Spring 2018 MCAS Medway Public Schools, School Committee, November - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Spring 2018 MCAS Medway Public Schools, School Committee, November 1, 2018

Tonight’s Goal ● Provide a data informed context for identified areas of focus to enhance teaching and learning. 2

Agenda ● Context setting ● New Accountability Formula Highlights ● Medway’s Accountability Results ● MCAS Measures of Student Performance ● Medway’s Student Performance Highlights ● Next Steps 3

4 Source: Using Data to Improve Learning for All, Love, N., 2008.

Next Generation MCAS: Points of Importance ● MCAS results are only one measure of a child's growth and achievement. A child's teacher can speak more broadly about a child's academic growth and about his or her social and emotional development. ● In most subjects and grades, fewer students scored Meeting or Exceeding Expectations than scored Proficient or Advanced in previous years. This does NOT mean that students learned less; it reflects the fact that the Next-Generation MCAS measures more rigorous standards in a different way. ● In general, the new standards for Meeting Expectations are at least as rigorous as the legacy standards for reaching the Proficient level. 5

2018 MCAS Assessment Notes ● 2018 accountability information should not be compared to prior years ○ Different comparison “universe” ○ Inclusion of additional indicators ○ Fewer years of data used in calculation ○ Computer vs. paper based assessment 6

Accountability 7

Accountability is A Complicated Formula Based On... ● Criterion referenced elements ● Norm referenced elements (accountability percentile) ● School, grade level and content specific targets set for several accountability indicators - based on 2017 data ● 50% weight based on all students; 50% weight based on the lowest performing 25% of students* ● Different weights for different indicators 8 *Lowest performing 25% determined based on 2 years of enrollment within one school

Massachusetts’ Accountability Indicators – Grades 3-8 Indicator Measure • English language arts (ELA) average scaled score Achievement • Mathematics average scaled score • Science achievement (Composite Performance Index (CPI)) • ELA mean student growth percentile (SGP) Student Growth • Mathematics mean SGP • Progress made by students towards attaining English language English Language proficiency (percentage of students meeting annual targets required in Proficiency order to attain English proficiency in six years) Additional • Chronic absenteeism (percentage of students missing 10 percent or more 9 Indicator(s) of their days in membership) 9

Weighting of indicators in Grades 3-8 2018 Weighting Indicator Measures With ELL No ELL • ELA, math, & science achievement values Achievement 60% 67.5% (based on scaled score) Student Growth • ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP) 20% 22.5% English Language • Progress made by students towards attaining 10% Proficiency English language proficiency Additional Indicators • Chronic absenteeism 10% 10% 10

Massachusetts’ Accountability Indicators – high schools Indicator Measure • English language arts (ELA) achievement (Composite Performance Index (CPI)) Achievement • Mathematics achievement (CPI) • Science achievement (CPI) • ELA mean student growth percentile (SGP) Student Growth • Mathematics mean SGP • Four-year cohort graduation rate High School Completion • Extended engagement rate (five-year cohort graduation rate plus the percentage of students still enrolled) • Annual dropout rate English Language • Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency (percentage of students meeting Proficiency annual targets required in order to attain English proficiency in six years) • Chronic absenteeism (percentage of students missing 10 percent or more of their days in membership) Percentage of 11 th & 12 th graders completing advanced coursework (Advanced Placement, International Additional Indicator(s) • 11 Baccalaureate, dual enrollment courses, &/or other selected rigorous courses) 11

Weighting of indicators in high schools 2018 Weighting Indicator Measures With ELL No ELL Achievement • ELA, math, & science achievement 40% 47.5% Student Growth • ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP) 20% 22.5% • Four-year cohort graduation rate High School Completion • Extended engagement rate 20% 20% • Annual dropout rate English Language • Progress made by students towards attaining English 10% Proficiency language proficiency • Chronic absenteeism 12 Additional Indicators • Percentage of students completing advanced 10% 10% coursework

