1	CMT/CAPT 2007 CMT Score Presentation Karen List Chip Ward September 18, 2007
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10	Performance vs. Board Goals 90% at proficient Met in Math (90%) and Writing (90%) Close in Reading (85%) 78% at goal Close in all 3 – 75% 36% at advanced Met in Math (38%) 28% in Reading, 32% in Writing
11	Performance vs. Board Goals Improvement in percent of black/Hispanic and F/R lunch students at advanced Little growth – averaging around 13% at advanced
12	Plans for Improvement Goal levels established for and communicated to each school Flexibility in plan requirements based on school performance Central office staff providing assistance and feedback on the plans
13	CMT Summary Excellent improvement from last year Strong Cohort growth Comparable performance to DRG B adjusted for demographics Growth to Goal level will require higher performance from underperforming groups Successful 06-07 Improvement model will continue in 07-08
14
15	CAPT Results
16
17
18
19
20
21
22	Performance vs. Board Goals 90% at proficient Met in Reading (90%) and Writing (92%) Close in Math (88%) 66% at goal Met in Reading (66%) and Writing (71%) Math needs improvement (60%) 36% at advanced Met in Reading (39%) 31% in Math, 34% in Writing
23	Performance vs. Board Goals Improvement in percent of black/Hispanic and F/R lunch students at advanced Little growth – averaging around 8% at advanced
24	Plans for Improvement Goal levels established for and communicated to each school Flexibility in plan requirements based on school performance Central office staff providing assistance and feedback on the plans
25	CAPT Summary Good improvement from last year Higher performance than DRG B adjusted for demographics Growth to Goal level will require higher performance from underperforming groups Successful 06-07 Improvement model will continue in 07-08
26
27	Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Presentation Karen List Chip Ward September 18, 2007
28	AYP requirements Must pass up to 37 different tests 95% participation – whole school and up to 8 subgroups – math and reading ~70% proficient – whole school and up to 8 subgroups – math and reading Writing test (Elementary and Middle) Graduation rate (High School)
29	2007 Results KP and Hall did not make AYP – subgroup in math and reading Charter Oak, Smith and Sedgwick made AYP after not making it last year District did not make AYP
30	2007 Consequences KP – update improvement plan Hall – None, consequences begin after 2 years in row of not making AYP Charter Oak, Smith and Sedgwick – clocks get reset
31	2007 Consequences District – Year 3 of “In need of improvement” NCLB letter to all parents Revise District Improvement Plan Incorporate a corrective action as directed by the state
32	Looking ahead to 2008 Standards go up about 10 percentage points More schools/districts will not make AYP 5 more schools in WH will not make AYP under current performance New standards will be reflected in school improvement plans
33