Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MCAS SPRING 2010 Newburyport Public Schools October 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "MCAS SPRING 2010 Newburyport Public Schools October 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 MCAS SPRING 2010 Newburyport Public Schools October 2010

2 2010 MCAS Results Based upon: Curriculum Frameworks Alignment of Curriculum Teaching and Learning Practice and Preparation –Open Response –Short Answer –Multiple Choice –Long Composition

3 What Was Tested in 2010? Grade Level Content Area English Language Arts (ELA) XXXXXXX Mathematics XXXXXXX Science and Technology Engineering XXX Biology X

4 2010 English Language Arts % of Students at Each Performance Level % of Performance At: Advanced/ Above Proficient & Proficient Needs Improvement Warning & Failed NbptStateNbptStateNbptState Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

5 English Language Arts 2010 % of Students at each Performance Level Grades 3, 4, 5

6 English Language Arts 2010 % of Students at each Performance Level Grades 6, 7, 8, 10

7 ELA 2010 Needs Improvement Students Grade 3 (28%), Grade 4 (40%), & Grade 5 (30%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students) Gr.3 = 13% Gr.4 = 11% Gr.5 = 8% Gr.3 = 1% Gr.4 = 8% Gr.5 = 7% Number of Students Gr.3 = 12% Gr.4 = 14% Gr.5 = 12% Gr.3 = 1% Gr.4 = 7% Gr.5 = 2% Total NI Gr.3 = 28% Gr.4 = 41% Gr.5 = 30%

8 Number of Students ELA 2010 Needs Improvement Students Grade 6 (16%), Grade 7 (8%), & Grade 8 (6%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students) Gr.6 = 4% Gr.7= 3% Gr.8 = 3% Gr.6 =2% Gr.7 = 1% Gr.8 = 0% Gr.6= 6% Gr.7 = 3% Gr.8= 2% Gr.6 =3% Gr.7 = 1% Gr.8 = 1% Total NI Gr.6 = 16% Gr.7 = 8% Gr.7 = 6%

9 % A & P WA & P WA & P W WA & P WA & P WA & P WA & P W Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade English Language Arts Cohorts

10 2010 ELA - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced & Proficient Students ELA Grade 10 Newburyport 2010 – 91% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Newburyport91 1.Scituate 91 2.Swampscott88 3.Bedford86 4.Burlington84 5.Wakefield83 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Georgetown92 2.Newburyport91 3.Ipswich 88 4.Pentucket87 5.Amesbury86 5.Triton86 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 97 2.Wellesley96 3.Medfield95 4.Needham93 5.Newburyport91 5.Holliston91 ELA Grade 4 Newburyport 2010 – 54% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Scituate 73 2.Bedford 72 3.Swampscott69 3.Wakefield69 4.Burlington68 5.Newburyport54 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Georgetown66 2.Pentucket65 3.Triton64 4.Ipswich 56 5.Newburyport54 6.Amesbury52 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 83 2.Medfield80 3.Holliston77 4.Wellesley76 5.Needham73 6.Newburyport54 ELA Grade 8 Newburyport 2010 – 92% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Swampscott96 2.Newburyport92 2.Scituate 92 3.Bedford90 4.Burlington86 5.Wakefield83 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Ipswich 96 2.Newburyport92 3.Pentucket90 4.Triton83 5.Georgetown81 6.Amesbury78 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 95 1.Wellesley95 2.Needham93 2.Holliston93 3.Medfield92 3.Newburyport92

11 English Language Arts Findings High School 92% of students in Advanced & Proficient categories Scores held steady over the past 5 years Cohorts improved from Grade 8 consistently All groups did make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Middle School 92% of students in Advanced & Proficient categories Increase from 2009 MCAS Grade 8 student scores increased over the last 3 years Consistent growth from cohorts Subgroups did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status Corrective Action Year 2 –Subgroups Elementary Schools Growth of Grade 3 students in Advanced & Proficient categories Large numbers of students in Needs Improvement category Higher % of students in ‘upper band’ of Needs Improvement Bresnahan did make AYP in all groups Molin did not make AYP in the Aggregate or Subgroups No Status Subgroup students struggling with Open Response & Composition questions

12 English Language Arts Actions High School Disaggregate data Provide Resources for Writing Lab Provide MCAS Academic Support Middle School Disaggregate data Focus energy on writing Implement building literacy teams PreK-5 Implement new coaching schedule with teachers Ensure spiraling of skills and strategies from year to year Focus on looking at student work Use assessment to drive instruction Implement greater assessment data to inform teachers Implement after school intervention programs Provide students with weekly after school support from classroom teachers Use team meetings to discuss instructional practices Monitor differentiation of instruction Elementary Schools

13 2010 Mathematics % of Students at Each Performance Level Performance % Advanced/ Above Proficient & Proficient Needs Improvement Warning & Failed NbptStateNbptStateNbptState Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

