mcps board meeting › mabe › mcpsmd › board.nsf › files...mcps board meeting share-out:...
TRANSCRIPT
© Education Resource Strategies, Inc. 2018
MCPS Board MeetingShare-out: ERS/MCPS Partnership
June 11, 2019
Agenda
• Refresh from April Board session
• Summary of study insights
• Deep dive: teaching quality
• Deep dive: time and attention
2
While overall MCPS outperforms peer MD districts, only some student groups experience this outperformance
3
51%
75%
47% 46% 44%
28%
21%
47%
63%
41%
46%
32%
20% 20%
52%
63%
51% 50%
36%
28%25%
45%
58%
39%
45%
28%
18%22%
Overall Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups
(Monitoring)
Non-FARMsBlack or African-American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student Groups
FARMsBlack or African-American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
% of MCPS Students Proficient on 2018 PARCC ELA by Student Group, Grades 3-8
MCPS Anne Arundel Frederick Harford
Source: Maryland DOE MCAP (PARCC) 2018
% of Students % Monitoring % AA Non-FARMs % Hi Non-FARMs % Other FARMs % AA FARMs % Hi FARMs
MCPS 44% 10% 10% 5% 12% 20%
What is resource equity?
4
TEACHING
QUALITY
EARLY
LEARNING
WHOLE
CHILD
APPROACH
FAMILY
ACADEMIC
ENGAGEMENT
EARLY
INTERVENTION
INSTRUCTIONAL
TIME &
ATTENTION
EMPOWERING,
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM &
COURSEWORK
Resource equity is the
allocation and use of resources
(people, time, and money) to create
student experiences that enable all
children to reach empowering, rigorous
learning outcomes — no matter their
race or income.
Across school levels, MCPS spends more per pupil on its higher need schools, and this extra spend is targeted primarily to elementary schools
5
$8,770
$10,421
$11,565
$9,197 $9,718
$8,800
$9,993
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Non-Focus Focus Title I Non-Focus Impacted Non-Focus/Impacted
Highly Impacted
Spe
ndin
g pe
r P
upil
($s)
Dollar Per Pupil Spending at Schools Excluding Special Education Spending and Self-Contained Student Populations
Average of EL Dollars per Pupil
Average of FARMs Dollars per Pupil
Average of Dollars per Pupil without FARMsand EL Dollars
Elementary School Middle School High School
Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis
School categories defined by FARMs enrollment as follows:
In ES: Non-focus <35%, Focus = 35%-67%, Title I =>67%
In MS: Non-focus <20%, Impacted >20%
In HS: Non-focus/Impacted < 35%, Highly Impacted > 35%
This additional investment results in more staff in higher need schools across all school levels
6
FTE/500 FTE per 500 Students by School Level and School Need
Excluding Special Education Spending and Self-Contained Student Populations
Elementary School FTE/500 Stud:
Non-Focus: 41
Focus: 51 (+10 or 24%)
Title 1 : 58 (+17 or 41%)
Middle School FTE/500 Stud:
Non-Focus: 42
Impacted: 47 (+5 or 12%)
High School FTE/500 Stud:
Non Focus/Impacted: 40
Highly Impacted: 47 (+7 or
18%)
Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis
What do we know so far?
7
White Non-FARMs
7th Grader
Hispanic/Latino
FARMs 7th Grader
Funding & Staffing
$10,940 per pupil funding
76 teachers & staff
$11,640 per pupil funding
85 teachers & staff
% Proficient(based on 2018 7th grade PARCC exam;
score of 4 or 5 = proficient)
76% ELA, 76% Math
21% ELA, 21% Math
Note: Funding = School Attributed $s per pupil for focus school vs non-focus school
Number of teachers and staff is calculated from specifically school-attributed Gen Ed FTE / 900 Gen Ed students (average for MS).
% Proficient based on 2018 PARCC Exam
Today, we will explore student experiences across additional dimensions of equity
8Note: Funding = School Attributed $s per pupil for focus school vs non-focus school Number of teachers and staff is calculated from specifically school-attributed Gen
Ed FTE / 900 Gen Ed students (average for MS). Number of novice teachers is approximate based on average student-experienced percent of time with a novice teacher.
