MCAS 2007 October 24, 2007 A Report to the Sharon School Committee and Dr. Barbara J. Dunham Superintendent of Schools Dr. George S. Anthony Director of Curriculum and Instruction A Report to the Sharon School Committee and Dr. Barbara J. Dunham Superintendent of Schools Dr. George S. Anthony Director of Curriculum and Instruction

2 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System TESTING PROGRAM MUST: Test all public school students. Measure performance based on Massachusetts Curriculum Framework learning standards. Report on performance of individual students, schools, and districts. Require that students must pass the grade 10 tests in English language Arts and mathematics, and beginning with the Class of 2010 high school science. (in addition to local requirements) In addition, the MCAS program is to hold schools and districts accountable on a yearly basis (AYP), for the progress they have made toward the objective of the No Child Left Behind law that all students be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014.

3 Using MCAS for Improvement in Teaching and Learning Parents, students and educators can use the results to: Follow student progress Gather diagnostic information that can be used to improve student performance Identify students who may need additional support services/remediation Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in curriculum and instruction Fine-tune curriculum alignment with statewide standards

4 Slides No Display 2007 Sharon and State-wide MCAS Results by Performance Level in Percentages

Determining MCAS Performance Levels Students earn a raw score based on question value. DOE converts raw score to a scaled score. PERFORMANCE LEVELS w Scaled Score Range Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning/Failing

6 Grade 3 Reading Results in Percent %

7 Grade 3 MATH Results in Percentage %

8 Grade 4 ELA Results in Percentage %

9 Grade 4 MATH Results in Percentage %

10 Grade 5 ELA Results in Percentage %

11 Grade 5 MATH Results in Percentage %

12 Grade 5 SCI&TECH Results in Percentage %

13 Grade 6 ELA Results in Percentage %

14 Grade 6 MATH Results in Percentage %

15 Grade 7 ELA Results in Percentage %

16 Grade 7 MATH Results in Percentage %

17 Grade 8 ELA Results in percentage %

18 Grade 8 MATH Results in Percentage %

19 Grade 8 Science & Technology Results in Percentage %

20 Grade 10 ELA Results in Percentage %

21 Grade 10 MATH Results in Percentage %

22 Grade 9 Intro. To Physics Results in Percentage %

23 Grade 10 Biology Results in Percentage %

24 Slides No Display Cohort Groups, Classes of , Performance Levels over Test-Taking Years in Percentage

Comparison of Student Cohort Groups A student cohort group is defined as the same student group over a number of school years excluding students who have moved in or moved out during that period of time.

26 ELA Distribution Class of 2009 [Current Grade 11] Cohort Group- Grades n=182

27 Math Distribution Class of 2009 [Current Grade 11] Cohort Group Grades n=181

28 ELA Distribution Class of 2011 [Current Grade 9] Cohort Group- Grades n=236

29 Math Distribution Class of 2011 [Current Grade 9] Cohort Group - Grades n=235

30 ELA Distribution Class of 2014 [Current Grade 6] Cohort Group - Grades 4 5 n=259

31 Math Distribution Class of 2014 [Current Grade 6] Cohort Group - Grades 4 5 n=259

Adequate Yearly Progress [AYP] Disaggregated Data to Identify Progress of Student Subgroups toward the 2014 NCLB mandate

AYP is determined by yearly progress of identified sub- groups required by NCLB Low-incomeStudents with Disabilities African American/Black Asian Hispanic/Latino Native American White LEP/FLEP [10 or more students needed for report of scores]

How has Sharon done with the 2007 AYP? 1. Preliminary information has identified one or more sub- groups in grades 3-8 not making AYP. 2. Further information will be forthcoming from the DOE.

MCAS DATA ANALYSIS Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in curriculum and instruction Fine-tune curriculum alignment with statewide standards Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in curriculum and instruction Fine-tune curriculum alignment with statewide standards

District Wide Summary Sharon’s Areas of Strength (85% or better correct on questions/curriculum strands) ELA: Multiple-choice and short answer questions; structures of English, themes, myth, vocabulary, understanding text, figurative language and poetry curriculum strands. MATH: Multiple-choice and short answer questions; data analysis, statistics & probability and geometry.

District-wide Summary Sharon’s Focus Areas for Improvement (Percent correct under 82% on question types/currriculum strands): ELA-Open Response questions; fiction, styles & language, non-fiction and poetry curriculum strands. MATH-Open-response questions; Number sense, measurement and patterns & relations in Algebra curriculum strands.

38 THANK YOU To the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals and the academic coordinators for their invaluable assistance.