11/5/2019 CMAS Results Academy District 20 ‐ Stakeholder Meetings Learning Services Fall 2019 Jolynn Patterson – Director of Assessment 1 About the Assessments • Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) • April of 2019 • CMAS Assessed Areas 2019 • 3 rd ‐8 th Grade ELA and Math • 5 th , 8 th and 11 th Grade Science • 4 th and 7 th Grade Social Studies (sampled schools) • 9 th and 10 th Grade PSAT • 11 th Grade SAT 2 1
11/5/2019 CMAS 2019 Testing Format • Grades 3‐8 (ELA) Computer Based Testing (CBT) (except TCA, AVMS, NSCA) • Grades 3‐8 (Math) Computer Based Testing (except TCA, AVMS, DCCMS, MRMS, NSCA) • PSAT/SAT Grades 9‐11 Paper Based Testing (CBT not an available) 3 CMAS Scoring Performance: Meets and Exceeds Percentile Scores Accountability: Scale Scores (Average Scale Score) and 4 2
11/5/2019 CMAS 2019 Social Studies Results Achievement/Performance Level (Note: does not count toward Accountability) Social Studies: Mean Scale Score STATE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Grade 4 651 673 669 658 617 Grade 7 635 655 631 644 590 Grade 11 NA NA NA NA NA Performance Levels SS and SC Exceeded Met Approached Partially Met Sampled Schools in 2019: DCC MS, DVES, EXES, FRES, JK8, MRMS, NSCA, PHES, RCES, TCA CP, TCA 5 CMAS 2019 Science Results Achievement/Acountability Rating Science: Mean Scale Score STATE 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grade 5 642 647 645 652 600 Grade 8 630 629 645 644 580 Grade 11 657 643 654 638 576 Accountability Exceeds Meets Approaching Does Not Meet 6 3
11/5/2019 2019 CMAS Highlights Science – Elementary science scores increased slightly. – Middle school (grade 8) remained stable. – High school (grade 11) science scores decreased and dropped their accountability rating from exceeds to meets. 7 CMAS 2019 ELA Achievement Results ELA: Mean Scale Score STATE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Grade 3 748 753 752 753 740 Grade 4 754 753 759 748 735 Grade 5 751 755 756 760 747 Grade 6 747 751 753 752 743 Accountability Grade 7 751 757 759 761 745 Grade 8 752 750 755 762 745 Exceeds Grade 9 495 495 457 Meets Grade 10 516.8 518 519 476 Grade 11 554.7 554 547 505 Approaching Does Not Meet 8 4
11/5/2019 CMAS 2019 ELA Growth Results Growth/Accountability Rating ELA/EBRW: Median Growth Percentile 2016 2017 2018 2019 STATE Grade 4 54 52 53 54 50 Grade 5 49 52 51 56 50 Grade 6 49 50 51 48.5 50 Grade 7 55 57 56 60 50 Grade 8 52 42 50 56 50 Accountability Grade 9 67 NA NA Grade 10 64 53 50 Exceeds Grade 11 54 56 54 49 Meets Approaching Does Not Meet 9 2019 CMAS Highlights ELA – Grade 4 dropped from exceeds to meets. (achievement) – Grade 6 dropped to approaching. (growth) – Grade 8 up from meets to exceeds. (achievement) – Growth scores remained stable in 6 grade levels. (growth) 10 5
11/5/2019 CMAS 2019 Math Achievement Results MATH: Mean Scale Score STATE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Grade 3 754 757 752 753 740 Grade 4 748 749 751 758 745 Grade 5 747 748 750 751 738 Grade 6 747 748 744 742 732 Accountability Grade 7 747 748 745 746 735 Grade 8 726 731 750 754 736 Exceeds Grade 9 478 481 448 Meets Grade 10 502.1 497 490 462 Approaching Grade 11 537 540 534 496 Does Not Meet 11 CMAS 2019 Math Growth Results Growth/Accountability Rating MATH: Median Growth Percentile 2016 2017 2018 2019 STATE Grade 4 55 49 58 57 50 Grade 5 45 49 48 49 50 Grade 6 53 56 50 45 50 Grade 7 40 44 49 53 50 Grade 8 48 51 53 54 50 Accountability Grade 9 55 55 51 Exceeds Grade 10 56 53 52 Meets Grade 11 54 51 52 51 Approaching Does Not Meet 12 6
11/5/2019 2019 CMAS Highlights Math – Grade 6 dropped to approaching. (growth) – Grade 7 moved up to meets. (growth) – Grade 4 moved up to exceeds. (achievement) – Grade 10 dropped to meets. (achievement) – All other grades remained stable. 13 CMAS 2019 PSAT/SAT Results MATH: Mean Scale Score ELA: Mean Scale Score STATE STATE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Grade 9 Grade 9 478 481 448 495 495 457 Grade 10 502.1 497 490 462 Grade 10 516.8 518 519 476 Grade 11 537 540 534 496 Grade 11 554.7 554 547 505 Growth/Accountability Rating Growth/Accountability Rating MATH: Median Growth Percentile ELA/EBRW: Median Growth Percentile STATE STATE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Grade 9 55 55 51 Grade 9 67 NA NA Grade 10 56 53 52 Grade 10 64 53 50 Grade 11 54 51 52 51 Grade 11 54 56 54 49 Accountability Exceeds Meets Approaching Does Not Meet 14 7
