Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS)
Arlington Public Schools MCAS Analysis
2014
Presented by: Dr. Laura Chesson, Assistant SuperintendentPrepared by: LeiLanie D’Agostino, Director of Data Integration
Agenda
F ELA Results: District and Grade-Level
F Math Results: District and Grade-Level
F Science Results: District and Grade Level
F Plans for the 2014 – 2015 School Year
The Massachusetts School Accountability
System
Progress and Performance Index (PPI) based on:
•Achievement (CPI) •Growth (SGP) •Dropout & Graduation Rates (High School)
Student Growth Percentile By Grade
Median SGP for E LA a nd Math by G rade
ELA Math Grade 4* 61 68 Grade 5* 53 60 Grade 6 39 50.5 Grade 7 62 49.5 Grade 8 62 59.5 Grade 10 54.5 60
* Mean of median SGP’s for a ll elementary schools
2014 District ELA
.
Overall District Performance - ELA 2011 2012 2013 2014
District State District State District State District State
A & P 87% 69% 85% 69% 86% 69% 85% 70%
CPI 95.2 87.2 94.5 86.7 94.9 86.8 94.2 86.7
Median SGP
59.0 50.0 54.0 50.0 56.0 51.0 56.0 50.0
School TargetCPI
CPI Points 2014
PPI Points
PPI Status
AHS 99.0 99.7 100 Above Target Ottoson 97.5 95.9 75 On Target Bishop 95.1 93.2 100 Above Target Brackett 97.7 95.6 100 Above Target Dallin 95.7 95.2 100 Above Target Hardy 95.5 90.7 0 Declined Peirce 92.7 91.2 75 On Target Stratton 95.1 89.1 0 Declined Thompson 93.4 90.7 25 No Change
ELA Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 All Students • Arlington Public Schools
Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools
ELA Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 High Needs Students • Arlington Public Schools
School TargetCPI
CPI Points 2014
PPI Points
PPI Status
AHS 95.5 98.4 100 Above Target Ottoson 91.8 87.0 50 Improved Below Target Bishop 83.4 76.8 0 Declined Brackett 96.3 95.3 100 Above Target Dallin 85.0 85.6 75 On Target Hardy 91.0 81.1 0 Declined Peirce 84.5 73.8 0 Declined Stratton 84.0 75.5 0 Declined Thompson 84.1 82.0 25 No Change
School Median SGP All
PPI Points All
Median SGP High Needs
PPI Points High Needs
AHS 55 75 48 75 Ottoson 56 75 51 75 Bishop 68 100 Brackett 51 75 47 50 Dallin 56 75 Hardy 56 75 41.5 50 Peirce 61 100 Stratton 51 75 Thompson 58 75 49 50
ELA Growth and PPI Points, 2014 Arlington Public Schools
ELA Performance By Grade Level
Elementary SGP By
School
Sc hool Gra de 4 Grade 5 ELA Math ELA Math
Bishop 71 80 66 78 Bra cke tt 65 6 8 42 47.5 Dallin 64 6 4 51 43.5 Hardy 57 5 3 56 60 Pe irce 59.5 75.5 63 69 Stratton 45 6 7 53 61 Thom pson 77.5 64 52.5 4 4
Average 61 6 8 53 60
ELA Growth By Grade Level
ELA Growth Distributions – MCAS 2014
ELA Growth Distributions – MCAS 2014
APS Reading/ELA
Percentage of Student Scoring Advanced
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Gr. 3 Gr. 4* Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7* Gr. 8 Gr. 10*
District State District State District State Distri
ct State District State District State Distri
ct State
35% 18% 19% 8% 30% 15% 20% 10% 10% 10% 23% 12% 39% 16%
26% 14% 24% 10% 31% 15% 21% 9% 16% 9% 29% 12% 41% 22%
37% 15% 18% 8% 30% 13% 32% 15% 24% 12% 23% 12% 48% 23%
27% 12% 31% 11% 37% 15% 31% 16% 25% 14% 35% 15% 54% 29%
29% 14% 33% 11% 43% 16% 30% 15% 23% 11% 42% 17% 53% 26%
22% 11% 20% 10% 40% 17% 39% 17% 36% 14% 45% 20% 62% 33%
31% 15% 26% 13% 34% 17% 40% 18% 37% 15% 38% 18% 65% 37%
26% 12% 23% 10% 41% 18% 28% 16% 22% 12% 46% 20% 68% 45%
27% 12% 32% 13% 33% 18% 29% 16% 30% 11% 37% 14% 72% 41%
District District Level
% P&A
Students % HighNeeds
Median SGP
Arlington Level 2 85 2661 25.8 56
Belmont Level 2 88 2216 19.7 58
Brookline Level 2 83 3217 33.5 59
Lexington Level 2 91 3629 26.2 61
Natick Level 2 85 2810 23.3 53
Needham Level 2 86 2889 20.4 54
Newton Level 2 87 6629 33.1 56
Wayland Level 2 89 1516 23.9 59
Wellesley Level 2 89 2752 22 55
Weston Level 2 90 1259 22.7 55
2014 English Language ArtsMCAS Achievement and
Growth for Comparable Districts
ELA Analysis � At elementary and middle school level item analysis indicate
issues with discernment in reading: i.e. inference, choosingthe “best choice”, choosing the “most likely” choice.
