The presentation provided an overview of Mendon-Upton Regional Schools' 2013 MCAS results and accountability status. It showed that district math and ELA scores improved in most grades from 2012 to 2013. It also reviewed the state's accountability system and classifications. Challenges identified were stagnating scores in some grades/subgroups and lower scores among high needs students. Immediate action steps outlined were analyzing data, improving writing, and curriculum mapping. Future steps proposed were additional data training, Common Core curriculum alignment, and targeting interventions.

1. 
Mendon-Upton Regional Schools
2013 MCAS Results &
Accountability Status
Presentation to the
Mendon-Upton Regional School Committee
October 21, 2013

2. Purpose of Presentation
 Provide a broad overview of MCAS performance of the
district in relationship to the State in ELA, Math, and Science
 Provide a context for MCAS results by examining similar
districts’ performance
 Clarify the state’s accountability system model
 Identify areas that pose a challenge and plans to address
those challenges

3. Strengths
 District Math scores improved 5% from 2012 to 2013
 District ELA scores improved 3% from 2012 to 2013
 Grade 3 ELA scores improved 7 % from 2012 to 2013
 Grade 3 Math scores improved 15% from 2012 to 2013
 Grade 8 Math scores improved 14% from 2012 to 2013
 Grade 10 Math scores improved 7% from 2012 to 2013

4. English Language Arts
District MCAS Results


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

6. 3rd Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

7. 4th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

8. 5th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

9. 6th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

10. 7th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

11. 8th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

12. 10th Grade ELA: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

13. Mathematics
District MCAS Results


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

15. 3rd Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

16. 4th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

17. 5th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

18. 6th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

19. 7th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

20. 8th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

21. 10th Grade Math: MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

22. Science, Technology & Engineering
District MCAS Results

23. 5th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :
MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

24. 8th Grade Science, Tech & Eng. :
MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

25. 10th Grade Biology : MURSD vs. State
% of students proficient or higher

26. Massachusetts’
Accountability System for Schools


27. Accountability Classifications
• Based on the premise of halving achievement gap by
2017
• Uses CPI (Composite Performance Index) metric
• Also uses PPI (Progress & Performance Index)
factors such as moving students to higher
categories, SGP, and graduation/dropout rates
• Schools classified as Level 1-5 based upon
achievement of target CPI goals for all students and
each subgroup based upon multiple years of ELA
and math MCAS data as well as PPI factors
• Whatever the lowest rating is for any school within
the district, that must be the rating for the district

28. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Narrowing Targets for
Clough ELA (Grades 3-4)

29. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results for
Clough ELA (Grades 3-4)

30. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Clough Math (Grades 3-4)

31. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results for
Clough Math (Grades 3-4)
Level 3

32. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Memorial ELA (Grades 3-4)

33. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results for
Memorial ELA (Grades 3-4)

34. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Memorial Math (Grades 3-4)

35. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results for
Memorial Math (Grades 3-4)
Level 1

36. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Miscoe ELA (All Grades 5-8)

37. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets &
2013 Results- Miscoe ELA

38. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Miscoe Math (All Grades 5-8)

39. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & ResultsMiscoe Math
Level 2

40. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Nipmuc ELA (Grade 10)

41. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results Nipmuc ELA

42. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap NarrowingTargets for Nipmuc Math (Grade 10)

43. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Proficiency Gap Targets & Results Nipmuc Math
Level 1

44. Comparison to Neighboring Districts
District
Bellingham
Blackstone-Millville
Douglas
Grafton
Hopedale
Hopkinton
Mendon-Upton
Milford
Northbridge
Sutton
Uxbridge
ELA
Science
Proficient or Math Proficient Proficient or
or Higher
Higher
Higher
73%
59%
60%
68%
61%
56%
71%
61%
59%
78%
73%
67%
80%
69%
64%
87%
81%
80%
81%
72%
70%
71%
62%
64%
65%
50%
52%
72%
63%
60%
65%
58%
53%

45. Comparison to like districts (DART)
ELA Proficient Math Proficient or
or higher
higher
Georgetown
76%
68%
Groton-Dunstable
84%
77%
Hanover
82%
69%
Ipswich
82%
69%
Lynnfield
90%
79%
Mendon-Upton
81%
72%
Nashoba
83%
80%
Newburyport
82%
71%
North Reading
83%
76%
Norwell
90%
76%
Scituate
86%
82%
Tyngsborough
79%
71%
District
Science and Tech
Proficient or higher
57%
81%
65%
65%
74%
70%
70%
71%
70%
81%
71%
66%

46. Challenges
 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
 More students need to move from proficient to
advanced
 Writing is an identified area in need of improvement
 Math proficiency rates take a dip in 5th grade

47. Immediate Action Steps
 Schools have analyzed disaggregated data at all levels and
developed action plans
 Writing committee formed and research begun on writing
resources and programming
 Curriculum mapping process launched, team trained in
Rubicon Atlas
 Vertical conversations on curriculum have begun
 Academic Support grant to assist with secondary
interventions for high need students

48. Future Action Steps
Data—
Educators need more training in data analysis protocols
Curriculum—
Align curriculum to the Common Core Standards
Vertically align curriculum using Rubicon Atlas system
High Needs Subgroup
Increase training in inclusive instructional practices for all
teachers
Increase use of comprehensive data to target
interventions

49. Targeted Investments
 Curriculum Development—Time, training and
support
 Writing Program—Resources and professional
development
 Increase Non-fiction resources at elementary level
 Coaching model for literacy and mathematics