1. Mendon-Upton Regional Schools
MCAS/AYP Data
October 2011

2. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 3rd Grade ELA (n=207)
60% 57%
50%
40%
Advanced
30% 27% Proficient
Needs Imp
20%
Failing
12%
10%
5%
0%
Spring 2011

3. % Students Advanced/Proficient
3rd Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
90%
80% 78%
75%
70% 68% 68% 69%
66%
60%
50%
40% State
MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

4. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 3rd Grade Mathematics (n=207)
60% 57%
50%
40%
Advanced
30% Proficient
23%
Needs Imp
20%
14% Failing
10% 7%
0%
Spring 2011

5. % Students Advanced/Proficient
3rd Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
90%
80% 81%
70% 72% 71%
68%
60% 61%
50% 51%
40% State
MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

6. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 4th Grade ELA (n=242)
60% 56%
50%
40%
31% Advanced
30% Proficient
Needs Imp
20%
Failing
10% 8%
5%
0%
Median SGP:
Spring 2011 45.0

7. % Students Advanced/Proficient
4th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
90%
80% 78%
70% 72% 72%
64%
60%
55%
50% 51%
40% State
MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

8. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 4th Grade Mathematics (n=242)
45%
40% 40%
40%
35%
30%
25% Advanced
Proficient
20%
15% Needs Imp
15%
Failing
10%
5%
5%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
42.0

9. % Students Advanced/Proficient
4th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
60% 56%
55% 55%
49% 49%
50%
40%
30% 32%
State
MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

10. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 5th Grade ELA (n=204)
70% 66%
60%
50%
40% Advanced
Proficient
30%
Needs Imp
20%
20% Failing
11%
10%
3%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
49.0

11. % Students Advanced/Proficient
5th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
100%
90%
86%
80% 78%
72% 71% 74%
70% 70%
60%
50% State
40% MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

12. Miscoe Hill Performance Distribution-
5th Grade Mathematics (n=204)
50%
45% 43%
40%
35%
30% 28% Advanced
25% 24%
Proficient
20% Needs Imp
15% Failing
10%
5% 4%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
57.0

13. % Students Advanced/Proficient
5th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
80%
70% 71%
60% 60% 61% 62%
50% 52%
40% 40% State
30% MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

14. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 5th Grade Science (n=204)
60%
53%
50%
40%
Advanced
30% Proficient
23%
20% Needs Imp
20%
Failing
10%
4%
0%
Spring 2011

15. % Students Advanced/Proficient
5th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-11
80%
73%
70%
67%
60% 59% 59%
53% 54%
50%
40% State
30% MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

16. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 6th Grade ELA (n=211)
80%
70% 67%
60%
50%
Advanced
40% Proficient
30% Needs Imp
Failing
20% 14% 16%
10%
2%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
43.5

17. % Students Advanced/Proficient
6th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
90%
80% 83% 83% 81%
78% 78% 78%
70%
60%
50%
40% State
MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

18. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 6th Grade Mathematics (n=211)
45%
41%
40%
35%
30% 27% 26%
25% Advanced
Proficient
20%
Needs Imp
15%
Failing
10% 7%
5%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
47.0

19. % Students Advanced/Proficient
6th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
80%
70% 68% 68%
65%
60% 60%
57%
50%
46%
40% State
30% MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

20. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 7th Grade ELA (n=221)
70%
63%
60%
50%
40% Advanced
Proficient
30%
Needs Imp
19% Failing
20% 15%
10%
3%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
47.0

21. % Students Advanced/Proficient
7th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
90%
85%
80% 82% 81% 82%
79%
70% 72%
60%
50%
40% State
MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

22. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 7th Grade Mathematics (n=221)
35%
32%
30%
30%
25%
21%
20% Advanced
17%
Proficient
15%
Needs Imp
10% Failing
5%
0%
Spring 2011
Median SGP:
41.0

23. % Students Advanced/Proficient
7th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
80%
70% 72%
60%
52% 51% 53%
50% 49%
43%
40% State
30% MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

24. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 8th Grade ELA (n=264)
70%
60%
60%
50%
40% Advanced
30% Proficient
30%
Needs Imp
20% Failing
9%
10%
2%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
58.0

25. % Students Advanced/Proficient
8th Grade, ELA MCAS, 2006-11
100%
90% 90% 90% 89%
89% 87%
84%
80%
70%
60%
50% State
40% MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

26. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 8th Grade Mathematics (n=264)
40% 37%
35% 33%
30%
25%
21% Advanced
20% Proficient
15% Needs Imp
Failing
10% 8%
5%
0%
Spring 2011
Median SGP:
59.0

27. % Students Advanced/Proficient
8th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
80%
70% 70%
64% 63%
60% 58%
56%
53%
50%
40% State
30% MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

28. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 8th Grade Science (n=264)
45%
40% 39%
35% 34%
30%
25% Advanced
Proficient
20%
Needs Imp
15% 12% 12% Failing
10%
5%
0%
Spring 2011

29. % Students Advanced/Proficient
8th Grade, Science MCAS, 2006-11
70%
64%
60%
57% 55%
50% 51%
45%
40%
36%
State
30%
MURSD
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

30. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 10th Grade ELA (n=191)
60%
51%
50%
45%
40%
Advanced
30% Proficient
Needs Imp
20%
Failing
10%
3%
1%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
72.0

31. % Students Advanced/Proficient
10th Grade, ELA MCAS
2006-11
120%
100% 93% 96% 96%
91% 89% 90%
80%
60% State
MURSD
40%
20%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

32. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 10th Grade Mathematics (n=190)
80%
70% 68%
60%
50%
Advanced
40% Proficient
30% Needs Imp
22% Failing
20%
9%
10%
2%
0%
Spring 2011 Median SGP:
69.5

33. % Students Advanced/Proficient
10th Grade, Math MCAS, 2006-11
100%
94%
90% 92% 90%
87% 86%
80% 83%
70%
60%
50% State
40% MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

34. Performance Distribution-
MCAS 10th Grade Biology (n=180)
60%
53%
50%
40% 37%
Advanced
30% Proficient
Needs Imp
20%
Failing
9%
10%
1%
0%
Spring 2011

35. % Students Advanced/Proficient
10th Grade, Biology MCAS, 2007-11
100%
90% 92% 90%
82% 84%
80%
70%
67%
60%
50% State
40% MURSD
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

36. Comparable District Data- Mendon-Upton
*Districts are most similar to your district in terms of grade span, enrollment, and special population.
Orange-shaded row: Your district Blue-shaded row: Highest performing of the other 10 districts in 2010 and 2011 .
2011 MCAS
2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS Growth
Grade % Advanced/Proficient
span Total Low
Comparable Districts Overview Enrollment Income
SPED LEP ELA Math ELA Math
Groton-Dunstable* PK - 12 2,771 3.3 13.7 0.5 85% 79% 52.0 60.0
Hanover* PK - 12 2,685 5.7 15.4 0.5 82% 68% 46.0 46.0
Hopkinton* PK - 12 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0
Ipswich* PK - 12 2,111 9.9 14.2 0.6 79% 72% 52.0 53.0
Lynnfield* PK - 12 2,308 5.5 13.9 0.1 88% 76% 57.0 50.0
Marblehead* PK - 12 3,206 8.3 15.0 0.8 85% 74% 55.0 57.0
Medfield* PK - 12 2,939 2.3 12.1 0.2 88% 77% 60.0 62.0
Mendon-Upton* PK - 12 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0
Nashoba* PK - 12 3,495 7.9 11.1 0.7 84% 77% 53.0 59.0
Scituate* PK - 12 3,276 6.6 12.2 0.8 88% 81% 57.0 56.0
Tyngsborough* PK - 12 1,939 6.7 12.2 0.1 77% 66% 54.0 55.0
Source: DART for Schools, Massachusetts DESE

37. Neighboring District MCAS Data
2011MCAS
2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS Growth
% Advanced/Proficient
Total
Low Income % SPED % LEP % ELA Math ELA Math
Enrollment
Bellingham 2,567 19.1 12.1 0.9 72% 59% 44.0 44.0
Blackstone-
Millville 2,013 22.8 16.1 0.8 72% 65% 49.0 55.0
Franklin 6,032 7.1 15.8 1.2 85% 77% 55.0 52.0
Grafton 2,872 10.4 16.4 0.4 79% 70% 50.0 62.0
Hopedale 1,279 9.5 16.4 0.9 81% 71% 47.0 53.0
Hopkinton 3,454 1.8 12.7 0.8 89% 80% 60.0 55.0
Mendon-Upton 2,720 6.4 12.4 0.6 80% 66% 52.0 52.0
Milford 4,185 28.1 15.0 6.2 72% 61% 55.0 53.0
Northbridge 2,603 24.6 16.7 0.4 70% 52% 47.0 47.0
Uxbridge 1,952 16.2 13.9 1.4 70% 58% 42.0 42.0
Westborough 3,513 7.5 13.4 6.8 85% 77% 59.0 54.0

