mcas 2014 newburyport public schools presentation.pdf**high school: low mcas participation (less...
TRANSCRIPT
MCAS 2014NEWBURYPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLSSchool Committee PresentationDecember 1, 2014
GROWTH DATA
District-wide
What is SGP or Student Growth Percentile?
• A Student Growth Percentile (SGP)• A student’s growth over the previous year compared to his or her academic peers
• SGPs are percentiles (ranging from 1 to 99) calculated by:• Comparing one student's history of MCAS scores to the scores of all the other
students in the state with a similar history of MCAS scores (academic peers)
• In simple terms:• Students earning high growth percentiles answered more questions correctly on
the spring 2014 MCAS test than their academic peers • Conversely, students earning low growth percentiles answered fewer questions
correctly than their academic peers
Student Growth Percentile
The range for determining achievement and growth
Scaled Score Level Range Performance
200 - 218 Warning/Failing
220 – 238 Needs Improvement
240 - 258 Proficient
260 – 280 Advanced/Above Proficient
SGP Range Description
1 - 39 Lower Growth
40 - 60 Moderate Growth
61 - 99 Higher Growth
• Every student, regardless of his or her level of achievement at the beginning of the school year, has the same opportunity to grow at the highest or lowest rates.
• Growth data is used:• To reflect on what worked well and what may not have worked so well • To determine possible factors that may be contributing to the growth percentile• As one measure in the educator evaluation system toward the teacher effectiveness rating
Spring 2014 MCAS District Achievement & Growth
ELAMedian SGP
MCAS % Proficientor Higher
(AG) All Grades 60.5 82
(AG) Low Income
51 54
(AG) Disability
52 43
Gr.4 40.5 53
Gr.5 59 83
Gr.6 61.5 85
Gr.7 78 88
Gr.8 60 93
Gr.10 62 96
Mathematics – Grades 4-10Median SGP = 67 (Students: 999)
State SGP = 50
MathMedian SGP
MCAS % Proficientor Higher
(AG) All Grades 67 72
(AG)Low Income
58 42
(AG) Disability
60 26
Gr.4 57.5 48
Gr.5 63 75
Gr.6 52 71
Gr.7 72 69
Gr.8 74 75
Gr.10 70 89
English Language Arts – Grades 4-10Median SGP = 60.5 (Students: 998)
State SGP = 50
2014 Accountability Data - Newburyport
Massachusetts has replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal of:
• Adequate Yearly Progress, (AYP) 100 percent of students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year with,
• Progress & Performance Index, (PPI) The goal of reducing proficiency gaps by half by the end of the 2016-17 school year
The proficiency gap is:
• The distance between a group's current proficiency level and 100 percent proficiency
The state measures the progress of districts and schools for:
• The aggregate or all students
• Student subgroups, including the combined “high needs”
2014 Accountability Data – Newburyport Cont.
Five accountability and assistance levels:
Commendation Schools [high achieving, high growth, gap narrowing schools (subset of Level 1)]
Level 1 - Meeting gap narrowing goals (for all and high needs students)
Level 2 - Not meeting gap narrowing goals (for all and/or high needs students)
Level 3 - Lowest performing 20% of schools (Including lowest performing subgroups)
Level 4 - Lowest performing schools (subset of Level 3)
Level 5 - Chronically underperforming schools (subset of Level 4)
2014 District Accountability Data Newburyport Level 2
Progress and Performance Index (PPI):
• Combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps in ELA, math, science, growth, and graduation and dropout rates over four years into a single number between 0 and 100
• Massachusetts uses the 100-point Composite Performance Index (CPI) to measure progress towards this goal of narrowing proficiency gaps.
• The CPI assigns points to each student participating in MCAS and MCAS-Alternate Assessment tests based how close they came to scoring Proficient or Advanced, 100 (above target), 75 (on target), 50 (improved below target), 25 (no change), or 0 (declined).
• The CPI is calculated by dividing the total number of points by the number of students in the group. The result is a number between 0 and 100. A CPI of 100 means that all students in a group are proficient.
