MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dudley-Charlton Regional School District 2009 MCAS Information October 2009.
Advertisements

Superintendent Melinda J. Boone Alumni Auditorium, North High School October 21, 2013 Worcester Public Schools State of the Schools Address.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Data Analysis State Accountability. Data Analysis (What) Needs Assessment (Why ) Improvement Plan (How) Implement and Monitor.
Accountability data overview August Topics  Changes to 2014 accountability reporting  Overview of accountability measures  Progress & Performance.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.
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.
School Progress Index 2012 Results Mary Gable- Assistant State Superintendent Division of Academic Policy Carolyn Wood - Assistant State Superintendent.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
MELROSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MELROSE VETERANS MEMORIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL OCTOBER 2013 MCAS Spring 2013 Results.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
1 Measuring growth in student performance on MCAS: The growth model.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
District Determined Measures aka: DDMs The Challenge: The Essential Questions: 1.How can I show, in a reliable and valid way, my impact on students’
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
School & district accountability reporting Title I Technical Assistance & Networking Session October 17, 2013.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
CLINTON HIGH SCHOOL 2012 MCAS Presentation October 30, 2012.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Melrose High School MCAS Presentation October 22, 2013.
The Norwood Public Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API) ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT (PI) SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 Accountability Progress Reporting Update.
Merrymount Elementary School PTO Assessment Presentation December 4, 2014.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
Accountability Report Dedham Public Schools October 3,
HAWLEMONT REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2012 STATE OF THE DISTRICT ADDRESS Presented by: Michael A. Buoniconti Superintendent of Schools Hawlemont Regional.
Melrose High School 2014 MCAS Presentation October 6, 2014.
1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.
2015 State PARCC Results A webinar for school and district leaders Robert Lee MCAS Chief Analyst and Acting PARCC Coordinator Wally McKenzie Edwin Analytics.
Understanding AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III Districts School Year Results.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
2012 MOASBO SPRING CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1 April 26, 2012.
MCAS Results Merrymount Elementary School “The toughest thing about success is that you’ve got to keep on being a success.” -Irving Berlin.
Merrymount Elementary School PTO MCAS Presentation November 10, 2015.
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.
2015 State PARCC Results Presented to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Robert Lee MCAS Chief Analyst and Acting PARCC Coordinator October.
Report to Board of Education April 12, 2010 Trenton Public Schools.
“ Let us not be content to wait and see what will happen, but give us the determination to make the right things happen”- Horace Mann 2014 MCAS Overview.
Swampscott Elementary Schools MCAS Results Grade 3 ELA Performance Level Above Proficient Proficient Needs Improvement
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.
Kansas Association of School Boards ESEA Flexibility Waiver KASB Briefing August 10, 2012.
Braintree Public Schools Spring 2007 MCAS Tests Braintree High School.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS and PARCC Results Spring 2015 Joyce Edwards Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning December 8, 2015.
Millbrae Elementary School District
California’s New LCFF Accountability Rubrics and School DAshboard
Spring 2016 PARCC and MCAS Results: Newton Public Schools
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview
2012 Accountability Determinations
Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Lexington School District One
2017 MCAS/Student Achievement
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
NANTUCKET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Deeping Deeper into Data and Accountability November 2018
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day
Presentation transcript:

MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent

OVERVIEW OF MCAS TESTS Grades 3-8 and 10 – ELA and Math Grades 4, 7 and 10 – Composition Grades 5 and 8 – Science and Technology Grades 9/10 – Science and Technology (Biology and Chemistry) Multiple Choice Open Response Short Answer Writing Prompts

MCAS DATA Percentage of Students at Proficient/ Advanced Levels Percentage of Students at Proficient/ Advanced Levels Composite Performance Index – CPI Composite Performance Index – CPI (measure of progress toward 100% proficient/advanced goal) Student Growth Percentile - SGP Student Growth Percentile - SGP (measure of progress in student performance over previous year compared to academic peers)

MCAS RESULTS Percentage of Students at Proficient / Advanced Levels 2013 Grades 3, 4 and 5Mass.Hingham Grade 3 Reading5777 Grade 3 Math6680 Grade 4 ELA5381 Grade 4 Math5279 Grade 5 ELA6686 Grade 5 Math6181 Grade 5 Science5178 Grades 6, 7 and 8Mass.Hingham Grade 6 ELA6786 Grade 6 Math6183 Grade 7 ELA7296 Grade 7 Math5273 Grade 8 ELA7894 Grade 8 Math5582 Grade 8 Science3958 Grade 10Mass.Hingham Grade 10 ELA91100 Grade 10 Math8095 Grade 10 Science7194 All GradesMass.Hingham ELA6988 Math6181 Science5375

