1 / 23

State Report December 4, 2003

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.

amber-trujillo
Download Presentation

State Report December 4, 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Results for Student SubgroupsMassachusetts School Districts

  19. District Results for Subgroups

  20. District AYP in Both Subjects In The Aggregate AND for Subgroups

  21. 2003 AYP Determinations: Individual Schools - All Students (Aggregate)

  22. AYP Determinations for School Subgroups

  23. AYP for School Subgroups

More Related