White Non-FARMs
7th Grader
Hispanic/Latino
FARMs 7th Grader
% Proficient
76% ELA,
76% Math
21% ELA,
21% Math
Vision for All
Funding &
Staffing
$10,940 funding
76 teachers &
staff
$11,640 funding
85 teachers &
staff
Sufficient
funding given
need, used well
Teaching
Quality
1 of 7classes with a
novice teacher
2 of 7classes with a
novice teacher
Experience
high quality
and diverse
teachers
Time &
Attention
27 studentsin my core classes
24 studentsin my core classes
Extra time in reading.
No extra time for
math.
Differentiated time
& attention they
need to thrive
Empowering,
Rigorous
Content
39% enrolled in
advanced math
5%enrolled in
advanced math
High expectations;
rich, empowering
materials,
coursework,
classes
Diverse, Inclusive
Schools and
Classrooms
Schools and classes
with diverse mix of
race, socioeconomic
status, and
performance
64% of my peers are ELA-
proficient
30%of my peers are ELA-
proficient
School
Leadership
Quality
Experience high
quality and
diverse leaders
40% likelihood of having
a novice principal
62%likelihood of having
a novice principal
Teaching Quality
Teaching Quality: What does research say?
10
TEACHING
QUALITY
EARLY
LEARNING
WHOLE
CHILD
APPROACH
FAMILY
ACADEMIC
ENGAGEMENT
EARLY
INTERVENTION
INSTRUCTIONAL
TIME &
ATTENTION
EMPOWERING,
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM &
COURSEWORK
“The effects of a costly ten student reduction in
class size are smaller than the benefit of moving
one standard deviation up the teacher quality
distribution.”–Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2005)
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., and Sander, W. (2007). “Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools.” Journal of Labor Economics, Vol.
25, No. 1: 95-135. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2005). “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.” Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 2: 417-458.
“Teacher effects are statistically important in
explaining [student] achievement. Teacher
quality is particularly important for lower‐ability
students.”–Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., and Sander, W. (2007)
How do we assess teaching quality?
To assess this, we can look at:
oTeaching quality measures
oTeacher assignment to schools and students
oPractices for teacher collaboration and support
oTeacher diversity
11
Our focus today
All students experience a high quality teaching workforce that reflects student diversity
A note on teaching quality measuresAcross the education field, there is no singular, agreed upon way to objectively measure teaching quality. For this study, we
considered the following measures:
12
Measure Used in
this study?
Rationale
Teacher evaluation data No Data was not available for this study.
Novice teachers Yes Research shows that teachers make the greatest gains in effectiveness in their first three years of
teaching, and that generally teachers with less than three years of experience are less effective than
those with more experience. For this reason, we define novice teachers as those with fewer than
three years of experience in MCPS, and use novice teachers as a proxy for developing teachers.
Teacher leaders Yes In MCPS, schools select high performing teachers to take on teacher leadership roles. For this
reason, we use teacher leaders as a proxy for high quality teachers. Positions included as teacher
leaders: Content Specialists, Resource Teachers, Team Leaders, and Staff Development Teachers.
National Board Certified
(NBC) Teachers
Yes MCPS provides stipends to its NBC teachers as part of a strategy to attract and retain high quality
teachers.
Education level (Masters
+60 or other advanced
degree)
Yes Through the salary schedule, MCPS invests more in teachers with higher levels of education as part
of a strategy to attract and retain high quality teachers.
Student survey data No Data was not available for this study
Focus students spend almost 2x more time with novice teachers in middle school than monitoring students
13
14%
11%
20%
15%
20%
16%
21%
15%
23%
17%
25%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Middle School High School
Percent of Classes With Novice Teachers
Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student Groups
FARMsBlack or African-American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Hispanic FARMs students are 2x more
likely to have a novice teacher in middle
school than monitoring students
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
In middle school, the difference in the concentration of novice teachers across schoolsaccounts for most of the difference in student experience. In high schools, within-schoolassignment decisions are a bigger driver of difference in student experience.
14
14%
14%
20% 20%21%
23%25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Non-FARMsAll other Student
Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-
American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student
Groups
FARMsBlack or African-
American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Student-Experienced Percent of Classes with Novice Teachers – Middle School Drivers
Within School Driver
Across School Driver
Current % of Classes With Novice Teachers for Monitoring Students
11%
11%
15%16%
15%17%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Non-FARMsAll other Student
Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-
American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student
Groups
FARMsBlack or African-
American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Student-Experienced Percent of Classes with Novice Teachers – High School Drivers
Within School Driver
Across School Driver
Current % of Classes With Novice Teachers for Monitoring Students
What factors drive this gap in the student experience?
