Melrose High School2014 MCAS Presentation

October 6, 2014

Presentation agenda

• Essential Questions• Some Key Terms and Abbreviations• Major Findings• Progress & Performance Index (PPI)• PPI & Accountability Level• Data for All Students• Data for High Needs Students• Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)• Cumulative Performance Index (CPI)• Next Steps

Essential Questions2014 MCAS Results

• What is the level of student achievement and growth at Melrose High School?

• What can achievement and growth tell us about curriculum, instruction, and learning at Melrose High School?

3

Some Key Terms and AbbreviationsPPI – (progress and performance index) - 100 Point measure of a school’s progress towards narrowing proficiency gaps. This is a weighted average over four years with greater weight for most recent year. CPI – Composite Performance Index (calculated by averaging all the “points” each student earns on a 100 point scale.) Proficient and Advanced scores earn 100 points and High Needs Improvement scores earn 75, Low Needs Improvement scores earn 50, etc.)SGP – Student Growth Percentile (calculated by comparing a student’s score on this year’s test and giving them a percentile rank of all others who had the same score on last year’s test.) SGP of 40-59 is considered normal and moderate annual growth.

Major Findings• Progress was made toward closing the

achievement gap. In Math, the SGP of 64 for special education students indicates high growth for this subgroup.

• Efforts in curriculum, instruction, and assessment at the high school have shown impact on our scores. In English, students who are identified as “high need” are achieving at the same high level of advanced or proficient (88 – 100%) as students overall.

• Increase in the number of students achieving advanced and proficient. Science – there has been a 19 point increase in the % of students achieving advanced or proficient on the MCAS.

6

Major Findings (cont.)

Progress and Performance Index (PPI)

Progress and Performance Index, or PPI, includes data on narrowing proficiency gaps, growth (SGP), MCAS participation, graduation rates, and dropout rates.

Measure Overall Goal Annual Target

PPI School/District must narrow achievement gaps by 50% over a six year period (2011-2017)

Level 1: PPI of 75+ ANDParticipation rate of 95% or more

Level 2: PPI of 75 or below, low-MCAS AND/OR Participation of 90-94%

Level 3: Among the lowest 20th percentile by school type or subgroupParticipation rate below 90%

7

2014 School PPI and Accountability Level for Melrose High School

8

Annual PPI (target is 75) •92 for all groups•85 for High NeedsACCOUNTABILITY•Level 1NOTES•Meeting gap narrowing goals •97% MCAS Participation

2014 MCAS ResultsSubject & Grade % Advanced &

Proficient% Needs Improvement % Warning

ELA – grade 10 98 2 0

MATH – grade 10 86 12 1

SCIENCE – grade 9 84 15 1

9

2011-2014 % of Advanced and Proficient

10

2011 2012 2013 2014

Adv. Prof. Adv. Prof. Adv. Prof. Adv. Prof.

ELAGr. 10

41 48 43 51 57 38 59 39

MathGr. 10

50 29 52 31 61 27 59 27

ScienceGr. 9

16 44 19 46 26 38 33 51

English Language Arts History of % Scored at Advanced & Proficient Levels

Gr. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

10 77 76 81 85 88 94 89 89 94 95 98

8 86 88 86 85 83 85 88 86 90

7 81 79 81 83 80 83 79 85 80 82 83

6 80 77 74 72 83 76 81 76 73

5 71 78 71 71 75 78 75 79 83

4 68 58 53 65 59 63 57 64 68 65 69

3 77 70 68 67 70 66 74 73 79 77 76

All 75 76 77 77 80 79 81

11

Math History of %Scored at Advanced & Proficient Levels

Gr. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

10 64 65 73 85 81 81 82 79 83 88 86

8 40 63 53 55 58 53 52 60 64 65 61

7 49 57 51 43 56 61 52 55 57

6 48 58 56 61 57 61 71 65 66 65 65

5 54 48 55 64 65 71 71 73 74

4 48 51 34 57 56 57 50 56 59 63 67

3 58 75 74 70 75 71 71 83 84

ALL 54 61 60 60 63 65 65 68 69

12

Grade 3-5 and ALL are district results; Grades 6-10 are school results.

