overview of mcas results and adequate yearly progress determinations 2006 brockton school committee...

Overview of MCAS ResultsOverview of MCAS Resultsandand

Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress DeterminationsDeterminations

20062006

Overview of MCAS ResultsOverview of MCAS Resultsandand

Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress DeterminationsDeterminations

20062006

Brockton School CommitteeNovember 21, 2006

Overview of 2006 MCAS results

• Grades and subjects tested • State and district gains since 1998• Other longer-term gains• District and state performance levels• Passing and proficiency rate comparisons• Recent improvements in subgroup

performance

2

3

MCAS Tested Areas 1998-2006

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006MCAS

SubjectGrade

t t t t t t Reading

t Math

t t t t t t t t t ELA

t t t t t t t t t Math

t t t Sci&Tech

t ELA

t Math

t t t t Sci&Tech

t ELA

t t t t t t Math

t t t t t t ELA

t Math

t t t t t ELA


t t t History

t t t t t t t Sci&Tech



t t t Sci&Tech9 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 16

7

8

10

3

4

5

6

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006MCAS

SubjectGrade

t t t t t t Reading

t Math



t t t Sci&Tech

t ELA

t Math

t t t t Sci&Tech

t ELA

t t t t t t Math

t t t t t t ELA

t Math

t t t t t ELA


t t t History

t t t t t t t Sci&Tech



t t t Sci&Tech9 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 16

7

8

10

3

4

5

6

4

* No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since 1998.

40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA

Proficientor Advanced

Passing Proficientor Advanced

Passing

20061998 MCAS*


40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 MCAS*

27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 BROCKTONMCAS

27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing


COMPARING MCAS GAINS

STATE BROCKTON

Pass Pass

Grade 10 ELA 21% 35%

Grade 10 Math 40% 53%


Grade 4 Math 8% 17%

Grade 4 ELA 3% 9%

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement

5


40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 MCAS*


40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 MCAS*

27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing


27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing



STATE BROCKTON

Adv/Prof Adv/Prof

Grade 10 ELA 31% 44%


Grade 8 Math 9% 3%

Grade 4 Math 6% 10%

Grade 4 ELA 30% 24%



6


40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 MCAS*


40%85% 34% 77% Grade 4 Math

40%71% 31% 58% Grade 8 Math

67%88% 24% 48% Grade 10 Math

69%93% 38% 72% Grade 10 ELA



Passing

20061998 MCAS*

27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing


27%78% 17% 61% Grade 4 Math

17%44% 14% 31% Grade 8 Math

49%77%7%24% Grade 10 Math

66%91%22%56%Grade 10 ELA



Passing



STATE BROCKTON

Pass Adv/Prof Pass Adv/Prof

Grade 10 ELA 21% 31% 35% 44%

Grade 10 Math 40% 43% 53% 42%

Grade 8 Math 13% 9% 13% 3%

Grade 4 Math 8% 6% 17% 10%

Grade 4 ELA 3% 30% 9% 24%



44

42

16

3

9

6

24

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Gr 10 ELA (1998-06)

Gr 10 Math (1998-06)

Gr 8 ELA (1998-01, 2006)

Gr 8 Math (1998-06)

Gr 7 ELA (2001-06)

Gr 6 Math (2002-06)

Gr 4 ELA (1998-06)

Gr 4 Math (1998-06)

DISTRICT ADVANCED/PROFICIENT CPIGAIN BY GRADE LEVEL OVER TIME

7

8

BPS MA BPS MA BPS MA BPS MA

Reading 8 18 34 40 46 34 11 8 1,105

Math* 2 4 41 48 36 32 22 16 1,106

ELA 3 8 27 42 50 39 20 12 1,216

Math 9 15 18 25 51 45 22 15 1,220

ELA* 5 15 36 44 44 31 15 9 1,165

Math* 9 17 21 26 37 34 32 23 1,164

Sc&Tec 4 17 21 33 50 39 25 11 1,165

ELA* 4 10 45 54 41 28 10 8 1,207

Math 9 17 26 29 32 29 33 25 1,207

ELA 4 10 36 55 40 26 21 9 1,305

Math* 3 12 15 28 35 33 47 28 1,292

ELA* 2 12 47 62 33 19 18 7 1,354

Math 3 12 14 28 28 31 56 29 1,342

Sc&Tec 0 4 8 28 38 43 54 25 1,347

ELA 20 16 46 53 25 24 9 7 1,035

Math 25 40 24 27 28 21 23 12 1,035

Data Last Updated on October 18, 2006

10

8

MCAS TESTS OF SPRING 2006PERCENT AT EACH PERFORMANCE LEVEL

4

5

6

7

Grade

3

TestedAdvanced

SubjectProficient

Needs toImprove

WarningFailing

BPS MA BPS MAReading 42 58 89 92

Math 43 52 78 84ELA 30 50 80 88Math 27 40 78 85ELA 41 59 85 91Math 30 43 68 77ELA 49 64 90 92Math 35 46 67 75ELA 40 65 79 91Math 18 40 53 72ELA 49 74 82 93Math 17 40 44 71ELA 66 69 91 93Math 49 67 77 88

