Franklin Public Schools

MCAS Report 2011

1

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6 CPI and Performance Ratings .................................................................................................... 7 Accountability Data .................................................................................................................. 8 NCLB Accountability Status ....................................................................................................... 9 State NCLB Targets ................................................................................................................. 11 AYP Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11 Summary of Exams ................................................................................................................. 13 Percentage Advanced and Proficient ....................................................................................... 14 Sub-Group Analysis................................................................................................................. 15 Growth Model Results ............................................................................................................ 16 DART Analysis......................................................................................................................... 18 MCAS Focus Areas .................................................................................................................. 19 Franklin Curriculum Plans ....................................................................................................... 20 Future of MCAS Testing .......................................................................................................... 23 Adams Scholarship Recipients ................................................................................................. 25 Multi-Year Data Reports ......................................................................................................... 27

Introduction No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law by President Bush in January 2002, was the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the prevailing federal law in K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act expanded the federal role in education and become the basis of education policy. The legislation mandated requirements for virtually every public school and district in the United States. The core of the No Child Left Behind Act contains a number of measures designed to mandate broad gains in student achievement (as defined by each state) and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress (as defined by each state). These core measures included: Academic progress. States must determine their own definition of proficient and must bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests by school year 2013-2014 (Massachusetts has applied for a federal waiver). Individual schools must meet the state determined adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets toward meeting this goal for all students in the aggregate as well as specific subgroups. Report cards. Starting with school year 2002-03, states must furnish annual report cards showing a range of information, including student achievement data broken down by subgroup. Districts must provide similar report cards showing school-by-school data. The state of Massachusetts does this yearly for every school district. Teacher qualifications. By the end of the school year 2005-06, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school must be "highly qualified" in each subject he or she teaches. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally means that a teacher is certified and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter. Reading First. The act created a new competitive-grant program called Reading First to help states and districts set up "scientific, research-based" reading programs for children in grades K-3 (with priority given to high-poverty areas). Funding changes. Through an alteration in the Title I funding formula, the No Child Left Behind Act is expected to better target resources to school districts with high

concentrations of poor children. The law also includes provisions intended to give states and districts greater flexibility in how they spend a portion of their federal allotments. Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) Under the Education Reform Act, students within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are required to participate in state standardized testing. This testing is the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). When these tests were originally implemented in 1998, tests were administered to students in grades 4, 8, and 10 in the areas of English language arts and mathematics. In subsequent years, additional testing has been implemented because of the requirements set forth in NCLB. Additional tests in science and social studies (currently waived) have been added. All students in grades 3-8 and 10 are administered MCAS tests in both English language arts and mathematics. In addition, students in grades 5 and 8 are also required to take the science and technology/engineering test. In order to receive a high school diploma students are also required to pass the Biology (or other science) MCAS test along with math and ELA exams.

All tests within the MCAS assessment program are given over a period of time beginning in March and ending in the first week of June. For the students, these testing days range from two to seven days depending on the number of tests given. MCAS tests are standards-based tests that reflect the skills and concepts that are to be taught and learned by the time they are tested in a specific subject and grade level. In standards-based testing, it is possible to have all students attain the advanced level of proficiency given the appropriate amount of time and instruction needed for each individual student to be successful to that level. The 2011 MCAS test was the 14th administration in the state. These tests are based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks approved by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The results provide districts with information regarding the progress of each child and the student achievement as measured against these standards within a subject area. MCAS is also a concrete measure of the districts curriculum alignment with the frameworks. The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks set high standards and expectations for all students and these tests assess progress in attaining these standards and expectations.

All MCAS tests are comprised of multiple-choice question and written response prompts. In addition, students in grades 4, 7, and 10 students are required to complete a long composition writing assessment. This assessment is designed to assess each students ability in the areas of topic development and conventions (grammar and punctuation). A students score on this aspect of the test becomes part of the total assessment in the area of English language arts.

Proficiency Levels Based on Scaled Scores The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has established proficiency levels based on the scaled scores of students in grade 3-10. Students attain the following proficiency level based on scaled scores.

Proficiency Level Advanced Proficient Needs Improvement Warning (Failing in Grade 10)

Scaled Scores 260-280 240-258 220-238 200-218

It is a state mandate that all students enrolled in public schools in the Commonwealth will participate in the MCAS testing. Students take the test under standard conditions or with appropriate accommodations for those students with disabilities. Students, who were absent or failed to take the test, or any portion, are given a minimum score of 200 (warning/failing).

