Transcript Preparing for 2006 AYP Determinations

Overview of MCAS Results
and
Adequate Yearly Progress
Determinations
2006
Brockton School Committee
November 21, 2006
Overview of 2006 MCAS results
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grades and subjects tested
State and district gains since 1998
Other longer-term gains
District and state performance levels
Passing and proficiency rate comparisons
Recent improvements in subgroup
performance
2
MCAS Tested Areas 1998-2006
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Reading
Math
Grade
3
ELA
Math
4
Sci&T ech
t
t
t
t
t
MCAS
Subject
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
9
10
10
10
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
ELA
Math
Sci&T ech
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
6
7
ELA
Math
History
t
t
t
5
8
Sci&T ech
ELA
Math
10
Sci&T ech
8
10
10
10
16
3
The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen
from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of
10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has
risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.
October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement
1998
MCAS*
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
72%
38%
93%
69%
Grade 10 Math
48%
24%
88%
Grade 8 Math
58%
31%
Grade 4 Math
77%
34%
BROCKTON
MCAS
1998
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
56%
22%
91%
66%
67%
Grade 10 Math
24%
7%
77%
49%
71%
40%
Grade 8 Math
31%
14%
44%
17%
85%
40%
Grade 4 Math
61%
17%
78%
27%
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Pass
Pass
Grade 10 ELA
21%
35%
Grade 10 Math
40%
53%
Grade 8 Math
13%
13%
Grade 4 Math
8%
17%
Grade 4 ELA
3%
9%
4
The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen
from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of
10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has
risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.
October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement
1998
MCAS*
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
72%
38%
93%
69%
Grade 10 Math
48%
24%
88%
Grade 8 Math
58%
31%
Grade 4 Math
77%
34%
1998
BROCKTON
MCAS
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
56%
22%
91%
66%
67%
Grade 10 Math
24%
7%
77%
49%
71%
40%
Grade 8 Math
31%
14%
44%
17%
85%
40%
Grade 4 Math
61%
17%
78%
27%
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Adv/Prof
Adv/Prof
Grade 10 ELA
31%
44%
Grade 10 Math
43%
42%
Grade 8 Math
9%
3%
Grade 4 Math
6%
10%
30%
24%
Grade 4 ELA
5
The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen
from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of
10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has
risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.
October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement
1998
MCAS*
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
72%
38%
93%
69%
Grade 10 Math
48%
24%
88%
Grade 8 Math
58%
31%
Grade 4 Math
77%
34%
1998
BROCKTON
MCAS
2006
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
56%
22%
91%
66%
67%
Grade 10 Math
24%
7%
77%
49%
71%
40%
Grade 8 Math
31%
14%
44%
17%
85%
40%
Grade 4 Math
61%
17%
78%
27%
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Pass
Adv/Prof
Pass
Adv/Prof
Grade 10 ELA
21%
31%
35%
44%
Grade 10 Math
40%
43%
53%
42%
Grade 8 Math
13%
9%
13%
3%
Grade 4 Math
8%
6%
17%
10%
Grade 4 ELA
3%
30%
9%
24%
6
DISTRICT ADVANCED/PROFICIENT CPI
GAIN BY GRADE LEVEL OVER TIME
Gr 4 Math (1998-06)
10
Gr 4 ELA (1998-06)
24
Gr 6 Math (2002-06)
6
Gr 7 ELA (2001-06)
9
Gr 8 Math (1998-06)
3
Gr 8 ELA (1998-01, 2006)
16
Gr 10 Math (1998-06)
42
Gr 10 ELA (1998-06)
44
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
MCAS TESTS OF SPRING 2006
PERCENT AT EACH PERFORMANCE LEVEL
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Needs to
Improve
BPS
MA
Warning
Failing
BPS
MA
Advanced
Proficient
BPS
MA
BPS
MA
Reading
8
18
34
40
46
34
11
8
1,105
Math*
2
4
41
48
36
32
22
16
1,106
ELA
3
8
27
42
50
39
20
12
1,216
Math
9
15
18
25
51
45
22
15
1,220
ELA*
5
15
36
44
44
31
15
9
1,165
Math*
9
17
21
26
37
34
32
23
1,164
Sc&Tec
4
17
21
33
50
39
25
11
1,165
ELA*
4
10
45
54
41
28
10
8
1,207
Math
9
17
26
29
32
29
33
25
1,207
ELA
4
10
36
55
40
26
21
9
1,305
Math*
3
12
15
28
35
33
47
28
1,292
ELA*
2
12
47
62
33
19
18
7
1,354
Math
3
12
14
28
28
31
56
29
1,342
Sc&Tec
0
4
8
28
38
43
54
25
1,347
ELA
20
16
46
53
25
24
9
7
1,035
Math
25
40
24
27
28
21
23
12
1,035
Subject
Tested
Data Last Updated on October 18, 2006
8
MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Adv/Prof
Subject
Reading
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
BPS
42
43
30
27
41
30
49
35
40
18
49
17
66
49
MA
58
52
50
40
59
43
64
46
65
40
74
40
69
67
Passing
BPS
89
78
80
78
85
68
90
67
79
53
82
44
91
77
MA
92
84
88
85
91
77
92
75
91
72
93
71
93
88
9
MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Adv/Prof %
Subject
Reading
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
BPS
42
43
30
27
41
30
49
35
40
18
49
17
66
49
MA
58
52
50
40
59
43
64
46
65
40
74
40
69
67
differ.
