November 17, 2009

Brockton Public Schools

November 17, 2009

State Growth Model

2006-09 Trends

AYP Results

2009 School Committee Presentation



•Accomplishments

•Concerns

AYP Results

•Gap Analysis

•Subgroup Performance

•Comparable Districts

2006-09 Trends

•Introduction

•Comparable Districts

State Growth Model


AYPAccomplishments

Brockton makes AYP in Aggregate for ELA & Math

BHS makes AYP in both ELA and math in the aggregate and for all

subgroups!

North and South Middle School & Arnone make AYP in Aggregate and all

subgroups for ELA


18 Ways to Miss AYP

Brockton High School ELA

6 Targets3 Categories


AYP Challenges

No status change for the district

No positive status

change for schools.


AYP Success in the Aggregate, Challenge with Subgroups

Adequate Yearly Progress History

NCLB Status 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ELA

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Corrective Action - Subgroups

All Subgroups - - No No No No No No No

MATH

Aggregate Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Corrective Action - Subgroups

All Subgroups - - No No No No No No No


2006-09 Trends

Accomplishments

Grades 7, 8, 10 Showed strong improvement in ELA.

Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 showed strong improvement in Math

Concerns

Grade 3 ELA trending down.

Grades 4, 5, 6 flat in ELA

Grade 3 Math Down Sharply


ELA CPI Aggregate BPS vs. State

2006 2007 2008 200968

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

84.485.8 85.2

86.5

75.1

77.0 76.677.7

9.3

8.8


Decreasing the Gap with the state 2006-09 ELA CPI

Grade 7

5.4 points

Grade 8

10.4 points


Closing in on the state ELA CPI

Grade 8

3.9 point gap

Grade 10

3.1 point gap


Grade 3 ELA 2006-09 BPS Vs State

2006 2007 2008 200965.0

67.0

69.0

71.0

73.0

75.0

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.083.4 83.5

81.582.6

76.6

72.5

69.7 69

8 Point Drop

.8 Drop


2009 Highest ELA CPI

Brockton Lynn Worcester Fall River New Bedford Lowell Boston Lawrence Springfield State60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

77.776.5

75.6 75.574.2 74.2 74.1

71.670.9

86.5

8.8


Grade 3 ELA

N. Bedfd. Lynn Fall River Springfield Lawrence Worcester Brockton Lowell Boston state55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

75.273.3

70.5 70.3 70.1 69.868.6 68.2

66.3

82.6

14


Grade 10 CPI

Brockton Fall River Worcester Lowell Boston Lynn N. Bedfd. Springfield Lawrence state70

75

80

85

90

95

89.1

86.5 86.285.3 84.6 83.9

81.5

77.9

74.3

92.23.1


Math CPI Aggregate BPS vs. State

2006 2007 2008 200960

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

72.5

76.277.7

78.5

60.9

65.6

67.5 67.111.6

11.4


Decreasing the Gap with the state 2006-09 MTH CPI

•3.4 points

Grade 7

•6.5 points

Grade 8

•1.9 points

Grade 10


Grade 3 CPI Math

1 2 3 450.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

78.080.3

81.5 81.4

72.470.5

74.9

66.8

8 point Drop

BPS State

3.5 point gain


Grade 6 Math CPI

Brockton Lowell Worcester N. Bedfd. Lynn Fall River Boston Lawrence Springfield State45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

70.1 69.2 69.1 68.4

65.6

62.460.6

53.6 52.7

78.2

8.1


Grade 3

Lynn N. Bedfd. Worcester Springfield Lawrence Brockton Fall River Lowell Boston state55

60

65

70

75

80

85

73.1 73.1

68.5 67.9 67.1 66.8

64.4 64.3 63.6

81.4

14.6


2009 Highest District Math CPI

Brockton Lynn Worcester New Bedford Lowell Boston Fall River Springfield Lawrence State50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

67.166.9

66.2 65.764.9

64.063.0

57.3 57.3

78.5

11.4


ELA Standouts

Grade 8 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 74 81.1 83.1 87.2 13.2

