1. Instructions for Use This presentation slideshow is intended for school and district leaders to use to explain Adequate Yearly Progress to faculty, school committees, parent groups, and other public forums. Slide #2 and slides 9-12 are customizable for your own school or district. Simply type your own information into the appropriate blocks, using the AYP reports available at the DOE website: begin at http://www.doe.mass.edu/mailings/2003/cm120503.html, the Commissioner’s Update for December 5, 2003. http://www.doe.mass.edu/mailings/2003/cm120503.html Some slides present statewide statistics for AYP; use them if you would like to provide an overall summary. We hope you continue to use the mountain-climbing expedition metaphor used in this file and other 2003 AYP materials as a way of focusing attention on the fundamental objective of school reform: bringing all students to proficiency by 2014.

2. Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations SPECIAL REPORT FOR THE [NAME OF DISTRICT OR SCHOOL]

3. Understanding the Goals of the Recently Announced DOE Determinations of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Part of a system of annual and bi-annual tools to help measure school and district performance Mandated by the federal government because of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Usefulness of the AYP Determinations to us: –Indicate where we may need to focus extra attention –Help us keep the larger goal in mind: helping all students climb to proficiency by 2014

4. The Mountain-Climbing Expedition Metaphor: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations are a tool for assessing the progress of our joint, statewide climb to higher levels of student achievement. Higher “altitudes” of achievement to strive for All students to the proficiency “summit” by 2014 (as measured at regular checkpoints between now and then)

5. What factors are considered in determining if a school or district is making Adequate Yearly Progress? A. Participation: Are 95% or more of our students taking part? B. Performance: Have we met or surpassed the state’s English language arts and math performance targets for this two-year cycle? A + B = AYP Or….

6. What factors are considered in determining if a school or district is making Adequate Yearly Progress? A. Participation: Are 95% or more of our students taking part? C. Improvement: Is student performance improving at a rate that puts all of our students on track to reach the proficiency summit by 2014? D. Attendance or Graduation Rate: Are our K-8 students attending at the expected rate? Did our Class of 2003 meet the state graduation rate target? A + C + D = AYP

7. AYP measures the progress of each qualifying student subgroup, along with the whole Limited English Proficient REVIEWING PROGRESS Special Education Free-Reduced Lunch African American/Black Caucasian Hispanic Native American Asian/Pacific Islander * To qualify: at least 20 per school or 50 per district

8. AYP is based on a calculation of each school or district’s Composite Performance Index (CPI) REVIEWING PROGRESS MCAS Scores Over Two Years* Points Per Student Scoring at This Level SAMPLE: Number of Students SAMPLE: Number of Points Awarded Proficient or Advanced (240-280) 100202000 Needs Improvement- High (230-238) 75604500 Needs Improvement (220-228) 50904500 Failing/Warning – High (210-218) 25802000 Failing/Warning (200-208) 050 TOTALS25513000 Composite Performance Index Total points awarded/ Number of students 51 * Includes MCAS-Alt participants without significant impairments; MCAS-Alt participants with significant impairments (up to 1%) of total) are included with parallel scoring structure

9. How did we do in English language arts (ELA) in 2003? State and Local ELA Results for All Students (Aggregate) STATE ELA PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 75.6 STATEWIDE CPI FOR ELA: 83.1 OUR AGGREATE CPI FOR ELA: INSERT NUMBER; CLICK ON HIKER AND DRAG TO CORRECT PLACEMENT

10. Our 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP determinations for English language arts Student Group:ParticipationPerformanceImprovementAttendance or Graduation Rate AYP Determination AGGREGATEYes or No… [Insert Throughout] Limited English Proficient Free/Reduced Price Lunch African American/Black Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Native American

11. How did we do in math in 2003? State and Local Math Results for All Students (Aggregate) STATE MATH PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 60.8 OUR AGGREATE CPI FOR MATH: INSERT NUMBER; CLICK ON HIKER AND DRAG TO CORRECT PLACEMENT STATEWIDE CPI FOR MATH: 69.3

12. Our 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP determinations for math Student Group:ParticipationPerformanceImprovementAttendance or Graduation Rate AYP Determination AGGREGATEYes or No… [Insert Throughout] Limited English Proficient Free/Reduced Price Lunch African American/Black Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Native American

13. Only 6% (14 districts) did not make AYP in ELA, Math or both subjects for students in the aggregate How did Massachusetts school districts do, statewide?

14. Results for student subgroups across all Massachusetts districts

15. How did Massachusetts schools do in the aggregate, statewide?

16. Results for student subgroups across all Massachusetts schools

17. AYP for student subgroups among Massachusetts schools

18. Moving Ahead: What these AYP determinations will mean for us Impact: No immediate consequences this year Using the Data: Focused efforts to help in areas spotlighted by this analysis In 2004: At end of Cycle III, schools/districts not making AYP in consecutive years will be identified for improvement, triggering extra state support