• For a group to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, its cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher. *On Target = 75 or Higher
2014 Accountability Data by School – All Level 2
School District Bresnahan* Molin*Nock
Middle*High
School**
All Students 75Met Target
78Met Target
86Met Target
80Met Target
93Met Target
High Needs60
Did Not Meet Target
70Did Not
Meet Target
68Did Not
Meet Target
73Did Not
Meet Targetn/a
Low Income65
Did Not Meet Target
n/a59
Did Not Meet Target
85Met Target
n/a
Students w/Disabilities
53Did Not
Meet Targetn/a
64Did Not
Meet Target
66Did Not
Meet Targetn/a
*Bresnahan, Molin & Nock: Not meeting gap narrowing goals
**High School: Low MCAS participation (less than 95%) Focus on High Needs; (94% participation rate in High Needs)
Cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher to meet target
Accountability Newburyport, Level 2; MRAR
Level 2:
Does not meet PPI targets for either aggregate, or high needs group, in one or more schools
MRAR: Meets Requirements-At Risk:
Considered to be making progress, but are "at risk" for not meeting the needs of students with disabilities
• The district received the SPED Program Improvement Grant for $18,586. which is being used for professional development in literacy and interventions
• Approximately 80% of schools in MA are classified into Level 1 or 2, based on the cumulative PPI for the "all students" and high needs groups.
• A school may also be classified into Level 2 if it has low MCAS participation rates for any group (between 90% and 94%). (NHS)
• To be classified into Level 1, the cumulative PPI for both the "all students" group and “high needs” students must be 75 or higher. (Bresnahan, Molin, Nock)
FRANCIS T. BRESNAHAN SCHOOL
Grade Three Literacy and Mathematics
Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings)
MCAS Analysis Process: Conducted on October 1st during a Curriculum and Instruction staff meeting by Grade 3 teachers, Curriculum Coordinators, and Special Educators using the Data Analysis Protocol provided by TERC.
Significant increase in mathematics performance: Spring 2014, 76% A & P Spring 2013, 63% A & P
High Needs Improvement Band Mathematics: 11 students scored in this high needs improvement range ELA: 24 students scored in this high needs improvement range
High Proficient Band Mathematics: 26 students scored in this high proficient range ELA: 10 students scored in this high proficient range
Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings)
Mathematics Standards to Address Based on this Data: Measurement and Data; 3 out 9 questions below state average; only one is a released question; all multiple choice questions Operations and Algebraic Thinking; 3 out 12 questions below state average; 2 multiple choice and 1 short answer, yet on other questions students scored up to 10% better than the state
ELA No relative areas of weakness for any given standard were identified Students scored up to 13% stronger than the state on questions including short response and open response
Scores for ELA & Math at Third Grade
12
27
60
49
25
19
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ELA Math
Advanced Proficient Needs Imp Warning
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success
To fully implement Engage NY in Grades PreK-3 and support the implementation
To enhance the core curriculum in literacy with the implementation of a phonics program in Kindergarten and First Grade
Analyze data gathered from our online intervention programs to extend student learning
Goals
Established Vertical Math Group, K-12
Ongoing professional development and support provided by Dr. Chen and Dr. Kinzly
Addition of Math Interventionist
Dedicated collaboration time, staff meetings & early release days
Spell Links, Full day PD
Ongoing PD & support, Curriculum Coordinators
Ongoing grade level collaboration during staff meetings and early release days
Implement Spell Links in Grades 2 & 3, and asan intervention as needed September, 2015
Analyze Lexia and IXL data
Analyze skills reports on weekly basis
Implement identified extension activities
Actions
Implementation and analysis of Engage NY assessments, interim assessments, DDM’s, & formative assessments
Progress monitoring of student learning core concepts, Lexia Core 5 & IXL
Cross analysis of literacy data utilizing spelling assessments, DIBELS, Benchmark, & common writing assessments
Analysis of mid-year and end of year growth data for both literacy and mathematics
Measures of
SuccessActions
EDWARD G. MOLIN UPPER ELEMENTARY
Scores for ELA & Math at Grade Four
12 13
41
3538
45
96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ELA Math
Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning
Scores for ELA, Math, & Science at Grade Five
21
41
20
63
36
46
1116
29
47
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ELA Math Science
Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning
Data Analysis Process
Principal gives initial MCAS data to teachers within the first week of school
Teachers identify students at the low P, NI and W performance levels
