mcas spring 2010 newburyport public schools october 2010

MCAS SPRING 2010

Newburyport Public SchoolsOctober 2010

2010 MCAS Results

Based upon:• Curriculum Frameworks• Alignment of Curriculum• Teaching and Learning• Practice and Preparation

– Open Response– Short Answer– Multiple Choice– Long Composition

What Was Tested in 2010?

Grade Level

Content Area 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

English Language Arts(ELA)

X X X X X X X

Mathematics X X X X X X X

Science and Technology Engineering

X X X

Biology X

2010 English Language Arts % of Students at Each Performance Level

% ofPerforman

ceAt:

Advanced/ Above Proficient

& Proficient

Needs Improvement

Warning & Failed

Nbpt State Nbpt State Nbpt State

Grade 3 67 63 28 30 6 8

Grade 4 54 54 41 35 5 12

Grade 5 65 63 30 28 5 10

Grade 6 78 69 16 21 6 9

Grade 7 89 72 8 21 3 7

Grade 8 92 78 6 16 2 7

Grade 10 92 78 7 18 1 4

English Language Arts 2010% of Students at each Performance Level

Grades 3, 4, 5

11

56

28

6 7

4741

516

49

30

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gr.3 ELA Gr.4 ELA Gr.5 ELA

Advanced/Proficient+

P roficient

Needs Improvement

Warning

English Language Arts 2010% of Students at each Performance

LevelGrades 6, 7, 8, 10

17

61

16

6

15

74

8 3

26

66

62

53

39

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 Gr. 10

Adv anced

Proficient

NeedsImprov ement

Warning

0

15

30

45

60

75

Gr.3-50 23 24 2 1

Gr.4-72 25 20 14 13

Gr.5-49 20 13 12 4

238-236 234-230 226-228 224-220

ELA 2010 Needs Improvement StudentsGrade 3 (28%), Grade 4 (40%), & Grade 5 (30%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of

Students)

Gr.3 = 13%Gr.4 = 11%Gr.5 = 8%

Gr.3 = 1%Gr.4 = 8%Gr.5 = 7%

Number of Students

Gr.3 = 12%Gr.4 = 14%Gr.5 = 12%

Gr.3 = 1%Gr.4 = 7%Gr.5 = 2%

Total NIGr.3 = 28%Gr.4 = 41%Gr.5 = 30%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gr.6-26 10 7 4 5

Gr.7-12 5 4 1 2

Gr.8-9 3 5 0 1

238-236 234-230 226-228 224-220

Number of Students

ELA 2010 Needs Improvement StudentsGrade 6 (16%), Grade 7 (8%), & Grade 8 (6%)

Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of Students)

Gr.6 = 4%Gr.7= 3%Gr.8 = 3%

Gr.6 =2%Gr.7 = 1%Gr.8 = 0%

Gr.6= 6%Gr.7 = 3%Gr.8= 2%

Gr.6 =3%Gr.7 = 1%Gr.8 = 1%

Total NIGr.6 = 16%Gr.7 = 8%Gr.7 = 6%

%2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W A & P

W

Grade 3 71 2 69 1 75 1 68 5 68 5 65 7 61 6 67 6

Grade 4 62 3 62 4 46 7 55 5 57 9 43 11 54 6 54 5

Grade 5 - - - - - - 62 4 71 3 73 5 69 6 65 5

Grade 6 - - - - - - 83 3 64 3 83 2 81 5 78 6

Grade 7 78 1 85 3 84 2 81 1 84 2 76 2 92 1 89 3

Grade 8 - - - - - - 90 2 89 3 87 3 89 2 92 2

Grade 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grade 10 75 7 83 5 81 4 84 5 90 2 92 2 94 1 92 1

