massachusetts school and district accountability system 2003 mid-cycle ayp determinations state...
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 orGraduation rate
60.8
75.6
Participation + Performance (A+B) = AYP
A: Participation
B: Performance
C: Improvement
D: Attendance or
Graduation rate
60.8
75.6
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 PERFORMANCETARGET, 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: 78.075.6
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: + 4.5
Hispanic: +6.4
LEP: +20.1
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 PERFORMANCETARGET, 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: + 4.5
Hispanic: +6.4
LEP: +20.1
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
94% ( 223 Districts)
Made AYP in both ELA and Math
6% (N=14) Did Not Make AYP in ELA, Math
or Both Subjects
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
27% (65 Districts)
Made AYP In ELA
and Math In
Aggregate AND All
Subgroups
67% (158 districts)
made AYP in Math
and ELA in the
Aggregate but not all subgroups
6% No in
Aggregate
Results for Student SubgroupsMassachusetts School Districts
67% (158 districts)
made AYP in Math and ELA in the Aggregate but not all subgroups
District Results for Subgroups
37% (87) Did Not
Make AYP for 2+
subgroups
30% (71) Made AYP for all but
one subgroup
District AYP in Both Subjects In The Aggregate AND for Subgroups
15% Did Not Make
AYP in ELA, Math,
or Both (N=247)
85% Made AYP in ELA
and Math (N=1,361)
2003 AYP Determinations: Individual Schools - All Students (Aggregate)
33% (N=247) Made AYP in
ELA and Math in the
Aggregate, but not for all subgroups
52% (N=837) Made AYP in
ELA and Math for All
Groups
15% Did Not Make AYP in ELA or Math in Aggregate
AYP Determinations for School Subgroups
AYP for School Subgroups
Aggregate NO ELA or Math
15%
11% (N=177) Did Not Make AYP for
2+ subgroups
Made AYP Both Subjects All
Groups52%
22% (N=346) Made AYP For All
But One Subgroup