14 Mathematics Grades 3, 4, 5 % of Students at each Performance Level

15 Mathematics Grades 6, 7, 8, 10 % of Students at each Performance Level

16 Math 2010 Needs Improvement Students Grade 3 (29%), Grade 4 (42%), & Grade 5 (35%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students) Gr.3 = 5% Gr.4 = 18% Gr.5 = 16% Gr.3 = 8% Gr.4 = 10% Gr.5 = 6% Gr.3 = 7% Gr.4 = 7% Gr.5 = 6% Gr.3 = 9% Gr.4 = 7% Gr.5 = 8% Total NI Gr.3 = 29% Gr.4 = 42% Gr.5 = 35% Number of Students

17 Math 2010 Needs Improvement Students Grade 6 (22%), Grade 7 (16%), & Grade 8 (23%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students) Gr.6 = 9% Gr.7 = 3% Gr.8 = 10% Gr.6 = 3% Gr.7 = 5% Gr.8 = 3% Gr.6 = 4% Gr.7 = 2% Gr.8 = 1% Gr.6 = 5% Gr.7 = 5% Gr.8 = 9% Total NI Gr.6 = 22% Gr.7 = 16% Gr.8 = 23% Number of Students

18 Mathematics Cohorts % A& P War nA& P WarnA& P WarnA& P WarnA& P WarnA& P WarnA& P WarnA& P Warn Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

19 2010 Mathematics – Grades 4, 8, & 10 % of Advanced & Proficient Students Math Grade 10 Newburyport 2010 – 87% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Newburyport87 2.Swampscott86 2.Bedford86 3.Scituate 85 3.Burlington85 4.Wakefield80 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Georgetown88 2.Newburyport87 2.Ipswich 87 3.Pentucket85 4.Triton83 5.Amesbury81 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Medfield97 2.Winchester 95 2.Wellesley95 3.Holliston92 3.Needham92 4.Newburyport87 Math Grade 4 Newburyport 2010 – 49% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Scituate 69 2.Bedford 62 3.Wakefield60 4.Burlington56 5.Swampscott55 6.Newburyport49 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Triton63 2.Pentucket53 3.Amesbury52 4.Georgetown50 5.Ipswich 50 6.Newburyport49 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 74 2.Needham64 3.Holliston62 3.Wellesley62 4.Medfield57 5.Newburyport49 Math Grade 8 Newburyport 2010 – 69% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Bedford72 2.Newburyport69 2.Wakefield69 3.Scituate 66 4.Burlington64 5.Swampscott63 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Ipswich 73 2.Newburyport69 3.Pentucket67 4.Triton57 5.Amesbury52 6.Georgetown51 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 82 1.Needham82 2.Wellesley76 2.Medfield76 3.Holliston74 4.Newburyport69

20 Mathematics Findings High School 70% of students in Advanced 88% of students in Advanced & Proficient categories Scores held steady over the past 5 years Cohorts improved from Grade 8 to Grade 10 consistently All groups did make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Middle School 69% of students in Grade 8, and 79% of students in Grade 7 scored in Advanced & Proficient categories, the highest over the last 5 years Large numbers of students in the Needs Improvement category Largest % of students in ‘upper band’ of Needs Improvement across Grades 6, 7 & 8 Significant improvement from Grade 6 to Grade 7 and from Grade 5 to Grade 6 Students struggling with short answer questions Grade 6 Subgroups did not make AYP Restructuring Year 2 - Subgroups Elementary Schools Improvement in Grade 3, the highest scores over the past 5 years Large numbers of students in Needs Improvement category Students struggling with short answer questions in Grades 4 & 5 Bresnahan School did make AYP in all groups Molin School did not make AYP in the aggregate or subgroups Improvement Year 2-Subgroups

21 Mathematics Actions High School Disaggregate data Monitor achievement of subgroups Provide MCAS academic support Middle School Disaggregate data Examine data for instructional alignment Further examine MCAS Item Analysis data Focus on differentiation of math instruction Monitor co-teaching practices Monitor growth of subgroups Embed MCAS like short answer questions into assessments in Grade 6 Provide students with weekly after school support from classroom teachers Elementary Schools Disaggregate data Further examine MCAS Item Analysis data Monitor the pull-out math early intervention program K-2 Focus math coaching in Grades 4 & 5 Monitor implementation of Investigations in Grades K & 1 Model discussion and writing about math thinking Monitor consistent 60 minutes of math instruction daily Monitor consistency of rigorous instruction across grade levels Ensure that 10 minute math is implemented with fidelity Embed MCAS like short answer questions into assessments in Grades 4 & 5 Provide students with weekly after school support from classroom teachers Investigate and implement web-based support for students and parents

22 2010 Science & Technology Engineering % of Students at Each Performance Level Performance % Advanced/ Above Proficient & Proficient Needs Improvement Warning & Failed NbptStateNbptStateNbptState Grade Grade Grade 9 Biology Grade