The teachers and administrators have worked diligently to provide a positive testing environment (including all necessary test accommodations) to encourage all students to do their best. These factors, along with parent support and student cooperation, have resulted in this extremely high participation rate. When reviewing these tests, it is necessary to understand that when comparing scores from one year to the next, the difference in the group of test takers will result in performance fluctuations.

Data Analysis Data analysis is a critical part of the districts process when reviewing MCAS scores. The data analysis is used for both an overall analysis of our curriculum and the early identification of students in need of remedial instruction. It also provides us with valuable information about our students who are functioning at the upper range of the curriculum. In all cases, this analysis provides teachers with data from which to plan appropriate instruction for all students as well as the opportunity to identify needs in our overall curriculum.

Data is analyzed in both the aggregated form and by disaggregated subgroups in an effort to fully understand the results and make clear determinations as to the appropriate next steps in planning curriculum development, instructional strategies, and local assessment plans. As part of the data analysis process, MCAS data is shared among all teachers and administrators at all grade and department levels. The faculty is asked to review the data, looking at individual student performance as well as for patterns and trends in the data. Synthesizing the data and participation in collegial discussions are an important part of the process. Each school, subject, and level will address the needs and goals that have been identified. The analysis process and the resulting teacher conversations regarding student achievement and best instructional practices are seen as a vital outcome of the process.

Data is reviewed in many ways. Through the states Data Warehouse tool we have the ability to review scores by student, school, and district. We can look at the scaled scores, performance categories, percentages of students in each category, and isolate student performance for those in our Sub-groups. Additionally, we can analyze results by test and look at content strand data and individual item analyses as well as question types. Students are required to answer multiple choice questions, open response items, short answer questions in math, and in some grades students also complete the long composition. Analyses of all these measures provide important data that is used to change and inform instructional practices in our classrooms and impacts our work with all students.

Franklin is a high performing community as indicated by the Composite Performance Index (CPI) analysis below. These performance ratings have remained consistent for many years and reflect the many instances in which the majority of our students have achieved academic success at high levels. CPI and Performance Ratings by Grade

District

Subjects

District

ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Reading Math

CPI (Targets: 95.1-ELA 92.2-Math) 94.8 90.8 97.8 95.1 97.5 87.6 97.1 89.2 94.6 88.3 93.9 92.6 90.5 90.1 92.3 92.7

Performance Rating

Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High High Very High High Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High

Grade 10

Grade 8

Grade 7

Grade 6

Grade 5

Grade 4

Grade 3

Composite Performance Index This is the baseline indicator representing the performance of students tested in grade 3-8. The CPI score each year becomes the baseline for the next years growth measurement. CPI baselines are calculated for both English Language Arts and Mathematics scores.

Performance Rating This is a descriptive representation of aggregate student performance on MCAS tests. Schools and districts are assigned one of six performance rating categories based on their CPI: Very High (90 - 100); High (80 - 89.9); Moderate (70 - 79.9); Low (60 - 69.9); Very Low (40 - 59.9); and Critically Low (0 - 39.9). Accountability Data Summary District Subjects NCLB Accountability Status No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status Improvement Rating On Target No Change Met NCLB Goal No Change Met NCLB Goal AYP Aggregate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AYP Subgroups Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

District

ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math

FHS

Annie Sullivan Middle School

Horace Mann Middle School

ELA Math

Improvement Year On Target 2-Subgroups No Status On Target Improvement Year On Target 1-Subgroups Improvement Year On Target 2-Subgroups No Status On Target

Remington Middle School

ELA Math

Yes Yes

Yes No

Davis Thayer

ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math

No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status No Status

No Change No Change No Change Declined On Target On Target On Target On Target No Change

No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jefferson

Keller

Kennedy

Oak Street

Parmenter

No Status On Target Improvement Year On Target 1-Subgroups No Status On Target

NCLB Accountability Status The NCLB status category is based on the AYP determination over multiple years and defines the required course of school action that must be taken to improve student performance. Accountability status categories include No Status, Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring. A school is placed in an accountability status based on the performance and improvement profile of students in the aggregate or one or more subgroups over two or more years in ELA and/or mathematics. Schools that make AYP in a subject for all student groups for two or more consecutive years are assigned to the positive No Status category.

