Transcript Preparing for 2006 AYP Determinations

Overview of MCAS Results
and
Adequate Yearly Progress
Determinations
2007
Brockton School Committee
November 20, 2007
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 MCAS Release & AYP
Determinations – Key Dates
• August 20 – 31
•
•
•
•
– MCAS Discrepancy Reporting Window
(www.mcasservicecenter.com)
August 27 – September 7
– AYP Discrepancy Reporting Window (DOE Security Portal)
September 13
– Public Release of Lists of Schools & Districts Identified for
Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring
September 25
– Public Release of Preliminary AYP Reports for Schools (Not
Including Pre-K to Grade 2 Schools & Other Special Cases)
October 18
– Public Release of All School & District AYP Reports
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Overview of 2007 MCAS results
• Grades and subjects tested
• State and district gains since 1998
• State and district 2006/2007 passing
and proficiency rate comparisons
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
3
MCAS Tested Areas 1998-2006
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Reading
Math
Grade
3
ELA
Math
4
Sci&T ech
t
t
t
t
t
t
MCAS
Subject
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
9
10
10
10
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
6
7
ELA
Math
History
t
t
t
5
Sci&T ech
8
Sci&T ech
ELA
Math
10
Sci&T ech
8
10
10
10
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
16
16
4
MCAS Tested Areas 1998-2006
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Reading
Math
Grade
3
ELA
Math
4
Sci&T ech
t
t
t
t
t
t
MCAS
Subject
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
9
10
10
10
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
ELA
Math
Sci&T ech
ELA
Math
ELA
Math
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
6
7
ELA
Math
History
t
t
t
5
8
Sci&T ech
ELA
Math
10
Sci&T ech
8
10
10
10
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
16
16
5
Comparison of the 10-year gains in Passing
and Advanced/Proficient rates 1998 – 2007
1998
MCAS *
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
2006
2007
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
BROCKTON
MCAS
1998
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
2006
2007
Passing
Grade 10 ELA
72%
94%
Grade 10 ELA
56%
91%
Grade 10 Math
48%
91%
Grade 10 Math
24%
80%
Grade 8 Math
58%
75%
Grade 8 Math
31%
59%
Grade 4 Math
77%
87%
Grade 4 Math
61%
81%
Proficient
or Advanced
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
s
1998.
ince
No other MCAS exam has been given 1998.
annually to the same grades since 1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Pass
Pass
Grade 10 ELA
22%
35%
Grade 10 Math
43%
56%
Grade 8 Math
17%
28%
Grade 4 Math
10%
20%
9%
13%
Grade 4 ELA
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
6
Comparison of the 10-year gains in Passing
and Advanced/Proficient rates 1998 – 2007
1998
MCAS *
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
2006
2007
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
BROCKTON
MCAS
1998
Passing
2006
2007
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
38%
71%
Grade 10 ELA
22%
60%
Grade 10 Math
24%
69%
Grade 10 Math
7%
50%
Grade 8 Math
31%
45%
Grade 8 Math
14%
24%
Grade 4 Math
34%
48%
Grade 4 Math
17%
34%
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
s
1998.
ince
1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Adv/Prof
Adv/Prof
Grade 10 ELA
33%
38%
Grade 10 Math
45%
43%
Grade 8 Math
14%
10%
Grade 4 Math
14%
17%
Grade 4 ELA
36%
33%
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
7
Comparison of the 10-year gains in Passing
and Advanced/Proficient rates 1998 – 2007
1998
MCAS *
Passing
2006
2007
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
BROCKTON
MCAS
1998
Passing
2006
2007
Proficient
or Advanced
Passing
Proficient
or Advanced
Grade 10 ELA
72%
38%
94%
71%
Grade 10 ELA
56%
22%
91%
60%
Grade 10 Math
48%
24%
91%
69%
Grade 10 Math
24%
7%
80%
50%
Grade 8 Math
58%
31%
75%
45%
Grade 8 Math
31%
14%
59%
24%
Grade 4 Math
77%
34%
34
87%
48%
Grade 4 Math
61%
17%
81%
34%
*No other MCAS exam has been given annually to the same grades since
s
1998.
ince
No other MCAS exam has been given 1998.
annually to the same grades since 1998.
