Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2009...
32
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2009 Results Leslie Wilson, Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability and Assessment July 21, 2009 State Board of Education
Transcript of Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2009...
Maryland School Assessment(MSA)
2009 ResultsLeslie Wilson, Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability and Assessment
July 21, 2009
State Board of Education
2009 Maryland School Assessment
Assesses reading and mathematics
Administered in Grades 3-8— 364,119 students
Students receive a score of Basic, Proficient or Advanced
Fulfills No Child Left Behind requirements, used to determine school Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
100% of students must score proficient by 2014
Third-Grade Cohorts
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Start (3rd Grade)
2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009
Reading % Proficient + Advanced
Math % Proficient + Advanced
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Start (3rd Grade)
2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009
Early Learning Foundations for Success
Third Grade MSA Results (proficient or better) 2003 2009
Reading 58.1% 84.9%
Mathematics 65.1% 84.3%
Readiness Programs
Pre-kindergarten for 4-year olds from “economically disadvantaged backgrounds”
Limited Yes
Kindergarten Half-day Full-day
All Early Learning Programs coordinated by MSDE
No Yes
Prepared to Enter First Grade Ready to Learn(Maryland Model for School Readiness)
52% ready
73% ready
Early Learning Impact on Third Grade Results
Third Grade MSA Results (proficient or better) 2003 2009
Reading 58.1% 84.9%
Mathematics 65.1% 84.3%
Did these third graders enter first grade ready to learn?
Kindergarten Year 1999-00 2005-06
Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR) Assessment
Test not available
Students tested
MMSR Fully Ready Composite Score NA 60% ready
State Curriculum Assures ContinuityStatewide K-12 Curriculum Standards
Third Grade MSA Results (proficient or better) 2003 2009
Reading 58.1% 84.9%
Mathematics 65.1% 84.3%
Cumulative Impact of State Curriculum onTeaching and Learning
Grades students experiencing instructional continuity with State Curriculum
3 K-3
Teachers Experienced with State Curriculum 1 year 7 years
Bridge to Excellence (BTE)
Third Grade MSA Results (proficient or better) 2003 2009
Reading 58.1% 84.9%
Mathematics 65.1% 84.3%
Cumulative Impact of Bridge to Excellence on Teaching and Learning
State Education Aid $ 2.5 bil. $4.5 bil.
Local School System Master Plans 1 year 7 years
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
2003 2009
Reading 58.1% 84.9%
Mathematics 65.1% 84.3%
2004 2009
Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
All Classes 66.9% 88.5%
Elementary – High Poverty Schools 46.6% 79%
Nationally Board Certified Teachers 158 302
Elementary Gains:Continued progress 2008-2009
Elementary Reading— Gains at Grades 3 & 5, — 1.9 point decrease in Grade 4— All subgroups show gains.
Elementary Math— Gains at all three grade levels (Gr. 3, 4, & 5)— All subgroups show gains.
Elementary GainsReading and Math
87
62
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Reading 2003-200984.9
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Math 2003-2009
25-point gain since 2003 25-point gain since 2003
Middle School Progress2008 to 2009
Middle School Reading— Gains at all three grade levels (Gr. 6, 7, & 8)— All subgroups show gains.
Middle School Math— Gains at all grade levels (Gr. 6, 7, & 8)— All subgroups show gains.
Middle SchoolGains continue to close Reading-Math gap
81.8
59.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Reading 2003-2009
71.2
39.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Math 2003-2009
22-point gain since 2003 32-point gain since 2003
2009 MSAServices groups making greatest gains
All subgroups made progress.
Continue to close achievement gaps— Most pronounced in early grades
Most significant gains— Elementary ELL and FARMs group
Early learning has lasting effects.
It is harder to erase early deficits in later years.
