The Norwood Public Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth...
40
Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth
-
Upload
francine-snow -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of The Norwood Public Schools 2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results Dr. Alexander Wyeth...
The Norwood Public Schools
2014 Accountability Overview and MCAS Results
Dr. Alexander WyethAssistant Superintendent
for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
SchoolAccountability Level Reason(s)
2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014
Norwood High School 1 2 1 Met all gap narrowing targets.
Met all gap narrowing targets, but low Students w/Disabilities participation (94%).
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Coakley Middle School 2 2 2Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs/Students w/Disabilities (1 pt).
Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs/Students w/Disabilities, and low ELL participation (91%).
Balch Elementary 2 2 2 Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
Callahan Elementary 1 1 2 Met all gap narrowing targets.
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs (2 pts).
Cleveland Elementary 2 1 2 Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs (1 pt).
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
Oldham Elementary 1 1 2 Met all gap narrowing targets.
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing target: High Needs/Low Income (3 pts).
Prescott Elementary 1 1 2 Met all gap narrowing targets.
Met all gap narrowing targets.
Did not meet gap narrowing targets: All and High Needs.
% MA schools at Level 1 32% 31% 26% 5% fewer in Level 1
% MA schools at Level 2 47% 48% 53% 5% more in Level 2
# of MA public schools with MCAS 1607
Norwood Public Schools Accountability RatingsState Expectation: to narrow all proficiency gaps for all groups by 50% from 2012-2017
English Language Arts
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
65 65
7267
61 6157 58
Grade 3 ELA Proficiency RatesDISTRICT STATE
Grade 4 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
64 6258
65
5357
53 54
DISTRICT STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6053
47 52
DISTRICT
Grade 5 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
7468 66
6367
6166
64
DISTRICT STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5344 43.5
39
DISTRICT
Grade 6 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
77 7578
71
68 66
78
68
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 201405
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100
63 62
57 52
Coakley MS
Grade 7 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
8074
84 82
73 71 72 72
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5141
4656
Coakley MS
s
Grade 8 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
8388
80
91
79 8178 79
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
67 62 56 62
Coakley MS
Grade 10 ELAProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
10092 92 92 94
8488
91 89
Norwood HS STATE
2011 2012 2013 201405
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100
60
46
57
50
Norwood High
6/7 schools improved their composition (writing promp) scores.
1 school’s writing results declined a bit but still had a high level of performance.
2010 2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
7267 69
6671
6964 66 65
60
Grade 4 WritingDISTRICT STATE
2010 2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
67
7168
65
7069
69 68
66
69
Grade 7 WritingCoakley MS STATE
2010 2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
7074
71
71
73
69 71 71
72
72
Grade 10 WritingNorwood High STATE
2013 2014Total Tested 236 243Participation Rate 98% 99%Included in Making Progress 150 137% Making Progress 65% 74%
ACCESS Results for ELLsTest assesses Five Language Domains: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and oral languageFive Proficiency Levels: Entering, Emerging, Developing, Expanding, Bridging, Rreaching
Mathematics
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
7067
76
69
6661
6669
Grade 3 Math Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT STATE
Grade 4 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
5155 55
5147
51 52
52
DISTRICT STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50 51 53 47.5
DISTRICT
Grade 5 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
6663 63
60
59 5761 60
DISTRICT STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
53 54 55
37
DISTRICT
Grade 6 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
62
69
60
62
58 60
61
60
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
47
58
37
41.5
Coakley MS
Grade 7 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
52
51 50 4751
5752 50
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5752
32 36
Coakley MS
Grade 8 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
46
56
48
64
52
52
55
52
Coakley MS STATE
2011 2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
56 52
39
69.5
Coakley MS
High Growth
Grade 10 MathProficiency Rates Growth Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
8278
85 85
77 78 80 78
Norwood HS STATE
2011 2012 2013 201405
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100
52.5 56
60
53
Norwood High
Science and Technology Engineering
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
54 55 55 57
50 52 51 53
Grade 5 Science & Technology Engineering Proficiency Rates
DISTRICT STATE
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
31
53
34
423943
3942
Grade 8 Science & Technology Engineering Proficiency Rates
Coakley MS STATE
High School Science & TechnologyGrade 9/10 Biology Proficiency Rates
Grade 9/10 Science & Technology Proficiency Rates
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100
68
6865
80
67
69 71
71
Norwood HS STATE
2011 2012 2013 201420253035404550556065707580859095
100 9689
97
80
71 72 73 73
Norwood HS STATE
NHS Recipients ofJohn & Abigail Adams Scholarships
(students who scored Advanced on one or more MCAS tests)
76: 28% of Class of 201370: 29% of Class of 201479: 29% of Class of 2015
Non-High Needs vs. High Needs % Proficiency & SGPfrom PE304/404
Non-High Needs Proficiency
High Needs Proficiency
Diff.Non-High Needs
SGPHigh Needs
SGPDiff.
