Minneapolis Public Schools 2016 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) & Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR) Summary Report

September 2016

REAA Office of Research Evaluation Assessment & Accountability1250 W Broadway, Minneapolis, 55413 phone: 612-668-0570 fax: 612-668-0575

Overview

The purpose of this report is to1. Provide an overview of Minnesota’s

Current Accountability system including:• Implications of the ESEA MN Waiver for NCLB/AYP reporting

• The Annual Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR)

• The current status of the new ESSA and its implications for MN’s accountability system this year

2. Provide district summary results and trends for AYP and the MMR reporting system including:• Proficiency

• Growth

• Achievement Gap Reduction

• Graduation rates

What is ESEA & ESSA?

• Minnesota’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Request –also know as the MN NCLB Waiver – allowed specific provisions to be waived from NCLB beginning with the 2012 reporting cycle.

• To waive these provisions, one requirement was that the request had to include a State-developed system of differentiated recognition, accountability and support.

• The core of this new accountability system is the use of multiple measurements. Whereas AYP was mostly centered on MCA proficiency index points, MMR uses four equally weighted measures to determine school performance:

• Proficiency

• Growth

• Achievement Gap Reduction

• Graduation Rates

• In 2015 the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was authorized to replace ESEA as of August 1, 2016 and will change some parts of ESEA. The 2016-17 year will sever as a transition year and most changes will not take effect until 2017-18*.

*For more information on changes visit: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/dse/ESSA/index.htm

How does ESSA differ from NCLB?

What did Not Change

•The Assessments & Standards (MCAs, MTAS, etc.)

•Annual AYP Reporting

•AYP Calculations/Formulas

•AYP Subgroup Aggregating (e.g. 5 Ethnic, FRL, EL & Spec Ed)

•Federal Funding Formulas

•Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement

What Did Change

•New AYP Targets (no more 100% prof by 2014 goal)

•No Sanctions for Schools Not Making AYP (no more need-of-improvement, corrective action and restructuring identifications for schools/districts)

•No more set-asides for AYP (School Choice and SES)

•Greater Flexibility in Title I funds

•Greater Flexibility in creating a Title I school-wide program

•Elimination of Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement Plan requirements

•Inclusion of Annual MMR Accountability Reporting

What is MMR?

Minnesota’s Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR) uses four measurements, weighted equally, to measure school performance:

Proficiency- Schools earn points in the MMR by meeting AYP proficiency goals in individual student subgroups. The percentage of subgroups that make AYP determines the percentage of points a school receives. Points are earned based on a weighted (based on subgroup size) percentage of subgroups making AYP. Please note that for the purposes of the MMR, subgroups cannot make AYP through Safe Harbor or Growth.

Growth- Using the same methodology as the Minnesota Growth Model, students are measured by their performance on the MCAs relative to their performance in the most recent year they took the test. Schools get a growth score based on the average growth of all students in the school.

Achievement gap reduction- Schools are measured based on how the growth of their students from the seven lower-performing subgroups (Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, English Learners, students in poverty, and special education students) compares to the statewide average z-score growth of higher-performing subgroups. Schools earn MMR points based on their ability to reduce the achievement gap. Subtract schools’ growth score for lower-performing groups from statewide averages of the higher performing groups so as a negative score indicates success.

Graduation rate- Schools earn points through the same methodology as proficiency: by the percentage of their subgroups that reach their AYP target for graduation rates. Starting this year, we will use the new, federally-mandated, cohort-adjusted graduation rate calculation methodology. New AYP 4-year grad targets are set at 90%. Groups only get credit by meeting the target no from year-to-year improvement.

Total MMR – Each domain is worth 25 points. The MMR is generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible. Most elementary and middle schools can earn up to 75 points, most high schools 100 points. MMR is a 0-100 Percentage for all schools.

What is MMR?

MMR Recognition, Accountability and SupportUsing the results of the Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR), schools can fall into three groups:

Reward Schools -15 PCT OF TITLE I SCHOOLS These schools are the top 15 percent of Title I schools in the MMR. They represent the highest-performing schools on the four measurements. Currently, the reward for these schools mainly comes through public recognition. These schools are identified annually.

