MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Advertisements

Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 27, 2012 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
Changes To Florida’s School Grades Calculations Adopted By The State Board Of Education On February 28, 2012 Prepared by Research, Evaluation & Accountability.
School Report Cards 2004– The Bottom Line More schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress. Fewer students show serious academic problems (Level.
Accountability data overview August Topics  Changes to 2014 accountability reporting  Overview of accountability measures  Progress & Performance.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Rhode Island Accountability Process Revisions for School Years 2015 and 2016 A Presentation to the Accountability 3.0 Statewide Webinar March 27, 2015.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.
REVIEW OF 2014 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVEMENT DATA, GOAL SETTING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 2014/2015 SAUGUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION.
Overview of the Idaho Five Star Rating System Dr. TJ Bliss Director of Assessment and Accountability
Flexibility in Determining AYP for Students with Disabilities Background Information—Slides 2—4 School Eligibility Criteria—Slide 5 Calculation of the.
2015 Goals and Targets for State Accountability Date: 10/01/2014 Presenter: Carla Stevens Assistant Superintendent, Research and Accountability.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
MCAS OVERVIEW.
HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY RESULTS Multiple Measurement Rating (MMR) – Initial Designation.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
School Report Card ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND GRADUATION RATE For GREENVILLE CSD.
2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.
MCAS REPORT Spring 2013 Presented to the Hingham School Committee November 18, 2013 by Ellen Keane, Assistant Superintendent.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
School & district accountability reporting Title I Technical Assistance & Networking Session October 17, 2013.
ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.
CLINTON HIGH SCHOOL 2012 MCAS Presentation October 30, 2012.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
The Norwood Public Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and.
Merrymount Elementary School PTO Assessment Presentation December 4, 2014.
Accountability Report Dedham Public Schools October 3,
HAWLEMONT REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2012 STATE OF THE DISTRICT ADDRESS Presented by: Michael A. Buoniconti Superintendent of Schools Hawlemont Regional.
Melrose High School 2014 MCAS Presentation October 6, 2014.
Back to Table of Contents DART for English Language LearnersAnnual SnapshotDART for English Language LearnersAnnual Snapshot DART for English Language.
Public School Accountability System. Background One year ago One year ago –100 percent proficiency required in –AMOs set to increase 7-12 points.
1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.
What You Should Know About the State’s Two Year Old Accountability System.
Accountability Overview Presented by Jennifer Stafford Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Support & Research KDE:OAA:DSR:pp: 12/11/2015.
1 Testing Various Models in Support of Improving API Scores.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Accountability
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Spring 2016 PARCC and MCAS Results: Newton Public Schools
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Overview Page Report Card Updates Marianne Mottley – Director Office of Accountability.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview
2012 Accountability Determinations
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District
and Beyond School Grades DRAFT Specifications For Each Component February 2016 Principals Meeting February 2016 Gisela Feild Assessment, Research.
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability & Assistance System
2016 Accountability Reporting
New Statewide Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability System
Milton Public Schools 2013 Accountability Status
Specifications Used for School Identification Under ESSA in
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Danvers Public Schools: Our Story
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
School Improvement Ratings Rule 6A , F.A.C.
WAO Elementary School and the New Accountability System
NANTUCKET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Watertown Public Schools School Committee Meeting November 13, 2017
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

MCAS Progress and Performance Index Report 2013 Cohasset Public Schools

OVERVIEW Interpretation of the MCAS document 2013 MCAS Report Cohort History District Report by School District Level Report

Massachusetts Waiver to NCLB Target: Measured progress equal to reaching half of remaining CPI to 100% proficiency based on 2011 data MCAS assesses students on 2 major categories Performance (knowing the answers) Growth (compared to others who performed the same last year, what percentage of growth did the student achieve?)

2013 * Target date set for 2017 * Measures the PROGRESS toward proficiency to the year 2017 (PPI or Progress and Proficiency Index) * NCLB is Cumulative CPI based on the last 4 years with 2010 (10%), 2011 (20%), 2012 (30%), 2013 (40%) / 10

* Measures Performance and Growth within a comparable group/school and awards a percentile of achievement with 75% as the required * All special needs, lower income, and ELL are grouped together in a High Needs category * Groups are by building, not grade span—grades 6-12 are now considered one group Components of the Assessment:

* Top 80% performing schools are labeled Level 1 or 2; Bottom 20% are Levels 3, 4, or 5 and require state assistance * Measurement of PPI is calculated using the CPI for only 2 groups: All Students and High Needs Group (Special Needs, ELL, etc.)

The Parent/Guardian Report includes a student growth percentile which is a measure of student progress that compares changes in a student’s MCAS scores to students with similar 2012 achievement profiles (All Advanced, or All Proficient, or All Needs Improvement, etc.

