Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mcapp Performance Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MCAP cohort analysis shows persistent low math scores; board asks for LEA and intervention drill‑downs
Summary
MSDE presented year‑to‑year MCAP data showing that most students who scored at the lowest math level in 2023 remained at that level in 2024 (95.4%), while only a small share of non‑passers moved to proficiency. Board members requested LEA‑level breakdowns and overlays with district interventions for the full board meeting.
MSDE staff presented a year‑to‑year cohort analysis of Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) results for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, showing limited upward movement from non‑proficient performance and a striking persistence of low math scores.
The presentation, delivered by MSDE presenter Jeff Sanderson, examined students who took MCAP in spring 2023 and again in spring 2024. For ELA, Sanderson reported that about 50.5% of students who were level 1 (not proficient) in 2023 remained level 1 in 2024, while approximately 48.4% moved to level 2 (still below the proficient standard). He noted that it is “very uncommon” for students who begin at level 1 to reach the proficient level (level 3) the next year.
For mathematics, the persistence was steeper: Sanderson said roughly 95.4% of students who were level 1 in 2023 remained level 1 in 2024. Among prior level 2 students, 71.6% remained at level 2, about 19.2% slipped to level 1, and roughly 9% of prior non‑passers increased to level 3 (proficient). Sanderson characterized the math findings as “even more concerning,” citing the flatness of year‑to‑year movement.
Committee members pressed for context and additional analyses. A board member asked Sanderson to explain the meaning of performance levels; Sanderson clarified that level 1 = beginning/not proficient, level 2 = higher but not proficient, level 3 = proficient/passing, and level 4 = advanced/mastery. Several members asked whether those small shares of students who advanced (for example the roughly 0.4% who moved from level 1 to level 3 in ELA) can be studied to identify what differed for that group.
Board members recommended that MSDE provide more granular breakdowns at the local education agency (LEA) and school level, cohort‑to‑cohort frequency (which grade transitions show the most growth), and intersections with reported service groups (for example, students receiving special education or multilingual services). Sanderson told the committee that state reporting can be intersected with eligibility‑based program data (multilingual, special education, economically disadvantaged) but that many LEA interventions (pull‑outs, local tutoring programs) are not reported at the state level and therefore require additional data collection or triangulation (school visits, LEA cooperation).
The department also described planned cohort trend products for the full board meeting: longitudinal cohorts (for example, third grade through grade 10), subgroup analyses (race/ethnicity × service groups), proficiency by poverty quartiles, separate reporting for Comprehensive Schools for Improvement (CSI), and a top‑50 schools list showing the largest changes. MSDE said it will prepare LEA tables across the 24 LEAs for the past three MCAP years.
The committee directed MSDE to develop the requested drill‑downs and to triangulate test results with program deployment and school visit evidence so the board can better assess whether funded interventions (literacy coaches, teacher trainings, curriculum audits) are associated with student movement.
The presentation closed with agreement to include these expanded analyses at the full board meeting later in the month.
