Transcript Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation

Franklin Public
Schools
MCAS
Presentation
November 18, 2014
Joyce Edwards
Director of Instructional Services
Agenda
• Introduction
• CPI and PPI
• Accountability Data
• P+ Results
• Achievement and Growth Data
• DART Comparison
• Analysis
• PARCC
• Focus Areas and Curriculum Plans
Introduction
• Goal that replaced Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP)is to reduce proficiency gaps by half by the
end of the 2016-2017 school year
• Districts and schools placed into one of five state
designated Accountability and Assistance Levels,
based on progress towards meeting this goal
o Results determined using Composite
Performance Index (CPI) and Progress and
Performance Index (PPI)
o Results in aggregate and subgroup (high needs)
CPI
• Composite Performance Index (CPI) is the
baseline indicator for aggregate
performance
• CPI score this year becomes the baseline
score for the next year
• CPI is calculated for ELA, Math and Science
• Uses 100 point index
• Used to calculate Progress and
Performance Index (PPI)
PPI
• Determines accountability levels of districts, schools, and
subgroups
o Includes student achievement in ELA, Math, and
Science
o Incorporates growth and improvement as measured
by the Student Growth Percentile (SGP)
o Utilizes High school includes dropout and graduation
rates
• PPI status based on progress and performance annually
as well as cumulatively
• Cumulative calculation is based on four years of data
PPI
• PPI calculations are done for state, district,
school
o in the aggregate and subgroups
• High needs students are considered to be
students who belong to at least one of these
subgroups:
o students with disabilities
o English language learners
o economically disadvantaged students
PPI
• Indicators used are:
• ELA Achievement (based on CPI)
• Mathematics Achievement (based on CPI)
• Science Achievement (based on CPI)
• ELA Growth/Improvement (based on median
SGP)
• Mathematics Growth/Improvement (based on
median SGP)
• Cohort Graduation Rate
• Annual Dropout Rate
Accountability Status
• Based on CPI and PPI we are a Level 2
district
o Based on category of lowest school
• Level 1 schools:
o Franklin High School
o Kennedy Elementary School
• All other Franklin schools are Level 2
• Data gaps due to PARCC field test
Narrowing the Gap
Overall progress in narrowing gaps
Massachusetts aims to reduce proficiency
gaps by half between 2011 and 2017.
All students
Did Not Meet
Target
High needs students
Did Not Meet
Target
Low income students
Did Not Meet
Target
Students with
disabilities
Did Not Meet
Target
English language
learners & former ELLs
Met Target
Special Education
Determination
District determination of need for special education technical assistance or intervention
Districts, including single school districts, are assigned a determination of need for special
education technical assistance or intervention. These determinations, which are typically based on
the district's accountability and assistance level, range from Meets Requirements – Provisional
(districts with insufficient data) to Needs Substantial Intervention (Level 5 districts). The
determination, which also incorporates compliance measures, helps to identify whether the
Department will require districts to take additional actions to support improved outcomes for all
children, especially students with disabilities.
P+ Analysis
• P+ is percentage of students achieving
in the Advanced and Proficient
categories
• Significantly outperformed state results
• ELA continues to be stronger than
Math and Science
• Will continue to focus on subgroups as
well as aggregate
• Overall: quite similar to last year
ELA Achievement
2011
2012
2013
2014
84
84
82
82
Massachusetts 69
69
69
69
Franklin
• Percent of students in Proficient and Advanced
Math Achievement
2011
2012
2013
2014
78
75
78
76
Massachusetts 58
59
61
60
Franklin
• Percent of students in Proficient and Advanced
Science Achievement
2011
2012
2013
2014
72
72
71
73
Massachusetts 52
54
53
55
Franklin
• Percent of students in Proficient and Advanced
Growth Analysis
•
•
•
•
SPG Range
1-39
40-60
61-99
Growth Description
Lower Growth
Moderate/Typical Growth
Higher Growth
• Growth model is another method to evaluate performance
• Measures progress by tracking scores from one year to next
• Intended to be used in conjunction with the MCAS
achievement levels
• Student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated using two or
more years of MCAS data.
• Growth for students is measured by comparing changes with
that of their “academic peers.”
