Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System (MCAS)

Arlington Public Schools MCAS Analysis

2014

Presented by: Dr. Laura Chesson, Assistant SuperintendentPrepared by: LeiLanie D’Agostino, Director of Data Integration

Agenda

F ELA Results: District and Grade-Level

F Math Results: District and Grade-Level

F Science Results: District and Grade Level

F Plans for the 2014 – 2015 School Year

The Massachusetts School Accountability

System

Progress and Performance Index (PPI) based on:

•Achievement (CPI) •Growth (SGP) •Dropout & Graduation Rates (High School)

Student Growth Percentile By Grade

Median SGP for E LA a nd Math by G rade

ELA Math Grade 4* 61 68 Grade 5* 53 60 Grade 6 39 50.5 Grade 7 62 49.5 Grade 8 62 59.5 Grade 10 54.5 60

* Mean of median SGP’s for a ll elementary schools

2014 District ELA

.

Overall District Performance - ELA 2011 2012 2013 2014

District State District State District State District State

A & P 87% 69% 85% 69% 86% 69% 85% 70%

CPI 95.2 87.2 94.5 86.7 94.9 86.8 94.2 86.7

Median SGP

59.0 50.0 54.0 50.0 56.0 51.0 56.0 50.0

School TargetCPI

CPI Points 2014

PPI Points

PPI Status

AHS 99.0 99.7 100 Above Target Ottoson 97.5 95.9 75 On Target Bishop 95.1 93.2 100 Above Target Brackett 97.7 95.6 100 Above Target Dallin 95.7 95.2 100 Above Target Hardy 95.5 90.7 0 Declined Peirce 92.7 91.2 75 On Target Stratton 95.1 89.1 0 Declined Thompson 93.4 90.7 25 No Change

ELA Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 All Students • Arlington Public Schools

Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools

ELA Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 High Needs Students • Arlington Public Schools

School TargetCPI

CPI Points 2014

PPI Points

PPI Status

AHS 95.5 98.4 100 Above Target Ottoson 91.8 87.0 50 Improved Below Target Bishop 83.4 76.8 0 Declined Brackett 96.3 95.3 100 Above Target Dallin 85.0 85.6 75 On Target Hardy 91.0 81.1 0 Declined Peirce 84.5 73.8 0 Declined Stratton 84.0 75.5 0 Declined Thompson 84.1 82.0 25 No Change

School Median SGP All

PPI Points All

Median SGP High Needs

PPI Points High Needs

AHS 55 75 48 75 Ottoson 56 75 51 75 Bishop 68 100 Brackett 51 75 47 50 Dallin 56 75 Hardy 56 75 41.5 50 Peirce 61 100 Stratton 51 75 Thompson 58 75 49 50

ELA Growth and PPI Points, 2014 Arlington Public Schools

ELA Performance By Grade Level

Elementary SGP By

School

Sc hool Gra de 4 Grade 5 ELA Math ELA Math

Bishop 71 80 66 78 Bra cke tt 65 6 8 42 47.5 Dallin 64 6 4 51 43.5 Hardy 57 5 3 56 60 Pe irce 59.5 75.5 63 69 Stratton 45 6 7 53 61 Thom pson 77.5 64 52.5 4 4

Average 61 6 8 53 60

ELA Growth By Grade Level

ELA Growth Distributions – MCAS 2014

ELA Growth Distributions – MCAS 2014

APS Reading/ELA

Percentage of Student Scoring Advanced

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Gr. 3 Gr. 4* Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7* Gr. 8 Gr. 10*

District State District State District State Distri

ct State District State District State Distri

ct State

35% 18% 19% 8% 30% 15% 20% 10% 10% 10% 23% 12% 39% 16%

26% 14% 24% 10% 31% 15% 21% 9% 16% 9% 29% 12% 41% 22%

37% 15% 18% 8% 30% 13% 32% 15% 24% 12% 23% 12% 48% 23%

27% 12% 31% 11% 37% 15% 31% 16% 25% 14% 35% 15% 54% 29%

29% 14% 33% 11% 43% 16% 30% 15% 23% 11% 42% 17% 53% 26%

22% 11% 20% 10% 40% 17% 39% 17% 36% 14% 45% 20% 62% 33%

31% 15% 26% 13% 34% 17% 40% 18% 37% 15% 38% 18% 65% 37%

26% 12% 23% 10% 41% 18% 28% 16% 22% 12% 46% 20% 68% 45%

27% 12% 32% 13% 33% 18% 29% 16% 30% 11% 37% 14% 72% 41%

District District Level

% P&A

Students % HighNeeds

Median SGP

Arlington Level 2 85 2661 25.8 56

Belmont Level 2 88 2216 19.7 58

Brookline Level 2 83 3217 33.5 59

Lexington Level 2 91 3629 26.2 61

Natick Level 2 85 2810 23.3 53

Needham Level 2 86 2889 20.4 54

Newton Level 2 87 6629 33.1 56

Wayland Level 2 89 1516 23.9 59

Wellesley Level 2 89 2752 22 55

Weston Level 2 90 1259 22.7 55

2014 English Language ArtsMCAS Achievement and

Growth for Comparable Districts

ELA Analysis � At elementary and middle school level item analysis indicate

issues with discernment in reading: i.e. inference, choosingthe “best choice”, choosing the “most likely” choice.

