Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.

Published byMorris Cannon Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District."— Presentation transcript:

1 2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District

2 What is MCAS?  It is the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System  Provides scores on individual students to show their progress in learning  Provides a measure of basic achievement for high school graduation  Measures performance of schools and districts to show student progress towards 100% proficiency by 2014

3 Who is tested in what?  Grade 3 English Language Arts (ELA) & Math  Grade 4 ELA & Math  Grade 5 ELA, Math, & Science  Grade 6 ELA & Math  Grade 7 ELA & Math  Grade 8 ELA, Math, & Science  Grade 10 ELA, Math, & Biology (Nipmuc’s choice for science)

4 How are MCAS scores reported? Grades 4-10  Advanced: Scaled scores 260-280  Proficient: 240-258  Needs Improvement: 220-238  Warning/Failing: 200-218

5 Who is Affected by AYP?  All schools and student groups are required to make AYP.  All school is called the Aggregate  Student groups: Special Education Limited English Proficient Low Income Racial backgrounds

6 Terms Defined  AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress A + (B or C) + D = AYP, where A is Participation - MURSD always meets expectation B is Performance C is Improvement D is Attendance - MURSD always meets expectation  Aggregate = All students in a grade level or in a district  Subgroup = A cohort of students falling in a defined category, i.e. Special Education, Low Income B and/or C cause MURSD to not make AYP

7 AYP Status Categories YearAYP Status 1 st YearNo Status--- Memorial School 2 nd YearImprovement Year 1 3 rd YearImprovement Year 2 4 th YearCorrective Action--- Miscoe Hill 5 th YearRestructuring Year 1 6 th YearRestructuring Year 2+

8 2009 Accountability Results AYP Statewide Results  54% of Elementary School in Massachusetts did not make AYP  51% of Schools not making AYP in Elementary were in non-urban areas  80% of Middle Schools did not make AYP  37% of High Schools did not make AYP

9 WHY Clough and Not Memorial  Memorial did not meet AYP but their target was higher than Clough’s due to 2008 scores  Memorial 2008 ELA score was 92.8 and went down to 87.9  Clough 2008 ELA score was 86.1 and remained 86.1

10 Clough School Adequate Yearly Progress History Status 2003200420052006200720082009 ELA Aggregate N/AYes No Status All subgroups N/AYes Math Aggregate N/A Yes No Status All subgroups N/A Yes

11 Clough School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target ELA No86.1 2.386.1- 90.9 Yes Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target MathYes84.986.12.386.1- 90.9 NoYes

12 Memorial School Adequate Yearly Progress History Status 2003200420052006200720082009 ELA Aggregate N/AYes No No Status All subgroups N/AYes No Math Aggregate N/A Yes No Status All subgroups N/A Yes

13 Memorial School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target ELA No87.9 92.81.292.8- 96.5 No Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target MathYes85.390.11.790.1- 94.3 NoYes

14 Miscoe Hill School AYP Data Aggregate (B) Performance(C) Improvement Did students meet or exceed state performance target? Did student group meet or exceed its own improvement target? Met AYP in 2009 ELA Met Target (90.2) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate Yes94.0 90.11.790.1-94.3Yes Special Education Subgroup No 80.7 69.35.171.9-76.9 Yes Math Met Target (84.3) Actual Score in 2009 2008 CPI (Baseline) Gain Target On Target Range Met Target Aggregate No82.280.23.381.0-86.0Yes Special Education Subgroup No58.153.87.759.0-64.0No

15 Why Miscoe did not make AYP  Miscoe did not make AYP in the Math Special Education Subgroup  Although a gain of 4.3 percentage points were realized in the special education subgroup, a gain of 7.7 was actually needed to make AYP  AYP was missed by.9

