NEWBURYPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS School Committee Presentation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

MCAS 2014 NEWBURYPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

School Committee Presentation December 1, 2014

SLIDE 2

GROWTH DATA

District-wide

SLIDE 3

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

SLIDE 4

Student Growth Percentile

The range for determining achievement and growth Scaled Score Level Range Performance 200 - 218 Warning/Failing 220 – 238 Needs Improvement 240 - 258 Proficient 260 – 280 Advanced/Above Proficient SGP Range Description 1 - 39 Lower Growth 40 - 60 Moderate Growth 61 - 99 Higher Growth

• 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

SLIDE 5

Spring 2014 MCAS District Achievement & Growth

ELA LA

Median dian SGP MCAS AS % % Prof

• fic

icien ient

• r

Highe gher

(AG) All Grades 60.5 82

(AG) Low Income

51 54

(AG) Disability

52 43 Gr.4 40.5 53 Gr.5 59 83 Gr.6 61.5 85 Gr.7 78 88 Gr.8 60 93 Gr.10 62 96

Mathematics – Grades 4-10 Median SGP = 67 (Students: 999) State SGP = 50

Math

Median dian SGP MCAS AS % Prof

• fic

icien ient

• r

Highe gher

(AG) All Grades 67 72

(AG)Low Income

58 42

(AG) Disability

60 26 Gr.4 57.5 48 Gr.5 63 75 Gr.6 52 71 Gr.7 72 69 Gr.8 74 75 Gr.10 70 89

English Language Arts – Grades 4-10 Median SGP = 60.5 (Students: 998) State SGP = 50

SLIDE 6

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
• f 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
• Student subgroups, including the combined “high needs”

SLIDE 7

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)

SLIDE 8

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

SLIDE 9

2014 Accountability Data by School – All Level 2

School District Bresnahan* Molin* Nock Middle* High School** All Students 75 Met Target 78 Met Target 86 Met Target 80 Met Target 93 Met Target High Needs 60 Did Not Meet Target 70 Did Not Meet Target 68 Did Not Meet Target 73 Did Not Meet Target n/a Low Income 65 Did Not Meet Target n/a 59 Did Not Meet Target 85 Met Target n/a Students w/Disabilities 53 Did Not Meet Target n/a 64 Did Not Meet Target 66 Did Not Meet Target n/a

*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)

Cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher to meet target

SLIDE 10

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)

SLIDE 11

FRANCIS T. BRESNAHAN SCHOOL

Grade Three Literacy and Mathematics

SLIDE 12

Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings)

MCAS AS Anal alys ysis is Proces cess: Conducted

• n

October 1st during 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

SLIDE 13

Overview of MCAS Results (Process and Findings)

• Mathematics

Standards to Address Based

• n

this Data: Measurement and Data; 3

• ut

9 questions below state average;

• nly
• ne

is a released question; all multiple choice questions Operations and Algebraic Thinking; 3

• ut

12 questions below state average; 2 multiple choice and 1 short answer, yet

• n
• ther

questions students scored up to 10% better than the state

• ELA

No relative areas

• f

weakness for any given standard were identified Students scored up to 13% stronger than the state

• n

questions including short response and

• pen

response

SLIDE 14

Scores for ELA & Math at Third Grade

12 27 60 49 25 19 3 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ELA Math Advanced Proficient Needs Imp Warning

SLIDE 15

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success

To fully implement Engage NY in Grades PreK-3 and support the implementation To enhance the core curriculum in literacy with the implementation

• f

a phonics program in Kindergarten and First Grade Analyze data gathered from

• ur
• nline

intervention programs to extend student learning Goals Established Vertical Math Group, K-12 Ongoing professional development and support provided by

• Dr. Chen

and Dr. Kinzly Addition

• f

Math Interventionist Dedicated collaboration time, staff meetings & early release days Spell Links, Full day PD Ongoing PD & support, Curriculum Coordinators Ongoing grade level collaboration during staff meetings and early release days Implement Spell Links in Grades 2 & 3, and as an intervention as needed September, 2015 Analyze Lexia and IXL data Analyze skills reports

• n

weekly basis Implement identified extension activities Actions Implementation and analysis