3

4

10

5

6

7

8

Grade SubjectAdv/Prof Passing

MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS

9

%

BPS MA differ. BPS MAReading 42 58 -16 89 92

Math 43 52 -9 78 84ELA 30 50 -20 80 88Math 27 40 -13 78 85ELA 41 59 -18 85 91Math 30 43 -13 68 77ELA 49 64 -15 90 92Math 35 46 -11 67 75ELA 40 65 -25 79 91Math 18 40 -22 53 72ELA 49 74 -25 82 93Math 17 40 -23 44 71ELA 66 69 -3 91 93Math 49 67 -18 77 88


3

4

10

5

6

7

8


10

% %

BPS MA differ. BPS MA differ.Reading 42 58 -16 89 92 -3

Math 43 52 -9 78 84 -6ELA 30 50 -20 80 88 -8Math 27 40 -13 78 85 -7ELA 41 59 -18 85 91 -6Math 30 43 -13 68 77 -9ELA 49 64 -15 90 92 -2Math 35 46 -11 67 75 -8ELA 40 65 -25 79 91 -12Math 18 40 -22 53 72 -19ELA 49 74 -25 82 93 -11Math 17 40 -23 44 71 -27ELA 66 69 -3 91 93 -2Math 49 67 -18 77 88 -11

3

4

10

5

6

7

8



11

91

82 80

9085

80

88

77

45

53

67 67

78 79

49

40

49

41 42

30

66

49

17 18

3530

27

43

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gr 10ELA

Gr 8ELA

Gr 7ELA

Gr 6ELA

Gr 5ELA

Gr 4ELA

Gr 3ELA

Gr 10Math

Gr 8Math

Gr 7Math

Gr 6Math

Gr 5Math

Gr 4Math

Gr 3Math

2006 MCAS RATES FOR PASSING AND ADVANCED/PROFICIENT BY GRADE LEVEL

(DARKER BLUE/GOLD BARS = ADVANCED/PROFICIENT)

12

74.5

54.3 56.1

70.3 71.1

82.0 80.8

68.5

87.785.1

64.860.9

83.6

70.666.3

71.3

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Agg LEP SPED Low Inc Black Asian Hisp White

1.3

0.4

4.1

2.2

1.1

1.9

2.9

-0.7

1.3

0.6

0.60.4

-0.2-0.1

0.40.8

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5


State & Brockton Cycle IV CPIfor English Language Arts

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPIGains in English Language Arts

13

59.6

44.141.9

54.6 53.7

77.9

68.4

53.7

77.6

81.8

54.6

50.5

72.8

56.3

52.1

51.3

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85


2.7

5.5

4.54.2

3.5

4.9

3.3

4.23.63.3

2.42.2

1.8

3.5 3.6

2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


State & Brockton Cycle IV CPIfor Mathematics

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPIGains in Mathematics

14

Adequate Yearly Progress

• Composite Proficiency Index (CPI)• Grade level CPI - 2006• State and large urban CPI - 2006• District and state CPI over time• AYP calculation and status• Consequences and context statewide• Beyond 2006

