State Release of Student Assessment Data An Update from the Assistant Superintendent for Learning & Teaching September 2016

Similar documents
Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Manasquan Elementary School State Proficiency Assessments. Spring 2012 Results

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for Online UIP Report

A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education

Karla Brooks Baehr, Ed.D. Senior Advisor and Consultant The District Management Council

College and Career Ready Performance Index, High School, Grades 9-12

Shelters Elementary School

Student Mobility Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools

FOUR STARS OUT OF FOUR

Review of Student Assessment Data

Contract Language for Educators Evaluation. Table of Contents (1) Purpose of Educator Evaluation (2) Definitions (3) (4)

State of New Jersey

Bellehaven Elementary

Status of Latino Education in Massachusetts: A Report

Linking the Ohio State Assessments to NWEA MAP Growth Tests *

Testing Schedule. Explained

African American Male Achievement Update

Standardized Assessment & Data Overview December 21, 2015

SSIS SEL Edition Overview Fall 2017

Proficiency Illusion

World s Best Workforce Plan

2015 High School Results: Summary Data (Part I)

Definitions for KRS to Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties

Making the ELPS-TELPAS Connection Grades K 12 Overview

Evaluation of Teach For America:

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Salem High School

Psychometric Research Brief Office of Shared Accountability

Colorado State University Department of Construction Management. Assessment Results and Action Plans

Bureau of Teaching and Learning Support Division of School District Planning and Continuous Improvement GETTING RESULTS

Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Student Learning Objectives Overview for New Districts

TOPIC: Biennial Exempt Market Salary Survey Report and FY Structures Adjustment

The Oregon Literacy Framework of September 2009 as it Applies to grades K-3

Measures of the Location of the Data

John F. Kennedy Middle School

Annual Report to the Public. Dr. Greg Murry, Superintendent

Undergraduate Admissions Standards for the Massachusetts State University System and the University of Massachusetts. Reference Guide April 2016

Background Information. Instructions. Problem Statement. HOMEWORK INSTRUCTIONS Homework #3 Higher Education Salary Problem

Delaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators

INDEPENDENT STUDY PROGRAM

BUILDING CAPACITY FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM NAEP ITEM ANALYSES. Council of the Great City Schools

SER CHANGES~ACCOMMODATIONS PAGES

Principal vacancies and appointments

Student Support Services Evaluation Readiness Report. By Mandalyn R. Swanson, Ph.D., Program Evaluation Specialist. and Evaluation

TEAM Evaluation Model Overview

Historical Overview of Georgia s Standards. Dr. John Barge, State School Superintendent

Common Core Path to Achievement. A Three Year Blueprint to Success

ACADEMIC ALIGNMENT. Ongoing - Revised

Samuel Enoka Kalama Intermediate School

Illinois Assessment Update. Illinois State Board of Education July 07, 2017

How to set up gradebook categories in Moodle 2.

AB 167/216 Graduation. kids-alliance.org/programs/education. Alliance for Children s Rights

Answer Key For The California Mathematics Standards Grade 1

Manchester Essex Regional Schools District Improvement Plan Three Year Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Online courses for credit recovery in high schools: Effectiveness and promising practices. April 2017

Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. John White, Louisiana State Superintendent of Education

Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Education Case Study Results

Qualitative Site Review Protocol for DC Charter Schools

ADDENDUM 2016 Template - Turnaround Option Plan (TOP) - Phases 1 and 2 St. Lucie Public Schools

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (ELL) UPDATE FOR SUNSHINE STATE TESOL 2013

What Does ESSA Mean for English Learners and #ESSAforELs

3rd Grade Ngsss Standards Checklist

Kenya: Age distribution and school attendance of girls aged 9-13 years. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 20 December 2012

Superintendent s 100 Day Entry Plan Review

Practices Worthy of Attention Step Up to High School Chicago Public Schools Chicago, Illinois

Georgia Department of Education

Quantitative Research Questionnaire

BEST PRACTICES FOR PRINCIPAL SELECTION

National Collegiate Retention and Persistence to Degree Rates

NORTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL PUBLIC SCHOOL IN WCPSS UPDATE FOR FALL 2007, SPRING 2008, AND SUMMER 2008

Vertical Teaming. in a small school

Race to the Top (RttT) Monthly Report for US Department of Education (USED) NC RttT February 2014

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION POLICY

ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Student Packets and Teacher Guide. Grades 6, 7, 8

html

Classroom Connections Examining the Intersection of the Standards for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MULTIPLE CHOICE MATH TESTS

Program Information. The Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators' Association together with TEACHERS21

QUESTIONS and Answers from Chad Rice?

