| |||||||
|
Showing posts with label MCAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MCAS. Show all posts
Monday, March 18, 2013
MCAS Postponed
Sunday, March 3, 2013
"as challenging as it is rewarding"
Joyce Edwards, Director of Instructional Services for the Franklin Public Schools, is quoted in the Milford Daily News article on the new PARCC test that will replace the MCAS test.
What is PARCC? PARCC is Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.
What is the difference between the MCAS and PARCC?
While the current MCAS science test will remain, the other subject areas will move to the new PARCC test.
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x898141577/New-tests-for-Massachusetts-students-on-the-horizon#ixzz2MTYqd24v
For more information on the collaboration of the 24 states visit http://www.achieve.org/parcc/
For information from the MA Dept of Elementary and Secondary Education visit http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/parcc/
What is PARCC? PARCC is Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.
What is the difference between the MCAS and PARCC?
The MCAS —influenced by the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, whose creation followed the passing of the Education Reform Act of 1993 — has consistently tested for a collection of skills that educators expect students to learn during their elementary and secondary schooling.
However, PARCC’s goal has been to use benchmarks that will accurately predict students’ chances of excelling beyond high school, should they choose to attend a four-year institution or dive into the workforce.
"The MCAS was not developed to look ahead and signal whether or not students are ready for success after high school," said Massachusetts Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester. "This assessment is very deliberately asking that question . . ."
While the current MCAS science test will remain, the other subject areas will move to the new PARCC test.
Bolduc added, "They are taking the MCAS and putting it on steroids."
With two versions of the test given in one school year — though districts will have the option to administer up to four versions in a year — teachers will get initial feedback from a late year test before the comprehensive final exam, providing them with, as Edwards put it, "just in time intervention."
To prepare for PARCC testing, districts have to make sure they have the infrastructure to administer the test (for those that do not, the state will offer a pencil and pen version) and continue fusing their curriculum with the Common Core.When you read "the infrastructure required" what they really mean to say is the computer systems the student will used to take the test.
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x898141577/New-tests-for-Massachusetts-students-on-the-horizon#ixzz2MTYqd24v
For more information on the collaboration of the 24 states visit http://www.achieve.org/parcc/
For information from the MA Dept of Elementary and Secondary Education visit http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/parcc/
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
"It’s a mammoth undertaking"
The MCAS data for Franklin was discussed at the School Committee meeting on Tuesday.
Read more: http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x719498853/Franklin-School-Committee-reviews-MCAS-data#ixzz2DVpzAecG
Related posts
The MCAS presentation
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-public-schools-mcas.html
The School Committee agenda and links to associated documents
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
Still, the school district faces the daunting task of aligning to the new state standards for math and English, which will challenge both students and teachers, Edwards told the School Committee during its meeting on Tuesday night.
In a broad overview of Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test data from the district, Edwards discussed many of the changes and methods the school has adopted to reduce some of the proficiency gaps apparent in the scores.
English scores have been consistently better than math scores, Edwards said. To address this trend, teachers and specialists have this year met with students needing extra math help for small group tutoring sessions.
Read more: http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x719498853/Franklin-School-Committee-reviews-MCAS-data#ixzz2DVpzAecG
Related posts
The MCAS presentation
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-public-schools-mcas.html
The School Committee agenda and links to associated documents
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Franklin Public Schools: MCAS Presentation
The PowerPoint presentation on the MCAS Report as scheduled for discussion at the School Committee meeting Tuesday evening is shown here:
The full agenda for the School Committee meeting including links to other documents being used can be found here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
The full agenda for the School Committee meeting including links to other documents being used can be found here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Franklin Public Schools: MCAS Report 2012
The MCAS Report for 2012 for the Franklin Public Schools. This is scheduled for discussion at the School Committee meeting on Tuesday, Nov 27th.
MCAS 2012
The full agenda for the School Committee meeting can be found here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
MCAS 2012
The full agenda for the School Committee meeting can be found here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/11/franklin-ma-school-committee-agenda-nov.html
Sunday, October 7, 2012
New teacher evaluation system based upon MCAS data
The MetroWest Daily News reports on the use of MCAS results for teacher evaluations.
Read more of the MetroWest article here: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x21086594/Schools-will-use-MCAS-data-for-teacher-evaluations#ixzz28bwBAGdl
As an example of how the MCAS data is used by Franklin, the School Improvement Plans (SIP) for the three middle schools are scheduled for discussion at the School Committee meeting on Tuesday, Oct 9. The High School plan was reviewed on Sep 25 and the elementary plans will be review at an upcoming meeting.
The Franklin High School SIP
Presentation Document
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/franklin-high-school-update-to-school.html
SIP Document
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/franklin-high-school-improvement-plan.html
The Middle school plans
Horace Mann
Remington
Annie Sullivan
"In Massachusetts, it’s required that teachers be evaluated. Accordingly, we are making it possible for evaluators to access the ratings of educators for which they are responsible to evaluate. So an evaluator can access student growth scores and a teacher’s score in the Data Warehouse," Considine said. "An educator’s rating is considered part of his or her personnel record and will not be subject to disclosure."
Districts that chose not to join Race to the Top – including Milford, Franklin, Hopkinton, Lincoln-Sudbury, Hopedale, Wayland and Holliston – will be required to implement the teacher evaluations by the start of the 2013-14 school year.Later in the article
Franklin Public Schools won’t use the state’s evaluation system until next year, either, but Joyce Edwards, director of instructional services, said Data Warehouse is routinely used by the district to look at everything from growth percentiles for certain students, to specific questions from the MCAS test.
Read more of the MetroWest article here: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x21086594/Schools-will-use-MCAS-data-for-teacher-evaluations#ixzz28bwBAGdl
As an example of how the MCAS data is used by Franklin, the School Improvement Plans (SIP) for the three middle schools are scheduled for discussion at the School Committee meeting on Tuesday, Oct 9. The High School plan was reviewed on Sep 25 and the elementary plans will be review at an upcoming meeting.
The Franklin High School SIP
Presentation Document
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/franklin-high-school-update-to-school.html
SIP Document
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/franklin-high-school-improvement-plan.html
The Middle school plans
Horace Mann
Remington
Annie Sullivan
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Mixed results in region on latest MCAS
From the Spring 2012 MCAS Tests: Summary of State Results:
Executive Summary
The fifteenth administration of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests took
place in spring 2012.
Participation
A total of 552,549 Massachusetts public school students in grades 3–10 participated in a total of 17
MCAS tests in English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science and Technology/Engineering
(STE). Participation rates remained very high, ranging from 98 to 100 percent across the grades and
subjects tested. In 2012, 9,457 students with disabilities participated in the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt) by submitting portfolios documenting their academic achievement in one or more subjects in grades 3–12.
Overall Achievement
Student achievement statewide improved on nine of the 17 MCAS tests administered in 2012. Between
2011 and 2012, the percentage of students scoring Proficient or higher improved in ELA at grades 4, 8,
and 10; in Mathematics at grades 4, 6, and 10; and in STE at grades 5, 8, and 10.
Trends in Achievement
Because measures of student achievement often change incrementally over short periods of time, the
Department is presenting a series of five-year views in this report in order to reveal achievement trends
that have occurred over multiple years. Over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, an increase of five
or more percentage points indicates improvement that has been sustained. The grades and subject areas in
which the percentage of students scoring Proficient or higher increased by five or more points over the
last five years are shown in Figure E-1.
