mcas 2013
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
2013 MCAS SCORES
NATICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RANKINGS
• According to schooldigger.com
• District 38/319• NHS 59/343 - Boston Magazine #54
• Kennedy 52/370• Wilson 75/370
• Ben Hem 49/886• Memorial 55/886• Brown 65/886• Lilja 76/886• Johnson 111/886
ADVANCED AND PROFICIENTTEST
NATICK STATE AVERAGE Diff.
10 ELA 97 91 610 SCIENCE 90 80 1010 MATH 89 71 18
8 ELA 92 78 14
8 MATH 76 55 21
8 SCIENCE 63 39 247 ELA 85 72 137 MATH 71 52 196 ELA 81 67 146 MATH 75 61 145 ELA 78 66 125 MATH 75 61 145 SCIENCE 70 51 194 ELA 76 53 234 MATH 75 52 233 READING 81 57 243 MATH 86 66 20
DISTRICT ELA
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 100
20
40
60
80
100
120
8187
79 81 8592
97
District View ELA - % Top Two Categories
GRADE 3 READING 11 YEARS
Reading 03
Reading 04
Reading 05
Reading 06
Reading 07
Reading 08
Reading 09
Reading 10
Reading 11
Reading 12
Reading 13
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
84
78 78 78
75
78
77
82
78
82
81
GRADE 3 READING ADVANCED & PROFICIENT/ADVANCED
Ben-Hen Brown Johnson Lilja Memorial0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80
85
75
8286
1922
11
2321
Grade 3 Reading
GRADE 3 READING COMPARISON
Burlin
gton
North
And
over
Fran
klin
Wac
huse
tt
Dedha
m
North
Attl
ebor
ough
Chelm
sfor
d
John
son
Wal
pole
Needh
am
Ben-H
em
Natick
Wel
lesle
yLil
ja
Brown
Memor
ial
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
62
68 68 69 7174 75 75 75 76
80 81 81 8285 86
GRADE 4 ELA COMPARISON
Burlin
gton
Dedha
m
Wal
pole
Chelm
sfor
d
North
And
over
Needh
am
Fran
kiln
Wac
huse
ttLil
ja
Natick
Memor
ial
Brown
Ben H
em
Wel
lesle
y
John
son
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
5255
6265 66
69 70 7175 76 76 76
79 7983
GRADE 7 ELA
Dedha
m
North
And
over
Fran
klin
Burlin
gton
Natick
Wils
on
Wal
pole
Wac
huse
tt
Kenne
dy
Chelm
sfor
d
Wel
lesle
y
Needh
am
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
75
83 83 85 85 86 86 87 8790 91 93
CURRENT GRADE 9 ELA PROGRESSION
Grade 4 2009 Grade 5 2010 Grade 6 2011 Grade 7 2012 Grade 8 201370
75
80
85
90
95
7879
83
89
92
GRADE 10 ELA 12 YEAR COMPARISON
ELA 01 ELA 02 ELA 03 ELA 04 ELA 05 ELA 06 ELA 07 ELA 08 ELA 09 ELA 10 ELA 11 ELA 13`0
20
40
60
80
100
120
81 79 7773
88 89 88
9895 95 94
97
GRADE 10 ELA
Dedha
m
North
And
over
Wal
pole
Wes
tbor
ough
Burlin
gton
Wac
huse
tt
Fran
klin
Natick
Chelm
sfor
d
Needh
am
Wel
lesle
y88
90
92
94
96
98
100
92
96 96 96 96 96
97 97 97
99 99
Gra
de 1
0 E
LA
CURRENT GRADE 11 ELA PROGRESSION
Grade 4 2007 Grade 5 2008 Grade 6 2009 Grade 7 2010 Grade 8 2011 Gade 10 20130
20
40
60
80
100
120
79 77 79
87 89
97
DISTRICT MATH
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
86
75 75 7571
76
88
GRADE 3 MATH
Burlington
Johnson
Wachusett
Chelmsford
North Andover
Dedham
Franklin
Needham
Walpole
Wellesley
Beh Hem
Natick
Lilja
Brown
Memorial
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
61
72
75
75
77
78
81
82
83
83
83
86
89
91
93
GRADE 4 MATH
Burlin
gton
Dedha
m
Wal
pole
North
And
over
Needh
am
Wac
huse
tt
Needh
am
Brown
Canto
n
Fran
klin
Chelm
sfor
dLil
ja
Natick
Memor
ial
Wel
lesle
y
John
son
Ben-H
em
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4953
6064 64
68 70 70 70 71 7275 75 76 78 80
86
GRADE 6 MATH - 12 YEAR COMPARISON
Math 02 Math 03 Math 04 Math 05 Math 06 Math 07 Math 08 Math 09 Math 10 Math 11 Math 12 Math 13 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
47 46
55
68 68
73
69
7573
78
7275
GRADE 8 MATH
Wal
pole
Chelm
sfor
d
Dedha
m
Burlin
gton
North
And
over
Wac
huse
tt
Wils
on
Fran
klin
Wel
lesle
y
Natick
Needh
am
Kenne
dy0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
65 65 66 67 68 68
73 74 75 76
83 84
MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH
Wilson 7 Advanced
Wilson 7 A/P Kennedy 7 Advanced
Kennedy 7 A/P Wilson 8 Advanced
Wilson 8 A/P Kennedy 8 Advanced
Kennedy 8 A/P0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
28
71
21
71
34
66
25
64
31
76
32
81
35
74
40
75
37
70
34
76
35
64
49
80
35
72
43
80
33
71
32
73
29
72
37
71
33
73
42
84
GRADE 10 MATH
North
And
over
Dedha
m
Wal
pole
Burlin
gton
Wac
huse
tt
Marbe
lhea
d
North
Attl
ebor
ough
Chelm
sfor
d
Fran
klin
Natick
Needh
am
Wel
lesle
y75
80
85
90
95
100
82
8586
8990 90 90
91 91
93
96 96
CURRENT GRADE 11 MATH PROGRESSION
Grade 4 2007 Grade 5 2008 Grade 6 2009 Grade 7 2010 Grade 8 2011 Grade 10 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7072
7875
67
93
GRADE 9 SCIENCE (PHYSICS)
Chelm
sfor
d
Dedha
m
Burlin
gton
Wel
lesle
y
Wac
huse
tt
Wal
pole
North
And
over
Fran
klin
Marbe
lhea
d
North
Attl
ebor
ough
Natick
Needh
am
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7376 78
81 82 8388 89 90 90 91 91
BEN HEM 2008 - 2013
1 2 3 4 5 60
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
70 7181 73
84 79
6573
8678
83 83
6575
8080
79 7956
75
83
7878 86
Ben Hem
Grade 3 ELA Grade 3 Math Grade 4 ELA Grade 4 Math
ELA RECOMMENDATIONS
• Analyze those MCAS items that have been correlated to the PARCC.
