CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN of Higher Student Achievement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 23
About This Presentation
Title:

CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN of Higher Student Achievement

Description:

Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations State Report December 4, 2003 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:155
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: AndyCa3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN of Higher Student Achievement


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.
75.6
A Participation
60.8
B Performance
C Improvement
D Attendance or
Graduation rate
3
Two Ways to Make AYP
Participation Performance (AB) AYP
75.6
A Participation
60.8
B Performance
C Improvement
D Attendance or
Graduation rate
Participation Improvement Attendance or
Graduation Rate (ACD) AYP
or
4
How Did We Do in English Language Arts (ELA),
Statewide, In 2003?
CPI 83.1
STATE ELA PERFORMANCETARGET, CYCLE III 75.6
MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE 99
State ELA Results All Students ( Aggregate )
Participation Performance (A B) AYP
5
State ELA Performance Results by Student Subgroup
White 87.6
Asian/Pacific Is 82.8
Native American 78.0
Free/Red. Lunch 68.8
African American/Black 69.2
Special Ed 63.2
Hispanic 63.7
LEP 52.1
6
Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA Through
Participation and Performance (AB AYP)
White 87.6
Asian/Pacific Is 82.8
Native American 78.0
75.6
At or Above State Performance Target and Made
State Participation Target
7
Three More Student Subgroups Made AYP in ELA
Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance
Free/Reduced Lunch
African American/Black
Special Education
At or Above State Participation Target and
Subgroups Improvement and Attendance Targets
Participation Improvement Attendance
(ACD) AYP
8
State ELA Improvement for Student Subgroups
Performing Below State Performance Target
Free/Reduced Lunch 4.8
African American/Black 4.5
Special Education 4.1
Hispanic 6.4
LEP 20.1
All 5 Subgroups Met Their Groups Improvement
Target for 2003
9
State Attendance Results by Student Subgroup
Asian/Pacific Is 95.7
White 94.4
Limited English Proficient 93.2
African American /Black 92.7
Special Education 92.5
Free/Reduced Lunch 92.4
Native American 91.8
Hispanic 91.7
Met Attendance Target
Did Not Meet Attendance Target
10
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT
Two Student Subgroups Did Not Make AYP in ELA
Hispanic
LEP
LEP Students Did not meet States 95
Participation Target Hispanic Students Did not
meet their Attendance Target
11
How Did We Do in Math, Statewide, In 2003?
Participation Performance (A B) AYP
12
State MATH Performance Results by Student Subgroup
White 77.5
Asian/Pacific Is 74.5
Native American 61.9
Free/Reduced Lunch 51.5
African American/Black 49.2
Special Ed 45.9
Hispanic 46.7
LEP 44.5
13
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT
Three Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math Through
Participation and Performance
Asian/Pacific Is 77.5
White 74.5
Native American 61.9
At or Above State Performance Target and State
Participation Target
Participation Performance AYP
14
State MATH Improvement for Student Subgroups
Performing Below State Performance Target
Free/Reduced Lunch 4.8
African American/Black 4.5
Special Education 4.1
Hispanic 6.4
LEP 20.1
All 5 Subgroups Met Their Groups Improvement
Target for 2003
15
2003 MID-CYCLE REPORT
Two More Student Subgroups Made AYP in Math
Through Participation, Improvement, and Attendance
African American/Black
Free/Reduced Lunch
At or Above State Participation Target and Met
Subgroups Improvement and Attendance Targets
Participation Improvement Attendance AYP
16
Statewide, Three Student Subgroups Did Not Make
AYP in Math
Special Education Students Performed below the
States Performance Target and did not meet their
group Improvement Target
LEP Students Did not meet States Participation
Target
Hispanic Students Did not meet States
Performance Target or the State Attendance Target
17
Massachusetts School Districts Results for
Students in the Aggregate
Only 6 (14 districts) did not make AYP in ELA,
Math or both Subjects for students in the
aggregate
18
Results for Student SubgroupsMassachusetts
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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com