The full report (PDF) can be found here
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2012/results/summary.pdf
The detailed information for the Franklin Public School District can be found here
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=01010000&orgtypecode=5&
From this link, you can select among the Franklin schools including Tri-County and the Charter School.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/search/search.aspx?leftNavId=
The number of students scoring proficient or higher on the 2012 MCAS went down in Framingham and Marlborough and up in Hopkinton and Southborough, according to district- and school-level results released by the state today.
Executive Summary
The fifteenth administration of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests took
place in spring 2012.
Participation
A total of 552,549 Massachusetts public school students in grades 3–10 participated in a total of 17
MCAS tests in English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science and Technology/Engineering
(STE). Participation rates remained very high, ranging from 98 to 100 percent across the grades and
subjects tested. In 2012, 9,457 students with disabilities participated in the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt) by submitting portfolios documenting their academic achievement in one or more subjects in grades 3–12.
Overall Achievement
Student achievement statewide improved on nine of the 17 MCAS tests administered in 2012. Between
2011 and 2012, the percentage of students scoring Proficient or higher improved in ELA at grades 4, 8,
and 10; in Mathematics at grades 4, 6, and 10; and in STE at grades 5, 8, and 10.
Trends in Achievement
Because measures of student achievement often change incrementally over short periods of time, the
Department is presenting a series of five-year views in this report in order to reveal achievement trends
that have occurred over multiple years. Over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, an increase of five
or more percentage points indicates improvement that has been sustained. The grades and subject areas in
which the percentage of students scoring Proficient or higher increased by five or more points over the
last five years are shown in Figure E-1.
The full report (PDF) can be found here
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2012/results/summary.pdf
The detailed information for the Franklin Public School District can be found here
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=01010000&orgtypecode=5&
From this link, you can select among the Franklin schools including Tri-County and the Charter School.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/search/search.aspx?leftNavId=
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via The Milford Daily News News RSS by Scott O'Connell/Daily News staff on 9/19/12
The number of students scoring proficient or higher on the 2012 MCAS went down in Framingham and Marlborough and up in Hopkinton and Southborough, according to district- and school-level results released by the state today.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to The Milford Daily News News RSS using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
"It drives what we do"
The School Committee meeting Tuesday evening is partially covered in this article in the Milford Daily News. The District Improvement Plan was presented (as detailed) but there were other items on the agenda.
I did have the opportunity to work on the Strategic Planning Committee when the current vision and mission statements were developed. To see this latest iteration of the district plan build upon what was started then is heartening. The evolution of the planning process itself is good to see. No longer are we viewing multi-year plans, the plan will focus on a year at a time. Certain themes will carry from one year to another but they'll be able to re-focus to address the latest issues within that theme.
That the MCAS scores reflect only 20% of what goes on in the schools was one of the key reasons for this change in the planning approach.
On the Parmenter modular units:
Essentially as these are the last of the leased units, the Town is dependent upon the contractor to remove them. Work was underway on Tuesday. They removed the cooling units from the roof of the modulars. They are scheduled to be removed from Parmenter by Friday. These delays will not be see in the removal of the other modular units as those are owned by Franklin and the DPW will control that schedule.
While there are population shifts from school to school, the district does not have a committee looking at redistricting until after the modular units are removed and the work on renovating Davis Thayer is complete. Both of these items will clarify the picture on what space is available and where the population exists within Franklin.
Read more: http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x1803414278/Franklin-schools-improvement-plan-focuses-on-achievement-rather-than-test-scores#ixzz26FJRUcJx
For reporting on the complete agenda of Tuesday's School Committee meeting, you can find the link here:
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/school-committee-091112.html
I did have the opportunity to work on the Strategic Planning Committee when the current vision and mission statements were developed. To see this latest iteration of the district plan build upon what was started then is heartening. The evolution of the planning process itself is good to see. No longer are we viewing multi-year plans, the plan will focus on a year at a time. Certain themes will carry from one year to another but they'll be able to re-focus to address the latest issues within that theme.
That the MCAS scores reflect only 20% of what goes on in the schools was one of the key reasons for this change in the planning approach.
"We wanted to take a step back," said Superintendent Maureen Sabolinski. "In the past, it has been really about our MCAS data; we decided to take a global perspective. We decided to look at a wide range of data … to articulate where we are going as a district."
Part of this ideological shift stems from school officials wanting to spur success in all subjects, in math classes as much as art classes, as opposed to only those covered by the exam itself.
Broadly, the core values in the plan include fostering the right academic climate, nurturing civic leadership and accepting more feedback from the community.
On the Parmenter modular units:
Essentially as these are the last of the leased units, the Town is dependent upon the contractor to remove them. Work was underway on Tuesday. They removed the cooling units from the roof of the modulars. They are scheduled to be removed from Parmenter by Friday. These delays will not be see in the removal of the other modular units as those are owned by Franklin and the DPW will control that schedule.
While there are population shifts from school to school, the district does not have a committee looking at redistricting until after the modular units are removed and the work on renovating Davis Thayer is complete. Both of these items will clarify the picture on what space is available and where the population exists within Franklin.
Read more: http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x1803414278/Franklin-schools-improvement-plan-focuses-on-achievement-rather-than-test-scores#ixzz26FJRUcJx
For reporting on the complete agenda of Tuesday's School Committee meeting, you can find the link here:
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/09/school-committee-091112.html
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
School Committee: MCAS documents
These two documents will be part of the School Committee meeting discussion on the recent MCAS testing results.
Report:
MCAS SC Report 2011
Presentation:
SC MCAS 2011
Report:
MCAS SC Report 2011
Presentation:
SC MCAS 2011
Friday, November 26, 2010
FM #78 - MCAS 2010 - Franklin, MA
This is #78 in the series of internet radio shows or podcast for Franklin Matters.
This podcast is linked to the presentation made by the District Leadership Team at the Franklin, MA School Committee meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 to create a slidecast.
The agenda item is introduced by School Committee Chair, Jeff Roy. The group presenting is introduced by Michelle Kingsland-Smith. Several members of the Leadership Team take part in the presentation and they announce themselves as they begin each section.
At the end of the presentation (about 50 mins), there is a Q&A section (approx 22 mins) with the School Committee. To help you listen and follow along, I have duplicated each slide that was the subject of the question as it was asked. Hence, the overall presentation document is longer than the original which can also be found online at the link included.
I'll concur with the comments about the quality of the presentation, this is one of the better ones I have seen. The data is clear, well organized and while it does raise some questions (deliberately in some cases), answers to the questions were well prepared for.
As I close this session this week, let me remind you that
Thank you for listening!
The music for the intro and exit was provided by Michael Clark and the group "East of Shirley". The piece is titled "Ernesto, manana" c. Michael Clark and Tintype Tunes, 2008 and used with their permission
I hope you enjoy!
Note: email subscribers will need to click through to Franklin Matters to view this slidecast.
The presentation as reported on live during the meeting:
The original copy of the presentation:
http://franklinmatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/franklin-ma-mcas-2010-presentation.html
Franklin, MA
This podcast is linked to the presentation made by the District Leadership Team at the Franklin, MA School Committee meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 to create a slidecast.
The agenda item is introduced by School Committee Chair, Jeff Roy. The group presenting is introduced by Michelle Kingsland-Smith. Several members of the Leadership Team take part in the presentation and they announce themselves as they begin each section.