Principal uses Edwin Analytics to break down data by standard, strands, and test item analysis
Principal gives teachers data listed above as well as individual data for students at the NI and W performance levels broken down into strands of strength and weakness
Data is analyzed at staff meeting
Grade level teams report to Principal action steps that will be taken to address student needs
Staff uses MCAS data, reading benchmark data, results from writing assessments, and math unit assessments to make decisions about after-school help sessions
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success
Implementation of rigorous Common Core aligned math program
Staff Meetings focused on math curriculum work
Data from math unit assessments & exit tickets informing instruction
Engage NY
All Molin staff trained in writing instructional approach
Implement SRSD approach with Opinion writing
Analyze data from the pre and post opinion writing assessments
Think SRSD Reading
benchmark results showed weakness in non-fiction reading comprehension
Piloting Core Clicks, non-fiction reading program aligned with the Core
Core Clicks
Staff meeting work with Literacy Coordinator on reciprocal teaching, comprehension strategies, and close reading
Use of benchmark data for small reading groups
Use of Lexia for challenged readers
Guided Reading
Success will be measured by: Engage NY assessments, teacher feedback, comparison of pre and post writing assessments, data from Core Clicks program, reading benchmark scores, comparison of fall reading scores and spring reading scores, and teacher feedback regarding piloted programs
RUPERT A. NOCK MIDDLE SCHOOL
Overview of MCAS Results (strengths & weaknesses)
SMART goals lead to significant growth
in Open Response
Student growth percentiles
Specifically concerned with sub groups:
Special Ed and Low Income students
Scores for ELA, Grades 6, 7, 8
23
62
11
4
24
64
10
2
26
69
2 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Advanced Proficient Needs Imp Warning
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Scores for Math, Grades 6, 7, 8
29
42
21
9
23
45
19
13
32
44
18
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Science/Tech-Engineering Grade 8
9
46
41
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning
Grade 8
Grade 8
Data Analysis Process and Findings
Principal gives initial MCAS data to teachers within the first week of school.
Teachers identify students at the low, needs improvement, and warning performance levels.
CAB leaders use Edwin Analytics to break down data by standard, strands, test item analysis, and determine trends.
Data is presented at staff meeting.
Students identified as needing intervention.
Students in low NI and W placed in MCAS intervention classes.
Data used to develop content area SMART Goals.
Strengths and Areas of Anticipated Growth
ELA: SMART Goals written and carried out to improve open response.
As a result, open response growth is as follows:
Grade 6: 9.9%
Grade 7: 22%
Grade 8: 10.3%
Math: Average SPG for each grade 2014 MCAS
Grade 6: 52% (State Rank 141)
Grade 7: 72% (State Rank 12 )
Grade 8: 74% (State Rank 17)
2014-2015 goal:
Implementing Engage NY
Science
2014-2015 Completion near of aligning curriculum to the Next Generation Science Standards.
Areas of strength as determined by MCAS:
Evolution, Technology, and Engineering.
Areas of anticipated growth:
Earth Science and Physical Science
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success
RTI, attendance
Universal supports in place
MCAS Intervention classes
Intentional focus on developing a vibrant learning community
Sub Group Intervention
Formative assessments
Connect Course goals with student needs
Formativeassessments
Content area
analysis
Open response writing
Growth percentage
Content area work moving toward CC
Cross curricular
goal setting
SMART Goals
Measures of success
Student response analysis
Pre and post assessment across all content areas
DDMs across content areas
MCAS
NEWBURYPORT HIGH SCHOOL
Overview of MCAS Results (strengths & weaknesses)
ELA Weaknesses
• Nonfiction, especially nonfiction specific questions like main source of evidence questions
• Connotative meaning
• Fatigue (the # of multiple choice/questions #29 thru 39 that students answered incorrectly)
Strengths
• Fiction analysis
• Shakespeare
• Writing, open-response and long composition
Math Weaknesses
• Numbering quantity category
Strengths
• Geometry multiple choice questions
Biology
Weaknesses
• Too many open response questions not answered
• Many students failing to read the questions carefully
Strengths
• Students did significantly better on multiple choice questions
Scores for ELA & Math (Grade 10), and Biology (Grade 9)
61
73
52
36
18
37
25
10
24
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
English Math Biology
Advanced Proficient Needs
Improvement
Failing
Data Analysis Process and Findings
ELA
Grade 9 & 10 teachers analyzed 3 non-fiction excerpts, one Shakespeare (iambic pentameter/poetry), one short story, and one poem. Teachers also analyzed some of the multiple choice questions. Students did relatively poorly on the poetry questions (# 37-40).