16 Grade 3 English % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 71% 66% 70% 75% 69%

17 Grade 3 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 51% 61% 72% 68%

18 Grade 4 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 48% 51% 71% 55% 62%

19 Grade 4 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 28% 32% 49% 55%

20 Grade 5 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 70% 72% 71% 74%

21 Grade 5 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 41% 52% 59% 61%

22 Grade 5 Science/Tech Eng % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 53% 59% 53% 59%

23 Grade 6 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 79% 77% 83%

24 Grade 6 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 58% 46% 58% 57% 68%

25 Grade 7 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 83% 74% 81% 79%

26 Grade 7 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 45% 51% 50% 53%

27 Grade 8 English Language Arts % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 90% 85% 89% 90%

28 Grade 8 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 53% 56% 61% 58%

29 Grade 8 Science/Tech Eng % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 36% 45% 63% 57%

30 Grade 10 English Language Arts 82% 91% 89% % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 93%

31 Grade 10 Mathematics % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 74% 82% 92% 87% 86%

32 Grade 10 Biology % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 67% 82% 87%

33 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 3 – English Language Arts (Percent scoring in each category)

34 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 3 – Mathematics

35 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 4 – English Language Arts

36 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 4 – Mathematics

37 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – English Language Arts

38 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – Mathematics

39 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 5 – Science/Tech Eng

40 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 6 – English Language Arts

41 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 6 – Mathematics

42 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 7 – English Language Arts

43 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 7 – Mathematics

44 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 – English Language Arts

45 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 - Mathematics

46 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 8 – Science/Tech Eng

47 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – English Language Arts

48 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – Mathematics

49 Mendon-Upton vs. State Average Grade 10 – Biology

50 Class of 2013 ELA & Math Freshman Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 70% 78% 81% 58% 40% 60% 50% 90%

51 Class of 2012 ELA & Math Sophomore Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 67% 78% 82% 89% 49% 46% 50% 63%

52 Class of 2011 ELA & Math Junior Class 58% 74% 84% 93% 58% 45% 56% 86% % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined

53 Class of 2010 ELA & Math Senior Class % Indicates Advanced & Proficient Combined 64% 90% 89% 87% 44% 64% 53%

54 10 th Grade MCAS Ranking ELA  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #59 in the state of Massachusetts on the ELA portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools Math  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #84 in the state of Massachusetts on the math portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools Science  Nipmuc 10 th grade students ranked #42 in the state of Massachusetts on the Biology portion of the MCAS test out of 282 High Schools

55 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Math - NAEP Grade 4Grade 8  2005 Massachusetts ranked #1  2007 Massachusetts ranked #1  2009 Massachusetts ranked #1  2005 Massachusetts ranked #1  2007 Massachusetts ranked #1  2009 Massachusetts ranked #1 NAEP is a national mathematics test given to fourth and eighth grade level students every two years in each of the 50 states.

56 How Massachusetts 4 th Grade Students Scored in World’s Top Ten TIMSS Grade 4 Math 2007 TIMSS Grade 4 Science 2007 NationRankNationRank Hong Kong SAR1Singapore1 2Massachusetts, USA2 Chinese Taipei3 3 Massachusetts, USA4Hong Kong SAR4 Japan5Minnesota, USA5 6Japan6 Kazakhstan7Russian Federation7 USA13USA10

57 How Massachusetts 8 th Grade Students Scored in World’s Top Ten TIMSS Grade 8 Math 2007 TIMSS Grade 8 Science 2007 NationRankNationRank Chinese Taipei1Singapore1 Korea, Rep. of2Chinese Taipei2 Singapore3Massachusetts, USA3 Hong Kong SAR4Japan4 5Korea, Rep. of5 Massachusetts, USA6England6 Minnesota, USA7 9 USA11USA13

Download ppt "2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District."

Similar presentations

No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.

No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.

MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.

Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE 2009-10 Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.

Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
1 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education October 2008.
Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.

Update: Proposal to Reset MEAP Cut Scores Report to the Superintendent Roundtable February 23, 2011.
2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.

2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.
Understanding Massachusetts’ new accountability measures November 2012.

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.

REVIEW OF 2014 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACHIEVEMENT DATA, GOAL SETTING, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 2014/2015 SAUGUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data 2005-2008 September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.

Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.

Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)

Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”

OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”
HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.

HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &

1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 17 &
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.

District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.

Torrance Unified School District Annual Student Achievement Dr. George W. Mannon, Superintendent Dr. E Don Kim, Senior Director of Elementary Education.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.

1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google