At the end of the presentation (about 50 mins), there is a Q&A section (approx 22 mins) with the School Committee. To help you listen and follow along, I have duplicated each slide that was the subject of the question as it was asked. Hence, the overall presentation document is longer than the original which can also be found online at the link included.
I'll concur with the comments about the quality of the presentation, this is one of the better ones I have seen. The data is clear, well organized and while it does raise some questions (deliberately in some cases), answers to the questions were well prepared for.
As I close this session this week, let me remind you that
- If you like what I am doing here, please tell your friends and neighbors
- If you don’t like something, please tell me
Thank you for listening!
The music for the intro and exit was provided by Michael Clark and the group "East of Shirley". The piece is titled "Ernesto, manana" c. Michael Clark and Tintype Tunes, 2008 and used with their permission
I hope you enjoy!
Note: email subscribers will need to click through to Franklin Matters to view this slidecast.
The presentation as reported on live during the meeting:
The original copy of the presentation:
http://franklinmatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/franklin-ma-mcas-2010-presentation.html
Franklin, MA
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Live reporting - MCAS - part 3 - Q&A
Closing comments on the presentation itself:
27.5% percent of the graduating class earned the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship
Literacy work in the district makes a difference
Data analysis has doubled, so folks are getting the data to use and improve instruction and curriculum
Concern with increasing class size puts greater pressure on the special ed and low income students
MCAS is a moving target which in and f itself makes it hard to continue to perform
Core standards are in their final changes, the 2011 MCAS tests will reflect the current core standards
during 2012, the tests will be a hybrid of new standard and old standards
in 2013 the tests will be fully against material in the updated core standards
Cafasso - What happened in 2009 to cause the trough? (see slide 9 - Math subgroups Franklin to State Comparison)
Michele Kingsland-Smith - the 8th grade test is the hardest test they will take, as well as changes in the District which affected the instruction
Cafasso - I don't understand the growth slide, can you take a number
Kingsland-Smith - Better to see at an individual level, it measures the amount of growth for that performance in comparison to the other students. You may have had the same grade but you achieved your grade by growing more from the prior year than someone else.
Cafasso - you are highly efficient and we need to convince folks to continue to invest in this efficiency
Roy - Slide 13
Steve Sherlock - provided the analogy of the crew team, both finish in a tie, one had started out and got a big lead. the other team increased the rate of the strokes to finish in the tie. Hence the second team had a greater rate of strokes like the greater growth they are talking about.
A great presentation
Me: I concur, this is one of the better presentations I have seen, it makes sense.
Franklin, MA
27.5% percent of the graduating class earned the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship
Literacy work in the district makes a difference
Data analysis has doubled, so folks are getting the data to use and improve instruction and curriculum
Concern with increasing class size puts greater pressure on the special ed and low income students
MCAS is a moving target which in and f itself makes it hard to continue to perform
Core standards are in their final changes, the 2011 MCAS tests will reflect the current core standards
during 2012, the tests will be a hybrid of new standard and old standards
in 2013 the tests will be fully against material in the updated core standards
Cafasso - What happened in 2009 to cause the trough? (see slide 9 - Math subgroups Franklin to State Comparison)
Michele Kingsland-Smith - the 8th grade test is the hardest test they will take, as well as changes in the District which affected the instruction
Cafasso - I don't understand the growth slide, can you take a number
Kingsland-Smith - Better to see at an individual level, it measures the amount of growth for that performance in comparison to the other students. You may have had the same grade but you achieved your grade by growing more from the prior year than someone else.
Cafasso - you are highly efficient and we need to convince folks to continue to invest in this efficiency
Roy - Slide 13
Steve Sherlock - provided the analogy of the crew team, both finish in a tie, one had started out and got a big lead. the other team increased the rate of the strokes to finish in the tie. Hence the second team had a greater rate of strokes like the greater growth they are talking about.
A great presentation
Me: I concur, this is one of the better presentations I have seen, it makes sense.
Franklin, MA
Live reporting - MCAS - part 2
2. Guests/Presentations (continued)
b. MCAS Presentation – District Leadership Team
Sharon Jackson, computer teacher @ HMMS
Eileen Belastock, Math Dept. Chair @ FHS
Lucas Giguere, Assistant Principal @ ASMS
Margaret Miller, Head Teacher/Math CET @ DT
RuthAnn McHugh, Head Teacher/Math CET @ Keller
The presentation itself can be found here
Slide 11
New growth measure introduced to districts in 2009 that will enhance districts’ ability to analyze MCAS data to inform instruction, and make programmatic and curricular decisions.
Scale of 1-100, student growth percentiles (SGP’s) are calculated using two or more years of consecutive MCAS data.
Growth is measured by comparing changes in MCAS performance from one year to the next with that of “academic peers” (individual student, school, district).
Academic peers - students in state with same MCAS performance history
Takes into account the test t (Math or ELA) & increasingly more difficult/complex grade level learning standards.
Not calculated on Grade 3 tests as this grade represents the first year in the test administration cycle.
Not calculated for Science/Technology or Biology tests as two consecutive years are needed
Commissioner of Education in his September 10, 2010 memo to Massachusetts Educators,
“In simple terms, students earning high growth percentiles answered more questions correctly on the spring 2010 MCAS test than did their academic peers;
conversely, students earning low growth percentiles answered fewer questions correctly than their academic peers.”
Slide 12
Graphic represents a Growth Bar Graph – identifies % of students who performed within each of the growth percentiles from yellow (Very Low) to dark green (Very High)
The goal is for all students fall within the Moderate to Very High Growth percentiles (40-100%) on ELA and Math MCAS tests
This graphic represents all Franklin students in ALL grades who took the ELA MCAS tests.
62% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS Tests
42% demonstrated High/Very High Growth on ELA tests
37% demonstrated Low Growth on these tests
CPI Performance on ELA 94.0 Very High
Slide 13
This graphic represents ALL Franklin students in EACH grade who took the ELA MCAS tests.
In grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at least 60% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS Tests
Gr 4 - 73% M to VH
Gr 5 – 68% M to VH
Gr 6 – 60% M to VH
Gr 7 – 63% M to VH
Gr 8 – 61% M to VH
51% of Gr 10 students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
92% of Gr 10 students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Slide 14
This graphic represents all Franklin students in ALL grades who took the Math MCAS tests.
60% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS Tests
38% demonstrated High/Very High Growth on Math tests
39% demonstrated Low Growth on these tests
CPI Performance in Mathematics – 89.9 almost Very High
Slide 15
This graphic represents ALL Franklin students in EACH grade who took the Math MCAS tests.
In grades 4, 5, 7,8 and 10 at least 50% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS Tests
Gr 4 - 74% M to VH
Gr 5 – 69% M to VH
Gr 7 – 63% M to VH
Gr 8 – 56% M to VH
Gr 10 – 53% M to VH
45% of Gr 6 students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
78% of Gr 6 students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Slide 17
This graphic represents our Student Growth distribution for our Low Income and SPED students in ALL grades in English Language Arts
Low Income Student Growth
54% of all Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
65% of non-Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High growth on the same tests
36% LI students demonstrated High to Very High growth in ELA as compared to 44% non-LI students
10% more Low Income students demonstrated Low Growth on the ELA tests than non-Low Income students
Students in this subgroups demonstrated High performance with a CPI of 82.9
57% of Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels vs 87% of non-Low Income students
Special Education Student Growth
54% of all Sped students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
34% of Sped students demonstrated High to Very High growth on ELA tests
45% of Sped students demonstrated Low Growth on the ELA MCAS tests
43% of Franklin Sped students performed at Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Data was unavailable for the team to compare Sped with Non-Sped Student Growth Percentiles. This data will be included in the MCAS Report to School Committee.