� These are skills which relate to close reading and a highlevel of reading comprehension.

� Increase in enrollment and loss of 1.0 FTE in order to provide math coaching have resulted in limited capacity forreading teachers to work on comprehension with 4th and 5th graders.

� Student caseload at middle school allows for no work on comprehension except with Level II and Level III studentsfor reading teachers.

� Middle school ELA teachers just beginning training for LucyCalkins literacy program for middle school

District Mathematics 2014

Overall District Performance -MATH

2011 2012 2013 2014

District State District State District State District State

A & P 74% 58% 75% 59% 77% 61% 78% 60%

CPI 89.2 79.9 89.4 79.9 90.4 80.8 90.5 80.3

Median SGP

49.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 54.0 51.0 58.0 50.0

Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools

Math Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 All Students • Arlington Public Schools

School TargetCPI

CPI Points 2014

PPI Points

PPI Status

AHS 98.1 98.5 100 Above Target Ottoson 89.8 88.8 75 On Target Bishop 91.5 92.3 75 On Target Brackett 96.3 95.3 100 Above Target Dallin 93.4 93.9 100 Above Target Hardy 93.0 89.1 25 No Change Peirce 90.0 88.7 25 No Change Stratton 94.1 89.3 25 No Change Thompson 92.7 88.7 50 Improved Below Target

Research Testing & Assessment • Lowell Public Schools

Math Student Achievement and PPI Points, 2014 High Needs Students • Arlington Public Schools

School TargetCPI

CPI Points 2014

PPI Points

PPI Status

AHS 92.7 93.0 75 On Target Ottoson 76.2 74.0 75 On Target Bishop 85.1 75.0 50 Improved Below Target Brackett 90.0 87.5 75 On Target Dallin 83.4 82.8 75 On Target Hardy 87.5 77.6 50 Improved Below Target Peirce 83.2 71.3 0 Declined Stratton 85.1 74.5 25 No Change Thompson 85.8 80.5 50 Improved Below Target

School Median SGP All

PPI Points All

Median SGP High Needs

PPI Points High Needs

AHS 61 100 64 100

Ottoson 53 75 57 75 Bishop 78 100 Brackett 61 100 56 75 Dallin 57 75 Hardy 58 75 50 60 Peirce 69 100 Stratton 64 100 Thompson 54 75 56 75

Math Growth and PPI Points, 2014 Arlington Public Schools

Math MCAS Results By Grade

Level

Math Growth Distributions By

Grade Level

Math Growth Distribution

Math Growth Distribution

2014 Mathematics MCAS Achievement and Growth for

Comparable Districts District District

Level %

P&A Students % High

Needs Median

SGP Arlington Level 2 78 2660 25.8 58

Belmont Level 2 86 2228 19.7 61

Brookline Level 2 78 3376 33.5 59

Lexington Level 2 88 3685 26.2 63

Natick Level 2 77 2806 23.3 53

Needham Level 2 80 2971 20.4 57

Newton Level 2 81 6643 33.1 56

Wayland Level 2 83 1521 23.9 62

Wellesley Level 2 82 2586 22.0 62

Weston Level 2 83 1259 22.7 57

Math Results Analysis

� Full impact of the math practice standardsbeing felt.

� Last year Level Two schools weresharing math coaches.

� Coaches focusing on assisting teachers inthe instructional changes necessary toimplement CCSS fully.

� Larger class sizes at seventh gradeprovided challenges.

District Science and Technology2014

Science Analysis

� At middle school level communications engineeringprinciples had been removed from curriculum due totime constraints. Low scores in this area.

� Being re-added. � At all levels complexity of text has risen, lack of

instruction in close reading in the content area hasmade reading of the test more challenging. This is,7>: =0K0.?0/ 49 ?30 � � >.:=0>�

2014 District Subgroups/

High Need Students

High Needs Group includesstudents:

F On an IEP, and/or

F �/09?4J0/ ,> LEP or FLEP, and/or

F Eligible for free/reduced lunch

What Lies Ahead � Deeper implementation of use of data teams in all level two

schools. � Inclusion of math, science, attendance, and discipline data

review in data teams. � Implementation of Baseline Edge Student Analytics System to

allow data teams to more quickly analyze data, drill down,

document interventions, and track success of interventions.

� Wider review at all levels of common assessment data. � Use of WIN (What I Need Block), literacy coaches, and math

coaches at elementary level to assist teachers with implementingand monitoring plans to ensure increase in student achievementfor all students.

� �8;70809?,?4:9 :1 90B ?0,.30= 0A,7@,?4:9 >D>?08 B4?3 >;0.4J.

school and teacher goals targeted to student achievement.

Presentation References

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

�/@.,?4:9 &.3::7 �4>?=4.? $=:J70>�3??;�;=:J70>�/:0�8,>>�0/@;=:J70>2090=,7�,>;C�?:;",

vId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and SecondaryEducation Statewide Reports:3??;�;=:J70>�/:0�8,>>�0/@>?,?0 =0;:=?8.,>�,>;C

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and SecondaryEducation Data Warehouse (EDW):https://www4.doemass.org/auth/Login

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspxhttp://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=00100000&orgtypecode=5&https://www4.doemass.org/auth/Login