Systemic Improvement in the State Education Agency

Executive Summary. Laurel County School District. Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY

Kahului Elementary School

SASKATCHEWAN MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Multiplication of 2 and 3 digit numbers Multiply and SHOW WORK. EXAMPLE. Now try these on your own! Remember to show all work neatly!

George Mason University Graduate School of Education Program: Special Education

State Parental Involvement Plan

Biological Sciences, BS and BA

Delaware Performance Appraisal System Building greater skills and knowledge for educators

Arlington Elementary All. *Administration observation of CCSS implementation in the classroom and NGSS in grades 4 & 5

CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACHIEVEMENT TEST Introduction One of the important duties of a teacher is to observe the student in the classroom, laboratory and

Queensborough Public Library (Queens, NY) CCSS Guidance for TASC Professional Development Curriculum

Level: 5 TH PRIMARY SCHOOL

Robert Bennis Elementary School

Section V Reclassification of English Learners to Fluent English Proficient

Newburgh Enlarged City School District Academic. Academic Intervention Services Plan

George A. Buljan Middle School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

Restorative Measures In Schools Survey, 2011

Kelso School District and Kelso Education Association Teacher Evaluation Process (TPEP)

Transcription:

State Release of Student Assessment Data An Update from the Assistant Superintendent for Learning & Teaching September MCAS and PARCC results released As you may know, the Massachusetts Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (DESE) released results today for last spring s state assessments. This includes Grades 3-8 PARCC results for both English Language Arts and Mathematics, the Science and Technology/Engineering MCAS results for Grades 5/8/10, as well as the high school MCAS results for English Language Arts and Mathematics. District and school accountability data were also released. The PARCC and MCAS assessment data are assembled in several different tables below. In addition to the achievement levels in each content area, we have also created tables to examine the median Student Growth Percentile and the Composite Performance Index in all applicable areas, as that data also provide us important information. The Student Growth Percentile () measures how much a student s performance has improved from one year to the next relative to his or her academic peers (other students statewide with similar scores in prior years). The Composite Performance Index () measures the extent to which groups (districts, schools, and subgroups) are progressing toward full proficiency. When examining the data for student groups, the transitional can be used for comparing results across years, and the median can be used for measuring growth from one year to the next. (See the attached tables for further explanation of both and.) Some initial findings In Mathematics, 93 of Reading high school students scored Proficient or higher, which includes 70 who scored at the Advanced level. This year s median (at 55) also represents the highest median for RMHS math since the state began reporting Student Growth Percentiles. In English Language Arts, 99 of our high school students scored in the Proficient/Advanced range which includes 64 scoring at the Advanced level. In Science, 92 of high school students scored in the Proficient/Advanced range. The data for the elementary and middle level, however, continue to indicate the need to update our curriculum and instruction at these levels. This work began last year of course, and it continues to be a priority for the district in order to align with the state s new curriculum framework and revised assessment due in 2018. Thirty-two (32) of the 36 median Student Growth Percentiles () in ELA and Mathematics (across all three levels) are in the moderate or high growth range (with 13 of those in the high growth range). Reading students showed an overall improvement in twenty-nine (29) of the forty-four (44) PARCC assessments and five (5) out of ten (10) MCAS assessments. Fifteen (15) of the 30 Composite Performance Indexes () in ELA and Math for the elementary schools represent an improvement over last year. The for the 8 th grade Algebra I test is 100 again this year, meaning that all students in 8 th grade Algebra I either met or exceeded. According to DESE accountability ratings, RMHS moved from 2 to 1 this year. Joshua Eaton Elementary remains classified as 3, and all other schools are classified as 2. (See the Accountability Data table below for more information.) As the DESE 3 classification indicates a focus on the high needs subgroup, we are especially examining the data for this group of students. The high needs Cumulative Progress and Performance Index (PPI) ratings for Eaton indicate an increase from a 36 PPI in, to a 56 PPI in, and a 61 PPI in. The district PPI index has also increased from 44 in to 57 in. There is still progress to be made, however, in this area. We are continuing to review all the information that has been released; and we also, of course, continue to improve the curriculum, instruction, and assessment in all content areas and grade levels. In upcoming weeks, the district, school, and student results will be used to identify our current strengths and weaknesses, review curriculum and instructional alignment, and identify appropriate interventions for students where applicable. We will also utilize released assessment items including test questions, scoring rubrics, and examples of scored student responses to inform our practice. The DESE has announced that individual student reports will be shipped to the districts this week, and so parents/guardians can expect to receive those reports in the beginning of October. An overview presentation of the district assessment data will be given for the School Committee later this fall, and each school will also be doing its own school-level presentation in order to more fully discuss and identify each school s individual progress. If you have any questions, feel free to contact your school Principal or the district administration offices. 1

