October 19, 2010

Brockton Public Schools

October 19, 2010

State Growth Model

2006-10 Trends

AYP Results

2010 School Committee Presentation


How did we do?

It depends…



• Accomplishments• Concerns• Changes

AYP Results

• Gap Analysis• Grade Level Analysis• Subgroup Performance

CPI Performance

• Primer• Gap Analysis

State Growth Model


• Status

• Accomplishments

• Concerns

• Changes

AYP


Brockton AYP 2010 Results

Adequate Yearly Progress History

NCLB Status 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ELA

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes NoCorrective Action - Subgroups

All Subgroups - - No No No No No No No No

MATH

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes NoCorrective Action - Subgroups

All Subgroups - - No No No No No No No No


The Challenge of AYP: Rising Targets

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII

70.775.6

80.585.4

90.295.1

100

53.0

60.8

68.7

76.5

84.3

92.2

100



70.7

75.680.5

85.4

90.2

95.1100

79.683.1

83.2 84.2 83.7 84.485.8 85.2

86.586.9

68.0 67.8

73.275.0 74.4 75.1

77.0 76.677.9 77.1

MCAS ELA Performance Targets

State

BPS



65.0 65.2

69.3 70.472.4 72.5

76.277.7 78.5

79.9

51.651.1

55.6 56.358.6 59.6

65.667.5 67.1 66.9

53.0

60.8

68.7

76.5

84.3

92.2

100

MCAS Math Performance Targets

State

BPS


21 Ways to Miss AYP

North Middle School Math

7 Targets3 Categories A + (B or C) + D = AYP


AYPAccomplishments

Angelo, Ashfield, BHS, Davis, North, Plouffe, South,& West Earned High

Performance Ratings in ELA

Angelo, Davis, North, & Plouffe made AYP in the Aggregate for

ELA

Ashfield, North & Plouffe made AYP in

the Aggregate for Math


AYP Challenges

District Missed AYP at Every Grade Band.

No School Made AYP in

Both Aggregate

and Subgroups.


Changes

• National StandardsCommon Core

• National AssessmentsCommon

Core Assessments

• Potential Changes in NCLBNew Tiers and Levels


• Aggregated & Disaggregated

• 2006-10 Trends & 2010 Results

CPI Performanc

e


ELA CPI: Three Different LevelsThree Different Stories

Aggregate

Grade Band

Grade Level


ELA CPI Aggregate BPS vs. State

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

84.4

85.885.2

86.5 86.9

75.1

77.0 76.6

77.977.1

9.3

9.8

BPS

State


ELA CPI by Grade Band

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

72.772.8

69.5 70.571.572.5

79.3 80.281.8

79.881.7

83.2

8889.1

86.7

ELM MID HIGH

5 Gain

7.3 Gain

-1.2 Decline

2010

-2.4

-2

+1


2006-10 ELA CPI Gain/Loss by Grade Level

All Grd 3 Grd 4 Grd 5 Grd 6 Grd 7 Grd 8 Grd 10

2.0

-2.4 -2.2

-0.4

-3.8

9.88.8

2.72.5 2.41.3

0.5

1.9

4.0

2.1

5.1

BPS State

Elementary Losses

Secondary Grade Gains

Small Gain

5.8 Gain 6.7 Gain


2010 ELA Gains

All Grd 3 Grd 4 Grd 5 Grd 6 Grd 7 Grd 8 Grd 10-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

-0.6

5.6

-2.4

-0.5

-2.5

0.9

-4.4

-2.4

0.4

3.2

0.2

-1.5

1.10.5

-0.7 -0.3

BPS State

+ 2.4

+ 1

+ .4


Grade 3 ELA Reversal? 2010 Outgains State

1 2 3 4 5

83.4 83.581.5 82.6

85.8

76.6

72.569.7 68.6

74.2

5.6 Gain

3.2 Gain2.4 Gain

-2.4 Loss

BPS

State


Grade 8 ELA 1 Year Regression: 5 Year Positive Trend

1 2 3 4 5

86.75205518670587.9

90.392.2 91.9

74

81.183.1

87.2

82.8

8.8 Gain

13.2

-4.4


2010 ELA CPA Aggregate

Worcester Lynn Brockton New Bedford Fall River Lowell Boston Lawrence Springfield State Totals

77.4 77.2 77.1

75.4 75.0 74.9 74.873.7

70.8

86.9

9.8 Gap

.3 Gap


ELA Subgroup Gain 2006-10 BPS vs State

Af-Am AGG Asian F/LEP Hispanic LI SWD White

4.1

2.5

3.6

7.06.3

4.9

1.62.0

1.5 2.01.3

10.8

5.7

2.40.1

2.4

10.8

2.4


2010 ELA Subgroup BPS vs State


76.6

86.9 89.8

59.873.6

76.5

67.3

90.5

73.177.1

85.8

59.4

75.1

73.8

55.5

83.8

75.1


BPS vs State SWD 2006-10 ELA Gain: Why We Drill Down


0.1

-7.9

-9.6

-8.0

-4.6

11.111.9

7.0

1.6

-1.2 -0.9

-2.5

0.1

5.1

2.3

9.0

BPS State

Elementary Down

Secondary Higher


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

72.5

76.2

77.778.5 79.9

60.9

65.6

67.5 67.1 66.9

Math CPI Aggregate BPS vs. State

11.6

13

State

BPS


Math CPI by Grade Band

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

62.868.8

71.167.4 66.8

54.7

60.561.8

63.5 63.7

68.8

73.5

76.4 78.8 78.2

ELM MID HIGH

9.4 Gain

9.8 Gain

4 Gain

2010

-.6

+.2

-.6


Gain/Loss 2006-10 by Grade Level


6.0

-3.9

3.41.6 2.5

13.0

15.5

6.27.4

5.8 5.47.2

9.2 9.58.5

5.6

BPS State

Gains

Decline

Smaller Gains

Larger Gains

+ 3.5 + 7

+ .6


2010 Math Gains

All Grd 3 Grd 4 Grd 5 Grd 6 Grd 7 Grd 8 Grd 10-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

