mursd 2012 mcas results & accountability status
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee on October 15, 2012 regarding district results on Spring 2012 state assessment testingTRANSCRIPT
Mendon-Upton Regional Mendon-Upton Regional SchoolsSchools
2012 MCAS Results &Accountability Status
Presentation to the Mendon-Upton Regional School
CommitteeOctober 15, 2012
First, a few terms related to MCAS results and accountability data…
3
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
OR
MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per Student
Proficient or Advanced 240 – 280 Progressing 100
Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 Emerging 75
Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 Awareness 50
Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25
Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0
Composite Performance Index (CPI)
4
Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below)
MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics
Points Per Student # Students Points
Proficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200
Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375
Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350
Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100
Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted 0 2 0
Totals 90 students 7025 Points
7025 ÷ 90 = 78.1
Student Growth Percentile Student Growth Percentile (SGP)(SGP)A metric that determines how much a
student has grown in one year relative to his academic peers across the state (i.e., students that scored the same exact score in the previous year’s MCAS)
SGP is a percentile: 1 to 100Example: If a student has a SGP of 72,
he/she scored better than 72% of his/her academic peers that year
For schools/districts, SGP is reported as median SGP. Typical growth is 40-60
English Language ArtsEnglish Language Arts District MCAS Results District MCAS Results
3rd Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 89.1 82.6 93.2 85.8 89.8 83.9 89.1 84.1
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=204 students
3rd Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 89.1 82.6 92.6 85.8 91.5 83.9 88.3 84.1
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=94 students
3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 89.3 82.6 94.7 85.8 87.5 83.9 90.7 84.1
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=107 students
3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 85.0 79.9 88.5 80.1 86.3 79.4 88.4 80.0
Median SGP
41.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 51.0 46.0 50.0
For 2012, n=212 students
4th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 83.0 79.9 88.9 80.1 84.3 79.4 87.2 80.0
Median SGP
41.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 43.0 51.0 48.5 50.0
For 2012, n=96 students
4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
4rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 86.5 79.9 89.3 80.1 88.9 79.4 89.4 80.0
Median SGP
41.0 50.0 63.0 50.0 45.5 51.0 46.0 50.0
For 2012, n=113 students
4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
5th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 92.0 85.7 92.1 84.2 95.0 86.0 88.2 82.5
Median SGP
58.5 50.0 56.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 46.0 50.0
For 2012, n=235 students
5th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
6th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 94.2 85.7 92.5 86.8 94.0 86.6 90.4 84.8
Median SGP
59.0 50.0 53.0 50.0 43.5 50.0 42.0 50.0
For 2012, n=201students
6th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
7th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 91.82 88.1 94.0 88.6 93.2 89.5 94.5 88.1
Median SGP
43.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 54.0 50.0
For 2012, n=196 students
7th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
8th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 96.5 91.1 95.7 90.4 96.3 91.1 95.5 91.8
Median SGP
57.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 50.0
For 2012, n=216 students
8th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
10th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 98.3 92.2 98.7 91.1 98.8 93.9 98.6 95.8
Median SGP
72.0 50.0 65.0 50.0 72.0 50.0 63.0 50.0
For 2012, n=182 students
10th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
ALL Grades ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 92.4 86.5 93.5 86.9 93.1 87.2 91.9 86.7
Median SGP
54.0 50.0 56.5 50.0 52.0 50.0 49.0 50.0
For 2012, n=1,447 students
ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
MathematicsMathematics District MCAS Results District MCAS Results
3rd Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 86.8 81.4 92.7 83.8 87.9 84.7 86.5 80.9
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=204 students
3rd Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade Math -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 87.5 81.4 92.4 83.8 88.2 84.7 86.2 80.9
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=94 students
3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
