1. MCAS Results Report to School Committee 2003 MCAS Results October 21, 2003

2. New Baseline Changes in the Testing Program Results by Performance Category for the District and Individual Schools Comparable Communities Next Steps

3. Changes in Testing Program No Average Scaled Scores New Testing Requirement for LEP Students BHS tested 102 LEP students, 81 of whom would have been previously exempt! EJH tested 148 LEP students, 127 of whom would have been previously exempt! There were 164 students in grades 3, 4, & 6 who would have been previously exempt!

4. MCAS Testing Program High Stakes/High Standards Grades tested: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 Tonight’s focus: English/Language Arts Mathematics

5. Performance Categories Category Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Failing/Warning Score Range 260-280 proficient 240-259 [240 = proficient] passing 220-239 [220 = passing] 200-219

6. MCAS 2003 Changes in Performance Categories by Grade

7. Percentage of Students in Warning/Failing Category ELA MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 0398 99 00 01 02 03 Grade 3 14 14 15 [13] State 7 6 7 Grade 4 29 25 22 19 19 18 [15] 39 35 29 27 35 28 [26] State 15 12 16 11 10 10 23 19 18 19 19 16 Grade 6 46 39 37 [36] State 33 30 26 Grade 7 24 19 15 [13] State 12 9 7 Grade 8 69 67 67 48 54 59[57] State 42 40 39 31 33 33 Grade 10 44 42 42 24 14 19 [14] 76 76 64 35 38 36 [33] BHS 44 41 41 23 13 18 [13] 75 76 64 34 36 35 [32] State 28 32 34 18 14 12 52 53 45 25 25 21

8. Percentage of Students in Advanced /Proficient Category ELA MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Grade 3 36 42 42 [44] State 62 67 63 Grade 4 6 8 8 33 32 38 [40] 17 18 23 23 20 22 [23] State 20 21 49 51 54 55 34 36 40 34 39 40 Grade 6 23 29 27 [27] State 36 41 42 Grade 7 31 38 36 [37] State 55 64 65 Grade 8 14 8 12 18 14 13 [14] State 31 28 34 34 34 37 Grade 10 22 24 27 42 61 52 [57] 7 9 16 29 27 33 [36] BHS 22 24 27 43 63 54 [59] 7 9 16 30 29 34 [37] State 38 34 36 51 59 61 24 24 33 45 44 51

9. Individual School Results Changes in Performance Categories

10. Grade 3 Percentage of students in warning category ELA year01 02 03 Angelo 1319 25 [17]16% Arnone1821 16 [14]29% Ashfield 3 9 5 Belmont St. 1311 11 [ 3]18% Brookfield 7 6 6 Davis2122 16 [14]15% Downey2216 25 Franklin1011 11 Gilmore1118 16 [12]28% Hancock 710 10 Huntington11 8 13 Kennedy 810 13 [4]15% Plouffe2819 5 Raymond 1817 27 Whitman 6 0 5 LEP

11. Grade 3 Percentage of students in adv/prof category ELA year01 02 03 Angelo29 36 37 [43]16% Arnone34 40 35 [39]29% Ashfield41 46 45 Belmont St.26 42 51 [61]18% Brookfield4155 62 Davis2628 38 [40]15% Downey3347 37 Franklin48 40 57 Gilmore3836 20 [21]28% Hancock5253 53 Huntington3735 36 Kennedy37 54 46 [52]15% Plouffe36 33 62 Raymond36 44 28 Whitman29 37 38 LEP

12. Grade 4 Percentage of students in warning category ELA MATH year98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Angelo 6% 23 17 15 16 20 11 [9]50 23 25 24 39 19 [17] Arnone 17% 43 31 29 14 22 26 [19]53 46 35 2233 32 [30] Ashfield40 13 18 15 9 14 46 14 16 1527 15 Belmont St. 33% 18 31 33 21 22 25 [18]42 42 36 2337 47 [42] Brookfield26 33 12 18 12 8 34 48 21 27 30 11 Davis 13% 36 33 34 28 31 24 [23]53 49 46 53 54 26 [25] Downey27 30 40 32 37 21 25 43 41 4052 36 Franklin35 35 15 9 13 6 37 49 22 1131 17 Gilmore 22% 39 29 26 21 11 42 [35]49 44 26 2627 56 [47] Hancock19 15 10 7 18 17 14 19 17 1731 25 Huntington24 13 21 14 5 5 27 17 25 22 24 25 Kennedy 24% 9 7 15 18 10 21 [ 9]12 21 26 20 20 27 [16] Plouffe47 25 18 24 28 9 63 38 28 36 37 28 Raymond27 30 22 24 23 15 48 37 39 3036 32 Whitman22 19 16 24 7 4 63 38 26 3118 8 LEP