• f

Engage NY assessments, interim assessments, DDM’s, & formative assessments Progress monitoring

• f

student learning core concepts, Lexia Core 5 & IXL Cross analysis

• f

literacy data utilizing spelling assessments, DIBELS, Benchmark, & common writing assessments Analysis

• f

mid-year and end

• f

year growth data for both literacy and mathematics Measures

• f

Success Actions

SLIDE 16

EDWARD G. MOLIN UPPER ELEMENTARY

SLIDE 17

SLIDE 18

Scores for ELA & Math at Grade Four

12 13 41 35 38 45 9 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ELA Math Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning

SLIDE 19

Scores for ELA, Math, & Science at Grade Five

21 41 20 63 36 46 11 16 29 4 7 4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ELA Math Science Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning

SLIDE 20

Data Analysis Process

• Principal

gives initial MCAS data to teachers within the first week

• f

school

• Teachers

identify students at the low P, NI and W performance levels

• Principal

uses Edwin Analytics to break down data by standard, strands, and test item analysis

• Principal

gives teachers data listed above as well as individual data for students at the NI and W performance levels broken down into strands

• f

strength and weakness

• Data

is analyzed at staff meeting

• Grade

level teams report to Principal action steps that will be taken to address student needs

• Staff

uses MCAS data, reading benchmark data, results from writing assessments, and math unit assessments to make decisions about after-school help sessions

SLIDE 21

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success

Implementation

• f

rigorous Common Core aligned math program Staff Meetings focused

• n

math curriculum work Data from math unit assessments & exit tickets informing instruction

Engage NY

All Molin staff trained in writing instructional approach Implement SRSD approach with Opinion writing Analyze data from the pre and post

• pinion

writing assessments

Think SRSD

Reading benchmark results showed weakness in non-fiction reading comprehension Piloting Core Clicks, non- fiction reading program aligned with the Core

Core Clicks

Staff meeting work with Literacy Coordinator

• n

reciprocal teaching, comprehension strategies, and close reading Use

• f

benchmark data for small reading groups Use

• f

Lexia for challenged readers Guided Reading

Success ess will be measured by: Engage NY assessments, teacher feedback, comparison

• f

pre and post writing assessments, data from Core Clicks program, reading benchmark scores, comparison

• f

fall reading scores and spring reading scores, and teacher feedback regarding piloted programs

SLIDE 22

RUPERT A. NOCK MIDDLE SCHOOL

SLIDE 23

Overview of MCAS Results (strengths & weaknesses)

• SMART

goals lead to significant growth in Open Response

• Student

growth percentiles

• Specifically

concerned with sub groups: Special Ed and Low Income students

SLIDE 24

Scores for ELA, Grades 6, 7, 8

23 62 11 4 24 64 10 2 26 69 2 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Advanced Proficient Needs Imp Warning Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

SLIDE 25

Scores for Math, Grades 6, 7, 8

29 42 21 9 23 45 19 13 32 44 18 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

SLIDE 26

Science/Tech-Engineering Grade 8

9 46 41 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning

Grade 8

Grade 8

SLIDE 27

Data Analysis Process and Findings

• Principal

gives initial MCAS data to teachers within the first week

• f

school.

• Teachers

identify students at the low, needs improvement, and warning performance levels.

• CAB

leaders use Edwin Analytics to break down data by standard, strands, test item analysis, and determine trends.

• Data

is presented at staff meeting.

• Students

identified as needing intervention.

• Students

in low NI and W placed in MCAS intervention classes.

• Data

used to develop content area SMART Goals.

SLIDE 28

Strengths and Areas of Anticipated Growth

• ELA:

SMART Goals written and carried

• ut

to improve

• pen

response.

• As

a result,

• pen

response growth is as follows:

• Grade

6: 9.9%

• Grade

7: 22%

• Grade

8: 10.3%

• Math:

Average SPG for each grade 2014 MCAS

• Grade

6: 52% (State Rank 141)

• Grade

7: 72% (State Rank 12 )

• Grade

8: 74% (State Rank 17)

• 2014-2015

goal:

• Implementing

Engage NY

SLIDE 29

Science

• 2014-2015

Completion near

• f

aligning curriculum to the Next Generation Science Standards.

