report to school committee 2003 mcas results october 21 2003
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Report to School Committee 2003 MCAS Results October 21, 2003

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Report to School Committee 2003 MCAS Results October 21, 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

Report to School Committee 2003 MCAS Results October 21, 2003. A New Baseline. New Baseline. Changes in the Testing Program Results by Performance Category for the District and Individual Schools Comparable Communities Next Steps. Changes in Testing Program. No Average Scaled Scores

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 'Report to School Committee 2003 MCAS Results October 21, 2003' - holly


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
new baseline
New Baseline

Changes in the Testing Program

Results by Performance Category for the District and Individual Schools

Comparable Communities

Next Steps

changes in testing program
Changes in Testing Program

No Average Scaled Scores

New Testing Requirement for LEP Students

BHS tested 102 LEP students, 81 of whom would have been previously exempt!

EJH tested 148 LEP students, 127 of whom would have been previously exempt!

There were 164 students in grades 3, 4, & 6 who would have been previously exempt!

slide4
MCAS Testing Program

High Stakes/High Standards

Grades tested: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10

Tonight’s focus: English/Language Arts Mathematics

slide5
Performance Categories

Category

Advanced

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Failing/Warning

Score Range

260-280

240-259 [240 = proficient]

220-239 [220 = passing]

200-219

mcas 2003

MCAS 2003

Changes in Performance Categories by Grade

slide7
Percentage of Students in Warning/Failing Category

ELA MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 0398 99 00 01 02 03

Grade 3 14 14 15 [13]

State 7 6 7

Grade 4 29 25 22 19 19 18 [15] 39 35 29 27 35 28 [26]

State 15 12 16 11 10 10 23 19 18 19 19 16

Grade 6 46 39 37 [36]

State 33 30 26

Grade 7 24 19 15 [13]

State 12 9 7

Grade 8 69 67 67 48 54 59 [57]

State 42 40 39 31 33 33

Grade 10 44 42 42 24 14 19 [14] 76 76 64 35 38 36 [33]

BHS 44 41 41 23 13 18 [13] 75 76 64 34 36 35 [32]State 28 32 34 18 14 12 52 53 45 25 25 21

slide8
Percentage of Students in Advanced /Proficient Category

ELA MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 0398 99 00 01 02 03

Grade 3 36 42 42 [44]

State 62 67 63

Grade 4 6 8 8 33 32 38 [40] 17 18 23 23 20 22 [23]

State 20 21 49 51 54 55 34 36 40 34 39 40

Grade 6 23 29 27 [27]

State 36 41 42

Grade 7 31 38 36 [37]

State55 6465

Grade 8 14 8 12 18 14 13 [14]

State 31 28 34 34 34 37

Grade 10 22 24 27 42 61 52 [57] 7 9 16 29 27 33 [36]

BHS 22 24 27 43 63 54 [59] 7 9 16 30 29 34 [37]

State 38 34 36 51 59 61 24 24 33 45 44 51

individual school results

Individual School Results

Changes in Performance Categories

slide10
Grade 3 Percentage of students in warning category

ELA

year 01 02 03

Angelo 13 19 25 [17] 16%

Arnone 18 21 16 [14] 29%

Ashfield 3 9 5

Belmont St. 13 11 11 [ 3] 18%

Brookfield 7 6 6

Davis 21 22 16 [14] 15%

Downey 22 16 25

Franklin 10 11 11

Gilmore 11 18 16 [12] 28%

Hancock 7 10 10

Huntington 11 8 13

Kennedy 8 10 13 [4] 15%

Plouffe 28 19 5

Raymond 18 17 27

Whitman 6 0 5

LEP

slide11
Grade 3 Percentage of students in adv/prof category

ELA

year 01 02 03

Angelo 29 36 37 [43] 16%

Arnone 34 40 35 [39] 29%

Ashfield 41 46 45

Belmont St. 26 42 51 [61] 18%

Brookfield 41 55 62

Davis 26 28 38 [40] 15%

Downey 33 47 37

Franklin 48 40 57

Gilmore 38 36 20 [21] 28%

Hancock 52 53 53

Huntington 37 35 36

Kennedy 37 54 46 [52] 15%

Plouffe 36 33 62

Raymond 36 44 28

Whitman 29 37 38

LEP

slide12
Grade 4 Percentage of students in warning category

ELA MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 0398 99 00 01 02 03

Angelo 6% 23 17 15 16 20 11 [9] 50 23 25 24 39 19 [17]

Arnone 17% 43 31 29 14 22 26 [19] 53 46 35 22 33 32 [30]

Ashfield 40 13 18 15 9 14 46 14 16 15 27 15

Belmont St. 33% 18 31 33 21 22 25 [18] 42 42 36 23 37 47 [42]

Brookfield 26 33 12 18 12 8 34 48 21 27 30 11

Davis 13% 36 33 34 28 31 24 [23] 53 49 46 53 54 26 [25]

Downey 27 30 40 32 37 21 25 43 41 40 52 36

Franklin 35 35 15 9 13 6 37 49 22 11 31 17

Gilmore 22% 39 29 26 21 11 42 [35] 49 44 26 26 27 56 [47]

Hancock 19 15 10 7 18 17 14 19 17 17 31 25

Huntington 24 13 21 14 5 5 27 17 25 22 24 25

Kennedy 24% 9 7 15 18 10 21 [ 9] 12 21 26 20 20 27 [16]

Plouffe 47 25 18 24 28 9 63 38 28 36 37 28

Raymond 27 30 22 24 23 15 48 37 39 30 36 32

Whitman 22 19 16 24 7 4 63 38 26 31 18 8

LEP

slide13
Grade 4 Percentage of students in adv/prof category

ELA MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 0398 99 00 01 02 03

Angelo 6% 8 27 18 52 38 54 [56] 10 41 42 39 29 40 [41]

Arnone 17% 12 9 8 44 39 39 [43] 20 12 23 36 27 18 [20]

Ashfield 1 5 5 27 33 40 16 28 16 31 23 26

Belmont St. 33% 3 6 4 30 34 23 [25] 16 12 10 13 12 10 [11]

Brookfield 4 2 5 28 19 40 19 7 23 16 13 34

Davis 13% 5 1 3 19 13 31 [32] 11 8 10 11 8 14 [14]

Downey 2 4 2 18 12 30 19 10 14 13 11 23

Franklin 0 2 2 40 35 52 6 11 28 35 24 27

Gilmore 22% 8 2 4 15 46 13 [16] 18 3 18 8 29 6 [ 8]

Hancock 8 11 10 50 26 36 29 32 29 23 19 20

Huntington 12 7 8 35 40 40 23 25 32 29 24 15

Kennedy 24% 15 15 19 43 54 51 [59] 36 27 33 23 32 32 [38]

Plouffe 0 19 13 35 36 40 2 21 26 28 30 25

Raymond 4 3 4 23 26 37 5 10 14 17 17 12

Whitman 0 7 8 26 46 62 13 9 28 21 28 32

LEP

slide14
Grade 6 Percentage of students in warning category

MATH

year 01 02 03

Angelo 47 40 33 [32] 7%

Arnone 33 30 33 [30] 11%

Ashfield 54 48 29

Belmont St. 59 31 45 [41] 18%

Brookfield 45 28 32

Davis 73 66 52

Downey 46 38 34

Franklin 35 25 26

Gilmore 52 39 53 [49] 21%

Hancock 30 29 19

Huntington 46 41 44

Kennedy 33 25 40 [31] 16%

Plouffe 54 50 43

Raymond 53 50 42

Whitman 27 29 25

LEP

slide15
Grade 6 Percentage of students in adv/prof category

MATH

year 01 02 03

Angelo 28 39 46 [48] 7%

Arnone 32 42 39 [43] 11%

Ashfield 18 18 21

Belmont St. 18 28 14 [16] 18%

Brookfield 20 38 17

Davis 5 8 14

Downey 22 25 32

Franklin 28 50 51

Gilmore 10 23 11 [ 9] 21%

Hancock 37 30 33

Huntington 23 21 15

Kennedy 32 52 27 [31] 16%

Plouffe 23 25 30

Raymond 12 15 21

Whitman 27 41 34

LEP

slide16
Grade 7 Percentage of students in warning category

ELA

year 01 02 03

North 24 13 7

South 26 18 13

East 23 26 27 [11] 20%

West 20 14 11

LEP

slide17
Grade 7 Percentage of students in adv/prof category

ELA

year 01 02 03

North 24 39 39

South 30 36 36

East 34 28 27 [35] 20%

West3648 43

LEP

slide18
Grade 8 Percentage of Students in Warning Category

MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

NJH 73 73 63 44 49 54

SJH 68 64 64 50 54 58

EJH 72 69 71 52 52 65 [58] 21%

WJH 63 60 65 41 59 53

LEP

slide19
Grade 8 Percentage of Students in Adv/Prof Category

MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

NJH 10 5 13 21 17 16

SJH 12 11 11 16 13 15

EJH 12 6 10 15 12 9 [11] 21%

WJH 18 10 15 22 15 16

LEP

slide20
Grade 10 Percentage of Students in Failing Category

ELA

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

BHS 44 41 41 23 13 18 [13] 8%

MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

BHS 75 76 64 34 36 35 [32] 8%

LEP

slide21
Grade 10 Percentage of Students in Adv/Prof Category

ELA

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

BHS 22 24 27 43 63 54 [59] 8%

MATH

year 98 99 00 01 02 03

BHS 7 9 16 30 2934 [37]8%

LEP

percent of all students in warn fail category
Percent of All Students in Warn/Fail Category

Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10

ELA ELA ELA ELAMath Math Math Math

Brockton 15 18 15 20 28 37 59 37

Boston 21 28 16 30 38 50 53 36

Chelsea 11 20 17 41 20 43 64 53

Chicopee 10 15 15 15 25 48 51 28

Fall River 8 13 13 24 22 51 68 50

Holyoke 28 36 30 40 42 63 77 55

Lawrence 27 35 25 37 52 64 72 53

Lowell 19 25 15 22 33 51 57 36

Lynn 11 16 10 21 25 37 52 33

New Bedford 9 15 18 27 24 41 62 42

Pittsfield 6 8 13 12 17 49 44 24

Revere 7 15 12 20 19 25 49 32

Springfield 17 22 23 34 34 62 72 53

Taunton 6 9 9 14 13 31 52 27

Worcester 10 14 19 24 21 34 60 38

percent of all students in adv prof category
Percent of All Students in Adv/Prof Category

Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10

ELA ELA ELA ELAMath Math Math Math

Brockton 42 38 36 52 22 27 13 33

Boston 32 27 42 36 16 20 21 37

Chelsea 41 34 33 27 32 26 15 21

Chicopee 48 37 47 45 24 17 15 38

Fall River 47 36 40 41 25 15 9 22

Holyoke 26 19 20 28 12 11 4 19

Lawrence 25 20 28 28 10 9 9 18

Lowell 38 29 41 43 21 17 15 34

Lynn 47 38 53 42 25 27 17 32

New Bedford 46 34 30 36 21 20 10 27

Pittsfield 62 47 52 50 27 19 24 41

Revere 49 45 46 49 30 35 25 22

Springfield 42 32 30 30 21 10 7 18

Taunton 61 52 52 51 40 29 22 41

Worcester 49 44 37 38 28 31 15 32

next steps1
Next Steps

Revision of School Improvement Plans

Development of Individual Student Success Plans

Increased professional development in literacy instruction

Professional development in teaching vocabulary

Increased application of classroom assessment

next steps2
Next Steps

Increased professional development in test-taking strategies

Continued emphasis on Collins Writing Program

Expanded professional development in the instruction of English Language Learners

next steps3
Next Steps

Increased implementation of standards-based math program

Collegial sharing of best practices

ad