• Academic peers are students in the state who have the same
MCAS performance history
• Typical and desired growth is 40-60%
Growth Comparison
ELA
Low
Target
Growth 40%60%
Math
High
Growth
Low
Target
High
Growth 40%Growth
60%
Franklin
51%
Franklin
48
MA
50%
MA
50
DART Comparison-DESE
Comparable Districts Overview
2013-14 October Enrollment
District Name
Total
Low
Enrollmen Income SWD % ELL %
t#
%
2014 MCAS % Proficient or
Higher
ELA %
2014 MCAS
Growth Median
SGP
Math % Science % ELA %
Math
%
Chelmsford*
5,124
8.1
15.9
2.1
83%
76%
75%
57.0
59.0
Easton*
3,867
12.0
16.8
1.2
79%
71%
66%
50.0
47.0
Franklin*
5,760
10.4
16.1
1.0
82%
76%
73%
51.0
48.0
Hanover*
2,642
7.8
16.4
1.0
83%
68%
74%
49.0
48.0
Mansfield*
4,320
13.0
18.1
1.0
81%
73%
66%
55.5
53.0
Natick*
5,285
9.6
14.4
1.0
85%
77%
71%
53.0
52.0
Needham*
5,523
6.5
14.5
1.5
86%
80%
74%
54.0
57.0
Reading*
4,432
6.6
16.9
0.6
80%
69%
67%
46.0
46.0
Wachusett*
7,384
8.7
14.3
1.4
83%
76%
73%
55.0
55.0
Wakefield*
3,347
10.8
15.0
0.8
77%
68%
65%
45.0
49.0
Wilmington*
3,522
9.4
15.7
0.9
78%
67%
61%
53.5
51.0
DART ComparisonSelected Districts
Comparable Districts Overview
2014 MCAS % Proficient or
Higher
2013-14 October Enrollment
District Name
Low
Total
Income SWD % ELL %
Enrollment #
%
ELA %
2014 MCAS
Growth Median
SGP
Math % Science % ELA %
Math
%
Shrewsbury
6011
15.0
13.4
2.5
86
81
76
52
50
Sharon
3434
6.6
14.6
2.5
89
83
78
55
56
Franklin*
5760
10.4
16.1
1.0
82%
76%
73%
51.0
48.0
Westwood
3199
4.7
16.1
1.3
89
84
77
55
57
King Philip*
2123
6.7
13.5
0.3
89
71
74
40
42
North Attleboro
4645
15.8
15.3
2.3
79
71
69
47
52
Foxboro
2738
15.5
15.8
0.6
78
78
62
49
63
Stoughton
3651
34.2
15.0
5.1
74
59
59
58
46
Canton
3247
14.1
14.1
1.4
81
74
70
45
51
Medway
2423
6.3
14.1
0.2
85
79
69
54
53
Analysis
• Some data gaps due to PARCC field
testing
• Data, curriculum review, instructional
changes, and professional development
are analyzed at district level and in
schools
• Use MCAS data to inform instruction
• Collaborate on improving student
performance and instructional practice
Future of Testing
• PARCC is the Partnership for the Assessment
of Readiness for College and Careers
• Massachusetts is part of a multi-state state
consortium developing the next generation
of assessments
• PARCC tests to be piloted 2014-2015 and
we will receive data this year
• State will then decide whether or not to
adopt PARCC testing to replace MCAS in
ELA and Math as of 2016
PARCC This Year
• All students in Grades 3-8 and some FHS Algebra I
and II students will take PARCC
o Not grade 10
• Tests are in ELA and Math (except at FHS)
o Science MCAS continues
• Students will take a Performance Based Assessment
(PBA) and an End of Year (EOY)Assessment
• All testing will be done electronically
• MCAS continues in grade 10 for high school
competency determination
• Accountability will be “held harmless”
Focus Areas
• Development of local common
assessments to determine
achievement and growth
o Sound instructionally, but will also
serve as District Determined
Measures for Educator Evaluation
• Targeted support work provided with
identified students
• Prepare for PARCC electronic testing
Curriculum Plans
• Continued expansion of Keys to Literacy in the
middle schools and high school
• Continued implementation of Responsive
Classroom
• Implementation of new elementary math program
• Implementation of revised elementary report cards
• Continued implementation of literacy programs for
elementary:
o Reader’s Workshop
o Writer’s Workshop
o Fundations
Curriculum Plans
• PS-12 Science committee to begin alignment to
new MA Frameworks
• New Digital Learning Committee to work on digital
citizenship and digital literacy for all students
• Professional development:
o Continuing to build internal capacity for
curriculum leadership
• Curriculum leaders facilitating PD
o Graduate courses made available
o Content and instructional workshops
o Instruction in the use of technology
o Professional learning communities
Questions