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.
