Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUMMARY SHEET
TeacherTravis, Mary
School:PS 31 - Lincoln Elementary Grade Level: 5th
Years with data: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Years Teaching in NYC: 4
ct
grade and subject area
Su
Last 3 years 49% 37% 62% ! level
My Percentile (0%-100%)
What Results Are Shown?
My Percentile Range** 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
" Shows my results from 2007-08, and the
last three years (when available)
2007-08 65% 46% 84% ! " Comparison group: Peer teachers in my
grade and subject area*
Last 3 years 53% 40% 66% ! " Adjusted for teacher experience level*
Next Steps
Go online and visit the NYCDOE’s Teachers’ Page at http://schools.nyc.gov/Teachers/default.htm for more information about the Teacher Data
Initiative.
**Range: Statistically, your result most likely lies near, but may not be exactly equal to, the highlighted percentile result. Therefore a range is provided.
TEACHER DATA REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
3 STUDENT SUB-GROUPS
Average
Number Prior
of Proficiency Actual Predicted Value- Percentile My Percentile Performance
Students Rating Gain Gain Added (0-100%) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% with sub-groups
t
or
Prior Student Achievement Level
Students in the p
e -0.12
School's Top 3rd -0.09 R
25 3.1 -0.21
s . 35% ! Medium
on
Range 18%-52%
Students in the
i si
School's Middle 3rd 28 2.3
R ev
0.02 0.05 -0.03 47% ! Medium
Range
T o 25%-69%
Students in the
School's Lowest 3rd je ct
20
b 1.6 0.48 0.29 0.19 81% ! High
Range Su 58%-100%
Gender
Other Sub-groups
ELL Students - - - - - -
Range -
Special Education 10 1.4 0.02 -0.18 0.20 83% ! High
Range 51%-100%
Range: Statistically, your result most likely lies near, but may not be exactly equal to, the highlighted percentile result. Therefore a range is
provided.
a ta.
l, D
Average
Number
a
Re My Percentile
Prior
of Proficiency Actual Predicted Value- Percentile
t
No
Students Rating Gain Gain Added (0-100%) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
,
This year: 2007-08 24 2.1 0.19 0.12 0.07 58%
39-77% at
ive !
Range
FT str
2006-07 24 2.4 0.08
A s
0.11 -0.03 lu
Il 26-66%
46% !
DR Contain
Range
Re
Range 37-62%
.
io ns
e vis
2 My Results, Compared R to Peer Teachers:
To
How do my resultst compare to other teachers in my grade and subject area throughout NYC, whose
e c
classrooms have
u bj similar predicted gains, adjusted for teacher experience levels?
Sresults from 2007-08, and the last three years (when available)
" Shows my
" Comparison group: Peer teachers in my grade and subject area
" Adjusted for teacher experience level
Average
Number Prior
of Proficiency Actual Predicted Value- Percentile My Percentile
Students Rating Gain Gain Added (0-100%) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
**Range: Statistically, your result most likely lies near, but may not be exactly equal to, the highlighted percentile result. Therefore a range
is provided.
TEACHER DATA REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
NOTES SHEET
ata.
D
eal,
t R
, No
ti ve
F T stra
RA ins
Illu
D Co
n ta
ort
p
Re
ns.
isio
Rev
t To
c
bje
Su
Peer Teacher Comparison
Peer Teacher Comparisons Are Different from City Comparisons in Two Ways:
. Peer
Teacher Experience Adjustment Teachers Are Teachers with Similar Predicted Gains
Peer teacher comparisons include variables representing the years of Teachers' results are compared only to other teachers with similar
experience a teacher has teaching in NYC and the number of years average predicted gains. Each teacher is assigned to one of five peer
the teacher has been in his or her current grade level and subject groups of roughly equal numbers of teachers.
area