Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) 2010 1 9/22/2010.
-
Upload
bryce-roberts -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) 2010 1 9/22/2010.
Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS)
2010
19/22/2010
• Test all public school students in grades 3 to 10.• Performance is based on the Massachusetts
Curriculum Framework learning standards;• Students must pass the grade 10 tests in
English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science as one condition of eligibility for a high school diploma.
• Tests are administered over several weeks in the Spring each year.
• MCAS measures both individual student proficiency and district proficiency.
• In addition, MCAS will monitor progress on the No Child Left Behind federal law.
29/22/2010
The MCAS is used to hold schools and districts accountable, on a yearly basis, for the progress they have made toward all students being proficient in Reading and Mathematics by 2014 as required by NCLB.
The measure used in determining (growth) is called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
39/22/2010
A Participation Did at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2010?
B Performance Did the student group perform at or above the 2010 state performance target?
C Improvement Did the student group meet its own 2010 improvement target?
D Additional Indicator
Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination*AYP is measured by the Composite Performance Index (CPI)
49/22/2010
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination
PARTICIPATION: Did at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2010?A
5
Dartmouth PublicSchools
9/22/2010
Composite Performance Index (CPI)Composite Performance Index (CPI)
CPI: Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students (example below)
69/22/2010
B
District MCAS Results
Scores reported as % of students in each category.7
9/22/2010
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination
PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2010 performance target?B
Com
posit
e Pe
rfor
man
ce In
dex
(CPI
) 100
9080
7060
50
ELA
Math
70.7
53.0
75.6
60.8
80.5
68.7
85.4
76.5
90.2
84.3
95.1
92.2
100
89/22/2010
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination
PERFORMANCE: Did the student group perform at or above the 2010 performance target?B
Com
posit
e Pe
rfor
man
ce In
dex
(CPI
) 100
9080
7060
50
ELA
Math
70.7
53.0
75.6
60.8
80.5
68.7
85.4
76.5
90.2
84.3
95.1
92.2
100
9
90.3
85.1
9/22/2010
A Participation Did at least 95% of students participate in MCAS in 2010?
B Performance Did the student group perform at or above the 2010 state performance target?
C Improvement Did the student group meet its own 2010 improvement target?
D Additional Indicator
Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination*AYP is measured by the Composite Performance Index (CPI)
109/22/2010
A + (B or C) + D = Affirmative AYP Determination
ADDITIONAL INDICATOR: Did the student group meet the target for the Additional Indicator (Attendance, Graduation)?D
119/22/2010
Adequate Yearly Progress History NCLB Accountability
Status2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
English Languag
e Arts
Aggregate
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No StatusAll Subgroups
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Math
Aggregate
Yes Yes Yes Yes YesImprovement
Year 1 SubgroupsAll
Subgroups
Yes Yes No No Yes
129/22/2010
9/22/2010 13
9/22/2010 14
Share information with community: post on website, parent reports sent home, web link to district data
Analysis – District Data Team: Results within the context of multiple measures (DIBELs, benchmarks, SAT)
District and School goals
159/22/2010
AppendixAdditional information and data.
169/22/2010
Table of Contents Definition of terms 17 District Data 18-19 NCLB Accountability Status 20 Performance Rating 21 Improvement Rating22 Joseph DeMello School Data 23-25 George H. Potter School Data 26-28 James M. Quinn School Data 29-31 Dartmouth Middle School Data32-34 Dartmouth High School Data 35-37
9/22/2010 17
Aggregate – total number of students Subgroups – Male Female
Limited English Proficiency Special Education Low Income
Black or African American Asian
Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Multi-race, Non-Hispanic
*Only subgroups which contain more than 40 students are considered official subgroups with values assigned.
189/22/2010
Dartmouth District
199/22/2010
Dartmouth District
209/22/2010
Dartmouth District
21
NCLB Accountability Status - The category to which a school is assigned based on its AYP determinations over multiple years, to define the required course of school, district and/or state action that must be taken to improve student
performance. Accountability status categories include No Status, Improvement, Corrective Action Restructuring.
A district or school is placed in an accountability status on the basis of the performance and improvement profile of students in the aggregate or of one or
more student groups over two or more years in ELA and/or mathematics.
Schools that make AYP in a subject for all student groups for two or more consecutive years are assigned to the positive No Status category. 9/22/2010
Dartmouth District
22
Performance Rating - Issued annually, a descriptive representation of aggregate student performance on
MCAS tests. Schools and districts are assigned one of six performance rating categories based on their 2010 CPI: Very High (90 - 100); High (80 - 89.9); Moderate (70 -
79.9); Low (60 - 69.9); Very Low (40 - 59.9); and Critically Low (0 - 39
9/22/2010
Dartmouth District
23
Improvement Rating - Descriptive term corresponding to the amount of aggregate CPI gain a district achieved in 2008 as
compared to 2007. The improvement that a district is expected to make from one year to the next is expressed not as a single
numeric target, but as a target range. A district's improvement rating corresponds to its aggregate improvement gain: Above
Target (improved above error band), On Target (improved within error band), Improved Below Target (improved above the baseline
but below the error band), No Change (gain was equivalent to baseline plus or minus the error band), and Declined (gain was
below baseline and below the error band).9/22/2010
Joseph DeMello School
249/22/2010
Joseph DeMello School
259/22/2010
Joseph DeMello School
269/22/2010
George H. Potter School
279/22/2010
George H. Potter School
289/22/2010
Grade and Subject
Advanced/ Above
ProficientProficient Needs
ImprovementWarning/ Failing
Students Included CPI
SCHOOL
STATE SCHOOL STAT
ESCHOO
LSTAT
ESCHOO
LSTAT
E
GRADE 03 - READING 11 14 61 49 28 30 1 8 76 90.8
GRADE 03 - MATHEMATICS 21 25 57 40 21 24 1 11 76 91.8
GRADE 04 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 3 11 51 43 37 35 9 12 78 81.4
GRADE 04 - MATHEMATICS 17 16 39 32 42 41 3 11 77 85.7
GRADE 05 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 8 16 52 47 39 28 1 10 77 85.4
GRADE 05 - MATHEMATICS 17 25 40 30 32 28 10 17 77 79.5
GRADE 05 - SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 10 15 47 38 39 36 4 11 77 85.4
George H. Potter School
299/22/2010
James M. Quinn School
309/22/2010
James M. Quinn School
319/22/2010
James M. Quinn School
329/22/2010
Dartmouth Middle School
339/22/2010
Dartmouth Middle School
349/22/2010
Dartmouth Middle School
359/22/2010
Dartmouth High School
369/22/2010
Dartmouth High School
379/22/2010
Dartmouth High School
389/22/2010