The long composition scores were high, averaging 16 out of 20.
Math
Grade 9 &10 teachers analyzed the 32 multiple choice questions, 6 open response questions, 4 short answer questions.
Students scored much higher on the geometry questions.
Data Analysis Process and Findings
Biology
The three grade 9 biology teachers analyzed the biology MCAS multiple choice and short answer student responses.
Teachers realized that our current curriculum gets into great detail about many subjects. Teachers need to focus more on the broader picture rather than the details.
Reading closely is important for success in all questions. Specific strategies around all vocabulary can be practiced. An example would be a question that states “all of the following except”. Students should methodically eliminate answers before choosing an exception.
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - ELA
9TH & 10TH grade teachers will incorporate more nonfiction into the curriculum with nonfiction specific comprehension questions.
Practice taking more exams to battle fatigue issues.
GOAL
9TH & 10TH grade teachers are requiring students to read more nonfiction selections in their courses.
9th & 10th grade teachers will develop exam structure that follows MCAS test structure.
ACTION
Comparison of 2014 non-fiction MCAS results with 2015 non-fiction results.
Compare results of 2014 multiple choice questions #29 thru 39 with 2015 multiple-choice questions #29 thru 39.
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - Math
Focus on the number and quantity category of MCAS math questions.
Review and revise the math MCAS reference sheet for special education students.
GOAL
Teachers will spend more time reviewing and reinforcing the concepts found in the number and quantity category that were covered in the previous grades standards.
Math department teachers and special education teachers will collaborate to develop a new math reference sheet for 2015 MCAS test.
ACTION
Compare the 2014 and 2015 number and quantity category student responses.
The new reference sheet was approved by MCAS Central. The department will compare the 2014 to 2015 special education sub group responses.
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - Biology
Create open response questions for unit test that mirror the MCAS open response questions.
Familiarize students with MCAS type questions.
GOAL
Biology teachers will collaborate on utilizing the same open response questions with a standard grading rubric.
Biology teachers will create unit test multiple choice questions that mirror MCAS multiple choice questions.
ACTION
A comparison of 2014 and 2015 MCAS Biology open response results.
A comparison of 2014 and 2015 MCAS Biology multiple choice questions.
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
A & P
W A & P
W A & P
W A &P
W A &P
W A &P
W A & P W A+P W/F
Gr. 3 68 5 65 7 61 6 67 6 68 4 74 4 67 4 72 3
Gr. 4 57 9 43 11 54 6 54 5 61 9 70 8 60 6 53 9
Gr. 5 71 3 73 5 69 6 65 5 79 3 69 7 82 4 83 5
Gr. 6 64 3 83 2 81 5 78 6 85 2 79 2 82 6 85 4
Gr. 7 84 2 76 2 92 1 89 3 86 4 90 3 90 3 88 3
Gr. 8 89 3 87 3 89 2 92 2 91 2 85 2 93 3 93 4
Gr. 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gr. 10 90 2 92 2 94 1 92 1 94 1 96 1 97 2 96 2
English Language Arts Cohorts
% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F
Grade 3 63 15 58 10 58 14 65 6 72 7 59 9 62 11 76 5
Grade 4 49 10 47 17 50 8 49 9 47 9 57 9 59 4 48 7
Grade 5 56 13 63 12 53 14 52 13 59 14 59 14 65 10 74 9
Grade 6 42 20 60 10 61 13 62 16 54 12 58 10 70 11 71 9
Grade 7 67 10 48 17 70 9 79 5 63 16 71 6 65 14 69 13
Grade 8 53 12 67 10 58 12 69 7 75 7 72 9 81 8 75 8
Grade 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade 10 92 2 87 3 90 2 88 2 90 2 93 1 93 3 90 5
Mathematics Cohorts
Science & Tech/Engineering Cohorts
% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F
Grade 5 67 1 49 8 53 9 63 5 59 9 59 8 65 4 64 5
Grade 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade 8 45 10 55 8 49 6 62 3 54 6 49 13 62 5 54 5
Grade 9Biology
- - - - - - 75 4 90 2 85 2 81 1 89 1
ELA Grade 4Newburyport 2014-53%
Comparative Communities2014-% LEVEL
1. Lynnfield 88 22. Scituate 79 23. Mendon-Upton 69 2 4. Hanover 66 25. Wakefield 62 26. Newburyport 53 2