Focus Schools – 10 PCT OF TITLE I SCHOOLS Using just the proficiency and achievement gap reduction measurements from the MMR, each school receives a Focus Rating that measures their contribution to the state’s achievement gap. The 10 percent of Title I schools with the lowest Focus Ratings are identified as Focus Schools, and must work with MDE and their district to implement serious interventions aimed at improving the performance of the school’s lowest-performing subgroups. Focus Schools are designed to attack the achievement gap head on. These schools are identified every three years.

Priority Schools – 5 PCT OF TITLE I SCHOOLS These are the 5 percent most persistently low-performing Title I schools. Just less than half of these schools are identified through their participation in the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. The remaining schools in this group are the Title I schools with the lowest MMRs. These schools will implement turnaround plans to drastically change the way the school operates.

The Other 70 PCT - Through AYP & MMR these schools have more data than ever before. There are also two additional categories of schools: Celebration Schools (the next 10 pct) and Continuous Improvement Schools (the bottom 25 pct).

AYP & PROFICIENCY

• AYP PARTICIPATION

• AYP PROFICIENCY INDEX POINTS

• MCA PROFICIENCY TOTALS

• AYP ATTENDANCE

2016 AYP PARTICIPATION

AYP ATTENDANCE RATE TREND

2016 AYP Participation and Attendance Rates Summary

The District made Adequate Yearly Progress on attendance (93.1% overall; target 90%) in 2016 based on the attendance rate for the All Students group.

American Indian students had an attendance rate below the AYP requirement (90%) and did not show improvement. Special Ed students also fell below target in 2016.

The District fell well below the AYP participation target of 95% in both reading and math and continued to decline from about 96% in math in 2014 to 90% in 2016, and 97% in reading in 2014 to 90% in 2016. All subgroups were below target.

READING AYP INDEX POINT TRENDS

MATH AYP INDEX POINT TRENDS

MCA-III Reading Proficiency by Grade 2013-2016

MCA-III Math Proficiency by Grade 2013-2016

MMR GROWTH

MATH growth by Ethnicity and Program (MPS)

READING growth by Ethnicity and Program (MPS)

Percent of MPS Students Making High Growth on MCA-III MATH (2011 to 2016) by Subgroups

Percent of MPS Students Making High Growth on MCA-III READING (2011 to 2016) by Subgroups

MMR ACHIEVEMENT GAP REDUCTION (AGR)

MATH Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) by Ethnicity and Program (MPS)

READING Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) by Ethnicity and Program (MPS)

2016 MMR Achievement Gap Reduction (AGR) Summary

• Both Math and Reading AGR show that almost all MPS ‘disadvantaged groups’ have been growing at a slower rate than advantaged students at the state level.

• All ethnic groups grew at a rate slightly lower than White students at the state level in both math and reading.

• All MPS students in Programs (ELL, Special Ed & FRL) are growing at a rate slightly lower than students at the state level not in each of the respective programs (e.g. non-ELL, non-Spec Ed & non-FRL)

