MILL PARK
REVIEW DATA 2013
1
Reports to be used in 2012 review
Student Achievement Report 5 year Trend Report School Comparison Reports Group summary Report
Understanding the National Bands
At this stage Bands have no explicit curriculum meaning but results show that for Victorian Students:
A typical Y 9 level of performance is at the bottom of Band 8 A typical Y 7 level of performance is third into Band 7 A typical Y 5 level of performance is halfway into Band 6
A typical Y 3 level of performance is at the bottom of Band 5
3
Student Achievement Report
Gives personalised data. The report can be used to calculate the percentage of students that are achieving at or above the Victorian Mean National Assessment Program Scale(1-1000).
What percentage on average would you expect to be at or above the State Mean? What patterns do you notice in this report? What is this data generally telling you about your students ability and school programming in?
4
2010
YEAR 3 READING 2011
2012
41 46
49
60% at above state mean
54% at above state mean
66 at above mean
61% at above state mean
65 at above mean 66 at above mean
State Mean 433
State Mean 434
State Mean 431
45 40 63
23
24 11
109
109
123
5
YEAR 5 READING
2010 2011 2012
49
43 44
52 % at above state mean
59 at above mean
55% at above state mean
62 at above mean
67 % at above state mean
70 at above mean
State Mean 431
State Mean 431
State Mean 502
24
38 45
46 16
27
105
113
114
6
2010
YEAR 3 WRITING 2011
2012
38 44
86
63% at above state mean
68 at above mean
State Mean 429
70% at above state mean
80% at above state mean
57
77 at above mean
State Mean 424
60
99 at above mean
State Mean 430
38 13 6 1
108
109
124
7
YEAR 5 WRITING 2010
55
2011
42
2012
55
54% at above state mean
61 at above mean
57% at above state mean
65 at above mean
76% at above state mean
79 at above mean
State Mean 493
State Mean 490
State Mean 496
46
37
41
12
25
18
104
113
114
8
2010
50
YEAR 3 SPELLING 2011
42
2012
69
60% at above state mean
68 % at above state mean
73 at above mean 65 at above mean
68 % at above state mean
83 at above mean
State Mean 418
State Mean 413
State Mean 424
51 44 47
14 16
108
109
123
9
YEAR 5 SPELLING 2010
56
2011
48
2012
48
58 % at above state mean
65 at above mean
67 % at above state mea
76 at above mean
70% at above state mean
73 at above mean
State Mean 492
State Mean 499
State Mean 494
27 38
43
21
27
23
104
113
114
10
YEAR 3 GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION 2010
35
2012
69
2011
58
61% at above state mean
66 at above mean
53 %at above state mean
58 at above mean
State Mean 435
State Mean 435
75 % at above state me
92 at above mean
37 61
State Mean 438
43
12
14 11
108
109
123
11
2010
56
YEAR 5 GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION 2012 2011
45 39
48% at above state mean 60% at above state mean
68 at above mean 55 at above mean
State Mean 499
74% at above state mean
77 at above mean
State Mean 511
32 38
State Mean 512
21
30 27
43
104
113
114
12
2010
21
YEAR 3 NUMERACY 2011
27
2012
31
46% at above state mean
53% at above state mean
49 at above mean 56 at above mean
State Mean 414
State Mean 410
58% at above state mean
69 at above mean
State Mean 410
69
62 82
16 19 7
106
108
120
13
YEAR 5 NUMERACY 2010
36
2011
33
2012
38
51 % at above state mean
61% at above state mean
57 at above mean 63 at above mean
State Mean 501
55 at above mean
State Mean 503
State Mean 499
49 % at above state mean
43 42 41
26
36
33
104
112
112
14
5 Year Trend data
Where do your students sit in comparison to the state mean? Is your mean lower or higher than the state mean? What is the trend you can see over the past 5 years for all 5 areas-both strengths and challenges?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
School Comparison Reports
Matched Cohort Year 3 & Year 5
26
School Comparison Report
In comparison with the state Have all students made similar progress? Is the rate of progress different for groups? Are some groups of students profiting more than others from the current program? (e.g. most able, least able, average )? What is good growth? What expectations do you have for your students? (Refer to bottom grid of School Comparison Report matched cohort) Have your students met targets set in review Phase 1 cycle? ( Analysis Session)
27
2008-2010
2009-2011
2010-2012
28
29
Value Added Growth over 2 years
30
31
32
Group Summary Report
Are both girls and boys contributing to overall growth? Are there any gender issues? How are my LBOTE students performing in comparison to the other students (and the state) in these 5 areas/dimensions?
