2013 School Committee MCAS Powerpoint Presentation

Report
Franklin Public
Schools
MCAS
Presentation
November 19, 2013
Joyce Edwards
Director of Instructional Services
Agenda
• Introduction
• CPI and PPI
• Accountability Data
•
Exam Summary and P+
•
Growth
• Focus Areas
• Curriculum Plans
• PARCC
Introduction
• Goal is to reduce proficiency gaps by half
by the end of the 2016-2017 school year
• Districts and schools placed into one of five
state designated Accountability and
Assistance Levels.
• Results determined using Composite
Performance Index (CPI) and Progress and
Performance Index (PPI)
• Results in aggregate and subgroup (high
needs)
CPI
• Composite Performance Index (CPI) is the
baseline indicator for aggregate
performance
• CPI score becomes the baseline score for
the next year
• CPI is calculated for ELA, Math and Science
• Uses 100 point index
• Used to calculate Progress and
Performance Index (PPI)
PPI
• Determines accountability levels of districts, schools,
and subgroups
• Includes student achievement in ELA, Math, and
Science
• Incorporates growth and improvement as
measured by the Student Growth Percentile (SGP)
• High school includes dropout and graduation rates
• PPI status based on progress and performance
annually as well as cumulatively
• Cumulative calculation is based on four years of
data
PPI
• PPI calculations for state, district, school,
and subgroup levels
• Reports aggregate and subgroups
• High needs students are considered to be
students who belong to at least one of these
subgroups:
o students with disabilities
o English language learners
o economically disadvantaged students
PPI
• Further subgroup reporting includes:
• African American/Black students,
• Asian students
• Hispanic/Latino students
• White students
• Multi-race Non-Hispanic/Latino students
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students
• Native American students
PPI
• Indicators used are:
• ELA Achievement (based on CPI)
• Mathematics Achievement (based on CPI)
• Science Achievement (based on CPI)
• ELA Growth/Improvement (based on median
SGP)
• Mathematics Growth/Improvement (based on
median SGP)
• Cohort Graduation Rate
• Annual Dropout Rate
Accountability Status
• District is a Level 2
• Based on category of lowest
school
• All Franklin schools are all either
Level 1 or Level 2
Accountability Status
• Level 1 schools:
• Franklin High School
• Kennedy Elementary School
Exam Summary Analysis
• Franklin students continue to
outperform students across the
state
• On every MCAS test over 89% of
Franklin students passed
• Some tests showing passing rates
of 98%
• Overall: quite similar to last year
Exam Results
Grade
Exam
% of Students
% of Students
Passing
Passing
Franklin
State
TY/LY
TY/LY
3
ELA
97/96
92/91
3
Math
95/94
89/86
4
ELA
93/95
87/86
4
Math
96/96
90/88
5
ELA
96/95
90/89
5
Math
94/93
86/83
5
Science
96/96
88/86
6
ELA
96/96
90/89
6
Math
93/94
85/84
7
ELA
98/98
93/93
7
Math
91/90
79/82
8
ELA
98/99
93/94
8
Math
89/94
80/81
8
Science
94/96
82/80
9
Biology
98/98
95/92
10
ELA
98/99
98/97
10
Math
97/96
93/93
All Grades
ELA
96/97
92/91
All Grades
Math
94/94
86/85
All Grades
Science
96/97
88/87
P+ Analysis
• P+ is percentage of students achieving in
the Advanced and Proficient categories
• Significantly outperformed state results on
all 20 tests
o Performance over state averages as much as 21% points higher
• ELA continues to be stronger than math
but gap narrowing significantly
• Will continue to focus on subgroups as
well as aggregate
• Overall: quite similar to last year
Grade
P+ Results
Exam
Proficient or
Proficient or
Higher
Higher
Franklin
State
TY/LY
TY/LY
3
ELA
68/73
57/61
3
Math
81/73
67/61
4
ELA
70/79
53/57
4
Math
70/75
52/51
5
ELA
83/79
65/61
5
Math
80/78
61/57
5
Science
68/66
51/50
6
ELA
82/82
67/66
6
Math
75/77
60/60
7
ELA
84/87
71/71
7
Math
72/69
52/51
8
ELA
93/93
78/81
8
Math
74/72
54/52
8
Science
60/65
39/43
9
Biology
88/90
71/72
10
ELA
95/95
91/88
10
Math
92/91
80/78
All grades
ELA
82/84
69/69
All grades
Math
77/75
61/59
All grades
Science
71/72
53/54
Growth Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
SPG Range
1-39
40-60
61-99
Growth Description
Lower Growth
Moderate/Typical Growth
Higher Growth
• Growth model is another method to evaluate performance
• Measures progress by tracking scores from one year to next
• Intended to be used in conjunction with the MCAS
achievement levels
• Student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated using two or
more years of MCAS data.
