MCA Data Discoveries

(1)

2014-2015

(2)

What does Minnesota think is important?

What do we want kids to do?

 Pass important tests “Be Proficient”

 Grow in their knowledge “Growth”

 Have equal opportunity to learn Close the

“Achievement Gap”

 Graduate from high school “Graduation”

Minnesota believes each of the above things

are equally important so…

(3)

(4)

Because each of these things are equally

important, they should be treated that way…

 Pieces of the MMR Pie for High Schools

Proficiency Growth

Achievement Gap Graduation

(5)

Elementary and Middle Schools don’t graduate

students so for them the pie looks like this…

 Pieces of the MMR Pie for Elementary and Junior High

Schools

Proficiency Growth

(6)

Focus Rating

Consists of:

 Focused Proficiency

(7)

Title I schools can fall into 5 groups based on MMR

and FR

• Reward Schools: These schools are the top 15 percent of Title I schools based on the MMR.

They represent the highest-performing schools on the four domains in the MMR.

• Celebration Eligible: These are the 25 percent of schools directly below the Reward school

cutoff. These schools may apply to be Celebration schools, and MDE selects approximately 10 percent of Title I schools to receive the Celebration school recognition.

•

Continuous Improvement: These are the bottom 25 percent of Title I schools that have not

already been identified as Priority or Focus. Continuous Improvement schools must work with their districts to create and implement improvement plans as well as set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support school improvement efforts.

• Focus: All Minnesota schools receive a Focus Rating (FR) that measures their contribution to

the state’s achievement gap. The 10 percent of Title I schools with the lowest FR are identified as Focus Schools. Focus schools are required to set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support school improvement efforts. These schools are identified every three years.

Some Focus schools are identified for persistent low graduation rates. These are schools with a six-year graduation rate, averaged over three years, below 60 percent. This separate group of low graduation rate

• Priority: These are the 5 percent most persistently low-performing Title I schools based on the

MMR. Priority schools are required to set aside 20 percent of Title I funds to support turnaround efforts, and these schools are also identified every three years.

(8)

(9)

District Demographics

subgroup

State

District

American Indian

2.4%

.3%

Asian

7.2%

2.6%

Hispanic

8.4%

3.4%

Black

11.5%

.8%

White

70.5%

93%

English Learners

8.3%

0%

Special Education

14.9%

10.3%

Free/Reduced Price

Lunch

38.3%

42.8%

(10)

Elementary

Demographics

subgroup

State

Elementar

y

American Indian

2.4%

.8%

Asian

7.2%

2.3%

Hispanic

8.4%

3%

Black

11.5%

0%

White

70.5%

94%

English Learners

8.3%

0%

Special Education

14.9%

15%

Free/Reduced Price

Lunch

38.3%

52.6%

(11)

Secondary Demographics

subgroup

State

Elementar

y

American Indian

2.4%

0%

Asian

7.2%

2.7%

Hispanic

8.4%

3.5%

Black

11.5%

1.2%

White

70.5%

92.5%

English Learners

8.3%

0%

Special Education

14.9%

7.8%

Free/Reduced Price

Lunch

38.3%

37.6%

(12)

(13)

Reading

Attention:

First year assessed on

the reading mca-iii

• 2013 for 3

rd

_-8

th

_{grades &}

(14)

(15)

2015 RRC ELEMENTARY

Reading Proficiency

(16)

2015 RRC SECONDARY

Reading Proficiency

(17)

(18)

(19)

Secondary/High School Reading

Proficiency Trends

(20)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(21)

Subgroup Reading Proficiency Data

• Looking at your demographics, is there a

sub-group that makes up a significant part of your

student population?

(22)

RRC DISTRICT VS STATEWIDE

SpEd Trend Data

(23)

RRC DISTRICT VS STATEWIDE

SpEd Trend Data

(24)

RRC ELEMENTARY VS STATEWIDE

SpEd Trend Data

(25)

RRC SECONDARY VS STATEWIDE

SpEd Trend Data

(26)

RRC DISTRICT

(27)

RRC ELEMENTARY

(28)

RRC SECONDARY

(29)

RRC DISTRICT

(30)

RRC ELEMENTARY

(31)

RRC SECONDARY

(32)

RRC DISTRICT VS STATEWIDE

FRP TREND DATE

(33)

RRC ELEMENTARY VS STATEWIDE

FRP TREND DATE

(34)