English Language Arts Cohorts

2010 ELA - Grades 4, 8 & 10 % of Advanced & Proficient Students

ELA Grade 10Newburyport 2010 – 91%Comparative Communities

2010-%

1.Newburyport 911.Scituate

912.Swampscott 883.Bedford

864.Burlington

845.Wakefield

83

Geographic Proximity

2010-%1.Georgetown 92 2.Newburyport 91 3.Ipswich

884.Pentucket

875.Amesbury

865.Triton

86Aspiration Communities

2010-%

1.Winchester 97

2.Wellesley96

3.Medfield95

4.Needham93

5.Newburyport 915.Holliston

91


2010-%1.Scituate 73 2.Bedford 723.Swampscott 693.Wakefield 694.Burlington 685.Newburyport 54

Geographic Proximity 2010-

%1.Georgetown 66 2.Pentucket 653.Triton 644.Ipswich 565.Newburyport 546.Amesbury 52

Aspiration Communities

2010-%

1.Winchester 832.Medfield 803.Holliston 774.Wellesley 765.Needham 736.Newburyport 54


2010-%

1.Swampscott 962.Newburyport 922.Scituate 923.Bedford 904.Burlington 865.Wakefield 83


2010-%1.Ipswich 962.Newburyport 92 3.Pentucket 904.Triton 835.Georgetown 816.Amesbury 78


2010-%1.Winchester 951.Wellesley 952.Needham 932.Holliston 93 3.Medfield 923.Newburyport 92

English Language Arts Findings

High School

92% of students in Advanced

& Proficient categories

Scores held steady over the

past 5 years

Cohorts improved from Grade 8 consistently

All groups did make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

MiddleSchool

92% of students in Advanced &

Proficient categories

Increase from 2009 MCAS

Grade 8 student scores increased over the last 3 years

Consistent growth from cohorts

Subgroups did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

StatusCorrective Action Year 2 –Subgroups

ElementarySchools

Growth of Grade 3 students in

Advanced & Proficient categories

Large numbers of students in

Needs Improvement category

Higher % of students in ‘upper band’ of Needs Improvement

Bresnahan did make AYP in

all groups

Molin did not make AYP in

the Aggregate or Subgroups No Status

Subgroup students struggling

with Open Response & Composition questions

English Language Arts Actions

High School

Disaggregate data

Provide Resources for Writing Lab

Provide MCAS Academic Support

MiddleSchool

Disaggregate data

Focus energy on writing

Implement building literacy teams PreK-5

Implement new coaching schedule with teachers

Ensure spiraling of skills and strategies from year to year

Focus on looking at student work

Use assessment to drive instruction

Implement greater assessment data to inform teachers

Implement after school intervention programs Provide students with weekly after school support from

classroom teachers

Use team meetings to discuss instructional practices

Monitor differentiation of instruction

ElementarySchools

2010 Mathematics% of Students at Each Performance Level

Performance%

Advanced/ Above Proficient

& Proficient

Needs Improvement

Warning & Failed

Nbpt State Nbpt State Nbpt State

Grade 3 65 65 29 24 6 11

Grade 4 49 48 42 41 9 11

Grade 5 52 55 35 28 13 17

Grade 6 62 59 22 25 16 16

Grade 7 79 53 15 27 5 19

Grade 8 69 51 23 28 7 21

Grade 10 88 75 11 17 2 7

Mathematics 2010 - Grades 3, 4, 5 % of Students at each Performance

Level

18

47

29

6

16

3342

918

34 35

13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gr.3 Math Gr.4 Math Gr.5 Math

Advanced

Proficient

NeedsImprovement

Warning

Mathematics 2010 - Grades 6, 7, 8, 10

% of Students at each Performance Level

21

41

2216

21

58

15

5

39

3023

7

70

1811

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 Gr. 10

Advanced

Proficient

NeedsImprovement

Warning

Math 2010 Needs Improvement StudentsGrade 3 (29%), Grade 4 (42%), & Grade 5 (35%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of

Students)

