Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)

Transcription

1 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) Arlington Public Schools MCAS Analysis 2012 Presented by: Dr. Laura Chesson, Assistant Superintendent Prepared by: LeiLanie D Agostino, Director of Data Integration

2 Agenda Overall District and School Success Stories Assessment Measures Accountability Measures Planned responses to Accountability and Assessment Data

3 District 2012 MCAS Success Stories Arlington is overall a high achieving district with moderate to very high student growth The vast majority of district grade level scores ranked in the top 15% in the state. In 2012, 100% of AHS 10 th grade students passed ELA and Math in 2012 and 99% passed Science. Significant increases of students scoring at the Advanced level at some grades at the elementary level (5 th grade ELA Hardy, 3 rd grade ELA Stratton, 3 rd grade math Dallin, 4 th grade math Bishop, 3 rd grade math Brackett).

4 2012 District ELA Historically at every grade level, the percentage of APS students scoring at

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 APS Reading/ELA Percentage of Students Scoring Advanced Gr. 3 Gr. 4* Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7* Gr. 8 Gr. 10* District State District State District State District State District State District State District State % 18% 19% 8% 30% 15% 20% 10% 10% 10% 23% 12% 39% 16% % 14% 24% 10% 31% 15% 21% 9% 16% 9% 29% 12% 41% 22% % 15% 18% 8% 30% 13% 32% 15% 24% 12% 23% 12% 48% 23% % 12% 31% 11% 37% 15% 31% 16% 25% 14% 35% 15% 54% 29% % 14% 33% 11% 43% 16% 30% 15% 23% 11% 42% 17% 53% 26% % 11% 20% 10% 40% 17% 39% 17% 36% 14% 45% 20% 62% 33% % 15% 26% 13% 34% 17% 40% 18% 37% 15% 38% 18% 65% 37% % increase over 6 years <4% <2% <20 % <8% <27 % <5% <15 % <6% <26 % <21 %

13 Growth Data: ELA All Grades

14 2012 ELA Summary Highlights Grade 3 in top 17% of state. Grade 4 in top 16% of state. Grade 5 in top 13% of state. Grade 6 in top 11% of state. Grade 7 in top 21% of state. Grade 8 in top 6% of state. Grade 10 in top 15% of state.

15 Next Steps: ELA Increased use of Comprehension Toolbox in Elementary Examine successful practices in district classrooms with students in high needs and share best practices. Targeted reading intervention for all Warning, most Needs Improvement, and targeted SLC students in Gr Professional development in reading in the content area for all teachers in grades 6 12.

16 Next Steps: ELA Use of Plato for secondary students for target interventions. Continue to expand & implement Lucy Calkins writing program in grade 3, 4, & 5 to address topic development Elementary TA training in reading program

17 District Mathematics 2012 APS students perform 14-46% above state averages

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Growth Data: Math All Grades

26 2012 Math Summary Highlights Ranked top 13% in Grades 4 and 5 Ranked top 11% in Grade 8 Notable gain in A & P scores in Gr. 7

27 Next Steps: Math Continue building content expertise for new teachers, ELL and special educators. Increase math practice guides for all High Needs students (Title 1) Implement Plato Math Pack for grades 5, 6, and 7 special education students. Gr. 3 professional development and implementation of Revised TERC math program Peirce pilot to increase math practice using Symphony program for Gr.3-5.

28 Next Steps: Math Progress monitoring High Needs students with Plato, in addition to Scantron at OMS & AHS Additional math coach on consultant basis for Pierce K-12 math director increase walk-thrus and one-onone coaching with teachers Analysis of OMS intervention programs. Selection of new math curriculum for OMS

29 District Science 2012 APS students perform 20-53% above state averages

30

31

32

33 2012 Science Summary Highlights Ranked in top 9% in state in Gr. 5 Ranked in top 11% in state Gr. 8.

34 2012 Cohort Summary Data APS cohorts perform well beginning in the early grades, while their scores show marked improvement by high school. There is a notable trend towards increased students scoring Advanced. All AHS students passed MCAS in 2011.

35 Next Steps: Science Continue item analysis for development of remedial exercises for all students Monitoring of specific students in sub-groups Examination of course progression at high school. Further PD on the Engineering Units for Elementary School.

