NEWBURYPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS School Committee Presentation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MCAS 2014 NEWBURYPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS School Committee Presentation December 1, 2014

GROWTH DATA District-wide

What is SGP or Student Growth Percentile? A Student Growth Percentile (SGP) • • A student’s growth over the previous year compared to his or her academic peers • SGPs are percentiles (ranging from 1 to 99) calculated by: • Comparing one student's history of MCAS scores to the scores of all the other students in the state with a similar history of MCAS scores ( academic peers) • In simple terms: • Students earning high growth percentiles answered more questions correctly on the spring 2014 MCAS test than their academic peers Conversely, students earning low growth percentiles answered fewer questions • correctly than their academic peers

Student Growth Percentile The range for determining achievement and growth Scaled Score Level Range Performance SGP Range Description 200 - 218 Warning/Failing 1 - 39 Lower Growth 220 – 238 Needs Improvement 40 - 60 Moderate Growth 240 - 258 Proficient 61 - 99 Higher Growth 260 – 280 Advanced/Above Proficient • Every student, regardless of his or her level of achievement at the beginning of the school year, has the same opportunity to grow at the highest or lowest rates. • Growth data is used: • To reflect on what worked well and what may not have worked so well To determine possible factors that may be contributing to the growth percentile • • As one measure in the educator evaluation system toward the teacher effectiveness rating

Spring 2014 MCAS District Achievement & Growth English Language Arts – Grades 4-10 Mathematics – Grades 4-10 Median SGP = 60.5 (Students: 998) Median SGP = 67 (Students: 999) State SGP = 50 State SGP = 50 MCAS AS % % MCAS AS % Median dian Prof ofic icien ient Median dian Prof ofic icien ient ELA LA Math SGP or Highe gher SGP or Highe gher (AG) All (AG) All Grades 60.5 82 Grades 67 72 (AG) Low 51 54 (AG)Low 58 42 Income Income 52 43 60 26 (AG) (AG) Disability Disability Gr.4 40.5 53 Gr.4 57.5 48 Gr.5 59 83 Gr.5 63 75 Gr.6 61.5 85 Gr.6 52 71 Gr.7 78 88 Gr.7 72 69 Gr.8 60 93 Gr.8 74 75 Gr.10 62 96 Gr.10 70 89

2014 Accountability Data - Newburyport Massachusetts has replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal of: • Adequate Yearly Progress, (AYP) 100 percent of students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year with, Progress & Performance Index, (PPI) The goal of reducing proficiency gaps by half by the end • of the 2016-17 school year The proficiency gap is: • The distance between a group's current proficiency level and 100 percent proficiency The state measures the progress of districts and schools for: • The aggregate or all students • S tudent subgroups, including the combined “high needs”

2014 Accountability Data – Newburyport Cont. Five accountability and assistance levels: Commendation Schools [high achieving, high growth, gap narrowing schools (subset of Level 1)] Level 1 - Meeting gap narrowing goals (for all and high needs students) Level 2 - Not meeting gap narrowing goals (for all and/or high needs students) Level 3 - Lowest performing 20% of schools (Including lowest performing subgroups) Level 4 - Lowest performing schools (subset of Level 3) Level 5 - Chronically underperforming schools (subset of Level 4)

2014 District Accountability Data Newburyport Level 2 Progress and Performance Index (PPI): Combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps in ELA, math, science, growth, and • graduation and dropout rates over four years into a single number between 0 and 100 • Massachusetts uses the 100-point Composite Performance Index (CPI) to measure progress towards this goal of narrowing proficiency gaps. • The CPI assigns points to each student participating in MCAS and MCAS-Alternate Assessment tests based how close they came to scoring Proficient or Advanced, 100 (above target), 75 (on target), 50 (improved below target), 25 (no change), or 0 (declined). • The CPI is calculated by dividing the total number of points by the number of students in the group. The result is a number between 0 and 100. A CPI of 100 means that all students in a group are proficient. • For a group to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, its cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher . *On Target = 75 or Higher