• Implement PARCC based writing assignment that measures student growth
• Focus regular assessment that allows students to practice analysis/synthesis of several texts in writing
• Refine and align common writing assignments to mirror PARCC writing requirements
• Focus on texts types/purposes an writing production/distribution in lower grades (K-4)
• Focus on key ideas and idea development upper grades (5-10)
MATH RECOMMENDATIONS
• Analyze those MCAS items that have been correlated to the PARCC.
• Implement PARCC-like math writing assignment that measures student growth
• Monitor implementation/alignment of Math XL (Grades 9-12) to CCSS
• Monitor implementation/alignment of Go Math! (Grade 5) and Big Ideas Math (Grades 6-8) to CCSS
• Continue to encourage adaptive, personalized math practice products employed at secondary level, across system
• Focus on mathematical practice and mastery of discrete skills and materials at earlier levels
• Continued focus on Number Sense Domain
SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Elementary engineering units must be guaranteed• Pending: MA does not appear to be adopting the
Next Generation Science Standards• MA will update science standards, NPS will
respond• Increased focus on PARCC-like tasks transfer well
to the analysis required for science reading and writing• PARCC tasks designed to examine data sets,
charts, tables, etc. will give our students more regular access to analytical tasks demanded in science MCAS (or whatever next test may be).
CLOSING GAPS• Accountability ratings now rest on gap closing• Achievement as a sole measure strongly correlates to socio-
economic status of the schools• Celebrate Johnson• Rising and shifting poverty and high-needs students in district may
require revision of resource distribution• More advanced students than ever• Achievement = “NorthEast;” gap is slowly narrowing but not at
pace with state suggested targets (hence the Level 2 status)• Revamp of the special education model at MS is designed to
address this• Future Recommendations: • Less Pull-Out More Push-In Support for special education students coupled
with personalized challenge pathways for student who can move ahead and do more
• Continued focus on co-teaching models• Maximize the personalization technology can bring• Focus on stronger assessments with unity of rigor, implementation and
systematic support
EXAMPLE OF DEPT. HEAD WORK
• At WMS the 2013 Math MCAS data indicates that the Expressions and Equations domain is an area of relative strength across grades.
• 90% of 5th grade students are able to write and interpret numerical expressions• 87% of 6th grade students are able to represent and analyze quantitative
relationships between dependent and independent variables• 86% of 7th grade students are able to solve real-life and mathematical problems
using numerical and algebraic expressions and equations• 84% of 8th grade students are able to understand the connections between
proportional relationships, lines and linear equations• At WMS the 2013 Math MCAS data indicates that the Geometry domain is an
area of relative weakness across grades. • 65% of 5th grade students are able to classify two-dimensional figures into
categories based on their properties• 69% of 6th grade students are able to solve real-word and mathematical
problems involving area, surface area, and volume• 71% of 7th grade students are able to are able to solve real-word and
mathematical problems involving angle measure, area, surface area, and volume• 70% of 8th grade students are able to understand congruence and similarity
using physical models, transparencies, or geometric software
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 3 ELA 86 85 80 87 84 85
Grade 3 Math 91 89 90 97 89 92
Grade 4 ELA 82 78 81 74 89 76
Grade 4 Math 85 71 75 63 70 70
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Brown School Advanced/Proficient
%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 3 ELA 75 70 69 71 78 75
Grade 3 Math 77 57 63 84 77 72
Grade 4 ELA 75 80 77 79 78 83
Grade 4 Math 60 74 45 69 80 80
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Johnson School Advanced/Proficient
%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 3 ELA 77 78 88 76 81 82
Grade 3 Math 88 82 86 65 89 89
Grade 4 ELA 71 76 81 72 69 75
Grade 4 Math 74 77 76 74 60 74
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Lilja SchoolAdvanced /Proficient
%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Grade 3 ELA 86 81 86 82 85 86
Grade 3 Math 91 77 85 76 81 92
Grade 4 ELA 66 86 87 79 80 76
Grade 4 Math 64 94 81 81 70 72
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Memorial School Advanced/Proficient
%