0

15

30

45

60

75

Gr.3-52 16 10 12 14

Gr.4-72 12 31 13 18

Gr.5-49 13 26 9 9

238-236 234-230 226-228 224-220

Gr.3 = 5%Gr.4 = 18%Gr.5 = 16%

Gr.3 = 8%Gr.4 = 10%Gr.5 = 6%

Gr.3 = 7%Gr.4 = 7%Gr.5 = 6%

Gr.3 = 9%Gr.4 = 7%Gr.5 = 8%

Total NIGr.3 = 29%Gr.4 = 42%Gr.5 = 35%

Number of Students

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gr.6-35 8 15 7 5

Gr.7-23 7 5 3 8

Gr.8-35 13 15 2 5

238-236 234-230 226-228 224-220

Math 2010 Needs Improvement StudentsGrade 6 (22%), Grade 7 (16%), & Grade 8 (23%) Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of

Students)

Gr.6 = 9%Gr.7 = 3%

Gr.8 = 10%

Gr.6 = 3%Gr.7 = 5%Gr.8 = 3%

Gr.6 = 4%Gr.7 = 2%Gr.8 = 1%

Gr.6 = 5%Gr.7 = 5%Gr.8 = 9%

Total NIGr.6 = 22%Gr.7 = 16%Gr.8 = 23%

Number of Students

Mathematics Cohorts% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn A&P

Warn

Grade 3

- - - - - - 57 10 63 15 58 10 58 14 65 6

Grade 4

38

13 49 12 34 15 45 9 49 10 47 17 50 8 49 9

Grade 5

- - - - - - 22 37 56 13 63 12 53 14 52 13

Grade 6

64

8 39 18 37 23 29 26 42 20 60 10 61 13 62 16

Grade 7

- - - - - - 37 19 67 10 48 17 70 9 79 5

Grade 8

57

17 44 22 58 15 36 21 53 12 67 10 58 12 69 7

Grade 9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grade10

68

15 78 11 85 5 80 7 92 2 87 3 90 2 88 2

2010 Mathematics – Grades 4, 8, & 10 % of Advanced & Proficient Students

Math Grade 10Newburyport 2010 – 87%Comparative Communities

2010-%

1.Newburyport 872.Swampscott 862.Bedford

863.Scituate

853.Burlington

854.Wakefield

80


2010-%1.Georgetown 88 2.Newburyport 87 2.Ipswich

873.Pentucket

854.Triton

835.Amesbury

81


2010-%1.Medfield

97 2.Winchester 952.Wellesley

953.Holliston

923.Needham

924.Newburyport 87


2010-%

1.Scituate 69

2.Bedford 62

3.Wakefield60

4.Burlington56

5.Swampscott 556.Newburyport 49


2010-%1.Triton

632.Pentucket

533.Amesbury

52 4.Georgetown 50 5.Ipswich

506.Newburyport 49


2010-%1.Winchester

742.Needham

643.Holliston

623.Wellesley

62 4.Medfield

575.Newburyport 49


2010-%

1.Bedford 722.Newburyport 69 2.Wakefield 69 3.Scituate 664.Burlington 645.Swampscott 63


2010-%1.Ipswich 732.Newburyport 693.Pentucket 674.Triton 575.Amesbury 52 6.Georgetown 51


2010-%1.Winchester 821.Needham 822.Wellesley 762.Medfield 76 3.Holliston 74 4.Newburyport 69

Mathematics FindingsHigh School

70% of students in Advanced

88% of students in

Advanced & Proficient categories

Scores held steady over the

past 5 years

Cohorts improved from Grade 8 to Grade 10

consistently

All groups did make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

MiddleSchool

69% of students in Grade 8, and 79% of students in Grade 7 scored in Advanced & Proficient categories, the highest over the last 5 years

Large numbers of students in the Needs Improvement category

Largest % of students in ‘upper band’ of Needs Improvement across Grades 6, 7 & 8

