mursd 2012 mcas results & accountability status

Mendon-Upton Regional Mendon-Upton Regional SchoolsSchools

2012 MCAS Results &Accountability Status

Presentation to the Mendon-Upton Regional School

CommitteeOctober 15, 2012

First, a few terms related to MCAS results and accountability data…

3

The CPI is:

• a metric that is used to measure school and district performance and improvement;

• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt.

MCAS Performance Level Scaled Score Range

OR

MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per Student

Proficient or Advanced 240 – 280 Progressing 100

Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 Emerging 75

Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 Awareness 50

Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25

Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0

Composite Performance Index (CPI)

4

Composite Performance Index (CPI)

Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below)

MCAS Performance Level MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics

Points Per Student # Students Points

Proficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200

Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375

Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350

Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100

Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not Submitted 0 2 0

Totals 90 students 7025 Points

7025 ÷ 90 = 78.1

Student Growth Percentile Student Growth Percentile (SGP)(SGP)A metric that determines how much a

student has grown in one year relative to his academic peers across the state (i.e., students that scored the same exact score in the previous year’s MCAS)

SGP is a percentile: 1 to 100Example: If a student has a SGP of 72,

he/she scored better than 72% of his/her academic peers that year

For schools/districts, SGP is reported as median SGP. Typical growth is 40-60

English Language ArtsEnglish Language Arts District MCAS Results District MCAS Results

3rd Grade ELA -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012

District State District State District State District State

CPI 89.1 82.6 93.2 85.8 89.8 83.9 89.1 84.1

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

For 2012, n=204 students

3rd Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State

% of students proficient or higher

3rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012

School State School State School State School State

CPI 89.1 82.6 92.6 85.8 91.5 83.9 88.3 84.1

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State


3rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 89.3 82.6 94.7 85.8 87.5 83.9 90.7 84.1

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State


4rd Grade ELA -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 85.0 79.9 88.5 80.1 86.3 79.4 88.4 80.0

Median SGP

41.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 51.0 46.0 50.0


4th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State


4rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 83.0 79.9 88.9 80.1 84.3 79.4 87.2 80.0

Median SGP

41.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 43.0 51.0 48.5 50.0


4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, & State


4rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 86.5 79.9 89.3 80.1 88.9 79.4 89.4 80.0

Median SGP

41.0 50.0 63.0 50.0 45.5 51.0 46.0 50.0


4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District, & State


5th Grade ELA -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 92.0 85.7 92.1 84.2 95.0 86.0 88.2 82.5

Median SGP

58.5 50.0 56.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 46.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 94.2 85.7 92.5 86.8 94.0 86.6 90.4 84.8

Median SGP

59.0 50.0 53.0 50.0 43.5 50.0 42.0 50.0

For 2012, n=201students


2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 91.82 88.1 94.0 88.6 93.2 89.5 94.5 88.1

Median SGP

43.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 54.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 96.5 91.1 95.7 90.4 96.3 91.1 95.5 91.8

Median SGP

57.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 98.3 92.2 98.7 91.1 98.8 93.9 98.6 95.8

Median SGP

72.0 50.0 65.0 50.0 72.0 50.0 63.0 50.0


ALL Grades ELA -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 92.4 86.5 93.5 86.9 93.1 87.2 91.9 86.7

Median SGP

54.0 50.0 56.5 50.0 52.0 50.0 49.0 50.0

For 2012, n=1,447 students

ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State


MathematicsMathematics District MCAS Results District MCAS Results

3rd Grade Math -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 86.8 81.4 92.7 83.8 87.9 84.7 86.5 80.9

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


3rd Grade Math: MURSD vs. State


3rd Grade Math -Clough Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 87.5 81.4 92.4 83.8 88.2 84.7 86.2 80.9

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, & State


3rd Grade Math -Memorial Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 87.6 81.4 93.6 83.8 87.9 84.7 87.5 80.9

Median SGP

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State


4th Grade Math -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 82.6 78.5 83.6 78.7 83.3 78.4 85.0 79.2