15
18% novice teachers
in middle schools
Example Student
Experience
25%
Typical Hispanic
FARMs student
14%
Typical White Non-
FARMs student
Within Schools
23%novice teachers
11%novice teachers
Across Schools
Focus School
Non-Focus School
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
In high schools, focus students are also less likely to be taught by teacher leaders than their peers
16
58%
24%
59%
19%
57%
18%
59%
18%
58%
15%
58%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Middle School High School
Percent of Students Taught by a Teacher Leader in a Core Subject
Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student Groups
FARMsBlack or African-American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
“Teacher Leader” includes Content Specialists, Resource Teachers, Team Leaders, and Staff Development Teachers.
Focus students are also less likely to be taught by a National Board Certified (NBC) Teacher, in middle and high school
17
23%
42%
16%
36%
16%
34%
16%
36%
13%
31%
11%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Middle School(n=85 NBCT)
High School(n=242 NBCT)
Percent of Students Taught by a National Board Certified Teacher in a Core Subject
Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student Groups
FARMsBlack or African-American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Note: Counts reflect number of NBC teachers at each school level who are teachers of record for at least one class.
Across and within-school factors drive differences in access to NBC teachers in middle school, while in high school differences are due to within-school factors only
18
23%
16% 16% 16%13% 11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Non-FARMsAll other Student
Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-
American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student
Groups
FARMsBlack or African-
American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Student Likelihood of Having a National Board Certified Teacher – Middle School
Current % of students taught by NBCT Across School Driver Within School Driver
42%
36%34%
36%
31%33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Non-FARMsAll other Student
Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-
American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student
Groups
FARMsBlack or African-
American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Student Likelihood of Having a National Board Certified Teacher – High School
Current % of students taught by NBCT Across School Driver Within School Driver
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Focus students are slightly less likely to have classes with teachers who have attained advanced degrees
19
14%
18%
21%
12%
16%
19%
12%
16%
18%
12%
16%
20%
11%
15%
18%
11%
14%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Elementary School - Homeroom(n=459 teachers)
Middle School(n=412 teachers)
High School(n=667 teachers)
Percent of Classes with Teachers With Advanced Degrees (MA+60, MEQ+60, DR, EDD, JD, and PhD)
Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups
Non-FARMsBlack or African-American
Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino
FARMsAll other Student Groups
FARMsBlack or African-American
FARMsHispanic/Latino
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Note: Counts reflect number of teachers at each school level who are teachers of record for at least one class.
MCPS School Spotlight: Wheaton Woods
Wheaton Woods organizes its people and time to provide consistent, integrated, tiered
supports for teachers.
20
Grade and Content
Specific Collaborative
Planning Time
Teachers plan together over
shared content and/or shared
students for 135-180 minutes
per week
Student Progress
Reviews
The principal and AP meet
with each teacher individually
every 4-6 weeks to review
student data
Teacher Coaching
Instructional leaders (reading
specialist, staff development
teachers, and primary
development coach) provide
peer leadership and coaching
for teachers.
Observation and
Feedback Protocols
The principal and AP
informally observe every
teacher for at least 20
minutes every 4-6 weeks
*See the appendix for more information on how school spotlights were selected
Summary – Teaching Quality• Focus group students are less likely to be in classes with the highly effective teachers compared to
monitoring students, as shown across various proxy metrics for teaching quality
• In MS, the difference in student experience is driven mostly by the fact that there are more novice
teachers in higher need middle schools
• In HS, the difference is driven mostly by within school assignment of teachers to certain classes or
students
21
Time and Attention
Time and Attention: What does research say?
23
TEACHING
QUALITY
EARLY
LEARNING
WHOLE
CHILD
APPROACH
FAMILY
ACADEMIC
ENGAGEMENT
EARLY
INTERVENTION
INSTRUCTIONAL
TIME &
ATTENTION
EMPOWERING,
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM &
COURSEWORK
Flexible grouping in an important strategy for
providing targeted and individualized instruction
while ensuring students aren’t permanently tracked
into remedial courses; one study found that a five-
year flexible grouping intervention increased the
percentage of students achieving mastery on
literacy assessments in a high-need school
Torgeson, J.K. (2002). “The Prevention of Reading Difficulties,” Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 1: 7-26.