COMPARING
MCAS
GAINS
STATE
BROCKTON
Pass
Adv/Prof
Pass
Adv/Prof
Grade 10 ELA
22%
33%
35%
38%
Grade 10 Math
43%
45%
56%
43%
Grade 8 Math
17%
14%
28%
10%
Grade 4 Math
10%
14%
20%
17%
9%
36%
13%
33%
Grade 4 ELA
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
8
10-year Grade Level Gains, 1998-2007xx
passing
9
advanced/proficient
Grade 4 Math
14
4
Grade 4 ELA
36
Grade 8 Math
STATE
18
14
43
Grade 10 Math
Grade 10 ELA
State
23
passing
advanced/proficient
Grade 4 Math
16
33
19
14
Grade 4 ELA
Grade 8 Math
45
33
BROCKTON
27
10
Grade 10 Math
57
43
Grade 10 ELA
BPS
35
0
10
20
30
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
38
40
50
60
BPS ELA Adv/Pro 2006-07
BPS ELA W/Failure 2006-07
75
65
51
49 50
55
45
25
66
42
39
39
41 41
56
60
49
40
16
16
18
15 16
11
15
10 11
11
10
30
35
20
15
21
20
9
9
5
25
0
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
Grade 3
2006
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
2006
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
BPS ELA Adv/Pro 2006-07
BPS ELA W/Failure 2006-07
75
65
51
49 50
55
45
25
66
42
39
39
41 41
56
60
49
40
16
18
15 16
11
15
10 11
11
9
9
5
25
0
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
Grade 3
State ELA Adv/Pro
2006-07
2006
74 75
75
65
16
10
30
35
20
15
21
20
58 59
56
59
63
64
67
65
69
69 71
45
35
25
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
STATE
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
2006
State ELA W/Failure
2006-07
50
55
Grade 4
Grade 8 Grade 10
25
20
15
10
5
0
8 9
12
10
9 9
8 7
9 8
7
6
7 6
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10
2006
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
STATE
2006
BPS Math Adv/Pro 2006-07
BPS W/Failure 2006-07
70
60
50
49 50
43 46
34
40
30
27
39
30
42
35
27
20
10
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
24
18
17
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
56
47
22 19
26
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
State Math Adv/Pro
2006-07
2006
60
50
60
52
48
40
51
43
46
52
40
46
40
45
40
30
20
10
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
STATE
Grade 6
Grade 7
41
39
27
Grade 6
23 20
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
State W/Failure
2006-07
2006
67 69
70
32
22 26
33
Grade 8 Grade 10
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
23
16 16
15 13
18
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
2006
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
STATE
25
28
20
Grade 6
2006
24
29 25
12 9
Grade 7
Grade 8 Grade 10
CPI | Composite Proficiency Index
•
•
•
•
CPI is …
2007 CPI for grade levels
2007 CPI for subgroups
2007 CPI for state and large
urban districts
• District and state CPI over
time – closing the gap
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
13
The CPI (Composite Performance Index) is –
• a metric that Massachusetts uses to measure school and district
performance and improvement;
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in
standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in
the MCAS-Alt.
MCAS Performance
Level
Proficient or
Advanced
Needs Improvement
High
Needs Improvement
Low
Warning / Failing
High
Warning / Failing
Low
Scaled
Score
Range
MCAS-Alt
Performance Level
Points Per
Student
240 – 280
Progressing
100
230 – 238
Emerging
75
220 – 228
Awareness
Portfolio
Incomplete
Portfolio not
Submitted
50
OR
210 – 218
200 – 208
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
25
0
CPI=Composite Performance Index
TABLE 1
MCAS Scaled Score
200 – 208 Failing/Warning – Low
210 – 218 Failing/Warning – High
220 – 228 Needs Improvement – Low
TABLE 2 - Students taking Standard MCAS tests
Points
100
students
0
25
50
230 – 238 Needs Improvement – High
75
240 – 280 Proficient/Advanced
100
Performance Level
Total
Index
Points Points
5
Failing – Low
0
0
5
Failing – High
25
125
20
Needs Improvement - Low
50
1000
40
Needs Improvement –
High
75
3000
25
Proficient
100
2500
5
Advanced
100
500
Total Points Awarded
7,125
Total # of Students Tested
100
CPI (Total Points divided by Total Students)
71.3
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
15
The CPI (Composite Performance Index) is –
• a metric that Massachusetts uses to measure school and district
performance and improvement;
• a 100-point index that combines the scores of students who participate in
standard MCAS ELA and mathematics tests, and those who participate in
the MCAS-Alt.
MCAS Performance
Level
Proficient or
Advanced
Needs Improvement
High
Needs Improvement
Low
Warning / Failing
High
Warning / Failing
Low
Scaled
Score
Range
MCAS-Alt
Performance Level
Points Per
Student
240 – 280
Progressing
100
230 – 238
Emerging
75
220 – 228
Awareness
Portfolio
Incomplete
Portfolio not
Submitted
50
OR
210 – 218
200 – 208
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
25
0
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 BROCKTON CPI BY GRADE LEVEL
100
E.L.A.
