10/7/14
1
MCAS Presentation to the School Committee October 7, 2014 Cambridge, MA
1
Agenda
2
} MCAS in context } Purpose of MCAS } CPS in relation to state: All grades and subgroups combined
} Digging Deeper } Variation by grade } Variation by student group } Performance Levels
} Level 1 and 2 Schools } Level 3 Schools – deeper analysis
} Summary and Questions for All of Us Moving Forward
} Current Areas of Focus
10/7/14
2
Purpose of MCAS
3
} To determine the progress the district, schools, and individual students have made in acquiring the knowledge and skills as outlined in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.
} This testing is a snapshot of a school, grade, subgroup, and individual student’s progress to date, as well as a rich and meaningful data set for our work; as measured by one assessment.
Putting MCAS in Context
4
} What is happening across the state? } How does CPS compare? } Key Takeaways:
} CPS has made greater gains overall relative to the state. } We have closed the performance gap between CPS and
the state in ELA and Math. } CPS outperforms urban and Commissioner’s districts. } We have made roughly twice as much progress as urban
and Commissioner’s districts in both ELA and math. } Although we have made twice the progress of the state in
science, we are still 3% below the state in science.
10/7/14
3
ELA MCAS Results 2009-14
5
ELA MCAS Results 2009-14
6
10/7/14
4
Math MCAS Results 2009-14
7
Math MCAS Results 2009-14
8
10/7/14
5
Science MCAS Results 2010-14
9
52% 52% 54% 53% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
State
Science MCAS Results 2010-14
10
46% 44% 49% 51% 51%
52% 52% 54% 53% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
CPS State
10/7/14
6
Summary
11
} CPS has made greater gains overall relative to the state. } We have closed the performance gap between CPS and
the state in ELA and Math. } CPS outperforms urban and Commissioner’s districts. } We have made roughly twice as much progress as urban
and Commissioner’s districts in both ELA and math. } Although we have made twice the progress of the state in
science, we are still 3% below the state in science.
MCAS performance
Grade and Grade band
12
10/7/14
7
Digging Deeper
13
} How does MCAS performance vary by grade and grade band?
} Key Takeaways: } Elementary Schools
} CPS outperforms the state at grades 3, 4, 5 in ELA and math and has made greater growth than the state in every subject since 2009.
} Upper Schools } The state outperforms CPS in grades 6 – 8 in ELA and math } There has been a decrease in performance in math and science from
2013 to 2014, while ELA scores have remained flat. } CRLS
} Since 2009, we have seen an overall upward trend in proficient/advanced at CRLS in every subject.
} Overall } The state outperforms CPS at every grade level tested in science.
ELA - % Proficient/Advanced by Grade
14
64%
51%
59%
66%
71% 71%
86%
58% 59% 63% 64% 65%
77%
90%
66%
57%
67% 64%
67%
76%
87%
57% 54%
64%
68% 72%
79%
90%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10
2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014
10/7/14
8
Math -‐ % Proficient/Advanced by Grade
15
65%
47%
54% 56%
52% 50%
83%
67%
62%
56%
61%
46%
58%
83%
77%
54%
63%
55%
50%
46%
80%
68%
52%
61% 60%
50% 52%
79%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10
2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014
Science - % Proficient/Advanced by Grade
16
45%
38%
65%
44% 41%
69%
50%
35%
69%
53%
42%
71%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10
2012 2013 2014 STATE 2014
10/7/14
9
54%$
54%$
57%$59%$
61%$64%$
50%$
55%$
54%$56%$
63%$66%$
34%$
45%$
38%$
45%$ 44%$
51%$
10%$
20%$
30%$
40%$
50%$
60%$
70%$
80%$
90%$
2009$ 2010$ 2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$
Percen
t'Proficient'or'A
dvan
ced'on
'MCA
S'
Elementary''Schools'8'%'Prof/Adv'200982014'
ELA$
Math$
Science$
17
70%$ 70%$73%$
70%$ 70%$ 70%$
46%$49%$
51%$54%$
56%$
51%$
29%$
34%$36%$
38%$41%$
35%$
10%$
20%$
30%$
40%$
50%$
60%$
70%$
80%$
90%$
2009$ 2010$ 2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$
Percen
t'Proficient'or'A
dvan
ced'on
'MCA
S'
Upper'Schools'7'%'Prof/Adv'200972014'
ELA$
Math$
Science$
18
10/7/14
10
70%
70%
81%
86% 90%
87%
63%
77%
77%
83% 83% 80%
45%
59% 60%
65% 69% 69%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percen
t Proficient or A
dvan
ced on
MCA
S
Grade 10 -‐ % Prof/Adv 2009-‐2014
ELA
Math
Science
19
Summary
20
} Elementary Schools } CPS outperforms the state at grades 3, 4, 5 in ELA and math
and has made greater growth than the state in every subject since 2009.