Significant improvement from Grade 6 to Grade 7 and from

Grade 5 to Grade 6

Students struggling with short answer questions Grade 6

Subgroups did not make AYP Restructuring Year 2 - Subgroups

ElementarySchools

Improvement in Grade 3, the highest scores over the past 5 years

Large numbers of students in Needs Improvement category

Students struggling with short answer questions in

Grades 4 & 5

Bresnahan School did make AYP in all groups

Molin School did not make AYP in the aggregate or subgroups

Improvement Year 2-Subgroups

Mathematics ActionsHigh School

Disaggregate data Monitor achievement of

subgroups

Provide MCAS academic support

MiddleSchool

Disaggregate data

Examine data for instructional alignment

Further examine MCAS Item Analysis data

Focus on differentiation of math instruction

Monitor co-teaching practices

Monitor growth of subgroups

Embed MCAS like short answer questions into assessments in Grade 6

Provide students with weekly after school support from classroom teachers

ElementarySchools

Disaggregate data Further examine MCAS Item

Analysis data Monitor the pull-out math early

intervention program K-2 Focus math coaching in Grades 4

& 5 Monitor implementation of

Investigations in Grades K & 1 Model discussion and writing

about math thinking Monitor consistent 60 minutes of

math instruction daily Monitor consistency of rigorous

instruction across grade levels Ensure that 10 minute math is

implemented with fidelity Embed MCAS like short answer

questions into assessments in Grades 4 & 5


Investigate and implement web-based support for students and parents

2010 Science & Technology Engineering % of Students at Each Performance Level

Performance%

Advanced/ Above

Proficient & Proficient

Needs Improvement Warning &

Failed

Nbpt

State Nbpt State Nbpt State

Grade 5 63 53 32 36 5 11

Grade 8 62 40 35 41 3 19

Grade 9 Biology

75 63 22 23 4 13

Grade 10 88 65 10 28 2 8

Science/Tech Engineering 2010 - Grades 5, 8, 10

% of Students at each Performance Level

9

54

32

5 3

59

35

3

32

56

102

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gr. 5 Gr. 8 Gr. 10

Advanced

Proficient

NeedsImprovement

Warning

Sci/Tech 2010 Needs Improvement Students

Grade 5 (32%), Grade 8 (35%)Detailed Distribution Upper to Lower Band (# of

Students)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gr.5-53 11 22 5 15

Gr.8-53 11 22 11 9

238-236 234-230 226-228 224-220

Gr.5 = 9%Gr.8 = 6%

Gr.5 = 7%Gr.8 = 7%

Gr.5 = 13%Gr.8 = 15%

Gr.5 = 3%Gr.8 = 7%

Total NIGr.5 = 32%Gr.8 = 35%

% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

A& P Warn A&P Warn A&P Warn A&P Warn A&P Warn A&P Warn A&P Warn

Grade 5 59 4 49 5 39 8 67 1 49 8 53 9 63 5

Grade 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grade 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grade 8 46 19 46 9 28 12 45 10 55 8 49 6 62 3

Grade 9Biology

- - - - - - - - - - - - 75 4

Grade 9Physics

- - - - - - 74 4 82 2 85 3 - -

Grade 10 - - - - - - - - 76 2 80 1 88 2

Science and Tech/Engineering Cohorts

2010 Science & Tech/Eng - Grades 5, 8, & 10

% of Advanced & Proficient StudentsSci/Tech Grade 10Newburyport 2010 – 87%Comparative Communities