MCAS RESULTS Composite Performance Index Results (CPI) 2013 Grades 3, 4 and 5Mass.Hingham Grade 3 Reading Grade 3 Math Grade 4 ELA Grade 4 Math Grade 5 ELA Grade 5 Math Grade 5 Science Grades 6, 7 and 8Mass.Hingham Grade 6 ELA Grade 6 Math Grade 7 ELA Grade 7 Math Grade 8 ELA Grade 8 Math Grade 8 Science Grade 10Mass.Hingham Grade 10 ELA Grade 10 Math Grade 10 Science All GradesMass.Hingham ELA Math Science

MCAS RESULTS Student Growth Percentile (SGP) (Massachusetts 2013 Median Scores – 50 th Percentile) Grade 10Hingham ELA68* Math56.5 Grades 4 and 5Hingham Grade 4 ELA64* Grade 4 Math66* Grade 5 ELA67* Grade 5 Math64* Grades 6, 7 and 8Hingham Grade 6 ELA60* Grade 6 Math47 Grade 7 ELA64* Grade 7 Math47 Grade 8 ELA47 Grade 8 Math56.5 All GradesHingham ELA 63* Math57 *High SGP60-99 Typical SGP40-59 Low SGP0-39

DISTRICT STRENGTHS Scores higher than state Scores higher than state: percentage scoring proficient/advanced and CPIs Highest scores Highest scores: gr. 10 ELA, math and science; gr. 6, 7 and 8 ELA and gr. 6 math; gr. 5 ELA and math; gr. 4 ELA Highest CPIs Highest CPIs: gr. 10 ELA, math and science; gr. 6, 7, and 8 ELA; gr. 5 ELA Highest SGPs Highest SGPs: gr. 10 ELA; gr. 6 and 7 ELA; gr. 5 ELA and math; gr. 4 ELA and math

DISTRICT STRENGTHS DISTRICT STRENGTHS (continued) Increases in percentage at proficient/ advanced Increases in percentage at proficient/ advanced: gr. 10 ELA (100) and science; gr. 7 ELA; gr. 8 math; gr. 5 ELA; gr. 4 ELA and math Special education CPIs higher than state CPIs Special education CPIs higher than state CPIs Gender CPIs similar Gender CPIs similar Small range between elementary school scores Small range between elementary school scores: gr. 3 reading; gr. 4 ELA and math High district state rankings High district state rankings: gr. 10 ELA and science; gr. 7 ELA; gr. 4 ELA and math

DISTRICT CONCERNS Lowest score Lowest score: gr. 8 science Lowest SGP Lowest SGP: gr. 6 and 7 math and gr. 8 ELA below state SGP Lowest Special Education CPIs Lowest Special Education CPIs: gr. 3 math; gr. 6 and 7 math Large range between elementary school scores Large range between elementary school scores: gr. 5 math and science

DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT STEPS Analyze and monitor student performance results Implement intervention and challenge programs Implement state funded MCAS high school tutoring programs Continue use of test taking and instructional strategies Align curriculum with Common Core State Standards Revise/update curriculum, as necessary Continue professional development programs Continue use of supervision and evaluation process

MASSACHUSETTS ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS H INGHAM P UBLIC S CHOOLS D ISTRICT 2013

MASSACHUSETTS ACCOUNTABILTIY SYSTEM School Percentiles (1-99): Overall performance compared to other schools with same grade span Accountability and Assistance Levels (1-5): Level 1 – highest performing to Level 5 – lowest performing – reported for all students and high needs subgroup MCAS Participation: Minimum of 95% students required (ELA, math, science)

MASSACHUSETTS ACCOUNTABILTIY SYSTEM Annual Progress & Performance Index / PPI (0-100): Measure of improvement toward indicator targets over two years – target of 75+ Cumulative Progress & Performance Index / CPPI (0-100): Combination of assessment data including indicators on performance and growth over last 4 years – target of 75+ CPPI Indicators: Narrowing proficiency gap (ELA, math, science), growth (ELA & math), 10% increase scoring advanced (ELA, math, science), 10% decrease scoring warning/ failing (ELA, math, science), high school only-graduation and drop out rates

HINGHAM 2013 ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS SCHOOL PERCENTILES East School 88 Foster School 88 PRS 98 South School 90 HMS89 HHS94

HINGHAM 2013 ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS CUMULATIVE PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE INDEX AND STATE LEVELS CPPI – TARGET 75 All Students High Needs Students Levels 1-5 EAST92472 FOSTER97861 PRS SOUTH98632 HMS90732 HHS HINGHAM94712

HINGHAM 2013 ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS School Percentiles – All Schools “Highest Performing” CPPI – All Students – All Schools Exceeded Target – High Levels of Progress CPPI – High Needs – Met Target/Level 1: Foster and HHS CPPI – High Needs – Below Target/Level 2: East, PRS, South and HMS

DESE REQUIREMENTS LEVEL 2 SCHOOLS Analyze “High Needs” data Review level of implementation of “Conditions for School Effectiveness” Revise School Improvement Plans with interventions and support strategies Disseminate DESE required Report Cards to parents Prioritize Title I funding for Level 2 schools