Median SGP

48.0 50.0 47.0 49.0 42.0 50.0 49.0 50.0


4th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State


4th Grade Math -Clough Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 82.1 78.5 82.1 78.7 83.3 78.4 87.5 79.2

Median SGP

49.0 50.0 44.0 50.0 43.0 50.0 60.0 50.0


4th Grade Math: Clough, District, & State


4th Grade Math -Memorial Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 83.0 78.5 85.7 78.7 84.1 78.4 82.7 79.2

Median SGP

47.5 50.0 48.5 50.0 39.0 50.0 43.0 50.0


4th Grade Math: Memorial, District, & State



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 83.2 77.0 84.5 77.4 87.9 79.8 80.6 78.4

Median SGP

57.0 50.0 46.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 37.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 84.5 78.2 83.0 79.7 86.1 79.6 87.9 80.5

Median SGP

58.0 50.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 53.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 78.4 73.8 86.4 76.1 73.3 73.8 86.4 75.4

Median SGP

64.0 50.0 66.0 50.0 41.0 50.0 67.5 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 80.7 72.8 83.3 74.8 85.1 74.2 80.7 75.5

Median SGP

60.0 50.0 62.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 58.0 50.0



2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 94.8 88.1 96.7 88.8 96.4 89.4 94.9 90.0

Median SGP

72.0 50.0 74.0 50.0 69.5 50.0 65.5 50.0


ALL Grades Math -District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 84.2 78.5 87.0 79.9 85.4 79.9 85.9 79.9

Median SGP

59.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 52.0 50.0 55.0 50.0

For 2012, n=1,443 students

ALL Grades Math: MURSD vs. State


Science, Technology & Science, Technology & EngineeringEngineering District MCAS Results District MCAS Results

5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 84.5 77.7 88.9 79.7 89.3 77.0 87.5 77.8


5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State


8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 81.9 70.2 81.2 71.0 78.4 70.3 84.4 71.6


8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. : MURSD vs. State


10th Grade Biology –District Performance

2009 2010 2011 2012


CPI 95.2 80.8 97.2 82.1 97.3 86.4


10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State


Massachusetts’ Massachusetts’ New Accountability New Accountability System System for Schools for Schools

What did NCLB require?What did NCLB require?100% proficiency in ELA & math by

2013–14

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for all schools & districts

Schools & districts identified for improvement, corrective action, & restructuring

Massachusetts NCLB Massachusetts NCLB WaiverWaiverInstead of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

reporting, Massachusetts will report district and school progress toward college and career readiness and reducing proficiency gaps through the use of a new 100-point Progress and Performance Index (PPI).

An enhanced focus on subgroup performance by identifying schools with the largest proficiency gaps for individual subgroups, including a new “high needs” subgroup (Sp.Ed. + poverty + ELL), and by reducing the minimum group size for accountability determinations from 40 to 30 students.

Indicators for PPIIndicators for PPIThe PPI is a number between 0-100

that is comprised of seven core indicators.

For each indicator, a district, school, or subgroup earns points based on the progress made by the group from one year to the next: 100 (Above Target), 75 (On Target), 50 (Improved Below Target), 25 (No Change), or 0 points (Declined).

PPI CalculationPPI CalculationCore Indicators (Up to 7) Points Available

ELA Achievement (CPI) 0-100

Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0-100

Science Achievement (CPI) 0-100

ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP)

0-100

Mathematics Growth/Improvement (Median SGP)

0-100

Cohort Graduation Rate 0-100

Annual Dropout Rate 0-100

Maximum Possible Points: 700

PPI Gap HalvingPPI Gap HalvingThe NCLB goal of 100 percent of

students reaching proficiency by the 2013-14 school year has been replaced with the goal of reducing “proficiency gaps” by half. A district, school, or subgroup’s proficiency gap is the distance between the group’s 2011 CPI proficiency and a CPI of 100.

