Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Números.
Advertisements

EuroCondens SGB E.
Worksheets.
New Jersey Statewide Assessment Results: Highlights and Trends State Board of Education, February 6, 2008 Jay Doolan, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner,
1 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY IN DELAWARE July 31, 2009 For the School Year.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress Report July 22, 2009.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress January 2008, Updated.
Alaska Accountability Adequate Yearly Progress February 2007, Updated.
Annual Progress Report Submitted to The Iowa Department of Education by the Cedar Rapids Community School District.
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL May 2012 CST Data Presentation.
A Fractional Order (Proportional and Derivative) Motion Controller Design for A Class of Second-order Systems Center for Self-Organizing Intelligent.
The basics for simulations
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Achievement Test (CAPT) Spring 2013 Presented to the Guilford Board of Education September.
Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run
OGISD Board of Trustees September 19, 2011 Orange Grove Elementary Accountability Report.
Franklin Public Schools MCAS Presentation November 19, 2013 Joyce Edwards Director of Instructional Services.
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Title I/AYP Presentation Prepared by NHCS Title I Department for NHCS PTA September 22, 2010.
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
Resistência dos Materiais, 5ª ed.
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
Columbus Tustin Middle School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
Introduction Embedded Universal Tools and Online Features 2.
School Accountability Ratings What Are Our District’s Accountability Ratings? What do they mean?
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
FY05 School Year Academic Support Preliminary Data Results (FY05 Fall & Winter Sessions) FY05 School Year Academic Support Preliminary Data Results (FY05.
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
Upper Darby School District Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2010 Performance.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
1 Cold Water Elementary English Language Arts Standard Status: Approaching (2010) MAP Performance Index Status Targets (2011)
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
ESEA ACCOUNTABILITY JAMESVILLE-DEWITT
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
2009 MCAS Analysis & Adequate Yearly Progress Report Mendon – Upton Regional School District.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
Student Achievement Gains and Gaps in Saint Paul Public Schools Tom Watkins Director of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Saint Paul Public Schools May.
English Language Arts (ELA) & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) Total Public In grades 5-8, the percentage of students meeting the ELA Learning.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
District Improvement….. Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating.  What does this mean.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
1 Mitchell D. Chester Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Report on Spring 2009 MCAS Results to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and.
Parkway District Improvement…. 10/16/ Outcomes  Why we are in District Improvement.  What is DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT?  How we got this rating. 
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Daniel Melendez. School Demographics  Language  English Learners  7% (55 students)  Socio-Economic  35% qualify for free or reduced lunch (276) 
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013.
- 0 - OUSD Results MSDF Impact Assessment State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API) The API is a single number, ranging from a low.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2004 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Implementation of the.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Braintree Public Schools Spring 2007 MCAS Tests Braintree High School.
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
76% African American 14% Latino 9% Asian 1% White 51% Low-Income
2012 Accountability Determinations
2016 READY ACCOUNTABILITY DISTRICT RESULTS
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
Mississippi Succeeds Unprecedented Achievement, Unlimited Potential
Presentation transcript:

Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations are a tool for assessing the progress of our climb to higher levels of student achievement. A: Participation B: Performance C: Improvement D: Attendance or Graduation rate

Participation + Performance (A+B) = AYP A: Participation B: Performance C: Improvement D: Attendance or Graduation rate Participation + Improvement + Attendance or Graduation Rate (A+C+D) = AYP Two Ways to Make AYP: or

How Did We Do in English Language Arts (ELA), Statewide, In 2003? State ELA Results All Students ( Aggregate ) STATE ELA PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 75.6 CPI 83.1 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP

State ELA Performance Results by Student Subgroup White: 87.6 Asian/Pacific Is: 82.8 African American/Black: 69.2 Native American: 78.0 Hispanic: 63.7 LEP: 52.1 Special Ed: 63.2 Free/Red. Lunch: 68.8

Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA Through Participation and Performance (A+B = AYP) At or Above State Performance Target and Made State Participation Target White: 87.6 Asian/Pacific Is: 82.8 Native American:

Three More Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance At or Above State Participation Target and Subgroup’s Improvement and Attendance Targets Participation + Improvement + Attendance (A+C+D) = AYP African American/Black Special Education Free/Reduced Lunch

African American/Black: Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: Special Education: +4.1 Free/Reduced Lunch: +4.8 State ELA Improvement for Student Subgroups Performing Below State Performance Target All 5 Subgroups Met Their Group’s Improvement Target for 2003

White: 94.4 Asian/Pacific Is: 95.7 African American /Black: 92.7 Native American: 91.8 Hispanic: 91.7 Limited English Proficient: 93.2 Special Education: 92.5 Free/Reduced Lunch: 92.4 State Attendance Results by Student Subgroup Did Not Meet Attendance Target Met Attendance Target

Two Student Subgroups Did Not Make AYP in ELA 2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT LEP Students: Did not meet State’s 95% Participation Target Hispanic Students: Did not meet their Attendance Target Hispanic LEP

How Did We Do in Math, Statewide, In 2003? Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP State Mathematics Results All Students ( Aggregate ) STATE MATH PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 60.8 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% CPI 69.3

State MATH Performance Results by Student Subgroup Free/Reduced Lunch 51.5 White: 77.5 Asian/Pacific Is: 74.5 African American/Black: 49.2 Native American: 61.9 Hispanic: 46.7 LEP: 44.5 Special Ed: 45.9

2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math Through Participation and Performance At or Above State Performance Target and State Participation Target Participation + Performance = AYP White: 74.5 Asian/Pacific Is: 77.5 Native American: 61.9

African American/Black: Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: Special Education: +4.1 Free/Reduced Lunch: +4.8 State MATH Improvement for Student Subgroups Performing Below State Performance Target All 5 Subgroups Met Their Group’s Improvement Target for 2003

2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT African American/BlackFree/Reduced Lunch At or Above State Participation Target and Met Subgroup’s Improvement and Attendance Targets Participation + Improvement + Attendance = AYP Two More Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance

Statewide, Three Student Subgroups Did Not Make AYP in Math Hispanic Students: Did not meet State’s Performance Target or the State Attendance Target Special Education Students: Performed below the State’s Performance Target and did not meet their group Improvement Target LEP Students: Did not meet State’s Participation Target

Only 6% (14 districts) did not make AYP in ELA, Math or both Subjects for students in the aggregate Massachusetts School Districts Results for Students in the Aggregate

Results for Student Subgroups Massachusetts School Districts

District Results for Subgroups

District AYP in Both Subjects In The Aggregate AND for Subgroups

2003 AYP Determinations: Individual Schools - All Students (Aggregate)

AYP Determinations for School Subgroups

AYP for School Subgroups