4. AYP Historical Data 92.2 88.1 89.3 87.9 Math 92.4 87.4 90.3 92.4 ELA 2009 2008 2007 2006 Year
5. Math 2009 Williams and State Grade 5th Grade 4th Grade 3rd 18% 7% 11% 0 15% 3% Warning 29% 21% 41% 20% 25% 11% Needs Improvement 32% 45% 32% 47% 40% 41% Proficient 22% 29% 16% 31% 20% 46% Advanced S W S W S W Level
6. ELA 2009 Williams and State Grade 5th Grade 4th Grade 3rd 8% 5% 11% 4% 10% 5% Warning 29% 26% 35% 11% 33% 11% Needs Improvement 48% 55% 42% 70% 45% 61% Proficient 15% 17% 11% 15% 12% 24% Advanced S W S W S W Level
7. Same Classes Over Two Years 15% 24% P+/A 70% 52% P 11% 19% NI 4% 6% W 2009 4th 2008 3rd ELA 17% 2% A 55% 36% P 26% 57% NI 5% 5% W 2009 5th 2008 4th ELA
8. Same Classes Over Two Years 31% 33% P+/A 47% 43% P 29% 13% NI 0% 11% W 2009 4th 2008 3rd MATH 29% 26% A 45% 40% P 21% 24% NI 7% 10% W 2009 5th 2008 4th MATH
Key points: Because standards differ from grade to grade, so too does the relative difficulty of the MCAS, as well as how the test results are scaled. Scaled scores cannot be meaningfully compared from year to year. The growth model allows for meaningful and valid comparisons over time. It works by comparing students to their “academic peers” (students with similar MCAS score histories).
Key points: This is a verbal explanation of the student growth percentile measure. Visual and numerical examples will follow. Note that similar test score histories does not mean the exact same test score history. If asked: Growth is calculated off of the raw score, not the scaled score. Students with the same scaled scores may have had different raw scores.
Key points: Don’t make too much of small differences.