3rd Grade Math -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 87.6 81.4 93.6 83.8 87.9 84.7 87.5 80.9
Median SGP
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
For 2012, n=106 students
3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 82.6 78.5 83.6 78.7 83.3 78.4 85.0 79.2
Median SGP
48.0 50.0 47.0 49.0 42.0 50.0 49.0 50.0
For 2012, n=212 students
4th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 82.1 78.5 82.1 78.7 83.3 78.4 87.5 79.2
Median SGP
49.0 50.0 44.0 50.0 43.0 50.0 60.0 50.0
For 2012, n=96 students
4th Grade Math: Clough, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
4th Grade Math -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
School State School State School State School State
CPI 83.0 78.5 85.7 78.7 84.1 78.4 82.7 79.2
Median SGP
47.5 50.0 48.5 50.0 39.0 50.0 43.0 50.0
For 2012, n=113 students
4th Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State
% of students proficient or higher
5th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 83.2 77.0 84.5 77.4 87.9 79.8 80.6 78.4
Median SGP
57.0 50.0 46.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 37.0 50.0
For 2012, n=236 students
5th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
6th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.5 78.2 83.0 79.7 86.1 79.6 87.9 80.5
Median SGP
58.0 50.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 53.0 50.0
For 2012, n=199 students
6th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
7th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 78.4 73.8 86.4 76.1 73.3 73.8 86.4 75.4
Median SGP
64.0 50.0 66.0 50.0 41.0 50.0 67.5 50.0
For 2012, n=196 students
7th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
8th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 80.7 72.8 83.3 74.8 85.1 74.2 80.7 75.5
Median SGP
60.0 50.0 62.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 58.0 50.0
For 2012, n=215 students
8th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
10th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 94.8 88.1 96.7 88.8 96.4 89.4 94.9 90.0
Median SGP
72.0 50.0 74.0 50.0 69.5 50.0 65.5 50.0
For 2012, n=181 students
10th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
ALL Grades Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.2 78.5 87.0 79.9 85.4 79.9 85.9 79.9
Median SGP
59.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 52.0 50.0 55.0 50.0
For 2012, n=1,443 students
ALL Grades Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
Science, Technology & Science, Technology & EngineeringEngineering District MCAS Results District MCAS Results
5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.5 77.7 88.9 79.7 89.3 77.0 87.5 77.8
For 2012, n=236 students
5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 81.9 70.2 81.2 71.0 78.4 70.3 84.4 71.6
For 2012, n=215 students
8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
10th Grade Biology –District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 95.2 80.8 97.2 82.1 97.3 86.4
For 2012, n=180 students
10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher
Massachusetts’ Massachusetts’ New Accountability New Accountability System System for Schools for Schools
What did NCLB require?What did NCLB require?100% proficiency in ELA & math by
2013–14
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for all schools & districts
Schools & districts identified for improvement, corrective action, & restructuring
Massachusetts NCLB Massachusetts NCLB WaiverWaiverInstead of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
reporting, Massachusetts will report district and school progress toward college and career readiness and reducing proficiency gaps through the use of a new 100-point Progress and Performance Index (PPI).
An enhanced focus on subgroup performance by identifying schools with the largest proficiency gaps for individual subgroups, including a new “high needs” subgroup (Sp.Ed. + poverty + ELL), and by reducing the minimum group size for accountability determinations from 40 to 30 students.
Indicators for PPIIndicators for PPIThe PPI is a number between 0-100
that is comprised of seven core indicators.
For each indicator, a district, school, or subgroup earns points based on the progress made by the group from one year to the next: 100 (Above Target), 75 (On Target), 50 (Improved Below Target), 25 (No Change), or 0 points (Declined).
PPI CalculationPPI CalculationCore Indicators (Up to 7) Points Available
ELA Achievement (CPI) 0-100
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0-100
Science Achievement (CPI) 0-100
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP)
0-100
Mathematics Growth/Improvement (Median SGP)
0-100
Cohort Graduation Rate 0-100
Annual Dropout Rate 0-100
Maximum Possible Points: 700
PPI Gap HalvingPPI Gap HalvingThe NCLB goal of 100 percent of
students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year has been replaced with the goal of reducing “proficiency gaps” by half. A district, school, or subgroup’s proficiency gap is the distance between the group’s 2011 CPI proficiency and a CPI of 100.