13. Grade 4 Percentage of students in adv/prof category ELAMATH year98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Angelo 6% 8 27 18 52 38 54 [56]10 41 42 39 29 40 [41] Arnone 17% 12 9 8 44 39 39 [43]20 12 23 36 27 18 [20] Ashfield 1 5 5 27 33 40 16 28 16 31 23 26 Belmont St. 33% 3 6 4 30 34 23 [25]16 12 10 13 12 10 [11] Brookfield 4 2 5 28 19 40 19 7 23 16 13 34 Davis 13% 5 1 3 19 13 31 [32]11 8 10 11 8 14 [14] Downey 2 4 2 18 12 30 19 10 14 13 11 23 Franklin 0 2 2 40 35 52 6 11 28 35 24 27 Gilmore 22% 8 2 4 15 46 13 [16]18 3 18 8 29 6 [ 8] Hancock 8 11 10 50 26 36 29 32 29 23 19 20 Huntington 12 7 8 35 40 40 23 25 32 29 24 15 Kennedy 24% 15 15 19 43 54 51 [59]36 27 33 23 32 32 [38] Plouffe 0 19 13 35 36 40 2 21 26 28 30 25 Raymond 4 3 4 23 26 37 5 10 14 17 17 12 Whitman 0 7 8 26 46 62 13 9 28 21 28 32 LEP

14. Grade 6 Percentage of students in warning category MATH year01 02 03 Angelo 47 40 33 [32] 7% Arnone 33 30 33 [30]11% Ashfield 54 48 29 Belmont St. 59 31 45 [41]18% Brookfield 45 28 32 Davis 7366 52 Downey 46 38 34 Franklin 35 25 26 Gilmore 52 39 53 [49]21% Hancock 3029 19 Huntington 46 41 44 Kennedy 33 25 40 [31] 16% Plouffe 54 50 43 Raymond 53 50 42 Whitman 27 29 25 LEP

15. Grade 6 Percentage of students in adv/prof category MATH year01 02 03 Angelo28 39 46 [48] 7% Arnone3242 39 [43] 11% Ashfield18 18 21 Belmont St.18 28 14 [16] 18% Brookfield20 38 17 Davis 5 8 14 Downey22 25 32 Franklin28 50 51 Gilmore10 23 11 [ 9] 21% Hancock37 30 33 Huntington23 21 15 Kennedy32 52 27 [31] 16% Plouffe23 25 30 Raymond12 15 21 Whitman27 41 34 LEP

16. Grade 7 Percentage of students in warning category ELA year01 0203 North24 13 7 South26 1813 East23 26 27 [11]20% West20 1411 LEP

17. Grade 7 P ercentage of students in adv/prof category ELA year01 0203 North24 3939 South30 3636 East34 2827 [35]20% West 36 4843 LEP

18. Grade 8 Percentage of Students in Warning Category MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 03 NJH73 73 63 44 49 54 SJH68 64 6450 54 58 EJH72 69 7152 52 65 [58]21% WJH63 60 65 41 59 53 LEP

19. Grade 8 Percentage of Students in Adv/Prof Category MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 03 NJH10 5 13 21 17 16 SJH12 11 11 16 13 15 EJH12 6 10 15 12 9 [11]21% WJH18 10 1522 15 16 LEP

20. Grade 10 Percentage of Students in Failing Category ELA year 98 99 00 01 02 03 BHS 44 41 41 23 13 18 [13] 8% MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 03 BHS 75 76 64 34 36 35 [32] 8% LEP

21. Grade 10 Percentage of Students in Adv/Prof Category ELA year 98 99 00 01 02 03 BHS 22 24 27 43 63 54 [59] 8% MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 03 BHS 7 9 16 30 29 34 [37] 8% LEP

22. Performance Levels by School ELA % Warn Math % Warn grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Angelo 3 13 19 25 [17] 4 23 17 15 16 20 11 [ 9] 50 23 25 24 39 19 [17] 6 47 40 33 [32] Arnone 3 18 21 16 [14] 4 43 31 29 14 22 26 [19] 53 46 35 22 33 32 [30] 6 33 30 33 [30] Ashfield 3 3 9 5 4 40 13 18 15 9 14 46 14 16 15 27 15 6 54 48 29 Belmont 3 13 11 11 [ 3] 4 18 31 33 21 22 25 [18] 42 42 36 23 37 47 [42] 6 59 31 45 [41]