Science and Technology/Engineering History of %Scored at Advanced & Proficient Levels

Gr. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

10 63 70 70 60 65 64 84

8 33 45 52 43 40 51 53 52 51

5 59 56 56 61 65 63 66 60 64

All 57 57 61 58 65

13

% of Students Achieving Advanced or Proficient in by Subgroup

ELA Gr. 10

MathGr. 10

ScienceGr. 9

All 98 86 84

High Needs 94 65 63

Students w/ disabilities

88 42 42

Low Income 100 78 73

African American

100 77 75

Subgroups with a gap to Proficiency of 20+ percentage points.

14

DESE Growth Percentile Ranges

<20th Percentile Very Low Growth

20th-40th Percentile Low Growth

40th-60th Percentile Typical Growth

60th-80th Percentile High Growth

>80th Percentile Very High Growth

15

English Language Arts Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

16

2011 2012 2013 2014

ELA - All 45.5 47 61 53

High Needs 49 47 56 53

Students w/ disabilities

47 46.5 39.5 50.5

Low Income 49 47 73 60

Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

2011 2012 2013 2014

MATH - All 51.5 52 48 44

High Needs 31.5 52 37.5 53

Students w/ disabilities

48 40 40 64

Low Income 31 64.5 40.5 46.5

17

Composite Performance Index for All Students (CPI)

Subject 2011 2012 2013 2014

ELA 96.2 98.3 98.3 99.4

MATH 92 91.3 94.1 94.8

SCIENCE 84.7 85.4 86.6 94.1

18

English Composite Performance Index(CPI)

2011 2012 2013 2014

English - All 96.2 98.3 98.3 99.4

High Needs 89.9 94.4 93.3 98.2

Students w/ disabilities

85.4 89.6 87.1 96.3

Low Income 90.9 99.3 97.1 100

19

Math Composite Performance Index(CPI)

2011 2012 2013 2014

MATH - All 92 91.3 94.1 94.8

High Needs 78.3 74.6 82.1 86.6

Students w/ disabilities

67 59.7 73.4 76.4

Low Income 79.7 89.6 89.4 93.5

20

Science Composite Performance Index(CPI)

2011 2012 2013 2014

Science - All 84.7 85.4 86.6 94.1

High Needs 68.5 68.9 73.1 84.4

Students w/ disabilities

63 58.3 63 75

Low Income 67.6 76.4 81.4 89.6

21

Next Steps - Grades 9-12 • Expand learning walk-throughs to additional

faculty members to support identification of best practices. Learning walkthroughs are non-evaluative classroom visits by teams of teachers and administrators designed to increase dialogue on instructional practices.

• More frequent observations of teaching of core instructional practices by evaluators.

• Use of common planning time to perform in-depth analysis on the data for specific subgroups.

• Increase access and opportunity for all students, particularly the high needs subgroups, to participate in a standards based curriculum with high expectations.

23

ELA Grades 9-12• Revise and map ELA curriculum 9-12, adding more

rigorous reading materials including challenging nonfiction texts.

• Refine rubrics and practices for use of dialectical journals to stimulate greater depth in student response to text in grades 9-12.

• Effect interdisciplinary planning and assessment collaboration between history/social science and ELA in grades 9-12 to support non-fiction reading and writing in response to text.

• Strengthen writing across content areas particularly for those students with disabilities.

24

Math Grades 9-12

• Increase writing opportunities in math grades 9 -12. Provide professional development and coaching to support integration of writing on a daily basis.

• Develop and implement brief formal assessments in math grades 9 &10 to gather more frequent feedback on students’ progress towards standards and prepare students for PARCC.

25

Science Grades 9-12 • Increase the number of inquiry labs in grades 9-12.• Increase student retention of material through the use of

accountable talk and responding to informational literacy pieces.

• Modify assessments to incorporate review items and test items with a higher depth of knowledge to reflect anticipated changes to STE MCAS.

• Analyze insufficient progress of specific subgroups and create action plans to address needs.

26