Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 2013-2014 End-of-Year Assessment Results September 4, 2014

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 2013-2014 End-of-Year Assessment Results

September 4, 2014

2

2014 Cohort Graduation Rate (4-Year)

3

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

69.973.5

76.4

81.0

85.2

Source: NCDPI Cohort Graduation Rate, http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/cohortgradrateGraduation Rate Calculation Method: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/abc/2010-11/cohortgradratecalc11.pdf

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

2014 CMS Graduation Rate Exceeds the State Average

CMS - 2010 to 2014 Change: + 15.3 points

83.8

74.2

77.980.4

82.5

North Carolina Graduation Rate

85.2

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/cohortgradrate

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/abc/2010-11/cohortgradratecalc11.pdf

4Source: NCDPI Cohort Graduation Rate, http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/cohortgradrateGraduation Rate Calculation Method: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/abc/2010-11/cohortgradratecalc11.pdf

Graduation Rates Have Increased for All Subgroups

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

84.9 86.6 86.5

91.193.0

76.4

84.4 83.286.5 87.7

61.6

66.871.3

76.6

82.5

54.658.0

65.5

71.174.6

White Asian Black Hispanic

2010 to 2014 Gains

White + 8.1 points

Asian + 11.3 points

Black + 20.9 points

Hispanic + 20.0 points



5Source: NCDPI Cohort Graduation Rate, http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/reporting/cohortgradrateGraduation Rate Calculation Method: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/abc/2010-11/cohortgradratecalc11.pdf

Graduation Gaps Have Narrowed Dramatically Since 20102010 Gap 2014 Gap Change Since 2010

Black-White Gap 23.3 points 10.5 points - 12.8 points

Hispanic-White Gap 30.3 points 18.4 points - 11.9 points

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

84.986.6 86.5

91.193.0

76.4

84.4 83.286.5 87.7

61.6

66.8

71.3

76.6

82.5

54.658.0

65.5

71.174.6

White Asian Black Hispanic



6Source: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/core-explained/faq/

• In 2010, North Carolina joined 43 other states in adopting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which define what students need to know and be

able to do at each grade level to graduate ready for college and careers.

• North Carolina public school students are required to meet a higher standard of proficiency on their End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC) tests.

• The demands of the assessments and the scores required to reach proficiency are now at a higher level.

• Higher standards are a good thing—they are more challenging and focus on how students can apply the information they learn rather than simply memorizing the information.

A Brief Look Back

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/core-explained/faq/

7

• Frequently, when state tests change, scores drop dramatically.

• In 2012-13, North Carolina experienced these decreases.

• North Carolina is not alone in this transition. Other states, including New York, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida administered Common Core–aligned assessments and each state experienced substantial drops in proficiency in the first year of administration.

Source: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/core-explained/faq/

The Impact of Higher Standards


8

Initial Performance in North Carolina

8

NC Math 3-8

71%

44%

• In 2013, North Carolina administered CCSS-aligned tests and increased expectations for students’ performance

• Results on first round tests show the percent of students scoring “proficient” or better dropped by 20 percentage points or more

77%

52%

2011-12 2012-13

83%

42%

NC Reading 3-8 NC Science 5 and 8

2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13

9

• In 2013-14, the State Board of Education adopted a new methodology fordetermining achievement levels of students:

• The NC State Legislature is reviewing the future of Common Core, but the commitment to the rigor that CCSS were intended to provide remains


Looking Forward: The State Has Redefined Performance as Grade Level Proficiency (GLP) and College and Career Readiness (CCR)


10

CMS Proficiency Scores Increased Across All Tested Areas

3-8 Reading 3-8 Math 5 & 8 Science

45.5 46.4 53.556.8 55.770.3

Note: 3rd Grade Reading C&C rate includes only End-of-Year assessment

Percent of Students At or Above Grade Level Proficiency

English II Math I Biology

53.2 45.4 47.267.1 63.8 58.7

2013 2014 L 3 & 4 L 3, 4, & 5

2013 2014 L 3 & 4 L 3, 4, & 5

2013 2014 L 3 & 4 L 3, 4, & 5

+11.3 +9.3 +16.8

+11.5+18.4+13.9

11

CMS Experienced Gains in College and Career Readiness in All Tested Subjects Except Reading

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

3-8 Reading 3-8 Math 5 & 8 Science

45.5 46.453.5

45.4 48.3

59.7


2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

Percent of Students At or Above Proficient in 2013 and College and Career Ready in 2014

12

CMS Experienced Gains in College and Career Readiness in All Tested Subjects Except Reading

Percent of Students At or Above Proficient in 2013 and College and Career Ready in 2014

English II Math I Biology

53.2

45.4 47.2

56.652.8

49.5

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

13

• In the slides to follow, all comparisons will show Level 3 & 4 in 2012-13 and Level 4 & 5 in 2013-14.