MATH
90
79
80
73
72
81
83
78
74
74
71
70
69
67
69
60
57
56
50
40
Gr 3 R
Gr 4
ELA
Gr 5
ELA
Gr 6
ELA
Gr 7
ELA
Gr 8
ELA
Gr 10
ELA
Gr 3
Math
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Gr 4
Math
Gr 5
Math
Gr 6
Math
Gr 7
Math
Gr 8
Math
Gr 10
Math
2007 BROCKTON CPI BY GRADE LEVEL
100
E.L.A.
90
85
84
86
90
87
81
79
80
73
72
81
MATH
88
83
85
80
78
77
76
76
74
74
71
70
69
67
69
60
70
57
70
56
50
40
Gr 3 R
Gr 4
ELA
Gr 5
ELA
Gr 6
ELA
Gr 7
ELA
Gr 8
ELA
Gr 10
ELA
Gr 3
Math
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Gr 4
Math
Gr 5
Math
Gr 6
Math
Gr 7
Math
Gr 8
Math
Gr 10
Math
2007 BROCKTON CPI BY GRADE LEVEL
100
E.L.A.
90
85
84
86
90
87
81
79
80
73
72
81
MATH
88
83
85
80
78
77
76
76
74
74
71
74
70
72
69
67
64
60
62
69
63
50
70
57
70
56
51
46
40
Gr 3 R
Gr 4
ELA
Gr 5
ELA
Gr 6
ELA
Gr 7
ELA
Gr 8
ELA
Gr 10
ELA
Gr 3
Math
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Gr 4
Math
Gr 5
Math
Gr 6
Math
Gr 7
Math
Gr 8
Math
Gr 10
Math
State & Brockton 2007 Mid-Cycle V
CPI for English Language Arts
90
88.0
85.8
89.7
85
80
73.7
75
74.6
State & Brockton 2007 Mid-Cycle V
CPI Gains in English Language Arts
70.2
70
66.7
86.0
65
60
77.0
83.0
62.7
73.8
73.6
72.8
5
55
56.1
50
4
53.9
45
3
Agg
LEP
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
2.9
White
2.0
2.1
2.1
2
1.8
3.4
1.4
1
1.9
2.4
1.5
1.0
LEP
SPED
1.2
2.0
1.6
1.5
0
Agg
-1.5
-1
-2
-3
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
White
State & Brockton 2007 Mid-Cycle V
CPI for Mathematics
90
85.6
85
80.9
80
76.2
75
70
State & Brockton 2007 Mid-Cycle V
CPI Gains in Mathematics
84.9
65
61.0
59.5
60
73.9
56.3
55
57.7
7
65.6
54.0
61.4
60.5
59.8
50
6
51.4
45.6
45
Agg
LEP
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Hisp
White
5
5.3
4.6
4.6
4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3
2.8
5.2
5.2
3.6
5.6
4.7
4.5
4.5
Hisp
White
2
3.5
1
1.5
0
Agg
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
LEP
SPED
Low Inc
Black
Asian
Massachusetts
Top 10
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Schools in Urban Districts with Greatest CPI Gain in English Language Arts
District
SchName
2007 # of
Students
Included
2006
CPI
2007
CPI
Improvement
51.3
57.8
52.5
40.9
75.0
65.6
54.9
62.7
62.2
56.9
75.0
76.9
69.5
57.1
90.9
80.7
69.7
77.4
75.6
69.9
23.7
19.1
17.0
16.2
15.9
15.1
14.8
14.7
13.4
13.0
All Students
African American
Special Education
Low Income
LEP
Hispanic
BrocktonEast Junior High
75
Springfield
Samuel Bowles
78
ChicopeeChicopee High
64
Holyoke Community
Holyoke Community
Charter Scho
Charter Scho 334
Springfield
Washington
63
Peabody Thomas Carroll
48
Taunton James L Mulcahey
61
Amherst Crocker Farm Elementary
52
Fall RiverB M C Durfee High
44
Lowell S Christa McAuliffe Elementary
44
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Schools in Urban Districts with Greatest CPI Gain in Mathematics
District
SchName
2007 # of
Students
Included
2006 CPI
2007
CPI
Math
Improvement
43.3
44.4
34.0
30.9
36.8
37.5
52.3
19.7
53.5
47.1
74.5
71.3
60.8
56.7
62.2
61.1
75.6
42.4
74.5
68.0
31.2
26.9
26.8
25.8
25.4
23.6
23.3
22.7
21.0
20.9
All Students
African American
Special Education
Lynn
Boston
Taunton
Boston
Pembroke
Lowell
Medford
Brockton
New Bedford
Attleboro
Ingalls
49
Charlestown High
41
Joseph C Chamberlain
44
Joseph Lee
52
Hobomock Elementary
41
Lowell High
52
Christopher Columbus
42
South Junior High
79
Sgt Wm H Carney Acad
52
Peter Thacher Elementary Schoo
43
Low Income
