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
