mcas presentation 2014 7.1 - cambridge public schools · 2014. 10. 8. · mcas presentation to the...

10/7/14

1

MCAS Presentation to the School Committee October 7, 2014 Cambridge, MA

1

Agenda

2

}  MCAS in context }  Purpose of MCAS }  CPS in relation to state: All grades and subgroups combined

}  Digging Deeper }  Variation by grade }  Variation by student group }  Performance Levels

}  Level 1 and 2 Schools }  Level 3 Schools – deeper analysis

}  Summary and Questions for All of Us Moving Forward

}  Current Areas of Focus

10/7/14

2

Purpose of MCAS

3

}  To determine the progress the district, schools, and individual students have made in acquiring the knowledge and skills as outlined in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.

}  This testing is a snapshot of a school, grade, subgroup, and individual student’s progress to date, as well as a rich and meaningful data set for our work; as measured by one assessment.

Putting MCAS in Context

4

}  What is happening across the state? }  How does CPS compare? }  Key Takeaways:

}  CPS has made greater gains overall relative to the state. }  We have closed the performance gap between CPS and

the state in ELA and Math. }  CPS outperforms urban and Commissioner’s districts. }  We have made roughly twice as much progress as urban

and Commissioner’s districts in both ELA and math. }  Although we have made twice the progress of the state in

science, we are still 3% below the state in science.

10/7/14

3

ELA MCAS Results 2009-14

5

ELA MCAS Results 2009-14

6

10/7/14

4

Math MCAS Results 2009-14

7

Math MCAS Results 2009-14

8

10/7/14

5

Science MCAS Results 2010-14

9

52% 52% 54% 53% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

State

Science MCAS Results 2010-14

10

46% 44% 49% 51% 51%

52% 52% 54% 53% 54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CPS State

10/7/14

6

Summary

11

}  CPS has made greater gains overall relative to the state. }  We have closed the performance gap between CPS and

the state in ELA and Math. }  CPS outperforms urban and Commissioner’s districts. }  We have made roughly twice as much progress as urban

and Commissioner’s districts in both ELA and math. }  Although we have made twice the progress of the state in

science, we are still 3% below the state in science.

MCAS performance

Grade and Grade band

12

10/7/14

7

Digging Deeper

13

}  How does MCAS performance vary by grade and grade band?

}  Key Takeaways: }  Elementary Schools

}  CPS outperforms the state at grades 3, 4, 5 in ELA and math and has made greater growth than the state in every subject since 2009.

}  Upper Schools }  The state outperforms CPS in grades 6 – 8 in ELA and math }  There has been a decrease in performance in math and science from

2013 to 2014, while ELA scores have remained flat. }  CRLS

}  Since 2009, we have seen an overall upward trend in proficient/advanced at CRLS in every subject.

}  Overall }  The state outperforms CPS at every grade level tested in science.

ELA - % Proficient/Advanced by Grade

14

64%

51%

59%

66%

71% 71%

86%

58% 59% 63% 64% 65%

77%

90%

66%

57%

67% 64%

67%

76%

87%

57% 54%

64%

68% 72%

79%

90%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014

10/7/14

8

Math -‐ % Proficient/Advanced by Grade

15

65%

47%

54% 56%

52% 50%

83%

67%

62%

56%

61%

46%

58%

83%

77%

54%

63%

55%

50%

46%

80%

68%

52%

61% 60%

50% 52%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014

Science - % Proficient/Advanced by Grade

16

45%

38%

65%

44% 41%

69%

50%

35%

69%

53%

42%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10

2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014

10/7/14

9

54%$

54%$

57%$59%$

61%$64%$

50%$

55%$

54%$56%$

63%$66%$

34%$

45%$

38%$

45%$ 44%$

51%$

10%$

20%$

30%$

40%$

50%$

60%$

70%$

80%$

90%$

2009$ 2010$ 2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$

Percen

t'Proficient'or'A

dvan

ced'on

'MCA

S'

Elementary''Schools'8'%'Prof/Adv'200982014'

ELA$

Math$

Science$

17

70%$ 70%$73%$

70%$ 70%$ 70%$

46%$49%$

51%$54%$

56%$

51%$

29%$

34%$36%$

38%$41%$

35%$

10%$

20%$

30%$

40%$

50%$

60%$

70%$

80%$

90%$

2009$ 2010$ 2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$

Percen

t'Proficient'or'A

dvan

ced'on

'MCA

S'

Upper'Schools'7'%'Prof/Adv'200972014'

ELA$

Math$

Science$

18

10/7/14

10

70%

70%

81%

86% 90%

87%

63%

77%

77%

83% 83% 80%

45%

59% 60%

65% 69% 69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Percen

t Proficient or A

dvan

ced on

MCA

S

Grade 10 -‐ % Prof/Adv 2009-‐2014

ELA

Math

Science

19

Summary

20

}  Elementary Schools }  CPS outperforms the state at grades 3, 4, 5 in ELA and math

and has made greater growth than the state in every subject since 2009.