23. Performance Levels by School ELA % Adv/Prof Math % Adv/Prof grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Angelo 3 29 36 37 [43] 4 8 27 18 52 38 54 [56] 10 41 42 39 29 40 [41] 6 28 39 46 [48] Arnone 3 34 40 35 [39] 4 12 9 8 44 39 39 [43] 20 12 23 36 27 18 [20] 6 32 42 39 [43] Ashfield 3 41 46 45 4 1 5 5 27 33 40 16 28 16 31 23 26 6 18 18 21 Belmont 3 26 42 51 [61] 4 3 6 4 30 34 23 [25] 16 12 10 13 12 10 [11] 6 18 28 14 [16]

24. Performance Levels by School ELA % Warn Math % Warn grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Brookfield 3 7 6 6 4 26 33 12 18 12 8 34 48 21 27 30 11 6 45 28 32 Davis 3 21 22 16 [14] 4 36 33 34 28 31 24 [23] 53 49 46 53 54 26 [25] 6 73 66 52 Downey 3 22 16 25 4 27 30 40 32 37 21 25 43 41 40 52 36 6 46 38 34 Franklin 3 10 11 11 4 35 35 15 9 13 6 37 49 22 11 31 17 6 35 25 26

25. Performance Levels by School ELA % Adv/Prof Math % Adv/Prof grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Brookfield 3 41 55 62 4 4 2 5 28 19 40 19 7 23 16 13 34 6 20 38 17 Davis 3 26 28 38 [40] 4 5 1 3 19 13 31 [32] 11 8 10 11 8 14 [14] 6 5 8 14 Downey 3 33 47 37 4 2 4 2 18 12 30 19 10 14 13 11 23 6 22 25 32 Franklin 3 48 40 57 4 0 2 2 40 35 52 6 11 28 35 24 27 6 28 50 51

26. Performance Levels by School ELA % Warn Math % Warn grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Gilmore 3 11 18 16 [12] 4 39 29 26 21 11 42 [35] 49 44 26 26 27 56 [47] 6 52 39 53 [49] Hancock 3 7 10 10 4 19 15 10 7 18 17 14 19 17 17 31 25 6 30 29 19 Huntington 3 11 8 13 4 24 13 21 14 5 5 27 17 25 22 24 25 6 46 41 44 Kennedy 3 8 10 13 [ 4] 4 9 7 15 18 10 21 [ 9] 12 21 26 20 20 27 [16] 6 33 25 40 [31]

27. Performance Levels by School ELA % Adv/Prof Math % Adv/Prof grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Gilmore 3 38 36 20 [21] 4 8 2 4 15 46 13 [16] 18 3 18 8 29 6 [8] 6 10 23 11 [9] Hancock 3 52 53 53 4 8 11 10 50 26 36 29 32 29 23 19 20 6 37 30 33 Huntington 3 37 35 36 4 12 7 8 35 40 40 23 25 32 29 24 15 6 23 21 15 Kennedy 3 37 54 46 [52] 4 15 15 19 43 54 51 [59] 36 27 33 23 32 32 [38] 6 32 52 27 [31]

28. Performance Levels by School ELA % Warn Math % Warn grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Plouffe 3 28 19 5 4 47 25 18 24 28 9 63 38 28 36 37 28 6 54 50 43 Raymond 3 18 17 27 4 27 30 22 24 23 15 48 37 39 30 36 32 6 53 50 42 Whitman 3 6 0 5 4 22 19 16 24 7 4 63 38 26 31 18 8 6 27 29 25

29. Performance Levels by School ELA % Adv/Prof Math % Adv/Prof grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 Plouffe 3 36 33 62 4 0 19 13 35 36 40 2 21 26 28 30 25 6 23 25 30 Raymond 3 36 44 28 4 4 3 4 23 26 37 5 10 14 17 17 12 6 12 15 21 Whitman 3 29 37 38 4 0 7 8 26 46 62 13 9 28 21 28 32 6 27 41 34

30. Performance Levels by School ELA % Warn Math % Warn grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 NJH 7 24 13 7 8 73 73 63 44 49 54 SJH 7 26 18 13 8 68 64 64 50 54 58 EJH7 23 26 27 [11] 8 72 69 71 52 52 65 [58] WJH7 20 14 11 8 63 60 65 41 59 53 BHS 10 44 41 41 23 13 18 [13] 75 76 64 34 36 35 [32]

31. Performance Levels by School ELA % Adv/Prof Math % Adv/Prof grade year 98 99 00 01 02 03 98 99 00 01 02 03 NJH 7 24 39 39 8 10 5 13 21 17 16 SJH 7 30 36 36 8 12 11 11 16 13 15 EJH7 34 28 27 [35] 8 12 6 10 15 12 9 [11] WJH7 36 48 43 8 18 10 15 22 15 16 BHS 10 22 24 27 43 63 54 [59] 7 9 16 30 29 34 [37]

