See the pattern.
Track whether the plan works.

DECISIONPOINT EDUCATIONTBT action

TBT DATA-TO-ACTION MEETING RECORD

TEAM & EVIDENCE
Team: Grade 5 Math TBT
Assessment: Fractions common assessment
Standard or learning target: Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators

DATA SOURCE & LOCATION
System or source: District assessment platform
Location: Grade 5 Math shared drive → TBT Data → Fractions CA
Evidence window: Checks administered September 8–29; exported October 1
Artifacts for the meeting: Item analysis, subgroup report, scoring guide, and six anonymous work samples

CURRENT RESULTS
• Class A: 68%
• Class B: 74%
• Class C: 61%
Average across displayed results: 68%

SUBGROUP & TREND DATA
• All students (n=72): Baseline 52% → Check 1 61% → Check 2 69% → Reassess 76%; change +24 points
• Multilingual learners (n=14): Baseline 39% → Check 1 52% → Check 2 61% → Reassess 68%; change +29 points
• Students with IEP/504 plans (n=12): Baseline 35% → Check 1 45% → Check 2 57% → Reassess 64%; change +29 points

EQUITY INTERPRETATION GUARDRAIL
Compare opportunities, access, task conditions, and instructional responses before attributing a difference to students. Use group-level data only, report group size, and suppress or combine small groups according to district rules.

WHAT THE TEAM NOTICED
Strongest skill: Equivalent fractions
Priority gap: Finding common denominators
Students often selected a denominator but could not explain why it worked. The multilingual learner subgroup improved after visual models, but the gap remains in written explanations.

PATTERNS THE TEAM IDENTIFIED
• A shared misconception appears across classes
• Results vary significantly by class or subgroup
• A subgroup trend requires a closer instructional look

TEAM INSTRUCTIONAL RESPONSE
• Flexible small groups across classrooms
• Error-analysis task
• Common formative check

ACTION PLAN
• Preserve the shared learning target across classrooms and subgroups.
• Use the same short check and checkpoint labels so the team can compare change over time.
• Regroup students from skill evidence—not a total score or subgroup label alone.
• Match each response to a named pattern, owner, and evidence source.
• Bring two anonymous work samples to the next meeting: one showing progress and one showing a remaining misconception.

OWNERSHIP & MATERIALS
Each teacher prepares one error-analysis example; intervention specialist reviews subgroup work samples; team lead prepares the common check.

REASSESSMENT / NEXT REVIEW
[Choose the date for the common check and next team review.]

NEXT-MEETING QUESTIONS
1. Which lines changed, stayed flat, or widened—and during which instructional response?
2. Which subgroup pattern is supported by work samples, not percentages alone?
3. Which response produced stronger evidence of learning?
4. Who is ready to move forward, and who needs a different access point or model?
5. What will the team stop, continue, or adjust?

TEAM CHECK
Confirm that conclusions are supported by the original work, subgroup sizes meet district reporting rules, and no student names or private records appear in this document.