23 Science/Tech Engineering Grades 5, 8, 10 % of Students at each Performance Level

24 Sci/Tech 2010 Needs Improvement Students Grade 5 (32%), Grade 8 (35%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students) Number of Students Gr.5 = 9% Gr.8 = 6% Gr.5 = 7% Gr.8 = 7% Gr.5 = 13% Gr.8 = 15% Gr.5 = 3% Gr.8 = 7% Total NI Gr.5 = 32% Gr.8 = 35%

25 % A& PWarnA&PWarnA&PWarnA&PWarnA&PWarnA&PWarnA&PWarn Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 9 Biology Grade 9 Physics Grade Science and Tech/Engineering Cohorts

26 2010 Science & Tech/Eng - Grades 5, 8, & 10 % of Advanced & Proficient Students Sci/Tech Grade 10 Newburyport 2010 – 87% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Newburyport87 2.Wakefield86 3.Bedford80 4.Scituate 78 5.Burlington76 6.Swampscott68 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Georgetown90 2.Newburyport87 3.Amesbury79 4.Triton78 5.Pentucket76 6.Ipswich 73 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Medfield95 2.Winchester 94 3.Holliston91 4.Needham90 5.Newburyport87 6.Wellesley77 Sci/Tech Grade 5 Newburyport 2010 – 62% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Scituate 80 2.Bedford 71 3.Burlington68 4.Newburyport62 5.Swampscott60 6.Wakefield57 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Pentucket70 2.Triton69 3.Ipswich 68 4.Amesbury64 5.Newburyport62 6.Georgetown54 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 87 2.Holliston76 3.Needham74 4.Wellesley64 5.Medfield63 6.Newburyport62 Sci/Tech Grade 8 Newburyport 2010 – 62% Comparative Communities 2010-% 1.Newburyport62 2.Swampscott60 3.Bedford57 3.Scituate 57 4.Burlington48 5.Wakefield44 Geographic Proximity 2010-% 1.Pentucket66 2.Ipswich 65 3.Newburyport62 4.Amesbury46 5.Triton45 6.Georgetown36 Aspiration Communities 2010-% 1.Winchester 76 2.Medfield74 3.Needham64 4.Newburyport62 5.Holliston53 6.Wellesley44

27 Science & Tech/Eng Findings High School Increase in scores from 2009 MCAS 88% of students in Advanced & Proficient categories 1/3 of students in Advanced category Biology only tested Middle School Increase in scores from 2009 MCAS Focus on Gr. 5 & 8, the test is multi-year content in all domains Large number of students in Needs Improvement category 20% of Gr. 6 students, and 22% of Gr. 8 students are within 10 scale points of being Proficient Low percentage of students in Advanced category Students are struggling with Open Response questions Elementary Schools

28 Science & Tech/Eng Actions High School Disaggregate data Monitor achievement of students in subgroups Provide MCAS academic support Middle School Disaggregate data Monitor achievement of students in subgroups Provide students with weekly after school support from classroom teachers Examine data for instructional alignment Provide instructional coaching at the elementary level Monitor co-teaching practices Monitor consistency of rigorous instruction across the elementary grade levels Embed MCAS like Open Response questions into assessments Elementary Schools

29 2010 Accountability Data Bresnahan & Molin Schools Adequate Yearly Progress History NCLB Accountability Status Year Bresnahan ELA AggregateYesNoYes No Status All Subgroups YesNoYes Bresnahan Math AggregateYesNoYes No Status All Subgroups YesNoYes Molin ELA AggregateNoYesNo No Status All Subgroups NoYesNo Molin Math AggregateYesNo Improvement Year 2 - Subgroups All Subgroups No

30 2010 Accountability Data Middle & High Schools Adequate Yearly Progress History NCLB Accountability Status Year Middle School ELA AggregateYes Corrective Action - Subgroups All Subgroups No Middle School Math AggregateYes Restructuring Year 2 - Subgroups All Subgroups No High School ELA AggregateYes No Status All Subgroups Yes High School Math AggregateYes No Status All Subgroups Yes

31 What is growth?  MCAS shows how each student is achieving relative to state standards  Growth measures change in an individual student’s performance over time o Each student’s rate of change is compared to other students with a similar test score history (“academic peers”) o The rate of change is expressed as a percentile.  Growth provides evidence of improvement even among those with low achievement  Growth gives high achieving students and schools something to strive for beyond proficiency For more information about SGP you may view a Growth Tutorial on the DESE website. Here is the link. Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

32 Why Measure Growth?  It is a way to measure progress for students at all performance levels  A student can achieve at a low level but still improve relative to his academic peers  Another could achieve well but not improve much from year to year  It provides evidence of improvement even among those with low achievement  It gives high achieving students and schools something to strive for beyond proficiency Rules of Thumb:  Typical student growth percentiles are between about 40 and 60 on most tests.  Students or groups outside this range have higher or lower than typical growth. Newburyport’s Growth Range: Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)


Download ppt "MCAS SPRING 2010 Newburyport Public Schools October 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google