2014-2015 MCC MCA Data Discoveries. What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Jamesville-DeWitt School Report Card Presented to the Board of Education May 10, 2010.
Advertisements

2013 RCAS Summative Assessment Report Preliminary Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (D-STEP) Information August 6,2013.
Thriving in Our Learning Community Increasing Student Achievement Fewer Achievement Gaps September 20, 2005.
Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
1 The Ewing Public Schools Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.
June Big Picture Continuous Improvement Aligned Improvement June
1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Board Presentation March 25, 2008.
School Year September 2014 Amanda Grinager, Director of Teaching and Learning.
Understanding MMR Dr. Margaret Biggerstaff 1. 2 MMR Calculation Process.
Minnesota’s New Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
K-12 Student Performance and Efficiency Commission July 18, 2014 School Year Data.
November 7, 2014 WILLMAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS WORLD’S BEST WORKFORCE SUMMARY.
Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
DAC Back-to-School Training Overview Presented By: Jennifer Stafford 1 OAA:DSR:js:07/22/2015.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
SIP Training Harnett County Schools Thursday, March 29, 2012.
MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CST DATA ANALYSIS STAR RESULTS Presented by Audrey Lee Director, Curriculum & Educational Technology 10 September.
Academic Achievement Highlights San Francisco Unified School District August 2010.
Lincoln Public Schools Testing Year Scores New England Common Assessment Program Grades 3-8 and 11 Reading Math Writing.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS MCA RESULTS. Demographics StateDistrict Number of Students Ethnicity25.6%20.4% LEP7.7%11.1% Special Education14.8%16.8%
September 2015 Amanda Grinager, Director of Teaching and Learning.
What is Title I ?  It is federal funding that is attached to NCLB/ESEA legislation  It is intended to help students who are falling behind.
ESEA Flexibility: Gap Reduction Maryland Accountability Program Presentation 5 of 8.
Student Achievement Gains and Gaps in Saint Paul Public Schools Tom Watkins Director of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Saint Paul Public Schools May.
Collecting data & information Talking with teachers, administrators, service providers Progress Monitoring Consolidated Planning /Use of Data Alternative.
2011 Achievement Gaps By Various Subgroups: Reading and Math EOG Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Board of Education October 11, 2011.
South Kitsap School District Policy Governance Ends 1 Presentation Ends 1: The South Kitsap School District will enable all students to achieve academic.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.
Welcome to Abbett Elementary! Curriculum Night 2015.
The Pike County School Corporation “The Role of the School Administrator In School Improvement” The Learning Conference Indianapolis, IN January 30, 2006.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
District 11 CSAP Results School Year D11 Board Presentation August 9,2006.
Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.
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.
Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
Minnesota’s Proposed Accountability System “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Minnesota Assessments June 25, 2012 Presenter: Jennifer Dugan.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
Minnesota Assessment System Update “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”
Derby High School Connecticut Academic Performance Test Derby High School 2011 Connecticut Academic Performance Test Disaggregated Data Analysis.
Kansas State Department of Education Kansas Student Population Trends (Percent of K-12, September Unaudited Enrollment, Public Schools) 1.
NYS School Report Card & Spring 2014 NYS Assessment Results Orchard Park Central School District Board of Education Presentation August 26, 2014.
Vikash Lakhani, MBA, Assistant Vice President for Student Success
Marshall Public Schools Assessment Update
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
PBMA 2016 Learning Gains.
WELCOME.
Marshall Public SchoolS MCA Results
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Meredith cargilL director of curriculum, instruction, and technology
World’s Best Workforce
2013 RCAS Summative Assessment Report
Texas State Accountability
Annual Report on Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment
Bloomington Public Schools Districtwide Achievement Report
Central City Elementary School
Marshall Public SchoolS MCA II Results
November 09, 2012 Suzanne M. Wright Joe Prather
Presentation transcript:

MCC MCA Data Discoveries

What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow in their knowledge “Growth”  Have equal opportunity to learn Close the “Achievement Gap”  Graduate from high school “Graduation” Minnesota believes each of the above things are equally important so…

Because each of these things are equally important, they should be treated that way…  Pieces of the MMR Pie for High Schools

Elementary and Middle Schools don’t graduate students so for them the pie looks like this…  Pieces of the MMR Pie for Elementary and Junior High Schools