33
Reading
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 3
2010
2011
2012
34
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 5 2010
Reading
2011
2012
35
Writing
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 3
2010
2011
2012
36
Writing GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 5 2010
2011
2012
37
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 3 2010
Spelling
2011
2012
38
Spelling GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 5
2010
2011
2012
39
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 3 2010
Grammar & Punctuation
2011
2012
40
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 5 2010
Grammar & Punctuation
2011
2012
41
Numeracy
GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 3 2010
2011
2012
42
Numeracy GROUP SUMMARY REPORT: YEAR 5
2010
2011
2012
43
A-E SUMMARY REPORTS (VELS) Teacher Judgment Data
2010- 2011-2012 June
44
1ST Semester Summary Report
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 B 20 35 15 18 13 22 17 JUNE 2010 Reading C 104 89 93 98 96 82 100 JUNE 2011 Reading C 138 96 105 89 84 95 88 JUNE 2012 Reading C 127 125 105 108 91 71 79 D 16 0 1 4 9 10 11 ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
B 14 38 19 20 27 13 16
D 3 5 2 7 6 8 7
ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1 1 0 0 1 1 2
B 11 33 33 18 20 35 31
D 0 4 3 3 3 12 9
ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45
1ST Semester Summary Report
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 B 15 16 15 15 14 16 15 JUNE 2010 Writing C 97 107 88 93 87 80 97 JUNE 2011 Writing C 149 120 103 88 101 81 73 JUNE 2012 Writing C 132 149 117 103 97 92 88 D 29 1 6 10 17 17 14 ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 0 1 0 0 0 0 10
B 2 17 17 16 5 14 19
D 4 3 6 10 11 21 15
ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
B 4 12 21 20 11 10 21
D 2 1 3 6 7 17 11
ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46
1ST Semester Summary Report
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6 Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 A 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 B 4 11 30 25 18 22 24 B 4 19 8 13 5 16 26 JUNE 2010 Numeracy C 126 112 74 91 94 81 91 JUNE 2011 Numeracy C 148 118 118 100 106 87 67 JUNE 2012 Numeracy C 137 152 112 106 96 80 83 D 11 1 3 4 6 11 13 D 3 2 0 3 7 13 12 ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Prep 1 2 3 4 5 6
A 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
B 0 10 26 19 16 30 31
D 1 1 3 4 3 9 5
ILP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47
LITERACY ADVANCE
Prep Year 2 2010 -2011-2012
48
St Francis of Assisi Primary
Prep-Year Two Post Literacy Data 2009-2010-2011
With Thanks & Permission
49
Prep-Year Two Post Literacy Data
Oral Language-Post ROL
Reading
-Post Text
-Post WORD
Writing Spelling
-Post BURT
-Post HRSW -Peters Dictation
50
2010, 2011- Median scores are above LIKE and ALL schools. 2010- 80% of students equal to ALL schools. 2011- 80% of students equal to LIKE school. 2012- Median scores are well above. 2012- 80% of students above LIKE and ALL schools. 51
2010- well above the median and 80% of students. 2011-12- above the median and 80% of students. 2010- indicates a higher median and 80% of students when compared to 2011 and 2012. 52
2010- Median and 80% of students well below LIKE and ALL schools. 2011/2012- Median below LIKE and ALL schools. 80% of students equal to LIKE school. 53
2010-2011-Median above LIKE and ALL schools. 2010-80% of students equal to LIKE school. 2011-80% of students above LIKE and ALL schools. 2012-Median and 80% of students above LIKE and ALL schools.
54
2010, 2011, 2012- Median well above LIKE and ALL schools. 80% of students above LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- 80% of students data shows a greater increase when compared to 2010 and 2011.
55
2010, 2011, 2012- Median and 80% of students remain consistently higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 56
2010, 2011, 2012- Median remains consistently higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 2010- 80% of students equal to LIKE and ALL schools. 2011, 2012- 80% of students are above LIKE and ALL schools.
57
2010, 2011, 2012- Median and 80% of students remains consistently higher than LIKE and ALL schools.
58
2010- Median higher than LIKE school. 80% of students much higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 2011-2012- Median and 80% of students higher than LIKE and ALL schools, displaying consistent growth. 59
2010, 2011- Median and 80% of students above LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- Median and 80% of students well above LIKE and ALL schools. 2011- a slight regression when comparing Median to 2010. 2012- greatest growth displayed in both Median and 80% of students, in comparison to 2010 and 2011 data.
60
2010. 2011, 2012- Median and 80% of students remains higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- displays a slight regression in the Median when compared to 2011.
61
2010, 2011, 2012- Median and 80% of students are above LIKE and ALL schools. 2011- displays progression from 2010, with the Median and 80% of students being well above LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- a regression is evident based on the 2011 Median. 62
2010, 2011, 2012- the Median remains higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 2010- 80% of students are equal to LIKE school. 2012- A slight regression is evident from 2011 when comparing the Median. 2011-2012- 80% of students has been maintained.
63
2010, 2011, 2012- the Median and 80% of students has been maintained. 2011- 80% of students equal to LIKE and ALL schools.
64
2010, 2011, 2012- Median remains higher than LIKE and ALL schools. There is a slight regression in the Median from 2011-2012. 2010-2011- 80% of students remains higher than LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- 80% of students is lower than LIKE and ALL schools. A large regression in data is present here from 2011. 65
2010, 2011- Median maintained with LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- Median is higher than LIKE and ALL schools. A progression from 2011 is evident. 2010, 2011- 80% of students is lower than LIKE and ALL schools. 2012- 80% of students is higher than LIKE and ALL schools. A progression from 2011 is evident.
66
School Improvement Reports
CEVN
67
68
69