• Goal 1: Maximize student achievement in a personalized 21st-century learning environment for every child to graduate college and career ready

Our Priority is College and Career Readiness (CCR)

14

CMS is Outperforming the State


Test

NC2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

CMS2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Difference between

NC and CMS

Math 3 48.3% 53.7% +5.4 points

Math 4 47.1% 51.2% +4.1 points

Math 5 50.3% 56.2% +5.9 points

Math 6 39.6% 43.0% +3.4 points

Math 7 38.9% 44.8% +5.9 points

Math 8 34.6% 40.5% +5.9 points

Math 3-8 43.1% 48.3% +5.2 points

Test

NC2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

CMS2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Difference between NC

and CMS

Science 5 52.6% 56.0.% +3.4 points

Science 8 61.9% 63.6% +1.7 points

Science 5 & 8 57.3% 59.7% +2.4 points

TestNC

2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

CMS2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Difference between

NC and CMS

Reading 3 47.7% 48.7% +1.0 points

Reading 4 44.5% 44.8% +0.3 points

Reading 5 40.3% 41.8% +1.5 points

Reading 6 45.7% 45.0% -0.7 points

Reading 7 47.6% 48.0% +0.4 points

Reading 8 42.3% 43.7% +1.4 points

Reading 3-8 44.7% 45.4% +0.7 points

Test

NC2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

CMS2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Difference between

NC and CMS

Math I 46.9% 52.8% +5.9 points

English II 51.7% 56.6% +4.9 points

Biology 45.1% 49.5% +4.4 points

EOC Composite 47.8% 52.9% +5.1 points

15

CMS Is Seeing Gains In Math, Science and EOCs

Test2012-13 Percent

Proficient

2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Change2012-13 to

2013-14

Math 3 50.0% 53.7% +3.7 points

Math 4 51.7% 51.2% -0.5 points

Math 5 51.1% 56.2% +5.1 points

Math 6 42.7% 43.0% +0.3 points

Math 7 41.9% 44.8% +2.9 points

Math 8 39.9% 40.5% +0.6 points

Math 3-8 46.4% 48.3% +1.9 points

Test2012-13 Percent

Proficient

2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Change2012-13 to

2013-14

Reading 3 46.6% 48.7% +2.1 points

Reading 4 45.4% 44.8% -0.6 points

Reading 5 40.5% 41.8% +1.3 points

Reading 6 47.6% 45.0% -2.6 points

Reading 7 48.8% 48.0% -0.8 points

Reading 8 44.3% 43.7% -0.6 points

Reading 3-8 45.5% 45.4% -0.1 points

Test2012-13 Percent

Proficient

2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Change2012-13 to

2013-14

Science 5 47.3% 56.0.% +8.7 points

Science 8 60.2% 63.6% +3.4 points

Science 5 & 8 53.5% 59.7% +6.2 points

Test2012-13 Percent

Proficient

2013-14 Percent

C & C Ready

Change2012-13 to

2013-14

Math I 45.4% 52.8% +7.4 points

English II 53.2% 56.6% +3.4 points

Biology 47.2% 49.5% +2.3 points

EOC Composite 48.2% 52.9% +4.7 points


16

Subgroups:Math and Reading – Grades 3-8

Science Grades 5 & 8Math I, English II, & Biology

2012-13 & 2013-14

17

Proficiency Rates are Increasing in Grades 3-8 Reading

Asian Black Hispanic White SWD LEP EDS

59.0

30.2 30.7

71.7

11.1 9.9

28.7

69.7

42.9 42.9

81.4

17.3 19.1

40.9

60.2

30.7 29.8

71.7

11.2 10.9

28.4


2014 Change From Prior Year


+10.7 pts. +12.7 pts. +12.7 pts. +12.2 pts. +6.2 pts. +9.2 pts. +12.2 pts.

+ 1.2 pts. +0.5 pts. -0.9 pts. +0.0 pts. +0.1 pts. +1.0 pts. -0.3 pts.

