1 / 33

Report to School Committee 2002 MCAS Results October 1, 2002

Report to School Committee 2002 MCAS Results October 1, 2002. Boston Globe September 20, 2002. “MCAS exam scores mixed……” “Test results show math a problem throughout the state …” “…math instruction is a dilemma that stretches beyond the urban districts …”. Report Overview.

tessa
Download Presentation

Report to School Committee 2002 MCAS Results October 1, 2002

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report to School Committee2002 MCAS ResultsOctober 1, 2002

  2. Boston GlobeSeptember 20, 2002 “MCAS exam scores mixed……” “Test results show math a problem throughout the state…” “…math instruction is a dilemma that stretches beyond the urban districts…”

  3. Report Overview Review of MCAS Testing Program Brockton-State Comparison Brockton Results: Scaled Scores Brockton Results: Performance Categories Comparable Communities Next Steps

  4. MCAS Testing Program High Stakes/High Standards Grades tested: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 Tonight’s focus: English/Language Arts Mathematics Score ranges: 200 to 280 Performance Categories: advanced; proficient; needs improvement; warning/failing

  5. Performance Categories Category Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Failing/Warning Score Range 260-280 240-259 220-239 [220 = passing] 200-219 Note: Grade 3 does not report scaled scores

  6. MCAS Results Brockton/State Comparison

  7. Citywide Results: Grade 3 • Eng/LA year 2001 2002 State 30 30 Local 2626 Note: A score of 16 is passing.

  8. Citywide Results: Grade 4 • Eng/LA Math year98 99 00 01 0298 99 00 01 02 State 230 231 231 239 239 234 235 235 235 236 Local 224 226 226 233 232 225 226 228 231 228

  9. Citywide Results: Grade 6 Math • year 2001 2002 • State 233 235 Local 227 230

  10. Citywide Results: Grade 7 Eng/LA • year 2001 2002 • State 239 242 Local 231 234

  11. Citywide Results: Grade 8 Math • year98 99 00 01 02 • State 227 226 228 233 232 Local 215 214 215 225 223

  12. Citywide Results: Grade 10 • Eng/LA Math year98 99 00 01 0298 99 00 01 02 State 230 229 229 239 242 222 222 228 237 237 Local 223 224 226 236 242 211 211 217 230 229

  13. Percentage of Students in Warning/Failing Category ELA MATH year 98 99 00 01 0298 99 00 01 02 Grade 3 14 14 State 7 6 Grade 4 29 25 22 19 19 39 35 29 27 35 State 11 10 19 19 Grade 6 46 39 State 33 30 Grade 7 24 19 State 12 9 Grade 8 69 67 67 48 54 State 31 33 Grade 10 44 42 42 24 14 76 76 64 35 38 BHS 23 13 34 36 State 18 14 25 25

  14. Percentage of Students in Advanced /Proficient Category ELA MATH year 98 99 00 01 02 98 99 00 01 02 Grade 3 36 42 State 62 67 Grade 4 6 8 8 33 32 17 18 23 23 20 State 51 54 34 39 Grade 6 23 29 State 36 41 Grade 7 31 38 State55 64 Grade 8 14 8 12 18 14 State 34 34 Grade 10 22 24 27 42 61 7 9 16 29 27 BHS 43 63 30 29 State50 59 45 44

  15. MCAS Results Individual School Scores

  16. Grade 3 Eng/LA year 2001 2002 Angelo 25 25 Arnone 25 24 Ashfield 28 27 Belmont St. 25 26 Brookfield 27 28 Davis 24 23 Downey 24 27 Franklin 28 26 Gilmore 26 24 Hancock 28 28 Huntington 26 25 Kennedy 27 28 Plouffe 24 23 Raymond 26 25 Whitman 27 27

  17. Grade 4 Eng/LA Math year 98 99 00 01 0298 99 00 01 02 Angelo 226 233 230 239 235 222 237 236 236 231 Arnone 224 225 225 236 234 224 223 228 234 229 Ashfield 222 227 226 232 233 223 233 230 234 230 Belmont St. 224 224 224 231 231 224 222 225 228 225 Brookfield 225 223 227 232 230 227 221 230 228 227 Davis 223 222 222 228 228 222 221 222 224 223 Downey 224 224 222 227 226 228 224 223 225 222 Franklin 222 224 228 235 235 223 222 232 238 230 Gilmore 223 223 225 228 234 225 220 228 227 231 Hancock 227 228 229 237 231 233 233 232 233 228 Huntington 226 227 227 234 235 230 231 230 232 230 Kennedy 231 230 232 235 239 236 232 232 231 233 Plouffe 219 229 227 234 232 218 229 230 232 229 Raymond 224 224 225 230 230 221 224 224 229 226 Whitman 224 226 227 230 237 219 223 231 230 233

  18. Grade 6 Math year 2001 2002 Angelo 229 235 Arnone 233 236 Ashfield 225 224 Belmont St. 223 230 Brookfield 227 232 Davis 219 220 Downey 228 227 Franklin 230 237 Gilmore 221 227 Hancock 233 230 Huntington 228 226 Kennedy 230 238 Plouffe 227 229 Raymond 223 225 Whitman 229 235

  19. Grade 7 Eng/LA year 2001 2002 North 229 234 South 230 233 East 232 231 West 233 236

  20. Grade 8 Math year 98 99 00 01 02 North Jr. 213 212 217 226 225 South Jr. 215 215 216 223 222 East Jr. 213 213 213 224 223 West Jr. 218 216 216 228 223

  21. Grade 10 Eng/LA Math year 98 99 00 01 0298 99 00 01 02 BHS 223 225 226 236 243 211 211 217 231 230

  22. Performance Summary

  23. Grade 4: ELA and Math

  24. Grade 8: Math

  25. Grade 10: ELA and Math

  26. Comparable Communities

  27. Comparable Communities Grade 3 4 7 10 4 6 8 10 ELA ELA ELA ELAMath Math Math Math Brockton 26 232 234 242 228 230 223 229 Boston 24 229 234 231 224 222 224 227 Chelsea 25 232 230 232 232 227 222 224 Chicopee 27 233 235 236228 222 222 232 Fall River 28 232 234 234228 224 219 226 Holyoke 23 227 229 227224 216 216 223 Lawrence 24 228 230 229 221 219 218 223 Lowell 26 231 234 235 225 223 222 229 Lynn 28 233 236 235 229 227 221 228 New Bedford 27 231 232 231226 223 220 228 Pittsfield 30 234 236 238 232 227 223 234 Revere 29 240 237 238 233 233 227 231 Springfield 26 232 230 226227 219 218 220 Taunton 30 236 238 236 232 229 226 234 Worcester 28 235 232 233 232 229 222 228

  28. Next Steps

  29. Next Steps Standards-based math adoption K-1 level Three-plus Grades 6, 7, 8 Math Coaches Professional Development

  30. Next Steps Math Departmentalization grade 6 math results appropriate grades

  31. Next Steps Literacy Initiatives continue Scott-Foresman training early literacy assessments grant programs ongoing department meetings John Collins training [K-12]

  32. Next Steps Refocus and Recommit Mass Frameworks as Curriculum Multi-level Data Analysis Use of IRS/RRS Open Response Strategies Long Composition Strategies Ongoing Collaboration with ILTs

  33. MCAS 2002

More Related