.0

Grade 2007 2008 Dif 2008 2009 Dif 2009 2010 Dif
Seventh 20 30 +10
Eighth 31 35 +4
Ninth 18 25 +7
Total = 69 90 +21

Number of Students Not Promoted

Grade 2007 2008 Dif 2008 2009 Dif 2009 2010 Dif
Seventh 4 8 +4
Eighth 6 6 0
Ninth 3 4 +1
Total = 13 18 +5

Number Of Students Absent More Than Eighteen Days

Grade 2007 2008 Dif 2008 2009 Dif 2009 2010 Dif
Seventh 6 31 +25
Eighth 1 33 +32
Ninth 5 38 +33
Total = 12 102 +90

Number Of Students Scoring Limited/Unsatisfactory State Proficiency

Subject 2007 2008 Dif 2008 2009 Dif 2009 2010 Dif
Math 44(27%) 28(18%) -9%
Geography 62(38%) 51(34%) -4%
Reading 31(19%) 14(9%) -10%
Writing 50(31%) 14(10%) -21%
Art 55(34%) 46(32%) -2%
Science 30(19%) 38(25%) +6%
U.S.History 29(18%) 29(20%) +2%

Analyzing sub group information on at-risk students will allow schools to answer questions such
as, "What can schools do that will support students who are at risk?" The answer to the
question would be to develop school improvement goals that provide academic support for at-
risk students. Data analysis and tracking the schools progress in at-risk categories is one way a
school can gage its progress on the effects it has on improving at risk behaviors.