15

16

BPS MA BPS MA BPS MA BPS MA

Reading 8 18 34 40 46 34 11 8 1,105 76.6

Math 2 4 41 48 36 32 22 16 1,106 72.4

ELA 3 8 27 42 50 39 20 12 1,216 68.2

Math 9 15 18 25 51 45 22 15 1,220 64.4

ELA 5 15 36 44 44 31 15 9 1,165 74.4

Math 9 17 21 26 37 34 32 23 1,164 62.4

ELA 4 10 45 54 41 28 10 8 1,207 78.9

Math 9 17 26 29 32 29 33 25 1,207 63.2

ELA 4 10 36 55 40 26 21 9 1,305 71.6

Math 3 12 15 28 35 33 47 28 1,292 50.9

ELA 2 12 47 62 33 19 18 7 1,354 74.0

Math 3 12 14 28 28 31 56 29 1,342 46.1

ELA 20 16 46 53 25 24 9 7 1,035 84.0

Math 25 40 24 27 28 21 23 12 1,035 72.0

3

CPITestedAdvanced

SubjectProficient

Needs toImprove

WarningFailing

Last DOE update October 18, 2006

10

8

MCAS Tests of Spring 2006Percent at Each Performance Level with CPI calculations

4

5

6

7

Grade

CPI=Composite Performance Index

TABLE 1 MCAS Scaled Score

Points

200 – 208 Failing/Warning – Low 0

210 – 218 Failing/Warning – High 25

220 – 228 Needs Improvement – Low 50

230 – 238 Needs Improvement – High 75

240 – 280 Proficient/Advanced 100

17

TABLE 2 - Students taking Standard MCAS tests

100 students

Performance LevelTotal

Points

5 Failing – Low 0 0

5 Failing – High 25 125

20 Needs Improvement - Low 50 1000

40 Needs Improvement –

High75 3000

25 Proficient 100 2500

5 Advanced 100 500

Total Points Awarded 7,125

Total # of Students Tested 100

CPI (Total Points divided by Total Students)

IndexPoints

71.3

72

46

51

636264

727472

79

68

7477

8483

79

84 85 85

8887

78

7370 71

67

66

83

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gr 3R

Gr 5ELA

Gr 7ELA

Gr10

ELA

Gr 3Math

Gr 5Math

Gr 7Math

Gr 10Math

2006 STATE/DISTRICT CPI BY GRADE LEVELBARS = BROCKTON, LINE = STATE CPI

18

83.4

75.274.573.572.469.869.568.868.3

63.9

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Law

ren

ce

Sp

ring

field

Bo

sto

n

Lo

well

Wo

rceste

r

New

Bed

ford

Fall R

iver

BR

OC

KT

ON

Lyn

n

ST

AT

E2006 ELA CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS

19

73.3

61.859.6

58.258.058.054.454.0

48.447.0

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Lawrence

Springfield

Lowell

Fall River

New

Bedford

Worcester

Boston

BR

OC

KTO

N

Lynn

STA

TE2006 MATHEMATICS CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS

20

68.0 67.8

73.275.0 74.4 74.7

81.283.2 84.2 83.7 83.4

79.6

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

8.7

11.6

STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 3.8

BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 6.7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISONFOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

21

51.6 50.6

55.657.1

58.760.6

65.0 65.4

69.471.4 72.4 73.2

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

13.4

12.6

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISONFOR MATHEMATICS

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 8.2

BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 9.0

22

How is AYP calculated?

Requirement A + (Either B or C) + D = AYP

A Participation Rate: 95% or greater in MCAS or MCAS-Alt

B. Performance: 80.5 or greater CPI in ELA 68.7 or greater CPI in math Either

B or C C. Improvement: Meet or exceed Cycle IV Target for district, schools, and student groups

D

Performance or Improvement on Additional Indicators –

1-8: 92% or higher attendance rate, or 1% improvement over 2005

High School: 70% or higher Competency Determination (CD)

(100 – Cycle III CPI) / 5

23

Sample 2006 district AYP history table

Sample District – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) History 2003 2004 2005 2006

Accountability Status

Aggregate - - - Yes Grades 3-5

All Subgroups - - - No




All Subgroups - - - Yes

No Status

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Yes

ELA

All Grades Combined All subgroups Yes Yes No No







Identified for Improvement -

Subgroups

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Yes

MATH

All Grades Combined All subgroups No Yes No No

24

Old method

2001-2005

Old method

New method

2006-

New method

When schools do not make AYP fortwo consecutive years

Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group are identified for improvement.

– Schools identified for improvement are required to develop a plan for improving student performance.

– Title I schools identified for improvement are also required to offer

school choice in first year of improvement status;

supplemental services in second year, if fail to make AYP after first year.

25

Statewide

382 schools identified for improve-ment

206 in the aggregate

176 for subgroups

Brockton schools identified for improvement

School ELA Mathematics

Arnone Improvement – Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups

Belmont Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Aggregate

Brookfield Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups

Kennedy Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Aggregate

Franklin Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Aggregate

Hancock Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups

Huntington Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Aggregate

Angelo Improvement - Aggregate

Raymond Improvement - Subgroups Improvement - Subgroups

Whitman Improvement - Aggregate

Downey Improvement - Aggregate

Plouffe Improvement - Subgroups Improvement - Aggregate

26

Schools in corrective action status

Schools identified for improvement that do not make AYP for two additional years are identified for corrective action.