-16
-9
-20
-13
-18
-13
-15
-11
-25
-22
-25
-23
-3
-18
Passing
BPS
89
78
80
78
85
68
90
67
79
53
82
44
91
77
MA
92
84
88
85
91
77
92
75
91
72
93
71
93
88
10
MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Adv/Prof %
Subject
Reading
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
BPS
42
43
30
27
41
30
49
35
40
18
49
17
66
49
MA
58
52
50
40
59
43
64
46
65
40
74
40
69
67
differ.
-16
-9
-20
-13
-18
-13
-15
-11
-25
-22
-25
-23
-3
-18
Passing %
BPS
89
78
80
78
85
68
90
67
79
53
82
44
91
77
MA
92
84
88
85
91
77
92
75
91
72
93
71
93
88
differ.
-3
-6
-8
-7
-6
-9
-2
-8
-12
-19
-11
-27
-2
-11
11
2006 MCAS RATES FOR PASSING AND ADVANCED/PROFICIENT BY
GRADE LEVEL
(DARKER BLUE/GOLD BARS = ADVANCED/PROFICIENT)
100
91
90
90
88
85
82
80
80
70
79
78
77
80
67
66
60
67
53
49
50
49
49
42
41
40
45
43
40
35
30
30
30
17
20
27
18
10
Gr 10
ELA
Gr 8
ELA
Gr 7
ELA
Gr 6
ELA
Gr 5
ELA
Gr 4
ELA
Gr 3
ELA
Gr 10 Gr 8 Gr 7 Gr 6 Gr 5 Gr 4 Gr 3
Math Math Math Math Math Math Math
12
State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI
for English Language Arts
100
90
85.1
80
70
87.7
83.6
82.0
74.5
60.9
60
50
70.6
71.3
70.3
71.1
66.3
64.8
54.3
56.1
LEP
SPED
80.8
68.5
State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI
Gains in English Language Arts
40
Agg
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
White
5
4.1
4
2.9
3
2.2
1.9
2
1.3
1.1
1
0
-1
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.6
-0.1
Agg
LEP
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
-0.2
White
-0.7
-2
13
State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI
for Mathematics
85
81.8
80
77.6
75
77.9
72.8
70
68.4
65
60
56.3
59.6
55
54.6
50
51.3
State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI
Gains in Mathematics
54.6
53.7
53.7
52.1
50.5
45
44.1
40
Agg
LEP
7
41.9
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
White
6
5.5
5
4.9
4
3.5
3
3.3
4.2
4.5
3.3
4.2
3.6
3.5
3.6
2.9
2.7
2.4
2
2.2
1.8
1
0
Agg
LEP
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
White
14
Adequate Yearly Progress
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Composite Proficiency Index (CPI)
Grade level CPI - 2006
State and large urban CPI - 2006
District and state CPI over time
AYP calculation and status
Consequences and context statewide
Beyond 2006
15
MCAS Tests of Spring 2006
Percent at Each Performance Level with CPI calculations
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Needs to
Improve
BPS MA
Warning
Failing
BPS MA
Advanced
Proficient
BPS
MA
BPS
MA
Reading
8
18
34
40
46
34
11
Math
2
4
41
48
36
32
ELA
3
8
27
42
50
Math
9
15
18
25
ELA
5
15
36
Math
9
17
ELA
4
Math
Subject
Tested
CPI
8
1,105
76.6
22
16
1,106
72.4
39
20
12
1,216
68.2
51
45
22
15
1,220
64.4
44
44
31
15
9
1,165
74.4
21
26
37
34
32
23
1,164
62.4
10
45
54
41
28
10
8
1,207
78.9
9
17
26
29
32
29
33
25
1,207
63.2
ELA
4
10
36
55
40
26
21
9
1,305
71.6
Math
3
12
15
28
35
33
47
28
1,292
50.9
ELA
2
12
47
62
33
19
18
7
1,354
74.0
Math
3
12
14
28
28
31
56
29
1,342
46.1
ELA
20
16
46
53
25
24
9
7
1,035
84.0
Math
25
40
24
27
28
21
23
12
1,035
72.0
Last DOE update October 18, 2006
16
CPI=Composite Performance Index
TABLE 1
MCAS Scaled Score
200 – 208 Failing/Warning – Low
210 – 218 Failing/Warning – High
220 – 228 Needs Improvement – Low
TABLE 2 - Students taking Standard MCAS tests
Points
100
students
0
25
50
230 – 238 Needs Improvement – High
75
240 – 280 Proficient/Advanced
100
Performance Level
Total
Index
Points Points
5
Failing – Low
0
0
5
Failing – High
25
125
20
Needs Improvement - Low
50
1000
40
Needs Improvement –
High
75
3000
25
Proficient
100
2500
5
Advanced
100
500
Total Points Awarded
7,125
Total # of Students Tested
100
CPI (Total Points divided by Total Students)
71.3
17
2006 STATE/DISTRICT CPI BY GRADE LEVEL
BARS = BROCKTON, LINE = STATE CPI
100
88
90
84
83
80
79
77
85
87
85
84
79
74
72
74
83
78
72
73
70
68
70
64
72