Improvement Rating This is a descriptive term corresponding to the amount of aggregate CPI gain a school achieved compared from one year to the next. The improvement that a school is expected to make from one year to the next is expressed not as a single numeric target, but as a target range. The size of

the target range varies depending on the size and score distribution of the particular group being measured.

The five improvement rating categories are: Above Target (improved above target range), On Target (improved within target range), No Change (gain was equivalent to baseline plus or minus the target range), Improved Below Target (improved above the baseline but below the target range), and Declined (gain was below baseline and below the target range).

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires schools and districts to meet or exceed specific student performance standards by the year 2014. This applies only to the ELA and Mathematics tests. AYP determinations are based on the performance of all students (aggregate) and for individual groups of students (sub-groups). It is the interim measure of progress towards proficiency for all by 2014. To make AYP the student participation requirement must be met as well as an additional attendance or graduation requirement. The last component of the calculation is the student performance against either the state designated target or the school or districts own improvement target.

10

State NCLB Performance Targets for ELA & Mathematics, 2001 2014

Black oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle IV 2005 & 2006 Purple oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle V 2007 & 2008 Green oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle VI 2009 & 2010 Red oval represents target performance numbers for Cycle VII 2011 & 2012 AYP Analysis One of the anomalies of MCAS analysis is that districts and/or schools can be both high performing and not meet the AYP targets. It is for this reason that the state of Massachusetts has recently begun the process of applying for a federal waiver of the NCLB requirements. Many other high performing districts and schools around the state are in this same situation with a set of results that present as an inconsistent data set. Dozens of districts, including high performing districts, across the state showed similar AYP results, especially in middle school Math. This leads to the question: How can high performing schools or districts be designated as failures? The scoring mechanism and calculations used are leading many schools and districts to that designation and this is the impetus behind the states decision to seek a waiver. It is important to note that on every MCAS test administered over 90% of Franklin students passed, with some

11

tests showing passing rates of 99%. The designation as a high performing district is substantiated in this data, as we acknowledge that there is more work to be done.

The AYP target has often been described quite accurately as a moving target. Numerical targets are developed for a two year growth trajectory. The 2011 results reflect the first year of this two year cycle with newer and much higher targets required for the AYP criteria. In the previous two years the targets were 90.2 in ELA and 84.3 in Math. The 2011 targets are substantially higher with the criteria moving to 95.1 in ELA and 92.2 in Math. This is a very steep increase of 5.4% and 9.4% respectively.

While the overall expectations of making the AYP targets were achieved in most tests across the district, we recognize that there is still work to be done in areas across the system. We are carefully reviewing the Mathematics results and working to align our curriculum with the new Massachusetts Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks that were released last spring. Specific work is being done to determine how to improve and remediate Math instruction at the three middle schools in the identified Sub-groups and with individual students as needed. Similarly, this work is being done at Davis Thayer and Jefferson in Mathematics for both the aggregate and identified students within the Sub-groups. In ELA we are also working towards aligning our curriculum with the new Massachusetts Frameworks and targeting Jefferson and Davis Thayer for detailed analysis of data to inform instructional practices.

12

Summary of Exams

Grade

Exam

% of Students Passing Franklin

% of Students Passing State

3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 10 All Grades All Grades

Reading Math ELa Math ELA Math Science ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Science Science ELA Math ELA Math

97 95 95 96 97 96 96 97 92 98 94 98 91 94 99 99 98 97 95

91 90 88 89 91 85 85 91 84 94 78 94 79 81 93 97 93 92 85

Looking at the percentage of students passing the MCAS tests is another element of the data analysis that is done. Work is always moving forward with students who struggle to meet this benchmark, however, there is much to be proud of as indicated in the chart above. Franklin students continue to outperform students across the state in a significant manner. 13

Percentage of Students Scoring Advanced and Proficient Grade Exam Proficient or Higher Franklin 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 10 All Grades All Grades Reading Math ELA Math ELA Math Science ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Science Science ELA Math ELA Math 77 81 74 70 84 82 69 84 74 91 73 91 73 63 89 95 87 84 78 Proficient or Higher State 61 66 53 47 67 59 50 68 58 73 51 79 52 39 67 84 77 69 58

Another important measure of achievement when analyzing MCAS results is the percentage of students achieving in the Advanced and Proficient performance categories combined, often known as P+. The table above compares Franklin P+ results to the state results for this year and again indicates that Franklin students significantly outperform students across the state.

