Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003."— 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. A: Participation B: Performance C: Improvement D: Attendance or Graduation rate

3 Participation + Performance (A+B) = AYP A: Participation B: Performance C: Improvement D: Attendance or Graduation rate Participation + Improvement + Attendance or Graduation Rate (A+C+D) = AYP Two Ways to Make AYP: or

4 How Did We Do in English Language Arts (ELA), Statewide, In 2003? State ELA Results All Students ( Aggregate ) STATE ELA PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 75.6 CPI 83.1 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP

5 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

6 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:

7 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

8 African American/Black: Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: 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

9 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

10 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

11 How Did We Do in Math, Statewide, In 2003? Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP State Mathematics Results All Students ( Aggregate ) STATE MATH PERFORMANCE TARGET, CYCLE III: 60.8 MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99% CPI 69.3

12 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

13 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

14 African American/Black: Hispanic: +6.4 LEP: 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

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 Results for Student Subgroups Massachusetts 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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google