MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status

on

  • 1,433 views

Presentation given to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee on October 15, 2012 regarding district results on Spring 2012 state assessment testing

Presentation given to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee on October 15, 2012 regarding district results on Spring 2012 state assessment testing

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,433
Views on SlideShare
538
Embed Views
895

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

12 Embeds 895

http://mursd.blogspot.com 791
http://www.mursd.blogspot.com 45
http://mursd.blogspot.ru 38
http://feeds.feedburner.com 5
http://www.mursd.blogspot.ru 4
http://mursd.blogspot.in 3
http://www.mursd.blogspot.de 2
http://mursd.blogspot.de 2
http://mursd.blogspot.com.ar 2
http://mursd.blogspot.co.nz 1
http://mursd.blogspot.cz 1
http://mursd.blogspot.pt 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status Presentation Transcript

    • Mendon-Upton Regional Schools 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status Presentation to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee October 15, 2012
    • First, a few terms related to MCAS results and accountability data…
    • Composite Performance Index (CPI) The CPI is: • a metric that is used to measure school and district performance and improvement; • a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt.MCAS Performance Level Scaled Score Range MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per StudentProficient or Advanced 240 – 280 Progressing 100Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 Emerging 75Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 OR Awareness 50Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0 3
    • Composite Performance Index (CPI)Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performancelevel, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students(example below)MCAS Performance Level Points Per # Students PointsMCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics StudentProficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not 0 2 0Submitted Totals 90 students 7025 Points 7025 ÷ 90 = 78.1 4
    • Student Growth Percentile (SGP)A metric that determines how much a student has grown in one year relative to his academic peers across the state (i.e., students that scored the same exact score in the previous year’s MCAS)SGP is a percentile: 1 to 100Example: If a student has a SGP of 72, he/she scored better than 72% of his/her academic peers that yearFor schools/districts, SGP is reported as median SGP. Typical growth is 40-60
    • English Language ArtsDistrict MCAS Results
    • 3rd Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=204 students District State District State District State District State CPI 89.1 82.6 93.2 85.8 89.8 83.9 89.1 84.1 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State rd % of students proficient or higher
    • 3rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=94 students School State School State School State School State CPI 89.1 82.6 92.6 85.8 91.5 83.9 88.3 84.1 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 3rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=107 students School State School State School State School State CPI 89.3 82.6 94.7 85.8 87.5 83.9 90.7 84.1 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 4rd Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=212 students District State District State District State District State CPI 85.0 79.9 88.5 80.1 86.3 79.4 88.4 80.0 Media 41.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 51.0 46.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 4 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 4rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=96 students School State School State School State School State CPI 83.0 79.9 88.9 80.1 84.3 79.4 87.2 80.0 Media 41.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 43.0 51.0 48.5 50.0 n SGP
    • 4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 4rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=113 students School State School State School State School State CPI 86.5 79.9 89.3 80.1 88.9 79.4 89.4 80.0 Media 41.0 50.0 63.0 50.0 45.5 51.0 46.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 5th Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=235 students District State District State District State District State CPI 92.0 85.7 92.1 84.2 95.0 86.0 88.2 82.5 Media 58.5 50.0 56.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 46.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 5 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 6th Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=201students District State District State District State District State CPI 94.2 85.7 92.5 86.8 94.0 86.6 90.4 84.8 Median 59.0 50.0 53.0 50.0 43.5 50.0 42.0 50.0 SGP
    • 6 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 7th Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=196 students District State District State District State District State CPI 91.82 88.1 94.0 88.6 93.2 89.5 94.5 88.1 Median 43.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 54.0 50.0 SGP
    • 7 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 8th Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=216 students District State District State District State District State CPI 96.5 91.1 95.7 90.4 96.3 91.1 95.5 91.8 Median 57.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 50.0 SGP
    • 8 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 10th Grade ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=182 students District State District State District State District State CPI 98.3 92.2 98.7 91.1 98.8 93.9 98.6 95.8 Median 72.0 50.0 65.0 50.0 72.0 50.0 63.0 50.0 SGP
    • 10 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • ALL Grades ELA -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=1,447 students District State District State District State District State CPI 92.4 86.5 93.5 86.9 93.1 87.2 91.9 86.7 Median 54.0 50.0 56.5 50.0 52.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 SGP
    • ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
    • MathematicsDistrict MCAS Results
    • 3rd Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=204 students District State District State District State District State CPI 86.8 81.4 92.7 83.8 87.9 84.7 86.5 80.9 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State rd % of students proficient or higher
    • 3rd Grade Math -Clough Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=94 students School State School State School State School State CPI 87.5 81.4 92.4 83.8 88.2 84.7 86.2 80.9 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 3rd Grade Math -Memorial Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012 For 2012, n=106 students School State School State School State School State CPI 87.6 81.4 93.6 83.8 87.9 84.7 87.5 80.9 Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ n SGP
    • 3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 4th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=212 students District State District State District State District State CPI 82.6 78.5 83.6 78.7 83.3 78.4 85.0 79.2 Media 48.0 50.0 47.0 49.0 42.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 4 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 4th Grade Math -Clough Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=96 students School State School State School State School State CPI 82.1 78.5 82.1 78.7 83.3 78.4 87.5 79.2 Media 49.0 50.0 44.0 50.0 43.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 4th Grade Math: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 4th Grade Math -Memorial Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012 For 2012, n=113 students School State School State School State School State CPI 83.0 78.5 85.7 78.7 84.1 78.4 82.7 79.2 Media 47.5 50.0 48.5 50.0 39.0 50.0 43.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 4th Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
    • 5th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=236 students District State District State District State District State CPI 83.2 77.0 84.5 77.4 87.9 79.8 80.6 78.4 Media 57.0 50.0 46.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 37.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 5 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 6th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=199 students District State District State District State District State CPI 84.5 78.2 83.0 79.7 86.1 79.6 87.9 80.5 Media 58.0 50.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 53.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 6 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 7th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=196 students District State District State District State District State CPI 78.4 73.8 86.4 76.1 73.3 73.8 86.4 75.4 Media 64.0 50.0 66.0 50.0 41.0 50.0 67.5 50.0 n SGP
    • 7 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 8th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=215 students District State District State District State District State CPI 80.7 72.8 83.3 74.8 85.1 74.2 80.7 75.5 Media 60.0 50.0 62.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 n SGP
    • 8 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • 10th Grade Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=181 students District State District State District State District State CPI 94.8 88.1 96.7 88.8 96.4 89.4 94.9 90.0 Media 72.0 50.0 74.0 50.0 69.5 50.0 65.5 50.0 n SGP
    • 10 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
    • ALL Grades Math -District Performance 2009 2010 2011 2012For 2012, n=1,443 students District State District State District State District State CPI 84.2 78.5 87.0 79.9 85.4 79.9 85.9 79.9 Media 59.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 52.0 50.0 55.0 50.0 n SGP
    • ALL Grades Math: MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
    • Science, Technology &Engineering District MCAS Results
    • 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. – District PerformanceFor 2012, n=236 students 2009 2010 2011 2012 District State District State District State District State CPI 84.5 77.7 88.9 79.7 89.3 77.0 87.5 77.8
    • 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
    • 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. – District PerformanceFor 2012, n=215 students 2009 2010 2011 2012 District State District State District State District State CPI 81.9 70.2 81.2 71.0 78.4 70.3 84.4 71.6
    • 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
    • 10th Grade Biology – District PerformanceFor 2012, n=180 students 2009 2010 2011 2012 District State District State District State District State CPI 95.2 80.8 97.2 82.1 97.3 86.4
    • 10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
    • Massachusetts’New Accountability System for Schools
    • What did NCLB require?100% proficiency in ELA & math by 2013–14Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for all schools & districtsSchools & districts identified for improvement, corrective action, & restructuring
    • Massachusetts NCLB WaiverInstead of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting, Massachusetts will report district and school progress toward college and career readiness and reducing proficiency gaps through the use of a new 100-point Progress and Performance Index (PPI).An enhanced focus on subgroup performance by identifying schools with the largest proficiency gaps for individual subgroups, including a new “high needs” subgroup (Sp.Ed. + poverty + ELL), and by reducing the minimum group size for accountability determinations from 40 to 30 students.
    • Indicators for PPIThe PPI is a number between 0-100 that is comprised of seven core indicators.For each indicator, a district, school, or subgroup earns points based on the progress made by the group from one year to the next: 100 (Above Target), 75 (On Target), 50 (Improved Below Target), 25 (No Change), or 0 points (Declined).
    • PPI CalculationCore Indicators (Up to 7) Points AvailableELA Achievement (CPI) 0-100Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0-100Science Achievement (CPI) 0-100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median 0-100SGP)Mathematics Growth/Improvement 0-100(Median SGP)Cohort Graduation Rate 0-100Annual Dropout Rate 0-100Maximum Possible Points: 700
    • PPI Gap HalvingThe NCLB goal of 100 percent of students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year has been replaced with the goal of reducing “proficiency gaps” by half. A district, school, or subgroup’s proficiency gap is the distance between the group’s 2011 CPI proficiency and a CPI of 100.
    • Cumulative PPI CalculationYear Annual PPI Multiplier Points2012 90 4 3602011 80 3 2402010 60 2 1202009 70 1 70Total Points: 790Cumulative PPI (Total Divided byNumber of Multipliers): 79
    • PPI Gap Halving
    • New Accountability Levels for Schools & DistrictsLevel 1: On track to meet all goalsLevel 2: Still working to meet all goalsLevel 3: Focus: Some overall or subgroup scores are in the lowest state rangeLevel 4: Priority: Lowest performing schoolsLevel 5: Priority: Chronically underperforming schools
    • Graduation & DropoutAlldistricts, schools, and subgroups will be expected to halve the gap between their annual dropout rate, if one exists, and a rate of zero percent by the 2016-17 school year.Alldistricts, schools, and subgroups are expected to make steady progress toward a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for the four-year rate or 95 percent for the five-year rate by the 2016-17 school year.
    • Extra creditDistricts,schools, and groups can earn extra credit by reducing the percentage of students scoring Warning/Failing or by increasing the percentage of students scoring Advanced on MCAS tests in ELA, mathematics, and/or science. For each extra credit indicator earned, the group is awarded 25 additional points.
    • MURSD District PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 75 75 25Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 75 25 75ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 75 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100CPI, SGP & HS indicators 550 525 425 475Extra credit 125 100 25 50Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 96 89 64 75Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77
    • PPI Overall Data: MURSDStudent Group Clough Memorial Miscoe Nipmuc DistrictAll students 77 49 83 99 77High needs 72 73Low income 75 81ELL and Former ELLStudents w/disabilities 61 62Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.AsianAfr. Amer./BlackHispanic/LatinoMulti-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.White 74 52 87 100 78Relative State Percentile 57th 60th 75th 89th N/ALevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
    • Comparison to Neighboring Districts All Students High NeedDistrict PPI Students PPI ClassificationBellingham 55 49 Level 2Bckstn-Millville 76 63 Level 2Douglas 67 56 Level 2Grafton 73 51 Level 2Hopedale 72 68 Level 2Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2Milford 76 72 Level 2Northbridge 55 45 Level 3Sutton 59 57 Level 2Uxbridge 56 49 Level 2
    • Comparison to like districts (DART) All Students High Need StudentsDistrict PPI PPI ClassificationGroton-Dunstable 95 69 Level 2Hanover 78 61 Level 2Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2Ipswich 69 54 Level 2Lynnfield 88 84 Level 2Marblehead 79 62 Level 2Medfield 95 62 Level 2Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2Nashoba 80 72 Level 2Rockland 68 65 Level 3Scituate 83 75 Level 2Tyngsborough 75 73 Level 2
    • Clough PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 100 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 25 75 25 75Science Achievement (CPI)ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 50 100Cohort Graduation RateAnnual Dropout RateCPI, SGP & HS indicators 100 350 125 300Extra credit 50 100 0 75Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 75 113 31 94 Met TargetCumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77
    • Memorial PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 25Science Achievement (CPI)ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 75Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 25 50Cohort Graduation RateAnnual Dropout RateCPI, SGP & HS indicators 0 275 75 225Extra credit 0 100 0 25Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 0 94 19 63 Did Not Meet TargetCumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 49
    • Miscoe PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 0Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 50 75 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation RateAnnual Dropout RateCPI, SGP & HS indicators 400 400 350 300Extra credit 100 50 100 50Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 100 90 90 70 Met TargetCumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 83
    • Nipmuc PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 25Science Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 100 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100CPI, SGP & HS indicators 675 625 675 600Extra credit 150 75 50 25Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 118 100 104 89 Met TargetCumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 99
    • What Does the Data Tell Us?Over the past four years, some grades and subgroups are showing progress in ELA and math MCAS, while others are static or decliningOur high needs subgroup scores are lower than the aggregate- the major driver is the results of our special education studentsThe PPI is a complex metric, and the three Level 2 schools each had a different reason for the designation
    • Next StepsAllschools, grade levels, and content areas will analyze the disaggregrated data in detailWe need to monitor the effective implementation of the curriculum (e.g., Open Court Reading Program and Math Investigations) to ensure fidelity to the scope and sequenceWe must be looking forward to alignment of curriculum to the Common Core Standards, as the PARRC Assessment will commence in 2014- 15
    • More Next StepsWe must research, develop, and implement alternative service delivery models to better meet the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs of special education students Grades K-12Targeted investments needed in the areas of: Professional development Curriculum development Literacy/mathematics support
    • Questions?