14

Sub-Group Analysis

MCAS results by Sub-groups are reported from the state to the district in the following categories: students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged students, and racial and ethnic groups. These students are reported in the aggregate and for each Sub-group to which they belong. Student performance by Sub-group is a part of the AYP determination. Sub-group performance is not reported (but counts in the AYP determination) if the number of students is small and the reporting of the data could compromise the confidentiality of student results.

In Franklin the Sub-groups struggling to meet the challenges of the AYP target in English Language Arts were at the elementary level only and were identified as White and/or special education students. Due to the small numbers of students involved in some these results the state does not report this data for some schools. However, detailed analysis and targeted intervention can be developed based on the individual student data each school receives.

Similarly in Math the identified Sub-Groups at the elementary level were low income students. In Math identified Sub-groups at the middle school level were White, special education, and/or low income students. At the high school level the identified sub-group was special education students.

15

Growth Model Results Grade Subject Student Growth Percentile (Aggregate) 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 10 10 SPG Range 1-39 40-60 61-99 Reading Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Growth Description Lower Growth Moderate/Typical Growth Higher Growth N/A N/A 65 66 53 61 47 37 57 54 60 46 48 41

The student growth model is another method to evaluate individual and aggregate performance. It was implemented by the state in 2009 and measures progress on assessments by tracking scores from one year to next. The reports are meant to be used in conjunction with the MCAS achievement levels. The student growth percentile (SGP) is calculated using two or more years of MCAS data. Growth for individual students is measured by comparing changes in his or her MCAS performance from one year to the next with that of their academic peers. Academic peers are identified as students in the state who have the same MCAS performance history. This measure 16

also takes into account the test taken (Math and ELA) as well as increasingly more difficult/complex grade level learning standards. Student Growth Percentiles are not calculated on Grade 3 tests as this grade represents the first year in the test administration cycle. Also, SGP is not calculated for Science/Technology or Biology tests.

In Franklin eleven out of twelve tests indicate growth in the moderate or high growth categories. Of these, four are designated high growth. These results, with other MCAS data, indicate the Franklin students overall are showing growth as expected with regard to MCAS testing. Further analysis is underway, particularly with regard to the grade six math results, to determine methods of continuing the pattern of improving student growth percentiles.

17

DART Analysis The goal of the District Analysis and Review Tool (DART) is to offer a snapshot of district and school performance, allowing users to easily track select data elements over time, and make sound, meaningful comparisons to the state or to "comparable" organizations. The data elements are linked to a broader strategic framework defining the characteristics of effective educational organizations and cover a broad range of district and school interests including demographic, assessment, student support, educator, financial, and achievement gap data. The DESE has grouped each district with a list of ten comparable districts or schools. These districts or schools are considered comparable based on student enrollment and demographics. The district highlighted in blue is the district that has demonstrated highest performance based on achievement and growth in ELA and math over the past two years among the top 10 comparable districts.
Grade span 2010-11 October Enrollment 2011 MCAS % Advanced/Proficient ELA Math 2011 MCAS Growth

Comparable Districts Overview

Andover* Chelmsford* Easton* Franklin* Natick* Needham* Sharon* Wachusett* Wellesley* Wilmington* Winchester* PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12 PK 12