Slide 18
This graphic represents our Student Growth distribution for our Low Income and SPED students in ALL grades in Mathematics
Low Income Student Growth
In Mathematics, students in the Low Income Subgroup demonstrated similar growth patterns as non-Low Income students
61% of all Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
61% of non-Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High growth on the same tests
36% LI students demonstrated High to Very High growth in Math as compared to 39% non-LI students
39% of Low Income and non-Low income students demonstrated Low Growth on Math tests
45% of Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels vs. 78% of non-Low Income students
While performance is not where we would like it, students are demonstrating growth at a level comparable to their non-subgroup peers.
Special Education Student Growth
62% of all Sped students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
39% of Sped students demonstrated High to Very High growth on Math tests
39% of Sped students demonstrated Low Growth on the Math MCAS tests
30% of Franklin Sped students performed at Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
While we continue to work toward closing the achievement gap, students are demonstrating growth at a level comparable to their non-subgroup peers.
Slide 20
The DESE uses several factors to identify comparable districts in the Commonwealth including student population, town demographics, performance, etc.
Graph identifies the ten towns the state compares with Franklin.
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 6th among the districts for % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%)
1- Wellesley 88%
2-Needham 87%
3-Westwood 86%
4-Andover 85%
5-Chelmsford 84%
Franklin ranked in the top 4 districts for lowest % of students scoring a Warning on Math MCAS tests
Behind Andover, Needham, and Westwood
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin ranked in the top half among the districts for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
1-Andover 81%
2-Westwood 80%
3-Needham 79%
4-Natick-Wellesley 77%
Franklin’s % of students in the Warning performance level was similar to most districts in the comparison
Slide 21
The DLT also compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with districts within the Hockomock League
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 3rd in the Hockomock League (tied with Mansfield) % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%)
1- King Philip 86%
2-Sharon 84%
3 – tie: Franklin/Mansfield 83%
Only 3% of students scored Warning in ELA
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin shared the top rank with Sharon for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
Franklin also shared with Sharon the fewest number of students in the Warning performance level
Slide 22
The District Leadership Team also compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with districts that have similar Per Pupil Expenditures
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 1st in the % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%) with the next highest district performing at 80% (Easton)
The district was tied with Easton for 1st in the lowest % of students scoring a Warning in ELA (3%)
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin also ranked #1 for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
The next closest district, Easton, had 70% of students perform at this level )
Franklin also ranked the lowest for % of students at both the NI (19%) and Warning (6%) performance levels
Bottom Line - Franklin outperforms other districts with similar per pupil expenditures
Slide 23
The DLT finally compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with the top 10 highest performing districts in the state
Performance
In ELA and Mathematics, Franklin ranked 10th of 11 districts in the % of students in Advanced/Proficient students
ELA 83%
Math 75%
Lowest Aggregate Student Growth Percentile (SGP) in Math
Top ½ for Sped SGP in Math
Bottom 3 districts for Aggregate and Sped SGP in ELA
Other Comparisons:
Franklin ranks 10th of the 11 districts
Franklin has the lowest Per Pupil Expenditure
Franklin has the lowest Student Growth Percentile in the Aggregate
Franklin has higher class sizes than high performance districts
Franklin ranks 5th in Professional Development expenditures
Franklin ranks 5th in its per teacher professional development expenditure
Bottom Line – Franklin puts $ were it counts - instruction
Slide 25
ELA Performance
The number of students performing in the Advanced/Proficient categories in ELA increase over time for the class of 2011
Grade 3 – 80%
Grade 10 – 90%
The number of students performing in the Needs Improvement/Warning Categories decreased for this class
Grade 3 – 20%
Grade 10 - 9%
Math Performance
The number of students performing in the Advanced/Proficient categories in Math increase over time for the class of 2011
Grade 4 – 66%
Grade 10 – 87%
The number of students performing in the Needs Improvement/Warning Categories decreased for this class
Grade 4 – 33%
Grade 10 - 13%
Slide 26
John/Abigail Adams Scholarship
114 of 414 high school seniors (September enrollment figures) were awarded the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship based on their Grade 10 MCAS performance. This award represents 27.5% of the senior class. Students qualified for this scholarship by scoring: (a) in the Advanced category in English Language Arts or Mathematics and Advanced or Proficient in the other subject area on the grade 10 MCAS assessments; and, (b) in the top 25% of the students in the district on these tests.
Performance/Growth Improvement
The number of 7th grade students who scored Advanced/Proficient in Math increased from 64% in 2009 to 73% in 2010
The number of 5th grade students who scored Advanced/Proficient in Science increased from 68% in 2009 to 74% in 2010
60% of students in our subgroups demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on Math MCAS Tests – Our Math initiatives are working
54% of students in our subgroups demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on ELA MCAS tests – Literacy work is making a difference.
CPI performances in both subgroups on both tests show slight improvements
Data Analysis
Data Warehouse use doubled in two years ( from 32 to 64 authorized users)
All department chairs, Reading Coaches, Math CET’s, coordinators, Head teachers, etc. are authorized users of Data Warehouse
MCAS and AYP data is analyzed at all levels – classroom, grade level, by discipline, building and district levels
Used to inform instruction, program, curriculum changes and revisions
District Initiatives to improve teaching and learning
Middle school math/sped PD – math co-teaching workshops & math consultant
Literacy & Leadership Teams – set PD goals - common instructional strategies, vocabulary, lab teachers/support & modeling, intensive PD
RtI team – vision and protocols for supporting struggling learners
DLT – analyze data, collect evidence of practice and district progress toward meeting DIP goals, recommendations for new DIP goals
Central Office support to schools in AYP Improvement status
Allocation of ARRA funds to all school to support building AYP/MCAS initiatives
Building Initiatives to improve teaching and learning
Comprehensive data analysis
Use of faculty meetings to address building issues & generate action plans
Instructional improvement plans to address AYP concerns
Revisions to School Improvement Plans
Fall testing to identify at risk students and provide instructional support/interventions
Analysis of end of unit math assessments to inform instruction and identify struggling students
Teacher before/after school study groups to look at student work and problem solve ways to improve student performance
Before and after school clubs, academic support sessions and tutoring
Aligning instructional strategies with student profiles (needs & strengths)
Teaching of test taking skills
Math/Reading support groups (additional academic support during the school day)
Software purchases to provide additional practice of foundational skills
MCAS skills reviews built into daily instruction
Progress monitoring of struggling students & more frequent communications (progress reports) to parents
Individual Student Success Plans K-8 (ISSP’s)
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP’s) at the high school
Participation on DESE Assessment Development Committees
Slide 28
Class size – 24 districts in our comparison studies were contacted
Only 2 districts (Attleboro & Stougton) had larger class sizes at the elementary level
Only 2 districts (Mansfield & Attleboro) had larger class sizes at the middle level
Franklin had the highest class size at the high school
Considering the subgroup AYP concerns & increases in our LEP populations, class size is a considerable factor teachers’ ability to meet the needs of these students.l
Subgroups & AYP
District is working had to narrow the achievement gap & provide additional support before/during/after school for students with disabilities
several factors make this difficult: class size, length of school day, change in AYP target CPI scores every other year
targets will increase for the AYP determinations based on Spring 2011 MCAS test administrations
Increase performance expectations do not take into consideration severity of student disabilities, personnel required to provide adequate support structures
Budget & Instructional materials
No textbook line item in district budget – CI for requests
Ask/Purchase only minimum needed, knowing that other departments have needs as well
Loss of core curriculum teams now requires ELA, math, STE and HSS to cycle through a 5 year cycle with the UA disciplines
Common Core standards in Math & ELA will be vetted through professional groups & finalized this year.