• Areas
• f

strength as determined by MCAS:

• Evolution,

Technology, and Engineering.

• Areas
• f

anticipated growth:

• Earth

Science and Physical Science

SLIDE 30

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success

RTI, attendance Universal supports in place MCAS Intervention classes Intentional focus

• n

developing a vibrant learning community

Sub Group Intervention

Formative assessments Connect Course goals with student needs Formative assessments

Content area analysis

Open response writing Growth percentage Content area work moving toward CC

Cross curricular goal setting

SMART Goals

Measures

• f success

Student response analysis Pre and post assessment across all content areas DDMs across content areas MCAS

SLIDE 31

NEWBURYPORT HIGH SCHOOL

SLIDE 32

Overview of MCAS Results (strengths & weaknesses)

ELA ELA

• Weaknesses
• Nonfiction,

especially nonfiction specific questions like main source

• f

evidence questions

• Connotative

meaning

• Fatigue

(the #

• f

multiple choice/questions #29 thru 39 that students answered incorrectly)

• Strengths
• Fiction

analysis

• Shakespeare
• Writing,
• pen-response

and long composition

Ma Math

• Weaknesses
• Numbering

quantity category

• Strengths
• Geometry

multiple choice questions

SLIDE 33

Biology

• gy
• Weaknesses
• Too

many

• pen

response questions not answered

• Many

students failing to read the questions carefully

• Strengths
• Students

did significantly better

• n

multiple choice questions

SLIDE 34

Scores for ELA & Math (Grade 10), and Biology (Grade 9)

61 73 52 36 18 37 2 5 10 2 4 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 English Math Biology Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Failing

SLIDE 35

Data Analysis Process and Findings

ELA ELA

• Grade

9 & 10 teachers analyzed 3 non-fiction excerpts,

• ne

Shakespeare (iambic pentameter/poetry),

• ne

short story, and

• ne
• poem. Teachers

also analyzed some

• f

the multiple choice

• questions. Students

did relatively poorly

• n

the poetry questions (# 37-40).

• The

long composition scores were high, averaging 16

• ut
• f

20. Math

• Grade

9 &10 teachers analyzed the 32 multiple choice questions, 6

• pen

response questions, 4 short answer questions.

• Students

scored much higher

• n

the geometry questions.

SLIDE 36

Data Analysis Process and Findings

Biology

• gy
• The

three grade 9 biology teachers analyzed the biology MCAS multiple choice and short answer student responses.

• Teachers

realized that

• ur

current curriculum gets into great detail about many

• subjects. Teachers

need to focus more

• n

the broader picture rather than the details.

• Reading

closely is important for success in all

• questions. Specific

strategies around all vocabulary can be

• practiced. An

example would be a question that states “all

• f

the following except”. Students should methodically eliminate answers before choosing an exception.

SLIDE 37

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - ELA

9TH & 10TH grade teachers will incorporate more nonfiction into the curriculum with nonfiction specific comprehension questions. Practice taking more exams to battle fatigue issues.

GOAL

9TH & 10TH grade teachers are requiring students to read more nonfiction selections in their courses. 9th & 10th grade teachers will develop exam structure that follows MCAS test structure.

ACTION

Comparison

• f

2014 non-fiction MCAS results with 2015 non-fiction results. Compare results

• f

2014 multiple choice questions #29 thru 39 with 2015 multiple- choice questions #29 thru 39.

MEASURE OF SUCCESS

SLIDE 38

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - Math

Focus

• n

the number and quantity category

• f

MCAS math questions. Review and revise the math MCAS reference sheet for special education students.

GOAL

Teachers will spend more time reviewing and reinforcing the concepts found in the number and quantity category that were covered in the previous grades standards. Math department teachers and special education teachers will collaborate to develop a new math reference sheet for 2015 MCAS test.

ACTION

Compare the 2014 and 2015 number and quantity category student responses. The new reference sheet was approved by MCAS

• Central. The

department will compare the 2014 to 2015 special education sub group responses.