Fall River 77.2 81.3 80.6 84 6.8

Lowell 75.3 78.9 78.7 82.8 7.5

Lynn 78.1 79.8 82.5 82.3 4.2

Worcester 73.6 79.2 79.7 82.3 8.7

Boston 77.7 79.5 79.2 81.5 3.8

Lawrence 72.6 77.1 75.2 78.1 5.5

N. Bedfd. 76.6 79.8 78.1 78.1 1.5

Springfield 70.1 69.4 69.5 74.9 4.8

Grade 10 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 84 83.2 88 89.1 5.1

Fall River 72.6 81.4 79.2 86.5 13.9

Worcester 75.3 79.3 82.6 86.2 10.9

Lowell 76.4 78.9 81.4 85.3 8.9

Boston 76.5 78.1 82.3 84.6 8.1

Lynn 77.2 78.1 82.7 83.9 6.7

N. Bedfd. 74.3 74.5 78.2 81.5 7.2

Springfield 67.3 69.7 77.5 77.9 10.6

Lawrence 61.4 61.9 69.2 74.3 12.9

Grade 6 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 78.9 78.9 78.2 77.6 -1.3

Lynn 78 76.5 79.3 75.7 -2.3

Worcester 74.6 76.8 77.9 75.1 0.5

Lowell 69.3 73.7 73.8 74.6 5.3

Boston 67.7 70.9 72.8 72.2 4.5

Fall River 71.9 76.4 73.6 71.9 0

N. Bedfd. 71.9 72.2 74.8 69.6 -2.3

Lawrence 66.3 67 67.2 68.4 2.1

Springfield 63.8 64.2 66.5 65.7 1.9

Grade 7 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 71.6 77.7 79 80.5 8.9

Worcester 68.7 74 74.4 78.5 9.8

Fall River 73.6 76.1 77.9 77.4 3.8

Lynn 74.2 77.5 75 77.1 2.9

Boston 72.1 74.6 75.7 76.5 4.4

Lowell 69.8 72.7 75.6 76.2 6.4

N. Bedfd. 73.2 73.8 71.5 73.4 0.2

Lawrence 69.7 70.4 72.8 72.7 3

Springfield 63.2 65.6 66.2 71.1 7.9


Math Standouts

Grade 6 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 63.2 68.7 69.8 70.1 6.9

Lowell 49 60.1 63 69.2 20.2

Worcester 60.5 64.3 69.7 69.1 8.6

N. Bedfd. 58.7 58 69.8 68.4 9.7

Lynn 60.4 63.4 70.3 65.6 5.2

Fall River 54.3 56.6 62.4 62.4 8.1

Boston 50.2 57.4 59.8 60.6 10.4

Lawrence 45.6 49.7 53.4 53.6 8

Springfield 40.5 43.7 50.5 52.7 12.2

Grade 7 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Brockton 50.9 57.4 56.4 61.5 10.6

