minneapolis public schools
DESCRIPTION
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Instructional Core. Adapted from Harvard University PELP Framework. MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Dependencies Alignment of current district resources and personnel Collaboration among district departments - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Instructional Core
Adapted from Harvard University PELP Framework
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Dependencies
Alignment of current district resources and personnel
Collaboration among district departments
Securing and sustaining grants, external funding, and partnerships
Policy development and implementation
Contract negotiations
Academic Achievement – Conceptual Framework
Bernadeia Johnson
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Recommendations
Increase access to quality early childhood school programs and services
Implement programs to support students’ transition from elementary to middle; middle to high; high to post-secondary
Develop sustainable K-12 reform: Common Characteristics of High Quality Schools (Middle School
Platform and Small Learning Communities) Professional Learning Communities Cross-Functional Teams Data-Driven Decision Making Formative Assessment
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Recommendations
Provide teachers and administrators with more strategies and training in classroom management
Develop professional relationships with other urban districts
Increase opportunities to communicate and build partnerships with parents and the community to extend expectations for learning
Review and determine alternative school needs
Increase accountability among departments, programs, and providers
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Recommendations
Engage parents and provide increased training and support
Continue to mobilize community resources
Increase and align support to improve behavior in schools
Build partnerships with parents and the community to communicate expectations for behavior
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2006 AYP Updates
New tests (MCA-II) aligned with
Minnesota academic standards New Standards/Achievement Levels New Score Scale New Processes (TEAE reading substituting for the MCA-II
reading for ELL students)
2006 AYP Updates
The AYP calculation includes: MCA-II and TEAE results from Grades 3-8, 10 (Reading Only), and 11 (Math Only).
Special Ed includes: expanded Special Ed sometimes called Special Ed+2 years.
Adjustments: Because of the new tests, new standards, and new processes, MDE will adjust the index points in the three previous school years and re-calculate the safe-harbor and averaging targets.
New Achievement Levels & AYP index points
The results of the MCA-II will be placed into
FOUR LEVELS:
Does not Meet the Standards (Level D) 0 pts
Partially Meet the Standards (Level P) ½ pt
Meets the Standards (Level M) 1 pt
Exceeds the Standards (Level E) 1 pt
New Score Scale
An Example: MCA & MCA-II Scale Score Comparison for 11th Grade Math
560
760
960
1160
1360
1560
1760
1960
2160
2360
1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200
2006 MCA-II Scale Score
2005
MCA
Sca
le S
core
1420 = Proficiency in 2005 (Below the Partially Meet the Standard in 2006)
1510 = Partially Meet the Standard on 11th Grade Math in 2006 (1140 on MCA-II)
1650 =Meets the Standard on 11th Grade Math in 2006 (1150 on MCA-II)
2006 AYP Test Participation Rates for Minneapolis Public Schools
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
AYP P
art
icip
ati
on R
ate
s
Reading 98.7% 99.4% 98.6% 98.7% 99.6% 98.9% 98.6% 98.8% 99.0%
Mathematics 97.2% 99.7% 99.3% 98.6% 99.4% 99.4% 98.2% 98.7% 99.0%
Native Am.
Asian HispanicAfrican
Am.White LEP
Spec. Educ.
F/ R Price Lunch
All Students
AYP Proficiency: 2006 District Results
Groups Reading Math
All Students Safe Harbor Safe Harbor - Averaging
Native American/Alaskan Native Below Target Below Target
Asian/Pacific Islander Met Target Safe Harbor - Averaging
Hispanic Met Target Safe Harbor - Averaging
African American Safe Harbor - Averaging Below Target
White Met Target Met Target
Limited English Proficient Met Target Safe Harbor - Averaging
Special Education Below Target Below Target
Free/Reduced Priced Lunch Safe Harbor Safe Harbor - Averaging
2006 AYP Attendance Rates: District Results
The District made Adequate Yearly Progress on attendance (92.29%) in 2006 based on the 2004-05 attendance rate for the All Students group.
Native American and Special Education categories had an attendance rate below the AYP requirement (90%).