Districts with schools in corrective action are required to -– Institute new curriculum relevant to school’s

low performance and provide professional development to support its implementation;

– Extend length of school year or school day; – Replace school staff deemed relevant to

school not making adequate progress; – Significantly decrease management

authority at the school; – Restructure internal organization of the

school; or– Appoint one or more outside experts to

advise school in its improvement efforts.

27

Statewide

188 schools in corrective action

49 in the aggregate

139 for subgroups

Brockton schools identified forcorrective action

School ELA Mathematics

East Junior High Subgroups Aggregate

North Junior High Subgroups Aggregate

South Junior High Aggregate Aggregate

West Junior High Aggregate

Russell Alternative Aggregate

Brockton High Subgroups Subgroups

28

Schools in restructuring status

Schools in corrective action that do not make AYP in 2006 are identified for restructuring.

Districts with schools in restructuring status are required -– Reconstitute the school by replacing school staff relevant to the

school’s inability to make adequate progress; – Enter into contract with an entity with a demonstrated record of

effectiveness to operate the school as a public school; – Turn operation of the school over to State educational agency, if the

State agrees; – Re-open the school as a public charter school; or– Implement “any other major restructuring of the school's

governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.…”

29

Statewide 59 schools in 20 districts are in restructuring status

Schools identified for restructuring

59 SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR RESTRUCTURINGBoston 13 North Adams 1

Cambridge 1 Randolph 1

Chicopee 1 Southbridge 1

Fall River 6 Springfield 7

Fitchburg 1 Westfield 1

Greenfield 1 Worcester 8

Holbrook 1 Benjamin Banneker Charter 1

Holyoke 5 Lawrence Family Dev Chart 1Lawrence 3 New Leadership HMCS 1Lowell 1 Gill-Montague 1New Bedford 4 59

30

Districts identified for improvement or corrective action

Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group, at all grade-spans, are identified for improvement.

Districts identified for improvement year 2 that do not make AYP in 2006 at all grade-spans are identified for corrective action.

For districts in corrective action, the State has options to – Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds; Institute new curriculum relevant to districts’ low performance and provide

professional development to support its implementation; Replace district personnel relevant to inability of district to make adequate progress; Remove individual schools from the jurisdiction of the district and arrange for their

public governance and supervision; Appoint a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the

superintendent and school board; or Abolish or restructure the district.

31

Statewide 26 districts are in corrective action (9 aggregate and 17 for subgroups), 104 districts identified for improvement

9 in the Aggregate 17 for Subgroups

Chicopee Amherst

Fall River Boston

Lawrence Brockton

Lowell Everett

Lynn Gloucester

New Bedford Haverhill

Pittsfield Holyoke

Southbridge Leominster

Springfield Malden

Medford

Methuen

Peabody

Plymouth

Salem

Somerville

Westfield

Worcester

Districts in corrective action status

32

Cycle IV status of districts and schools statewide

Of the 234 public school districts, 130 or 56% districts have been negatively identified –

By subject area– ELA(23), Math (55)– ELA and Math (52)

Aggregate - Corrective Action (9)

Subgroups – – Corrective Action (17)

Improvement (104)

Of the 1772 public schools, 629 or 35% have been negatively identified –

• Aggregate (314)– Restructuring (59)– Corrective Action (49)– Improvement (206)

• Subgroups (315)– Corrective Action (139)– Improvement (176)

33

Brockton Public Schools' Performance vs State Targets for ELA and Mathematics

70.7

75.6

80.5

85.4

90.2

95.1

53.0

60.8

68.7

76.5

84.3

92.2

100.0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII

ELA-targets

Math-targets

34

Brockton Public Schools' Performance vs State Targets for ELA and Mathematics

74.6

95.1

90.2

85.4

80.5

75.6

70.774.1

74.473.2

67.9

100.0

92.2

84.3

76.5

68.7

60.8

53.059.6

58.656.3

55.6

51.1

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII

ELA-targets

BPS

Math-targets

BPS

Projected path in ELA

Projected path in Math

`

35

ENDEND

36Office of Accountability, Planning and TechnologyOffice of Accountability, Planning and Technology

overview of mcas results and adequate yearly progress determinations 2006 brockton school committee...

Documents

state cpi

cpi gains

commissioners retirement

state results

district gains

mcas rates

overview of mcas results

mcas results grades