Multiplication10-11


 * ** Teacher’s Name ** || ** # students who took assessment ** || ** # students proficient and higher ** || ** % students proficient and higher ** || ** # students not proficient ** || ** # and names of students likely to be proficient at the end of instructional time- //students already close// ** || ** # and names of students likely to be proficient at end of instructional time- //students who have far to go// ** || ** # and names of students not likely to be proficient-//intervention group in need of extensive support// ** ||
 * Sprouse ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Culp ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Putrino ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Hay || 21 || 7 || 33 || 14 || OBR, OBA, MA, DB, CC, ZS, AS, KW, TE, SI, LB, AJ || EM, LP ||  ||
 * **Totals** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||


 * **__Strengths__** After examining student work, list strengths of students who were proficient and higher. || **__Obstacles__** List obstacles or reasons who students did not achieve proficiency. Where were there errors? Is there a trend? Common errors? Are there misconceptions about concepts or skills? ||


 * **Possible Instructional Strategies** ||

** gain in % of proficiency (see Before Instruction % of students proficient and higher and add to this % students proficient and higher) ** || ** # of students still not proficient ** || ** Names of students who were “already close” __who are now proficient__ ** || ** Names of students who had “far to go”__who are now proficient__ ** ||
 * ** Teacher’s Name ** || ** # students who took assessment ** || ** # students proficient and higher ** || ** % students proficient and higher ** || ** GROWTH **
 * Sprouse ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Culp ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Putrino ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Hay ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * **Totals** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||