Districts are expected to be prepared to fully implement these frameworks by the fall of 2012. We won’t have teams in place to do this work and meet these expectations
Spring MCAS 2012 – transitional test - will include some Common Core test items
Spring MCAS 2013 – tests will reflect Common Core standards ONLY (1 year transition to revised test)
Middle School Math
While we are making gains – growth percentiles are promising we still need to continue our efforts
Maintain academic support efforts (during and after school)
Tutoring
Math co-teaching model – Special Ed/General Ed initiative – share expertises
Aligning required math content with instructional strategies that complement each student’s learning style and needs.
b. MCAS Presentation – District Leadership Team
Sharon Jackson, computer teacher @ HMMS
Eileen Belastock, Math Dept. Chair @ FHS
Lucas Giguere, Assistant Principal @ ASMS
Margaret Miller, Head Teacher/Math CET @ DT
RuthAnn McHugh, Head Teacher/Math CET @ Keller
The presentation itself can be found here
Slide 11
New growth measure introduced to districts in 2009 that will enhance districts’ ability to analyze MCAS data to inform instruction, and make programmatic and curricular decisions.
Scale of 1-100, student growth percentiles (SGP’s) are calculated using two or more years of consecutive MCAS data.
Growth is measured by comparing changes in MCAS performance from one year to the next with that of “academic peers” (individual student, school, district).
Academic peers - students in state with same MCAS performance history
Takes into account the test t (Math or ELA) & increasingly more difficult/complex grade level learning standards.
Not calculated on Grade 3 tests as this grade represents the first year in the test administration cycle.
Not calculated for Science/Technology or Biology tests as two consecutive years are needed
Commissioner of Education in his September 10, 2010 memo to Massachusetts Educators,
“In simple terms, students earning high growth percentiles answered more questions correctly on the spring 2010 MCAS test than did their academic peers;
conversely, students earning low growth percentiles answered fewer questions correctly than their academic peers.”
Slide 12
Graphic represents a Growth Bar Graph – identifies % of students who performed within each of the growth percentiles from yellow (Very Low) to dark green (Very High)
The goal is for all students fall within the Moderate to Very High Growth percentiles (40-100%) on ELA and Math MCAS tests
This graphic represents all Franklin students in ALL grades who took the ELA MCAS tests.
62% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS Tests
42% demonstrated High/Very High Growth on ELA tests
37% demonstrated Low Growth on these tests
CPI Performance on ELA 94.0 Very High
Slide 13
This graphic represents ALL Franklin students in EACH grade who took the ELA MCAS tests.
In grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at least 60% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS Tests
Gr 4 - 73% M to VH
Gr 5 – 68% M to VH
Gr 6 – 60% M to VH
Gr 7 – 63% M to VH
Gr 8 – 61% M to VH
51% of Gr 10 students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
92% of Gr 10 students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Slide 14
This graphic represents all Franklin students in ALL grades who took the Math MCAS tests.
60% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS Tests
38% demonstrated High/Very High Growth on Math tests
39% demonstrated Low Growth on these tests
CPI Performance in Mathematics – 89.9 almost Very High
Slide 15
This graphic represents ALL Franklin students in EACH grade who took the Math MCAS tests.
In grades 4, 5, 7,8 and 10 at least 50% of all students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS Tests
Gr 4 - 74% M to VH
Gr 5 – 69% M to VH
Gr 7 – 63% M to VH
Gr 8 – 56% M to VH
Gr 10 – 53% M to VH
45% of Gr 6 students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
78% of Gr 6 students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Slide 17
This graphic represents our Student Growth distribution for our Low Income and SPED students in ALL grades in English Language Arts
Low Income Student Growth
54% of all Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
65% of non-Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High growth on the same tests
36% LI students demonstrated High to Very High growth in ELA as compared to 44% non-LI students
10% more Low Income students demonstrated Low Growth on the ELA tests than non-Low Income students
Students in this subgroups demonstrated High performance with a CPI of 82.9
57% of Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels vs 87% of non-Low Income students
Special Education Student Growth
54% of all Sped students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their ELA MCAS tests
34% of Sped students demonstrated High to Very High growth on ELA tests
45% of Sped students demonstrated Low Growth on the ELA MCAS tests
43% of Franklin Sped students performed at Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
Data was unavailable for the team to compare Sped with Non-Sped Student Growth Percentiles. This data will be included in the MCAS Report to School Committee.
Slide 18
This graphic represents our Student Growth distribution for our Low Income and SPED students in ALL grades in Mathematics
Low Income Student Growth
In Mathematics, students in the Low Income Subgroup demonstrated similar growth patterns as non-Low Income students
61% of all Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
61% of non-Low Income students demonstrated Moderate to Very High growth on the same tests
36% LI students demonstrated High to Very High growth in Math as compared to 39% non-LI students
39% of Low Income and non-Low income students demonstrated Low Growth on Math tests
45% of Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient levels vs. 78% of non-Low Income students
While performance is not where we would like it, students are demonstrating growth at a level comparable to their non-subgroup peers.
Special Education Student Growth
62% of all Sped students demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on their Math MCAS tests
39% of Sped students demonstrated High to Very High growth on Math tests
39% of Sped students demonstrated Low Growth on the Math MCAS tests
30% of Franklin Sped students performed at Advanced/Proficient levels on this test
While we continue to work toward closing the achievement gap, students are demonstrating growth at a level comparable to their non-subgroup peers.
Slide 20
The DESE uses several factors to identify comparable districts in the Commonwealth including student population, town demographics, performance, etc.
Graph identifies the ten towns the state compares with Franklin.
