200 likes | 212 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.
E N D
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?