71
67
62
63
66
60
51
50
46
40
Gr 3
R
Gr 5
ELA
Gr 7
ELA
Gr
10
ELA
Gr 3
M at h
Gr 5
M at h
Gr 7
M at h
G r 10
M at h
18
2006 ELA CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS
90
83.4
85
80
Lowell
Worcester
Lynn
69.8
BROCKTON
69.5
Fall River
68.8
Boston
65
68.3
Springfield
70
74.5
75.2
72.4
73.5
New Bedford
75
63.9
60
55
50
45
STATE
Lawrence
19
90
2006 MATHEMATICS CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS
85
80
75
73.3
70
65
58.0
58.2
Worcester
Boston
47.0
54.4
Fall River
50
54.0
Lowell
55
58.0
New Bedford
60
59.6
61.8
48.4
45
STATE
Lynn
BROCKTON
Springfield
Lawrence
20
SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON
FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
100
STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 3.8
95
90
83.2
85
79.6
84.2
83.7
80
75
8.7
11.6
75.0
70
65
83.4
81.2
73.2
68.0
74.4
74.7
2005
2006
67.8
60
BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 6.7
55
50
2001
2002
2003
2004
21
SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON
FOR MATHEMATICS
100
95
90
STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 8.2
85
BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 9.0
80
75
71.4
72.4
73.2
69.4
70
65.0
65.4
12.6
65
60
13.4
60.6
55
55.6
50
51.6
2001
57.1
58.7
50.6
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
22
How is AYP calculated?
Requirement A + (Either B or C) + D = AYP
A
Either
B or C
Participation Rate:
95% or greater in MCAS or MCAS-Alt
B. Performance: 80.5 or greater CPI in ELA
68.7 or greater CPI in math
(100 – Cycle
III CPI) / 5
C. Improvement: Meet or exceed Cycle IV Target for
district, schools, and student groups
Performance or Improvement on Additional
Indicators –
D

1-8: 92% or higher attendance rate, or 1%
improvement over 2005

High School: 70% or higher Competency
Determination (CD)
23
Sample 2006 district AYP history table
Sample District – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) History
Grades 3-5
Grades 6-8
ELA
Grades 9-12
All Grades
Combined
Grades 3-5
Grades 6-8
MATH
Grades 9-12
All Grades
Combined
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All subgroups
2003
Yes
Yes
2004
Yes
Yes
2005
Yes
No
2006
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All subgroups
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Accountability Status
No Status
Identified for
Improvement Subgroups
24
When schools do not make AYP for
two consecutive years
Schools that do not make AYP for two
consecutive years in either subject
for any group are identified for
improvement.
– Schools identified for improvement
are required to develop a plan for
improving student performance.
– Title I schools identified for
improvement are also required to
offer
 school choice in first year of
improvement status;
 supplemental services in second
year, if fail to make AYP after first
year.
Statewide
382 schools
identified
for
improvement
206 in the
aggregate
176 for
subgroups
25
Brockton schools identified for improvement
School
ELA
Mathematics
Arnone
Improvement – Aggregate
Improvement - Subgroups
Belmont
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Aggregate
Brookfield
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Subgroups
Kennedy
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Aggregate
Franklin
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Aggregate
Hancock
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Subgroups
Huntington
Improvement - Aggregate
Improvement - Aggregate
Angelo
Improvement - Aggregate
Raymond
Improvement - Subgroups
Whitman
Improvement - Aggregate
Downey
Improvement - Aggregate
Plouffe
Improvement - Subgroups
Improvement - Subgroups
Improvement - Aggregate
26
Schools in corrective action status
Schools identified for improvement that
do not make AYP for two additional
years are identified for corrective
action.
