Transcript Slide 1

The Norwood Public Schools
2014 Accountability
Overview and MCAS Results
Dr. Alexander Wyeth
Assistant Superintendent
for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Norwood Public Schools Accountability Ratings
State Expectation: to narrow all proficiency gaps for all groups by 50% from 2012-2017
School
2012 2013
Norwood High School
Reason(s)
Accountability Level
1
2
2014
2012
2013
Met all gap narrowing
targets, but low Students
w/Disabilities participation
(94%).
2014
1
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing
Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs/Students
targets: All and High Needs. w/Disabilities, and low ELL
participation (91%).
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Coakley Middle School
2
2
2
Did not meet gap narrowing
target: High Needs/Students
w/Disabilities (1 pt).
Balch Elementary
2
2
2
Did not meet gap narrowing
targets: All and High Needs.
Did not meet gap narrowing Did not meet gap narrowing
targets: All and High Needs. targets: All and High Needs.
Callahan Elementary
1
1
2
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing
target: High Needs (2 pts).
Cleveland Elementary
2
1
2
Did not meet gap narrowing
target: High Needs (1 pt).
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing
targets: All and High Needs.
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing
target: High Needs/Low
Income (3 pts).
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing
targets: All and High Needs.
Oldham Elementary
1
1
2
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
Prescott Elementary
1
1
2
Met all gap narrowing
targets.
% MA schools at Level 1
32%
31%
26%
5% fewer in Level 1
% MA schools at Level 2
47%
48%
53%
5% more in Level 2
# of MA public schools with
MCAS
1607
English Language Arts
Grade 3 ELA Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
STATE
72
65
65
61
61
2011
2012
67
57
58
2013
2014
Grade 4 ELA
Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
64
53
2011
62
57
2012
Growth Rates
DISTRICT
STATE
65
58
53
54
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
60
53
2011
2012
47
2013
52
2014
Grade 5 ELA
Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Growth Rates
DISTRICT
STATE
74
68
67
66
66
61
2011
2012
2013
64
63
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
53
44
43.5
39
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 6 ELA
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
77
75
66
2011
2012
Coakley MS
STATE
78
78
68
Growth Rates
71
68
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
63
2011
62
2012
57
52
2013
2014
Grade 7 ELA
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Coakley MS
STATE
84
80
Growth Rates
82
74
73
2011
71
2012
72
2013
72
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
s
51
46
56
41
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 8 ELA
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Coakley MS
STATE
91
88
83
Growth Rates
80
79
81
2011
2012
78
79
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
67
2011
62
2012
56
2013
62
2014
Grade 10 ELA
Proficiency Rates
Norwood HS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
92
84
2011
92
88
2012
Growth Rates
STATE
Norwood High
92
94
91
89
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
57
60
50
46
2011
2012
2013
2014
6/7 schools improved their
composition (writing promp)
scores.
1 school’s writing results
declined a bit but still had a
high level of performance.
Grade 4 Writing
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
72
67
69
64
66
2011
2012
69
2010
STATE
71
66
65
60
2013
2014
Grade 7 Writing
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
69
67
2010
71
69
STATE
68
66
70
69
68
65
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 10 Writing
Norwood High
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
70
74
71
STATE
72
73
69
71
71
71
72
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ACCESS Results for ELLs
Test assesses Five Language Domains:
listening, speaking, reading, writing, and oral
language
Five Proficiency Levels: Entering, Emerging,
Developing, Expanding, Bridging, Rreaching
2013 2014
Total Tested
236
243
Participation Rate
98%
99%
Included in Making Progress 150
137
% Making Progress
65%
74%
Mathematics
Grade 3 Math Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
STATE
76
70
69
67
66
66
69
61
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 4 Math
Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
51
47
2011
Growth Rates
DISTRICT
STATE
55
55
51
52
51
2012
2013
2014
52
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
51
53
47.5
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 5 Math
Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
66
59
2011
63
57
2012
Growth Rates
DISTRICT
STATE
63
61
2013
60
60
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
53
54
55
37
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 6 Math
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Growth Rates
Coakley MS
STATE
69
62
58
2011
60
2012
61
62
60
60
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
58
41.5
47
37
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 7 Math
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
52
51
2011
Growth Rates
Coakley MS
STATE
57
52
51
50
2012
2013
50
47
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
57
2011
52
2012
32
36
2013
2014
Grade 8 Math
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Growth Rates
Coakley MS
STATE
64
56
52
52
46
2011
2012
55
48
2013
52
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
High
Growth
56
69.5
52
39
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 10 Math
Proficiency Rates
Norwood HS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
82
77
2011
Growth Rates
Norwood High
STATE
85
85
80
78
78
78
2012
2013
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
60
52.5
56
2011
2012
53
2013
2014
Science and Technology
Engineering
Grade 5 Science & Technology Engineering
Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
STATE
54
55
55
57
50
52
51
53
2011
2012
2013
2014
Grade 8 Science & Technology Engineering
Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
STATE
53
39
39
43
42
34
31
2011
42
2012
2013
2014
High School Science & Technology
Grade 9/10 Biology
Proficiency Rates
Norwood HS
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Grade 9/10 Science &
Technology Proficiency Rates
STATE
Norwood HS
97
96
89
80
71
2011
72
2012
73
2013
73
2014
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
STATE
80
68
69
67
68
2011
2012
71
71
65
2013
2014
NHS Recipients of
John & Abigail Adams Scholarships
(students who scored Advanced on one or more MCAS tests)
76: 28% of Class of 2013
70: 29% of Class of 2014
79: 29% of Class of 2015
Non-High Needs vs. High Needs % Proficiency & SGP
Non-High Needs
Proficiency
High Needs
Proficiency
Diff.
