mcas 2014 newburyport public schools presentation.pdf**high school: low mcas participation (less...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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%


1. Scituate 982. Lynnfield 972. Hanover 972. Wakefield 973. Newburyport 964. Mendon-Upton 95


1. Ipswich 992. Pentucket 983. Newburyport 964. Triton 95 5. Georgetown 945. Amesbury 94


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%


1. Lynnfield 872. Mendon-Upton 733. Scituate 694. Wakefield 615. Hanover 546. Newburyport 48


1. Ipswich 632. Georgetown 623. Amesbury 604. Triton 595. Pentucket 536. Newburyport 48


1. Winchester 822. Wellesley 783. Needham 724. Medfield 685. Holliston 556. Newburyport 48



1. Newburyport 752. Lynnfield 673. Mendon-Upton 663. Hanover 664. Scituate 655. Wakefield 63


1. Newburyport 752. Triton 633. Amesbury 573. Pentucket 574. Ipswich 565. Georgetown 48


1. Holliston 832. Newburyport 753. Needham 743. Wellesley 743. Medfield 744. Winchester 69



1. Scituate 932. Newburyport 913. Lynnfield 903. Wakefield 904. Mendon-Upton 895. Hanover 87


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%


1. Scituate 752. Hanover 73 3. Lynnfield 68 4. Newburyport 65 4. Mendon-Upton 65 5. Wakefield 63


1. Amesbury 662. Newburyport 652. Triton 653. Ipswich 624. Pentucket 615. Georgetown 59


1. Winchester 822. Holliston 692. Wellesley 693. Medfield 664. Newburyport 655. Needham 63



1. Mendon-Upton 622. Hanover 643. Lynnfield 554. Newburyport 545. Scituate 505. Wakefield 50


1. Amesbury 552. Newburyport 542. Triton 543. Pentucket 504. Ipswich 404. Georgetown 40


1. Needham 702. Winchester 693. Holliston 674. Medfield 655. Wellesley 596. Newburyport 54



1. Lynnfield 902. Wakefield 873. Hanover 864. Mendon-Upton 845. Newburyport 795. Scituate 79


1. Georgetown 872. Pentucket 853. Triton 814. Amesbury 805. Newburyport 796. Ipswich 75


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

mcas 2014 newburyport public schools presentation.pdf**high school: low mcas participation (less...

Documents