LEP
Hispanic
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Schools in Urban Districts with Greatest CPI Gain in Mathematics
District
SchName
2007 # of
Students
Included
2006 CPI
2007
CPI
Math
Improvement
51.7
40.6
32.8
42.7
49.0
70.0
43.0
35.6
56.4
53.8
73.9
62.8
55.0
64.3
69.2
90.0
62.9
55.0
74.6
71.4
22.2
22.2
22.2
21.6
20.2
20.0
19.9
19.4
18.2
17.6
All Students
African American
Special Education
Low Income
LEP
Lowell
Greater Lawrence RVT
New Bedford
Milford
Lynn
Westfield
Lawrence
Lawrence
Brockton
Boston
Moody Elem
46
Gr Lawrence Reg Voc Tech 47
Alfred J Gomes
40
Stacy Middle
61
Ingalls
107
Highland
45
Emily G Wetherbee
60
Arlington Elementary School60
Louis F Angelo Elem
61
Quincy Upper School
55
Hispanic
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Schools in Urban Districts with Greatest CPI Gain in Mathematics
District
SchName
2007 # of
Students
Included
2006 CPI
2007
CPI
Math
Improvement
56.2
57.2
46.4
62.7
54.4
29.2
55.9
41.9
49.8
43.5
82.4
78.7
66.7
81.5
72.9
47.1
73.1
59.0
66.7
60.0
26.2
21.5
20.3
18.8
18.5
17.9
17.2
17.1
16.9
16.5
All Students
African American
Special Education
Low Income
LEP
Hispanic
Springfield
Samuel Bowles
78
Watertown
Watertown Middle
47
Fall River
B M C Durfee High
42
New Bedford
Sgt Wm H Carney Acad
73
Lynn
Ingalls
140
Holyoke Community Charter
Holyoke
Scho Community Charter329
Scho
Worcester
North High
90
Worcester
Burncoat Senior High
64
Lawrence
Emily G Wetherbee
255
Brockton
North Junior High
70
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 ELA CPI LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS indicating GAIN over 2006
88.0
84.0
85.8
80.0
77.1
77.0
76.9
76.0
1.0
1.9
2.9
72.0
74.01
1.3
73.71
72.4
72.3
2.8
2.2
3.1
68.0
68.2
0.8
67.6
2.0
64.0
72.7
70.9
70.2
69.2
67.4
65.6
9 Lawrence
56.0
8
Springfield
74.0
7 Lowell
75.1
6 Boston
76.1
5
Worcester
60.0
52.0
48.0
44.0
4 New
Bedford
3 Fall River
2 Brockton
1 Lynn
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 MATH CPI LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS indicating GAIN over 2006
76.0
76.2
72.0
68.0
64.0
66.9
5.2
65.6
4.7
60.0
62.3
62.0
61.9
4.8
4.2
3.4
56.0
52.0
61.7
60.0
59.6
6.3
4.4
52.6
60.9
57.5
57.8
58.5
2.9
53.7
48.0
52.1
55.2
6.1
49.7
46.0
44.0
9 Lawrence
8 Springfield
7 Fall River
6 Lowell
5 Boston
4 New
Bedford
3 Worcester
2 Brockton
1 Lynn
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON
FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
100
STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 4.6
95
90
85
81.2
83.2
84.2
85.8
83.7
83.4
8.8
80
75
13.4
70
65
73.2
75.0
77.0
74.7
74.4
67.8
BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 9.2
60
55
2002
2003
2004
2005
50
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2006
2007
SIX-YEAR DISTRICT AND STATE CPI COMPARISON
FOR MATHEMATICS
100
95
STATE 5-YEAR GAIN = 10.8
90
BROCKTON 5-YEAR GAIN = 15.0
85
76.2
80
75
69.4
70
72.4
71.4
73.2
10.6
65.4
65
65.6
60
14.8
55
57.1
55.6
50.6
58.7
60.6
50
20021
20032
2004
3
2005
4
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2006
5
2007
6
AYP | Adequate Yearly Progress
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABCs of AYP calculation
Massachusetts context
Urban challenges
Identification/accountability status
“Commissioner’s Districts”
BPS Performance – A Good Story
Projections – beyond 2007
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
32
How is AYP calculated?
