2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Advertisements

MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
REVIEW OF 2014 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVEMENT DATA, GOAL SETTING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 2014/2015 SAUGUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Academic Achievement Highlights San Francisco Unified School District August 2010.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
Spring 2015 Smarter Balanced (SBA) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) update September
MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent.
CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2011 TEST SCORE PRESENTATION.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
What are the STAAR Performance Standards? Copyright 2013 by Region 7 Education Service Center. All rights reserved.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
The Norwood Public Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Jackson County School District A overview of test scores and cumulative data from 2001 – 2006 relative to the following: Mississippi Curriculum Test Writing.
Merrymount Elementary School PTO Assessment Presentation December 4, 2014.
Making Sense of Adequate Yearly Progress. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a required activity of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
MCAS 2007 October 24, 2007 A Report to the Sharon School Committee and Dr. Barbara J. Dunham Superintendent of Schools Dr. George S. Anthony Director of.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
2015 State PARCC Results Presented to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Robert Lee MCAS Chief Analyst and Acting PARCC Coordinator October.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Braintree Public Schools Spring 2007 MCAS Tests Braintree High School.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
2012 Accountability Determinations
PBMA 2016 Learning Gains.
Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
CLINTON HIGH SCHOOL 2010 MCAS Presentation October 26, 2010.
NANTUCKET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AYP and Report Card.
Presentation transcript:

2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District

What is MCAS?  It is the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System  Provides scores on individual students to show their progress in learning  Provides a measure of basic achievement for high school graduation  Measures performance of schools and districts to show student progress towards 100% proficiency by 2014

Who is tested in what?  Grade 3 English Language Arts (ELA) & Math  Grade 4 ELA & Math  Grade 5 ELA, Math, & Science  Grade 6 ELA & Math  Grade 7 ELA & Math  Grade 8 ELA, Math, & Science  Grade 10 ELA, Math, & Biology (Nipmuc’s choice for science)

How are MCAS scores reported? Grades 4-10  Advanced: Scaled scores  Proficient:  Needs Improvement:  Warning/Failing:

Who is Affected by AYP?  All schools and student groups are required to make AYP.  All school is called the Aggregate  Student groups: Special Education Limited English Proficient Low Income Racial backgrounds

Terms Defined  AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress A + (B or C) + D = AYP, where A is Participation - MURSD always meets expectation B is Performance C is Improvement D is Attendance - MURSD always meets expectation  Aggregate = All students in a grade level or in a district  Subgroup = A cohort of students falling in a defined category, i.e. Special Education, Low Income B and/or C cause MURSD to not make AYP

AYP Status Categories YearAYP Status 1 st YearNo Status--- Memorial School 2 nd YearImprovement Year 1 3 rd YearImprovement Year 2 4 th YearCorrective Action--- Miscoe Hill 5 th YearRestructuring Year 1 6 th YearRestructuring Year 2+

2009 Accountability Results AYP Statewide Results  54% of Elementary School in Massachusetts did not make AYP  51% of Schools not making AYP in Elementary were in non-urban areas  80% of Middle Schools did not make AYP  37% of High Schools did not make AYP

WHY Clough and Not Memorial  Memorial did not meet AYP but their target was higher than Clough’s due to 2008 scores  Memorial 2008 ELA score was 92.8 and went down to 87.9  Clough 2008 ELA score was 86.1 and remained 86.1

Clough School Adequate Yearly Progress History Status ELA Aggregate N/AYes No Status All subgroups N/AYes Math Aggregate N/A Yes No Status All subgroups N/A Yes

Clough School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target ELA No Yes Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target MathYes NoYes

Memorial School Adequate Yearly Progress History Status ELA Aggregate N/AYes No No Status All subgroups N/AYes No Math Aggregate N/A Yes No Status All subgroups N/A Yes

Memorial School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target ELA No No Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target MathYes NoYes

Miscoe Hill School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 ELA Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate Yes Yes Special Education Subgroup No Yes Math Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate No Yes Special Education Subgroup No No

Why Miscoe did not make AYP  Miscoe did not make AYP in the Math Special Education Subgroup  Although a gain of 4.3 percentage points were realized in the special education subgroup, a gain of 7.7 was actually needed to make AYP  AYP was missed by.9

Grade 3 English % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 71% 66% 70% 75% 69%

Grade 3 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 51% 61% 72% 68%

Grade 4 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 48% 51% 71% 55% 62%

Grade 4 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 28% 32% 49% 55%

Grade 5 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 70% 72% 71% 74%

Grade 5 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 41% 52% 59% 61%

Grade 5 Science/Tech Eng % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 53% 59% 53% 59%

Grade 6 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 79% 77% 83%

Grade 6 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 58% 46% 58% 57% 68%

Grade 7 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 83% 74% 81% 79%

Grade 7 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 45% 51% 50% 53%

Grade 8 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 90% 85% 89% 90%

Grade 8 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 53% 56% 61% 58%

Grade 8 Science/Tech Eng % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 36% 45% 63% 57%

Grade 10 English Language Arts 82% 91% 89% % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 93%

Grade 10 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 74% 82% 92% 87% 86%

Grade 10 Biology % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 67% 82% 87%

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 3 – English Language Arts (Percent scoring in each category)

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 3 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 4 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 4 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – Science/Tech Eng

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 6 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 6 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 7 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 7 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 - Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 – Science/Tech Eng

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – English Language Arts

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – Mathematics

Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – Biology

Class of 2013 ELA & Math Freshman Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 70% 78% 81% 58% 40% 60% 50% 90%

Class of 2012 ELA & Math Sophomore Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 67% 78% 82% 89% 49% 46% 50% 63%

Class of 2011 ELA & Math Junior Class 58% 74% 84% 93% 58% 45% 56% 86% % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined

Class of 2010 ELA & Math Senior Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 64% 90% 89% 87% 44% 64% 53%

10 th Grade MCAS Ranking ELA  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #59 in the state of Massachusetts on the ELA portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools Math  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #84 in the state of Massachusetts on the math portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools Science  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #42 in the state of Massachusetts on the Biology portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools

National Assessment of Educational Progress in Math - NAEP Grade 4Grade 8  2005 Massachusetts ranked #1  2007 Massachusetts ranked #1  2009 Massachusetts ranked #1  2005 Massachusetts ranked #1  2007 Massachusetts ranked #1  2009 Massachusetts ranked #1 NAEP is a national mathematics test given to fourth and eighth grade level students every two years in each of the 50 states.

How Massachusetts 4 th Grade Students Scored in World’s Top Ten TIMSS Grade 4 Math 2007 TIMSS Grade 4 Science 2007 NationRankNationRank Hong Kong SAR1Singapore1 2Massachusetts, USA2 Chinese Taipei3 3 Massachusetts, USA4Hong Kong SAR4 Japan5Minnesota, USA5 6Japan6 Kazakhstan7Russian Federation7 USA13USA10

How Massachusetts 8 th Grade Students Scored in World’s Top Ten TIMSS Grade 8 Math 2007 TIMSS Grade 8 Science 2007 NationRankNationRank Chinese Taipei1Singapore1 Korea, Rep. of2Chinese Taipei2 Singapore3Massachusetts, USA3 Hong Kong SAR4Japan4 5Korea, Rep. of5 Massachusetts, USA6England6 Minnesota, USA7 9 USA11USA13