2011 gaylord community schools meap data
TRANSCRIPT
B O E M E E T I N G
M A R C H 1 4 , 2 0 1 2
2011 Gaylord Community Schools MEAP DATA
MEAP Facts
Michigan’s MEAP assessments are based on the Content Standards.
Assessments are criterion-referenced. If a student meets the standard, it means he/she meets
expectations on the recommended state curriculum. The significant increase in cut scores has decreased the number
of students achieving proficiency. In theory, all students in the state should achieve the standard
in every subject.
Level 1: Advanced
Level 2: Proficient
Level 3: Partially Proficient
Level 4: Not Proficient
The Increase for 2011/12
67 64 64
61
71
64
57
45 45 45 42
52
45
51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Change in MEAP/MME Cut Scores Reading
2011/12
2010/11
The Increase for 2011/12
72
58 61
58 60 59 58
34
29
39 35 36 35
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Change in MEAP/MME Cut Scores Math
2011/12
2010/11
Change in Assessment
MEAP/MME
2012
Transition to Common
Core
Smarter Balance
2015
Grade Levels Tested on MEAP
Reading: Grades 3-8
Math: Grades 3-8
Writing: Grades 4 and 7
Science: Grades 5 and 8
Social Studies: Grades 6 and 9
Reading
Administered to grades 3-8.
Reflects proficiency levels in word study, narrative text, comprehension, and informal text.
68
76 78 79
70
80
62
68 69 67
60 61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP READING GCS vs. State
GCS
State
75 74
69
73
63
67
73 73
67
72 70
62
68
76 78 79
70
80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
%
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
2009-11 GCS MEAP Reading
2009
2010
2011
Math
Administered to 3-8 grade.
Reflects proficiency levels in counting, fractions, multiplication, division, geometry, and algebra.
41 44
40
54 53 51
36 40 40
37 37
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP MATH GCS vs. State
GCS
State
41
34
49 49 46
42
47
37 38 41
61
40 41 44
40
54 53 51
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
%
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
2009-11 GCS MEAP Math
2009
2010
2011
NON-NCLB AREAS
Writing
Science
Social Studies
47 51
45 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4th 7th
%
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Grade
2011 MEAP Writing GCS vs. State
GCS
State
21 25
15 16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5th 8th
%
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Grade
2011 MEAP Science GCS vs. State
GCS
State
33 34
28 29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6th 9th
%
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Grade
2011 MEAP Social Studies GCS vs. State
GCS
State
SUBGROUP
NCLB Subgroups
Economically disadvantaged students
Students from major racial and ethnic groups
Students with disabilities under the IDEA
Students with limited English proficiency
Students with Disabilities
30
52
38
43
12
34 35 34
29
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th <10
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP READING GCS vs. STATE
GCS
State
Students with Disabilities
36
14
19 18
12
19 18 16
11 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th <10
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP MATH GCS vs. STATE
GCS
State
Economically Disadvantaged
60
65
72 71
61
72
49
55 56 54
44 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP READING GCS vs. STATE
GCS
State
Economically Disadvantaged
29 32
29
44 45 45
23 25 25
23 22
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
Grade
2011 MEAP MATH GCS vs. STATE
GCS
State
Gender
Male vs. Female
64
73 77
72 70
75 72
78 79
87
70
84
62
68 69 67
60 61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
GCS MEAP Reading
Male
Female
State Avg.
Male vs. Female
46
54
44
50 52
57
37 35 36
59
53
45
36
40 40
37 37
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
% P
ro
fic
ien
t
GCS MEAP Math
Male
Female
State Avg.
Summary Statements
In 2011 GCS is at or above state average in all MEAP areas.
Applying the new cut scores has lower GCS proficiency levels for 2011, however increased the gap between GCS and the state by an average of 4.7% in reading and math from 2010 results.
GCS sub-groups are outperforming the state average.