Requirement A + (Either B or C) + D = AYP
A
Participation Rate:
Either
B or C
95% or greater in MCAS or MCAS-Alt
B. Performance: 85.4 or greater CPI in ELA
76.5 or greater CPI in math
(100 – Cycle
V CPI) / 4
C. Improvement: Meet or exceed Cycle V Target for
district, schools, and student groups
Performance or Improvement on Additional
Indicators –
D

1-8: 92% or higher attendance rate, or 1%
improvement over 2006

High School: 55% graduation rate
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
33
State Targets for ELA and Mathematics
100.0
100
95.1
90.2
90
92.2
85.4
84.3
80.5
80
75.6
76.5
70.7
70
68.7
60.8
60
ELA-targets
53.0
50
Math-targets
Cycle II
Cycle III
Cycle IV
Cycle V
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Cycle VI
Cycle VII
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
40
Cycle VIII
34
Read the excerpt from “How Much Land
Does Man Need?” by Leo Tolstoy.
So Pahom was well contented, and
everything would have been right if the
neighboring peasants would only not
have trespassed on his wheatfields and
meadows. He appealed to them most
civilly, but they still went on: now the
herdsmen would let the village cows
stray into his meadow, then horses from
the night pasture would get among his
corn. Pahom turned them out again and
again, and forgave their owners, and for
a long time he forbore to prosecute
anyone. But at last he lost patience and
complained to the District Court.
Which sentence tells a fact,
not an opinion?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Cats are better than
dogs.
Cats climb trees better
than dogs.
Cats are prettier than
dogs.
Cats have a nicer fur
than dogs.
What is a fact from this passage?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Pahom owns a vast amount of land.
The peasant’s intentions are evil.
Pahom is a wealthy man.
Pahom complained to the District
Court.
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 NAEP Results in Top Performing States by Scaled Score: Grade 4
Average Scaled Scores and Percents of Students at Each Achievement Level
Percent of Students
Average Scaled
Score
Advanced
Proficient and
above
Basic
and above
Below Basic
READING
1 Massachusetts
2 New Jersey
236
231
16
12
49
43
81
77
19
23
3 New Hampshire
229
11
41
76
24
4 Vermont
228
11
41
74
26
5 Connecticut
227
12
41
73
27
6 Virginia
227
9
38
74
26
7 Montana
227
8
39
75
25
8 Pennsylvania
226
11
40
73
27
9 North Dakota
226
6
35
75
25
10 Ohio
226
8
36
73
27
National Public
MATHEMATICS
220
7
32
66
34
1 Massachusetts
252
11
58
93
7
2 New Jersey
249
9
52
90
10
3 New Hampshire
4 Kansas
249
248
9
9
52
51
91
89
9
11
5 Minnesota
247
9
51
87
13
6 Vermont
7 North Dakota
246
245
7
5
49
46
89
91
11
9
8 Indiana
245
6
46
89
11
9 Ohio
245
7
46
87
13
10 Wisconsin
244
7
47
85
15
National Public
239
5
39
81
19
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 NAEP Results in Top Performing States by Scaled Score: Grade 8
Average Scaled Scores and Percents of Students at Each Achievement Level
Percent of Students
Scaled
Score
Advanced
Proficient
and above
Basic
and above
Below
Basic
READING
1 Massachusetts
2 Vermont
3 Montana
4 New Jersey
5 Maine
6 New Hampshire
7 South Dakota
8 Minnesota
9 North Dakota
National Public
273
273
271
270
270
270
270
268
268
261
4
4
2
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
43
42
39
39
37
37
37
37
32
29
84
84
85
81
83
82
83
80
84
73
16
16
15
19
17
18
17
20
16
27
1 Massachusetts
2 Minnesota
3 North Dakota
4 Vermont
5 Kansas
6 New Jersey
298
292
292
291
290
289
15
11
7
10
9
10
51
43
41
41
40
40
85
81
86
81
81
77
15
19
14
19
19
23
7 South Dakota
8 Virginia
9 New Hampshire
10 Montana
National Public
288
288
288
287
280
7
9
8
7
7
39
37
38
38
31
81
77
78
79
70
19
23
22
21
30
MATHEMATICS
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Urban challenges – language,
poverty, achievement gap
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
LEP - Limited
English
Proficient
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
FLNE - First
Language not
English
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
6,114
28.2
19.1
2.4
11.8
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
6,114
28.2
19.1
2.4
11.8
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
6,114
28.2
19.1
2.4
11.8
WEIGHTED RANK
1 Lawrence
Total Weighted
Average
ENROLLMENT RANK
8
DISTRICT
Non-White
NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
LEP
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Low Income
