MURSD MCAS and AYP Data 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

MURSD MCAS and AYP Data 2011

on

  • 600 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
600
Views on SlideShare
600
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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 MCAS and AYP Data 2011 MURSD MCAS and AYP Data 2011 Presentation Transcript

  • Mendon-Upton Regional Schools MCAS/AYP Data October 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 3rd Grade ELA (n=207)60% 57%50%40% Advanced30% 27% Proficient Needs Imp20% Failing 12%10% 5%0% Spring 2011
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 3rd Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-1190%80% 78% 75%70% 68% 68% 69% 66%60%50%40% State MURSD30%20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 3rd Grade Mathematics (n=207)60% 57%50%40% Advanced30% Proficient 23% Needs Imp20% 14% Failing10% 7%0% Spring 2011
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 3rd Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1190%80% 81%70% 72% 71% 68%60% 61%50% 51%40% State MURSD30%20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 4th Grade ELA (n=242)60% 56%50%40% 31% Advanced30% Proficient Needs Imp20% Failing10% 8% 5%0% Median SGP: Spring 2011 45.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 4th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-1190%80% 78%70% 72% 72% 64%60% 55%50% 51%40% State MURSD30%20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 4th Grade Mathematics (n=242)45% 40% 40%40%35%30%25% Advanced Proficient20% 15% Needs Imp15% Failing10% 5%5%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 42.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 4th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1160% 56% 55% 55% 49% 49%50%40%30% 32% State MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 5th Grade ELA (n=204)70% 66%60%50%40% Advanced Proficient30% Needs Imp 20%20% Failing 11%10% 3%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 49.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 5th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11100%90% 86%80% 78% 72% 71% 74%70% 70%60%50% State40% MURSD30%20%10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Miscoe Hill Performance Distribution- 5th Grade Mathematics (n=204)50%45% 43%40%35%30% 28% Advanced25% 24% Proficient20% Needs Imp15% Failing10%5% 4%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 57.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 5th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1180%70% 71%60% 60% 61% 62%50% 52%40% 40% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 5th Grade Science (n=204)60% 53%50%40% Advanced30% Proficient 23% 20% Needs Imp20% Failing10% 4%0% Spring 2011
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 5th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-1180% 73%70% 67%60% 59% 59% 53% 54%50%40% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 6th Grade ELA (n=211)80%70% 67%60%50% Advanced40% Proficient30% Needs Imp Failing20% 14% 16%10% 2%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 43.5
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 6th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-1190%80% 83% 83% 81% 78% 78% 78%70%60%50%40% State MURSD30%20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 6th Grade Mathematics (n=211)45% 41%40%35%30% 27% 26%25% Advanced Proficient20% Needs Imp15% Failing10% 7%5%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 47.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 6th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1180%70% 68% 68% 65%60% 60% 57%50% 46%40% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 7th Grade ELA (n=221)70% 63%60%50%40% Advanced Proficient30% Needs Imp 19% Failing20% 15%10% 3%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 47.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 7th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-1190% 85%80% 82% 81% 82% 79%70% 72%60%50%40% State MURSD30%20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 7th Grade Mathematics (n=221)35% 32% 30%30%25% 21%20% Advanced 17% Proficient15% Needs Imp10% Failing5%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 41.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 7th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1180%70% 72%60% 52% 51% 53%50% 49% 43%40% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 8th Grade ELA (n=264)70% 60%60%50%40% Advanced 30% Proficient30% Needs Imp20% Failing 9%10% 2%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 58.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 8th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11100%90% 90% 90% 89% 89% 87% 84%80%70%60%50% State40% MURSD30%20%10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 8th Grade Mathematics (n=264)40% 37%35% 33%30%25% 21% Advanced20% Proficient15% Needs Imp Failing10% 8%5%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 59.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 8th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-1180%70% 70% 64% 63%60% 58% 56% 53%50%40% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 8th Grade Science (n=264)45%40% 39%35% 34%30%25% Advanced Proficient20% Needs Imp15% 12% 12% Failing10%5%0% Spring 2011
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 8th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-1170% 64%60% 57% 55%50% 51% 45%40% 36% State30% MURSD20%10%0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 10th Grade ELA (n=191)60% 51%50% 45%40% Advanced30% Proficient Needs Imp20% Failing10% 3% 1%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 72.0