11/5/2019 CMAS 2019 PSAT/SAT Results PSAT/SAT Total Score STATE 2017 2018 2019 2019 PSAT Grade 9 973 977 906 PSAT Grade 10 1020 1015 1009 938 SAT Grade 11 1092 1095 1081 1001 NOTE: Not included in Accountability Ratings. 15 2019 CMAS Highlights PSAT/SAT – Overall SAT/PSAT scores decreased slightly in D20 and the state of Colorado. – PSAT/SAT growth and achievement scores exceeded the state in all grade level assessments. 16 8
11/5/2019 2019 Performance Frameworks 17 Purpose of the DPF/SPF The District Performance Framework and the School Performance Framework serve to: 1. hold districts and schools accountable for performance on the same, single set of indicators and measures; and 2. inform a differentiated approach to state support based on performance and need, by specifically identifying the lowest performing schools and districts. 18 9
11/5/2019 Key Performance Indicators: 1. Academic Achievement – District /School Mean Scale Score 2. Academic Growth – Median Growth Percentile 3. Post-Secondary & Workforce Readiness – Graduation Rate and Disaggregated Graduation Rate (Best of 4,5,6, or 7 year) – Dropout Rate (grades 7-12 as of EOY 2018) – Matriculation Rate (entered 2 or 4 year CTE program following gradation) – CO SAT EBRW (ELA) – CO SAT Math 19 District Accreditation Categories: Plan Types Distinction 74 -100% Accredited 56 - 73.9% Improvement 44 – 55.9 Priority Improvement 34 - 43.9% Turnaround 0.0 – 33.9% Insufficient Data: No reportable achievement or growth data. 20 10
11/5/2019 School Plan Categories Performance 53 -100% Improvement 42 - 52.9% Priority Improvement 34 - 41.9% Turnaround 0.0 – 33.9% Insufficient Data: No reportable achievement or growth data. 21 Scoring Guide for DPF/SPF 22 11
11/5/2019 Possible Points by Indicator Indicator Elem/Middle High/District Achievement 40% 30% Growth 60% 40% Postsecondary NA 30% 23 ASD20 2019 Preliminary DPF Each district receives a District Performance Framework (DPF) with a Plan Assignment. Academy 20: Accredited with Distinction 78% 24 12
11/5/2019 ASD20 Preliminary SPF Each school receives a School Performance Framework (SPF) with a Plan Assignment. 25 2019 DPF/SPF: Changes • Growth for grade 9 ELA was not provided. 26 13
11/5/2019 2018 DPF: Academic Achievement Exceeds (Levels and Content) – Elementary ELA (Grades3-5) – Middle School ELA (grades 6-8) – Middle School Math (grades 6-8) – Middle School Science (grade 8) – High School PSAT/EBRW (grades 9 and 10) 27 2018 DPF: Academic Growth Exceeds English Language Proficiency (ELP) Data Elementary: 65 MGP English Language Proficiency (ELP) Exceeds Middle School: 82 MGP English Language Proficiency (ELP) 68.9 On Track to Proficiency Exceeds High School: 75 MGP English Language Proficiency (ELP) 69.1 % On Track to Proficiency Exceeds 28 14
11/5/2019 2018 DPF: Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Exceeds (Levels and Content) – Dropout .4% All Students – Dropout .0% English Learners – Dropout .4% Minority Students – Graduation 96.2% All Students – Graduation 95.3% Minority Students 29 Connection to Learning Services The Unified Improvement Plan is required by the State of Colorado and is designed to improve student learning through a cycle of continuous improvement. Learning Services with the support of district develops the District Unified Improvement Plan in order to support areas of need across the district. Looking Ahead: – Continued data analysis through the use of Tableau and the development of data analysis protocols. – Identification of areas of strength and areas for growth in all content areas focused on targeted subgroups. – Collaboration and planning with teachers, administrators and the Learning Services team through the Support to Schools – Instructional Leadership Team model. 30 15
11/5/2019 Looking Ahead – Learning Services team will support schools through the Unified Improvement Plan process and the development of their Instructional Leadership Plans. 31 Thank you! 32 16
Recommend
More recommend