MEASURE OF SUCCESS

SLIDE 39

Goals, Actions, Measure of Success - Biology

Create

• pen

response questions for unit test that mirror the MCAS

• pen

response questions. Familiarize students with MCAS type questions.

GOAL

Biology teachers will collaborate

• n

utilizing the same

• pen

response questions with a standard grading rubric. Biology teachers will create unit test multiple choice questions that mirror MCAS multiple choice questions.

ACTION

A comparison

• f

2014 and 2015 MCAS Biology

• pen

response results. A comparison

• f

2014 and 2015 MCAS Biology multiple choice questions.

MEASURE OF SUCCESS

SLIDE 40

%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 A & P W A & P W A & P W A & P W A & P W A & P W A & P W A+P W/F

• Gr. 3

68 5 65 7 61 6 67 6 68 4 74 4 67 4 72 3

• Gr. 4

57 9 43 11 54 6 54 5 61 9 70 8 60 6 53 9

• Gr. 5

71 3 73 5 69 6 65 5 79 3 69 7 82 4 83 5

• Gr. 6

64 3 83 2 81 5 78 6 85 2 79 2 82 6 85 4

• Gr. 7

84 2 76 2 92 1 89 3 86 4 90 3 90 3 88 3

• Gr. 8

89 3 87 3 89 2 92 2 91 2 85 2 93 3 93 4

• Gr. 9
• Gr. 10

90 2 92 2 94 1 92 1 94 1 96 1 97 2 96 2

English Language Arts Cohorts

SLIDE 41

%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F

Grade 3

63 15 58 10 58 14 65 6 72 7 59 9 62 11 76 5

Grade 4

49 10 47 17 50 8 49 9 47 9 57 9 59 4 48 7

Grade 5

56 13 63 12 53 14 52 13 59 14 59 14 65 10 74 9

Grade 6

42 20 60 10 61 13 62 16 54 12 58 10 70 11 71 9

Grade 7

67 10 48 17 70 9 79 5 63 16 71 6 65 14 69 13

Grade 8

53 12 67 10 58 12 69 7 75 7 72 9 81 8 75 8

Grade 9

• Grade 10

92 2 87 3 90 2 88 2 90 2 93 1 93 3 90 5

Mathematics Cohorts

SLIDE 42

Science & Tech/Engineering Cohorts

%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F A&P W/F Grade 5 67 1 49 8 53 9 63 5 59 9 59 8 65 4 64 5 Grade 6

• Grade 7
• Grade 8

45 10 55 8 49 6 62 3 54 6 49 13 62 5 54 5 Grade 9 Biology

• 75

4 90 2 85 2 81 1 89 1

SLIDE 43

ELA Grade 4

Newburyport 2014-53% Comparative Communities

2014-% LEVEL

• 1. Lynnfield

88 2

• 2. Scituate

79 2

• 3. Mendon-Upton

69 2

• 4. Hanover

66 2

• 5. Wakefield

62 2

• 6. Newburyport

53 2 Geographic Proximity

2014-% LEVEL

• 1. Ipswich

65 2

• 2. Amesbury

64 2

• 3. Triton

63 2

• 4. Pentucket

58 2

• 5. Georgetown

54 2

• 6. Newburyport

53 2 Aspiration Communities

2014-% LEVEL

• 1. Winchester

89 2

• 2. Wellesley

78 2

• 3. Holliston

72 2

• 4. Needham

70 2

• 5. Medfield

69 2

• 6. Newburyport

53 2

ELA Grade 8

Newburyport 2014-93% Comparative Communities

2014-%

1. Hanover 95

• 2. Newburyport

93

• 2. Scituate

93

• 2. Lynnfield

93

• 3. Mendon-Upton

89

• 4. Wakefield

85 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Newburyport

93

• 1. Pentucket

93

• 2. Georgetown

85

• 3. Ipswich

83

• 4. Triton

82

• 5. Amesbury

77 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Medfield

96

• 2. Holliston

95

• 3. Needham

94

• 4. Newburyport

93

• 4. Wellesley

93

• 5. Winchester

92

ELA Grade 10

Newburyport 2014- 96% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Scituate