RRC SECONDARY VS STATEWIDE

FRP TREND DATE

(35)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(36)

Grade Level Proficiency Trend Data

Helps Identify:

• Possible gaps in instructional practices

(37)

Cohort Proficiency Trend Data

Helps Identify:

• Possible gaps in student learning

• Possible instructional gaps

(38)

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of 2017 Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(39)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of 2018 Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(40)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of _2019 Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(41)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of 2020_ Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(42)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of 2021_ Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(43)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of _2022 Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(44)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of 2023_ Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(45)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade

Axi

s

Ti

tl

e

Class of __2024___ Cohort Reading Trend Data

(46)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Axis Title

Class of _____ Cohort Reading Trend Data

District State

(47)

3 rd

Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(48)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(49)

5th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(50)

6th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(51)

7th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(52)

8th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(53)

10th Grade Reading Proficiency Trend

Data

(54)

2013 MCA Reading

Strand Data

5.4 5.4 4.9 4.9 5.6 5.8 6 5.6 _5.5 4.9 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 10th

Grade

Literature Inf Text

(55)

2014 MCA Reading

Strand Data

5.9 5.6 5.3 5.3 _5.2 5.7 5.9 6.0 5.7 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.5 5.9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grade

Literature Inf Text

(56)

2015 MCA Reading

Strand Data

5.2 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.2 6.3 5.3 _5.1 4.9 5.5 5.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grade

Literature Inf Text

(57)

2016 MCA Reading

Strand Data

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grade

Literature Inf Text

(58)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(59)

District Wide Action Plan

• Complete:

– Current Curriculum and Instruction Data for

Reading

(60)

(61)

Math

Attention:

First year assessed on

the math mca-iii

• 2011 for 3

rd

_-8

th

_grades

• 2014 for 11

th

_Grade

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

Secondary/High School Math

Proficiency Trends

(68)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(69)

Subgroup Math Proficiency Data

• Looking at your demographics, is there a

sub-group that makes up a significant part of your

student population?

(70)

(71)

RRC ELEMENTARY

(72)

RRC SECONDARY

(73)

RRC DISTRICT VS STATEWIDE

SPED TREND DATA

(74)

RRC ELEMENTARY VS STATEWIDE

SPED TREND DATA

(75)

RRC SECONDARY VS STATEWIDE

SPED TREND DATA

(76)

RRC DISTRICT VS STATEWIDE

FRP Trend Data

(77)

RRC ELEMENTARY VS STATEWIDE

FRP Trend Data

(78)

RRC SECONDARY VS STATEWIDE

FRP Trend Data

(79)

(80)

RRC ELEMENTARY

(81)

RRC SECONDARY

(82)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(83)

Grade Level Proficiency Trend Data

Helps Identify:

• Possible gaps in instructional practices

(84)

Cohort Proficiency Trend Data

Helps Identify:

• Possible gaps in student learning

• Possible instructional gaps

(85)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Axis Title

Class of _2016____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(86)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2017____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(87)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2018____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(88)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2019____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(89)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2020____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(90)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2021____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(91)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2022____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(92)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2023____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(93)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2024____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(94)

Add Cohort trend data slides if you

wish

• Cohort follows the same group of students from year to year.

Class of _2025____ Cohort Math Trend Data

District State

(95)

(96)

(97)

(98)

(99)

(100)

(101)

11th Grade Math Proficiency Trend

Data

(102)

2015 MCA Math

Strand Data

5.0 6.7 5.3 5.2 _5.2 5.5 4.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 4.9 6.1 5.8 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Number & Operation Algebra Geometry & Measurem ent Data Analysis

(103)

Examining Data - D.I.E. Protocol

• D: Describe

• I: Interpret

• E: Evaluate

(104)

(105)

(106)

(107)

(108)

(109)

(110)

(111)

(112)

District Wide Action Plan

• Complete:

– Current Curriculum and Instruction Data for

Reading

(113)

Graduation Rate Report

• The 2014 Graduation Rate is used for

calculation on the 2015 MMR.

• This is because 2015 Graduation Rates will not

be released until February/March 2016 & the

2015 MMR is calculated in August/September

2015.

(114)

Graduation Trend Data

Year % Students Graduated

2011 97%

2012 100%

2013 97%

2014 100%

2015 100%

State goal is that all districts have 90% graduation rate by 2017, with no sub-group less than 85%.