Non-High Needs
SGP
High Needs
SGP
Diff.
86
79
82
48
49
38
38
30
44
50
53
-3
88
95
54
67
34
28
45
57
37
48
8
9
97
99
78
87
19
12
59
62.5
52
55
62
45
4
0.5
7
Gr 3 Math
Gr 4 Math
86
62
51
38
35
24
51
43
0
8
Gr 5 Math
Gr 6 Math
74
81
39
42
35
39
37
44
37
35
0
9
Gr 7 Math
Gr 8 Math
Gr 10 Math
64
79
27
39
37
40
96
72
70
37
26
35
41
72
55
34
62
48.5
7
10
6.5
51
90
10/17 above 80%
25
64
26
26
from PE304/404
Gr 3 ELA
Gr 4 ELA
Gr 5 ELA
Gr 6 ELA
Gr 7 ELA
Gr 8 ELA
Gr 10 ELA
Gr 5 Science
Gr 8 Science
Gr 9 & 10 Biology
80% or more of Norwood’s Non-High Needs
students were proficient on 10 of the 17 MCAS
tests (59%).
The proficiency gaps between Norwood’s High
Needs students and those who are Not High
Needs range from 12 points in grade 10 ELA to
44 points in grade 5 ELA with an mean gap of 31
points and median of 34 points. These are the
gaps we need to cut in half by 2017
On average, our High Needs students do one
third as well as our Non-High Needs students.
Both High and Non-High Needs
students showed high growth in the
same two test areas: Gr 8 ELA and Gr 8
Math.
High Needs students showed low
growth in four areas: Gr 5 ELA, and Gr
5, 6, & 7 math.
Non-High Needs students showed low
growth in only one area: Gr 5 Math.
Non-Disabled Students Percent Proficency & SGP
from PE304/404 or
PE305/405
Gr 3 ELA
Gr 4 ELA
Gr 5 ELA
Gr 6 ELA
Gr 7 ELA
Gr 8 ELA
Gr 10 ELA
Gr 3 Math
Gr 4 Math
Gr 5 Math
Gr 6 Math
Gr 7 Math
Gr 8 Math
Gr 10 Math
Gr 5 Science
Gr 8 Science
Gr 9 & 10 Biology
NPS
State
Diff.
79
73
72
82
92
97
99
78
54
60
72
57
73
94
61
48
86
65
63
74
78
82
88
96
75
60
70
70
59
61
86
60
48
80
14
10
-2
4
10
9
3
3
-6
-10
2
-2
12
8
1
0
6
SGP
53
43.5
56
60
66
52
48.5
37
45
41
71.5
55.5
Non-Disabled
Percent Proficiency Summary
12/17 tests: above state peers (71%)
4/17 tests: below state peers
1/17 tests: same as state peers
Students with Disabilities Percent Proficency & SGP
from PE304/404 or
PE305/405
Gr 3 ELA
Gr 4 ELA
Gr 5 ELA
Gr 6 ELA
Gr 7 ELA
Gr 8 ELA
Gr 10 ELA
Gr 3 Math
Gr 4 Math
Gr 5 Math
Gr 6 Math
Gr 7 Math
Gr 8 Math
Gr 10 Math
Gr 5 Science
Gr 8 Science
Gr 9 & 10 Biology
NPS
State
Diff.
27
20
20
31
45
54
66
35
32
30
20
7
19
38
36
11
44
21
15
24
26
30
39
61
35
19
22
19
12
13
40
22
11
35
6
5
-4
5
15
15
5
0
13
8
1
-5
6
-2
14
0
9
SGP
38.5
27.5
39
39.5
40
27
37.5
36.5
24.5
20.5
52.5
34
Disabled
Percent Proficiency Summary
12/17 tests: above state peers (71%)
3/17 tests: below state peers
2/17 tests: same as state peers
Key Areas for Improvement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade 3 ELA
Grade 5 ELA
Grade 6 ELA
Grade 3-5 Math: In process of selecting new math program.
Grade 6-7 Math: In process of selecting new textbooks.
Grade 8 Science and Technology Engineering: In
process of adopting new standards.
Reminder:
MCAS is only one measure of a student’s,
teacher’s, school’s, and district’s success!
There is more to a good education
than MCAS…or PARCC
Some Other Points of Interest
• Massachusetts’ students are #1 in the nation
at grades 4 and 8 in reading and math on 2013
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational
Progress) tests.
• Massachusetts’ students ranked #2 in science,
and were tied for #5 (with Japan) in math on
the 2011 TIMSS (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study) tests.
• Bottom line: MCAS tests are the most rigorous
in the nation and among other nations.
For more information go to
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/
For sample Writing Prompts (WP), Open
Responses (OR), and Short Answer (SA)
questions.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/
For MCAS, AYP, and Other District/School Data.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/dart/
For comparative district data.