Overview of mcas results and adequate yearly progress determinations 2006
Download
1 / 36

Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 128 Views
  • Uploaded on

Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2006. Brockton School Committee November 21, 2006. Overview of 2006 MCAS results. Grades and subjects tested State and district gains since 1998 Other longer-term gains District and state performance levels

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Overview of MCAS Results and Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations 2006' - jeneva


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Overview of mcas results and adequate yearly progress determinations 2006 l.jpg

Overview of MCAS Resultsand Adequate Yearly Progress Determinations2006

Brockton School Committee

November 21, 2006


Overview of 2006 mcas results l.jpg
Overview of 2006 MCAS results

  • Grades and subjects tested

  • State and district gains since 1998

  • Other longer-term gains

  • District and state performance levels

  • Passing and proficiency rate comparisons

  • Recent improvements in subgroup performance

2



Slide4 l.jpg

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement

4


Slide5 l.jpg

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement

5


Slide6 l.jpg

The passing rate on the state's assessment test for first time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

October 30, 2006 DOE news release announcing Commissioner’s retirement

6


Slide7 l.jpg

7 time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.


Slide8 l.jpg

8 time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.


Slide9 l.jpg

MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

9


Mcas 2006 district and state results l.jpg
MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

10


Mcas 2006 district and state results11 l.jpg
MCAS 2006 DISTRICT AND STATE RESULTS time test takers has risen from less than 50 percent in 1998 to 84 percent in 2006. And the percentage of 10th graders scoring at least Proficient on the English and Math exams has risen from 38 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2006.

11


Slide12 l.jpg

2006 MCAS RATES FOR PASSING AND ADVANCED/PROFICIENT BY GRADE LEVEL

(DARKER BLUE/GOLD BARS = ADVANCED/PROFICIENT)

12


Slide13 l.jpg

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI LEVEL

for English Language Arts

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI

Gains in English Language Arts

13


Slide14 l.jpg

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI LEVEL

for Mathematics

State & Brockton Cycle IV CPI

Gains in Mathematics

14


Adequate yearly progress l.jpg
Adequate Yearly Progress LEVEL

  • Composite Proficiency Index (CPI)

  • Grade level CPI - 2006

  • State and large urban CPI - 2006

  • District and state CPI over time

  • AYP calculation and status

  • Consequences and context statewide

  • Beyond 2006

15


Slide16 l.jpg

16 LEVEL


Cpi composite performance index l.jpg
CPI=Composite Performance Index LEVEL

Index

Points

71.3

17


Slide18 l.jpg

2006 STATE/DISTRICT CPI BY GRADE LEVEL LEVEL

BARS = BROCKTON, LINE = STATE CPI

18




Slide21 l.jpg

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON LEVEL

FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 3.8

8.7

11.6

BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 6.7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

21


Slide22 l.jpg

SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON LEVEL

FOR MATHEMATICS

STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 8.2

BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 9.0

12.6

13.4

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

22


How is ayp calculated l.jpg
How is AYP calculated? LEVEL

(100 – Cycle III CPI) / 5

23


Sample 2006 district ayp history table l.jpg
Sample 2006 district AYP history table LEVEL

New method

2006-

Old method

2001-2005

New method

Old method

24


When schools do not make ayp for two consecutive years l.jpg
When schools do not make AYP for LEVEL two consecutive years

Statewide

382 schools identified for improve-ment

206 in the aggregate

176 for subgroups

Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group are identified for improvement.

  • Schools identified for improvement are required to develop a plan for improving student performance.

  • Title I schools identified for improvement are also required to offer

    • school choice in first year of improvement status;

    • supplemental services in second year, if fail to make AYP after first year.

25



Schools in corrective action status l.jpg
Schools in corrective action status LEVEL

Statewide

188 schools in corrective action

49 in the aggregate

139 for subgroups

Schools identified for improvement that do not make AYP for two additional years are identified for corrective action.

Districts with schools in corrective action are required to -

  • Institute new curriculum relevant to school’s low performance and provide professional development to support its implementation;

  • Extend length of school year or school day;

  • Replace school staff deemed relevant to school not making adequate progress;

  • Significantly decrease management authority at the school;

  • Restructure internal organization of the school; or

  • Appoint one or more outside experts to advise school in its improvement efforts.

27


Brockton schools identified for corrective action l.jpg
Brockton schools identified for LEVEL corrective action

28


Schools in restructuring status l.jpg
Schools in restructuring status LEVEL

Schools in corrective action that do not make AYP in 2006 are identified for restructuring.

Districts with schools in restructuring status are required -

  • Reconstitute the school by replacing school staff relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate progress;

  • Enter into contract with an entity with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school as a public school;

  • Turn operation of the school over to State educational agency, if the State agrees;

  • Re-open the school as a public charter school; or

  • Implement “any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress.…”

Statewide

59 schools in 20 districts are in restructuring status

29



Districts identified for improvement or corrective action l.jpg
Districts identified for improvement or corrective action LEVEL

Districts that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in either subject for any group, at all grade-spans, are identified for improvement.

Districts identified for improvement year 2 that do not make AYP in 2006 at all grade-spans are identified for corrective action.

For districts in corrective action, the State has options to –

  • Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds;

  • Institute new curriculum relevant to districts’ low performance and provide professional development to support its implementation;

  • Replace district personnel relevant to inability of district to make adequate progress;

  • Remove individual schools from the jurisdiction of the district and arrange for their public governance and supervision;

  • Appoint a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the superintendent and school board; or

  • Abolish or restructure the district.

Statewide 26 districts are in corrective action (9 aggregate and 17 for subgroups), 104 districts identified for improvement

31



Cycle iv status of districts and schools statewide l.jpg

Of the 234 public school districts, 130 or 56% districts have been negatively identified –

By subject area

ELA(23), Math (55)

ELA and Math (52)

Aggregate - Corrective Action (9)

Subgroups –

Corrective Action (17) Improvement (104)

Of the 1772 public schools, 629 or 35% have been negatively identified –

Aggregate (314)

Restructuring (59)

Corrective Action (49)

Improvement (206)

Subgroups (315)

Corrective Action (139)

Improvement (176)

Cycle IV status of districts and schools statewide

33


Slide34 l.jpg

34 have been negatively identified –


Slide35 l.jpg

` have been negatively identified –

Projected path in ELA

Projected path in Math

35


Slide36 l.jpg
END have been negatively identified –

36

Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology


ad