GRADUATION RATES

4-YEAR GRADUATION RATE TRENDS by SITE

Target

Class of 2015 (MMR 2016) – Four Year Graduation Rates by school type

Four Year Graduation Rates Trends by Ethnic

TOTAL MMR & DESIGNATIONS

Elementary Schools 2013-2016 MMR

SCHNOELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

MMR TOTAL SCORE DESIGNATION

2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

103 ARMATAGE ELEMENTARY 97.9% 48.7% 70.0% 70.8%

105 BANCROFT ELEMENTARY 40.9% 35.1% 26.9% 38.3% Focus Focus Focus Focus

106 BARTON OPEN ELEMENTARY 46.8% 71.2% 43.7% 38.3%

107 BETHUNE ELEMENTARY 9.2% 7.4% 11.9% 21.6% Priority Priority Priority Priority

110 BURROUGHS ELEMENTARY 86.4% 86.0% 77.3% 76.4%

121 LAKE HARRIET UPPER SCHOOL 78.5% 67.8% 77.4% 80.6%

123 HALE ELEMENTARY 73.5% 83.0% 52.2% 59.0%

132 HOWE ELEMENTARY 52.6% 67.6% 67.5% Celebration Elig

134 LK NOKOMIS COMM-KEEWAYDIN 33.6% 45.6% 29.5% 22.9% Focus

135 KENNY ELEMENTARY 57.7% 73.9% 78.8% 68.4% Celebration Elig Celebration Elig Reward

136 KENWOOD ELEMENTARY 43.9% 58.1% 40.2% 40.0%

140 LORING ELEMENTARY 29.9% 46.4% 18.6% 11.9%Cont Improvement

Continuous Improvement

144 LYNDALE ELEMENTARY 34.2% 47.0% 43.4% 31.9% Focus Focus Focus Focus

151 JENNY LIND ELEMENTARY 2.9% 12.0% 13.5% 13.4% Priority Priority Priority Priority

152 NORTHROP ELEMENTARY 67.4% 86.2% 52.2% 64.6% Focus Reward

155 PILLSBURY ELEMENTARY 50.2% 61.5% 39.8% 25.7% Focus

156 PRATT ELEMENTARY 60.0% 25.5% 47.9% 32.6% Focus Focus Focus Focus

160 SEWARD ELEMENTARY 51.0% 44.3% 40.6% 31.8% Focus

Elementary Schools (cont.)2013-2016 MMR

SCHNOELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

MMR TOTAL SCORE DESIGNATION

2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

161 SHERIDAN ELEMENTARY 9.3% 21.6% 30.3% 8.4% Priority Priority Priority Priority

165 WAITE PARK ELEMENTARY 62.8% 65.4% 73.7% 52.5% Focus Celebration Elig Celebration Elig

170 WINDOM SCHOOL 52.2% 40.0% 39.3% 44.0% Focus Focus Focus Focus

175 FOLWELL ARTS MAGNET 22.9% 32.0% 22.8% 25.1% Focus Focus Focus Focus

179 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 39.1% 16.2% 18.3% 7.2% Focus Focus Focus

