MURSD MCAS and AYP Data 2011

Mendon-Upton Regional Schools MCAS/AYP Data

October 2011

Performance Distribution- MCAS 3rd Grade ELA (n=207)

Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

12%

57%

27%

5%

AdvancedProficientNeeds ImpFailing

% Students Advanced/Proficient 3rd Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

66% 68%75%

68%

78%

69%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 3rd Grade Mathematics (n=207)

Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

14%

57%

23%

7%


% Students Advanced/Proficient 3rd Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

51%

61%

72%68%

81%

71%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 4th Grade ELA (n=242)

Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

8%

56%

31%

5%


Median SGP:45.0

% Students Advanced/Proficient 4th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

51%

72%

55%

72%78%

64%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 4th Grade Mathematics (n=242)

Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

15%

40% 40%

5%


Median SGP: 42.0

% Students Advanced/Proficient 4th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

32%

49% 49%55%

56%55%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

20%

66%

11%

3%


Median SGP: 49.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

70% 72% 71% 74%78%

86%

StateMURSD

Miscoe Hill Performance Distribution- 5th Grade Mathematics (n=204)

Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

28%

43%

24%

4%


Median SGP:57.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

40%

52%

60% 61% 62%

71%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 5th Grade Science (n=204)

Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

20%

53%

23%

4%


% Students Advanced/Proficient 5th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

53%59%

54%59%

67%73%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

14%

67%

16%

2%


Median SGP:43.5


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

78% 78%83% 83%

78% 81%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

27%

41%

26%

7%


Median SGP:47.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

46%

60% 57%

68% 65% 68%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

19%

63%

15%

3%


Median SGP:47.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

72%

82% 81% 79%85% 82%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

17%

32%30%

21%AdvancedProficientNeeds ImpFailing

Median SGP:41.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

43%

52% 51% 53%

72%

49%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

30%

60%

9%

2%


Median SGP:58.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

90%84%

89% 90% 87%89%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%37%

33%

21%

8%


Median SGP:59.0


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

53% 56%

64%58%

63%70%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 8th Grade Science (n=264)

Spring 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

12%

39%

34%

12%


% Students Advanced/Proficient 8th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

36%

45%

64%

57% 55%51%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

51%

45%

3% 1%


Median SGP:72.0

% Students Advanced/Proficient10th Grade, ELA MCAS

2006-11

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

91% 89% 90% 93% 96% 96%

StateMURSD


Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

68%

22%

9%2%


Median SGP:69.5


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

83%92%

87% 86%

94%90%

StateMURSD

Performance Distribution- MCAS 10th Grade Biology (n=180)

Spring 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

37%

53%

9%

1%


% Students Advanced/Proficient 10th Grade, Biology MCAS, 2007-11

2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

67%

82% 84%92% 90%

StateMURSD

Comparable Districts Overview Tota l Enrol lment

Low Income

SPED LEP ELA Math ELA Math

Groton-Dunstable* PK - 12 2,771 3.3 13.7 0.5 85% 79% 52.0 60.0Hanover* PK - 12 2,685 5.7 15.4 0.5 82% 68% 46.0 46.0Hopkinton* PK - 12 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0Ipswich* PK - 12 2,111 9.9 14.2 0.6 79% 72% 52.0 53.0Lynnfield* PK - 12 2,308 5.5 13.9 0.1 88% 76% 57.0 50.0Marblehead* PK - 12 3,206 8.3 15.0 0.8 85% 74% 55.0 57.0Medfield* PK - 12 2,939 2.3 12.1 0.2 88% 77% 60.0 62.0Mendon-Upton* PK - 12 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0Nashoba* PK - 12 3,495 7.9 11.1 0.7 84% 77% 53.0 59.0Scituate* PK - 12 3,276 6.6 12.2 0.8 88% 81% 57.0 56.0Tyngsborough* PK - 12 1,939 6.7 12.2 0.1 77% 66% 54.0 55.0

*Districts are most similar to your district in terms of grade span, enrollment, and special population.Orange-shaded row: Your district Blue-shaded row: Highest performing of the other 10 districts in 2010 and 2011 .

2011 MCAS % Advanced/Profi cientGrade

span

2011 MCAS Growth2010-11 October Enrol lment

Comparable District Data- Mendon-Upton

Source: DART for Schools, Massachusetts DESE

Neighboring District MCAS Data2010-11 October Enrollment 2011MCAS

% Advanced/Proficient 2011 MCAS Growth

Total Enrollment Low Income % SPED % LEP % ELA Math ELA Math

Bellingham 2,567 19.1 12.1 0.9 72% 59% 44.0 44.0Blackstone-Millville 2,013 22.8 16.1 0.8 72% 65% 49.0 55.0

Franklin 6,032 7.1 15.8 1.2 85% 77% 55.0 52.0

Grafton 2,872 10.4 16.4 0.4 79% 70% 50.0 62.0

Hopedale 1,279 9.5 16.4 0.9 81% 71% 47.0 53.0

Hopkinton 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0

Mendon-Upton 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0

Milford 4,185 28.1 15.0 6.2 72% 61% 55.0 53.0

Northbridge 2,603 24.6 16.7 0.4 70% 52% 47.0 47.0

Uxbridge 1,952 16.2 13.9 1.4 70% 58% 42.0 42.0

Westborough 3,513 7.5 13.4 6.8 85% 77% 59.0 54.0

How AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is Calculated

39

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)

40

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

CPI Targets for ELA from DESE

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

75.6 75.6

80.5 80.5

85.4 85.4

90.2 90.2

95.1 95.1

100 100

State Target

CPI

CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance- ELA

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

75.6 75.6

80.5 80.5

85.4 85.4

90.2 90.2

95.1 95.1

100 100

90.8 91.288.7 88.5

91.4 91.192.4 93.5 93.1

State TargetMURSD Aggregate

CPI

CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance, Including Subgroups- ELA

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

State TargetMURSD AggregateSpec EdLim Income

CPI

CPI Targets for Math

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

60.8 60.8

68.7 68.7

76.5 76.5

84.3 84.3

92.2 92.2

100 100

State Target

CPI

CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance- Math

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

60.8 60.8

68.7 68.7

76.5 76.5

84.3 84.3

92.2 92.2

100 100

76.478.4 77.5 78

81.182.8

84.287

85.4

State TargetMURSD Aggregate

CPI

CPI Targets & Grades 3-10 Performance, Including Subgroups- Math

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

State TargetMURSD AggregateSpec EdLim Income

CPI

What this means for MURSD and AYP Performance Targets

Grade Span Aggregate Special Education

Limited Income

3-5 No No No

6-8 No No No

9-12 Yes N/A N/A

MURSD No No No

Did we meet our DESE targets for English Language Arts?

What this means for MURSD and AYP Performance Targets

Grade Span Aggregate Special Education

Limited Income

3-5 No No No

6-8 No No No

9-12 Yes N/A N/A

MURSD No No No

Did we meet our DESE targets for Mathematics?

To get a perspective…

Source: DESE website, www.doe.mass.edu

http://www.doe.mass.edu/