� These are skills which relate to close reading and a highlevel of reading comprehension.
� Increase in enrollment and loss of 1.0 FTE in order to provide math coaching have resulted in limited capacity forreading teachers to work on comprehension with 4th and 5th graders.
� Student caseload at middle school allows for no work on comprehension except with Level II and Level III studentsfor reading teachers.
� Middle school ELA teachers just beginning training for LucyCalkins literacy program for middle school
District Mathematics 2014
Overall District Performance -MATH
2011 2012 2013 2014
District State District State District State District State
A & P 74% 58% 75% 59% 77% 61% 78% 60%
CPI 89.2 79.9 89.4 79.9 90.4 80.8 90.5 80.3
Median SGP
49.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 54.0 51.0 58.0 50.0
Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools
Math Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 All Students • Arlington Public Schools
School TargetCPI
CPI Points 2014
PPI Points
PPI Status
AHS 98.1 98.5 100 Above Target Ottoson 89.8 88.8 75 On Target Bishop 91.5 92.3 75 On Target Brackett 96.3 95.3 100 Above Target Dallin 93.4 93.9 100 Above Target Hardy 93.0 89.1 25 No Change Peirce 90.0 88.7 25 No Change Stratton 94.1 89.3 25 No Change Thompson 92.7 88.7 50 Improved Below Target
Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools
Math Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 High Needs Students • Arlington Public Schools
School TargetCPI
CPI Points 2014
PPI Points
PPI Status
AHS 92.7 93.0 75 On Target Ottoson 76.2 74.0 75 On Target Bishop 85.1 75.0 50 Improved Below Target Brackett 90.0 87.5 75 On Target Dallin 83.4 82.8 75 On Target Hardy 87.5 77.6 50 Improved Below Target Peirce 83.2 71.3 0 Declined Stratton 85.1 74.5 25 No Change Thompson 85.8 80.5 50 Improved Below Target
School Median SGP All
PPI Points All
Median SGP High Needs
PPI Points High Needs
AHS 61 100 64 100
Ottoson 53 75 57 75 Bishop 78 100 Brackett 61 100 56 75 Dallin 57 75 Hardy 58 75 50 60 Peirce 69 100 Stratton 64 100 Thompson 54 75 56 75
Math Growth and PPI Points, 2014 Arlington Public Schools
Math MCAS Results By Grade
Level
Math Growth Distributions By
Grade Level
Math Growth Distribution
Math Growth Distribution
2014 Mathematics MCAS Achievement and Growth for
Comparable Districts District District
Level %
P&A Students % High
Needs Median
SGP Arlington Level 2 78 2660 25.8 58
Belmont Level 2 86 2228 19.7 61
Brookline Level 2 78 3376 33.5 59
Lexington Level 2 88 3685 26.2 63
Natick Level 2 77 2806 23.3 53
Needham Level 2 80 2971 20.4 57
Newton Level 2 81 6643 33.1 56
Wayland Level 2 83 1521 23.9 62
Wellesley Level 2 82 2586 22.0 62
Weston Level 2 83 1259 22.7 57
Math Results Analysis
� Full impact of the math practice standardsbeing felt.
� Last year Level Two schools weresharing math coaches.
� Coaches focusing on assisting teachers inthe instructional changes necessary toimplement CCSS fully.
� Larger class sizes at seventh gradeprovided challenges.
District Science and Technology2014
Science Analysis
� At middle school level communications engineeringprinciples had been removed from curriculum due totime constraints. Low scores in this area.
� Being re-added. � At all levels complexity of text has risen, lack of
instruction in close reading in the content area hasmade reading of the test more challenging. This is,7>: =0K0.?0/ 49 ?30 � � >.:=0>�
2014 District Subgroups/
High Need Students
High Needs Group includesstudents:
F On an IEP, and/or
F �/09?4J0/ ,> LEP or FLEP, and/or
F Eligible for free/reduced lunch
What Lies Ahead � Deeper implementation of use of data teams in all level two
schools. � Inclusion of math, science, attendance, and discipline data
review in data teams. � Implementation of Baseline Edge Student Analytics System to
allow data teams to more quickly analyze data, drill down,
document interventions, and track success of interventions.
� Wider review at all levels of common assessment data. � Use of WIN (What I Need Block), literacy coaches, and math
coaches at elementary level to assist teachers with implementingand monitoring plans to ensure increase in student achievementfor all students.
� �8;70809?,?4:9 :1 90B ?0,.30= 0A,7@,?4:9 >D>?08 B4?3 >;0.4J.
school and teacher goals targeted to student achievement.
Presentation References
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
�/@.,?4:9 &.3::7 �4>?=4.? $=:J70>�3??;�;=:J70>�/:0�8,>>�0/@;=:J70>2090=,7�,>;C�?:;",
vId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and SecondaryEducation Statewide Reports:3??;�;=:J70>�/:0�8,>>�0/@>?,?0 =0;:=?8.,>�,>;C
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and SecondaryEducation Data Warehouse (EDW):https://www4.doemass.org/auth/Login
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspxhttp://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&https://www4.doemass.org/auth/Login