Total Enrollme nt

Low Income

SPED

LEP

ELA

Math

6,178 5,307 3,893 6,032 4,825 5,358 3,435 7,490 4,892 3,732 4,282

5.9 8.0 7.7 7.1 8.9 5.4 7.2 7.1 3.9 8.5 5.6

16.2 15.7 17.9 15.8 14.7 14.0 15.1 13.4 16.0 16.1 16.4

1.4 2.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.2 0.7 2.9

87% 84% 80% 85% 83% 86% 89% 85% 88% 78% 90%

81% 71% 71% 77% 76% 79% 79% 73% 76% 65% 83%

55.0 55.0 51.0 55.0 52.0 58.0 57.0 58.0 54.0 48.0 54.0

59.0 49.0 48.0 52.0 52.0 56.0 55.0 52.0 59.0 51.0 48.0

18

MCAS Focus Areas Detailed analysis demonstrates continued growth and success for most students across most tests. However, there are several areas that require additional work so that students can demonstrate success across all tested components. As already indicated previously, work must be done with individual students, particularly those in some Sub-groups, to assist all students to success as measured by the MCAS. This is true for our students in the special education Subgroup. It is critical that we maintain a high bar for mastery of content and test taking skills for students to adequately demonstrate successful achievement. This work is being done across the district within inclusive classrooms and through services delivered as required on individual student educational plans. Teachers meet by grade level (building-based and district-wide) to discuss MCAS data and collaborate on improving student performance and instructional practice. Teachers and administrators are provided training in the manipulation of Data Warehouse and data analysis to further enhance the ability to make sense of the data and collaboratively discuss methods to improve student results. Student learning and achievement is an essential focus of all MCAS activities. Data analyses, program and curricular revisions, professional development activities, and district/building plans all funnel into the ultimate goal of increased student achievement at all levels. The state requires districts to develop Individual Student Success Plans (ISSPs) for increasing performance of students in grades 3-8 who score below 220 Warning on ELA and Math MCAS tests. The district also requires an ISSP for any student in grades 3-8 who scores in the Low Needs Improvement performance level (220-228). In order to receive a high school diploma, students must demonstrate minimum competency on their ELA and Mathematics MCAS tests identified as a score of 240 (Proficient) or higher. In addition, students must also demonstrate competency on a science test with a score of 220 (Needs Improvement) or higher. Any student who fails to meet these expectations must, with their guidance counselor, complete an individual Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP). Systemically, we will also be focusing on successfully answering Open Response questions in both ELA and Math. Typically our students have fared much better on multiple choice questions, which mirrors state data as well. Specific test taking strategy work will be embedded in our instructional practices so that this writing skill becomes second nature to our students. Responding to literature in writing or explaining mathematical thinking in writing are life skills that all of our students will need in their future academic lives. Another focus area is that of topic development in the long composition administered in grades four, seven, and ten. This exam is scored against two rubrics. The scoring of Franklin students on the Conventions (grammar and mechanic) rubric continues to exceed the scoring for topic development. Again, this mirrors state data, but is worthy of additional focus. Being able to develop a narrative with appropriate and meaningful detail is a necessary skill for all students. 19

Lastly, we will be looking at the content of our Mathematics instruction K-12. The alignment to the new Massachusetts Frameworks will facilitate some of this work as the need for content mastery becomes necessary at lower grades than previously expected. With the content review we will also look at our math instructional practices to make sure that we are finding ways to uncover the math thinking of each student and have the opportunity to clarify misconceptions as needed. We want all of our students to be successful problem solvers and critical thinkers and the work in Mathematics is designed to help develop these skills in our students. Some of the work that needs to be done in a remedial manner with individual students will happen during the school day. Some of this targeted MCAS support work will also happen after school. If funding is available we also hope to offer a summer school component to assist with remedial efforts again this year. Franklin Curriculum Plans Many of the initiatives that are underway in the district represent the best in educational research and practices. Continued dedication to these principles also serves to prepare students most effectively for all assessments: MCAS exams, other standardized tests, and all local measures of achievement. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to excellence in student achievement. Among these factors is the articulation of vertical and horizontal curriculum, alignment of the curriculum to mandated standards, materials, instructional strategies and practices, the integration of technology in instruction, diversity of assessment types, adequate funding, professional development, and most importantly an ongoing focus on success for all students. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Initiatives: Franklin continues to move ahead with a multi-year implementation of programs at the elementary and middle levels in literacy. Over the past few years we have implemented Readers Workshop in grades K-5. This work is continuing with the addition of Writers Workshop to grades 3-5 and a phonics program (Fundations by Wilson) in grades K and 1. Next year we will extend these new programs to encompass grades K-5 in Writers Workshop, along with the addition of Fundations to grade 2. At the middle school we continue with the multi-year work being done with the program Keys to Literacy. This program has resulted in an inter-disciplinary approach to literacy for all of our middle school students and will roll up to Franklin High School next year. Curriculum mapping is another important initiative that is underway across the district. This multi-year initiative is the articulation of all units taught in core courses and grades in Franklin and will prove to be a valuable tool for staff and families alike. The opportunity to work on mapping parallels the work needing to be done to align the Franklin curriculum in ELA and Mathematics with the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. This alignment is essential to meet the required standards for education as mandated by the state and as tested by MCAS currently and the PARCC tests after 2014.

