Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview How is accountability

Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview

How is accountability determined? • Narrowing Proficiency Gaps (English, Math, & Science) • Growth (English & Math) • Extra Credit (English, Math, & Science) • + Graduation Rates • - Drop-Out Rates • + Re-engaging Dropouts • Assessment Participation

Accountability 5 level scale of accountability – those meeting the gap narrowing goals in Level 1 and the lowest performing in Level 5 • About 80% of schools are level 1 and 2 (based on cumulative PPI of “all students” and “high needs” groups. • To reach Level 1, a school’s cumulative PPI for both “all students” and “high needs” groups must be “on target” or higher. If not, the school is a Level 2.

Accountability A school is classified Level 3 if: – The school is among the lowest 20% relative to other schools in the same school-type category – If 1 or more of the subgroups in the school are among the lowest performing 20% subgroups (relative to statewide) – If the school has persistently low graduation rates – OR if the school has very low assessment participation rates for any group (less than 90%)

Data protocol – one approach • What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? • What data can we celebrate? • What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? • What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?

Spring 2016 Participation – We reached our goal!!!

Steady progress toward narrowing the gap… 2011 CPI (Baseline) 2016 CPI 2017 CPI Goal ELA 90. 1 94. 2 95. 1 Math 82. 8 86. 2 91. 4 Science 75. 7 82. 7 87. 9

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 ELA

Proficiency Gap Narrowing ELA (On Target for all students): • 86% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – on target! • Only 4% warning/failing (around 30 students) • ELL/Former ELL, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, White subgroups – all on or above target! • Student w/ Disabilities subgroup showed improvement • Decline in Afr. American/Black subgroup

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Math

Proficiency Gap Narrowing Math (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) • 71% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – improvement! • 11% Failing (down 1%) • Students with Disabilities, Asian, and White subgroups all showed improvement

LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Science

Proficiency Gap Narrowing Science (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) • First year of testing all 10 th graders in Biology. • 50% of students scored proficient or advanced • High needs, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, African American/Black Subgroups have improved (below target) • Asian and White Subgroups are on Target 2011 Baseline CPI = 75. 7 2016 CPI = 82. 7 2017 Goal = 87. 9

ELA Growth – All students

ELA Growth – Hispanic/Latino

ELA Growth – High Needs

Math Growth – All students

Math Growth – Hispanic/Latino

Math Growth – High Needs

DATA SUMMITS • What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? • What data can we celebrate? • What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? • What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?