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
6,114
28.2
19.1
2.4
11.8
Commissioner’s Districts
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
ENROLLMENT RANK
WEIGHTED RANK
8
1 Lawrence
DISTRICT
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
Total
Weighted
Average
Actual
%
LEP
Non-White NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Low Income
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
92.4
23.1
CPS
Schools
=
Commonwealth
88.5 22.1
Priority Schools,
78.6 that19.7
schools
were
in85.1
corrective
or
21.3
restructuring
66.4 in 2006
16.6
status
# of CPS
Schools*
6
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
7
31
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
ENROLLMENT RANK
WEIGHTED RANK
8
1 Lawrence
DISTRICT
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
Total
Weighted
Average
Actual
%
LEP
Low Income
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Non-White NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1
64.8
16.2
5
42
9 Somerville
5,136
54.2
48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4
54.5
13.6
3
10 Worcester
24,023
52.4
37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7
55.4
13.9
10
33
11 Revere
5,839
49.2
42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5
44.1
11.0
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
13,441
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
7
13 New Bedford
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
ENROLLMENT RANK
WEIGHTED RANK
8
1 Lawrence
DISTRICT
Total
Student
Enrollment
(Oct. 2006
SIMs)
FLNE
Total
Weighted
Average
Actual
%
LEP
Low Income
Weighted
Weighted
Actual
average
average
%
12.5%
12.5%
Non-White NCLB
Race/Ethncity
Actual
%
Weighted
average
50%
Actual
%
Weighted
average
25%
# of CPS
Schools*
6
12,273
78.0
82.5
10.3
24.2
3.0
83.1
41.6
92.4
23.1
38
2 Chelsea
5,495
77.2
80.8
10.1
19.4
2.4
85.1
42.6
88.5
22.1
21
3 Holyoke
6,485
67.4
51.3
6.4
23.8
3.0
76.8
38.4
78.6
19.7
7
1
4 Boston
57,349
64.8
38.9
4.9
18.3
2.3
72.7
36.4
85.1
21.3
31
6
5 Lynn
13,955
63.1
48.2
6.0
23.3
2.9
75.1
37.6
66.4
16.6
2
6 Springfield
25,206
62.6
21.8
2.7
13.7
1.7
77.5
38.8
77.6
19.4
17
5
7 Lowell
14,096
58.1
49.4
6.2
29.6
3.7
67.7
33.9
57.5
14.4
8
4
8 Brockton
15,896
55.4
28.3
16.2
5
33
11 Revere
5,839
3.5
12.7
1.6
68.1
34.1 64.8
Districts with 5 or more
54.2 48.7
6.1
16.3
2.0
64.8
32.4 54.5
COMMONWEALTH PRIORITY SCHOOLS
52.4 37.8
4.7
16.6
2.1
63.4
31.7 55.4
have been designated
49.2 42.2
5.3
11.5
1.4
63
31.5 44.1
37
12 Fitchburg
5,682
46.5
13,441
42
9 Somerville
5,136
3
10 Worcester
24,023
7
13 New Bedford
COMMISSIONER'S DISTRICTS
13.6
13.9
10
11.0
30.4
3.8
16.3
2.0
55.6
27.8
51.6
12.9
1
46.5
21
2.6
4.2
0.5
66.6
33.3
40.0
10.0
6
25
14 Malden
6,287
45.3
33.9
4.2
8.4
1.1
51.9
26.0
56.3
14.1
39
15 Everett
5,262
43.7
43.6
5.5
8.7
1.1
53.7
26.9
41.2
10.3
34
16 Cambridge
5,803
41.5
30
3.8
6.9
0.9
42.7
21.4
62.3
15.6
2
10
17 Fall River
10,969
41.5
29.4
3.7
6
0.8
60.5
30.3
27.3
6.8
8
16
18 Chicopee
7,527
33.1
13.8
1.7
4.7
0.6
48.1
24.1
27.1
6.8
1
11
19 Quincy
8,763
31.8
24.5
3.1
12.2
1.5
35.3
17.7
38.2
9.6
29
20 Leominster
1.5
33.2
16.6
30.8
7.7
Office
of Accountability,
Planning2.4
and Technology
6,114
28.2 19.1
11.8
Sample district AYP history table
Sample District – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) History
Grades 3-5
Grades 6-8
ELA
Grades 9-12
All Grades
Combined
Grades 3-5
Grades 6-8
MATH
Grades 9-12
All Grades
Combined
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All subgroups
2003
Yes
Yes
2004
Yes
Yes
2005
Yes
No
2006
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All Subgroups
Aggregate
All subgroups
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Accountability Status
No Status
Identified for
Improvement Subgroups
50
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Nine districts identified for
corrective action – aggregate
Everett
Holbrook
Holyoke
Lawrence
Leominster
Lynn
New Bedford
Somerville
Springfield
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
52
Twenty-seven districts identified
for corrective action - subgroups
Amherst
Greenfield
Pittsfield
Boston
Haverhill
Plymouth
Bridgewater-Raynham
Lowell
Revere
BROCKTON
Ludlow
Salem
Chicopee
Malden
Southbridge
Fall River
Marlborough
Wareham
Falmouth
Medford
Westfield
Gardner
Methuen
Woburn
Gloucester
Peabody
Worcester
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
53
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Statewide percent of all schools
not making AYP in ELA or Math
AGGREGATE
