Presentation given to the Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee on October 15, 2012 regarding district results on Spring 2012 state assessment testing

1. Mendon-Upton Regional Schools
2012 MCAS Results &
Accountability Status
Presentation to the
Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee
October 15, 2012

2. First, a few terms related to MCAS
results and accountability data…

3. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
The CPI is:
• a metric that is used to measure school and district performance and improvement;
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard
MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt.
MCAS Performance Level Scaled Score Range MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per
Student
Proficient or Advanced 240 – 280 Progressing 100
Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 Emerging 75
Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228
OR Awareness 50
Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25
Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0
3

4. Composite Performance Index (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)
MCAS Performance Level Points Per
# Students Points
MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Student
Proficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200
Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375
Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350
Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100
Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not
0 2 0
Submitted
Totals 90 students 7025 Points
7025 ÷ 90 = 78.1
4

6. Student Growth Percentile (SGP)
A metric that determines how much a
student has grown in one year relative to his
academic peers across the state (i.e.,
students that scored the same exact score in
the previous year’s MCAS)
SGP is a percentile: 1 to 100
Example: If a student has a SGP of 72,
he/she scored better than 72% of his/her
academic peers that year
For schools/districts, SGP is reported as
median SGP. Typical growth is 40-60

7. English Language Arts
District MCAS Results

8. 3rd Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=204 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 89.1 82.6 93.2 85.8 89.8 83.9 89.1 84.1
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

9. 3 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
rd
% of students proficient or higher

10. 3rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=94 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 89.1 82.6 92.6 85.8 91.5 83.9 88.3 84.1
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

11. 3rd Grade ELA: Clough, District, &
State
% of students proficient or higher

12. 3rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=107 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 89.3 82.6 94.7 85.8 87.5 83.9 90.7 84.1
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

13. 3rd Grade ELA: Memorial, District,
& State
% of students proficient or higher

14. 4rd Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=212 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 85.0 79.9 88.5 80.1 86.3 79.4 88.4 80.0
Media 41.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 51.0 46.0 50.0
n SGP

15. 4 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

16. 4rd Grade ELA -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=96 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 83.0 79.9 88.9 80.1 84.3 79.4 87.2 80.0
Media 41.0 50.0 57.0 50.0 43.0 51.0 48.5 50.0
n SGP

17. 4th Grade ELA: Clough, District, &
State
% of students proficient or higher

18. 4rd Grade ELA -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=113 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 86.5 79.9 89.3 80.1 88.9 79.4 89.4 80.0
Media 41.0 50.0 63.0 50.0 45.5 51.0 46.0 50.0
n SGP

19. 4th Grade ELA: Memorial, District,
& State
% of students proficient or higher

20. 5th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=235 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 92.0 85.7 92.1 84.2 95.0 86.0 88.2 82.5
Media 58.5 50.0 56.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 46.0 50.0
n SGP

21. 5 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

22. 6th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=201students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 94.2 85.7 92.5 86.8 94.0 86.6 90.4 84.8
Median 59.0 50.0 53.0 50.0 43.5 50.0 42.0 50.0
SGP

23. 6 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

24. 7th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=196 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 91.82 88.1 94.0 88.6 93.2 89.5 94.5 88.1
Median 43.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 54.0 50.0
SGP

25. 7 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

26. 8th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=216 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 96.5 91.1 95.7 90.4 96.3 91.1 95.5 91.8
Median 57.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 58.0 50.0 45.0 50.0
SGP

27. 8 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

28. 10th Grade ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=182 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 98.3 92.2 98.7 91.1 98.8 93.9 98.6 95.8
Median 72.0 50.0 65.0 50.0 72.0 50.0 63.0 50.0
SGP

29. 10 Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

30. ALL Grades ELA -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=1,447 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 92.4 86.5 93.5 86.9 93.1 87.2 91.9 86.7
Median 54.0 50.0 56.5 50.0 52.0 50.0 49.0 50.0
SGP

31. ALL Grades ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

32. Mathematics
District MCAS Results

33. 3rd Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=204 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 86.8 81.4 92.7 83.8 87.9 84.7 86.5 80.9
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

34. 3 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
rd
% of students proficient or higher

35. 3rd Grade Math -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=94 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 87.5 81.4 92.4 83.8 88.2 84.7 86.2 80.9
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

36. 3rd Grade Math: Clough, District, &
State
% of students proficient or higher

37. 3rd Grade Math -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=106 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 87.6 81.4 93.6 83.8 87.9 84.7 87.5 80.9
Media __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
n SGP

38. 3rd Grade Math: Memorial, District,
& State
% of students proficient or higher

39. 4th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=212 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 82.6 78.5 83.6 78.7 83.3 78.4 85.0 79.2
Media 48.0 50.0 47.0 49.0 42.0 50.0 49.0 50.0
n SGP

