Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview

How is accountability determined? Narrowing Proficiency Gaps (English, Math, & Science) Growth (English & Math) Extra Credit (English, Math, & Science) + Graduation Rates - Drop-Out Rates + Re-engaging Dropouts Assessment Participation

Accountability 5 level scale of accountability – those meeting the gap narrowing goals in Level 1 and the lowest performing in Level 5 About 80% of schools are level 1 and 2 (based on cumulative PPI of “all students” and “high needs” groups. To reach Level 1, a school’s cumulative PPI for both “all students” and “high needs” groups must be “on target” or higher. If not, the school is a Level 2.

Accountability A school is classified Level 3 if: The school is among the lowest 20% relative to other schools in the same school-type category If 1 or more of the subgroups in the school are among the lowest performing 20% subgroups (relative to statewide) If the school has persistently low graduation rates OR if the school has very low assessment participation rates for any group (less than 90%)

Data protocol – one approach What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? What data can we celebrate? What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?

Spring 2016 Participation – We reached our goal!!!

Steady progress toward narrowing the gap… 2011 CPI (Baseline) 2016 CPI 2017 CPI Goal ELA 90.1 94.2 95.1 Math 82.8 86.2 91.4 Science 75.7 82.7 87.9

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 ELA Trend is to the left – 86% proficient & advance for 2 years in a row – 4% warning/failing

Proficiency Gap Narrowing ELA (On Target for all students): 86% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – on target! Only 4% warning/failing (around 30 students) ELL/Former ELL, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, White subgroups – all on or above target! Student w/ Disabilities subgroup showed improvement Decline in Afr. American/Black subgroup

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Math

Proficiency Gap Narrowing Math (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) 71% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – improvement! 11% Failing (down 1%) Students with Disabilities, Asian, and White subgroups all showed improvement

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Science

Proficiency Gap Narrowing Science (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) First year of testing all 10th graders in Biology. 50% of students scored proficient or advanced High needs, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, African American/Black Subgroups have improved (below target) Asian and White Subgroups are on Target 2011 Baseline CPI = 75.7 2016 CPI = 82.7 2017 Goal = 87.9

ELA Growth – All students

ELA Growth – Hispanic/Latino

ELA Growth – High Needs

Math Growth – All students

Math Growth – Hispanic/Latino

Math Growth – High Needs

DATA SUMMITS What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? What data can we celebrate? What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?