Gr 3 ELA 86 48 38
Gr 4 ELA 79 49 30 50 53 -3Gr 5 ELA 82 38 44 45 37 8Gr 6 ELA 88 54 34 57 48 9Gr 7 ELA 95 67 28 59 55 4Gr 8 ELA 97 78 19 62.5 62 0.5Gr 10 ELA 99 87 12 52 45 7
Gr 3 Math 86 51 35 0Gr 4 Math 62 38 24 51 43 8Gr 5 Math 74 39 35 37 37 0Gr 6 Math 81 42 39 44 35 9Gr 7 Math 64 27 37 41 34 7Gr 8 Math 79 39 40 72 62 10Gr 10 Math 96 70 26 55 48.5 6.5
Gr 5 Science 72 37 35
Gr 8 Science 51 25 26
Gr 9 & 10 Biology 90 64 2610/17 above 80%
80% or more of Norwood’s Non-High Needs students were proficient on 10 of the 17 MCAS tests (59%).
The proficiency gaps between Norwood’s High Needs students and those who are Not High Needs range from 12 points in grade 10 ELA to 44 points in grade 5 ELA with an mean gap of 31 points and median of 34 points. These are the gaps we need to cut in half by 2017
On average, our High Needs students do one third as well as our Non-High Needs students.
Both High and Non-High Needs students showed high growth in the same two test areas: Gr 8 ELA and Gr 8 Math.
High Needs students showed low growth in four areas: Gr 5 ELA, and Gr 5, 6, & 7 math.Non-High Needs students showed low growth in only one area: Gr 5 Math.
from PE304/404 or PE305/405 NPS State Diff. SGP
Gr 3 ELA 79 65 14Gr 4 ELA 73 63 10 53Gr 5 ELA 72 74 -2 43.5Gr 6 ELA 82 78 4 56Gr 7 ELA 92 82 10 60Gr 8 ELA 97 88 9 66Gr 10 ELA 99 96 3 52Gr 3 Math 78 75 3Gr 4 Math 54 60 -6 48.5Gr 5 Math 60 70 -10 37Gr 6 Math 72 70 2 45Gr 7 Math 57 59 -2 41Gr 8 Math 73 61 12 71.5Gr 10 Math 94 86 8 55.5Gr 5 Science 61 60 1Gr 8 Science 48 48 0Gr 9 & 10 Biology 86 80 6
Non-Disabled Students Percent Proficency & SGP
1/17 tests: same as state peers
Percent Proficiency Summary12/17 tests: above state peers (71%)4/17 tests: below state peers
Non-Disabled
from PE304/404 or PE305/405 NPS State Diff. SGP
Gr 3 ELA 27 21 6Gr 4 ELA 20 15 5 38.5Gr 5 ELA 20 24 -4 27.5Gr 6 ELA 31 26 5 39Gr 7 ELA 45 30 15 39.5Gr 8 ELA 54 39 15 40Gr 10 ELA 66 61 5 27Gr 3 Math 35 35 0Gr 4 Math 32 19 13 37.5Gr 5 Math 30 22 8 36.5Gr 6 Math 20 19 1 24.5Gr 7 Math 7 12 -5 20.5Gr 8 Math 19 13 6 52.5Gr 10 Math 38 40 -2 34Gr 5 Science 36 22 14Gr 8 Science 11 11 0Gr 9 & 10 Biology 44 35 9
Students with Disabilities Percent Proficency & SGP
Disabled
2/17 tests: same as state peers
Percent Proficiency Summary
12/17 tests: above state peers (71%)3/17 tests: below state peers
Key Areas for Improvement
1. Grade 3 ELA2. Grade 5 ELA3. Grade 6 ELA4. Grade 3-5 Math: In process of selecting new math program.
5. Grade 6-7 Math: In process of selecting new textbooks.
6. Grade 8 Science and Technology Engineering: In process of adopting new standards.
Reminder:
MCAS is only one measure of a student’s, teacher’s, school’s, and district’s success!
There is more to a good educationthan MCAS…or PARCC
Some Other Points of Interest• Massachusetts’ students are #1 in the nation
at grades 4 and 8 in reading and math on 2013 NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) tests.
• Massachusetts’ students ranked #2 in science, and were tied for #5 (with Japan) in math on the 2011 TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) tests.
• Bottom line: MCAS tests are the most rigorous in the nation and among other nations.
For more information go to
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/ For sample Writing Prompts (WP), Open Responses (OR),
and Short Answer (SA) questions.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ For MCAS, AYP, and Other District/School Data.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/dart/ For comparative district data.