-0.2

1.7

-1.4

-2.1

-4.4

2.4 2.5

-0.6

1.4

2.4

0.20.4

1.5

2.32.0

0.7

BPS State

Area of Concern

+.1 +.5


Grade 3 Math 1 Year Improvement:Overall Trend is Down

1 2 3 4 5

78.080.3 81.5 81.4

83.8

72.470.5

74.9

66.868.5

2006-10 3.9 Loss

1 Year 1.7 Gain


2010 Math CPI Aggregate

Lynn Worcester Boston New Bedford Lowell Brockton Fall River Lawrence Springfield State Totals

68.8 68.8 68.0 68.0 67.8 66.9 66.7

62.0

58.2

79.9

13 Gap

1.9 Gap


Math Subgroup Gain 2006-10 BPS vs State


10.2

7.4 7.1

9.2

11.510.7

6.3 6.8

6.2 6.0 5.9

8.27.4

6.9

3.2

6.8

LEP


2010 Math Subgroup BPS vs State


65.1

79.9

89

56.263.9 67.1

57.5

84.1

61.566.9

85.2

52.5

62.7 63.1

47.3

76.2


BPS vs State SWD 2006-10 Grade Level Gain


6.3

4.13.2

4.5

8.6 8.36.9

7.6

3.2

-6.1

0.9

-0.4

6.2

11.1

7.2 6.9

State BPS

Elementary Concerns

Secondary Gains

Overall Gain


2006-2010 Trends

Accomplishments

Grade 7 & 8 Large Gains in ELA & Decreased Achievement Gap with State

Grades 7, 8, & 10 Improved Strongly In Math & Decreased Achievement Gap with State

Grade 10 Improved in ELA

Grades 4, 5, 6 Improved in Math


Growth•Primer•Gap Analysis


State Growth Model: Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

Academic Peer Group

Each student is compared to students with a similar score history

Growth to grade 7: Three students

92226214214Mary

25244246248Paul

35230234230Peter

SGP20010

Grade 72010

Grade 62009

Grade 52008

English language artsAcademic Peer Groups


Interpreting Student Growth Percentiles

Peter’s SGP was 35. His score was higher than 35% of his academic peers (and lower than 65%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

35

Percent of students

Lower growth Higher growthTypical growth

Is that amount of growth typical?

Seeking the Northeast Quadrant

Low Growth, High Performance High Growth, High Performance

Low Growth, Low Performance High Growth, Low Performance

Growth (SGP)Brockton Public Schools

Per formance


ELA Scatterplot

Pe rf o r

mance

Growth

20 30 40 50 60 70 8050

60

70

80

90

100

Wrcstr77.2 77.175.4 75.0 74.9

74.873.7

70.8

86.9

SGP

CPI


Math Scatterplot

Pe rf o r

mance

Growth20 30 40 50 60 70 80

40

50

60

70

80

90

68.8 68.868.0

68.0 67.866.9

66.762.0

58.2

79.9


ELA SGP

2008 2009 2010

4745 44

3941

46

51 51

4544

5250

53

59

52.5

78

70

Grd 4 Grd 5 Grd 6 Grd 7 Grd 8 Grd 10


Math SGP

2008 2009 2010

50.5

40

51

48

41

37

49

45

35

30

36

40

47 46 46

51

44

Grd 4 Grd 5 Grd 6 Grd 7 Grd 8 Grd 10


2008-10 SGP Trend Summary

Accomplishments

Every Grade has average or better SGP in ELA

BPS Grade 10 had highest SGP among Comparable Districts in ELA

2010 Grade 4 gained 10 points in Math2008-10 Grade 7 gained 10 points in Math


Conclusions

•Missed Aggregate AYP in ELA & Math•NCLB Change is LikelyAYP•06-10 Middle & High School Gaining in ELA and Math•06-10 Elementary Declining in ELA: Gaining in Math•2010 Secondary Decline & Elementary Gain in ELA•2010 Middle School Gain in MathCPI•ELA growth is moderate to high•Math growth is moderate to lowGrowth


Brockton Public Schools Data Presentation 2010October 19, 2010

Dr. Ethan R. Cancell

School CommitteeMayor Linda M. Balzotti ChairWard One Thomas J. Minichiello, Jr. Vice-ChairWard Two Richard E. BathWard Three Janice A. Beyer Ward Four Patricia A. JoyceWard Five William CarpenterWard Six James M. Daley Ward Seven Timothy J. SullivanSuperintendent Matthew H. Malone, Ph.D. Secretary


END

AYP

2006-10 Trends

SGP


Documents

October 19, 2010