} Upper Schools } The state outperforms CPS in grades 6 – 8 in ELA and math } There has been a decrease in performance in math and science
from 2013 to 2014, while ELA scores have remained flat. } CRLS
} Since 2009, we have seen an overall upward trend in proficient/advanced at CRLS in every subject.
} Overall } The state outperforms CPS at every grade level tested in
science.
10/7/14
11
MCAS Performance
Student Groups and Gap Narrowing Progress
21
Digging Deeper
22
} How are different student groups progressing on MCAS in CPS? } Are achievement gaps narrowing? } Key Takeaways:
} For grades 3 – 10 ELA, CPS performance roughly equals the state for every student group. CPS outperforms the state for ELL, Hispanic/Latino, and White students.
} In grades 3 – 5, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, especially African American / Black students in every subject with increases of 10%, 12%, and 11% in ELA, math, and science, respectively.
} Achievement gaps are not narrowing at grades 6 - 8. } In grade 10, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, most
notably in ELA. In particular African American/ Black students, Hispanic/Latino, low income students, ELL students, and students with disabilities have increased 21 – 28% in ELA proficient/advanced over the last 5 years.
10/7/14
12
Grades 3-10 ELA Subgroups % Prof/Adv Change Between 2010-2014 and State 2014
23
63%
27% 26%
48% 46%
73%
53%
80%
69%
31%
43%
54% 53%
79%
59%
83%
69%
30%
36%
51% 52%
78%
47%
76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
All Students Sts. w/ disabilities ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black
Asian Hispanic/Latino White
ELA - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014 in comparison with State 2014
2010 2014 STATE 2014
Grades 3-10 Math Subgroups % Prof/Adv Change Between 2010-2014 and State 2014
24
55%
20%
29%
40% 37%
73%
41%
72%
61%
26%
41% 45%
43%
75%
50%
77%
60%
23%
35%
41% 39%
79%
39%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
All Students Sts. w/ disabilities
ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black
Asian Hispanic/Latino White
2010 2014 State 2014
10/7/14
13
Grades 3-10 Science Subgroups Change Between 2010-2014 with State 2014
25
49%
17%
12%
30%
25%
66%
74%
29%
51%
17% 18%
32% 31%
66%
40%
70%
31%
54%
21%
18%
33%
30%
67%
28%
63%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
All Students Sts. w/ disabilities
ELL/FELL Low Income African American/Black
Asian Hispanic/Latino White High Needs
2012 2014 State 2014
64%
37% 40%
76%
39%
21% 21%
54%
71%
47% 49%
79%
46%
27%
45%
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
ELA Grades 3-5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
26
10/7/14
14
Math Grades 3-5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
27
68%
35% 38%
74%
39%
21%
27%
45%
77%
47%
53%
82%
49%
34%
43%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
Science Grade 5 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
28
62%
21%
35%
65%
24%
12% 11%
45%
60%
30%
43%
70%
29%
19%
12%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
10/7/14
15
ELA Grades 6-8 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
29
84%
54%
65%
87%
56%
35% 40%
70%
86%
51%
61%
85%
55%
31%
41%
70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
Math Grades 6-8 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
30
74%
31%
37%
68%
31%
15%
25%
49%
71%
30%
39%
70%
34%
17%
34%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian Black Hispanic White Low Income SWD FELL/ELL All Sts.
2010 2014
10/7/14
16
Science Grade 8 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
31
48%
13%
24%
56%
16%
10%
4%
34%
53%
13%
24%
55%
16%
8%
14%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
ELA Grade 10 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
32
82%
53% 58%
88%
58%
28%
22%
70%
95%
79%
86%
94%
82%
53%
43%
87%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
10/7/14
17
MATH Grade 10 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
33
95%
65% 61%
89%
69%
45% 42%
77%
97%
67%
76%
90%
73%
42%
56%
80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
Science Grade 10 - % Proficient & Advanced by Student Subgroup 2010-2014
34
84%
37% 41%
79%
44%
17%
25%
59%
94%
52%
59%
84%
51%
26%
34%
69%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Asian Black/Afr. Am Hispanic White Low Income SWD ELL/FELL All Sts.
2010 2014
10/7/14
18
Summary
35
} For grades 3 – 10 ELA, CPS performance roughly equals the state for every student group. CPS outperforms the state for ELL, Hispanic/Latino, and White students.
} In grades 3 – 5, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student groups, especially African American / Black students in every subject with increases of 10%, 12%, and 11% in ELA, math, and science, respectively.
} Achievement gaps are not narrowing at grades 6 - 8. } In grade 10, achievement gaps are narrowing for many student
groups, most notably in ELA. In particular African American/ Black students, Hispanic/Latino, low income students, ELL students, and students with disabilities have increased 21 – 28% in ELA proficient/advanced over the last 5 years.
Performance Levels
A Deeper Analysis
36
10/7/14
19
Digging Deeper
37
} What can we learn by analyzing data behind DESE performance levels (1 – 3)? } Analyzing data behind performance levels forces schools to:
} Identify targets met or missed, which provide information as to what practices are to be considered to be brought to scale.
} Identify areas in need of greater focus. } Provides for trend analysis that incorporates performance plus
growth. } A Level 3 school can make great gains in a year and still remain a
Level 3 school. } How does CPS compare overall to the state in the number of
Level 1, 2, and 3 Schools? } In 2014, 10 schools were classified as Level 1, 4 schools were
classified as Level 2, and 3 schools were classified as Level 3. This is a significant improvement since 2012, when only 4 of CPS schools were Level 1.
How Performance Levels are Determined
38
} Annual PPI combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, (and at high school also graduation and dropout rates) into a number between 0 and 100
} A PPI of 75 means on track toward meeting goals } Must have at least 30 students to report student groups } PPI is annually calculated by meeting targets in…
Subject Component #1 Component #2 Component #3
ELA Composite Performance Index (a measure of MCAS proficiency)
Student Growth Percentile (measure of MCAS growth)
Extra Credit: reduce warning/failing or increase advanced
Math
Science Not available
10/7/14
20
Cumulative PPI
39
} Cumulative PPI is the average of a school’s annual PPIs over the most recent four year period, weighting recent years the most (4-3-2-1)
} All schools in MA are classified into Levels 1 – 2 using cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students. } Level 1: Cumulative PPI = 75 + for all students and high
needs } Level 2: Either or both group (all students and high needs
students) has Cumulative PPI less than 75
School Percentiles
40
} School Percentile is an indication of a school’s overall performance relative to other schools that serve the same or individual grades.
} Calculated somewhat similarly to PPI (e.g. weighting years 4-3-2-1), except that achievement is weighted three times higher than improvement } Thus, a school can have a high cumulative PPI, but a low school %ile. } There is less transparency from DESE re: calculations of School %iles.
10/7/14
21
Level 3 Determination
41
} Level 3 Schools Determined By: } School Percentile in the lowest 20% of all schools at
same or similar grade level in state OR } One or more subgroups in the lowest 20% of that
subgroup } Levels 4 and 5: Most serious designation, made by
Commissioner
Level 1 and 2 Schools in CPS vs. State
42
26%$
79%$
18%$
48%$
59%$
82%$
0%$
10%$
20%$
30%$
40%$
50%$
60%$
70%$
80%$
90%$
100%$
Level$1$Schools$ Level$1$or$2$Schools$
Percen
t'of'A
ll'Scho
ols'in'2014'
State$Overall$
MA$Urban$Districts$
Cambridge$Public$Schools$
10/7/14
22
43
44
10/7/14
23
Focusing on Level 3 Schools
45
} Although 82% of CPS schools are Level 1 or 2, we have three Level 3 Schools this year: } Kennedy Longfellow } King Open } Putnam Avenue
} It is important to understand the history of performance and growth at these schools to understand how to best support their progress
2014 School Percentile: 16th
46
10/7/14
24
*Note: There were too few students with high needs to be given a score for science
47
2014 School Percentile: 29th
48
10/7/14
25
*Note: There were too few students with high needs to be given a score for science
49
2014 School Percentile: 18th
50
10/7/14
26
51
Overall Summary
52
} Level 3 Schools in Year 2 of Level 3 status have shown significant improvement in 2014.
} PAUS has completed an extensive data analysis and identified key strategies for improvement that will be presented in their SIP.
} Gains across elementary schools in ELA, Math, and Science are noteworthy.
} Grades 6 – 10 progress in ELA, Math, and Science requires further analysis and attention.
} Progress amongst student groups (e.g. African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Students with Disabilities) have shown significant growth since 2009.
10/7/14
27
Questions for All of Us Moving Forward
53
} Is what we are doing working? How do we know? } Are we building confidence and self-esteem in our students? } Are we building supportive learning environments? } Are CPS students academically and socially engaged within our
classrooms? } Are we developing CPS educator’s knowledge and skills that
equip them in addressing areas of deficit in student learning? } Are our district and/or school improvement strategies
targeted to meet areas of greatest need evidenced in the data? } What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
that will impact our district improvement moving forward?
Current Areas of Focus
54
} Educator Evaluation System Year 3 } Developing Capacity in Instructional Leadership –
Highly Effective Teaching Project } Curriculum & Instruction: Curriculum Review Cycle. } Educator Development and Support } Office of Student Services: Strategic Planning Process } District Improvement Plan } Establish District-Wide Framework for Response to
Intervention
10/7/14
28
Current Areas of Focus
55
} Continued RETELL training for all teachers & administrators
} Continued improvement planning in all schools } District Accountability Review and Targeted support
from state’s District & School Assistance (DSAC) Center
56