24.9%
SUBGROUPS
Limited English Proficient
Special Education
57.0%
62.8%
Low Income
African-American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
51.8%
46.7%
14.6%
54.3%
White
14.6%
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
55
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data - Massachusetts
School Accountability Status
SCHOOL Accountability Status
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total Schools: 1792
#
#
#
#
#
#
%
Restructuring - Aggregate
--
--
24
30
60
77
4.3
Corrective Action - Aggregate
--
38
28
37
49
25
1.4
208
168
128
131
208
201
11.2
Subtotal - Aggregate 208
206
180
198
317
303
16.9
--
114
6.4
Identified for Improvement Aggregate
Restructuring - Subgroups
--
--
--
Corrective Action - Subgroups
--
--
--
--
139
92
5.1
Identified for Improvement Subgroups
--
--
193
222
174
165
9.2
193
222
313
371
20.7
373
420
630
674
37.6
Subtotal - Subgroups
Total 208
206
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data Massachusetts School Accountability Status
SCHOOL Accountability Status
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total Schools: 1792
#
#
#
#
#
#
%
Restructuring – Aggregate
--
--
24
30
60
77
4.3
Corrective Action – Aggregate
--
38
28
37
49
25
1.4
Identified for Improvement –
Aggregate
208
168
128
131
208
201
11.2
Subtotal – Aggregate
208
206
180
198
317
303
16.9
Restructuring – Subgroups
--
--
--
--
114
6.4
Corrective Action – Subgroups
--
--
--
--
139
92
5.1
Identified for Improvement –
Subgroups
--
--
193
222
174
165
9.2
193
222
313
371
20.7
373
420
630
674
37.6
Subtotal – Subgroups
Total
208
206
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data Massachusetts School Accountability Status
SCHOOL Accountability Status
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total Schools: 1792
#
#
#
#
#
#
%
Restructuring – Aggregate
--
--
24
30
60
77
4.3
Corrective Action – Aggregate
--
38
28
37
49
25
1.4
Identified for Improvement –
Aggregate
208
168
128
131
208
201
11.2
Subtotal – Aggregate
208
206
180
198
317
303
16.9
Restructuring – Subgroups
--
--
--
--
114
6.4
Corrective Action – Subgroups
--
--
--
--
139
92
5.1
Identified for Improvement –
Subgroups
--
--
193
222
174
165
9.2
193
222
313
371
20.7
373
420
630
674
37.6
Subtotal – Subgroups
Total
208
206
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data Massachusetts School Accountability Status
SCHOOL Accountability Status
Total Schools: 1792
Brockton
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
#
#
#
#
#
#
%
Restructuring – Aggregate
1
--
--
24
30
60
77
4.3
Corrective Action – Aggregate
1
--
38
28
37
49
25
1.4
Identified for Improvement –
Aggregate
8
208
168
128
131
208
201
11.2
10
208
206
180
198
317
303
16.9
Restructuring – Subgroups
4
--
--
--
--
114
6.4
Corrective Action – Subgroups
3
--
--
--
--
139
92
5.1
Identified for Improvement –
Subgroups
2
--
--
193
222
174
165
9.2
Subtotal – Subgroups
9
193
222
313
371
20.7
373
420
630
674
37.6
Subtotal – Aggregate
Total
19
208
206
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Sample 2007 School AYP Report – Detailed Data
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
ELA Status
ELA AYP
Aggregate
ELA AYP
Subgroups
2007 Math
Status
Math AYP
Aggregate
Math AYP
Subgroups
Angelo
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Arnone
I-A2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Ashfield
I-A1
No
No
I-A1
No
No
Belmont Street
I-A2
No
No
CA-A
No
No
Brookfield
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Davis
I-A1
No
No
No Status
No
No
Downey
I-A2
No
No
1-S1
Yes
No
Franklin
I-A1
Yes
Yes
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Hancock
I-A2
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Huntington
CA-A
No
No
I-A2
Yes
Yes
Kennedy
I-A2
No
No
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Plouffe
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Raymond
I-S2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Whitman
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
East Junior High
CA-S
Yes
Yes
R-S1
Yes
No
North Junior High
CA-S
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
South Middle School
I-S2
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
No Status
No
No
R-A1
No
No
CA-S
No
No
R-S1
No
No
West Junior High
Brockton High School
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
ELA Status
ELA AYP
Aggregate
ELA AYP
Subgroups
2007 Math
Status
Math AYP
Aggreg-ate
Math AYP
Subgroups
Angelo
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Arnone
