Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Shelton School District SY 11-12 Gail Straus, Director, Federal Programs & ECE State, school district and individual school information on state test and AYP results can be found at: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us

AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress Same goal on “state uniform bar” for nine measured groups Minimum number of students (N) needed for a student group for statistically reliable AYP decisions. N=30 for all groups. Count only students enrolled for “full academic year” (continuous enrollment from October 1 through entire testing period).

Safe Harbor Term used when a student group makes AYP, even though the group did not meet the proficiency target. To make “Safe Harbor”, 2 conditions must be met: Reduce by at least 10%, the percentage of students not meeting the proficiency target from the previous year AND Student group must meet the target for the “other indicator” Elementary & Middle Levels: Unexcused absence rate High School: Graduation Rate

Elementary School Results (grades 3-5) Both the District and individual school AYP results were better than the State results All 3 elementary schools made AYP in Math in ALL measured groups All 3 elementary schools made improvements in all measured groups

Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr. 3-5) District-to-State Comparison - AYP Reading Shelton - District State All Students N American Indian N/A Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Y Limited English (LEP) Special Education Low Income Math

Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr. 3-5) School Results - AYP Reading Bar=88.1% Bordeaux Evergreen Mt. View All Students Y (Met SH 17.5%) N (h3.1%) N (h8.1%) American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic N (h3.5%) White Y (Met SH 18.4%) Y N (h3.7%) Limited English (LEP) Y* (appeal) Special Education Y (Met SH 10.4%) Low Income N (h7.8%) N Y (Met SH 9.6%) Math Bar=58.0% Y (Met SH 17.9%) Y (Met SH 12.2%) Y (Met SH 15.7%)

Middle Level Results (grades 6-8) In Reading, District results mirrored State AYP results In Math, District results were better than State AYP results for 4 groups (All; Hispanic; Special Ed; Low Income) OMS had significant AYP gains in Math for 3 groups (All; Hispanic; White) Both OMS and OBJH had groups that would have made AYP via Safe Harbor if the group had met the unexcused absence rate goal.

Middle Level Reading & Math (gr Middle Level Reading & Math (gr.6-8) District-to-State Comparison - AYP Reading Shelton - District State All Students N American Indian N/A Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Limited English (LEP) Special Education Low Income Math Y

Middle Level Reading & Math (gr. 6-8) School Results - AYP Reading Bar=82.5% Olympic Middle School Oakland Bay Jr. High All Students N (h3.7%) N American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Y (Met SH 10.1%) White Y (Met SH 14.5%) Limited English (LEP) Special Education Low Income N (h10.5%); did not meet unexcused absence rate) Math Bar=58.7% Y Y (Met SH 21.0%) N(h10.0%); did not meet unexcused absence rate) N (h16.6%); did not meet unexcused absence rate) N (h16.0%); did not meet unexcused absence rate)

High School Level Results (grade 10) In Reading, District results mirrored State AYP results SHS had significant AYP gains in Math for 2 groups (All; White) CHOICE 10th grade students made significant improvement in making Reading AYP (50% in 2010; 73.3% in 2011)

High School Reading & Math (grade 10) District-to-State Comparison - AYP Shelton - District State All Students Y American Indian N/A N Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Limited English (LEP) Special Education Low Income Math

High School Reading & Math (grade 10) School Results - AYP Reading Bar=87.2% Shelton High School CHOICE Alternative All Students Y (Met SH 9.5%) N* (AYP based on PHP grades 3-8, plus CHOICE High School) American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Y White N (h2.8%) Limited English (LEP) Special Education N Low Income Y (Met SH 12.9%) Math Bar=62.4%

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) Separate Federal accountability for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students (Title III) 3 targets must be met: AMAO Target 1: Students making significant progress towards learning English AMAO Target 2: Students attaining English proficiency and meeting transition target AMAO Target 3: LEP students met State AYP targets in Reading and Math

Attainment of English Proficiency AMAO Results for 2010-11 Yes Met AMAO NR Number of students less than minimum required NO Did not meet AMAO AMAO-1 Making Progress AMAO-2 Attainment of English Proficiency AMAO-3 (AYP) District - School Met all 3 AMAOs Making pro-gress Met AMAO1 Target 66.7% Level 1 Level 2 3 4 Total student count % Tran-sition-ing Met AMAO2 Target 13.3% Met Reading Pro-ficiency / Participa-tion Met Math Pro-ficiency / Participa-tion AMAO State Total No 78.4% Yes 1,845 20,073 50,107 18,502 92,080 20.1% SSD 85.6% 69 172 53 307 17.3% EVG 83.2% 59 126 35 232 15.1% OMS 95.7% NR 16 5 23 21.7% OBJ 90.9% 15 SHS 84.2% 10 7 20 35.0%

Federal Sanctions for not making AYP 10% of District Title I allocation must be spent on Professional Development (SY 11-12: $104,155) 20% of District Title I allocation must be spent on Public School Choice transportation and/or Supplemental Education Services (SY 11-12: $208,310) Title I Schools in “improvement” status must also spend 10% of their building Title I budget on Professional Development