Castle, S., Deniz, C.B., and Tortora, M. (2005). “Flexible Grouping and Student Learning in a High-Needs School,” Education and Urban Society, Vol. 37, No. 2: 139-150.
Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L., and Benson, A. (2009). “The Relation Between the Type and Amount of Instruction and Growth in Children’s Reading Competencies,”
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2: 358-389.
Increased time and smaller group sizes in core
classes can increase student test scores in reading,
particularly for students who are further behind
What do we mean by time and attention?
To assess this, we can look at:
oClass/group sizes that allow for differentiated instruction
oStudents have the time they need to master content
oStudents have access to heterogeneous learning environments
oStudent groupings are flexible and based on data on student progress
oStudent needs are accurately identified and matched to appropriate supports
24
Our focus today
All students get the instructional time and teacher attention they need to thrive
Focus schools have lower core class sizes than non-focus schools, by 3 to 4 students on average
25
22
18 18
2724
2724
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Non-Focus Focus Title I Non-Focus Impacted Non-Focus/Impacted Highly Impacted
Average Core Class Size by School Level and Need
*Elementary school class sizes are based on Homeroom sections. Middle/high school includes core classes but excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and “Academic Acceleration for ELLs”
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Elementary School Middle School High School
% of classes
<18 students15% 47% 44% 5% 13% 7% 15%
School categories defined by FARMs enrollment as follows:
In ES: Non-focus <35%, Focus = 35%-67%, Title I =>67%
In MS: Non-focus <20%, Impacted >20%
In HS: Non-focus/Impacted < 35%, Highly Impacted > 35%
Class sizes are lower for high-priority subjects in middle school, but are not differentiated in high school
26
25
22
2624
3028
2724
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Non-Focus MS Focus MS Non-Focus HS Focus HS
Average Class Size by Subject
ELA/Math Non-Core
*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs. Non-core subjects include foreign language, art, music, health/PE, etc.
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
In middle school, lower performing students have smaller class sizes in ELA and Math by 3-4 students
27
2324
2627 27
25 2526
2728
2123
2425 25
23 24 24 2526
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Average MS ELA/Math Class Size by Student Incoming Performance
ELA
*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs
MathMath ELA
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Non-Focus Middle Schools Focus Middle Schools
Class sizes are less differentiated for below performing students in high school
28
26 26 26 27 2725 25
2728
30
23 23 24 25 26 26 26 2728
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Average HS ELA/Math Class Size by Student Incoming Performance
ELA
*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs
MathMath ELA
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.
Non-Focus High Schools Focus High Schools
In MS, lower performing students receive additional time in ELA; limited opportunity in current schedules for additional time in math
29
29%23%
19% 17% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1 2 3 4 5
Percent of Scheduled Time by Incoming ELA Performance
ELA Instruction
Incoming PARCC ELA Level
ELA/Math instructional time includes any support & enrichment time that is subject-specific. Does not include after-school, lunch, or
other enrichment time that is not scheduled as a part of the school day.
For simplicity, we did not show support and enrichment breakdown by incoming ELA performance.
Incoming PARCC Math Level
Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, MCPS SY17-18 Principal Survey, ERS analysis.
15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 5% 4%2% 1% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Percent of Scheduled Time by Incoming Math Performance
Math Instruction Support & Enrichment for Students with Disabilities Other Support & Enrichment Time
In addition to classroom teachers, many other staff in the building can support students throughout the day
30Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis. Includes school-reported positions only.
Other Gen Ed Teachers include elective, focus, academic intervention teachers and teacher leaders.
Other Staff includes pupil services, media specialist, and administrative/operations staff.