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)

SWD: Students with Disabilities; LEP: Limited English Proficient; EDS: Economically Disadvantaged

GLP

CCR

18


69.8

27.5

36.7

72.6

11.4

20.5

30.0

78.2

38.2

47.7

80.1

17.1

30.9

40.2

72.9

30.0

39.3

74.0

12.2

22.7

32.1

All Subgroups are Seeing Gains in Grades 3-8 Math2014 Change From Prior Year


+ 8.4 pts. + 10.7 pts. +11.0 pts. +7.5 pts. + 5.7 pts. + 10.4 pts. + 10.2 pts.

+ 3.1 pts. +2.5 pts. +2.6 pts. +1.4 pts. +0.8 pts. + 2.2 pts. +2.1 pts.

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)


GLP

CCR

19


68.2

37.541.6

79.2

19.4 17.9

37.6

81.3

57.062.3

90.7

32.1 32.3

57.5

74.4

44.248.6

84.1

23.0 21.3

44.6

All Subgroups are Seeing Gains in Grades 5 & 8 Science2014 Change From Prior Year


+ 6.9 pts. + 12.8 pts. +13.7 pts. + 6.6 pts. +9.1 pts. + 11.0 pts. + 12.9 pts.


2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)


GLP

CCR

20


57.2

39.042.7

77.5

13.6

6.8

37.2

69.3

54.459.5

88.4

28.2

16.5

53.1

59.8

41.2

47.3

82.2

19.5

9.6

40.4

All Subgroups are Seeing Gains in English II 2014 Change From Prior Year


+ 12.1 pts. + 15.4 pts. + 16.8 pts. + 10.9 pts. + 14.6 pts. + 9.7 pts. + 15.9 pts.

+ 2.6 pts. +2.2 pts. +4.6 pts. +4.7 pts. +5.9 pts. +2.8 pts. +3.2 pts.

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)


GLP

CCR

21


70.0

23.6

32.9

74.2

9.513.0

26.3

80.2

45.4

52.7

87.3

21.626.4

46.1

73.5

31.5

39.3

80.1

12.9 15.0

32.5

All Subgroups are Seeing Gains in Math I 2014 Change From Prior Year



+ 3.5 pts. +7.9 pts. +6.4pts. +5.9 pts. +3.4 pts. +2.0 pts. +6.2 pts.

2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)


GLP

CCR

22


59.7

29.6

38.1

73.5

16.410.5

31.2

71.4

42.4

52.1

82.4

27.7

19.6

44.5

65.7

31.9

42.1

74.6

18.912.9

34.5

All Subgroups are Seeing Gains in Biology2014 Change From Prior Year




2013Proficient

(L3 & 4)

2014Proficient

(L3, 4, & 5)

2014C & C Ready

(L 4 & 5)


GLP

CCR

23

Schools Meeting or Exceeding Expected Growth:2012-13 & 2013-14

24

• School Growth is an indication of the average rate at which students in a school learned over the past year.

• The standard is roughly equivalent to a year’s worth of expected growth for a year of instruction.

• The growth measure is defined in one of three ways: did not meet expected growth; met expected growth; or exceeded expected growth.

School Growth



25

More CMS Schools are Meeting or Exceeding Growth in 2013-14

YearTotal

Number of CMS

Schools

# Meeting or

Exceeding Growth

% Meeting or

Exceeding Growth

2012-13 156* 127 81.4%

2013-14 157* 130 82.8%

* Three schools did not have data in this category, as provided by EVAAS/NC (Metro, Lincoln Heights, Cato Middle College).

26

• CMS has improved in performance on nearly every EOG and EOC subject tested, although reading is still a concern in several grades.

• CMS has outperformed the state average in virtually every EOG and EOC subject tested for the second year in a row.

• All subgroups of students made progress from 2012-13 to 2013-14.

• Nearly 83% of our schools are meeting or exceeding growth expectations.

In Summary



27

Action Moving Forward:2014-15 and Beyond

28

The Work AheadStrategic Plan 2018: For a Better Tomorrow focuses on raising academic achievement:

• Academic growth and high academic achievement– Bring to scale a dynamic teaching and learning framework that ensures high-quality

instruction– Closely monitor academic progress, with a priority focus on subgroups– Focus on transition years for reading instruction

• Individualize professional development

– Expand the capacity of professional learning communities to accelerate student achievement and eliminate achievement gaps

– Build the capacity of teachers to use alternative teaching methods

• Strategic use of district resources – Strengthen alignment of central and school-based resources to maximize student support– Enhance the quality and effective use of instructional and non-instructional resources– Expand use of data as part of continuous improvement efforts

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 2013-2014 End-of-Year Assessment Results September 4, 2014

Documents

Transcript of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 2013-2014 End-of-Year Assessment Results September 4, 2014