Massachusetts School and District Accountability System 2003 Mid-Cycle AYP Determinations

State Report December 4, 2003

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 orGraduation rate

60.8

75.6

Participation + Performance (A+B) = AYP

A: Participation

B: Performance

C: Improvement

D: Attendance or

Graduation rate

60.8

75.6

Participation + Improvement + Attendance or Graduation Rate (A+C+D) = AYP

Two Ways to Make AYP:

or

How Did We Do in English Language Arts (ELA), Statewide, In 2003?

State ELA Results

All Students ( Aggregate )

STATE ELA PERFORMANCETARGET, CYCLE III: 75.6

CPI 83.1

MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99%

Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP

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

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: 78.075.6

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

African American/Black: + 4.5

Hispanic: +6.4

LEP: +20.1

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

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

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

How Did We Do in Math, Statewide, In 2003?

Participation + Performance (A+ B) = AYP

State Mathematics Results

All Students ( Aggregate )

STATE MATH PERFORMANCETARGET, CYCLE III: 60.8

MCAS PARTICIPATION RATE: 99%

CPI 69.3

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

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

African American/Black: + 4.5

Hispanic: +6.4

LEP: +20.1

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

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

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

94% ( 223 Districts)

Made AYP in both ELA and Math

6% (N=14) Did Not Make AYP in ELA, Math

or Both Subjects

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

27% (65 Districts)

Made AYP In ELA

and Math In

Aggregate AND All

Subgroups

67% (158 districts)

made AYP in Math

and ELA in the

Aggregate but not all subgroups

6% No in

Aggregate

Results for Student SubgroupsMassachusetts School Districts

67% (158 districts)

made AYP in Math and ELA in the Aggregate but not all subgroups

District Results for Subgroups

37% (87) Did Not

Make AYP for 2+

subgroups

30% (71) Made AYP for all but

one subgroup

District AYP in Both Subjects In The Aggregate AND for Subgroups

15% Did Not Make

AYP in ELA, Math,

or Both (N=247)

85% Made AYP in ELA

and Math (N=1,361)

2003 AYP Determinations: Individual Schools - All Students (Aggregate)

33% (N=247) Made AYP in

ELA and Math in the

Aggregate, but not for all subgroups

52% (N=837) Made AYP in

ELA and Math for All

Groups

15% Did Not Make AYP in ELA or Math in Aggregate

AYP Determinations for School Subgroups

AYP for School Subgroups

Aggregate NO ELA or Math

15%

11% (N=177) Did Not Make AYP for

2+ subgroups

Made AYP Both Subjects All

Groups52%

22% (N=346) Made AYP For All

But One Subgroup