1. Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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%)

5. 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?

6. Spring 2016 Participation – We reached our goal!!!

7. 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

8. LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 ELA Trend is to the left –
86% proficient & advance for 2 years in a row – 4% warning/failing

9. 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

10. LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Math

11. 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

12. LHS Spring 2016 – Grade 10 Science

13. Proficiency Gap Narrowing
Science (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students)
First year of testing all 10th 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

14. ELA Growth – All students

15. ELA Growth – Hispanic/Latino

16. ELA Growth – High Needs

17. Math Growth – All students

18. Math Growth – Hispanic/Latino

19. Math Growth – High Needs

20. 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?