Criterion-referenced component •Points assigned based on progress toward target for each indicator, for both the aggregate (all students) & the lowest performing students Declined No change Improved Met target Exceeded target 0 1 2 3 4 Targets for the 2018 MCAS were created based on our students’ 2017 MCAS performance 13

Categorization of schools Schools without required assistance or intervention Schools requiring assistance or intervention (approx. 85%) (approx. 15%) Schools of Meeting Partially meeting Focused/targeted Broad/ recognition targets targets support comprehensive support Schools Criterion-referenced Criterion-referenced • Non-comprehensive demonstrating target percentage target percentage support schools with • Underperforming high 75-100 0-74 percentiles 1-10 schools achievement, • Schools with low • Chronically significant graduation rate underperforming improvement, or • Schools with low schools 2018: Performance against targets reported in 2 categories (meeting & high growth performing subgroups partially meeting 2019: Performance against targets reported in 3 categories (meeting, • Schools with low partially meeting, & not meeting) participation 14 Notes: • School percentiles & performance against targets reported for all schools

15

Accountability Categorizations for Medway ● Burke-Memorial Elementary School: Partially Meeting Targets; 78 Accountability Percentile ● Medway Middle School: Partially Meeting Targets; 72 Accountability Percentile ● Medway High School: Partially Meeting Targets; 84 Accountability Percentile 16

2018 “Next Generation” MCAS Performance Highlights (Grades 3-8) 17

“Next Generation” MCAS Achievement Levels 18

Gr. 3-8 English Language Arts Growth 19

Gr. 3-8 English/Language Arts Regional Achievement Comparisons M+ Account M Accounta M+ Accou M Accoun M+ Accou M+ Accou ability% bility% ntabili tability ntabilit ntabilit + + ty% % y% y% Medway Hopkinton Holliston Ashland Medfield Westwood Natick 20

Grade 3-8 ELA Areas of Strength and Opportunity Strengths Opportunities ● Integration of knowledge and ideas ● Idea development in all types of in reading standards (Gr 4,6) essay writing (Gr 6-8) ● Conventions of standard English (Gr ● Craft and Structure (Gr 3,4,5) 5,6,8) ● Integration of ideas (Gr 3,4,5) ● Text Types and Purposes (Gr 3,4,5) ● Vocabulary and Use (Gr 5) (10 or more percentage points higher than the state) (less than 10 percentage points higher than the state) 21

Gr. 3-8 Mathematics Growth 22

Gr. 3-8 Mathematics Regional Achievement Comparisons District Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 M+ Accoun M+ Accou M+ Accou M+ Accoun M Accoun M+ Accou tability ntabilit ntabilit tability tability ntabili + % y % y % % % ty % Medway Hopkinton Holliston Ashland Medfield Westwood Natick 23

Grade 3-8 Mathematics Areas of Strength and Opportunity Strengths Opportunities ● Geometry (Gr 5) ● Identifying/writing equivalent expressions ● Number and Operations - Fractions (Gr 4) (Gr 3-5) ● Number and Operations in Base Ten (Gr ● Short answer (Gr 4) 3, 5) ● Understanding congruence and similarity ● Solving multi-step problems in real world after series of transformations using new context (Gr 6-8) online platform (Gr 8) ● Statistics and Probability-drawing inferences about a population(s) (Gr 6-8) 24 (10 or more percentage points higher than the state) (less than 10 percentage points higher than the state)

2018 “Legacy” MCAS Performance Highlights (Grade 5, 8, and 9 Science, Grades 10 ELA and Math) 25

“Legacy” MCAS Achievement Levels 26

Gr. 5,8 Science Regional Achievement Comparisons District Gr. 5 Gr. 8 P+ P+ 64 43 Medway Hopkinton 72 69 Holliston 65 54 Ashland 62 57 64 36 Medfield 80 59 Westwood 27 Natick 72 52

Grade 5, 8 Areas of Strength and Opportunity Strengths Opportunities ● Technology and ● Results indicative of Engineering alignment issues ● Life Science (5th) ● Implementation of new science resource (6-8) ● Expansion of PLTW (K-4) (less than 10 percentage points higher than the state) (10 or more percentage points higher than the state) 28