230 likes | 344 Views
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. 75.6.
E N D
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. 75.6 A: Participation 60.8 B: Performance C: Improvement D: Attendance or Graduation rate
Two Ways to Make AYP: Participation + Performance (A+B) = AYP 75.6 A: Participation 60.8 B:Performance C:Improvement D:Attendance or Graduation rate Participation + Improvement + Attendance or Graduation Rate (A+C+D) = AYP or
How Did We Do in English Language Arts (ELA), Statewide, In 2003? CPI 83.1 STATE ELA PERFORMANCETARGET, CYCLE III: 75.6 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% State ELA Results All Students ( Aggregate ) Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP
State ELA Performance Results by Student Subgroup White: 87.6 Asian/Pacific Is: 82.8 Native American: 78.0 Free/Red. Lunch: 68.8 African American/Black: 69.2 Special Ed: 63.2 Hispanic: 63.7 LEP: 52.1
Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA Through Participation and Performance (A+B = AYP) White: 87.6 Asian/Pacific Is: 82.8 Native American: 78.0 75.6 At or Above State Performance Target and Made State Participation Target
Three More Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance Free/Reduced Lunch African American/Black Special Education At or Above State Participation Target and Subgroup’s Improvement and Attendance Targets Participation + Improvement + Attendance (A+C+D) = AYP
State ELA Improvement for Student Subgroups Performing Below State Performance Target Free/Reduced Lunch: +4.8 African American/Black: + 4.5 Special Education: +4.1 Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: +20.1 All 5 Subgroups Met Their Group’s Improvement Target for 2003
State Attendance Results by Student Subgroup Asian/Pacific Is: 95.7 Limited English Proficient: 93.2 White: 94.4 Special Education: 92.5 African American /Black: 92.7 Free/Reduced Lunch: 92.4 Native American: 91.8 Hispanic: 91.7 Met Attendance Target Did Not Meet Attendance Target
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT Two Student Subgroups Did Not Make AYP in ELA Hispanic LEP LEP Students: Did not meet State’s 95% Participation Target Hispanic Students: Did not meet their Attendance Target
STATE MATH PERFORMANCETARGET, CYCLE III: 60.8 CPI 69.3 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% State Mathematics Results All Students ( Aggregate ) How Did We Do in Math, Statewide, In 2003? Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP
State MATH Performance Results by Student Subgroup White: 77.5 Asian/Pacific Is: 74.5 Native American: 61.9 Free/Reduced Lunch 51.5 African American/Black: 49.2 Special Ed: 45.9 Hispanic: 46.7 LEP: 44.5
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math Through Participation and Performance Asian/Pacific Is: 77.5 White: 74.5 Native American: 61.9 At or Above State Performance Target and State Participation Target Participation + Performance = AYP
State MATH Improvement for Student Subgroups Performing Below State Performance Target Free/Reduced Lunch: +4.8 African American/Black: + 4.5 Special Education: +4.1 Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: +20.1 All 5 Subgroups Met Their Group’s Improvement Target for 2003
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT Two More Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance Free/Reduced Lunch African American/Black At or Above State Participation Targetand Met Subgroup’s Improvement and Attendance Targets Participation + Improvement + Attendance = AYP
Statewide, Three Student Subgroups Did Not Make AYP in Math 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 Hispanic Students: Did not meet State’s Performance Target or the State Attendance Target
Massachusetts School Districts Results for Students in the Aggregate Only 6% (14 districts) did not make AYP in ELA, Math or both Subjects for students in the aggregate
District AYP in Both Subjects In The Aggregate AND for Subgroups
2003 AYP Determinations: Individual Schools - All Students (Aggregate)