English Language Arts & Mathematics MCAS For Reading Memorial High School (with overall state data and also / results) High School English Language Arts and Mathematics MCAS (Percentage of Students at each achievement score level) Higher Adv Prof NI W Higher Adv Prof NI W Higher Adv Prof NI W RMHS ELA 99 64 35 1 0 98 69 29 1 1 98 48 50 2 0 RMHS Math 93 70 23 5 2 92 74 18 7 2 89 62 27 9 1 State HS ELA 92 47 45 6 3 91 49 42 6 3 89 41 48 8 3 State HS Math 78 54 24 15 8 78 53 25 13 8 78 53 25 15 7 Adv=Advanced / Prof=Proficient / NI=Needs Improvement / W=Warning (Failing) High School Student Growth Percentiles () High Growth Moderate Growth Low Growth Moderate to High Growth Median Moderate to High Growth Median Moderate to High Growth RMHS ELA 39 18 43 57 48 58 46 57 47.5 RMHS Math 42 20 38 62 55 64 54.5 39 31 Massachusetts measures growth for students by comparing the change in their achievement on statewide assessments to that of their academic peers (all other students in the state who previously had similar historical assessment results). The state defines moderate (or expected) growth to be between the 40-60 percentile, with low growth as below the 40 th percentile and high above the 60 th percentile. Median Science and Technology/Engineering MCAS For all Reading Public Schools (with overall state data and also / results) Science and Technology/Engineering MCAS (Percentage of Students, by school, at each achievement score level) Higher Adv Prof NI W Higher Adv Prof NI W Higher Adv Prof NI W Barrows 47 8 39 47 6 61 15 46 32 7 69 28 41 22 9 Birch Meadow 57 18 39 36 6 60 15 45 36 4 58 25 33 35 6 Eaton 54 21 33 43 3 78 20 58 20 3 53 12 41 41 7 Killam 53 18 35 38 9 61 8 53 32 6 55 15 40 41 5 Wood End 72 19 53 26 2 72 20 52 25 3 63 19 44 32 5 Coolidge 46 5 41 39 14 38 1 37 51 12 57 5 52 39 4 Parker 61 8 53 34 5 58 2 56 35 7 59 7 52 37 4 RMHS 92 40 52 8 0 86 37 49 13 1 88 39 49 13 0 State Gr 5 47 16 31 38 14 51 16 35 37 13 53 20 33 34 13 State Gr 8 41 6 35 40 19 42 3 39 40 18 42 4 38 41 18 State HS 73 29 44 21 5 71 27 44 23 5 71 29 42 24 5 Adv=Advanced / Prof=Proficient / NI=Needs Improvement / W=Warning (Failing) 2

