0
Mendon-Upton Regional Schools           2012 MCAS Results &           Accountability Status            Presentation to the...
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 imp...
Composite Performance Index (CPI)Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performancelevel, then di...
Student Growth Percentile (SGP)A  metric that determines how much a student has grown in one year relative to his academi...
English Language ArtsDistrict MCAS Results
3rd Grade ELA -District Performance                                          2009                   2010                20...
3 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State rd      % of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance                                        2009                  2010                 2011  ...
3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, &              State        % of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance                                         2009                  2010                 201...
3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District,             & State        % of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -District Performance                                        2009                   2010               2011 ...
4 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th      % of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance                                      2009                  2010              2011       ...
4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, &              State        % of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance                                       2009                  2010              2011    ...
4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District,             & State        % of students proficient or higher
5th Grade ELA -District Performance                                           2009               2010               2011  ...
5 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th      % of students proficient or higher
6th Grade ELA -District Performance                                           2009                2010                2011...
6 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th      % of students proficient or higher
7th Grade ELA -District Performance                                            2009                2010                201...
7 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th      % of students proficient or higher
8th Grade ELA -District Performance                                            2009                2010                201...
8 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th      % of students proficient or higher
10th Grade ELA -District Performance                                            2009                2010                20...
10 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State  th       % of students proficient or higher
ALL Grades ELA -District Performance                                              2009                2010                ...
ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State       % of students proficient or higher
MathematicsDistrict MCAS Results
3rd Grade Math -District Performance                                          2009                   2010                2...
3 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State rd       % of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade Math -Clough Performance                                        2009                  2010                 2011 ...
3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, &              State         % of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade Math -Memorial Performance                                          2009                  2010                 2...
3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District,             & State         % of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               201...
4 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th       % of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -Clough Performance                                       2009                  2010                2011   ...
4th Grade Math: Clough, District, &              State         % of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -Memorial Performance                                         2009                  2010                201...
4th Grade Math: Memorial, District,             & State         % of students proficient or higher
5th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               201...
5 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th       % of students proficient or higher
6th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               201...
6 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th       % of students proficient or higher
7th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               201...
7 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th       % of students proficient or higher
8th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               201...
8 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th       % of students proficient or higher
10th Grade Math -District Performance                                         2009                   2010               20...
10 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State  th       % of students proficient or higher
ALL Grades Math -District Performance                                           2009                   2010               ...
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                                 ...
5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :        MURSD vs. State      % of students proficient or higher
8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –             District PerformanceFor 2012, n=215 students                                 ...
8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :        MURSD vs. State      % of students proficient or higher
10th Grade Biology –                 District PerformanceFor 2012, n=180 students                                       20...
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 s...
Massachusetts NCLB WaiverInstead of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting, Massachusetts will report district and scho...
Indicators for PPIThe  PPI is a number between 0-100 that is comprised of seven core indicators.For each indicator, a di...
PPI CalculationCore Indicators (Up to 7)        Points AvailableELA Achievement (CPI)            0-100Mathematics Achievem...
PPI Gap HalvingThe  NCLB goal of 100 percent of students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year has been replace...
Cumulative PPI CalculationYear          Annual PPI           Multiplier   Points2012          90                   4      ...
PPI Gap Halving
New Accountability Levels for Schools & DistrictsLevel 1: On track to meet all goalsLevel 2: Still working to meet all g...
Graduation & DropoutAlldistricts, schools, and subgroups will be expected to halve the gap between their annual dropout r...
Extra creditDistricts,schools, and groups can earn extra credit by reducing the percentage of students scoring Warning/Fa...
MURSD District PPICore Indicators (Up to 7)                     2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI)                  ...
PPI Overall Data: MURSDStudent Group               Clough Memorial Miscoe Nipmuc DistrictAll students                  77 ...
Comparison to Neighboring Districts                   All Students    High NeedDistrict                PPI       Students ...
Comparison to like districts  (DART)                   All Students High Need StudentsDistrict                PPI         ...
Clough PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7)                     2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI)           ...
Memorial PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7)                     2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI)         ...
Miscoe PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7)                     2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI)           ...
Nipmuc PPICore Indicators (Up to 7)                     2009   2010   2011   2012ELA Achievement (CPI)                    ...
What Does the Data Tell Us?Over the past four years, some grades and subgroups are showing progress in ELA and math MCAS,...
Next StepsAllschools, grade levels, and content areas will analyze the disaggregrated data in detailWe need to monitor t...
More Next StepsWe   must research, develop, and implement alternative service delivery models to better meet the academic...
Questions?
MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status

1,298

Published on

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

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,298
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "MURSD 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status"

  1. 1. Mendon-Upton Regional Schools 2012 MCAS Results & Accountability Status Presentation to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee October 15, 2012
  2. 2. First, a few terms related to MCAS results and accountability data…
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. English Language ArtsDistrict MCAS Results
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 3 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State rd % of students proficient or higher
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 4 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 5 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 6 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 7 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 8 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 10 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
  31. 31. MathematicsDistrict MCAS Results
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 3 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State rd % of students proficient or higher
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 4 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 4th Grade Math: Clough, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 4th Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State % of students proficient or higher
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 5 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. 6 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. 7 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  50. 50. 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
  51. 51. 8 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. 10 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State th % of students proficient or higher
  54. 54. 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
  55. 55. ALL Grades Math: MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
  56. 56. Science, Technology &Engineering District MCAS Results
  57. 57. 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
  58. 58. 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
  59. 59. 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
  60. 60. 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. 10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State % of students proficient or higher
  63. 63. Massachusetts’New Accountability System for Schools
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. 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.
  66. 66. 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).
  67. 67. 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
  68. 68. 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.
  69. 69. 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
  70. 70. PPI Gap Halving
  71. 71. 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
  72. 72. 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.
  73. 73. 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.
  74. 74. 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
  75. 75. 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
  76. 76. 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
  77. 77. 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
  78. 78. 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
  79. 79. 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
  80. 80. 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
  81. 81. 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
  82. 82. 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
  83. 83. 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
  84. 84. 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
  85. 85. Questions?
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×