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 6th among the districts for % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%)
1- Wellesley 88%
2-Needham 87%
3-Westwood 86%
4-Andover 85%
5-Chelmsford 84%
Franklin ranked in the top 4 districts for lowest % of students scoring a Warning on Math MCAS tests
Behind Andover, Needham, and Westwood
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin ranked in the top half among the districts for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
1-Andover 81%
2-Westwood 80%
3-Needham 79%
4-Natick-Wellesley 77%
Franklin’s % of students in the Warning performance level was similar to most districts in the comparison
Slide 21
The DLT also compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with districts within the Hockomock League
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 3rd in the Hockomock League (tied with Mansfield) % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%)
1- King Philip 86%
2-Sharon 84%
3 – tie: Franklin/Mansfield 83%
Only 3% of students scored Warning in ELA
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin shared the top rank with Sharon for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
Franklin also shared with Sharon the fewest number of students in the Warning performance level
Slide 22
The District Leadership Team also compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with districts that have similar Per Pupil Expenditures
ELA Performance
In ELA, Franklin ranked 1st in the % of Advanced/Proficient students (83%) with the next highest district performing at 80% (Easton)
The district was tied with Easton for 1st in the lowest % of students scoring a Warning in ELA (3%)
Math Performance
In Math, Franklin also ranked #1 for % of Advanced/Proficient students (75%)
The next closest district, Easton, had 70% of students perform at this level )
Franklin also ranked the lowest for % of students at both the NI (19%) and Warning (6%) performance levels
Bottom Line - Franklin outperforms other districts with similar per pupil expenditures
Slide 23
The DLT finally compared its performance in ELA and Mathematics with the top 10 highest performing districts in the state
Performance
In ELA and Mathematics, Franklin ranked 10th of 11 districts in the % of students in Advanced/Proficient students
ELA 83%
Math 75%
Lowest Aggregate Student Growth Percentile (SGP) in Math
Top ½ for Sped SGP in Math
Bottom 3 districts for Aggregate and Sped SGP in ELA
Other Comparisons:
Franklin ranks 10th of the 11 districts
Franklin has the lowest Per Pupil Expenditure
Franklin has the lowest Student Growth Percentile in the Aggregate
Franklin has higher class sizes than high performance districts
Franklin ranks 5th in Professional Development expenditures
Franklin ranks 5th in its per teacher professional development expenditure
Bottom Line – Franklin puts $ were it counts - instruction
Slide 25
ELA Performance
The number of students performing in the Advanced/Proficient categories in ELA increase over time for the class of 2011
Grade 3 – 80%
Grade 10 – 90%
The number of students performing in the Needs Improvement/Warning Categories decreased for this class
Grade 3 – 20%
Grade 10 - 9%
Math Performance
The number of students performing in the Advanced/Proficient categories in Math increase over time for the class of 2011
Grade 4 – 66%
Grade 10 – 87%
The number of students performing in the Needs Improvement/Warning Categories decreased for this class
Grade 4 – 33%
Grade 10 - 13%
Slide 26
John/Abigail Adams Scholarship
114 of 414 high school seniors (September enrollment figures) were awarded the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship based on their Grade 10 MCAS performance. This award represents 27.5% of the senior class. Students qualified for this scholarship by scoring: (a) in the Advanced category in English Language Arts or Mathematics and Advanced or Proficient in the other subject area on the grade 10 MCAS assessments; and, (b) in the top 25% of the students in the district on these tests.
Performance/Growth Improvement
The number of 7th grade students who scored Advanced/Proficient in Math increased from 64% in 2009 to 73% in 2010
The number of 5th grade students who scored Advanced/Proficient in Science increased from 68% in 2009 to 74% in 2010
60% of students in our subgroups demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on Math MCAS Tests – Our Math initiatives are working
54% of students in our subgroups demonstrated Moderate to Very High Growth on ELA MCAS tests – Literacy work is making a difference.
CPI performances in both subgroups on both tests show slight improvements
Data Analysis
Data Warehouse use doubled in two years ( from 32 to 64 authorized users)
All department chairs, Reading Coaches, Math CET’s, coordinators, Head teachers, etc. are authorized users of Data Warehouse
MCAS and AYP data is analyzed at all levels – classroom, grade level, by discipline, building and district levels
Used to inform instruction, program, curriculum changes and revisions
District Initiatives to improve teaching and learning
Middle school math/sped PD – math co-teaching workshops & math consultant
Literacy & Leadership Teams – set PD goals - common instructional strategies, vocabulary, lab teachers/support & modeling, intensive PD
RtI team – vision and protocols for supporting struggling learners
DLT – analyze data, collect evidence of practice and district progress toward meeting DIP goals, recommendations for new DIP goals
Central Office support to schools in AYP Improvement status
Allocation of ARRA funds to all school to support building AYP/MCAS initiatives
Building Initiatives to improve teaching and learning
Comprehensive data analysis
Use of faculty meetings to address building issues & generate action plans
Instructional improvement plans to address AYP concerns
Revisions to School Improvement Plans
Fall testing to identify at risk students and provide instructional support/interventions
Analysis of end of unit math assessments to inform instruction and identify struggling students
Teacher before/after school study groups to look at student work and problem solve ways to improve student performance
Before and after school clubs, academic support sessions and tutoring
Aligning instructional strategies with student profiles (needs & strengths)
Teaching of test taking skills
Math/Reading support groups (additional academic support during the school day)
Software purchases to provide additional practice of foundational skills
MCAS skills reviews built into daily instruction
Progress monitoring of struggling students & more frequent communications (progress reports) to parents
Individual Student Success Plans K-8 (ISSP’s)
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP’s) at the high school
Participation on DESE Assessment Development Committees
Slide 28
Class size – 24 districts in our comparison studies were contacted
Only 2 districts (Attleboro & Stougton) had larger class sizes at the elementary level
Only 2 districts (Mansfield & Attleboro) had larger class sizes at the middle level
Franklin had the highest class size at the high school
Considering the subgroup AYP concerns & increases in our LEP populations, class size is a considerable factor teachers’ ability to meet the needs of these students.l
Subgroups & AYP
District is working had to narrow the achievement gap & provide additional support before/during/after school for students with disabilities
several factors make this difficult: class size, length of school day, change in AYP target CPI scores every other year
targets will increase for the AYP determinations based on Spring 2011 MCAS test administrations
Increase performance expectations do not take into consideration severity of student disabilities, personnel required to provide adequate support structures
Budget & Instructional materials
No textbook line item in district budget – CI for requests
Ask/Purchase only minimum needed, knowing that other departments have needs as well
Loss of core curriculum teams now requires ELA, math, STE and HSS to cycle through a 5 year cycle with the UA disciplines
Common Core standards in Math & ELA will be vetted through professional groups & finalized this year.
Districts are expected to be prepared to fully implement these frameworks by the fall of 2012. We won’t have teams in place to do this work and meet these expectations
Spring MCAS 2012 – transitional test - will include some Common Core test items
Spring MCAS 2013 – tests will reflect Common Core standards ONLY (1 year transition to revised test)
Middle School Math
While we are making gains – growth percentiles are promising we still need to continue our efforts
Maintain academic support efforts (during and after school)
Tutoring
Math co-teaching model – Special Ed/General Ed initiative – share expertises
Aligning required math content with instructional strategies that complement each student’s learning style and needs.
Live reporting - MCAS - part 1
2. Guests/Presentations
b. MCAS Presentation – District Leadership Team
The presentation itself can be found here
Slide 3
The district made AYP in 2010 with no NCLB accountability status (a good thing)
District ELA performance was identified as Very High (all grades)
District Math performance was identified as High (all grades)
The district has made AYP for 5 consecutive years
The aggregate (all students) have made AYP in both Math & ELA for 8 consecutive years (since 2003)
District subgroups (Low Income & Special Ed) did not make ELA or Math AYP at the elementary and middle levels – this continues to be a focus area for the district (and is a consistent finding across the state).
FHS students in subgroups DID make AYP in both ELA and Math, an improvement over their 2009 performance in Math (did not make AYP in math in 2009)
Slide 4
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate in ELA at all grades.
District performance averages 1 to 2 performance levels above that of the state on all ELA tests.
ELA Aggregate performance levels
83% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (68%)
Only 17% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (32%)
The percentage of students scoring in NI/W decreased markedly from 20% in 2009 to 9% in 2010.
Slide 5
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in ELA at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on ELA tests.
ELA Special Ed Subgroup performance:
42% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (68%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Special Education subgroups (41% & 42% respectively)
However, fewer Special Ed students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (17% vs. 30%)
Special Education CPI’s (76.9 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.3 – Low)
ELA Low Income Subgroup performance:
55% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (47%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36% & 37% respectively)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (9% vs. 16%)
The Low Income CPI (82.9 - High) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (76.5 – Moderate)
Slide 6
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate in Math at all grades.