Cumulative PPI Cumulative PPI CalculationCalculation
Year Annual PPI Multiplier Points 2012 90 4 360
2011 80 3 240
2010 60 2 120
2009 70 1 70
Total Points: 790 Cumulative PPI (Total Divided by Number of Multipliers): 79
PPI Gap Halving
New Accountability Levels New Accountability Levels for Schools & Districtsfor Schools & Districts
Level 1: On track to meet all goalsLevel 2: Still working to meet all goalsLevel 3: Focus: Some overall or
subgroup scores are in the lowest state range
Level 4: Priority: Lowest performing schools
Level 5: Priority: Chronically underperforming schools
Graduation & DropoutGraduation & Dropout
All districts, schools, and subgroups will be expected to halve the gap between their annual dropout rate, if one exists, and a rate of zero percent by the 2016-17 school year.
All districts, schools, and subgroups are expected to make steady progress toward a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for the four-year rate or 95 percent for the five-year rate by the 2016-17 school year.
Extra creditExtra creditDistricts, schools, and groups can
earn extra credit by reducing the percentage of students scoring Warning/Failing or by increasing the percentage of students scoring Advanced on MCAS tests in ELA, mathematics, and/or science. For each extra credit indicator earned, the group is awarded 25 additional points.
MURSD District PPIMURSD District PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 75 75 25Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 75 25 75ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 75 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 550 525 425 475Extra credit 125 100 25 50
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 96 89 64 75
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77
PPI Overall Data: MURSDPPI Overall Data: MURSDStudent Group Clough Memorial Miscoe Nipmuc DistrictAll students 77 49 83 99 77High needs 72 73 Low income 75 81ELL and Former ELL Students w/disabilities 61 62Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat. Asian Afr. Amer./Black Hispanic/Latino Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat. Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl. White 74 52 87 100 78 Relative State Percentile 57th 60th 75th 89th N/ALevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
Comparison to Neighboring Comparison to Neighboring DistrictsDistricts
DistrictAll Students
PPIHigh Need
Students PPI Classification
Bellingham 55 49 Level 2
Bckstn-Millville 76 63 Level 2
Douglas 67 56 Level 2
Grafton 73 51 Level 2
Hopedale 72 68 Level 2
Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2
Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2
Milford 76 72 Level 2
Northbridge 55 45 Level 3
Sutton 59 57 Level 2
Uxbridge 56 49 Level 2
Comparison to like districts Comparison to like districts (DART)(DART)
DistrictAll Students
PPIHigh Need Students
PPI ClassificationGroton-Dunstable 95 69 Level 2Hanover 78 61 Level 2Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2Ipswich 69 54 Level 2Lynnfield 88 84 Level 2Marblehead 79 62 Level 2Medfield 95 62 Level 2Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2Nashoba 80 72 Level 2Rockland 68 65 Level 3Scituate 83 75 Level 2Tyngsborough 75 73 Level 2
Clough PPI (All Students)Clough PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 100 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 25 75 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 50 100Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 100 350 125 300Extra credit 50 100 0 75
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 75 113 31 94
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77
Memorial PPI (All Memorial PPI (All Students)Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 25Science Achievement (CPI) ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 75Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 25 50Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 0 275 75 225Extra credit 0 100 0 25
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 0 94 19 63
Did Not Meet Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 49
Miscoe PPI (All Students)Miscoe PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 0Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 50 75 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 400 400 350 300Extra credit 100 50 100 50
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 100 90 90 70
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 83
Nipmuc PPINipmuc PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 25Science Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 100 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 675 625 675 600Extra credit 150 75 50 25
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 118 100 104 89
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 99
What Does the Data Tell Us?Over the past four years, some grades
and subgroups are showing progress in ELA and math MCAS, while others are static or declining
Our high needs subgroup scores are lower than the aggregate- the major driver is the results of our special education students
The PPI is a complex metric, and the three Level 2 schools each had a different reason for the designation
Next StepsAll schools, grade levels, and content
areas will analyze the disaggregrated data in detail
We need to monitor the effective implementation of the curriculum (e.g., Open Court Reading Program and Math Investigations) to ensure fidelity to the scope and sequence
We must be looking forward to alignment of curriculum to the Common Core Standards, as the PARRC Assessment will commence in 2014-15
More Next StepsWe must research, develop, and
implement alternative service delivery models to better meet the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs of special education students Grades K-12
Targeted investments needed in the areas of:
Professional developmentCurriculum developmentLiteracy/mathematics support
Questions?