English Language Arts / PARCC Results PARCC Achievement s 1 = Did not yet meet 2 = Partially met 3 = Approached 4 = Met 5 = English Language Arts / PARCC (Percentage of students, by school and grade level, at each achievement score level) 1 Did not yet meet 2 Partially met 3 Approached 4 Met 5 s s Barrows Grade 3 0 4 21 65 10 75 69 Grade 4 0 0 18 60 22 82 68 Grade 5 3 5 32 56 3 59 77 Birch Meadow Grade 3 2 7 16 69 5 74 53 Grade 4 1 4 20 53 21 74 73 Grade 5 5 3 23 54 15 69 73 Eaton Grade 3 6 19 32 36 5 41 44 Grade 4 5 7 28 49 11 60 75 Grade 5 1 4 11 74 9 83 79 Killam Grade 3 4 8 19 58 10 68 57 Grade 4 3 7 23 53 15 68 65 Grade 5 2 9 19 56 14 70 78 Wood End Grade 3 8 8 13 56 15 71 65 Grade 4 2 3 27 55 14 69 71 Grade 5 0 2 16 77 5 82 72 Coolidge Grade 6 2 3 16 62 17 79 72 Grade 7 3 4 11 42 40 82 83 Grade 8 7 2 8 45 39 84 73 Parker Grade 6 1 6 14 55 24 79 80 Grade 7 1 2 11 47 39 86 80 Grade 8 3 6 13 61 17 78 75 District (RPS) Grade 3-8 3 5 17 55 20 75 72 (See next page for Math results) 3

Mathematics / PARCC Results PARCC Achievement s 1 = Did not yet meet 2 = Partially met 3 = Approached 4 = Met 5 = Mathematics / PARCC (Percentage of students, by school and grade level, at each achievement score level) 1 Did not yet meet 2 Partially met 3 Approached 4 Met 5 s s Barrows Grade 3 0 6 10 52 33 85 72 Grade 4 2 5 15 71 8 79 67 Grade 5 3 15 29 50 3 53 52 Birch Meadow Grade 3 0 7 16 62 15 77 60 Grade 4 1 9 29 53 9 62 71 Grade 5 5 6 15 66 8 74 58 Eaton Grade 3 9 10 22 44 14 58 54 Grade 4 0 13 28 46 14 60 60 Grade 5 3 6 19 63 9 72 73 Killam Grade 3 0 4 19 53 23 76 50 Grade 4 1 11 31 50 7 57 53 Grade 5 0 14 26 53 7 60 62 Wood End Grade 3 8 5 13 56 18 75 69 Grade 4 3 11 36 45 5 50 65 Grade 5 0 5 16 63 16 79 85 Coolidge Grade 6 1 3 21 54 20 74 65 Grade 7 4 9 17 47 23 70 65 Grade 8 9 6 16 52 18 70 66 Gr 8 Algebra I 0 0 0 22 78 100 100 Parker Grade 6 1 8 17 58 16 74 77 Grade 7 1 5 28 54 13 67 65 Grade 8 7 8 27 55 3 58 59 Gr 8 Algebra I 0 0 0 59 41 100 100 District (RPS) Grade 3-8 3 8 21 54 15 69 65 (See next page for information) 4

Reading Public Schools Student Growth Percentiles () / Composite Performance Index () Student Growth Percentile (): Massachusetts measures growth for individual students by comparing the change in their achievement on statewide assessments to that of their academic peers (all other students in the state who previously had similar historical assessment results). The state defines moderate (or expected) growth to be between the 40-60 percentile, with low growth as below the 40 th percentile and high growth as above the 60 th percentile. Composite Performance Index (): A 100-point index that assigns 100, 75, 50, 25, or 0 points to each student based on their performance. The total points assigned to each student are added together and the sum is divided by the total number of students assessed. The resulting (a number between 0 and 100) for a district, school, or group is then the measure of the extent to which students are progressing toward proficiency (a of 100). All groups (districts, schools, and subgroups) are expected to halve the distance between their level of performance in 2011 and proficiency by 2017, and improvement each year (even if falling short of the year s target) is an element of the DESE accountability formula. For each school, content area, and grade level, the below table summarizes the median Student Growth Percentiles () and the transitional Composite Performance Index () for the aggregate group (all students), generated using linked PARCC and MCAS scores where applicable. For each content area in the below table, this data is in bold, and the / data is listed in the columns to the immediate right. English Language Arts / Mathematics Student Growth Percentiles () PARCC / PARCC / MCAS School/Grade English Language Arts PARCC PARCC / MCAS Mathematics PARCC PARCC / MCAS Barrows Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 60.5 54.0 47.0 51.5 83.0 62.0 Grade 5 31.0 62.0 42.5 30.0 46.0 48.0 Birch Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 58.5 62.0 46.0 54.0 76.0 54.0 Grade 5 53.0 49.0 33.0 49.0 62.0 30.0 Eaton Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 41.0 60.0 40.5 58.0 69.0 33.0 Grade 5 65.5 68.5 43.0 59.0 90.0 51.0 Killam Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 55.0 44.5 49.0 50.0 47.0 64.0 Grade 5 64.0 53.5 44.0 54.0 48.0 46.0 Wood End Grade 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 56.0 50.5 36.5 31.0 64.0 37.0 Grade 5 47.0 67.0 45.5 78.0 93.0 63.5 Coolidge Grade 6 53.0 62.0 55.0 68.0 60.0 45.0 Grade 7 62.0 70.5 33.0 72.5 68.0 42.0 Grade 8 68.0 58.5 52.0 69.0 53.5 46.5 Algebra I N/A N/A N/A 70.0 84.0 N/A Parker Grade 6 67.0 65.0 56.5 72.0 73.0 66.0 Grade 7 56.0 69.0 45.0 57.0 54.0 48.0 Grade 8 45.0 48.0 47.5 29.0 33.0 40.0 Algebra I N/A N/A N/A 65.0 81.5 N/A (See next page for and accountability information) 5