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 10th Grade, ELA MCAS 2006-11120%100% 93% 96% 96% 91% 89% 90%80%60% State MURSD40%20% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution-MCAS 10th Grade Mathematics (n=190)80%70% 68%60%50% Advanced40% Proficient30% Needs Imp 22% Failing20% 9%10% 2%0% Spring 2011 Median SGP: 69.5
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 10th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11100% 94%90% 92% 90% 87% 86%80% 83%70%60%50% State40% MURSD30%20%10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Performance Distribution- MCAS 10th Grade Biology (n=180)60% 53%50%40% 37% Advanced30% Proficient Needs Imp20% Failing 9%10% 1%0% Spring 2011
  • % Students Advanced/Proficient 10th Grade, Biology MCAS, 2007-11100%90% 92% 90% 82% 84%80%70% 67%60%50% State40% MURSD30%20%10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  • Comparable District Data- Mendon-Upton *Districts are most similar to your district in terms of grade span, enrollment, and special population. Orange-shaded row: Your district Blue-shaded row: Highest performing of the other 10 districts in 2010 and 2011 . 2011 MCAS 2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS Growth Grade % Advanced/Proficient span Total LowComparable Districts Overview Enrollment Income SPED LEP ELA Math ELA MathGroton-Dunstable* PK - 12 2,771 3.3 13.7 0.5 85% 79% 52.0 60.0Hanover* PK - 12 2,685 5.7 15.4 0.5 82% 68% 46.0 46.0Hopkinton* PK - 12 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0Ipswich* PK - 12 2,111 9.9 14.2 0.6 79% 72% 52.0 53.0Lynnfield* PK - 12 2,308 5.5 13.9 0.1 88% 76% 57.0 50.0Marblehead* PK - 12 3,206 8.3 15.0 0.8 85% 74% 55.0 57.0Medfield* PK - 12 2,939 2.3 12.1 0.2 88% 77% 60.0 62.0Mendon-Upton* PK - 12 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0Nashoba* PK - 12 3,495 7.9 11.1 0.7 84% 77% 53.0 59.0Scituate* PK - 12 3,276 6.6 12.2 0.8 88% 81% 57.0 56.0Tyngsborough* PK - 12 1,939 6.7 12.2 0.1 77% 66% 54.0 55.0 Source: DART for Schools, Massachusetts DESE
  • Neighboring District MCAS Data 2011MCAS 2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS Growth % Advanced/Proficient Total Low Income % SPED % LEP % ELA Math ELA Math EnrollmentBellingham 2,567 19.1 12.1 0.9 72% 59% 44.0 44.0Blackstone-Millville 2,013 22.8 16.1 0.8 72% 65% 49.0 55.0Franklin 6,032 7.1 15.8 1.2 85% 77% 55.0 52.0Grafton 2,872 10.4 16.4 0.4 79% 70% 50.0 62.0Hopedale 1,279 9.5 16.4 0.9 81% 71% 47.0 53.0Hopkinton 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0Mendon-Upton 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0Milford 4,185 28.1 15.0 6.2 72% 61% 55.0 53.0Northbridge 2,603 24.6 16.7 0.4 70% 52% 47.0 47.0Uxbridge 1,952 16.2 13.9 1.4 70% 58% 42.0 42.0Westborough 3,513 7.5 13.4 6.8 85% 77% 59.0 54.0
  • How AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is Calculated
  • 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 OR Emerging 75Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 Awareness 50Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0 39
  • 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 40
  • CPI Targets for ELA from DESE 100 100 100 95 95.1 95.1 90 90.2 90.2 85 85.4 85.4 80 80.5 80.5CPI 75 75.6 75.6 70 State Target 65 60 55 50
  • CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance- ELA 100 100 100 95 93.5 95.1 95.1 92.4 93.1 90.8 91.2 91.4 91.1 90 88.7 88.5 90.2 90.2 85 85.4 85.4 80 80.5 80.5CPI 75 75.6 75.6 State Target 70 MURSD Aggregate 65 60 55 50
  • CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance, Including Subgroups- ELA 100 95 90 85 80 State Target 75CPI MURSD Aggregate 70 Spec Ed 65 Lim Income 60 55 50
  • CPI Targets for Math 100 100 100 95 92.2 92.2 90 85 84.3 84.3 80CPI 75 76.5 76.5 70 68.7 68.7 State Target 65 60 60.8 60.8 55 50
  • CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance- Math 100 100 100 95 92.2 92.2 90 87 85 84.3 84.2 84.3 85.4 82.8 81.1 80 78.4 77.5 78CPI 75 76.4 76.5 76.5 State Target 70 68.7 68.7 MURSD Aggregate 65 60 60.8 60.8 55 50
  • CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance, Including Subgroups- Math 100 95 90 85 80CPI State Target 75 MURSD Aggregate 70 Spec Ed 65 Lim Income 60 55 50
  • What this means for MURSD and AYP Performance Targets Did we meet our DESE targets for English Language Arts? Grade Span Aggregate Special Limited Education Income 3-5 No No No 6-8 No No No 9-12 Yes N/A N/A MURSD No No No
  • What this means for MURSD and AYP Performance Targets Did we meet our DESE targets for Mathematics? Grade Span Aggregate Special Limited Education Income 3-5 No No No 6-8 No No No 9-12 Yes N/A N/A MURSD No No No
  • To get a perspective…Table 8. Number and Percentage of Districts and Schools Not Making AYP, 2006-2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (N = 1772) (N = 1772) (N = 1770) (N = 1732) (N = 1716) (N = 1714) # % # % # % # % # % # % ELA MathSchools 733 41.4 853 48.1 1122 63.4 1078 62.2 1141 66.5 1404 81.9 1163 1202 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (N = 379) (N = 386) (N = 386) (N = 385) (N = 385) (N = 390) # % # % # % # % # % # % ELA MathDistricts 243 64.1 270 69.9 302 78.2 304 79.0 316 82.1 354 90.8 307 334* This chart shows the number and percentage of districts and schools not making AYP for one or more student groups (aggregate or any subgroup) in either English language arts/reading (ELA) ormathematics from 2006 to 2011 (data are disaggregated by subj Source: DESE website, www.doe.mass.edu