Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress

Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2006 Brockton School Committee November 21, 2006

Overview of 2006 MCAS results • • • Grades and subjects tested State and district gains since 1998 Other longer-term gains District and state performance levels Passing and proficiency rate comparisons Recent improvements in subgroup performance 2

MCAS Tested Areas 1998 -2006 3

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10 th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006. October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement COMPARING MCAS GAINS STATE BROCKTON Pass Grade 10 ELA 21% 35% Grade 10 Math 40% 53% Grade 8 Math 13% Grade 4 Math 8% 17% Grade 4 ELA 3% 9% 4

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10 th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006. October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement COMPARING MCAS GAINS STATE BROCKTON Adv/Prof Grade 10 ELA 31% 44% Grade 10 Math 43% 42% Grade 8 Math 9% 3% Grade 4 Math 6% 10% Grade 4 ELA 30% 24% 5

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10 th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006. October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement COMPARING MCAS GAINS STATE BROCKTON Pass Adv/Prof Grade 10 ELA 21% 35% 44% Grade 10 Math 40% 43% 53% 42% Grade 8 Math 13% 9% 13% 3% Grade 4 Math 8% 6% 17% 10% Grade 4 ELA 3% 30% 9% 24% 6

7

8

MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS 9

MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS 10

MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS 11

2006 MCAS RATES FOR PASSING AND ADVANCED/PROFICIENT BY GRADE LEVEL (DARKER BLUE/GOLD BARS = ADVANCED/PROFICIENT) 12

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI for English Language Arts State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI Gains in English Language Arts 13

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI for Mathematics State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI Gains in Mathematics 14

Adequate Yearly Progress • • Composite Proficiency Index (CPI) Grade level CPI - 2006 State and large urban CPI - 2006 District and state CPI over time AYP calculation and status Consequences and context statewide Beyond 2006 15

16

CPI=Composite Performance Index TABLE 1 MCAS Scaled Score Point s 200 – 208 Failing/Warning – Low 0 210 – 218 Failing/Warning – High 25 220 – 228 Needs Improvement – Low TABLE 2 - Students taking Standard MCAS tests Index 100 Points Total studen Point Performance Level t s s 5 Failing – Low 0 0 5 Failing – High 25 125 20 Needs Improvement Low 50 1000 40 Needs Improvement – High 75 3000 25 Proficient 100 2500 5 Advanced 100 500 71. 3 7, 125 50 230 – 238 Needs Improvement – High 75 240 – 280 Proficient/Advanced 100 Total Points Awarded Total # of Students Tested CPI (Total Points divided by Total Students) 100 17

2006 STATE/DISTRICT CPI BY GRADE LEVEL BARS = BROCKTON, LINE = STATE CPI 18

2006 ELA CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS 19

2006 MATHEMATICS CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS 20

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS STATE 5 -YEAR GAIN = 3. 8 8. 7 11. 6 BROCKTON 5 -YEAR GAIN = 6. 7 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 21

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON FOR MATHEMATICS STATE 5 -YEAR GAIN = 8. 2 BROCKTON 5 -YEAR GAIN = 9. 0 12. 6 13. 4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 22

How is AYP calculated? (100 – Cycle III CPI) / 5 23

Sample 2006 district AYP history table od h t me 06 w 20 Ne d tho 5 e m 0 Old 01 -20 20 od h t me w Ne od h t e m d l O 24

When schools do not make AYP for two consecutive years Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group are identified for improvement. – Schools identified for improvement are required to develop a plan for improving student performance. – Title I schools identified for improvement are also required to offer ü school choice in first year of improvement status; ü supplemental services in second year, if fail to make AYP after first year. Statewide 382 schools identified for improvement 206 in the aggregate 176 for subgroups 25

Brockton schools identified for improvement School ELA Mathematics Arnone Improvement – Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups Belmont Improvement - Aggregate Brookfield Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups Kennedy Improvement - Aggregate Franklin Improvement - Aggregate Hancock Improvement - Aggregate Improvement - Subgroups Huntington Improvement - Aggregate Angelo Improvement - Aggregate Raymond Improvement - Subgroups Whitman Improvement - Aggregate Downey Improvement - Aggregate Plouffe Improvement - Subgroups Improvement - Aggregate 26

Schools in corrective action status Schools identified for improvement that do not make AYP for two additional years are identified for corrective action. Districts with schools in corrective action are required to – – – Institute new curriculum relevant to school’s low performance and provide professional development to support its implementation; Extend length of school year or school day; Replace school staff deemed relevant to school not making adequate progress; Significantly decrease management authority at the school; Restructure internal organization of the school; or Appoint one or more outside experts to advise school in its improvement efforts. Statewide 188 schools in corrective action 49 in the aggregate 139 for subgroups 27

Brockton schools identified for corrective action School ELA Mathematics East Junior High Subgroups Aggregate North Junior High Subgroups Aggregate South Junior High Aggregate West Junior High Aggregate Russell Alternative Aggregate Brockton High Subgroups 28

Schools in restructuring status Schools in corrective action that do not make AYP in 2006 are identified for restructuring. Districts with schools in restructuring status are required – Reconstitute the school by replacing school staff relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate progress; – Enter into contract with an entity with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school as a public school; – Turn operation of the school over to State educational agency, if the State agrees; – Re-open the school as a public charter school; or – Implement “any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress. …” Statewide 59 schools in 20 districts are in restructuring status 29

Schools identified for restructuring 59 SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR RESTRUCTURING Boston Cambridge Chicopee Fall River Fitchburg Greenfield Holbrook Holyoke Lawrence Lowell New Bedford 13 1 1 6 1 1 1 5 3 1 4 North Adams Randolph Southbridge Springfield Westfield Worcester Benjamin Banneker Charter Lawrence Family Dev Chart New Leadership HMCS Gill-Montague 1 1 1 7 1 8 1 1 59 30

Districts identified for improvement or corrective action Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group, at all grade-spans, are identified for improvement. Districts identified for improvement year 2 that do not make AYP in 2006 at all grade-spans are identified for corrective action. For districts in corrective action, the State has options to – § § § Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds; Institute new curriculum relevant to districts’ low performance and provide professional development to support its implementation; Replace district personnel relevant to inability of district to make adequate progress; Remove individual schools from the jurisdiction of the district and arrange for their public governance and supervision; Appoint a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the superintendent and school board; or Abolish or restructure the district. Statewide 26 districts are in corrective action (9 aggregate and 17 for subgroups), 104 districts identified for improvement 31

Districts in corrective action status 9 in the Aggregate 17 for Subgroups Chicopee Amherst Fall River Boston Lawrence Lowell Brockton Everett Lynn Gloucester New Bedford Haverhill Pittsfield Holyoke Southbridge Springfield Leominster Malden Medford Methuen Peabody Plymouth Salem Somerville Westfield Worcester 32

Cycle IV status of districts and schools statewide Of the 234 public school districts, 130 or 56% districts have been negatively identified – By subject area – ELA(23), Math (55) – ELA and Math (52) Aggregate - Corrective Action (9) Subgroups – – Corrective Action (17) Improvement (104) Of the 1772 public schools, 629 or 35% have been negatively identified – • Aggregate (314) – Restructuring (59) – Corrective Action (49) – Improvement (206) • Subgroups (315) – Corrective Action (139) – Improvement (176) 33

34

ath in cted p ELA Proje ` ath in cted p Math Proje 35

END Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology 36