2010-%

1.Newburyport 872.Wakefield

863.Bedford

804.Scituate

785.Burlington

76 6.Swampscott 68


2010-%1.Georgetown 90 2.Newburyport 87 3.Amesbury

79 4.Triton

78 5.Pentucket

766.Ipswich

73


2010-%1.Medfield

95 2.Winchester 943.Holliston

91 4.Needham

905.Newburyport 87 6.Wellesley

77

Sci/Tech Grade 5Newburyport 2010 – 62%Comparative Communities

2010-%

1.Scituate 80

2.Bedford 71

3.Burlington68

4.Newburyport 62 5.Swampscott 60 6.Wakefield

57


2010-%1.Pentucket

70 2.Triton

693.Ipswich

684.Amesbury

64 5.Newburyport 626.Georgetown 54


2010-%1.Winchester

872.Holliston

76 3.Needham

744.Wellesley

64 5.Medfield

636.Newburyport 62

Sci/Tech Grade 8Newburyport 2010 – 62%Comparative Communities

2010-%

1.Newburyport 622.Swampscott 603.Bedford

573.Scituate

574.Burlington

48 5.Wakefield

44


2010-%1.Pentucket

66 2.Ipswich

653.Newburyport 624.Amesbury

465.Triton

456.Georgetown 36


2010-%1.Winchester

762.Medfield

74 3.Needham

644.Newburyport 62 5.Holliston

53 6.Wellesley

44

Science & Tech/Eng Findings

High School

Increase in scores from 2009 MCAS

88% of students in Advanced & Proficient categories

1/3 of students in Advanced category

Biology only tested

MiddleSchool

Increase in scores from 2009 MCAS

Focus on Gr. 5 & 8, the test is multi-year content in all

domains

Large number of students in Needs Improvement category

20% of Gr. 6 students, and 22% of Gr. 8 students are within 10 scale points of being Proficient

Low percentage of students in Advanced category

Students are struggling with Open Response questions

ElementarySchools

Science & Tech/Eng Actions

High School

Disaggregate data

Monitor achievement of students in subgroups

Provide MCAS academic support

MiddleSchool

Disaggregate data

Monitor achievement of students in subgroups


Examine data for instructional alignment

Provide instructional coaching at the elementary level

Monitor co-teaching practices

Monitor consistency of rigorous instruction across the elementary grade levels

Embed MCAS like Open Response questions into

assessments

ElementarySchools

2010 Accountability DataBresnahan & Molin Schools

Adequate Yearly Progress HistoryNCLB

Accountability Status

Year 2008 2009 2010

Bresnahan

ELAAggregate Yes No Yes

No StatusAll Subgroups

Yes No Yes

Bresnahan

MathAggregate Yes No Yes


Yes No Yes

Molin

ELAAggregate No Yes No


No Yes No

Molin

MathAggregate Yes No No Improvement

Year 2 - Subgroups

All Subgroups

No No No

2010 Accountability DataMiddle & High Schools

Adequate Yearly Progress HistoryNCLB

Accountability Status

Year 2008 2009 2010

Middle School

ELA

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Corrective Action -

SubgroupsAll Subgroups No No No

Middle School

Math

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Restructuring Year 2 -

SubgroupsAll Subgroups No No No

High School

ELAAggregate Yes Yes Yes No Status

All Subgroups Yes Yes Yes

High School

MathAggregate Yes Yes Yes No Status

All Subgroups Yes Yes Yes

What is growth? MCAS shows how each student is achieving relative to

state standards

Growth measures change in an individual student’s performance over time

o Each student’s rate of change is compared to other students with a similar test score history (“academic peers”)

o The rate of change is expressed as a percentile. Growth provides evidence of improvement even

among those with low achievement Growth gives high achieving students and schools

something to strive for beyond proficiency

For more information about SGP you may view a Growth Tutorial on the DESE website. Here is the link.

http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/tutorial2.html#

Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/tutorial2.html

Why Measure Growth? It is a way to measure progress for students at all

performance levels A student can achieve at a low level but still improve

relative to his academic peers Another could achieve well but not improve much

from year to year It provides evidence of improvement even among

those with low achievement It gives high achieving students and schools

something to strive for beyond proficiency

Rules of Thumb: Typical student growth percentiles are between

about 40 and 60 on most tests. Students or groups outside this range have higher

or lower than typical growth.

Newburyport’s Growth Range:44.5 81.0

Student Growth Percentiles (SGP)

mcas spring 2010 newburyport public schools october 2010

Documents

newburyport54 ela grade

holliston91 ela grade

grade level content

newburyport92 slide

number of students ela

ela grades

english language arts

comparative communities