District performance averages 1 to 2 performance levels above that of the state on all Math tests.
Math Aggregate performance levels
75% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (59%)
25% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (42%)
The percentage of students scoring in NI/W showed a slight decrease from 26% in 2009 to 25% in 2010.
Slide 7
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in Math at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on Math tests.
Math Special Ed Subgroup performance:
31% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (21%)
28% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at Warning level compared to that of the state (45%)
District performance in the Needs Improvement/Warning category was 10% lower than that of the state (69% vs. 79%) – this continues to be a focus for the district.
Special Education CPI’s (66.7 - Low) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (57.5 – Very Low)
5 year trend shows district improvement in narrowing the achievement gap.
Math Low Income Subgroup performance:
46% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (37%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36%)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (18% vs. 27%)
The Low Income CPI (75.1 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.1 – Low)
5 year trend shows district improvement in narrowing the achievement gap.
Slide 8
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate on the high school Biology MCAS test.
Administered to all grade 9 students
District performance reflected 1 level above that of the state on the same test.
Biology CPI of 94.0 compared to that of the state (82.1)
Last 3 years, Advanced/Proficient performance increased; numbers of students performing at the Warning/Failing level has decreased.
Biology Aggregate performance levels
87% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (63%)
10% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (23%)
13 % of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 13% at the state level
Subgroup Performance
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in Math at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on Math tests.
Biology Special Ed Subgroup performance:
31% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (21%)
28% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at Warning level compared to that of the state (45%)
District performance in the Needs Improvement/Warning category was 10% lower than that of the state (69% vs. 79%) – this continues to be a focus for the district.
Special Education CPI’s (66.7 - Low) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (57.5 – Very Low)
Biology Low Income Subgroup performance:
46% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (37%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36%)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (18% vs. 27%)
The Low Income CPI (75.1 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.1 – Low)
Slide 9
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate on the 8th grade STE MCAS test.
District performance reflected 1 level above that of the state on the same test.
Gr 8 Science CPI of 83.2 compared to that of the state (71.0)
Last 3 years, little change in performances in all 4 categories – District STE Curriculum team investigating data to inform curriculum revisions/updates
Gr 8 STE Aggregate performance levels
69% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (40%)
33% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (41%)
Only 7% of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 19% at the state level
Gr 8 STE Subgroup Performance
The district Special Ed subgroup performed higher than the state in CPI’s (58.3 vs. 50.2) but at the same level as the state (Very Low)
The district Low Income subgroup performance level was one higher than that of the state (Low vs. Very Low). Again, this is a focus for the district and the STE Curriculum team.
19% of students with disabilities and 36% of LI students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to state subgroups (10% & 18%)
30% of special ed students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (51%)
19% of LI students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (37%)
Three years of subgroup data mimes the aggregate data - little change in % of students in each performance category at the district and the state levels – a concern for the district
Slide 10
The district continues to significantly outperform the state in the Aggregate on the 5th grade STE MCAS test.
District performance reflected 3 levels above that of the state on the same test.
Gr 5 Science CPI of 91.4 compared to that of the state (79.7)
Greatest change has been in shifting student performance from NI and Warning to Advanced/Proficient
Gr 5 STE Aggregate performance levels
74% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (53%)
23% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (36%)
Only 3% of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 11% at the state level
Gr 5 STE Subgroup Performance
The district Special Ed subgroup CPI for STE was 75.0 - Moderate, reflecting 1 performance level above the state (CPI 62.3 – Low)
The district Low Income subgroup CPI of 81.3 reflects two performance levels above the state (CPI 65.6 – Low).
32% of students with disabilities and 47% of LI students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to state subgroups (21% & 29%)
21% of special ed students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (34%)
11% of LI students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (23%)
Three years of subgroup data identifies slight increases in the Advanced/Proficient levels and slight decreases in the NI and Warning performance levels.
Franklin, MA
b. MCAS Presentation – District Leadership Team
Sharon Jackson, computer teacher @ HMMS
Eileen Belastock, Math Dept. Chair @ FHS
Lucas Giguere, Assistant Principal @ ASMS
Margaret Miller, Head Teacher/Math CET @ DT
RuthAnn McHugh, Head Teacher/Math CET @ Keller
The presentation itself can be found here
In addition to the representatives here tonight….
Bob Lima, Brenda Redding – FHS
Craig Williams - ASMS
Emily Constantine - HMMS
Janet Chitty, Keith Turner - RMS
Bea MacPherson, Shirley Babcock - DT
Judy Johnson - Jefferson
Mary Jane Wiles - Keller
Peggy Yanuskiewicz - Kennedy
Courtney Reilly – Oak St.
Trish Capaldi – Parmenter
Denise Miller – Assistant to the Superintendent (and master data queen!)
Slide 3
The district made AYP in 2010 with no NCLB accountability status (a good thing)
District ELA performance was identified as Very High (all grades)
District Math performance was identified as High (all grades)
The district has made AYP for 5 consecutive years
The aggregate (all students) have made AYP in both Math & ELA for 8 consecutive years (since 2003)
District subgroups (Low Income & Special Ed) did not make ELA or Math AYP at the elementary and middle levels – this continues to be a focus area for the district (and is a consistent finding across the state).
FHS students in subgroups DID make AYP in both ELA and Math, an improvement over their 2009 performance in Math (did not make AYP in math in 2009)
Slide 4
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate in ELA at all grades.
District performance averages 1 to 2 performance levels above that of the state on all ELA tests.
ELA Aggregate performance levels
83% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (68%)
Only 17% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (32%)
The percentage of students scoring in NI/W decreased markedly from 20% in 2009 to 9% in 2010.
Slide 5
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in ELA at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on ELA tests.
ELA Special Ed Subgroup performance:
42% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (68%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Special Education subgroups (41% & 42% respectively)
However, fewer Special Ed students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (17% vs. 30%)
Special Education CPI’s (76.9 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.3 – Low)
ELA Low Income Subgroup performance:
55% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (47%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36% & 37% respectively)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (9% vs. 16%)
The Low Income CPI (82.9 - High) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (76.5 – Moderate)
Slide 6
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate in Math at all grades.
District performance averages 1 to 2 performance levels above that of the state on all Math tests.
Math Aggregate performance levels
75% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (59%)
25% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (42%)
The percentage of students scoring in NI/W showed a slight decrease from 26% in 2009 to 25% in 2010.
Slide 7
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in Math at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on Math tests.
Math Special Ed Subgroup performance:
31% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (21%)
28% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at Warning level compared to that of the state (45%)
District performance in the Needs Improvement/Warning category was 10% lower than that of the state (69% vs. 79%) – this continues to be a focus for the district.
Special Education CPI’s (66.7 - Low) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (57.5 – Very Low)
5 year trend shows district improvement in narrowing the achievement gap.
Math Low Income Subgroup performance:
46% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (37%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36%)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (18% vs. 27%)
The Low Income CPI (75.1 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.1 – Low)
5 year trend shows district improvement in narrowing the achievement gap.
Slide 8
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate on the high school Biology MCAS test.
Administered to all grade 9 students
District performance reflected 1 level above that of the state on the same test.
Biology CPI of 94.0 compared to that of the state (82.1)
Last 3 years, Advanced/Proficient performance increased; numbers of students performing at the Warning/Failing level has decreased.