36 District MCAS 2012 Accountability Data High achievement coupled with lowmoderate to very high growth is evident at all grade levels in ELA and Math.

37 PPI PPI CPI SGP Bonus points Graduation and Dropout rates

38 CPI Baseline for performance set on the proficiency levels in 2011 for all groups. Goal is to halve the difference between the proficiency level of all students in a school and the proficiency level of the high needs student group in a school (same measure for district) by For example if a school s CPI was 99 for all of its students and the CPI for its high needs students was 95, the state would expect that the school would take steps to close that gap by 2 points by 2017.

39 CPI Change Each year the school is awarded based on the change. Above target = 100 points At target = 75 points Improvement, but below target = 50 points No change or slight decline = 25 points Significant decline = 0 points

40 SGP Student Growth Percentiles All groups (district, school, and sub-groups) are expected to demonstrate growth in student performance at or near state median. The goal for all groups is to achieve or maintain a median SGP at least one point above the state median. Points are again awarded points.

41 All groups earn extra credit if they decrease the percent of students scoring in the Warning/Failing level or if they increase the percentage of students scoring at the Advanced level by more than 10% from the previous year.

42 out Rates All groups are expected to make steady progress toward a goal of 90% for the 4 yr. cohort graduation rate and 95% for the 5 yr. cohort graduation rate by Points are awarded based on the progress towards this target. All groups are expected to halve the gap between their annual dropout rate and the rate of zero by the school year. Points are awarded based on the progress towards this target.

43 Based on this point scale districts and schools are classified into levels 1 5. Eighty percent of the schools in Massachusetts are classified as Level 1 or 2 based on the PPI for all students and the high needs group. If a district has one or more Level 2 school(s) it is classified as a Level 2 district.

44 2012 District Subgroups/ High Need Students Overall the achievement gap persists but narrows dramatically for Arlington Subgroups and High Needs students over the years.

45 High Needs Group includes students: On an IEP, and/or Eligible for free/reduced lunch

46 2012 ELA MCAS: APS Students Reaching Proficiency Grade Gr.3 Gr. 4 Gr 5 Gr 8 Gr 10 ELA: Number of Students Tested High Non-High % High Needs Needs Total Needs % % % % % % %

47 2012 Math MCAS: APS Students Reaching Proficiency Grade Math: Number of Students Tested High Non-High % High Needs Needs Total Needs % % % % % % %

48 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS TO STATE AND LOCALLY ESTABLISHED COHORT

49 Rankings alone do not paint the complete picture. If there is a tie at a score then rankings are skipped. For example if 5 schools are tied at the same score for 1 st place, the 6 th place school is ranked 6 th even though it has the second highest score. At the high school level there are so many ties that 28 schools are tied for number one (Score of 100%). The next bandwidth of schools down, which is only one point lower results in schools all ranked 29 th (score of 99%). Arlington High has a ranking of 51 st in ELA however it has a score of 98% - the third highest score in the state.

50 Grade Level Arlington Public Schools Ranking on 2012 MCAS ELA Rank % (top) Math Rank % (top) Science Rank % (top) 3 52/301 17% 111/301 37% 4 47/301 16% 38/300 13% 5 40/313 13% 41/313 13% 28/313 9% 6 61/552 11% 135/552 24% 7 98/471 21% 82/470 17% 8 27/470 6% 50/466 11% 51/458 11% 10 51/348 15% 65/348 19% 105/348 30%

51 2012 English Language Arts MCAS Achievement and Growth for Comparable Districts

52 2012 Mathematics MCAS Achievement and Growth for Comparable Districts

53 Summary Points Areas of Overall Improvement: o o o Gr.3, 4, 10 Increased in Advanced students in ELA Gr. 4 Increased Advanced students in Math Gr. 5 Increased Advanced students in Science Areas in Need of Improvement: o Overall growth in Math and ELA o Increase math achievement in Gr. 3 o Increase SGP in math grades 6, and 7 o Increase attention to certain math strands o Persistent flat growth of sub-groups

54 High Achievement and Growth for ALL Students Requires.. Continued professional development on implementation of Common Core changes in instruction, not just in content scope and sequence. Examination of success data for all special programs (ELL, Special Education, Alternative Education) to monitor success of programs.

55 Presentation References Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary vid=1&orgcode= &orgtypecode=5& Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary