Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview
200 likes | 220 Views
Explore accountability in Spring 2016 MCAS data, focusing on proficiency gaps in English, Math, and Science, growth trends, extra credit opportunities, graduation and drop-out rates, and re-engaging dropouts. Understand the 5-level scale of accountability and how schools are classified based on performance metrics. Learn about data interpretation, areas of improvement, and setting goals for addressing practice challenges.
Spring 2016 MCAS Data Overview
E N D
Presentation Transcript
How is accountability determined? • Narrowing Proficiency Gaps (English, Math, & Science) • Growth (English & Math) • Extra Credit (English, Math, & Science) • + Graduation Rates • - Drop-Out Rates • + Re-engaging Dropouts • Assessment Participation
Accountability 5 level scale of accountability – those meeting the gap narrowing goals in Level 1 and the lowest performing in Level 5 • About 80% of schools are level 1 and 2 (based on cumulative PPI of “all students” and “high needs” groups. • To reach Level 1, a school’s cumulative PPI for both “all students” and “high needs” groups must be “on target” or higher. If not, the school is a Level 2.
Accountability A school is classified Level 3 if: • The school is among the lowest 20% relative to other schools in the same school-type category • If 1 or more of the subgroups in the school are among the lowest performing 20% subgroups (relative to statewide) • If the school has persistently low graduation rates • OR if the school has very low assessment participation rates for any group (less than 90%)
Data protocol – one approach • What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? • What data can we celebrate? • What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? • What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?
Proficiency Gap Narrowing ELA (On Target for all students): • 86% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – on target! • Only 4% warning/failing (around 30 students) • ELL/Former ELL, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, White subgroups – all on or above target! • Student w/ Disabilities subgroup showed improvement • Decline in Afr. American/Black subgroup
Proficiency Gap Narrowing Math (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) • 71% of students scored proficient or advanced (2% increase in advanced) – improvement! • 11% Failing (down 1%) • Students with Disabilities, Asian, and White subgroups all showed improvement
Proficiency Gap Narrowing Science (IMPROVED, Below Target for all students) • First year of testing all 10th graders in Biology. • 50% of students scored proficient or advanced • High needs, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities, African American/Black Subgroups have improved (below target) • Asian and White Subgroups are on Target 2011 Baseline CPI = 75.7 2016 CPI = 82.7 2017 Goal = 87.9
DATA SUMMITS • What does the data tell us and what does the data NOT tell us? • What data can we celebrate? • What are the problems of practice suggested by the data? • What are your key conclusions? What recommendations do you (and your team) have for addressing the problems of practice?