Elementary Reading: Summary of Achievement Gap Reductions
GroupGap
Reduction2009 Percent
Proficient
FARMs 19.5 78.5
Special Ed 16.1 69.5
ELL 27.5 72.1
African American 17.5 79.6
Hispanic 18.7 81.3
Middle Math: Summary of Achievement Gap Reduction
GroupGap
Reduction2009 Percent
Proficient
FARMs 6.9 53.9
Special Ed +0.8 38.6
ELL +6.4 45.4
African American 6.9 54.5
Hispanic 5.5 62.3
Elementary ReadingClosing achievement gaps for all races
91.394.1 94.4
57.4
67.370.5
78.1 79.6
93.381.3
57
75.174.4
67.9
80.7
87.7
89.888.9
77.5
85.4
92.2
64.8
44.8
92.7
89.5
75.9
82.886.9 88
70.5
79.873
45.1
59.5
66.5
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
American Indian Asian African American White Hispanic
Elementary MathClosing achievement gaps for all races
85.5
94.7 95.3
51.6
64.969.5
74 76
91.979.6
55.1
77.4
71.2
63.7
81.6 84.9
92.790.8
82.9
87.2
94
59.2
40.9
91.689.6
74
80.985.2 87.9
71.8
7874.4
48.4
58.4
65.8
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
American Indian Asian African American White Hispanic
African American Students7 in 10 proficient in Elementary Math
76.074
91.9
40.9
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
African AmericanWhite
33.1 points
15.9 points
The Achievement Gap:ELL, Elementary Reading
6972.1
86.9 87.8
59.8
39.247
51.8
20.2
81.972.5
63.4
7879.7
102030405060708090
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
LEPNon-LEP
15.7 points
43.1 points
The Achievement Gap:FARMS, Elementary Math
73.4 75.9
90 90.7
68.4
50.5
57.9
63.6
39.2
88.1
78.6
72.3
83.6
86.4
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
FARMSNon-FARMS
33.1 points
14.8 points
The Achievement Gap:Special Education, Middle School Reading
43.4
51.2
83 85.6
34.2
25.4 29.531.5
20.1
76.572.2
65.773.1
75.1
102030405060708090
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
Special Education
Non-SpecialEducation45.6 points
34.3 points
Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP)
2009 ResultsLeslie Wilson, Assistant Superintendent
Division of Accountability and AssessmentJuly 21, 2009
State Board of Education
What is “AYP”
Adequate Yearly Progress – sufficient progress toward the goal of 100% proficient by 2014. Determination of school success based
on No Child Left Behind Uses MSA results and attendance data Schools must meet a yearly target (AMO) Must meet target for each of 8 subgroups
Sample AYP Chart
Challenges to Achieving AYP
Target rises each year All subgroups must achieve targets
— Subgroups with 5 students or more counted— Confidence interval shrinks each year
Students receiving special services— Challenged to achieve targets
School Improvement Categories
STAGESPATHWAYS
Comprehensive Needs
Pathway
FocusedNeeds
Pathway
DevelopingStage
Failing:-All students
or-3+ subgroups
Failing:-1 to 2 subgroups
-PriorityStage
School Improvement Categories
STAGESPATHWAYS
Comprehensive Needs
Pathway
FocusedNeeds
Pathway
DevelopingStage
Schools enter after not achieving AYP
two times
Schools enter after not achieving AYP
two times
PriorityStage
Schools enter when AYP failed fifth time
Schools enter when AYP failed fifth time
Schools in Improvement
STAGESPATHWAYS
Comprehensive Needs
Pathway
FocusedNeeds
Pathway
DevelopingStage
40 schools 37 schools
PriorityStage
72 schools 9 schools
AYP Results
19 schools Exit 158 schools currently in Sch. Improvement
— 12 fewer than 2008 134 schools missing AYP first time
— “Not Met” – 134 schools— 2/3 of these schools missed 1 to 2 cells— Special Education subgroup most missed
Summary
Student performance continues to improve Achievement gaps closing Lasting early learning benefits State Curriculum improving teaching Students needing services have challenges Fewer schools in School Improvement Maryland well positioned for the
Common Core of State Standards
Vision for the Future: Common Core Standards
Md. has signed on to the move toward national standards
— Allow valid comparison among states— Ensure students are college or work ready
Md. is an American Diploma Project state with aligned standards
MSA test results show MD teachers and students are ready to raise the bar
More Highly Qualified Teachers in high poverty schools.
Questions and Discussion
State Board of Education