• Growth for students is measured by comparing changes with
that of their “academic peers.”
• Academic peers are students in the state who have the same
MCAS performance history
• Typical and desired growth is 40-60%
Growth Data
Exam
Grade 4 ELA
Grade 4 Math
Grade 5 ELA
Grade 5 Math
Grade 6 ELA
Grade 6 Math
Grade 7 ELA
Grade 7 Math
Grade 8 ELA
Grade 8 Math
Grade 10 ELA
Grade 10 Math
All grades ELA
All grades Math
Student Growth Percent
63%
59%
52%
56%
45%
38%
49%
44%
52%
51%
55%
44%
52%
49%
Focus Areas
• Data analyses, program and curricular
review and changes, professional
development are part of increased student
achievement at all levels
• Teachers meet by grade level (buildingbased and district-wide) to analyze MCAS
data
• Use data to inform instruction
• Collaborate on improving student
performance and instructional practice
Focus Areas
• Alignment work continues to meet
requirements of 2011 Massachusetts
Frameworks in ELA and Math
• Significant shifts in content and pedagogy
• Development of local assessments to
determine achievement and growth
• Targeted MCAS support work with identified
students
Curriculum Plans
• Expanded Keys to Literacy to include writing at
the middle schools
o High school training for the first time
• Continuation of extensive PD for elementary
math
• Revision of elementary report cards in progress
• Continued multi-year implementation of literacy
programs for elementary:
o Reader’s Workshop
o Writer’s Workshop
o Fundations
Curriculum Plans
• Professional development:
o building internal capacity for
curriculum leadership
o graduate courses
o content and instructional workshops
o instruction in the use of technology
o professional learning communities
o use of consultants in Math and ELA but
building internal capacity
• .
Future of MCAS
• Massachusetts is part of a multi-state
state consortium developing the next
generation of assessments
• PARCC is the Partnership for the Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers
• Tests are being field tested this year and piloted
during the 2014-2015 school year
• State will then decide whether or not to adopt
PARCC testing to replace MCAS in ELA and Math as
of 2016
PARCC
• Field Testing this year in 85% of MA schools including
in Franklin
• Some students will take a Performance Based
Assessment (PBA)
• Some students will take the End of Year
(EOY)Assessment
• Some students will take both
• Some testing will be done electronically and some
paper/pencil
• Complete list of schools will be available in early
December
PARCC
• Future decisions:
• Will we choose to opt out of MCAS testing this year
(where possible) to avoid double testing students?
o Decision to be finalized when complete list of schools/grades/classes is
available in December
o Will only apply to students taking the PBA assessment
o Will create data gaps for future analysis
• There will be no district or student data for PARCC
• Will we choose exclusively PARCC or MCAS next
year?
o As of now, the state is stating that districts will be able to make this choice
• If PARCC-will create data gaps as there will not be historical data
• If MCAS-will be data gaps with historical data if we opt some students
out of MCAS tests this year

similar documents