English Language Arts / Mathematics / Science Composite Performance Index () PARCC / PARCC / MCAS School/Grade English Language Arts Mathematics Science Barrows Grade 3 95.7 90.6 87.1 95.7 93.0 80.2 N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 93.8 85.7 90.0 91.9 86.5 84.2 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 91.1 93.8 93.0 83.1 84.6 90.0 77.8 84.3 89.3 Birch Grade 3 93.8 88.0 88.8 94.6 90.8 86.6 N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 87.2 87.7 87.9 86.1 88.5 87.9 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 93.2 92.2 89.7 90.5 89.9 80.2 82.6 84.3 82.1 Eaton Grade 3 80.5 84.0 88.1 85.4 85.1 88.1 N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 80.5 87.8 87.3 83.9 86.4 76.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 94.7 94.1 88.9 91.8 94.1 85.8 83.1 92.1 82.1 Killam Grade 3 91.2 86.3 87.8 96.8 87.3 91.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 85.5 81.9 82.9 84.1 81.9 87.1 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 90.6 91.1 91.0 89.8 91.9 88.4 79.5 85.1 81.7 Wood End Grade 3 89.1 89.1 88.8 89.1 92.6 87.5 N/A N/A N/A Grade 4 87.3 88.6 80.5 82.1 89.0 78.9 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 96.1 89.5 88.5 95.2 95.3 86.9 90.4 88.7 85.3 Coolidge Grade 6 95.3 93.8 93.0 93.5 86.6 85.6 N/A N/A N/A Grade 7 94.1 92.4 93.0 85.1 84.3 83.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade 8 93.6 95.6 98.3 85.8 87.3 85.6 74.7 72.9 83.5 Algebra I N/A N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A Parker Grade 6 93.5 95.2 93.2 91.7 94.0 90.4 N/A N/A N/A Grade 7 97.7 94.4 96.1 89.0 85.6 86.4 N/A N/A N/A Grade 8 94.7 96.8 95.9 83.6 82.1 80.3 84.1 83.2 83.3 Algebra I N/A N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A District Accountability Data District Accountability PPI All Students PPI All Students PPI All Students PPI High Needs PPI High Needs PPI High Needs Reading PS 3 3 3 66 61 60 57 49 44 School Accountability Barrows 2 Birch Meadow 2 Eaton 3 Killam 2 Wood End 2 Coolidge 2 Parker 2 RMHS 1 All Massachusetts schools and districts with sufficient data are classified into one of five accountability and assistance levels (1-5), with the highest performing in 1 and lowest performing in 5. In general, a district is classified into the level of its lowest performing school, unless the district was independently classified into 4 or 5 as a result of action by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Cumulative Progress and Performance Index (PPI) combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, and graduation and dropout rates over four years into a single number between 0 and 100. For a group to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, its cumulative PPI should be 75 or higher. For more detail and information regarding each school s accountability classification and data, see the DESE website at: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/accountability/report/district.aspx?linkid=30&orgcode=02460000&orgtypecode=5& 6