MCAS/AYP "Readjustment" In Store?

Over the past decade, the biggest driver of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in American public education has been the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. For better or worse, the act has led to the creation of very complex state assessment and accountability systems that measure how well students are meeting state standards in reading, writing, and mathematics. Most states, like Massachusetts, have gone the route of high-stakes testing, where passing a standardized test like the MCAS is necessary for grade promotion or graduation from high school.

A key element of the act was establishing AYP, or the adequate yearly progress each school must demonstrate by increasing the number of students that score proficient on tests like the MCAS. Baseline proficiency levels were established in 2002 with the target of 100% proficiency by the year 2014. Keep in mind that for a school to attain AYP, improvements in both the aggregate and various student subpopulations (e.g., low income, special education, English language learners, various racial groups, etc.) must show improvement. As we have moved closer to 2014, more and more schools across the Commonwealth (and the nation) have failed to achieve AYP, most often because there is an achievement gap among the subpopulation groups and the aggregate. In fact, based upon the 2009 MCAS results, over half of the state's schools have been identified as failing or in need of improvement due to their repeated failure to attain AYP.

Thus, it is interesting news that the state's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is considering a new proposal where the 100% proficiency goal will be readjusted to a target of 85% of students scoring proficient or advanced on all grades' MCAS tests by the year 2020. Proponents say that this new target is simply more realistic than the 100% mark and will give educators more time to design curriculum and instruction to address persistent achievement gaps, particularly for those students who are English language learners and have disabilities. It will also give more time to strengthen elementary literacy programs throughout the state. Because this proposal is contrary to the mandates of NCLB, the state cannot act on it until Congress acts on the Reauthorization of NCLB. It is believed that this may occur sometime later this year.

Where does this leave us in the world of MHS? We have already achieved this new target, at least in the aggregate (2009 MCAS results: 94% proficient/advanced in ELA, 89% proficient/advanced in math). Below are some slides from a presentation that I gave to the MHS School Council last fall, showing exactly how MHS was doing relative to the AYP targets. The system contains somewhat of a complicated metric, known as the Composite Performance Index or CPI. This CPI score is what determines a school's AYP is:

NCLB Targets for MHS

View more presentations from jpm66.

If you look through the above slides, the aggregate CPI for the 10th grade ELA and mathematics tests has been progressively increasing for the past seven years. So have the results for the two significant subpopulation groups, students with disabilities and limited income students. However, you will notice that the CPI scores are much closer to the state target than the aggregate results. If the results for these groups stay static or dip over the next year or two, MHS will not attain AYP and could be labeled as "in need of improvement."

To their credit, our teachers have aptly used the data from previous year's MCAS to make improvements to the ELA and math curriculums and their instructional strategies. When so many students are scoring proficient or higher-say in the 90-95% range- it is that much more challenging to move the last 5 to 10% of students to proficiency. The challenge here is to analyze and use the data at a micro-level. Who are the students who are struggling? What specific standards/content strands do they not understand? What type of interventions and instruction work best with these kids?

While I am not a fan of high-stakes testing and I passionately believe in the use of multiple measures to assess a student's learning, I do think that NCLB has forced us to think in these terms. And that's a good thing...