Biology Aggregate performance levels
87% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (63%)
10% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (23%)
13 % of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 13% at the state level
Subgroup Performance
The district continues to perform above the state in Subgroups (Low Income and Special Ed) in Math at all grades.
Subgroup performance is consistently 1 performance level above that of the state on Math tests.
Biology Special Ed Subgroup performance:
31% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (21%)
28% of Franklin Spec. Ed. students performed at Warning level compared to that of the state (45%)
District performance in the Needs Improvement/Warning category was 10% lower than that of the state (69% vs. 79%) – this continues to be a focus for the district.
Special Education CPI’s (66.7 - Low) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (57.5 – Very Low)
Biology Low Income Subgroup performance:
46% of Franklin Low Income students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (37%)
District and state data is consistent in the Needs Improvement category for Low Income subgroups (36%)
Fewer Low Income students in the district performed in the warning category than the state (18% vs. 27%)
The Low Income CPI (75.1 - Moderate) places this subgroup one performance level above that of the state (67.1 – Low)
Slide 9
The district continues to perform above the state in the Aggregate on the 8th grade STE MCAS test.
District performance reflected 1 level above that of the state on the same test.
Gr 8 Science CPI of 83.2 compared to that of the state (71.0)
Last 3 years, little change in performances in all 4 categories – District STE Curriculum team investigating data to inform curriculum revisions/updates
Gr 8 STE Aggregate performance levels
69% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (40%)
33% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (41%)
Only 7% of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 19% at the state level
Gr 8 STE Subgroup Performance
The district Special Ed subgroup performed higher than the state in CPI’s (58.3 vs. 50.2) but at the same level as the state (Very Low)
The district Low Income subgroup performance level was one higher than that of the state (Low vs. Very Low). Again, this is a focus for the district and the STE Curriculum team.
19% of students with disabilities and 36% of LI students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to state subgroups (10% & 18%)
30% of special ed students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (51%)
19% of LI students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (37%)
Three years of subgroup data mimes the aggregate data - little change in % of students in each performance category at the district and the state levels – a concern for the district
Slide 10
The district continues to significantly outperform the state in the Aggregate on the 5th grade STE MCAS test.
District performance reflected 3 levels above that of the state on the same test.
Gr 5 Science CPI of 91.4 compared to that of the state (79.7)
Greatest change has been in shifting student performance from NI and Warning to Advanced/Proficient
Gr 5 STE Aggregate performance levels
74% of Franklin students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to that of the state (53%)
23% of Franklin students performed at the Needs Improvement/Warning level compared to that of the state (36%)
Only 3% of students scored in Warning/Failing category compared to 11% at the state level
Gr 5 STE Subgroup Performance
The district Special Ed subgroup CPI for STE was 75.0 - Moderate, reflecting 1 performance level above the state (CPI 62.3 – Low)
The district Low Income subgroup CPI of 81.3 reflects two performance levels above the state (CPI 65.6 – Low).
32% of students with disabilities and 47% of LI students performed at the Advanced/Proficient level compared to state subgroups (21% & 29%)
21% of special ed students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (34%)
11% of LI students performed at the Warning level compared to that of the state (23%)
Three years of subgroup data identifies slight increases in the Advanced/Proficient levels and slight decreases in the NI and Warning performance levels.
Franklin, MA
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Franklin, MA: MCAS 2010 - presentation document
Take a few minutes this morning to preview the presentation on the MCAS results for the Franklin School District. This presentation is scheduled for discussion at the School Committee meeting on Tuesday, Nov 16, 2010.
I am looking forward to the discussion, I like the layout of the data. It covers the major points on how we are doing and provides comparisons to the DESE districts most like us as well as to the Hockomock League schools.
What questions about this data would you ask on Tuesday night?
Note: email subscribers will need to click through to Franklin Matters to view the document.
Franklin, MA
I am looking forward to the discussion, I like the layout of the data. It covers the major points on how we are doing and provides comparisons to the DESE districts most like us as well as to the Hockomock League schools.
2010 MCAS Results for Franklin, MA
View more presentations from Franklin Matters.
What questions about this data would you ask on Tuesday night?
Note: email subscribers will need to click through to Franklin Matters to view the document.
Franklin, MA
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Franklin school earns state nod
Sent to you by Steve Sherlock via Google Reader:
via The Milford Daily News News RSS by GateHouse Media, Inc. on 10/5/10
Rep. James E. Vallee, D-Franklin, today congratulated students at Franklin's John F. Kennedy Elementary School with an assembly and an official citation for being named a "Commendation School" by the state's Department of Education.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to The Milford Daily News News RSS using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
What does class size have to do with it?
For me, the best statement for the impact of class size on educational test results comes from Jane Hyman, the Jefferson Elementary School Principal, in the School Committee meeting on Tuesday, Sep 14.
One group of students was in the 3rd grade two years ago. Only three class rooms available for this group resulted in high class size, the MCAS results showed they did not meet the AYP guidelines.
Same group, the next year with four class rooms, they did meet the AYP guidelines (which also increased from year to year).
The same group, this year is back in three class rooms. With a return to large class sizes and the fear is that the AYP will not be met.
Franklin, MA
One group of students was in the 3rd grade two years ago. Only three class rooms available for this group resulted in high class size, the MCAS results showed they did not meet the AYP guidelines.
Same group, the next year with four class rooms, they did meet the AYP guidelines (which also increased from year to year).
The same group, this year is back in three class rooms. With a return to large class sizes and the fear is that the AYP will not be met.
Franklin, MA
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Live reporting - AYP Update
2. Guests/Presentations
a. AYP Update
Maureen Sabolinski, Michelle Kingsland-Smith
The MCAS Data was released today, posted to Schools website
2010 AYP Report to SC
The full report summary is shown here
There is good news in the report, no action items to really address.
The district remains at a high performance status.
There are areas that require work, Parmenter (ELL), Remington (year 1 of 2 in improving status)
Comprehensive plans (via the school improvement plans) to work on raising the performance.
The after school program will look to target the lower performing students for ELL and Math for after or before school. Individual student success plans to be developed and then work in small groups with teachers to get the extra help required.
Teachers to come from within the schools, positioned posted for teachers to apply to.
The MCAS bar is raising, 57% of the schools are in need of improvement against the standard. The bar will continue to raise until 2014. This is an increase from 53% in 2009.
We are teaching to the test. It is not a 'dirty term'. Those tests reflect the standards. We recognize the open response questions are what the students should be doing. We are also recognizing excellence in instruction.
Franklin, MA
a. AYP Update
Maureen Sabolinski, Michelle Kingsland-Smith
The MCAS Data was released today, posted to Schools website
2010 AYP Report to SC
The full report summary is shown here
There is good news in the report, no action items to really address.
The district remains at a high performance status.
There are areas that require work, Parmenter (ELL), Remington (year 1 of 2 in improving status)
Comprehensive plans (via the school improvement plans) to work on raising the performance.
The after school program will look to target the lower performing students for ELL and Math for after or before school. Individual student success plans to be developed and then work in small groups with teachers to get the extra help required.
Teachers to come from within the schools, positioned posted for teachers to apply to.
The MCAS bar is raising, 57% of the schools are in need of improvement against the standard. The bar will continue to raise until 2014. This is an increase from 53% in 2009.
We are teaching to the test. It is not a 'dirty term'. Those tests reflect the standards. We recognize the open response questions are what the students should be doing. We are also recognizing excellence in instruction.
Franklin, MA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)