1. Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools 2014-2015 Assessment Results

2. The System of Accountability As required by Senate Bill 1 (2009), the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) developed a balanced accountability model, Unbridled Learning: College/Career-Readiness for All. The model took effect in the 2011-12 school year. It incorporates all aspects of school and district work and is organized around the KBE’s strategic priorities: Next-Generation Learners Next-Generation Instructional Programs and Supports (Program Reviews) Next-Generation Professionals The first two years of reporting include Next-Generation Learners; 2013-14 included Next-Generation Learners and Next-Generation Instructional Programs and Supports (Program Reviews). Next-Generation Professionals and additional Program Review areas are scheduled to enter the model in future years. All data for the assessment and accountability system are publicly available in the Kentucky School Report Card on the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) website.Kentucky School Report Card

3. Next Generation Learners Kentucky public school students in grades three (3) through eight (8) completed tests collectively named the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) in five content areas: Reading (All Grades) Mathematics (All Grades) Science (4th and 7th Grade) Social Studies (5th and 8th Grade) Writing (4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Grade) Students in the 8th Grade also take the EXPLORE (ACT) assessment as a measure of College and Career Readiness.

4. Next Generation Learners Students at the high school level complete End-of-Course exams in: Algebra II English II Biology U.S. History High school students also complete a writing test and language mechanics test as part of the PLAN (ACT) assessment in grade ten (10) and a writing test and the ACT assessment in grade eleven (11). The PLAN to ACT score is used as a measure of Growth and the ACT scores as a measure of College Readiness.

5. Next Generation Instructional Programs and Supports A Program Review is...a systematic method of analyzing components of an instructional program, including instructional practices, aligned and enacted curriculum, student work samples, formative and summative assessments, professional development and support services, and administrative support and monitoring KRS 158.6453(1)(i) Program reviews have been written for five (5) areas:  Arts & Humanities (All Levels)  Writing (All Levels)  Practical Living and Career Studies (All Levels)  K-3 Program (Elementary Only)  Global Competency/World Language(All Levels) The review of a program should be an on-going, year-round, reflective process.

6. What's New For 2014-2015? 1.Science scores in elementary and middle schools and alternate assessments at all levels are not included in the Next-Generation Learners component to allow for implementation of new standards. 2.Kindergarten-3 (K-3) Program Review scores are included in elementary school (where applicable) in addition to Arts and Humanities, Practical Living and Career Studies and Writing. Note: The 2014 data in the 2015 School Report Card has been updated based on data review changes made after the 2014 public release in addition to the changes listed in "What’s New for 2014-15" above.

7. Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories Performance Classifications for Schools and Districts  Needs Improvement (Below 70th Percentile)  Proficient (At or Above 70th Percentile)  Distinguished (Above 90th Percentile) Rewards Categories for Schools and Districts  Progressing Meet Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goal (1.0 gain in Overall Score below Proficient or.5 gain Proficient and above); Graduation rate goal (4-year adjusted cohort); Participation rate (95%)  High Performing Top 90% of schools/districts and meets AMO, graduation rate goal and participation rate goal  School/District of Distinction Top 95% of schools/districts and meets AMO, graduation rate goal, participation rate goal and has graduation rate above 60% for 2 years

8. Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories High progress is an additional label which is differentiated between Title I, Non-Title I and district. As defined in regulation: High-progress school means: (a) A Title I school that:  Meets its current year AMO starting in 2012-13, student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the school is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all Title I elementary, middle, or high schools as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score; or (b) A Non-Title I school that:  Meets its current year AMO starting in 2012-13, student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the school is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all non-Title I elementary, middle, or high schools as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score. High-progress district means:  Meets its current year AMO starting in 2012-13, student participation rate, and graduation rate goal;  Has a graduation rate above sixty (60) percent for the prior two (2) years; and  Has an improvement score indicating the district is in the top ten (10) percent of improvement of all districts as determined by the difference in the two (2) most recent calculations of the overall score.

9. Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories A Focus designation places attention on how student groups are performing in Reading, Mathematics, Social Studies, Writing and Language Mechanics. Schools are designated as focus based on: 1)the non-duplicated gap group performing in the lowest 10% or 2)2) individual student groups (i.e., limited English proficiency, students with free/reduced-price lunch, students with disabilities, ethnicity groups) performing three standard deviations below the mean—scoring below 99% of the state. Based on federal expectations, Kentucky must identify 284 schools in 2014-15 as Focus. The initial identification was made in 2012. To exit focus, schools must show improvement with the focus group for two years and meet their Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), participation rate above 95% and graduation rate above 60%.

10. Performance Classifications, Rewards, and Assistance Categories As OAA applies the data rule to determine which schools and districts receive the Focus and High Progress Label, a set of cut scores for each label is created annually. The cuts for 2014-15 are in the table to the right.

11. 2015 Locked Overall Accountability Cut Scores

12. Lloyd Memorial High School

16. Total Weighted Score76.9 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalYes ClassificationDistinguished/Progressing Rewards CategoryHigh Performing School

17. Lloyd Memorial High School

18. Tichenor Middle School

22. Total Weighted Score55.1 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards CategoryFocus School The Overall Gap group performing in the lowest 10% and students with disabilities performing three (3) standard deviations below the mean in reading.

23. Arnett Elementary School

25. The K-3 Program Review was not a part of 2013-2014 Accountability

26. Arnett Elementary School

27. Total Weighted Score79.4 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationDistinguished/Progressing Rewards Category School of Distinction/High Progress School

28. Howell Elementary School

30. The K-3 Program Review was not a part of 2013-2014 Accountability

31. Howell Elementary School

32. Total Weighted Score56.5 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards CategoryFocus School The Overall Gap group performing in the lowest 10% and students with disabilities performing three (3) standard deviations below the mean in reading.

33. Lindeman Elementary School

35. The K-3 Program Review was not a part of 2013-2014 Accountability

36. Lindeman Elementary School

37. Total Weighted Score67 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards Category N/A The cut score for a Proficient classification was 67.2 for Elementary schools.

38. Miles Elementary School

40. The K-3 Program Review was not a part of 2013-2014 Accountability

41. Miles Elementary School

42. Total Weighted Score66.2 Met AMO GoalYes Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalN/A ClassificationNeeds Improvement/Progressing Rewards CategoryN/A The cut score for a Proficient classification was 67.2 for Elementary schools.

43. Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Schools

49. Total Weighted Score65.5 Met AMO GoalNo Met Participation Rate GoalYes Met Graduation Rate GoalNo ClassificationNeeds Improvement Rewards Category The cut score for a Proficient classification was 66.2 for Districts.