1 of 33

Spring 2018 MCAS

Medway Public Schools, School Committee, November 1, 2018

2 of 33

Tonight’s Goal

  • Provide a data informed context for identified areas of focus to enhance teaching and learning.

2

3 of 33

​

Agenda

  • Context setting
  • New Accountability Formula Highlights
  • Medway’s Accountability Results
  • MCAS Measures of Student Performance
  • Medway’s Student Performance Highlights
  • Next Steps

​

​

​

3

4 of 33

4

Source: Using Data to Improve Learning for All, Love, N., 2008.

5 of 33

Next Generation MCAS: Points of Importance

  • MCAS results are only one measure of a child's growth and achievement. A child's teacher can speak more broadly about a child's academic growth and about his or her social and emotional development.
  • In most subjects and grades, fewer students scored Meeting or Exceeding Expectations than scored Proficient or Advanced in previous years. This does NOT mean that students learned less; it reflects the fact that the Next-Generation MCAS measures more rigorous standards in a different way.
  • In general, the new standards for Meeting Expectations are at least as rigorous as the legacy standards for reaching the Proficient level.

5

6 of 33

2018 MCAS Notes

​

  • 2018 accountability information should not be compared to prior years (2016 and prior)
    • Different comparison “universe”
    • Inclusion of additional indicators
    • Fewer years of data used in calculation
    • Computer vs. paper based assessment

​

​

​

6

7 of 33

Accountability

7

8 of 33

Accountability is A Complicated Formula Based On...

  • Criterion referenced elements
  • Norm referenced elements (accountability percentile)
  • School, grade level and content specific targets set for several accountability indicators - based on 2017 data
  • 50% weight based on all students; 50% weight based on the lowest performing 25% of students*
  • Different weights for different indicators

8

*Lowest performing 25% determined based on 2 years of enrollment within one school

9 of 33

9

Massachusetts’ Accountability Indicators – Grades 3-8

9

Indicator

Measure

Achievement

  • English language arts (ELA) average scaled score
  • Mathematics average scaled score
  • Science achievement (Composite Performance Index (CPI))

Student Growth

  • ELA mean student growth percentile (SGP)
  • Mathematics mean SGP

English Language

Proficiency

  • Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency (percentage of students meeting annual targets required in order to attain English proficiency in six years)

Additional Indicator(s)

  • Chronic absenteeism (percentage of students missing 10 percent or more of their days in membership)

10 of 33

10

Weighting of indicators in Grades 3-8

Indicator

Measures

2018 Weighting

With ELL

No ELL

Achievement

  • ELA, math, & science achievement values (based on scaled score)

60%

67.5%

Student Growth

  • ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

20%

22.5%

English Language

Proficiency

  • Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency

10%

​

Additional Indicators

  • Chronic absenteeism

10%

10%

11 of 33

11

Massachusetts’ Accountability Indicators –

high schools

11

Indicator

Measure

Achievement

  • English language arts (ELA) achievement (Composite Performance Index (CPI))
  • Mathematics achievement (CPI)
  • Science achievement (CPI)

Student Growth

  • ELA mean student growth percentile (SGP)
  • Mathematics mean SGP

High School Completion

  • Four-year cohort graduation rate
  • Extended engagement rate (five-year cohort graduation rate plus the percentage of students still enrolled)
  • Annual dropout rate

English Language

Proficiency

  • Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency (percentage of students meeting annual targets required in order to attain English proficiency in six years)

Additional Indicator(s)

  • Chronic absenteeism (percentage of students missing 10 percent or more of their days in membership)
  • Percentage of 11th & 12th graders completing advanced coursework (Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual enrollment courses, &/or other selected rigorous courses)

12 of 33

12

Weighting of indicators in high schools

Indicator

Measures

2018 Weighting

With ELL

No ELL

Achievement

  • ELA, math, & science achievement

40%

47.5%

Student Growth

  • ELA/Math Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

20%

22.5%

High School Completion

  • Four-year cohort graduation rate
  • Extended engagement rate
  • Annual dropout rate

20%

20%

English Language

Proficiency

  • Progress made by students towards attaining English language proficiency

10%

​

Additional Indicators

  • Chronic absenteeism
  • Percentage of students completing advanced coursework

10%

10%

13 of 33

13

Criterion-referenced component

  • Points assigned based on progress toward target for each indicator, for both the aggregate (all students) & the lowest performing students

​

Declined

No change

Improved

Met target

Exceeded target

0

1

2

3

4

Targets for the 2018 MCAS were created based on our students’ 2017 MCAS performance

14 of 33

14

Categorization of schools

Schools without required assistance or intervention

(approx. 85%)

Schools requiring assistance or intervention (approx. 15%)

​

Schools of recognition

​

Schools demonstrating high achievement, significant improvement, or high growth

​

Meeting

targets

​

Criterion-referenced

target percentage

75-100

​

Partially meeting

targets

​

Criterion-referenced

target percentage

0-74

​

​

​

Focused/targeted support

​

  • Non-comprehensive support schools with percentiles 1-10
  • Schools with low graduation rate
  • Schools with low performing subgroups
  • Schools with low participation

​

Broad/

comprehensive support

​

  • Underperforming schools
  • Chronically underperforming schools

​

Notes:

  • School percentiles & performance against targets reported for all schools

2018: Performance against targets reported in 2 categories (meeting & partially meeting

2019: Performance against targets reported in 3 categories (meeting, partially meeting, & not meeting)

15 of 33

15

16 of 33

Accountability Categorizations for Medway

  • Burke-Memorial Elementary School: Partially Meeting Targets; 78 Accountability Percentile
  • Medway Middle School: Partially Meeting Targets;

72 Accountability Percentile

  • Medway High School: Partially Meeting Targets;

84 Accountability Percentile

16

17 of 33

2018 “Next Generation” MCAS Performance Highlights (Grades 3-8)

17

18 of 33

​

“Next Generation” MCAS Achievement Levels

18

19 of 33

Gr. 3-8 English Language Arts Growth

19

20 of 33

Gr. 3-8 English/Language Arts Regional Achievement Comparisons

20

District

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

Gr. 6

Gr. 7

Gr. 8

​

M+

Accountability%

M+

Accountability%

M+

Accountability%

M+

Accountability%

M+

Accountability%

M+

Accountability%

Medway

63

72

63

81

77

89

69

85

57

77

64

75

Hopkinton

82

97

81

92

87

95

76

93

63

83

78

92

Holliston

59

50

56

57

58

56

65

84

67

89

73

84

Ashland

62

66

51

43

63

65

61

79

65

87

75

91

Medfield

67

73

72

83

79

86

71

81

65

82

59

66

Westwood

76

59-98

82

94-99

87

86-99

77

93

65

84

65

83

Natick

65

59,93

64

67,88

63

59,70

71

78-86

52

68,69

67

70,89

21 of 33

Grade 3-8 ELA Areas of Strength and Opportunity

Strengths

  • Integration of knowledge and ideas in reading standards (Gr 4,6)
  • Conventions of standard English (Gr 5,6,8)
  • Text Types and Purposes (Gr 3,4,5)

Opportunities

  • Idea development in all types of essay writing (Gr 6-8)
  • Craft and Structure (Gr 3,4,5)
  • Integration of ideas (Gr 3,4,5)
  • Vocabulary and Use (Gr 5)

​

21

(10 or more percentage points higher than the state)

(less than 10 percentage points higher than the state)

22 of 33

Gr. 3-8 Mathematics Growth

22

23 of 33

Gr. 3-8 Mathematics Regional Achievement Comparisons

23

District

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

Gr. 6

Gr. 7

Gr. 8

​

M+

Accountability %

M+

Accountability %

M+

Accountability %

M+

Accountability %

M+

Accountability %

M+

Accountability %

Medway

63

72

66

69

68

82

66

82

66

86

64

78

Hopkinton

79

94

74

89

74

91

77

96

78

96

86

99

Holliston

54

54

36

31

52

58

69

82

76

94

73

86

Ashland

56

59

42

32

55

68

69

85

72

89

71

90

Medfield

67

79

70

88

73

92

70

81

75

91

73

83

Westwood

70

71-94

78

87-98

76

70-99

69

83

64

83

71

88

Natick

66

38,95

54

47,75

67

85,79

67

74,88

60

76,79

72

85,92

24 of 33

Grade 3-8 Mathematics Areas of Strength and Opportunity

Strengths

  • Geometry (Gr 5)
  • Number and Operations - Fractions (Gr 4)
  • Number and Operations in Base Ten (Gr 3, 5)
  • Solving multi-step problems in real world context (Gr 6-8)
  • Statistics and Probability-drawing inferences about a population(s) (Gr 6-8)