98

• 2. Lynnfield

97

• 2. Hanover

97

• 2. Wakefield

97

• 3. Newburyport

96

• 4. Mendon-Upton

95 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Ipswich

99

• 2. Pentucket

98

• 3. Newburyport

96

• 4. Triton

95

• 5. Georgetown

94

• 5. Amesbury

94 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Winchester

100

• 2. Wellesley

99

• 2. Medfield

99

• 3. Holliston

98

• 4. Needham

97

• 5. Newburyport

96

2014 ELA - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students Accountability Levels of Each District

SLIDE 44

MATH Grade 4

Newburyport 2014- 48% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Lynnfield

87

• 2. Mendon-Upton

73

• 3. Scituate

69

• 4. Wakefield

61

• 5. Hanover

54

• 6. Newburyport

48 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Ipswich

63

• 2. Georgetown

62

• 3. Amesbury

60

• 4. Triton

59

• 5. Pentucket

53

• 6. Newburyport

48 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Winchester

82

• 2. Wellesley

78

• 3. Needham

72

• 4. Medfield

68

• 5. Holliston

55

• 6. Newburyport

48

MATH Grade 8

Newburyport 2014- 75% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Newburyport

75

• 2. Lynnfield

67

• 3. Mendon-Upton

66

• 3. Hanover

66

• 4. Scituate

65

• 5. Wakefield

63 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Newburyport

75

• 2. Triton

63

• 3. Amesbury

57

• 3. Pentucket

57

• 4. Ipswich

56

• 5. Georgetown

48 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Holliston

83

• 2. Newburyport

75

• 3. Needham

74

• 3. Wellesley

74

• 3. Medfield

74

• 4. Winchester

69

MATH Grade 10

Newburyport 2014- 91% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Scituate

93

• 2. Newburyport

91

• 3. Lynnfield

90

• 3. Wakefield

90

• 4. Mendon-Upton

89

• 5. Hanover

87 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Newburyport

91

• 2. Pentucket

89

• 3. Triton

88

• 4. Georgetown

85

• 4. Ipswich

85

• 5. Amesbury

80 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Winchester

99

• 2. Medfield

98

• 3. Needham

95

• 3. Holliston

95

• 4. Wellesley

94

• 5. Newburyport

91

2014 MATH - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students

SLIDE 45

Science Grade 5

Newburyport 2014- 65% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Scituate

75

• 2. Hanover

73

• 3. Lynnfield

68

• 4. Newburyport

65

• 4. Mendon-Upton

65

• 5. Wakefield

63 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Amesbury

66

• 2. Newburyport

65

• 2. Triton

65

• 3. Ipswich

62

• 4. Pentucket

61

• 5. Georgetown

59 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Winchester

82

• 2. Holliston

69

• 2. Wellesley

69

• 3. Medfield

66

• 4. Newburyport

65

• 5. Needham

63

Science Grade 8

Newburyport 2014- 54% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Mendon-Upton

62

• 2. Hanover

64

• 3. Lynnfield

55

• 4. Newburyport

54

• 5. Scituate

50

• 5. Wakefield

50 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Amesbury

55

• 2. Newburyport

54

• 2. Triton

54

• 3. Pentucket

50

• 4. Ipswich

40

• 4. Georgetown

40 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Needham

70

• 2. Winchester

69

• 3. Holliston

67

• 4. Medfield

65

• 5. Wellesley

59

• 6. Newburyport

54

Science Grade 10

Newburyport 2014- 79% Comparative Communities

2014-%

• 1. Lynnfield

90

• 2. Wakefield

87

• 3. Hanover

86

• 4. Mendon-Upton

84

• 5. Newburyport

79

• 5. Scituate

79 Geographic Proximity

2014-%

• 1. Georgetown

87

• 2. Pentucket

85

• 3. Triton

81

• 4. Amesbury

80

• 5. Newburyport

79

• 6. Ipswich

75 Aspiration Communities

2014-%

• 1. Medfield

97

• 2. Winchester

95

• 3. Needham

92

• 3. Holliston

92

• 4. Wellesley

82

• 5. Newburyport

79

2014 Science - Grades 5, 8 & 10 % of Advanced + Proficient Students

SLIDE 46

2014-2015 MCAS School Committee Presentation