2015%CMAS/PARCC% Jeﬀco%Results% · • New%Baseline% o...

2015 CMAS/PARCC Jeffco Results

Instruc)on * student feedback & next steps * adjustments to instrucDon & intervenDon

Comparability * student learning of GVC (priority learning) * instrucDon effecDveness

Accountability * all students: growth & achievement * decrease achievement gaps * career & college readiness

Assessment Purpose & Use

Using (transfer skills)

Doing (concepts & content)

Knowing (skills & sub-‐concepts)

What is CMAS?

•  New Baseline o  Revised standards and new assessments with higher expectaDons o  Scores expected to be lower o  Serve as baseline to measure future growth

•  Students/schools are not losing ground just because they may not perform as highly on CMAS

•  CMAS is one measure in balanced assessment system o  These results are eight months old and reflect the performance of last

year’s students o  Timely informaDon (e.g., current MAP scores) should be used for

instrucDonal decision-‐making

CMAS: PARCC Performance Levels

•  Five performance levels – 5 -‐ Exceeded expectaDons – 4 -‐ Met expectaDons – 3 -‐ Approached expectaDons – 2 -‐ ParDally met expectaDons – 1 -‐ Did not yet meet expectaDons

•  Met or Exceeded ExpectaDons are considered “college and career ready”

OVERALL DISTRICT PERFORMANCE CMAS

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Overall 7th Grade performance

Overall 8th Grade performance

Overall 9th Grade Performance Overall 10th Grade

Performance Overall 11th Grade Performance

SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE CMAS

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup -‐ Gender

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

Female 48% 56% 55% 60% 59% 57% 56% 56% 59% Male 39% 44% 43% 44% 39% 39% 43% 41% 43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup -‐ Ethnicity

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

White 50% 57% 57% 59% 56% 55% 56% 55% 57% Hispanic 25% 30% 29% 34% 29% 28% 29% 29% 31% AddiDonal * 42% 52% 47% 53% 49% 50% 52% 51% 60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

* Due to small counts of students, American Indian, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, and Mul)ple (2 or more races) subgroups have been combined to protect student confiden)ality.

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup – Advanced Learning Plan

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

ALP 84% 88% 88% 88% 85% 87% 87% 87% 85% No ALP 37% 43% 39% 42% 38% 38% 41% 40% 45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup – Individualized EducaDon Program

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

IEP 7% 10% 7% 7% 6% 4% 7% 7% 11% Exited IEP 39% 51% 45% 43% 38% 39% 40% 39% 40% No IEP 47% 54% 53% 57% 54% 53% 53% 52% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup – Free and Reduced Lunch

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

FRL 22% 28% 26% 30% 28% 26% 28% 27% 30% No FRL 55% 62% 61% 63% 59% 59% 58% 57% 58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS ELA Grades 3-‐11 Subgroup – Language Proficiency

2014-‐15

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

NEP 0% 2% 4% 0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 4% LEP 20% 14% 7% 8% 4% 4% 9% 3% 2% FEP 90% 73% 59% 64% 53% 57% 49% 47% 53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

NEP: Non English Proficient, LEP: Limited English Proficient, FEP: Fluent English Proficient

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Gender

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade Female 42% 36% 39% 43% Male 45% 37% 38% 41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Ethnicity

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade White 50% 43% 46% 49% Hispanic 25% 18% 19% 23% AddiDonal * 44% 38% 38% 44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

* Due to small counts of students, American Indian, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, and Mul)ple (2 or more races) subgroups have been combined to protect student confiden)ality.

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Advanced Learning Plan

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade ALP 91% 82% 83% 89% No ALP 36% 29% 27% 29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Individualized EducaDon Program

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade IEP 12% 7% 7% 7% Exited IEP 45% 30% 41% 34% No IEP 46% 40% 42% 46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Free and Reduced Lunch

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade FRL 22% 16% 17% 20% No FRL 55% 47% 49% 53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

CMAS Math Grades 3-‐6 Subgroup – Language Proficiency

2014-‐15

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade NEP 2% 2% 8% 2% LEP 24% 11% 6% 6% FEP 83% 59% 48% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons


CMAS Math Grades 7-‐8 Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II

Subgroup – Gender 2014-‐15

7th Grade Math

8th Grade Math Algebra I Geometry Algebra II

Female 33% 17% 44% 35% 40% Male 32% 16% 40% 34% 40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

The 7th and 8th grade percentages reported above do not represent district performance for all students in those grade levels.


Subgroup – Ethnicity 2014-‐15

7th Grade Math


White 38% 21% 49% 41% 46% Hispanic 18% 7% 20% 16% 18% AddiDonal * 35% 17% 43% 37% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons

* Due to small counts of students in groups, American Indian, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, and Mul)ple (2 or more races), subgroups have been combined to protect student confiden)ality.



Subgroup – Advanced Learning Plan 2014-‐15

7th Grade Math


ALP 79% 52% 84% 80% 80% No ALP 22% 15% 31% 24% 27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons



Subgroup – Individualized EducaDon Program 2014-‐15

7th Grade Math


IEP 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% Exited IEP 27% 15% 35% 23% 34% No IEP 36% 19% 46% 38% 42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons


CMAS Math Grades 7-‐8 Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II Subgroup – Free and Reduced Lunch

2014-‐15

7th Grade Math


FRL 16% 8% 21% 14% 18% No FRL 41% 22% 51% 43% 47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons


CMAS Math Grades 7-‐8 Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II Subgroup – Language Proficiency

2014-‐15

7th Grade Math


NEP 8% 5% 9% 8% 0% LEP 3% 2% 7% 5% 5% FEP 39% 15% 44% 30% 36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percen

t of Stude

nts M

et or E

xceede

d Expe

ctaD

ons



CLAIMS & SUBCLAIMS CMAS

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary

Preliminary Preliminary




NWEA MAP & DIBELS Balanced Assessment System

Fall 2015 District Reading Results

Fall 2015 District Math Results

DIBELS Next Grades K-‐3

Beginning 2015-‐16

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Percen

t of Stude

nts A

t or A

bove Ben

chmark

CMAS Strengths Summary •  Jeffco outperformed the state for the percent of students who met or exceeded ELA expectaDons at all grade levels, and in all but 8th grade for math

•  The district exceeds the state in Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra I by relaDvely large percentages, ranging from 10 to 12 points in students meeDng/exceeding CMAS expectaDons

•  For ELA, students performed consistently when interpreDng informaDonal and literary texts

•  In mathemaDcs, results for males and females remain relaDvely consistent, without significant gender gaps in met/exceeded performance

CMAS Challenges Summary •  There is work to do in moving toward the new state expectaDon of college and career readiness –  About half of Jeffco students across grade levels met or exceeded CMAS ELA expectaDons; about 35-‐40% for math

•  Females consistently outperform males for ELA •  AddiDonal achievement gaps persist: – White and Asian students outperformed other racial groups –  Fewer free and reduced lunch eligible students performed at the met/exceeded expectaDon

–  Students receiving special educaDon services (on IEPs) demonstrated relaDvely low percentages of meeDng/exceeding CMAS expectaDons; however, exited IEP students performed at higher levels

Next Steps •  School and district staff will conDnue to analyze these baseline CMAS results to determine strengths and needs to ensure alignment of curriculum and resources

•  Last year’s CMAS results will be reviewed with current data (e.g., school assessments, MAP district benchmark scores) for a more complete picture of student performance

•  The EducaDonal Research and Design department will conDnue to collaborate with school-‐based colleagues to support the conDnued student growth of Jeffco’s readers, writers, and mathemaDcians

Our Mission and 2020 Vision

To provide a quality education that prepares all children for a successful future.

In order for students to pursue their life goals, by 2020 all Jeffco graduates will be able to apply the Jeffco 2020 competencies.

Date post:	26-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

2015%CMAS/PARCC% Jeﬀco%Results% · • New%Baseline% o...

Documents