Introduction
We’ve made strong progress in our journey to help all scholars succeed academically at McAuliffe and have done so by focusing on implementation of EL Education core practices and reaching our annual work 
plan goals / performance benchmarks. During the last four years we have prioritized raising expectations, increasing the rigor of our learning targets, and ensuring that assignments and assessments align to these targets. We have also focused on developing curriculum embedded assessments and using assessment data to target instruction and provide tier 2 interventions through lab intervention classes. Our state-level data, as shown in the accompanying graphs and in our data profile, demonstrate how our scholars have consistently outperformed their peers in the aggregate, in the low income / economically disadvantaged subgroup, and in the students with disabilities subgroup. Our state-level data also represents a story of changing standards, tests, test platforms (computer-based and paper-based), and an EL Education school adjusting to these variables year by year. We begin with the story about testing our scholars from 2013 through 2017. We’ll then share with you the evidence of our diverse scholars outperforming their Framingham and state peers. Finally, we’ll articulate how we monitor our scholars’ academic success to ensure that all of our scholar are making their way to the top of the mountain and how McAuliffe is making progress toward meeting our performance benchmarks.
Building Background Knowledge About McAuliffe’s State Assessment Results
Let’s start with a metaphor: When our 6th grade scholars learn about the predator-prey study of moose and wolves on Isle Royale -- the longest continuous predator-prey study in the world -- they learn that each data point has its own story. One data point for the wolves is collected each year and one data point is collected for the moose. In times of increase or decline, the changes are not just because of the predator-prey population dynamics but instead have to do with situational factors such as a really cold winter, a really hot summer with a surge in the winter tick population, or even a hiker whose dog with canine parvovirus shares the virus with wolves on the island.
Such is the case for McAuliffe’s ELA English language arts (ELA) and mathematics data points for MCAS and PARCC assessments years 2013 through 2016. Each data point has its own story that was influenced by the testing rollercoaster ride we have been on in the state of Massachusetts during this period of time. We wish we had a set of four years of state data to share with you that came from the same test assessing the same standards. Alas, we do not. Instead our data should be interpreted in the context of the changing testing climate in Massachusetts as well as a connectivity challenge that our scholars faced when taking the computer-based PARCC assessment in 2014.
When grappling with how to present our data that spans two years of MCAS and two years of PARCC (one on computer and one on paper) we spoke with Mark Conrad, EL’s Chief Schools Officer, to receive guidance. Because the MCAS has four achievement levels (Warning, Needs Improvement, Proficient, and Advanced) and the PARCC has five achievement levels (Levels 1 through 5) we resolved that McAuliffe would use a measure that allows us to compare achievement (proficiency, not growth) across years and with other districts and the state. The achievement measure we have used is called the Composite Performance Index (CPI). CPI is a performance measure, not a growth measure. Below is a definition of how a CPI score is calculated. The important information to know is that the state of Massachusetts was able to provide a CPI for schools that took MCAS and a “transitional CPI” for schools that took PARCC in 2015 and 2016. With this information, we are able to share with you McAuliffe’s achievement on an annual basis and in relation to our comparison district (Framingham) and the state of Massachusetts. Relatedly, the state of Massachusetts did not release any statewide data for spring 2016 tests. We made special request to receive information for the sake of our portfolio, but were met with a standard reply that no statewide test results were released for this year. This is why on both the graphs and the data profile there is no state data for 2016.
| Massachusetts uses the 100-point Composite Performance Index to measure progress toward the goal of narrowing proficiency gaps. The CPI assigns 100, 75, 50, 25, or 0 points to each student participating in PARCC, MCAS, and MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt) tests based on how close they came to scoring Proficient or Advanced. (For example, all students scoring Proficient or Advanced are assigned 100 CPI points; students with very low assessment scores are assigned 0 CPI points.) The CPI for a student group is calculated by dividing the total number of points by the number of students in the group. The result is a number between 0 and 100. |
|---|
To make things even more interesting, Massachusetts rolled out an entirely new test in spring 2017 called next generation MCAS (next gen MCAS). The state will be using data from the 2017 next gen MCAS to set a baseline for future testing and are not providing a comparable CPI as they have historically. The state also makes it clear that the next gen MCAS data should not be compared with previous MCAS or PARCC data because the test is such a different one with different expectations, question types, and ratings.
McAuliffe is proud to have outperformed the state and Framingham on 2017 testing for the aggregate as well as the subgroups, students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students. Because we only recently received the full results, we have not integrated full analysis into this and the next claim. However, we will be happy to answer questions about the results at our portfolio presentation. Click here for the letter sent to the McAuliffe community about the 2017 results. We have included a tab in our credentialing data with 2017 MCAS results to showcase our scholars’ performance compared with the state and Framingham.