Lowell 51.6 52.8 59 60.2 8.6

Fall River 47.3 50.9 55.5 60 12.7

Worcester 49.8 54 52.9 59.4 9.6

Boston 52.4 54.2 56.9 57.8 5.4

Lynn 51.8 58.4 56.4 57.3 5.5

N. Bedfd. 48.9 51.3 53 55.2 6.3

Lawrence 40.5 49 44.6 48.7 8.2

Springfield 37.2 39.2 40.4 47.5 10.3

Grade 8 2006 2007 2008 200906-09 Gain

Lowell 46.8 57 56.6 59.3 12.5

Brockton 46.1 55.8 58.9 59.1 13

Lynn 51.5 53.3 56.9 57.5 6

Fall River 45.1 50.7 56.4 57.2 12.1

Boston 51.7 56.4 59.3 56.9 5.2

Worcester 46.5 52.7 53 56.3 9.8

N. Bedfd. 48.3 52.7 52 52.8 4.5

Lawrence 42.1 47.5 48.3 45.7 3.6

Springfield 39.5 39.2 42.4 41.1 1.6


2006-09 Trend Summary

Accomplishments

Highest overall CPI in both ELA and Math

Grades 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 rank #1 in ELA

Grades 6, 7 rank # 1 in Math

Concerns

Grade 3 ELA and math trending down in relative and

absolute terms

Grades 4, 5, 6 flat in ELA


Subgroup Achievement Gap

Accomplishments

Hispanic Subgroup higher than state Hispanic average

for ELA and Math

Most subgroups are close to state average for that subgroup

BPS at or near the top for most subgroups with comparable districts

Concerns

SPED roughly 10 CPI points lower than state average

BPS Hispanic outperformance relative to state average is

decreasing


ELA CPI SPED BPS vs. State

2006 2007 2008 200950

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

65.766.7

65.9

67.8

55.453.9 54.3

55.4

10.3 12.4


BPS Hispanic Math CPI higher than State Hispanic Average!

Brockton Lynn New Bedford Boston Worcester Lawrence Fall River Lowell Springfield State Totals50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

62.7

61.660.6

60

56.2 55.8

54.5

52.8 52.5

61.4

HISP MTH+ 1.3


BPS Hispanic ELA CPI 2009 higher than State Hispanic Average

Brockton Lynn Lawrence Boston New Bedford Worcester Springfield Fall River Lowell State Totals60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

73.5

71.570.6 70.2

67.767

6665.3

64.8

72.6

+.9


LEP Math 2009

Boston Lynn Lowell Worcester Brockton Lawrence New Bedford Fall River Springfield State Totals40

45

50

55

60

65

58.8 58.557.8

54 53.6

51.650.3

48.8

43.8

59.25.3 point gap


2009 LEP ELA CPI

Lowell Lynn Boston Worcester Lawrence Brockton Fall River New Bedford Springfield State Totals50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

65.4

63.562.7

60.2 59.858.8

56.3 55.9

52.7

64.8

6 point gap


Summing up Subgroups

• Overall performance is relatively strong in both ELA and MathSubgroups

• Apples to apples comparison

SPED


State Growth Model: Student Growth Percentile (SGP)

Academic Peer Group

Each student is compared to students with a similar

score history

Percentiles

State Growth Percentile is always 50

70th percentile means better than 70 %


Growth to grade 7: Three students

92226214214Ivy

25244248248Harry

35230230230Gina

SGP2009

Grade 72009

Grade 62008

Grade 52007

Academic Peer Group


Interpreting student growth percentiles

Gina’s SGP was 35. This means her score in grade 7 was higher than 35 percent of her academic peers (and less than 65 percent).

– Is that amount of growth typical?

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

35

Percent of students

Lower growth Higher growthTypical growth


Seeking the Northeast Quadrant

Lo Performance, Hi Growth Hi Performance Hi growth

Lo Performance, Lo Growth Hi Performance, Lo Growth

Performance (CPI)

Growth SGP


2006-09 SGP Trend Summary

Accomplishments

Grades 8, 10 rank #1 in ELA

Grade 7 rank # 2 but outgained all in Math

Concerns

Grades 4, 5, 6 ranked # 3, 6, 4 respectively in ELA

Grades 4, 5 declined substantially in MTH


Grade 8 ELA SGP vs. CPI

70 75 80 85 90 9540

45

50

55

60

50

59

45

58

49

59

45

51.5

44

52

CPI

SGP

growth

Performance


Grade 10 ELA CPI Vs SGP

75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 9530

40

50

60

70

80

90

50

78

48

61

44

50

4841

CPI

SGP


Conclusions

•#1 in ELA and Math for comparable urban districts

•Growth rates in Math potential concern

Comparable Performance

•Middle & High School Strong in ELA

•Middle & High School relatively strong in Math

Trends

•Careful review of early elementary performance

•Sharing & learning from our remarkable successes

Next Steps


END

State Growth Model

2006-09 Trends

AYP Results


Documents

November 17, 2009