Focus Rating Consists of:  Focused Proficiency  Achievement Gap Reduction

Title I schools can fall into 5 groups based on MMR and FR Reward Schools: These schools are the top 15 percent of Title I schools based on the MMR. They represent the highest-performing schools on the four domains in the MMR. Celebration Eligible: These are the 25 percent of schools directly below the Reward school cutoff. These schools may apply to be Celebration schools, and MDE selects approximately 10 percent of Title I schools to receive the Celebration school recognition. Continuous Improvement: These are the bottom 25 percent of Title I schools that have not already been identified as Priority or Focus. Continuous Improvement schools must work with their districts to create and implement improvement plans as well as set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support school improvement efforts. Focus: All Minnesota schools receive a Focus Rating (FR) that measures their contribution to the state’s achievement gap. The 10 percent of Title I schools with the lowest FR are identified as Focus Schools. Focus schools are required to set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support school improvement efforts. These schools are identified every three years. Some Focus schools are identified for persistent low graduation rates. These are schools with a six-year graduation rate, averaged over three years, below 60 percent. This separate group of low graduation rate Priority: These are the 5 percent most persistently low-performing Title I schools based on the MMR. Priority schools are required to set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support turnaround efforts, and these schools are also identified every three years.

MCC MMR HS DATA

District Demographics subgroup StateMCC American Indian2.4%0.8% Asian7.2%0.8% Hispanic8.4%3.3% Black11.5%0.8% White70.5%94.3% English Learners8.3%0.9% Special Education14.9%12.3% Free/Reduced Price Lunch 38.3%33%

Reading Attention: First year assessed on the reading mca-iii 2013 for 3 rd -8 th grades & 10 th grade 2013 for 3 rd -8 th grades & 10 th grade

2015 District Reading Proficiency

District Reading Proficiency Trends

Elementary Reading Proficiency Trends

High School Reading Proficiency Trends

Subgroup Reading Proficiency Data Looking at our demographics, is there a sub- group that makes up a significant part of our student population?

SpEd vs. Non-SpEd Trend Data

FRP vs. non-FRP Trend Data

Cohort Proficiency Trend Data Helps Identify: Possible gaps in student learning Possible instructional gaps WE ARE COMPARING THE SAME STUDENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. MCA III TESTS ONLY

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. Class of 2017 are 11 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2019 are 9 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2020 are 8 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2021 are 7 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2022 are 6 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2023 are 5 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2024 are 4 th graders in 15-16

Grade Level Proficiency Trend Data Helps Identify: Possible gaps in instructional practices Possible gaps in curriculum and resources

3 rd Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

4th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

5th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

6th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

7th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

8th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

10th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend Data

2015 MCA Reading Strand Data

District Wide Action Plan Complete: – Current Curriculum and Instruction Data for Reading – Reading Action Plan

Math Attention: First year assessed on the math mca-iii 2011 for 3 rd -8 th grades 2011 for 3 rd -8 th grades 2014 for 11 th Grade 2014 for 11 th Grade

District Math Proficiency

District Math Proficiency Trends

Elementary Math Proficiency Trends

High School Math Proficiency Trends

Subgroup Math Proficiency Data Looking at our demographics, is there a sub- group that makes up a significant part of our student population?

SpEd vs. Non-SpEd Trend Data

FRP vs. non-FRP Trend Data

Cohort Proficiency Trend Data Helps Identify: Possible gaps in student learning Possible instructional gaps

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2016 are seniors in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2019 are freshman in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2020 are 8 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2021 are 7 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2022 are 6 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2023 are 5 th graders in 15-16

Cohort Trend Data Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year. The class of 2024 are 4 th graders in 15-16

Grade Level Proficiency Trend Data Helps Identify: Possible gaps in instructional practices Possible gaps in curriculum and resources

3 rd Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

4th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

5th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

6th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

7th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

8th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

11th Grade Math Proficiency Trend Data

2014 MCA Math Strand Data

District Wide Action Plan Complete: – Current Curriculum and Instruction Data for Math – Math Action Plan

Science Attention: First year assessed on the SCIENCE mca-iii 2012 for Grades 5, 8, & for Grades 5, 8, & 10

District Science Proficiency

District Science Proficiency Trend Data

10 th Grade Science Proficiency Trend Data

8 th Grade Science Proficiency Trend Data

5 th Grade Science Proficiency Trend Data

Graduation Rate Report The 2014 Graduation Rate is used for calculation on the 2015 MMR. This is because 2015 Graduation Rates will not be released until February/March 2016 & the 2015 MMR is calculated in September 2015.

Graduation Trend Data Year% Students Graduated % % % % 2015 * 98.2% *(Unofficial %) State goal is that all districts have 90% graduation rate by 2017, with no sub-group less than 85%.

Testing in Districts need to hold ACT contract directly with ACT – deadline was AUGUST 14 Testing limits – Grades 1 – 6 max 10 hrs per year – Grades 7 – 12 max 11 hrs per year – State required tests are not to be included in this Writing Assessment – TBD HS Graduation requirements – no GRAD ACCESS available online

Next steps Goals for District: Elementary: High School: