1. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Shelton School District SY 11-12
Gail Straus, Director, Federal Programs & ECE
State, school district and individual school information on state test and AYP results can be found at:

2. AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress
Same goal on “state uniform bar” for nine measured groups
Minimum number of students (N) needed for a student group for statistically reliable AYP decisions. N=30 for all groups.
Count only students enrolled for “full academic year” (continuous enrollment from October 1 through entire testing period).

3. Safe Harbor
Term used when a student group makes AYP, even though the group did not meet the proficiency target.
To make “Safe Harbor”, 2 conditions must be met:
Reduce by at least 10%, the percentage of students not meeting the proficiency target from the previous year
AND
Student group must meet the target for the “other indicator”
Elementary & Middle Levels: Unexcused absence rate
High School: Graduation Rate

4. Elementary School Results (grades 3-5)
Both the District and individual school AYP results were better than the State results
All 3 elementary schools made AYP in Math in ALL measured groups
All 3 elementary schools made improvements in all measured groups

5. Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr
Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr. 3-5) District-to-State Comparison - AYP
Reading
Shelton - District
State
All Students N
American Indian
N/A
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White Y
Limited English (LEP)
Special Education
Low Income
Math

6. Elementary Level Reading & Math (gr. 3-5) School Results - AYP
Reading Bar=88.1%
Bordeaux
Evergreen
Mt. View
All Students
Y (Met SH 17.5%)
N (h3.1%)
N (h8.1%)
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
N (h3.5%)
White
Y (Met SH 18.4%) Y
N (h3.7%)
Limited English (LEP)
Y* (appeal)
Special Education
Y (Met SH 10.4%)
Low Income
N (h7.8%) N
Y (Met SH 9.6%)
Math Bar=58.0%
Y (Met SH 17.9%)
Y (Met SH 12.2%)
Y (Met SH 15.7%)

7. Middle Level Results (grades 6-8)
In Reading, District results mirrored State AYP results
In Math, District results were better than State AYP results for 4 groups (All; Hispanic; Special Ed; Low Income)
OMS had significant AYP gains in Math for 3 groups (All; Hispanic; White)
Both OMS and OBJH had groups that would have made AYP via Safe Harbor if the group had met the unexcused absence rate goal.

8. Middle Level Reading & Math (gr
Middle Level Reading & Math (gr.6-8) District-to-State Comparison - AYP
Reading
Shelton - District
State
All Students N
American Indian
N/A
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
Limited English (LEP)
Special Education
Low Income
Math Y

9. Middle Level Reading & Math (gr. 6-8) School Results - AYP
Reading Bar=82.5%
Olympic Middle School
Oakland Bay Jr. High
All Students
N (h3.7%) N
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Y (Met SH 10.1%)
White
Y (Met SH 14.5%)
Limited English (LEP)
Special Education
Low Income
N (h10.5%); did not meet unexcused absence rate)
Math Bar=58.7% Y
Y (Met SH 21.0%)
N(h10.0%); did not meet unexcused absence rate)
N (h16.6%); did not meet unexcused absence rate)
N (h16.0%); did not meet unexcused absence rate)

10. High School Level Results (grade 10)
In Reading, District results mirrored State AYP results
SHS had significant AYP gains in Math for 2 groups (All; White)
CHOICE 10th grade students made significant improvement in making Reading AYP (50% in 2010; 73.3% in 2011)

11. High School Reading & Math (grade 10) District-to-State Comparison - AYP
Shelton - District
State
All Students Y
American Indian
N/A N
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
Limited English (LEP)
Special Education
Low Income
Math

12. High School Reading & Math (grade 10) School Results - AYP
Reading Bar=87.2%
Shelton High School
CHOICE Alternative
All Students
Y (Met SH 9.5%)
N* (AYP based on PHP grades 3-8, plus CHOICE High School)
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic Y
White
N (h2.8%)
Limited English (LEP)
Special Education N
Low Income
Y (Met SH 12.9%)
Math Bar=62.4%

13. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
Separate Federal accountability for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students (Title III)
3 targets must be met:
AMAO Target 1: Students making significant progress towards learning English
AMAO Target 2: Students attaining English proficiency and meeting transition target
AMAO Target 3: LEP students met State AYP targets in Reading and Math

14. Attainment of English Proficiency
AMAO Results for Yes Met AMAO NR Number of students less than minimum required NO Did not meet AMAO
AMAO-1
Making Progress
AMAO-2
Attainment of English Proficiency
AMAO-3
(AYP)
District -
School
Met all 3 AMAOs
Making pro-gress
Met AMAO1 Target 66.7%
Level 1
Level 2 3 4
Total student count
% Tran-sition-ing
Met AMAO2 Target 13.3%
Met Reading Pro-ficiency / Participa-tion
Met
Math
Pro-ficiency / Participa-tion
AMAO
State Total No
78.4%
Yes
1,845
20,073
50,107
18,502
92,080
20.1%
SSD
85.6% 69
172 53
307
17.3%
EVG
83.2% 59
126 35
232
15.1%
OMS
95.7% NR 16 5 23
21.7%
OBJ
90.9% 15
SHS
84.2% 10 7 20
35.0%

15. Federal Sanctions for not making AYP
10% of District Title I allocation must be spent on Professional Development (SY 11-12: $104,155)
20% of District Title I allocation must be spent on Public School Choice transportation and/or Supplemental Education Services (SY 11-12: $208,310)
Title I Schools in “improvement” status must also spend 10% of their building Title I budget on Professional Development