38. How AYP (Adequate Yearly
Progress) is Calculated

39. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
The CPI is:
• a metric that is used to measure school and district performance and improvement;
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in standard
MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in the MCAS-Alt.
MCAS Performance Level Scaled Score Range MCAS-Alt Performance Level Points Per
Student
Proficient or Advanced 240 – 280 Progressing 100
Needs Improvement High 230 – 238 OR Emerging 75
Needs Improvement Low 220 – 228 Awareness 50
Warning / Failing High 210 – 218 Portfolio Incomplete 25
Warning / Failing Low 200 – 208 Portfolio not Submitted 0
39

40. Composite Performance Index (CPI)
Multiply the number of points by the number of students at each performance
level, then divide the total number of points by the total number of students
(example below)
MCAS Performance Level Points Per
# Students Points
MCAS-Alt Performance Level in Italics Student
Proficient or Advanced / Progressing 100 32 3200
Needs Improvement High / Emerging 75 45 3375
Needs Improvement Low / Awareness 50 7 350
Warning / Failing High / Portfolio Incomplete 25 4 100
Warning / Failing Low / Portfolio not
0 2 0
Submitted
Totals 90 students 7025 Points
7025 90 = 78.1
40

41. CPI Targets for ELA from DESE
100 100 100
95 95.1 95.1
90 90.2 90.2
85 85.4 85.4
80 80.5 80.5
CPI 75 75.6 75.6
70 State Target
65
60
55
50

42. CPI Targets &
Grades 3-10 Performance- ELA
100 100 100
95 93.5
95.1 95.1
92.4 93.1
90.8 91.2 91.4 91.1
90 88.7 88.5
90.2 90.2
85 85.4 85.4
80 80.5 80.5
CPI 75 75.6 75.6
State Target
70
MURSD Aggregate
65
60
55
50

43. CPI Targets & Grades 3-10
Performance, Including Subgroups- ELA
100
95
90
85
80
State Target
75
CPI MURSD Aggregate
70 Spec Ed
65 Lim Income
60
55
50

44. CPI Targets for Math
100 100 100
95
92.2 92.2
90
85 84.3 84.3
80
CPI 75 76.5 76.5
70 68.7 68.7
State Target
65
60 60.8 60.8
55
50

45. CPI Targets &
Grades 3-10 Performance- Math
100 100 100
95
92.2 92.2
90
87
85 84.3
84.2 84.3 85.4
82.8
81.1
80 78.4 77.5 78
CPI 75 76.4 76.5 76.5
State Target
70 68.7 68.7
MURSD Aggregate
65
60 60.8 60.8
55
50

46. CPI Targets & Grades 3-10
Performance, Including Subgroups- Math
100
95
90
85
80
CPI State Target
75
MURSD Aggregate
70
Spec Ed
65
Lim Income
60
55
50

47. What this means for MURSD and AYP
Performance Targets
Did we meet our DESE targets for English Language Arts?
Grade Span Aggregate Special Limited
Education Income
3-5 No No No
6-8 No No No
9-12 Yes N/A N/A
MURSD No No No

48. What this means for MURSD and AYP
Performance Targets
Did we meet our DESE targets for Mathematics?
Grade Span Aggregate Special Limited
Education Income
3-5 No No No
6-8 No No No
9-12 Yes N/A N/A
MURSD No No No

49. To get a perspective…
Table 8. Number and Percentage of Districts and Schools Not Making AYP, 2006-2011
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
(N = 1772) (N = 1772) (N = 1770) (N = 1732) (N = 1716) (N = 1714)
# % # % # % # % # % # % ELA Math
Schools 733 41.4 853 48.1 1122 63.4 1078 62.2 1141 66.5 1404 81.9 1163 1202
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
(N = 379) (N = 386) (N = 386) (N = 385) (N = 385) (N = 390)
# % # % # % # % # % # % ELA Math
Districts 243 64.1 270 69.9 302 78.2 304 79.0 316 82.1 354 90.8 307 334
* This chart shows the number and percentage of districts and schools not making AYP for one or more student groups (aggregate or any subgroup) in either English language arts/reading (ELA) or
mathematics from 2006 to 2011 (data are disaggregated by subj
Source: DESE website, www.doe.mass.edu