180 DOWLING ELEMENTARY 32.3% 67.8% 34.4% 45.6%

190 ANDERSEN COMMUNITY 22.1% 24.7% 18.7% 30.4% Focus Focus Focus Focus

193 SULLIVAN ELEMENTARY 14.4% 39.0% 29.4% 18.9% Focus Focus Focus Focus

216 FAIR ELEM

225 ANISHINABE ACADEMY 4.7% 0.0% 19.6% 0.0% Focus Priority Priority Priority

226 MARCY OPEN ELEMENTARY 54.7% 47.6% 34.4% 37.6% Focus

249 BRYN MAWR ELEMENTARY 28.8% 22.8% 23.5% 13.8% Focus Focus Focus Focus

256 GREEN CENTRAL PARK 2.3% 14.6% 31.5% 47.8% Priority Priority Priority Priority

260 EMERSON ELEMENTARY 10.9% 39.1% 23.0% 22.3% Focus Focus Focus Focus

282 LUCY LANEY @ CLEVELAND PARK 4.1% 11.1% 19.3% 23.4% Priority Priority Priority Priority

287 HALL INTERNATIONAL 8.3% 24.7% 10.6% 10.7% Priority Priority Priority Priority

288 NELLIE STONE JOHNSON 17.8% 5.6% 23.2% 33.9% Focus Priority Priority Priority

289 WHITTIER INTERNATIONAL 28.3% 34.2% 28.6% 3.3% Focus Focus Focus Focus

291 HMONG INTERNATIONAL ACAD 17.6% 21.3% 18.0% 24.7% Priority Priority Priority Priority

293 CITYVIEW COMMUNITY 22.7% 0.0% 7.3% PriorityCont Improvement

Continuous Improvement

Middle Schools 2013-2016 MMR

SCHNOMIDDLE SCHOOLS

MMR TOTAL SCORE DESIGNATION

2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

119 FIELD ELEMENTARY 95.9% 88.0% 81.0% 63.3%

300 ANTHONY MIDDLE SCHOOL 67.6% 73.5% 44.4% 57.9% Celebration Elig Reward Celebration Elig

309ANWATIN MIDDLE COM & SPANISH D I 12.5% 32.8% 30.0% 5.8% Focus Focus Focus

316 NORTHEAST MIDDLE 14.7% 19.4% 3.0%Cont Improvement Focus Focus Focus

318 OLSON MIDDLE 26.4% 17.4% 33.9% 30.4%ContImprovement

323 RAMSEY MIDDLE 59.5% 70.1% 70.8% 46.4% Celebration Elig Celebration Elig

324 SANFORD MIDDLE 38.6% 37.1% 34.6% 35.3% Celebration Elig

327 FRANKLIN MIDDLE 2.4%

High Schools 2013-2016 MMR

SCHNOHIGH SCHOOLS

MMR TOTAL SCORE DESIGNATION

2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

347 FAIR Senior High 25.2%

352 EDISON SENIOR HIGH 33.4% 61.9% 55.9% 50.6%

354 HENRY SENIOR HIGH 80.6% 91.9% 85.0% 66.6% Reward Reward

360 ROOSEVELT SENIOR HIGH 16.4% 31.7% 36.8% 25.0%Cont Improvement Focus Focus Focus

362 SOUTH SENIOR HIGH 32.2% 26.3% 22.6% 25.0%Cont Improvement

Continuous Improvement

363 WELLSTONE INTERNATIONAL HIGH 51.1% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Celebration Elig Focus Focus Focus

364 SOUTHWEST SENIOR HIGH 37.4% 50.5% 33.1% 25.0%

368 WASHBURN SENIOR HIGH 37.0% 37.8% 47.1% 25.9% Focus

375 NORTH ACADEMY SENIOR HIGH 21.6% 19.9% 0.0% Focus Focus Focus

Priority and Focus Schools 2016

SCHNOSCHOOL

2016

105 BANCROFT ELEMENTARY Focus

144 LYNDALE ELEMENTARY Focus

156 PRATT ELEMENTARY Focus

170 WINDOM SCHOOL Focus

175 FOLWELL ARTS MAGNET Focus

179 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY Focus

190 ANDERSEN COMMUNITY Focus

193 SULLIVAN ELEMENTARY Focus

249 BRYN MAWR ELEMENTARY Focus

260 EMERSON ELEMENTARY Focus

289 WHITTIER INTERNATIONAL Focus

309 ANWATIN MIDDLE COM & SPANISH D I Focus

316 NORTHEAST MIDDLE Focus

360 ROOSEVELT SENIOR HIGH Focus

363 WELLSTONE INTERNATIONAL HIGH Focus

375 NORTH ACADEMY SENIOR HIGH Focus

349 LORING-NICOLLET HIGH Focus

353 Longfellow Alternative Focus

357 PLYMOUTH YOUTH CENTER Focus

373 MENLO PARK ACADEMY Focus

419 VOA HIGH SCHOOL Focus

SCHNOSCHOOL

2016

107 BETHUNE ELEMENTARY Priority

151 JENNY LIND ELEMENTARY Priority

161 SHERIDAN ELEMENTARY Priority

225 ANISHINABE ACADEMY Priority

256 GREEN CENTRAL PARK ELEMENTARY Priority

282 LUCY LANEY @ CLEVELAND PARK ELEM. Priority

287 HALL INTERNATIONAL Priority

288 NELLIE STONE JOHNSON ELEMENTARY Priority

291 HMONG INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY Priority

Continuous Improvement, Reward & Celebration Eligible (2015 - 2016)

SCHNO

SCHOOLSDESIGNATION

2015

135 KENNY ELEMENTARY Reward

165 WAITE PARK ELEMENTARY Celebration Elig

300 ANTHONY MIDDLE SCHOOL Celebration Elig

132 HOWE ELEMENTARY Celebration Elig

140 LORING ELEMENTARY Cont Improvement

293 CITYVIEW COMMUNITY Cont Improvement

362 SOUTH SENIOR HIGH Cont Improvement

SCHNOSCHOOL

DESIGNATION

2016

140 LORING ELEMENTARY Continuous Improvement

293 CITYVIEW COMMUNITY Continuous Improvement

362 SOUTH SENIOR HIGH Continuous Improvement