20

 This year the district is engaged in a comprehensive review of the Mathematics curriculum. The goals of this review include the necessary alignment to the Math Frameworks as previously mentioned, but go much further. Materials currently being used to teach Math are also being reviewed and there are ongoing discussions about Math instructional practices and assessments. Recommendations for necessary changes and possible materials adoptions are among the planned outcomes for this endeavor. Franklin has created a number of teams comprised of teachers and administrators to develop, oversee, and complete a number of important projects. The work of all these teams is inter-related and each team member has been charged with the responsibility of serving as a liaison to the committee from each persons respective grade, subject, and/or building. o At both the elementary and middle school levels there is a Literacy Leadership Team (LLC) in place to serve as an advisory board with regard to the varied and multi-year initiatives. This gives the teaching staff and important voice in forward decision making in this area. o There is a K-12 Mathematics Team engaged in the curriculum review previously mentioned. This team is comprised of teachers and administrators, including our Math Curriculum Enrichment Teachers (CETs) from both the elementary and middle levels. o Franklin has a newly created K-12 Literacy team this year. This team will serve as the precursor to the full-fledged curriculum team that will meet next year as a part of the planned cycle of curriculum review. This years team will begin to develop the processes and procedures to be used in aligning the ELA curriculum and will examine what professional development is required to make the alignment a reality in our classrooms. o The district also has a Response to Intervention (RtI) team, again with representation from both the teaching staff and administration. This team has set two important goals this year. The first is the collection of all the interventions and strategies currently in use in the district as well as any others representing research based best practices. This information will then be made available to staff electronically providing a menu of options that can be adapted to meet the needs of an individual or small group of students. The second goal for this team this year is to establish protocols around the use of data as it pertains to the Response to Intervention process. Again, this is work that will be shared with staff to make it more possible for teachers to access vital data that already exists about our students. o The District Data Team is also hard at work and some members of that team have served in an advisory capacity for the development of this report and other MCAS analysis efforts. The charge of this group is to focus on the systemic use of data across district to inform instruction and improve achievement, both in formative and summative ways.

21

 The Franklin Arts Academy at Franklin High School continues to develop and implement a thematic curriculum. The team of teachers has expanded to encompass new grades and courses offered to students and future growth plans are in active development. The district is continuing to administer and analyze local measures to assess student progress. We are currently using GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation), GMADE (Group Math Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation in a variety of grades at the elementary and middle schools. The DRA2 (Developmental Reading Assessment) is used for students in grades K-3. Summer work will be done, if funding is available, to further advance some of the above initiatives. The time for focused and in depth concentration on this work is essential for its completion. Professional Development Building internal capacity to lead and sustain effective change is a hallmark of the professional development in Franklin. To this end we are continuing with the model of having lab classrooms at the elementary and middle school levels. Lab classroom teachers have agreed to have their classrooms become laboratories for the modeling of new lessons and serve as coaches for colleagues. This has been an effective method to encourage collaboration and sharing of best practices within grades and schools. Our literacy specialists at the elementary level have continued to serve the district in a variety of ways. Most recently each elementary literacy specialist facilitated a morning of professional development work by grade with rave reviews from teachers. Similarly, our lab classroom teachers at the middle schools serve as Keys to Literacy coaches and coordinated an afternoon of professional development for colleagues, again with rave reviews. This internal capacity will serve us well as we work to move away from outside consultants and create a more self-sustaining literacy program. Other professional development efforts continue across the district for all professional staff. Offerings include but are not limited to: graduate courses, content and instructional workshops, instruction in the use of technology, professional learning communities, and many others. Middle school and some elementary Math teachers are working with a Math consultant and the district Math CETs during to strengthen content understanding and methods for uncovering mathematical thinking in students so that misconceptions can be clarified. Elementary teachers continue to work with Literacy consultants to advance the literacy initiatives in the district.