40. 4 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

41. 4th Grade Math -Clough Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=96 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 82.1 78.5 82.1 78.7 83.3 78.4 87.5 79.2
Media 49.0 50.0 44.0 50.0 43.0 50.0 60.0 50.0
n SGP

42. 4th Grade Math: Clough, District, &
State
% of students proficient or higher

43. 4th Grade Math -Memorial Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=113 students
School State School State School State School State
CPI 83.0 78.5 85.7 78.7 84.1 78.4 82.7 79.2
Media 47.5 50.0 48.5 50.0 39.0 50.0 43.0 50.0
n SGP

44. 4th Grade Math: Memorial, District,
& State
% of students proficient or higher

45. 5th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=236 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 83.2 77.0 84.5 77.4 87.9 79.8 80.6 78.4
Media 57.0 50.0 46.0 50.0 42.0 50.0 37.0 50.0
n SGP

46. 5 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

47. 6th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=199 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.5 78.2 83.0 79.7 86.1 79.6 87.9 80.5
Media 58.0 50.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 50.0 53.0 50.0
n SGP

48. 6 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

49. 7th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=196 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 78.4 73.8 86.4 76.1 73.3 73.8 86.4 75.4
Media 64.0 50.0 66.0 50.0 41.0 50.0 67.5 50.0
n SGP

50. 7 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

51. 8th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=215 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 80.7 72.8 83.3 74.8 85.1 74.2 80.7 75.5
Media 60.0 50.0 62.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 58.0 50.0
n SGP

52. 8 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

53. 10th Grade Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=181 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 94.8 88.1 96.7 88.8 96.4 89.4 94.9 90.0
Media 72.0 50.0 74.0 50.0 69.5 50.0 65.5 50.0
n SGP

54. 10 Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
th
% of students proficient or higher

55. ALL Grades Math -District Performance
2009 2010 2011 2012
For 2012, n=1,443 students
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.2 78.5 87.0 79.9 85.4 79.9 85.9 79.9
Media 59.0 50.0 59.0 50.0 52.0 50.0 55.0 50.0
n SGP

56. ALL Grades Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

57. Science, Technology &
Engineering
District MCAS Results

58. 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –
District Performance
For 2012, n=236 students
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 84.5 77.7 88.9 79.7 89.3 77.0 87.5 77.8

59. 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :
MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

60. 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. –
District Performance
For 2012, n=215 students
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 81.9 70.2 81.2 71.0 78.4 70.3 84.4 71.6

61. 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :
MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

62. 10th Grade Biology –
District Performance
For 2012, n=180 students
2009 2010 2011 2012
District State District State District State District State
CPI 95.2 80.8 97.2 82.1 97.3 86.4

63. 10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

64. Massachusetts’
New Accountability System
for Schools

65. What did NCLB require?
100% proficiency in ELA & math by 2013–14
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
determinations for all schools & districts
Schools & districts identified for
improvement, corrective action, &
restructuring

66. Massachusetts NCLB Waiver
Instead of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
reporting, Massachusetts will report district and
school progress toward college and career
readiness and reducing proficiency gaps through
the use of a new 100-point Progress and
Performance Index (PPI).
An enhanced focus on subgroup performance
by identifying schools with the largest
proficiency gaps for individual subgroups,
including a new “high needs” subgroup (Sp.Ed. +
poverty + ELL), and by reducing the minimum
group size for accountability determinations
from 40 to 30 students.

67. Indicators for PPI
The PPI is a number between 0-100 that
is comprised of seven core indicators.
For each indicator, a district, school, or
subgroup earns points based on the
progress made by the group from one
year to the next: 100 (Above Target), 75
(On Target), 50 (Improved Below Target), 25
(No Change), or 0 points (Declined).

68. PPI Calculation
Core Indicators (Up to 7) Points Available
ELA Achievement (CPI) 0-100
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0-100
Science Achievement (CPI) 0-100
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median 0-100
SGP)
Mathematics Growth/Improvement 0-100
(Median SGP)
Cohort Graduation Rate 0-100
Annual Dropout Rate 0-100
Maximum Possible Points: 700

69. PPI Gap Halving
The NCLB goal of 100 percent of
students reaching proficiency by the
2013-14 school year has been replaced
with the goal of reducing “proficiency
gaps” by half. A district, school, or
subgroup’s proficiency gap is the distance
between the group’s 2011 CPI
proficiency and a CPI of 100.

70. Cumulative PPI Calculation
Year Annual PPI Multiplier Points
2012 90 4 360
2011 80 3 240
2010 60 2 120
2009 70 1 70
Total Points: 790
Cumulative PPI (Total Divided by
Number of Multipliers):
79

71. PPI Gap Halving

72. New Accountability Levels for
Schools & Districts
Level 1: On track to meet all goals
Level 2: Still working to meet all goals
Level 3: Focus: Some overall or subgroup
scores are in the lowest state
range
Level 4: Priority: Lowest performing schools
Level 5: Priority: Chronically
underperforming schools

73. Graduation & Dropout
Alldistricts, schools, and subgroups will be
expected to halve the gap between their annual
dropout rate, if one exists, and a rate of zero
percent by the 2016-17 school year.
Alldistricts, schools, and subgroups are expected
to make steady progress toward a graduation
rate goal of 90 percent for the four-year rate or
95 percent for the five-year rate by the 2016-17
school year.