32. Comparable Communities

33. Percent of Regular Program Students in Warn/Fail Category Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10 ELA ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Math Brockton 8 9 8 11 19 29 53 27 Boston 11 18 8 18 31 40 44 30 Chelsea 3 11 6 30 8 31 54 36 Chicopee 7 8 7 11 20 38 42 24 Fall River 6 10 6 14 19 44 63 41 Holyoke 14 22 19 28 30 48 70 46 Lawrence 14 23 10 20 41 54 64 42 Lowell 9 13 5 16 22 40 47 32 Lynn 3 9 3 14 17 26 42 24 New Bedford 6 10 12 15 21 33 55 30 Pittsfield 3 5 4 9 14 39 31 18 Revere 4 8 7 11 10 19 42 26 Springfield 9 12 13 24 25 52 63 46 Taunton 2 3 4 7 6 22 40 19 Worcester 6 8 11 15 16 26 53 31

34. Percent of Regular Program Students in Adv/Prof Category Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10 ELA ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Math Brockton 50 46 41 62 27 31 15 40 Boston 40 33 54 47 20 25 27 43 Chelsea 55 45 41 33 42 34 21 30 Chicopee 54 44 57 50 28 21 17 40 Fall River 51 39 47 49 25 19 10 27 Holyoke 37 28 25 35 18 17 5 23 Lawrence 32 26 36 37 13 12 11 24 Lowell 50 37 53 48 26 23 20 36 Lynn 57 47 62 51 30 33 20 38 New Bedford 50 39 37 44 23 23 13 32 Pittsfield 64 50 64 54 28 23 30 46 Revere 55 51 53 57 35 42 31 38 Springfield 50 39 39 37 24 14 10 21 Taunton 69 61 60 58 47 35 29 48 Worcester 56 51 44 46 32 37 18 37

35. Percent of All Students in Warn/Fail Category Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10 ELA ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Math Brockton 15 18 15 20 28 37 59 37 Boston 21 28 16 30 38 50 53 36 Chelsea 11 20 17 41 20 43 64 53 Chicopee 10 15 15 15 25 48 51 28 Fall River 8 13 13 24 22 51 68 50 Holyoke 28 36 30 40 42 63 77 55 Lawrence 27 35 25 37 52 64 72 53 Lowell 19 25 15 22 33 51 57 36 Lynn 11 16 10 21 25 37 52 33 New Bedford 9 15 18 27 24 41 62 42 Pittsfield 6 8 13 12 17 49 44 24 Revere 7 15 12 20 19 25 49 32 Springfield 17 22 23 34 34 62 72 53 Taunton 6 9 9 14 13 31 52 27 Worcester 10 14 19 24 21 34 60 38

36. Percent of All Students in Adv/Prof Category Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10 ELA ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Math Brockton 42 38 36 52 22 27 13 33 Boston 32 27 42 36 16 20 21 37 Chelsea 41 34 33 27 32 26 15 21 Chicopee 48 37 47 45 24 17 15 38 Fall River 47 36 40 41 25 15 9 22 Holyoke 26 19 20 28 12 11 4 19 Lawrence 25 20 28 28 10 9 9 18 Lowell 38 29 41 43 21 17 15 34 Lynn 47 38 53 42 25 27 17 32 New Bedford 46 34 30 36 21 20 10 27 Pittsfield 62 47 52 50 27 19 24 41 Revere 49 45 46 49 30 35 25 22 Springfield 42 32 30 30 21 10 7 18 Taunton 61 52 52 51 40 29 22 41 Worcester 49 44 37 38 28 31 15 32

37. Proficiency Index

38. No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Reauthorization of the Improving America’s Schools Act Will require testing in Language Arts and Math for all students in grades 3-8 Requires all students to score in the Proficient range by 2014 Measures progress using a Proficiency Index

39. MCAS §Is the assessment instrument used in Massachusetts to implement NCLB §The Proficient category is represented by a score of 240--------much higher than the passing score of 220 §LEP students who were exempt from testing in 2002 were tested in 2003

40. NCLB §A new standard: Proficient [240 & above] §A new measure: Proficiency Index

41. Proficiency Index measures how close a school is to having all students score in the Proficient/Advanced categories [240-280] Failing/Warning Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced 240 220 200 260 0 points 100 points 25 points 50 points 75 points Target For All Students [230-238] [220-228] [210-218] [200-208]

42. Next Steps

43. Revision of School Improvement Plans Development of Individual Student Success Plans Increased professional development in literacy instruction Professional development in teaching vocabulary Increased application of classroom assessment

44. Next Steps Increased professional development in test-taking strategies Continued emphasis on Collins Writing Program Expanded professional development in the instruction of English Language Learners

45. Next Steps Increased implementation of standards-based math program Collegial sharing of best practices