McAuliffe Scholars’ Academic Achievement
During the last four years, McAuliffe scholars consistently outperformed our comparison district (Framingham) and the state in the aggregate, low income / economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities subgroups for both English language arts and math. Our theory of action is that the stronger our implementation of EL Education core practices, the stronger our scholars’ academic performance compared with their peers in Framingham and across the state. At the end of our 2015-16 school year, we were proud to reach a score of 100 on the EL Implementation review. We were also proud of our strong achievement results at the end of 2015-16, following difficult ELA results from 2014-15. The following charts start by exploring schoolwide English language arts data in the aggregate and low income performance in the aggregate, by grade, by cohort, and in comparison with Framingham and the state. After that we’ll guide you through our math performance through the same lenses. Mastery of Knowledge and Skills Claim 2 will showcase the story of our students with disabilities and their successes.
For additional explanation of results, we invite you to read a segment of our application for renewal submitted to the MA DESE in July 2016 explaining 2012 - 2015 testing results. We also invite you to read the letter sent to McAuliffe families in September 2016 explaining 2016 PARCC results. Click here for both texts. The combination of these texts tells the story of McAuliffe’s achievement during the last four plus years in the context of our evolving standardized testing climate.
Chart 2.1.A
Chart 2.1.B
Chart 2.1.C
Chart 2.1.D
Chart 2.1.E
Chart 2.1.F
Using Data to Inform Instruction and Intervention
We are committed to guiding every scholar in the school up the mountain toward the summit for each lesson, unit, and course. We also recognize that learning is not “neat” much of the time and so have systems in place to monitor and track student progress in their classes, to identify struggling scholars, and to provide intervention. Over the course of the last four years we have integrated built a a lab intervention and extension program that provides tier 2 instruction for struggling scholars and extension opportunities for those ot struggling. We have also developed curriculum embedded assessments which serve as common assessments used to assess progress towards mastery of learning targets. These practices align with EL core practices pertaining to use of assessment, diverse scholars, and leadership. Below we’ll share a brief story of each practice with a complementary piece of evidence that helps tell the story.
Lab Intervention and Extension
Over the course of the the 2014-2015, our school-wide focus on data crystallized our understanding that for many of our scholars, lack of preparation on basic skills in math, reading, writing, and social skills were a roadblock to academic success. After administrators and teachers participated in a site visit to Two Rivers Public Charter School (an EL school in Washington D.C.) and saw their intervention block, we launched our “Lab” intervention/extension program in the 2015-16. In Lab, scholars who have gaps in reading, writing, math, or social skills (what we call “social thinking”), have three 45-50 minute blocks per week improving their skills in a small group setting. Scholars who are at or above grade level participate in an extension class on topics such as Marine Biology, Japanese Art, or Robotics. Scholars are placed in labs based on standardized assessment data, their progress toward learning targets in their core courses, and teacher recommendations.
The story of our math Lab is a good example of the progress we have seen through this intervention block. We found that many scholars enter McAuliffe not knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide whole numbers, let alone work with fractions, decimals, and integers. We use a series of computation assessments that allow teachers and scholars to identify the weak areas in a scholar’s math knowledge. Those weak areas are targeted with individualized practice and instruction and then retested to show 
growth. Scholars are able to choose which skills they want to tackle first and are highly motivated to “test out” of Math Lab. This sample lab assessment illustrates the foundational skills students work on in this intervention block and an assessment tool that we used in 2016-17.
For the 2017-18 school year, our math and reading labs have started to use iReady, an online program that allows us to easily progress monitor scholars and determine next instructional steps. We look forward to expanding our use of ongoing assessment to track student progress and inform any adjustments to intervention.
Curriculum Embedded Assessments
To make sure that scholars grow as learners, in the 2015-2016 school year we shifted from out-of-house standardized interim assessments (Achievement Network) to in-house developed curriculum-embedded assessments. We made this shift for two reasons: 1) To create high-quality, common assessments across collaborative teaching teams that were genuinely aligned to both the standards and content we teach; and 2) To ensure an efficient data cycle where teachers could promptly use results to design lessons to better meet the needs of individuals, small groups, and whole classes.
In ELA, we knew we wanted to measure students’ ability to read and write independently, and we also wanted those texts and writing assignments to be intimately connected to the work they were doing in class so that they could be genuine assessments of the learning they had done at McAuliffe. After studying the EL modules, we created sets of mid-unit on-demand writing assessments that measure both ongoing standards (ie, Common Core Standard R. 1), and standards that are specific to the unit scholars are working on. Instead of using generic prompts to measure scholars’ progress writing open response-format essays, we embed this measurable assessment within the context of the curriculum scholars are already studying. By assessing scholars more authentically, we are able to evaluate progress on discrete writing goals and on specific academic learning targets. For example, this 7th grade interim assessment was part of a unit based on EL’s “Water is Life” module; it made use of the standards and content of the unit, but required students to read and write about a text they had not read before.
In math, our math/science instructional coach guided teachers to write assessments of mathematical knowledge and skills that get to the depth and rigor of the standards, while mimicking the variety of ways that scholars are assessed on the PARCC and MCAS. See below for samples of assessments that have evolved over time.