22

 The high school has had professional development this year in Its Learning, an online vehicle for classroom use. Teachers are posting assignments, student work, and blogging as well as providing other important information in this safe, closed virtual environment. Staff at the secondary level have implemented our new student management system (X2Aspen) and have undergone training as part of that implementation process. One of the most significant aspects of all curriculum and professional development efforts is that of funding. The budget impacts everything from class size to materials to teacher training and without adequate and appropriate financial support our initiatives to serve our students will fall short. Capital funds will be requested in the next budget cycle to purchase the most recent editions of the Math programs currently in use at the elementary and middle schools. These new editions are aligned with the Common Core Standards and will greatly aid the districts efforts to align to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Future of MCAS Testing MCAS testing will change over the next few years to reflect adoption of the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks based on the Common Core Standards in ELA and Mathematics. The MCAS testing as we currently know it will be phased out by 2015. Massachusetts is part of a 24 state consortium working together to develop the next generation of assessments. Below is an excerpt from the website of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) website: The PARCC design will incorporate four features designed to significantly improve the quality and usefulness of large-scale assessments The system will:

Be anchored in college and career readiness, Enable deeper and richer assessments, Measure learning and provide information on student progress throughout the school year, and Provide timely results.

The proposed design is intended to model the kinds of activities and assignments students should be doing throughout the year. Many schools and districts in PARCC states have leveraged the good idea of linking assessment to instruction periodically throughout the school year by administering interim assessments. PARCC intends to improve on this good idea by administering high-quality through-course assessments that reflect the best kind of classroom instruction and student work and that can contribute to decisions about student, educator, school and state performance against the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). 23

PARCC will also leverage technology throughout the design and delivery of the assessment system. The overall assessment system design will include a mix of constructed response items, performance-based tasks, and computer-enhanced, computer-scored items. The PARCC assessments will be administered via computer, and a combination of automated scoring and human scoring will be employed.

24

John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Recipients A total of 116 high school seniors (September enrollment figures) were awarded the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship based on their Grade 10 MCAS performance. Students qualified for this scholarship by scoring: (a) in the Advanced category in English Language Arts or Mathematics and Advanced or Proficient in the other subject area on the grade 10 MCAS assessments; and, (b) in the top 25% of the students in the district on these tests. The recipients are:
Amanda Adams Sarah Addi Sarah Babin Nicole Beckmann Ethan Blank Madelyn Brown Catherine Calabrese Hayley Casilio Rachel Ceskavich Sara Chaffee Tiffany Chao Dean Chaput Sara Charbonnier Tony Chase Claire Chiboub Rachel Cohen Fiona Cole Devin Comeau Grant Conway Amanda Cooke Jennifer Coppola Michaela Criscione Allison Cucalon Luke Cybulski James Dervay Shannon Dimartino Emily Doak Sean Doherty Connor Donahue John Dowd Laura Dowd Stephanie Dowd Allison Dumart Jillian Ferrari Dean Fish Caitlin Flaherty Paul Fretz Julia Geromini Alexandria Giese Ryan Grady Alexandra Graudins Danielle Hall Stefan Herlitz Kayla Higgins Alexander Hiller Michael Hoang Andrew Hood Joseph Howard Pratiba Irudayaraj Serissa Jones Emily Kanadanian Christopher Kelly Matthew Kilroe Andrew Kinney John Kinney Meghan Kinney Sarah Kinney Kendal Knous Brittany Kokoszka Alexandra Kuppens Naomi Laughran Travis Lepage Sarah Macclellan Justin Magerman Anna Mahoney Ryan Maietta Lauren Mancini Alison Mariano Tina Maurer Eamon McCarthy Earls Stephanie McCulloch Joseph McDonald Annie McDougall Seth McIntyre Victoria Moses Susan Mullen Paul O'Donoghue Andreas Okorn Kenneth Parece Matthew Pellegri Andrew Perrin Victoria Petit Catherine Phelan Matthew Pilis Abigale Plesh Meghan Pradko Andrew Rock Sara Rodgers Michael Ruggieri Heather Ryfa Courtenay Schwartz Jonathan Selwitz Michelle Shafferman Justin Shen Anirudh Singh Shivanjali Singh Susan Siraco Noelle Smith Matthew Snow Amy Stevens Emily Stickles Alison Sturtevant Cynthia Swanson Christine Taft Erika Thorne Caroline Toney Allyson Traphagen Theresa Urquhart Swana Weng John Wiech Alicia Wilde Callie Wilhelmi Allyssa Williams Amanda Williamson Andrew Wilson Alexandra Zollo

25

26

Multi-Year MCAS Reports

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40