Districts with schools in corrective action
are required to –
–
–
–
–
–
Institute new curriculum relevant to school’s
low performance and provide professional
development to support its implementation;
Extend length of school year or school day;
Replace school staff deemed relevant to
school not making adequate progress;
Significantly decrease management
authority at the school;
Restructure internal organization of the
school; or
Appoint one or more outside experts to
advise school in its improvement efforts.
Statewide
188 schools in
corrective
action
49 in the
aggregate
139 for
subgroups
27
Brockton schools identified for
corrective action
School
ELA
Mathematics
East Junior High
Subgroups
Aggregate
North Junior High
Subgroups
Aggregate
South Junior High
Aggregate
Aggregate
West Junior High
Aggregate
Russell Alternative
Aggregate
Brockton High
Subgroups
Subgroups
28
Schools in restructuring status
Schools in corrective action that do not make AYP in 2006
are identified for restructuring.
Districts with schools in restructuring status are required – Reconstitute the school by replacing school staff relevant to the
school’s inability to make adequate progress;
– Enter into contract with an entity with a demonstrated record of
effectiveness to operate the school as a public school;
– Turn operation of the school over to State educational agency, if the
State agrees;
– Re-open the school as a public charter school; or
– Implement “any other major restructuring of the school's
governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as
significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve
student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial
promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.…”
Statewide
59 schools in 20 districts are in restructuring status
29
Schools identified for restructuring
59 SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR RESTRUCTURING
Boston
Cambridge
Chicopee
Fall River
Fitchburg
Greenfield
Holbrook
Holyoke
Lawrence
Lowell
New Bedford
13
1
1
6
1
1
1
5
3
1
4
North Adams
Randolph
Southbridge
Springfield
Westfield
Worcester
Benjamin Banneker Charter
Lawrence Family Dev Chart
New Leadership HMCS
Gill-Montague
1
1
1
7
1
8
1
1
1
1
59
30
Districts identified for improvement or corrective action
Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject
for any group, at all grade-spans, are identified for improvement.
Districts identified for improvement year 2 that do not make AYP in 2006
at all grade-spans are identified for corrective action.
For districts in corrective action, the State has options to –






Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds;
Institute new curriculum relevant to districts’ low performance and provide
professional development to support its implementation;
Replace district personnel relevant to inability of district to make adequate progress;
Remove individual schools from the jurisdiction of the district and arrange for their
public governance and supervision;
Appoint a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the
superintendent and school board; or
Abolish or restructure the district.
Statewide 26 districts are in corrective action (9 aggregate and
17 for subgroups), 104 districts identified for improvement
31
Districts in corrective action status
9 in the Aggregate
17 for Subgroups
Chicopee
Amherst
Fall River
Boston
Lawrence
Lowell
Brockton
Everett
Lynn
Gloucester
New Bedford
Haverhill
Pittsfield
Southbridge
Springfield
Holyoke
Leominster
Malden
Medford
Methuen
Peabody
Plymouth
Salem
Somerville
Westfield
Worcester
32
Cycle IV status of districts and schools statewide
Of the 234 public school
districts, 130 or 56%
districts have been
negatively identified –
By subject area
– ELA(23), Math (55)
– ELA and Math (52)
Aggregate - Corrective
Action (9)
Subgroups –
– Corrective Action (17)
Improvement (104)
Of the 1772 public
schools, 629 or 35%
have been negatively
identified –
• Aggregate (314)
– Restructuring (59)
– Corrective Action (49)
– Improvement (206)
• Subgroups (315)
– Corrective Action (139)
– Improvement (176)
33
Brockton Public Schools' Performance vs State Targets for
ELA and Mathematics
100.0
100
95.1
90.2
90
92.2
85.4
84.3
80.5
80
75.6
76.5
70.7
70
68.7
60.8
60
ELA-targets
53.0
50
Math-targets
Cycle II
Cycle III
Cycle IV
Cycle V
Cycle VI
Cycle VII
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
40
Cycle VIII
34
Brockton Public Schools' Performance vs State Targets for
ELA and Mathematics
100.0
100
95.1
90.2
90
92.2
85.4
84.3
80.5
80
75.6
70.7
76.5
74.4
73.2
74.6
74.1
`
70
67.9
68.7
60.8
60
55.6
50
59.6
58.6
53.0
ELA-targets
56.3
BPS
Math-targets
51.1
BPS
Cycle II
Cycle III
Cycle IV
Cycle V
Cycle VI
Cycle VII
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
40
Cycle VIII
35
END
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
36