Transcript Slide 1

2006-2007
School Report Card
ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS REPORT:
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE,
AND GRADUATION RATE
For GREENVILLE CSD
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
 Indicates satisfactory progress by a district
or a school toward the goal of proficiency
for all students
Participation Rate
Elementary-Middle Level
 40 or more students in an accountability
group
 95% of students enrolled must have valid
scores on an appropriate assessment
Participation Rate
Secondary Level
 40 or more students in an accountability
group
 95% of seniors must take the appropriate
assessment by June of their senior year
Performance Index (PI)
 A value from 0 to 200 assigned to an
accountability group
 Indicates how that group performed on a
required State test
Measuring Performance
 At the elementary and middle levels, performance
measured using assessments in ELA, math, and science
 At the secondary level, performance measured using
assessments in ELA and math, and graduation rate
 Assessment performance is defined by four levels:
Level 1 = Not meeting learning standards
Level 2 = Partially meeting learning standards
Level 3 = Meeting learning standards
Level 4 = Meeting learning standards
with distinction
Effective Annual Measurable
Objectives
 The lowest performance index that an
accountability group is expected to achieve
 If an accountability group’s performance
index equals or exceeds the Effective AMO,
AYP has been reached
Greenville Central School District
OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT PERFORMANCE IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, AND
SCIENCE
Elementary/Middle-Level
English Language Arts
AYP
Participation
Test Performance
Performance Objectives
Status
Merit
Criterion
Percentage
Tested
Merit
Criterion
Performance
Index
Effective
AMO
a
a
100%
a
156
118
a
a
100%
a
157
118
Students with Disabilities (115:113)
a
a
99%
X
94
112
Economically Disadvantaged (165:160)
a
a
100%
a
131
114
Final AYP Determination
a
4 of 4
Student Group
All Students (623:610)
Safe Harbor Target
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
Ethnicity
White (601:591)
Other Groups
108
105
GCS Compared to NYS Public- 3-5 ELA
Percentage of Students Scoring at 3 and 4 in ELA
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GCS
NYS
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
GCS
NYS
Grade 3
64%
69%
Grade 4
63%
69%
Grade 5
71%
67%
GCS Compared to NYS Public- 6-8 ELA
Percentage of Students Scoring at 3 and 4 in ELA
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GCS
NYS
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
GCS
NYS
Grade 6
55%
60%
Grade 7
58%
56%
Grade 8
66%
49%
Elementary/Middle-Level
Mathematics
AYP
Participation
Test Performance
Performance Objectives
Status
Merit
Criterion
Percentage
Tested
Merit
Criterion
Performance
Index
Effective
AMO
a
a
99%
a
163
82
a
a
99%
a
164
81
Students with Disabilities (115:109)
a
a
97%
a
106
76
Economically Disadvantaged (158-156)
a
a
100%
a
147
78
Final AYP Determination
a
4 of 4
Student Group
All Students (617:600)
Ethnicity
White (598:581)
Other Groups
Safe Harbor Target
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
GCS Compared to NYS Public
3-5 Mathematics
P ercentage o f Students Sco ring at 3 and 4 in M athematics
GCS
NYS
Grade 3
81%
78%
Grade 4
82%
68%
Grade 5
73%
60%
100
90
80
70
60
GCS
50
NYS
40
30
20
10
0
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
GCS Compared to NYS Public
6-8 Mathematics
Percentage of Students Scoring at 3 and 4 in Mathematics
100
90
80
70
60
50
GCS
40
NYS
30
20
10
0
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
GCS
NYS
Grade 6
65%
60%
Grade 7
74%
56%
Grade 8
43%
54%
Elementary/Middle-Level
Science
AYP
Student Group
All Students (209:205)
Participation
Test Performance
Performance Objectives
Safe Harbor
Qualification
Met
Criterion
Percentage
Tested
Merit
Criterion
Performance
Index
Effective
AMO
Qualified
a
100%
a
192
100
Qualified
a
100%
a
192
100
-
-
-
a
181
100
Qualified
a
100%
a
183
100
a
1 of 1
Ethnicity
White (205:201)
Other Groups
Students with Disabilities (38:37)
Economically Disadvantaged (42:42)
Final AYP Determination
Safe Harbor Target
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
GCS Compared to NYS Public
4 and 8 Science
Percentage of Students Scoring at 3 and 4 in Science
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GCS
NYS
Grade 4
Grade 8
GCS
NYS
Grade 4
98%
86%
Grade 8
88%
64%
Secondary-Level English Language Arts
AYP
Participation
Test Performance
Performance Objectives
Status
Merit
Criterion
Percentage
Tested
Merit
Criterion
Performance
Index
Effective
AMO
a
a
99%
a
169
143
a
a
99%
a
169
143
Students with Disabilities (16:16)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Economically Disadvantaged (7:8)
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
2 of 2
Student Group
All Students (82:75)
Ethnicity
White (79:72)
Other Groups
Final AYP Determination
Safe Harbor Target
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
GCS Compared to NYS Public
Secondary ELA
GCS
Percentage of Students Scoring at 3 and 4 in ELA
100
90
80
70
60
GCS
50
NYS
40
30
20
10
0
2002 Cohort
2001 Cohort
NYS
2002 Cohort
71%
69%
2001 Cohort
71%
68%
Secondary-Level Mathematics
AYP
Participation
Test Performance
Performance Objectives
Status
Merit
Criterion
Percentage
Tested
Merit
Criterion
Performance
Index
Effective
AMO
a
a
98%
a
183
135
a
a
97%
a
183
135
Students with Disabilities (16:16)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Economically Disadvantaged (7:8)
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
2 of 2
Student Group
All Students (82:75)
Ethnicity
White (79:72)
Other Groups
Final AYP Determination
Safe Harbor Target
2005 - 06
2006 - 07
GCS Compared to NYS Public
Secondary Mathematics
GCS
P ercentage o f Students Sco ring at 3 and 4 in
M athematics
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GCS
NYS
2002 Cohort
2001 Cohort
NYS
2002 Cohort
80%
71%
2001 Cohort
85%
67%
GCS Compared to NYS Public
Secondary Graduation Rate
2002 Cohort Graduation Rate
GCS
2002 Cohort
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002 Cohort
GCS
NYS
78%
NYS
55%
Greenville Central School District
Summary
Elementary/Middle
Level
Science
English
Language
Arts
Mathematics
Graduation
Rate
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Students with Disabilities
a
a
-
-
Economically Disadvantaged
a
a
-
-
4 of 4
4 of 4
2 of 2
2 of 2
Student Group
All Students
English
Language
Arts
Mathematics
a
Secondary Level
Ethnicity
White
Other Groups
Student Groups Making AYP in each
subject
1 of 1
1 of 1
Greenville CSD
Receives Special Recognition
 GCSD-Title I High Performing, Gap Closing
District, May 2007
 Leading New York forward to accomplish
dual goal of increasing student
achievement while closing the gap in
student performance
Greenville CSD
Future Implications
 K-12 Curriculum Alignment
 Professional development concerning
research based instruction