2014 Accountability Data by School – All Level 2 Cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher to meet target Nock High School District Bresnahan* Molin* Middle* School** All Students 75 78 86 80 93 Met Target Met Target Met Target Met Target Met Target 60 70 68 73 High Needs Did Not Did Not Did Not Did Not n/a Meet Target Meet Target Meet Target Meet Target 65 59 Low Income Did Not n/a Did Not 85 n/a Meet Target Meet Target Met Target 53 64 66 Students Did Not n/a Did Not Did Not n/a w/Disabilities Meet Target Meet Target Meet Target * Bresnahan, Molin & Nock: Not meeting gap narrowing goals **High School: Low MCAS participation (less than 95%) Focus on High Needs; (94% participation rate in High Needs)

Accountability Newburyport, Level 2; MRAR Level 2 :  Does not meet PPI targets for either aggregate, or high needs group, in one or more schools MRAR: Meets Requirements-At Risk :  Considered to be making progress, but are "at risk" for not meeting the needs of students with disabilities • The district received the SPED Program Improvement Grant for $18,586. which is being used for professional development in literacy and interventions • Approximately 80% of schools in MA are classified into Level 1 or 2, based on the cumulative PPI for the "all students" and high needs groups. • A school may also be classified into Level 2 if it has low MCAS participation rates for any group (between 90% and 94%). (NHS) • To be classified into Level 1, the cumulative PPI for both the "all students" group and “high needs” students must be 75 or higher. (Bresnahan, Molin, Nock)

FRANCIS T. BRESNAHAN SCHOOL Grade Three Literacy and Mathematics

Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings) 1 st during MCAS AS Anal alys ysis is Proces cess: Conducted on October a Curriculum and Instruction staff meeting by Grade 3 teachers, Curriculum Coordinators, and Special Educators using the Data Analysis Protocol provided by TERC.  Significant increase in mathematics performance: Spring 2014, 76% A & P Spring 2013, 63% A & P  High Needs Improvement Band Mathematics: 11 students scored in this high needs improvement range ELA: 24 students scored in this high needs improvement range  High Proficient Band Mathematics: 26 students scored in this high proficient range ELA: 10 students scored in this high proficient range

Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings)  Mathematics Standards to Address Based on this Data: Measurement and Data; 3 out 9 questions below state average; only one is a released question; all multiple choice questions Operations and Algebraic Thinking; 3 out 12 questions below state average; 2 multiple choice and 1 short answer, yet on other questions students scored up to 10% better than the state  ELA No relative areas of weakness for any given standard were identified Students scored up to 13% stronger than the state on questions including short response and open response

Scores for ELA & Math at Third Grade 100 Advanced Proficient Needs Imp Warning 90 80 70 60 60 49 50 40 30 27 25 19 20 12 10 5 3 0 ELA Math

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success Measures Goals Actions Actions of Success Implementation and Ongoing PD & support, analysis of Engage NY Established Vertical Curriculum assessments, interim To fully implement Math Group, K-12 Coordinators assessments, DDM’s, & Engage NY in Grades Ongoing professional Ongoing grade level formative assessments PreK-3 and support development and collaboration during the implementation Progress monitoring of support provided by staff meetings and student learning core To enhance the core Dr. Chen and Dr. early release days concepts, Lexia Core 5 curriculum in literacy Kinzly Implement Spell Links & IXL with the Addition of Math in Grades 2 & 3, and as implementation of a Cross analysis of Interventionist an intervention as phonics program in literacy data utilizing needed September, Kindergarten and First Dedicated spelling assessments, 2015 Grade collaboration time, DIBELS, Benchmark, & staff meetings & early Analyze Lexia and IXL common writing Analyze data gathered release days data assessments from our online intervention programs Spell Links, Full day Analyze skills reports Analysis of mid-year to extend student PD on weekly basis and end of year growth learning data for both literacy Implement identified and mathematics extension activities

EDWARD G. MOLIN UPPER ELEMENTARY

Scores for ELA & Math at Grade Four 100 90 80 70 60 50 45 41 38 40 35 30 20 13 12 9 10 6 0 ELA Math Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning