MCAS SC Report 2011

8/3/2019 MCAS SC Report 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mcas-sc-report-2011 1/40

1

Franklin Public Schools

MCAS Report 2011



2

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6

CPI and Performance Ratings .................................................................................................... 7

Accountability Data .................................................................................................................. 8

NCLB Accountability Status ....................................................................................................... 9

State NCLB Targets ................................................................................................................. 11

AYP Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11

Summary of Exams ................................................................................................................. 13

Percentage Advanced and Proficient ....................................................................................... 14

Sub-Group Analysis ................................................................................................................. 15

Growth Model Results ............................................................................................................ 16

DART Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 18

MCAS Focus Areas .................................................................................................................. 19

Franklin Curriculum Plans ....................................................................................................... 20

Future of MCAS Testing .......................................................................................................... 23

Adams Scholarship Recipients ................................................................................................. 25

Multi-Year Data Reports ......................................................................................................... 27



3

Introduction No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

The No Child Left Behind Act , signed into law by President Bush in January 2002, was the

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the prevailing federal

law in K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act expanded the federal role in education and

become the basis of education policy. The legislation mandated requirements for virtually every

public school and district in the United States. The core of the No Child Left Behind Act contains a

number of measures designed to mandate broad gains in student achievement (as defined by

each state) and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress (as defined by

each state). These core measures included:

Academic progress. States must determine their own definition of “proficient” and must

bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests by school year 2013-2014

(Massachusetts has applied for a federal waiver). Individual schools must meet the state

determined adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets toward meeting this goal for all

students in the aggregate as well as specific subgroups.

Report cards. Starting with school year 2002-03, states must furnish annual report cards

showing a range of information, including student achievement data broken down by

subgroup. Districts must provide similar report cards showing school-by-school data. The

state of Massachusetts does this yearly for every school district.

Teacher qualifications. By the end of the school year 2005-06, every teacher in core

content areas working in a public school must be "highly qualified" in each subject he or

she teaches. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally means that a teacher is certified

and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter.

Reading First. The act created a new competitive-grant program called Reading First to

help states and districts set up "scientific, research-based" reading programs for children

in grades K-3 (with priority given to high-poverty areas).

Funding changes. Through an alteration in the Title I funding formula, the No Child Left

Behind Act is expected to better target resources to school districts with high



4

concentrations of poor children. The law also includes provisions intended to give states

and districts greater flexibility in how they spend a portion of their federal allotments.

Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA)

Under the Education Reform Act , students within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are

required to participate in state standardized testing. This testing is the Massachusetts

Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). When these tests were originally implemented in

1998, tests were administered to students in grades 4, 8, and 10 in the areas of English language

arts and mathematics. In subsequent years, additional testing has been implemented because of

the requirements set forth in NCLB. Additional tests in science and social studies (currently

waived) have been added. All students in grades 3-8 and 10 are administered MCAS tests in both

English language arts and mathematics. In addition, students in grades 5 and 8 are also required

to take the science and technology/engineering test. In order to receive a high school diploma

students are also required to pass the Biology (or other science) MCAS test along with math and

ELA exams.

All tests within the MCAS assessment program are given over a period of time beginning in

March and ending in the first week of June. For the students, these testing days range from two

to seven days depending on the number of tests given. MCAS tests are standards-based tests that

reflect the skills and concepts that are to be taught and learned by the time they are tested in a

specific subject and grade level. In standards-based testing, it is possible to have all students

attain the advanced level of proficiency given the appropriate amount of time and instruction

needed for each individual student to be successful to that level. The 2011 MCAS test was the

14th administration in the state. These tests are based on the Massachusetts Curriculum

Frameworks approved by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education. The results provide districts with information regarding the progress of each child and

the student achievement as measured against these standards within a subject area. MCAS is also

a concrete measure of the district‘s curriculum alignment with the frameworks. The

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks set high standards and expectations for all students and

these tests assess progress in attaining these standards and expectations.



5

All MCAS tests are comprised of multiple-choice question and written response prompts. In

addition, students in grades 4, 7, and 10 students are required to complete a long composition

writing assessment. This assessment is designed to assess each student‘s ability in the areas of

topic development and conventions (grammar and punctuation). A student‘s score on this aspect

of the test becomes part of the total assessment in the area of English language arts.

Proficiency Levels Based on Scaled Scores

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has established proficiency levels based

on the scaled scores of students in grade 3-10. Students attain the following proficiency level

based on scaled scores.

Proficiency Level Scaled Scores

Advanced 260-280

Proficient 240-258

Needs Improvement 220-238

Warning (Failing in Grade 10) 200-218

It is a state mandate that all students enrolled in public schools in the Commonwealth will

participate in the MCAS testing. Students take the test under standard conditions or with

appropriate accommodations for those students with disabilities. Students, who were absent or

failed to take the test, or any portion, are given a minimum score of 200 (warning/failing).

The teachers and administrators have worked diligently to provide a positive testing environment

(including all necessary test accommodations) to encourage all students to do their best. These

factors, along with parent support and student cooperation, have resulted in this extremely high

participation rate. When reviewing these tests, it is necessary to understand that when

comparing scores from one year to the next, the difference in the group of test takers will result

in performance fluctuations.



6

Data Analysis

Data analysis is a critical part of the district’s process when reviewing MCAS scores. The data

analysis is used for both an overall analysis of our curriculum and the early identification of

students in need of remedial instruction. It also provides us with valuable information about our

students who are functioning at the upper range of the curriculum. In all cases, this analysis

provides teachers with data from which to plan appropriate instruction for all students as well as

the opportunity to identify needs in our overall curriculum.

Data is analyzed in both the aggregated form and by disaggregated subgroups in an effort to fully

understand the results and make clear determinations as to the appropriate next steps in

planning curriculum development, instructional strategies, and local assessment plans. As part of

the data analysis process, MCAS data is shared among all teachers and administrators at all grade

and department levels. The faculty is asked to review the data, looking at individual student

performance as well as for patterns and trends in the data. Synthesizing the data and

participation in collegial discussions are an important part of the process. Each school, subject,

and level will address the needs and goals that have been identified. The analysis process and the

resulting teacher conversations regarding student achievement and best instructional practices

are seen as a vital outcome of the process.

Data is reviewed in many ways. Through the state’s Data Warehouse tool we have the ability to

review scores by student, school, and district. We can look at the scaled scores, performance

categories, percentages of students in each category, and isolate student performance for those

in our Sub-groups. Additionally, we can analyze results by test and look at content strand data

and individual item analyses as well as question types. Students are required to answer multiple

choice questions, open response items, short answer questions in math, and in some grades

students also complete the long composition. Analyses of all these measures provide important

data that is used to change and inform instructional practices in our classrooms and impacts our

work with all students.



7

Franklin is a high performing community as indicated by the Composite Performance Index (CPI)

analysis below. These performance ratings have remained consistent for many years and reflect

the many instances in which the majority of our students have achieved academic success at high

levels.

CPI and Performance Ratings by Grade

District Subjects CPI

(Targets:

95.1-ELA

92.2-Math)

Performance Rating

District ELA

Math

94.8

90.8

Very High

Very HighGrade 10 ELA

Math

97.8

95.1

Very High

Very High

Grade 8 ELA

Math

97.5

87.6

Very High

High

Grade 7 ELA

Math

97.1

89.2

Very High

High

Grade 6 ELA

Math

94.6

88.3

Very High

High

Grade 5 ELA

Math

93.9

92.6

Very High

Very High

Grade 4 ELA

Math

90.5

90.1

Very High

Very High

Grade 3 Reading

Math

92.3

92.7

Very High

Very High



8

Composite Performance Index

This is the baseline indicator representing the performance of students tested in grade 3-8. The

CPI score each year becomes the baseline for the next year’s growth measurement. CPI baselines

are calculated for both English Language Arts and Mathematics scores.

Performance Rating

This is a descriptive representation of aggregate student performance on MCAS tests. Schools

and districts are assigned one of six performance rating categories based on their CPI: Very High

(90 - 100); High (80 - 89.9); Moderate (70 - 79.9); Low (60 - 69.9); Very Low (40 - 59.9); and

Critically Low (0 - 39.9).

Accountability Data Summary

District Subjects NCLB

Accountability

Status

Improvement

Rating

AYP

Aggregate

AYP Sub-

groups

District ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

On Target

No Change

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

FHS ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

Met NCLB Goal

No Change

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Annie Sullivan

Middle School

ELA

Math

No Status

Improvement Year

2-Subgroups

Met NCLB Goal

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Horace Mann

Middle School

ELA

Math

No Status

Improvement Year

1-Subgroups

On Target

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Remington

Middle School

ELA

Math

Improvement Year

2-Subgroups

No Status

On Target

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

No



9

Davis Thayer ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

No Change

No Change

No

Yes

No

No

Jefferson ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

No Change

Declined

No

No

No

No

Keller ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

On Target

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kennedy ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

On Target

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Oak Street ELA

Math

No Status

No Status

No Change

On Target

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Parmenter ELA

Math

Improvement Year

1-Subgroups

No Status

On Target

On Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NCLB Accountability Status

The NCLB status category is based on the AYP determination over multiple years and defines the

required course of school action that must be taken to improve student performance.

Accountability status categories include No Status, Improvement , Corrective Action and

Restructuring. A school is placed in an accountability status based on the performance and

improvement profile of students in the aggregate or one or more subgroups over two or more

years in ELA and/or mathematics. Schools that make AYP in a subject for all student groups for

two or more consecutive years are assigned to the positive No Status category.

Improvement Rating

This is a descriptive term corresponding to the amount of aggregate CPI gain a school achieved

compared from one year to the next. The improvement that a school is expected to make from

one year to the next is expressed not as a single numeric target, but as a target range. The size of



10

the target range varies depending on the size and score distribution of the particular group being

measured.

The five improvement rating categories are: Above Target (improved above target range), On

Target (improved within target range), No Change (gain was equivalent to baseline plus or minus

the target range), Improved Below Target (improved above the baseline but below the target

range), and Declined (gain was below baseline and below the target range).

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires schools and districts to meet or exceed

specific student performance standards by the year 2014. This applies only to the ELA and

Mathematics tests. AYP determinations are based on the performance of all students (aggregate)

and for individual groups of students (sub-groups). It is the interim measure of progress towards

proficiency for all by 2014. To make AYP the student participation requirement must be met as

well as an additional attendance or graduation requirement. The last component of the

calculation is the student performance against either the state designated target or the school or

district’s own improvement target.



11

State NCLB Performance Targets for ELA & Mathematics, 2001 – 2014

Black oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle IV 2005 & 2006

Purple oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle V 2007 & 2008

Green oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle VI 2009 & 2010

Red oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle VII 2011 & 2012

AYP Analysis

One of the anomalies of MCAS analysis is that districts and/or schools can be both high

performing and not meet the AYP targets. It is for this reason that the state of Massachusetts has

recently begun the process of applying for a federal waiver of the NCLB requirements. Many

other high performing districts and schools around the state are in this same situation with a set

of results that present as an inconsistent data set. Dozens of districts, including high performing

districts, across the state showed similar AYP results, especially in middle school Math. This leads

to the question: How can high performing schools or districts be designated as failures? The

scoring mechanism and calculations used are leading many schools and districts to that

designation and this is the impetus behind the state’s decision to seek a waiver. It is important to

note that on every MCAS test administered over 90% of Franklin students passed, with some



12

tests showing passing rates of 99%. The designation as a high performing district is substantiated

in this data, as we acknowledge that there is more work to be done.

The AYP target has often been described quite accurately as a moving target. Numerical targets

are developed for a two year growth trajectory. The 2011 results reflect the first year of this two

year cycle with newer and much higher targets required for the AYP criteria. In the previous two

years the targets were 90.2 in ELA and 84.3 in Math. The 2011 targets are substantially higher

with the criteria moving to 95.1 in ELA and 92.2 in Math. This is a very steep increase of 5.4% and

9.4% respectively.

While the overall expectations of making the AYP targets were achieved in most tests across the

district, we recognize that there is still work to be done in areas across the system. We are

carefully reviewing the Mathematics results and working to align our curriculum with the new

Massachusetts Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks that were released last spring. Specific work

is being done to determine how to improve and remediate Math instruction at the three middle

schools in the identified Sub-groups and with individual students as needed. Similarly, this work is

being done at Davis Thayer and Jefferson in Mathematics for both the aggregate and identified

students within the Sub-groups. In ELA we are also working towards aligning our curriculum with

the new Massachusetts Frameworks and targeting Jefferson and Davis Thayer for detailed

analysis of data to inform instructional practices.



13

Summary of Exams

Grade Exam % of Students Passing

Franklin

% of Students

Passing

State

3 Reading 97 91

3 Math 95 90

4 ELa 95 88

4 Math 96 89

5 ELA 97 91

5 Math 96 85

5 Science 96 85

6 ELA 97 91

6 Math 92 84

7 ELA 98 94

7 Math 94 78

8 ELA 98 94

8 Math 91 79

8 Science 94 81

9 Science 99 93

10 ELA 99 97

10 Math 98 93

All Grades ELA 97 92

All Grades Math 95 85

Looking at the percentage of students passing the MCAS tests is another element of the data

analysis that is done. Work is always moving forward with students who struggle to meet this

benchmark, however, there is much to be proud of as indicated in the chart above. Franklin

students continue to outperform students across the state in a significant manner.



14

Percentage of Students Scoring Advanced and Proficient

Grade Exam Proficient or Higher

Franklin

Proficient or Higher

State

3 Reading 77 61

3 Math 81 66

4 ELA 74 53

4 Math 70 47

5 ELA 84 67

5 Math 82 59

5 Science 69 50

6 ELA 84 68

6 Math 74 58

7 ELA 91 73

7 Math 73 51

8 ELA 91 79

8 Math 73 52

8 Science 63 39

9 Science 89 67

10 ELA 95 84

10 Math 87 77

All Grades ELA 84 69

All Grades Math 78 58

Another important measure of achievement when analyzing MCAS results is the percentage of

students achieving in the Advanced and Proficient performance categories combined, often

known as P+. The table above compares Franklin P+ results to the state results for this year and

again indicates that Franklin students significantly outperform students across the state.



15

Sub-Group Analysis

MCAS results by Sub-groups are reported from the state to the district in the following

categories: students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, economically

disadvantaged students, and racial and ethnic groups. These students are reported in the

aggregate and for each Sub-group to which they belong. Student performance by Sub-group is a

part of the AYP determination. Sub-group performance is not reported (but counts in the AYP

determination) if the number of students is small and the reporting of the data could

compromise the confidentiality of student results.

In Franklin the Sub-groups struggling to meet the challenges of the AYP target in English Language

Arts were at the elementary level only and were identified as White and/or special education

students. Due to the small numbers of students involved in some these results the state does not

report this data for some schools. However, detailed analysis and targeted intervention can be

developed based on the individual student data each school receives.

Similarly in Math the identified Sub-Groups at the elementary level were low income students. In

Math identified Sub-groups at the middle school level were White, special education, and/or low

income students. At the high school level the identified sub-group was special education

students.



16

Growth Model Results

Grade Subject Student Growth Percentile

(Aggregate)

3 Reading N/A

3 Math N/A

4 ELA 65

4 Math 66

5 ELA 53

5 Math 61

6 ELA 47

6 Math 37

7 ELA 57

7 Math 54

8 ELA 60

8 Math 46

10 ELA 48

10 Math 41

SPG Range Growth Description

1-39 Lower Growth

40-60 Moderate/Typical Growth

61-99 Higher Growth

The student growth model is another method to evaluate individual and aggregate performance.

It was implemented by the state in 2009 and measures progress on assessments by tracking

scores from one year to next. The reports are meant to be used in conjunction with the MCAS

achievement levels. The student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated using two or more years of

MCAS data. Growth for individual students is measured by comparing changes in his or her MCAS

performance from one year to the next with that of their “academic peers.” Academic peers are

identified as students in the state who have the same MCAS performance history. This measure



17

also takes into account the test taken (Math and ELA) as well as increasingly more

difficult/complex grade level learning standards. Student Growth Percentiles are not calculated

on Grade 3 tests as this grade represents the first year in the test administration cycle. Also, SGP

is not calculated for Science/Technology or Biology tests.

In Franklin eleven out of twelve tests indicate growth in the moderate or high growth categories.

Of these, four are designated high growth. These results, with other MCAS data, indicate the

Franklin students overall are showing growth as expected with regard to MCAS testing. Further

analysis is underway, particularly with regard to the grade six math results, to determine

methods of continuing the pattern of improving student growth percentiles.



18

DART Analysis

The goal of the District Analysis and Review Tool (DART) is to offer a snapshot of district and

school performance, allowing users to easily track select data elements over time, and make

sound, meaningful comparisons to the state or to "comparable" organizations. The data elements

are linked to a broader strategic framework defining the characteristics of effective educational

organizations and cover a broad range of district and school interests including demographic,

assessment, student support, educator, financial, and achievement gap data. The DESE has

grouped each district with a list of ten “comparable” districts or schools. These districts or

schools are considered “comparable” based on student enrollment and demographics. The

district highlighted in blue is the district that has demonstrated highest performance based on

achievement and growth in ELA and math over the past two years among the top 10 comparable

districts.

Grade

span

2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS

%

Advanced/Proficient

2011 MCAS Growth

Comparable Districts

Overview

Total

Enrollme

nt

Low

Income

SPED LEP ELA Math ELA Math

Andover* PK -

12

6,178 5.9 16.2 1.4 87% 81% 55.0 59.0

Chelmsford* PK -

12

5,307 8.0 15.7 2.5 84% 71% 55.0 49.0

Easton* PK -12

3,893 7.7 17.9 1.2 80% 71% 51.0 48.0

Franklin* PK -

12

6,032 7.1 15.8 1.2 85% 77% 55.0 52.0

Natick* PK -

12

4,825 8.9 14.7 1.0 83% 76% 52.0 52.0

Needham* PK -

12

5,358 5.4 14.0 1.1 86% 79% 58.0 56.0

Sharon* PK -

12

3,435 7.2 15.1 1.7 89% 79% 57.0 55.0

Wachusett* PK -

12

7,490 7.1 13.4 1.0 85% 73% 58.0 52.0

Wellesley* PK -

12

4,892 3.9 16.0 1.2 88% 76% 54.0 59.0

Wilmington* PK -

12

3,732 8.5 16.1 0.7 78% 65% 48.0 51.0

Winchester* PK -

12

4,282 5.6 16.4 2.9 90% 83% 54.0 48.0



19

MCAS Focus Areas

Detailed analysis demonstrates continued growth and success for most students across most

tests. However, there are several areas that require additional work so that students can

demonstrate success across all tested components. As already indicated previously, work must

be done with individual students, particularly those in some Sub-groups, to assist all students to

success as measured by the MCAS. This is true for our students in the special education Sub-

group. It is critical that we maintain a high bar for mastery of content and test taking skills for

students to adequately demonstrate successful achievement. This work is being done across the

district within inclusive classrooms and through services delivered as required on individual

student educational plans.

Teachers meet by grade level (building-based and district-wide) to discuss MCAS data and

collaborate on improving student performance and instructional practice. Teachers and

administrators are provided training in the manipulation of Data Warehouse and data analysis to

further enhance the ability to make sense of the data and collaboratively discuss methods to

improve student results.

Student learning and achievement is an essential focus of all MCAS activities. Data analyses,

program and curricular revisions, professional development activities, and district/building plans

all funnel into the ultimate goal of increased student achievement at all levels.

The state requires districts to develop Individual Student Success Plans (ISSP’s) for increasing

performance of students in grades 3-8 who score below 220 – Warning on ELA and Math

MCAS tests.

The district also requires an ISSP for any student in grades 3-8 who scores in the Low Needs

Improvement performance level (220-228 ).

In order to receive a high school diploma, students must demonstrate minimum competency

on their ELA and Mathematics MCAS tests identified as a score of 240 (Proficient) or higher.

In addition, students must also demonstrate competency on a science test with a score of 220

(Needs Improvement) or higher. Any student who fails to meet these expectations must, with

their guidance counselor, complete an individual Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP).

Systemically, we will also be focusing on successfully answering Open Response questions in both

ELA and Math. Typically our students have fared much better on multiple choice questions, which

mirrors state data as well. Specific test taking strategy work will be embedded in our instructional

practices so that this writing skill becomes second nature to our students. Responding to

literature in writing or explaining mathematical thinking in writing are life skills that all of our

students will need in their future academic lives.

Another focus area is that of topic development in the long composition administered in grades

four, seven, and ten. This exam is scored against two rubrics. The scoring of Franklin students on

the Conventions (grammar and mechanic) rubric continues to exceed the scoring for topic

development. Again, this mirrors state data, but is worthy of additional focus. Being able to

develop a narrative with appropriate and meaningful detail is a necessary skill for all students.



20

Lastly, we will be looking at the content of our Mathematics instruction K-12. The alignment to

the new Massachusetts Frameworks will facilitate some of this work as the need for content

mastery becomes necessary at lower grades than previously expected. With the content review

we will also look at our math instructional practices to make sure that we are finding ways to

uncover the math thinking of each student and have the opportunity to clarify misconceptions as

needed. We want all of our students to be successful problem solvers and critical thinkers and

the work in Mathematics is designed to help develop these skills in our students.

Some of the work that needs to be done in a remedial manner with individual students will

happen during the school day. Some of this targeted MCAS support work will also happen after

school. If funding is available we also hope to offer a summer school component to assist with

remedial efforts again this year.

Franklin Curriculum Plans

Many of the initiatives that are underway in the district represent the best in educational

research and practices. Continued dedication to these principles also serves to prepare studentsmost effectively for all assessments: MCAS exams, other standardized tests, and all local

measures of achievement. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to excellence in

student achievement. Among these factors is the articulation of vertical and horizontal

curriculum, alignment of the curriculum to mandated standards, materials, instructional

strategies and practices, the integration of technology in instruction, diversity of assessment

types, adequate funding, professional development, and most importantly an ongoing focus on

success for all students.

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Initiatives:

Franklin continues to move ahead with a multi-year implementation of programs at the

elementary and middle levels in literacy. Over the past few years we have implemented

Reader’s Workshop in grades K-5. This work is continuing with the addition of Writer’s

Workshop to grades 3-5 and a phonics program (Fundations by Wilson) in grades K and 1.

Next year we will extend these new programs to encompass grades K-5 in Writer’s

Workshop, along with the addition of Fundations to grade 2. At the middle school we

continue with the multi-year work being done with the program Keys to Literacy. This

program has resulted in an inter-disciplinary approach to literacy for all of our middle

school students and will roll up to Franklin High School next year.

Curriculum mapping is another important initiative that is underway across the district.

This multi-year initiative is the articulation of all units taught in core courses and gradesin Franklin and will prove to be a valuable tool for staff and families alike. The

opportunity to work on mapping parallels the work needing to be done to align the

Franklin curriculum in ELA and Mathematics with the new Massachusetts Curriculum

Frameworks. This alignment is essential to meet the required standards for education as

mandated by the state and as tested by MCAS currently and the PARCC tests after 2014.



21

This year the district is engaged in a comprehensive review of the Mathematics

curriculum. The goals of this review include the necessary alignment to the Math

Frameworks as previously mentioned, but go much further. Materials currently being

used to teach Math are also being reviewed and there are ongoing discussions about

Math instructional practices and assessments. Recommendations for necessary changes

and possible materials adoptions are among the planned outcomes for this endeavor.

Franklin has created a number of teams comprised of teachers and administrators to

develop, oversee, and complete a number of important projects. The work of all these

teams is inter-related and each team member has been charged with the responsibility of

serving as a liaison to the committee from each person’s respective grade, subject,

and/or building.

o At both the elementary and middle school levels there is a Literacy Leadership

Team (LLC) in place to serve as an advisory board with regard to the varied and

multi-year initiatives. This gives the teaching staff and important voice in forward

decision making in this area.o There is a K-12 Mathematics Team engaged in the curriculum review previously

mentioned. This team is comprised of teachers and administrators, including our

Math Curriculum Enrichment Teachers (CETs) from both the elementary and

middle levels.

o Franklin has a newly created K-12 Literacy team this year. This team will serve as

the precursor to the full-fledged curriculum team that will meet next year as a

part of the planned cycle of curriculum review. This year’s team will begin to

develop the processes and procedures to be used in aligning the ELA curriculum

and will examine what professional development is required to make the

alignment a reality in our classrooms.o The district also has a Response to Intervention (RtI) team, again with

representation from both the teaching staff and administration. This team has set

two important goals this year. The first is the collection of all the interventions

and strategies currently in use in the district as well as any others representing

research based best practices. This information will then be made available to

staff electronically providing a menu of options that can be adapted to meet the

needs of an individual or small group of students. The second goal for this team

this year is to establish protocols around the use of data as it pertains to the

Response to Intervention process. Again, this is work that will be shared with staff

to make it more possible for teachers to access vital data that already exists about

our students.o The District Data Team is also hard at work and some members of that team have

served in an advisory capacity for the development of this report and other MCAS

analysis efforts. The charge of this group is to focus on the systemic use of data

across district to inform instruction and improve achievement, both in formative

and summative ways.



22

The Franklin Arts Academy at Franklin High School continues to develop and implement a

thematic curriculum. The team of teachers has expanded to encompass new grades and

courses offered to students and future growth plans are in active development.

The district is continuing to administer and analyze local measures to assess student

progress. We are currently using GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic

Evaluation), GMADE (Group Math Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation in a variety of

grades at the elementary and middle schools. The DRA2 (Developmental Reading

Assessment) is used for students in grades K-3.

Summer work will be done, if funding is available, to further advance some of the above

initiatives. The time for focused and in depth concentration on this work is essential for

its completion.

Professional Development

Building internal capacity to lead and sustain effective change is a hallmark of theprofessional development in Franklin. To this end we are continuing with the model of

having lab classrooms at the elementary and middle school levels. Lab classroom

teachers have agreed to have their classrooms become laboratories for the modeling of

new lessons and serve as coaches for colleagues. This has been an effective method to

encourage collaboration and sharing of best practices within grades and schools.

Our literacy specialists at the elementary level have continued to serve the district in a

variety of ways. Most recently each elementary literacy specialist facilitated a morning of

professional development work by grade with rave reviews from teachers. Similarly, our

lab classroom teachers at the middle schools serve as Keys to Literacy coaches andcoordinated an afternoon of professional development for colleagues, again with rave

reviews. This internal capacity will serve us well as we work to move away from outside

consultants and create a more self-sustaining literacy program.

Other professional development efforts continue across the district for all professional

staff. Offerings include but are not limited to: graduate courses, content and instructional

workshops, instruction in the use of technology, professional learning communities, and

many others.

Middle school and some elementary Math teachers are working with a Math consultant

and the district Math CET’s during to strengthen content understanding and methods for

uncovering mathematical thinking in students so that misconceptions can be clarified.

Elementary teachers continue to work with Literacy consultants to advance the literacy

initiatives in the district.



23

The high school has had professional development this year in It’s Learning , an online

vehicle for classroom use. Teachers are posting assignments, student work, and blogging

as well as providing other important information in this safe, closed virtual environment.

Staff at the secondary level have implemented our new student management system (X2-

Aspen) and have undergone training as part of that implementation process.

One of the most significant aspects of all curriculum and professional development efforts is that

of funding. The budget impacts everything from class size to materials to teacher training and

without adequate and appropriate financial support our initiatives to serve our students will fall

short. Capital funds will be requested in the next budget cycle to purchase the most recent

editions of the Math programs currently in use at the elementary and middle schools. These new

editions are aligned with the Common Core Standards and will greatly aid the district’s ef forts to

align to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.

Future of MCAS Testing

MCAS testing will change over the next few years to reflect adoption of the new Massachusetts

Curriculum Frameworks based on the Common Core Standards in ELA and Mathematics. The

MCAS testing as we currently know it will be phased out by 2015. Massachusetts is part of a 24

state consortium working together to develop the next generation of assessments. Below is an

excerpt from the website of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

(PARCC) website:

The PARCC design will incorporate four features designed to significantly improve the quality and

usefulness of large-scale assessments

The system will:

Be anchored in college and career readiness,

Enable deeper and richer assessments,

Measure learning and provide information on student progress throughout the school

year, and

Provide timely results.

The proposed design is intended to model the kinds of activities and assignments students should

be doing throughout the year.

Many schools and districts in PARCC states have leveraged the good idea of linking assessment to

instruction periodically throughout the school year by administering “interim” assessments.

PARCC intends to improve on this good idea by administering high-quality through-course

assessments that reflect the best kind of classroom instruction and student work and that can

contribute to decisions about student, educator, school and state performance against the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS).



24

PARCC will also leverage technology throughout the design and delivery of the assessment

system. The overall assessment system design will include a mix of constructed response items,

performance-based tasks, and computer-enhanced, computer-scored items. The PARCC

assessments will be administered via computer, and a combination of automated scoring and

human scoring will be employed.



25

John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Recipients

A total of 116 high school seniors (September enrollment figures) were awarded the John and

Abigail Adams Scholarship based on their Grade 10 MCAS performance. Students qualified for

this scholarship by scoring: (a) in the Advanced category in English Language Arts or Mathematics

and Advanced or Proficient in the other subject area on the grade 10 MCAS assessments; and, (b)

in the top 25% of the students in the district on these tests. The recipients are:

Amanda Adams

Sarah Addi

Sarah Babin

Nicole Beckmann

Ethan Blank

Madelyn Brown

Catherine Calabrese

Hayley Casilio

Rachel Ceskavich

Sara Chaffee

Tiffany Chao

Dean Chaput

Sara Charbonnier

Tony Chase

Claire Chiboub

Rachel Cohen

Fiona Cole

Devin Comeau

Grant Conway

Amanda Cooke

Jennifer Coppola

Michaela Criscione

Allison Cucalon

Luke Cybulski

James Dervay

Shannon Dimartino

Emily Doak

Sean Doherty

Connor Donahue

John Dowd

Laura Dowd

Stephanie Dowd

Allison Dumart

Jillian Ferrari

Dean Fish

Caitlin Flaherty

Paul Fretz

Julia Geromini

Alexandria Giese

Ryan Grady

Alexandra Graudins

Danielle Hall

Stefan Herlitz

Kayla Higgins

Alexander Hiller

Michael Hoang

Andrew Hood

Joseph Howard

Pratiba Irudayaraj

Serissa Jones

Emily Kanadanian

Christopher Kelly

Matthew Kilroe

Andrew Kinney

John Kinney

Meghan Kinney

Sarah Kinney

Kendal Knous

Brittany Kokoszka

Alexandra Kuppens

Naomi Laughran

Travis Lepage

Sarah Macclellan

Justin Magerman

Anna Mahoney

Ryan Maietta

Lauren Mancini

Alison Mariano

Tina Maurer

Eamon McCarthy Earls

Stephanie McCulloch

Joseph McDonald

Annie McDougall

Seth McIntyre

Victoria Moses

Susan Mullen

Paul O'Donoghue

Andreas Okorn

Kenneth Parece

Matthew Pellegri

Andrew Perrin

Victoria Petit

Catherine Phelan

Matthew Pilis

Abigale Plesh

Meghan Pradko

Andrew Rock

Sara Rodgers

Michael Ruggieri

Heather Ryfa

Courtenay Schwartz

Jonathan Selwitz

Michelle Shafferman

Justin Shen

Anirudh Singh

Shivanjali Singh

Susan Siraco

Noelle Smith

Matthew Snow

Amy Stevens

Emily Stickles

Alison Sturtevant

Cynthia Swanson

Christine Taft

Erika Thorne

Caroline Toney

Allyson Traphagen

Theresa Urquhart

Swana Weng

John Wiech

Alicia Wilde

Callie Wilhelmi

Allyssa Williams

Amanda Williamson

Andrew Wilson

Alexandra Zollo



26



27

Multi-Year MCAS Reports



28



29



30



31



32



33



34



35



36



37



38



39



Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steve-sherlock
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

MCAS SC Report 2011

Documents