}  Upper Schools }  The state outperforms CPS in grades 6 – 8 in ELA and math }  There has been a decrease in performance in math and science

from 2013 to 2014, while ELA scores have remained flat. }  CRLS

}  Since 2009, we have seen an overall upward trend in proficient/advanced at CRLS in every subject.

}  Overall }  The state outperforms CPS at every grade level tested in

science.

10/7/14

11

MCAS Performance

Student Groups and Gap Narrowing Progress

21

Digging Deeper

22

}  How are different student groups progressing on MCAS in CPS? }  Are achievement gaps narrowing? }  Key Takeaways:

}  For grades 3 – 10 ELA, CPS performance roughly equals the state for every student group. CPS outperforms the state for ELL, Hispanic/Latino, and White students.

}  In grades 3 – 5, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, especially African American / Black students in every subject with increases of 10%, 12%, and 11% in ELA, math, and science, respectively.

}  Achievement gaps are not narrowing at grades 6 - 8. }  In grade 10, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, most

notably in ELA. In particular African American/ Black students, Hispanic/Latino, low income students, ELL students, and students with disabilities have increased 21 – 28% in ELA proficient/advanced over the last 5 years.

10/7/14

12

Grades 3-10 ELA Subgroups % Prof/Adv Change Between 2010-2014 and State 2014

23

63%

27% 26%

48% 46%

73%

53%

80%

69%

31%

43%

54% 53%

79%

59%

83%

69%

30%

36%

51% 52%

78%

47%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

All Students Sts. w/ disabilities ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black

Asian Hispanic/Latino White

ELA - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014 in comparison with State 2014

2010 2014 STATE 2014

Grades 3-10 Math Subgroups % Prof/Adv Change Between 2010-2014 and State 2014

24

55%

20%

29%

40% 37%

73%

41%

72%

61%

26%

41% 45%

43%

75%

50%

77%

60%

23%

35%

41% 39%

79%

39%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

All Students Sts. w/ disabilities

ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black

Asian Hispanic/Latino White

2010 2014 State 2014

10/7/14

13

Grades 3-10 Science Subgroups Change Between 2010-2014 with State 2014

25

49%

17%

12%

30%

25%

66%

74%

29%

51%

17% 18%

32% 31%

66%

40%

70%

31%

54%

21%

18%

33%

30%

67%

28%

63%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

All Students Sts. w/ disabilities

ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black

Asian Hispanic/Latino White High Needs

2012 2014 State 2014

64%

37% 40%

76%

39%

21% 21%

54%

71%

47% 49%

79%

46%

27%

45%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.

2010 2014

ELA Grades 3-5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

26

10/7/14

14

Math Grades 3-5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

27

68%

35% 38%

74%

39%

21%

27%

45%

77%

47%

53%

82%

49%

34%

43%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


2010 2014

Science Grade 5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

28

62%

21%

35%

65%

24%

12% 11%

45%

60%

30%

43%

70%

29%

19%

12%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


2010 2014

10/7/14

15

ELA Grades 6-8 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

29

84%

54%

65%

87%

56%

35% 40%

70%

86%

51%

61%

85%

55%

31%

41%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2010 2014

Math Grades 6-8 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

30

74%

31%

37%

68%

31%

15%

25%

49%

71%

30%

39%

70%

34%

17%

34%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Asian Black Hispanic White Low Income SWD FELL/ELL All Sts.

2010 2014

10/7/14

16


31

48%

13%

24%

56%

16%

10%

4%

34%

53%

13%

24%

55%

16%

8%

14%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


2010 2014

ELA Grade 10 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

32

82%

53% 58%

88%

58%

28%

22%

70%

95%

79%

86%

94%

82%

53%

43%

87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2010 2014

10/7/14

17

MATH Grade 10 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014

33

95%

65% 61%

89%

69%

45% 42%

77%

97%

67%

76%

90%

73%

42%

56%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2010 2014


34

84%

37% 41%

79%

44%

17%

25%

59%

94%

52%

59%

84%

51%

26%

34%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2010 2014

10/7/14

18

Summary

35

}  For grades 3 – 10 ELA, CPS performance roughly equals the state for every student group. CPS outperforms the state for ELL, Hispanic/Latino, and White students.

}  In grades 3 – 5, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, especially African American / Black students in every subject with increases of 10%, 12%, and 11% in ELA, math, and science, respectively.

}  Achievement gaps are not narrowing at grades 6 - 8. }  In grade 10, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student

groups, most notably in ELA. In particular African American/ Black students, Hispanic/Latino, low income students, ELL students, and students with disabilities have increased 21 – 28% in ELA proficient/advanced over the last 5 years.

Performance Levels

A Deeper Analysis

36

10/7/14

19

Digging Deeper

37

}  What can we learn by analyzing data behind DESE performance levels (1 – 3)? }  Analyzing data behind performance levels forces schools to:

}  Identify targets met or missed, which provide information as to what practices are to be considered to be brought to scale.