20
23
18
14 13
12
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
Classroom Teachers Other GeneralEducation Teachers
ESOL and SpecialEducation Teachers
General EducationParaeducators
Special EducationParaeducators
Other Staff
Student-to-Adult Ratio: Elementary Schools
Average Class Size
Student/FTE
MCPS School Spotlight: Matsunaga ESMatsunaga organizes its people and time around two strategic priorities:
• Use data to comprehensively identify and monitor students who need additional support
• Leverage all adult capacity in the building to provide targeted instruction to students
31
Double Dosing in
Classrooms
In the classroom, support
teachers and paraeducators
provide additional core
content instruction to
students who need extra help
Small-Group
Intervention
The reading specialist, AP,
and principal lead pull-out
groups of 4-5 students to
supplement the core
instruction and “double-
dosing” that student receive
in the classroom
*See the appendix for more information on how school spotlights were selected
Summary – Time and Attention
• On average, focus schools have lower core class sizes than non-focus schools, but
there is signficant variation in class sizes across schools
• Across the district, there are inconsistent practices related to schools differentiating
class sizes for priority grades, subjects, and students
• With the exception of MS ELA, schools are not providing more time in core subjects
to lower performing students
32
Summary of Insights
33
TEACHING
QUALITY
EARLY
LEARNING
WHOLE
CHILD
APPROACH
FAMILY
ACADEMIC
ENGAGEMENT
EARLY
INTERVENTION
INSTRUCTIONAL
TIME &
ATTENTION
EMPOWERING,
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM &
COURSEWORK
Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY17-18)
School FundingHigher-need schools have higher per-pupil spending and more staff
per student than lower-need schools
Teaching Quality
Compared to monitoring students, focus students are more likely to
spend time with novice teachers and less likely to spend time with
teacher leaders, national board certified teachers, and teachers with
advanced degrees.
Instructional Time &
Attention
On average, higher-need schools have lower class sizes than lower-
need schools, but there is significant variation across schools. Below-
proficient students receive extra time in MS ELA, but not Math. In HS,
there is virtually no differentiation.
Empowering, Rigorous
Curriculum & Coursework
Are schools differentiating class sizes and time in priority subjects,
grades, and for students who are furthest behind?
Diverse & Inclusive
Schools
Who are students’ peers in their classes? Are lower-performing
students more likely to be in classes with lower-performing peers?
Whole Child ApproachWhat practices do principals report their school uses to support social-
emotional learning?
School Leadership Quality Do all students have access to high quality school leaders?
For next time
34
TEACHING
QUALITY
EARLY
LEARNING
WHOLE
CHILD
APPROACH
FAMILY
ACADEMIC
ENGAGEMENT
EARLY
INTERVENTION
INSTRUCTIONAL
TIME &
ATTENTION
EMPOWERING,
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM &
COURSEWORK
Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY17-18)
School FundingHigher-need schools have higher per-pupil spending and more staff
per student than lower-need schools
Teaching Quality
Compared to monitoring students, focus students are more likely to
spend time with novice teachers and less likely to spend time with
teacher leaders, national board certified teachers, and teachers with
advanced degrees.
Instructional Time &
Attention
On average, higher-need schools have lower class sizes than lower-
need schools, but there is significant variation across schools. Below-
proficient students receive extra time in MS ELA, but not Math. In HS,
there is virtually no differentiation.
Empowering, Rigorous
Curriculum & Coursework
Focus students are less likely to be enrolled in advanced coursework,
even compared to peers with the same incoming performance
Diverse & Inclusive
Schools
Below-proficient students are in classes with a higher concentration of
below-proficient peers
Whole Child Approach Principals report low usage of various tier 1 whole child practices
School Leadership QualityHigher-need schools are more likely to be led by novice principals
than lower-need schools
Appendix
Criteria for selecting schools for school spotlights
36
Criteria
Criteria for
selecting individual
schools
Higher-than-expected academic performance given student need
High African-American FARMs student performance
High Hispanic FARMs student performance
Small achievement gap between AA/Hispanic FARMs students and other students
Criteria for
selecting groups of
schools
Single School Level
Mix of Special Programs
Mix of Student Need
A significant number of students are African-American FARMs or Hispanic FARMs
Criteria 1: Higher-than-expected academic performance given student need
37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% P
rofic
ient
(E
LA)
% FARMs
% ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES
Wheaton
Woods
Highland
Spark M.
Matsunaga
Source: MCPS Performance Data, ERS Analysis
Criteria 2 and 3: High African-American and Hispanic FARMs student performance
38
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% A
A F
AR
Ms
Pro
ficie
nt (
ELA
)
% FARMs
AA FARMs % ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES
District Median
Highland
Wheaton Woods
Spark M.
Matsunaga
Source: MCPS Performance Data, ERS Analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% H
ispa
nic
FAR
Ms
Pro
ficie
nt (
ELA
)% FARMs
Hispanic FARMs % ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES
District Median
Wheaton
Woods
Highland
Spark M.
Matsunaga