Level Classification1 to 5 80% of the total schools are placed in Levels 1 to 5 20% of the total schools are in Levels 3 to 5, depending on the degree of need for intervention Level 1 is assigned to groups that meet the 75% target for this year and are in the 90+%ile rating overall for the district. Cohasset has at least 1 subgroup not meeting the target of 75%. This assigns the district the same status –Level 2 even though the district is in the 96% percentile statewide.

Extra Points (PPI ) are given for the following: 75 for meeting the 80 th percentile in all groups 100 for meeting the 90 th percentile in all groups Meeting the CPI target or going above, etc. in each individual group Narrowing the Proficiency Gap Showing Growth 4-year Cohort Graduation Rate Annual Dropout Rate

Extra Credit PPI’s FOR PERFORMANCE: 25 Points for raising the A/P ratings in any group by 10% OR lowering the NI/W by 10% 100 PPI Points for exceeding annual target by 1.25 points (“Above Target” Label) 75 PPI Points for being “On Target” by + or – PPI Points for only a slight decline on no more than -2.5 or having no change Student Growth Percentile Points: 100 Points for “Above Target” growth when the median growth is 60 points for higher 75 Points for “On Target” with the median growth between 51 – 59 points 50 Points for “Improved Below Target” for a median SGP from Points for “No Change” with the median growth between 31 – 40

Extra Credit PPI’s FOR GROWTH (SGP): 100 Points for showing +15 Points of Growth in the group/district SGP 75 Points for showing 10 – 14 Points of Growth in the group / district SGP 50 Points for remaining at the “No Change” status of 1 – 9 Points of Growth in the SGP

Cohasset Baseline in 2011 and 2017 Goal Deer Hill baseline: 90.9 ELA and 92.3 Math 6 Year Goal: 95.5 ELA and 96.2 Math Middle High School: 97.2 ELA and 93.2 Math 6 Year Goal: 98.6 ELA and 96.6 Math

District Results

“75” Target Calculation: 100 students take the test. 70 of them achieve Proficient status so each student is given a score of 75 points toward PPI (70 x 75=5250) 30 of them achieve Advance status so each student is given a score of 100 (30 x 100=3000) The total scores/points ( =8250) is divided by the number of students who took the assessment (8250/100) resulting in an annual PPI or 82.5

Cohasset Baseline in 2011 and 2017 Goal Deer Hill baseline: 90.9 ELA and 92.3 Math 6 Year Goal: 95.5 ELA and 96.2 Math 2013 Performance: 93.3 ELA(Above target for the year) 93.5 Math (Above target for the year) Middle High School: 97.2 ELA and 93.2 Math 6 Year Goal: 98.6 ELA and 96.6 Math 2013 Performance: 98.1 ELA (-0.1)(Above target for the year) 92.6 Math (-1.5) (Above target for the year)

Deer Hill +11 There is no subgroup report for Low Income or for ELL as they do not meet criteria of 30; they are included in the High Needs group however. *Numbers reported are based on comparison of like population

Deer Hill – 2013 Performance

(x2)2012(x3)2013(x4 ) 3TFormula/ Deer Hill CPI for Students with Disabilities Group: (x2)2012(x3)2013(x4) 3TFormula/ Deer Hill CPI for Students with Entire Group:

2010(x1)2011(x2)2012(x3)2013(x4)Current/ Deer Hill CPI for Students with Disabilities Group: 2010(x1)2011(x2)2012(x3)2013(x4)Current/ Deer Hill CPI for Students with Entire Group:

Non-High Needs Students Students with Disabilities Grade 4

Middle High School +9

6 questions below state-wide non–disabled students 8 questions below state-wide students with the disabilities group

YOG 2020 Cohort – Present Grade 4 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2022 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2022 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2020 Cohort – Present Grade 5 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2021 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2017 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2019 Cohort – Present Grade 6 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2020 ELA AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2020 Math AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2020 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 4 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2022 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2022 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Numbers based on number not percentile

YOG 2020 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 5 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2021 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2021 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Numbers based on number not percentile

YOG 2019 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 6 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2020 ELA AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2020 Math AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Numbers based on number not percentile

YOG 2018 Cohort – Present Grade 7 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2019 ELAAdvancedProficient Needs Improvemen t Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2019 MathAdvancedProficient Needs Improvemen t Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2017 Cohort – Present Grade 8 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

English Language Arts Mathematics YOG 2016 Cohort – Present Grade 9 Class of 2017 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2017 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

English Language Arts Mathematics Class of 2014 Math AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade YOG 2015 Cohort – Present Grade 11 Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2018 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 7 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2019 ELA AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2019 Math AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

YOG 2017 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 8 Mathematics English Language Arts Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

English Language Arts Mathematics YOG 2016 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 9 Class of 2017 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning Math Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Class of 2017 AdvancedProficient Needs Improvement Failing/ Warning ELA Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

English Language Arts Mathematics YOG 2015 High Needs Cohort – Present Grade 11 Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improve ment Failing/ Warning ELA- SPED* Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 8* Grade Class of 2018 AdvancedProficient Needs Improve ment Failing/ Warning Math- SPED* Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 8* Grade