}  Identify areas in need of greater focus. }  Provides for trend analysis that incorporates performance plus

growth. }  A Level 3 school can make great gains in a year and still remain a

Level 3 school. }  How does CPS compare overall to the state in the number of

Level 1, 2, and 3 Schools? }  In 2014, 10 schools were classified as Level 1, 4 schools were

classified as Level 2, and 3 schools were classified as Level 3. This is a significant improvement since 2012, when only 4 of CPS schools were Level 1.

How Performance Levels are Determined

38

}  Annual PPI combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, (and at high school also graduation and dropout rates) into a number between 0 and 100

}  A PPI of 75 means on track toward meeting goals }  Must have at least 30 students to report student groups }  PPI is annually calculated by meeting targets in…

Subject Component #1 Component #2 Component #3

ELA Composite Performance Index (a measure of MCAS proficiency)

Student Growth Percentile (measure of MCAS growth)

Extra Credit: reduce warning/failing or increase advanced

Math

Science Not available

10/7/14

20

Cumulative PPI

39

}  Cumulative PPI is the average of a school’s annual PPIs over the most recent four year period, weighting recent years the most (4-3-2-1)

}  All schools in MA are classified into Levels 1 – 2 using cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students. }  Level 1: Cumulative PPI = 75 + for all students and high

needs }  Level 2: Either or both group (all students and high needs

students) has Cumulative PPI less than 75

School Percentiles

40

}  School Percentile is an indication of a school’s overall performance relative to other schools that serve the same or individual grades.

}  Calculated somewhat similarly to PPI (e.g. weighting years 4-3-2-1), except that achievement is weighted three times higher than improvement }  Thus, a school can have a high cumulative PPI, but a low school %ile. }  There is less transparency from DESE re: calculations of School %iles.

10/7/14

21

Level 3 Determination

41

}  Level 3 Schools Determined By: }  School Percentile in the lowest 20% of all schools at

same or similar grade level in state OR }  One or more subgroups in the lowest 20% of that

subgroup }  Levels 4 and 5: Most serious designation, made by

Commissioner

Level 1 and 2 Schools in CPS vs. State

42

26%$

79%$

18%$

48%$

59%$

82%$

0%$

10%$

20%$

30%$

40%$

50%$

60%$

70%$

80%$

90%$

100%$

Level$1$Schools$ Level$1$or$2$Schools$

Percen

t'of'A

ll'Scho

ols'in'2014'

State$Overall$

MA$Urban$Districts$

Cambridge$Public$Schools$

10/7/14

22

43

44

10/7/14

23

Focusing on Level 3 Schools

45

}  Although 82% of CPS schools are Level 1 or 2, we have three Level 3 Schools this year: }  Kennedy Longfellow }  King Open }  Putnam Avenue

}  It is important to understand the history of performance and growth at these schools to understand how to best support their progress

2014 School Percentile: 16th

46

10/7/14

24

*Note: There were too few students with high needs to be given a score for science

47


48

10/7/14

25

*Note: There were too few students with high needs to be given a score for science

49


50

10/7/14

26

51

Overall Summary

52

}  Level 3 Schools in Year 2 of Level 3 status have shown significant improvement in 2014.

}  PAUS has completed an extensive data analysis and identified key strategies for improvement that will be presented in their SIP.

}  Gains across elementary schools in ELA, Math, and Science are noteworthy.

}  Grades 6 – 10 progress in ELA, Math, and Science requires further analysis and attention.

}  Progress amongst student groups (e.g. African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Students with Disabilities) have shown significant growth since 2009.

10/7/14

27

Questions for All of Us Moving Forward

53

}  Is what we are doing working? How do we know? }  Are we building confidence and self-esteem in our students? }  Are we building supportive learning environments? }  Are CPS students academically and socially engaged within our

classrooms? }  Are we developing CPS educator’s knowledge and skills that

equip them in addressing areas of deficit in student learning? }  Are our district and/or school improvement strategies

targeted to meet areas of greatest need evidenced in the data? }  What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

that will impact our district improvement moving forward?

Current Areas of Focus

54

}  Educator Evaluation System Year 3 }  Developing Capacity in Instructional Leadership –

Highly Effective Teaching Project }  Curriculum & Instruction: Curriculum Review Cycle. }  Educator Development and Support }  Office of Student Services: Strategic Planning Process }  District Improvement Plan }  Establish District-Wide Framework for Response to

Intervention

10/7/14

28

Current Areas of Focus

55

}  Continued RETELL training for all teachers & administrators

}  Continued improvement planning in all schools }  District Accountability Review and Targeted support

from state’s District & School Assistance (DSAC) Center

56

mcas presentation 2014 7.1 - cambridge public schools · 2014. 10. 8. · mcas presentation to the...

Documents