74. Extra credit
Districts,schools, and groups can earn
extra credit by reducing the percentage
of students scoring Warning/Failing or by
increasing the percentage of students
scoring Advanced on MCAS tests in ELA,
mathematics, and/or science. For each
extra credit indicator earned, the group
is awarded 25 additional points.

75. MURSD District PPI
Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 75 75 25
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75
Science Achievement (CPI) 75 75 25 75
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50
Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75
Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 75 75
Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 550 525 425 475
Extra credit 125 100 25 50
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 96 89 64 75
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77

76. PPI Overall Data: MURSD
Student Group Clough Memorial Miscoe Nipmuc District
All students 77 49 83 99 77
High needs 72 73
Low income 75 81
ELL and Former ELL
Students w/disabilities 61 62
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.
Asian
Afr. Amer./Black
Hispanic/Latino
Multi-race, Non-
Hisp./Lat.
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.
White 74 52 87 100 78
Relative State Percentile 57th 60th 75th 89th N/A
Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2

77. Comparison to Neighboring Districts
All Students High Need
District PPI Students PPI Classification
Bellingham 55 49 Level 2
Bckstn-Millville 76 63 Level 2
Douglas 67 56 Level 2
Grafton 73 51 Level 2
Hopedale 72 68 Level 2
Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2
Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2
Milford 76 72 Level 2
Northbridge 55 45 Level 3
Sutton 59 57 Level 2
Uxbridge 56 49 Level 2

78. Comparison to like districts
(DART)
All Students High Need Students
District PPI PPI Classification
Groton-Dunstable 95 69 Level 2
Hanover 78 61 Level 2
Hopkinton 100 70 Level 2
Ipswich 69 54 Level 2
Lynnfield 88 84 Level 2
Marblehead 79 62 Level 2
Medfield 95 62 Level 2
Mendon-Upton 77 73 Level 2
Nashoba 80 72 Level 2
Rockland 68 65 Level 3
Scituate 83 75 Level 2
Tyngsborough 75 73 Level 2

79. Clough PPI (All Students)
Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 75 100 0 75
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 25 75 25 75
Science Achievement (CPI)
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 50
Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 50 100
Cohort Graduation Rate
Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 100 350 125 300
Extra credit 50 100 0 75
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 75 113 31 94
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 77

80. Memorial PPI (All Students)
Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 75
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 0 50 0 25
Science Achievement (CPI)
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 100 50 75
Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) -- 75 25 50
Cohort Graduation Rate
Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 0 275 75 225
Extra credit 0 100 0 25
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 0 94 19 63
Did Not Meet Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 49

81. Miscoe PPI (All Students)
Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 0
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 75 100 25 75
Science Achievement (CPI) 75 50 75 100
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 50
Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 75 75 75 75
Cohort Graduation Rate
Annual Dropout Rate
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 400 400 350 300
Extra credit 100 50 100 50
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 100 90 90 70
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 83

82. Nipmuc PPI
Core Indicators (Up to 7) 2009 2010 2011 2012
ELA Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100
Mathematics Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 25
Science Achievement (CPI) 100 100 100 100
ELA Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100
Math Growth/Improvement (Median SGP) 100 100 100 100
Cohort Graduation Rate 100 100 100 75
Annual Dropout Rate 75 25 75 100
CPI, SGP & HS indicators 675 625 675 600
Extra credit 150 75 50 25
Annual PPI (Total points / # of indicators) 118 100 104 89
Met Target
Cumulative PPI = (2009*1 + 2010*2 + 2011*3 + 2012*4) / 10 99

83. What Does the Data Tell Us?
Over the past four years, some grades and
subgroups are showing progress in ELA and
math MCAS, while others are static or declining
Our high needs subgroup scores are lower
than the aggregate- the major driver is the
results of our special education students
The PPI is a complex metric, and the three
Level 2 schools each had a different reason for
the designation

84. Next Steps
Allschools, grade levels, and content areas will
analyze the disaggregrated data in detail
We need to monitor the effective
implementation of the curriculum (e.g., Open
Court Reading Program and Math Investigations) to
ensure fidelity to the scope and sequence
We must be looking forward to alignment of
curriculum to the Common Core Standards, as
the PARRC Assessment will commence in 2014-
15

85. More Next Steps
We must research, develop, and implement
alternative service delivery models to better
meet the academic, social, emotional, and
behavioral needs of special education students
Grades K-12
Targeted investments needed in the areas of:
Professional development
Curriculum development
Literacy/mathematics support

86. Questions?