Cumulative PPI Cumulative PPI CalculationCalculation

Year Annual PPI Multiplier Points 2012 90 4 360

2011 80 3 240

2010 60 2 120

2009 70 1 70

Total Points: 790 Cumulative PPI (Total Divided by Number of Multipliers): 79

PPI Gap Halving

New Accountability Levels New Accountability Levels for Schools & Districtsfor Schools & Districts

Level 1: On track to meet all goalsLevel 2: Still working to meet all goalsLevel 3: Focus: Some overall or

subgroup scores are in the lowest state range

Level 4: Priority: Lowest performing schools

Level 5: Priority: Chronically underperforming schools

Graduation & DropoutGraduation & Dropout

All districts, schools, and subgroups will be expected to halve the gap between their annual dropout rate, if one exists, and a rate of zero percent by the 2016-17 school year.

All districts, schools, and subgroups are expected to make steady progress toward a graduation rate goal of 90 percent for the four-year rate or 95 percent for the five-year rate by the 2016-17 school year.

Extra creditExtra creditDistricts, schools, and groups can

earn extra credit by reducing the percentage of students scoring Warning/Failing or by increasing the percentage of students scoring Advanced on MCAS tests in ELA, mathematics, and/or science. For each extra credit indicator earned, the group is awarded 25 additional points.

MURSD District PPIMURSD District PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 75 75 25Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 75 25 75ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 75 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100

CPI, SGP & HS indicators 550 525 425 475Extra credit 125 100 25 50

Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 96 89 64 75

Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77

PPI Overall Data: MURSDPPI Overall Data: MURSDStudent Group Clough Memorial Miscoe Nipmuc DistrictAll students 77 49 83 99 77High needs 72 73 Low income 75 81ELL and Former ELL Students w/disabilities 61 62Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat. Asian Afr. Amer./Black Hispanic/Latino Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat. Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl. White 74 52 87 100 78 Relative State Percentile 57th 60th 75th 89th N/ALevel Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2

Comparison to Neighboring Comparison to Neighboring DistrictsDistricts

DistrictAll Students

PPIHigh Need

Students PPI Classification

Bellingham 55 49 Level 2

Bckstn-Millville 76 63 Level 2

Douglas 67 56 Level 2

Grafton 73 51 Level 2

Hopedale 72 68 Level 2

Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2

Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2

Milford 76 72 Level 2

Northbridge 55 45 Level 3

Sutton 59 57 Level 2

Uxbridge 56 49 Level 2

Comparison to like districts Comparison to like districts (DART)(DART)

DistrictAll Students

PPIHigh Need Students

PPI ClassificationGroton-Dunstable 95 69 Level 2Hanover 78 61 Level 2Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2Ipswich 69 54 Level 2Lynnfield 88 84 Level 2Marblehead 79 62 Level 2Medfield 95 62 Level 2Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2Nashoba 80 72 Level 2Rockland 68 65 Level 3Scituate 83 75 Level 2Tyngsborough 75 73 Level 2

Clough PPI (All Students)Clough PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 100 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 25 75 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 50 100Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate



Met Target

Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77

Memorial PPI (All Memorial PPI (All Students)Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012

ELA Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 75Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 25Science Achievement (CPI) ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 75Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 25 50Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate



Did Not Meet Target

Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 49

Miscoe PPI (All Students)Miscoe PPI (All Students)Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 0Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75Science Achievement (CPI) 75 50 75 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate



Met Target

Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 83

Nipmuc PPINipmuc PPICore Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 25Science Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 100 75Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100



Met Target

Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 99

What Does the Data Tell Us?Over the past four years, some grades

and subgroups are showing progress in ELA and math MCAS, while others are static or declining

Our high needs subgroup scores are lower than the aggregate- the major driver is the results of our special education students

The PPI is a complex metric, and the three Level 2 schools each had a different reason for the designation

Next StepsAll schools, grade levels, and content

areas will analyze the disaggregrated data in detail

We need to monitor the effective implementation of the curriculum (e.g., Open Court Reading Program and Math Investigations) to ensure fidelity to the scope and sequence

We must be looking forward to alignment of curriculum to the Common Core Standards, as the PARRC Assessment will commence in 2014-15

More Next StepsWe must research, develop, and

implement alternative service delivery models to better meet the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs of special education students Grades K-12

Targeted investments needed in the areas of:

Professional developmentCurriculum developmentLiteracy/mathematics support

Questions?

mursd 2012 mcas results & accountability status

Education