Geographic Proximity2014-% LEVEL
1. Ipswich 65 22. Amesbury 64 23. Triton 63 24. Pentucket 58 25. Georgetown 54 26. Newburyport 53 2
Aspiration Communities2014-% LEVEL
1. Winchester 89 22. Wellesley 78 23. Holliston 72 24. Needham 70 25. Medfield 69 2 6. Newburyport 53 2
ELA Grade 8Newburyport 2014-93%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Hanover 952. Newburyport 932. Scituate 932. Lynnfield 933. Mendon-Upton 894. Wakefield 85
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Newburyport 931. Pentucket 932. Georgetown 853. Ipswich 834. Triton 825. Amesbury 77
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Medfield 962. Holliston 953. Needham 944. Newburyport 934. Wellesley 935. Winchester 92
ELA Grade 10Newburyport 2014- 96%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Scituate 982. Lynnfield 972. Hanover 972. Wakefield 973. Newburyport 964. Mendon-Upton 95
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Ipswich 992. Pentucket 983. Newburyport 964. Triton 95 5. Georgetown 945. Amesbury 94
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Winchester 1002. Wellesley 992. Medfield 993. Holliston 984. Needham 975. Newburyport 96
2014 ELA - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students
Accountability Levels of Each District
MATH Grade 4Newburyport 2014- 48%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Lynnfield 872. Mendon-Upton 733. Scituate 694. Wakefield 615. Hanover 546. Newburyport 48
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Ipswich 632. Georgetown 623. Amesbury 604. Triton 595. Pentucket 536. Newburyport 48
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Winchester 822. Wellesley 783. Needham 724. Medfield 685. Holliston 556. Newburyport 48
MATH Grade 8Newburyport 2014- 75%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Newburyport 752. Lynnfield 673. Mendon-Upton 663. Hanover 664. Scituate 655. Wakefield 63
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Newburyport 752. Triton 633. Amesbury 573. Pentucket 574. Ipswich 565. Georgetown 48
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Holliston 832. Newburyport 753. Needham 743. Wellesley 743. Medfield 744. Winchester 69
MATH Grade 10Newburyport 2014- 91%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Scituate 932. Newburyport 913. Lynnfield 903. Wakefield 904. Mendon-Upton 895. Hanover 87
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Newburyport 912. Pentucket 893. Triton 884. Georgetown 854. Ipswich 855. Amesbury 80Aspiration Communities
2014-%
1. Winchester 992. Medfield 983. Needham 953. Holliston 954. Wellesley 945. Newburyport 91
2014 MATH - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students
Science Grade 5Newburyport 2014- 65%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Scituate 752. Hanover 73 3. Lynnfield 68 4. Newburyport 65 4. Mendon-Upton 65 5. Wakefield 63
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Amesbury 662. Newburyport 652. Triton 653. Ipswich 624. Pentucket 615. Georgetown 59
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Winchester 822. Holliston 692. Wellesley 693. Medfield 664. Newburyport 655. Needham 63
Science Grade 8Newburyport 2014- 54%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Mendon-Upton 622. Hanover 643. Lynnfield 554. Newburyport 545. Scituate 505. Wakefield 50
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Amesbury 552. Newburyport 542. Triton 543. Pentucket 504. Ipswich 404. Georgetown 40
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Needham 702. Winchester 693. Holliston 674. Medfield 655. Wellesley 596. Newburyport 54
Science Grade 10Newburyport 2014- 79%
Comparative Communities2014-%
1. Lynnfield 902. Wakefield 873. Hanover 864. Mendon-Upton 845. Newburyport 795. Scituate 79
Geographic Proximity2014-%
1. Georgetown 872. Pentucket 853. Triton 814. Amesbury 805. Newburyport 796. Ipswich 75
Aspiration Communities2014-%
1. Medfield 972. Winchester 953. Needham 923. Holliston 924. Wellesley 825. Newburyport 79
2014 Science - Grades 5, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students
2014-2015 MCAS School Committee Presentation