​

Opportunities

  • Identifying/writing equivalent expressions (Gr 3-5)
  • Short answer (Gr 4)
  • Understanding congruence and similarity after series of transformations using new online platform (Gr 8)

24

(less than 10 percentage points higher than the state)

(10 or more percentage points higher than the state)

25 of 33

2018 “Legacy” MCAS Performance Highlights

(Grade 5, 8, and 9 Science, Grades 10 ELA and Math)

25

26 of 33

“Legacy” MCAS Achievement Levels

26

27 of 33

Gr. 5,8 Science Regional Achievement Comparisons

27

District

Gr. 5

Gr. 8

​

P+

P+

Medway

64

43

Hopkinton

72

69

Holliston

65

54

Ashland

62

57

Medfield

64

36

Westwood

80

59

Natick

72

52

28 of 33

Grade 5, 8 Areas of Strength and Opportunity

Strengths

  • Technology and Engineering
  • Life Science (5th)

​

​

Opportunities

  • Results indicative of alignment issues
  • Implementation of new science resource (6-8)
  • Expansion of PLTW (K-4)

​

28

(10 or more percentage points higher than the state)

(less than 10 percentage points higher than the state)

29 of 33

Grade 9-10 Regional Achievement* Comparisons

29

District

ELA Proficiency

Math Proficiency

Science Proficiency

Accountability Percentile

Medway

98

92

88

84%

Hopkinton

100

96

96

97 %

Holliston

97

91

91

88%

Ashland

95

92

91

70%

Medfield

97

96

94

96%

Westwood

98

96

94

93%

Natick

97

91

92

71 %

*combines the % of students at Proficient/Meeting Expectations levels of performance

30 of 33

Grade 10 Student Growth - 3 year review

30

​

2016

2017

2018

Grade 10 ELA

64

62

53.5

Gr. 10 ELA / High Needs or Lowest 25%

59.5

37

48.4

Grade 10 Math

47.5

39

56.3

Gr. 10 Math High Needs or Lowest 25%

39

42

51

Less than 40

​

40-49

50 +

31 of 33

Gr. 9-10 Areas of Strength and Opportunity

Mathematics

Strengths:

  • Solving real-life problems using numerical, algebraic and geometric equations
  • Consistently exceed state in every math standard

Opportunities:

  • Continue to focus on improving lowest 25% scores by providing necessary supports and instruction
  • Continue to integrate Interpreting Categorical and Quantitative Data

​

English/Language Arts

Strengths:

  • Consistent growth in physics in both aggregate and high needs subgroup

Opportunities:

  • The integration of science practice standards in Biology
  • Connecting curriculum to the student lives
  • Transition to Biology in Gr. 9

​

Science

31

Strengths:

  • Consistent high level achievement: 98% Proficient and above
  • Exceed state in every ELA standard

Opportunities:

  • Responding to potential instructional shifts as a result of Next Generation ELA MCAS

32 of 33

Next Steps

  • Several focused curriculum and instruction improvement efforts already underway:
    • Teacher leader reorganization to vertical, content area focused roles
    • New Grade 6-8 Science resource adoption
    • Continued Science standards transition work, grades K-2 and 3-5
    • Transition to Grade 9 Biology
    • Co-teaching self study and focused action plan
    • 2017-2018 Mathematics Curriculum Review findings
    • iReady diagnostic and online intervention
    • Additional math interventionist in grades 2-4
    • Focus on small group instruction within K-5 Math and ELA
    • Exploration of DBQ (data based question) Project as a writing framework

​

32

33 of 33

Questions?

33