2004 - 2006 AYP Attendance Rates by NCLB Subgroups (Minneapolis)
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
AYP A
tten
dan
ce R
ates
2004 AYP 88.4% 94.7% 92.4% 90.9% 94.1% 93.6% 89.7% 91.5% 92.4%
2005 AYP 87.8% 95.1% 92.8% 91.4% 94.8% 94.0% 90.5% 92.3% 92.8%
2006 AYP 87.2% 94.7% 92.7% 90.5% 94.6% 93.6% 89.8% 91.2% 92.3%
Native American
Asian HispanicAfrican
AmericanWhite LEP (ELL)
Special Educ.
F/ R Priced Lunch
All Students
2005 AYP Graduation Rates for Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS)
The AYP criterion requires districts and high schools to have an average graduation rate of 80% or show an acceptable improvement (.1%) from the previous year (2003-04).
AYP status on graduation rate is only based on the All Students group at the school or district except when safe harbor rule is applied.
Based on 2004-05 graduation rates, the district and five of the seven high schools made the AYP graduation rate criterion in 2006.
2004 - 2006 AYP Graduation Rates for MPS & its Seven High Schools
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AYP G
raduati
on R
ate
s
2004 AYP 62.0% 75.2% 72.3% 64.2% 89.0% 80.9% 86.9% 76.1% 52.8%
2005 AYP 71.1% 77.7% 78.7% 67.0% 84.7% 80.6% 85.7% 78.4% 54.5%
2006 AYP 60.9% 74.5% 79.5% 71.7% 94.1% 85.8% 86.1% 79.6% 60.7%
Edison Henry North Roosevelt South Southwest WashburnSeven High
Schools
Total District
2004 - 2006 AYP Graduation Rates by NCLB Subgroups (Minneapolis)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AYP G
raduati
on R
ate
s
2004 AYP 33.1% 70.8% 20.2% 49.6% 73.3% 51.1% 44.2% 52.6% 52.8%
2005 AYP 39.9% 71.3% 23.8% 50.0% 77.8% 46.6% 48.3% 53.0% 54.5%
2006 AYP 38.0% 71.5% 31.3% 54.7% 85.4% 51.8% 47.0% 56.0% 60.7%
Native American
Asian HispanicAfrican
AmericanWhite LEP (ELL)
Special Educ.
F/ R Priced Lunch
All Students
2006 District AYP Summary
School Type Made AYP
Did Not make AYP
Total % of Schools
Making AYP
In 2006
% of Schools
Making AYP
In 2005
% of Schools
Making AYP
In 2004
Elementary
Schools
23 7 30 76.7% 89.5% 50.0%
K-8 & 6-8 8 21 29 27.6% 63.3% 16.1%
High Schools 0 7 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
District Alternatives
2 4 6 33.3% 14.3% 16.7%
Contract
Alternatives
3 16 19 15.8% 45.5% 29.2%
Total 36 55 91 39.6% 61.5% 29.8%
2006 AYP Data Correction Summary
Over 5,000 records with data corrected and over 400 Alternate Assessments were entered.
12 schools made AYP after data correction.
2 more schools made AYP after further data investigation.
14 schools that did not make AYP reviewed their data in details.
2006 AYP Appeal Summary
The MDE re-calculated the 1% Cap calculation based on the tested population enrollment.
The Alternate Assessment Waiver impact analyses showed that it costs more than benefits the District by applying the waiver.
Based upon further data investigation and evidence, the District has filed appeal for 9 schools 1 Elementary 4 K-8 or 6-8 2 Public Alternatives 2 Contract Alternatives
When will the final reports be available?
The District will receive the final test and AYP results on November 14 from the MDE.
November 15 is the official date for the State release of the data to the public.
The Individual Student Report (ISR) (Parents Copy) will be in paper format.
MDE will put all the school reports (including ISR – School Copy) in a CD, so school results will be delivered electronically.
MCA individual data will be put on the OCR web sit by Friday Sept. 29th
Q & A
Thank You!
Are there any questions?