1. 1 Mobile County Public School System 2008 Accountability Report September 18, 2008

2. 2 2008 MCPSS Annual Report  AYP Summary Graph Page 3 AYP Accountability Overview Page 4 – 4a/4b AYP Accountability Overview Page 4 – 4a/4b AYP System Introduction Page Page 5 AYP System Introduction Page Page 5 Grade Span Summary Report Page 6 Grade Span Summary Report Page 6 5 Year APY Status Comparison Pages 7- 10 5 Year APY Status Comparison Pages 7- 10 2008-2009 Status Year Report Page 11 2008-2009 Status Year Report Page 11 AYP Information Pages 12-17 AYP Information Pages 12-17 Additional Academic Indicator Information Page 18 Additional Academic Indicator Information Page 18 Graduation Rate Page 19 Graduation Rate Page 19 Annual Measurable Objectives Chart Page 20 Annual Measurable Objectives Chart Page 20 Assessment Information Pages 21-22 Assessment Information Pages 21-22 Alabama Direct Writing Assessment Chart Page 23 Alabama Direct Writing Assessment Chart Page 23

3. 3 2008 MCPSS Annual Report Alabama H. S. Grad Exam Reports Pages 24-36 Alabama H. S. Grad Exam Reports Pages 24-36 ARMT Report Introduction Page Page 37 ARMT Report Introduction Page Page 37 Annual Measurable Objectives Chart Page 38 Annual Measurable Objectives Chart Page 38 Alabama Reading and Math Test Reports Pages 39-40 Alabama Reading and Math Test Reports Pages 39-40 4 th Quarter CRT Reports Pages 4-48 4 th Quarter CRT Reports Pages 4-48 DIBELS Report Page 49–50 DIBELS Report Page 49–50 SAT 10 Reports Pages 51–53 SAT 10 Reports Pages 51–53 Next Steps Pages 54–59 Next Steps Pages 54–59 Balanced Scorecard Page 60–60a/60b Balanced Scorecard Page 60–60a/60b Additional Information Pages 61-65 Additional Information Pages 61-65

4. 4

5. 5 Mobile County Public Schools Accountability Comparison

6. 6 MCPSS- System Level AYP Status

7. 7 Grade Span Summary AYP Report Special Education Subgroup Proficiency Index (Goal is 0.00) Special Education Subgroup Proficiency Index (Goal is 0.00) Status Year School Year Reading 3-5 Grade 6-8 Grade 11 Grade 2008-092007-08 -6.31 Yes (SH) -6.31 Yes (SH) -7.95 Yes(2%) -7.95 Yes(2%) -40.28 No -40.28 No 2007-082006-07 -7.83 Yes ( 2% ) -7.83 Yes ( 2% ) -4.44 Yes ( 2%) -4.44 Yes ( 2%) -31.12 No -31.12 No 2006-072005-06 -6.25 Yes (SH) -6.25 Yes (SH) -4.39 Yes (SH) -4.39 Yes (SH) -33.30 Yes (SH) -33.30 Yes (SH) 2005-062004-05 -29.72 Yes (SH) -29.72 Yes (SH) -32.25 Yes (SH) -32.25 Yes (SH) -43.11 No -43.11 No Status Year School Year Math 3-5 Grade 6-8 Grade 11 Grade 2008-092007-08 -0.04 Yes (CI) -0.04 Yes (CI) 8.87 Yes 8.87 Yes -25.54 No -25.54 No 2007-082006-07 -1.16 Yes ( 2% ) -1.16 Yes ( 2% ) 11.94 Yes 11.94 Yes -13.89 (SH) -13.89 (SH) 2006-072005-06 7.55 Yes 7.55 Yes 19.02 Yes 19.02 Yes -20.59 Yes (SH) -20.59 Yes (SH) 2005-062004-05 -15.02 Yes (SH) -15.02 Yes (SH) -23.92 No -23.92 No -38.51 No -38.51 No

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12 MCPSS 2008 AYP Information 82 schools met AYP = 90% 82 schools met AYP = 90% All middle schools met AYP = 21 out of 21 All middle schools met AYP = 21 out of 21 54 Elementary schools met AYP = 54 out of 57 54 Elementary schools met AYP = 54 out of 57  The 3 elementary schools did not meet AYP: Hamilton Reading – Participation 90% - White Students Math – Participation 85% - White Students Hamilton Reading – Participation 90% - White Students Math – Participation 85% - White Students John Will Reading – Proficiency -22.83 – Special Ed. Students John Will Reading – Proficiency -22.83 – Special Ed. Students Orchard Reading – Participation 77% - Special Ed. Students Math – Participation 88% - Special Ed. Students Orchard Reading – Participation 77% - Special Ed. Students Math – Participation 88% - Special Ed. Students

13. 13 MCPSS 2008 AYP Information 7 high schools met AYP = 7 out of 13 7 high schools met AYP = 7 out of 13 6 high schools did not meet AYP 6 high schools did not meet AYP Blount Grad rate 74% (goal = 90%) Blount Grad rate 74% (goal = 90%) Reading Proficiency -3.12 - All students Reading Proficiency -3.12 - All students Reading Proficiency -53.78 – Special Ed. students Reading Proficiency -53.78 – Special Ed. students Reading Proficiency -2.84 – Black students Reading Proficiency -2.84 – Black students Reading Proficiency -4.86 – Free/Reduced Meal Reading Proficiency -4.86 – Free/Reduced Meal Math Proficiency -32.56 – Special Ed. students Math Proficiency -32.56 – Special Ed. students Baker Grad rate 86% (goal = 90%) Baker Grad rate 86% (goal = 90%)

14. 14 MCPSS 2008 AYP Information Bryant Grad rate 87% (goal = 90%) Bryant Grad rate 87% (goal = 90%) Murphy Grad rate 87% (goal = 90%) Murphy Grad rate 87% (goal = 90%) Reading Participation 89% - Special Ed. Students Reading Participation 89% - Special Ed. Students Reading Proficiency -41.43 – Special Ed. Students Reading Proficiency -41.43 – Special Ed. Students Math Participation 91% - Special Ed. Students Math Participation 91% - Special Ed. Students Math Proficiency -27.00 – Special Ed. Students Math Proficiency -27.00 – Special Ed. Students LeFlore Grad rate 88% (goal = 90%) LeFlore Grad rate 88% (goal = 90%) Williamson Grad rate 86% (goal = 90%) IM =Improvement made Williamson Grad rate 86% (goal = 90%) IM =Improvement made Reading Proficiency -5.46 - All students Reading Proficiency -5.46 - All students Reading Proficiency -5.46 – Black students Reading Proficiency -5.46 – Black students Reading Proficiency -6.40 – Free/Reduced Meal Reading Proficiency -6.40 – Free/Reduced Meal

15. 15 High School Special Ed. Reading Proficiency Baker -36.00 Baker -36.00 Blount -53.78 Blount -53.78 Alma Bryant -38.86 Alma Bryant -38.86 Citronelle-49.33 Citronelle-49.33 Davidson-45.38 Davidson-45.38 LeFlore-49.89 LeFlore-49.89 MGM-23.50 MGM-23.50 Murphy-41.43 Murphy-41.43 Rain -31.45 Rain -31.45 Satsuma-43.89 Satsuma-43.89 Theodore-28.42 Theodore-28.42 Vigor-N/A Vigor-N/A Williamson-56.31 Williamson-56.31

16. 16 High School Special Ed. Math Proficiency Baker -27.00 Baker -27.00 Blount -32.56 Blount -32.56 Alma Bryant -20.06 Alma Bryant -20.06 Citronelle-37.00 Citronelle-37.00 Davidson-27.00 Davidson-27.00 LeFlore-29.78 LeFlore-29.78 MGM-19.86 MGM-19.86 Murphy-27.00 Murphy-27.00 B.C. Rain-22.45 B.C. Rain-22.45 Satsuma-11.21 Satsuma-11.21 Theodore-8.82 Theodore-8.82 Vigor-N/A Vigor-N/A Williamson-39.90 Williamson-39.90

17. 17 MCPSS 2008 AYP Information No schools entered School Improvement or advanced in the school improvement cycle No schools entered School Improvement or advanced in the school improvement cycle Four schools delayed their status Four schools delayed their status Gilliard School Improvement Year 1 (Delay) Gilliard School Improvement Year 1 (Delay) Chastang School Improvement Year 4 (Delay) Chastang School Improvement Year 4 (Delay) Denton School Improvement Year 3 (Delay) Denton School Improvement Year 3 (Delay) Eanes School Improvement Year 8 (Delay) Eanes School Improvement Year 8 (Delay)

18. 18 ALSDE Additional Academic Indicator (AAI) ALSDE Additional Academic Indicator (AAI) AAI for Grades K-8 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Target 95% based on the attendance rates for the 20 school days after Labor Day based on the attendance rates for the 20 school days after Labor Day AAI for High Schools AAI for High Schools Graduation Rate Target 90% based on the previous school year’s graduating class

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21 Assessment Reports ADAW-Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing ADAW-Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing AHSGE-Alabama High School Graduation Exam AHSGE-Alabama High School Graduation Exam CRT-Criterion-Referenced Test CRT-Criterion-Referenced Test DIBELS-Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills DIBELS-Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills ARMT-Alabama Reading and Math Test ARMT-Alabama Reading and Math Test SAT-10-Standford Achievement Test, 10 th Ed. SAT-10-Standford Achievement Test, 10 th Ed.

22. 22 Proficiency Definitions ADAW-Students scoring Levels III & IV ADAW-Students scoring Levels III & IV AHSGE-Students scoring Levels III & IV AHSGE-Students scoring Levels III & IV ARMT-Students scoring Levels III & IV ARMT-Students scoring Levels III & IV CRT-Students scoring 70% correct CRT-Students scoring 70% correct DIBELS-Students “Established,” “Low Risk,” or “Benchmarked” DIBELS-Students “Established,” “Low Risk,” or “Benchmarked” SAT-10-Students scoring Stanines 5-9 SAT-10-Students scoring Stanines 5-9

23. 23

24. 24 AHSGE - Reports include: Spring 2008 State Report Spring 2008 State Report 11 th Grade 5-Year School Level Comparison by Subject Reading, Math, Language, Science & Social Studies 11 th Grade 5-Year School Level Comparison by Subject Reading, Math, Language, Science & Social Studies 6-Year View of 11 th Grade System Level Objective Deficiencies 6-Year View of 11 th Grade System Level Objective Deficiencies (Baseline Spring 2003)

25. 25 AHSGE Spring 2008 Administration

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37 ARMT Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test Reports Include: Reports Include: 5-Year System Level Percentage of 5-Year System Level Percentage of Proficient Students Comparison Proficient Students Comparison

38. 38

39. 39

40. 40

41. 41 CRT Reports Reports Include: - 4-Year 4 th Quarter Grade Level Reports Include: - 4-Year 4 th Quarter Grade Level Comparisons Comparisons

42. 42

43. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49 DIBELS Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Learning Skills Report Includes Report Includes - 5-Year System Level End of Year (EOY) Measure of Percentage of Proficient Students - 5-Year System Level End of Year (EOY) Measure of Percentage of Proficient Students

50. 50

51. 51 SAT 10 Stanford Achievement Test Report Includes - 5-Year System Level Percentage of Proficient Students Report Includes - 5-Year System Level Percentage of Proficient Students

52. 52

53. 53

54. 54 Next Steps  Data Driven School Improvement SAE Plans - Quarterly Reviews SAE Plans - Quarterly Reviews  Data Driven Instruction Data Meetings - Grade Level –Department - Content Areas Data Meetings - Grade Level –Department - Content Areas  Special Education Focus Inclusion – Intervention – Second Delivery of Inclusion – Intervention – Second Delivery of Instruction – Targeted Services & Support – Progress Monitoring Instruction – Targeted Services & Support – Progress Monitoring ▼ ▼

55. 55 Next Steps Elementary Focus  Full Implementation of New Reading Program  Continue Alabama Reading Initiatives (ARI & ARFI)  Continue Expansion of Alabama Math/ Science/Technology Initiative (AMSTI) Initiative (AMSTI)  Math Curriculum Mapping and Alignment  Career Awareness Fifth Grade Portfolios ▼▼

56. 56 ▼ Next Steps ▼ ▼ Next Steps ▼ Middle Focus  Making Middle Grades Work Expand 12 to 21 Middle Schools Expand 12 to 21 Middle Schools  Continuous Program Improvement Data Driven Planning and Decision Making Data Driven Planning and Decision Making Climate & Culture for Learning Climate & Culture for Learning Delivery of Instruction Delivery of Instruction Student Engagement in Learning Student Engagement in Learning Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership Professional Development Professional Development Leadership Development & Opportunities Leadership Development & Opportunities Recognition of Success Recognition of Success

57. 57 Next Steps Middle Focus  Literacy Training Vocabulary Summarization Cooperative Learning Vocabulary Summarization Cooperative Learning  Career Exploration Career Portfolio Career Portfolio  Career/College Readiness ACT Readiness/Career Planning – Explore ACT Assessment ACT Readiness/Career Planning – Explore ACT Assessment Counseling Program Counseling Program ▼▼

58. 58 ▼ Next Steps ▼ ▼ Next Steps ▼ High School Focus High School Focus  Graduation Rate Sp. Ed. Proficiency – Reading & Math Sp. Ed. Proficiency – Reading & Math Reading & Math Proficiency Reading & Math Proficiency Math & Reading Strategies Teachers Math & Reading Strategies Teachers  SAE Implementation & Data Driven  Programs and Instruction  Targeted Academic Affairs Services & Support  Feeder Pattern Professional Learning Communities  Ninth Grade Academies  Small Learning Communities – Theme Programs  Distance and On-Line Learning  Staffing Reviews

59. 59 Next Steps High School Focus  Professional Development Delivery of Instruction - Student Engagement in Learning - Delivery of Instruction - Student Engagement in Learning - Intervention Intervention  Data Driven Instruction – Data Meetings  Workforce Development – Career Technical Education  Career/College Readiness ACT Readiness– Career Planning Plan/ACT/SAT Assessments ACT Readiness– Career Planning Plan/ACT/SAT Assessments Counseling Program Counseling Program  Small Learning Communities  Review of Block Scheduling and Early Release  Alabama First Choice High School Plan ▼▼

60. 60 Mobile County Public Schools Balanced Score Card

61. 61

62. 62 ► Information ◄ Accountability Definitions Accountability Definitions AYP Comparison Overview AYP Comparison Overview Academic Overview – 221 st Century Learning Academic Overview – 221 st Century Learning

63. 63 ▼ Accountability Definitions ▼  AYP – Annual Year Progress Reported in 4 Categories Reported in 4 Categories Reading – Mathematics – Additional Academic Indicator – Overall Reading – Mathematics – Additional Academic Indicator – Overall  “N” Count – A subgroup must have an “N” Count of 40 or more students for AYP measurement 40 or more students for AYP measurement  School Improvement – Schools not making AYP for two years enter School Improvement Status – years enter School Improvement Status – To exit School Improvement Status schools To exit School Improvement Status schools must make AYP for two years must make AYP for two years  Annual Measurable Objectives – Term used to describe the established yearly target for the percentage of students yearly target for the percentage of students scoring proficient scoring proficient  Participation Rate – Number of students taking the test – 95% required on all tests  Additional Academic Indicators – Daily Attendance Rate – Grades 3-8 – 95% Required Graduation Rate – Grades 9-12 – 90% Graduation Rate – Grades 9-12 – 90%

64. 64 ▼ Accountability Definitions ▼ Five Ways to Make AYP 1. Meet Proficiency 1. Meet Proficiency If proficiency isn’t met the following calculations take place. If proficiency isn’t met the following calculations take place. 2. Confidence Interval (CI) – calculations used to determine if the 2. Confidence Interval (CI) – calculations used to determine if the proficiency index is statistically different from the AMO goal proficiency index is statistically different from the AMO goal 3. Uniform Averaging (UA) – calculated using the most recent three 3. Uniform Averaging (UA) – calculated using the most recent three years of data years of data 4. Safe Harbor (SH) – schools make SH if made 95% participation goal, 4. Safe Harbor (SH) – schools make SH if made 95% participation goal, reduced non proficient from previous year by 10%, met or improved reduced non proficient from previous year by 10%, met or improved additional academic indicator additional academic indicator 5. 2% - interim 2% flexibility option that is calculated for Special Education 5. 2% - interim 2% flexibility option that is calculated for Special Education