I-A2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Ashfield
I-A1
No
No
I-A1
No
No
Belmont Street
I-A2
No
No
CA-A
No
No
Brookfield
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Davis
I-A1
No
No
No Status
No
No
Downey
I-A2
No
No
1-S1
Yes
No
Franklin
I-A1
Yes
Yes
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Hancock
I-A2
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Huntington
CA-A
No
No
I-A2
Yes
Yes
Kennedy
I-A2
No
No
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Plouffe
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Raymond
I-S2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Whitman
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
East Junior High
CA-S
Yes
Yes
R-S1
Yes
No
North Junior High
CA-S
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
South Middle School
I-S2
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
No Status
No
No
R-A1
No
No
CA-S
No
No
R-S1
No
No
West Junior High
Brockton High School
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
ELA Status
ELA AYP
Aggregate
ELA AYP
Subgroups
2007 Math
Status
Math AYP
Aggreg-ate
Math AYP
Subgroups
Angelo
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Arnone
I-A2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Ashfield
I-A1
No
No
I-A1
No
No
Belmont Street
I-A2
No
No
CA-A
No
No
Brookfield
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Davis
I-A1
No
No
No Status
No
No
Downey
I-A2
No
No
1-S1
Yes
No
Franklin
I-A1
Yes
Yes
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Hancock
I-A2
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
Huntington
CA-A
No
No
I-A2
Yes
Yes
Kennedy
I-A2
No
No
I-A1
Yes
Yes
Plouffe
I-S2
Yes
No
I-S2
Yes
No
Raymond
I-S2
No
No
CA-S
No
No
Whitman
I-A1
Yes
Yes
No Status
Yes
Yes
East Junior High
CA-S
Yes
Yes
R-S1
Yes
No
North Junior High
CA-S
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
South Middle School
I-S2
Yes
No
R-S1
Yes
No
No Status
No
No
R-A1
No
No
CA-S
No
No
R-S1
No
No
West Junior High
Brockton High School
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Sample 2007 School AYP Report – Summary Data
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
ELA
Performance
Angelo
Moderate
Arnone
Moderate
Ashfield
Moderate
Belmont
Very Low
BHS
High
Brookfield Moderate
Davis
Moderate
District
Moderate
Downey
Low
East
Moderate
Franklin
High
Gilmore
High
Hancock
High
Huntington Low
Kennedy
Moderate
North
High
Plouffe
Moderate
Raymond
Moderate
South
Moderate
West
High
Whitman
Moderate
Improvement
On Target
No Change
Declined
Declined
No Change
On Target
No Change
Improved Below Target
Declined
Above Target
On Target
On Target
On Target
No Change
No Change
Above Target
On Target
Declined
On Target
No Change
On Target
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Math
Performance
Moderate
Low
Low
Very Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Very Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Very Low
Moderate
Very Low
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Moderate
Improvement
Above Target
No Change
No Change
Declined
No Change
On Target
No Change
On Target
Above Target
On Target
Above Target
On Target
On Target
On Target
On Target
On Target
On Target
No Change
Above Target
Improved Below Target
On Target
Brockton Public Schools' Performance vs State Targets for
ELA and Mathematics
100
100.0
95.1
90.2
90
92.2
85.4
84.3
80.5
80
77.0
75.6
70.7
76.5
74.4
73.2
74.6
74.1
70
68.7
75.6
67.9
60.8
60
55.6
50
59.6
58.6
53.0
ELA-targets
56.3
BPS
Math-targets
51.1
BPS
Cycle II
Cycle III
Cycle IV
Cycle V
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
Cycle VI
Cycle VII
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
40
Cycle VIII
66
END
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
67
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
68
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
69
2006 ELA CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS
90
83.4
85
80
74.5
75.2
BROCKTON
Lynn
72.4
Fall River
Lowell
69.8
Worcester
68.8
Boston
65
68.3
Springfield
70
69.5
73.5
New Bedford
75
63.9
60
55
50
45
STATE
Lawrence
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
70
90
2006 MATHEMATICS CPI FOR LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS
85
80
75
73.3
70
65
58.0
58.2
Worcester
Boston
47.0
54.4
Fall River
50
54.0
Lowell
55
58.0
New Bedford
60
59.6
61.8
48.4
45
STATE
Lynn
BROCKTON
Springfield
Lawrence
Office of Accountability, Planning and Technology
71