october%19,2015 % 7:00

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day.

ESAC Agenda October 19, 2015 ECC Room 213 7:00-‐9:00

1. Welcome, Introductions, and Committee Purpose

2. Approval of March 2015 meeting minutes

3. Member Reports

4. Spring 2015 AP test results summary

5. Spring 2015 MCA test results summary

6. Minnesota Department of Education Assessment Requirement changes for 2015-‐16


ESAC Meeting Notes March 9, 2015 Members present: Adam McDonald, Becky Melville, Emily Wallace-‐Jackson, Erin Sheehan, Jim Hebeisen, Julie Norman, Karen Kreienbrink, Kris Newcomer, Molly Braun, Zhining Chin, Diane Schimelpfenig Guest presenters: Ben Friesen, Technology Integration Specialist, and Becky Allen, Staff Development Coordinator 1. Approval of meeting minutes: Minutes for the February ESAC minutes were approved. 2. Member reports:

• Hopkins High School has been busy with a number of activities, including:

o MCA test preparation; this preparation will also be helpful as juniors take the ACT test in April.

o DECA competition o Basketball tournament participation for both boys and girls

teams • North Junior High completed its IB authorization visit. The staff

worked extremely hard in preparation, and the visitors seemed very interested and pleased. Authorization is awarded through IB international, and we hope to receive word soon. WJH also completed its IB visit this week.

• NJH students also performed the musical, “Suessical the Musical” to a packed house.

• We have approximately 150 student registered for our Juntos program for the upcoming school year. Students from our own district, along with students from St. Louis Park, Eden Prairie, and Robbinsdale are seeking out the program.

2


• This is National Youth Art Month, and a wonderful display of Hopkins student K-‐12 art is at the Hopkins Center for the Arts. The display will be available through the “Empty Bowls” event.

• XinXing Academy celebrated Chinese New Year with approximately 1500 in attendance!

• The Hopkins Legislative Action Committee, along with Dr. Schultz, visited the State Capitol this week to share our District priorities with area legislators. Thanks to the LAC for their ongoing advocacy!

• Students from Gatewood and Tanglen participated successfully in MathMasters.

• Gatewood Elementary also conducted its silent auction, for the benefit of our students.

3. Digital Content in Hopkins – Ben Friesen, Technology Integration

Specialist

Ben reminded us that our focus in Hopkins remains on student learning and engagement. Our technology tools are an important means in reaching that goal for all students. Ben reviewed our use of iPads in grades 7-‐9, the current rollout in grade 6, and the plans for Chromebooks as one-‐to-‐one devices for all students in grades 10-‐12. We then participated in a lesson, using iPads, in which we created a product and turned it in to Ben. Our experience reminded us of the creative nature of this work; the high degree of engagement involved for our students; and our how our own adult perspectives and experiences in school may either enhance or inhibit our use of new technology tools. Ben was a terrific teacher, and we all completed his assignment!

4. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive (CLR) Teaching and Learning –

Becky Allen, Hopkins Staff Development Coordinator

Please see the attached PowerPoint .pdf for presentation notes.

3

!

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day.!

5. ESAC in 2015-‐2016

We are delighted to continue with Karen Kreienbrink as our ESAC chairperson. Her work has been invaluable in creating meaningful agendas for our attention. Thanks to Karen for her time, knowledge, and perspectives!

We anticipate meeting five times during the 2015-‐2016 school year. Specific dates will be sent out later this spring, along with an invitation for all current ESAC members to continue on our committee! Meetings next year will be in: o October o November o January o February o March

The meeting adjourned at 9:00pm.


Report to the Schoo l Board AP Exam Results Summary Oc tobe r 1 , 2 015 R epo r t p r epa r ed b y J ohn S amm le r , Ad van ced S t ud i e s Coo rd i n a t o r a nd K a r en T e rhaa r , D i r e c t o r o f T e a ch i n g and L e a rn i n g

Overview This report provides the Board with information about Advanced Placement (AP) at Hopkins High School and the results of the AP exam taken in spring 2015. Primary Issues to Consider Students taking AP courses in Hopkins High School The scores students received in 2015 on AP exams Supporting Documents The full report begins on the next page.

2 Report to the School Board AP Exam Results Summary

October 1, 2015


Advanced Placement at Hopkins High School During the 2014-‐2015 school year, Hopkins High School offered 18 different Advanced Placement (AP) courses to students. Each of these courses connects to a nationally recognized AP curriculum for that subject. Students have the option of taking an AP exam in May to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject and potentially earn college credit for this coursework. Hopkins AP teachers receive training on how to offer AP courses and curricula that meet national curricular guidelines and best prepare students for the AP exam. Additionally, four Hopkins High School AP teachers were asked to be an AP Reader. This invitation is considered an honor and difficult to receive, as these individuals grade the total set of exams for their subject area for that year. In addition, one Hopkins AP teacher was invited this summer to offer workshops in their subject area to future teachers of this subject around the country. Hopkins School District’s relationship with the AP Program has been multifaceted and robust for many years now, including 2015. In May of 2015, 565 students from Hopkins High School took at least one AP exam. This represents approximately 34.3% of the total school population for that year. A total of 923 exams were administered to Hopkins students. This relates to an average of 1.63 exams taken per student. The passing rate (a score of 3 or higher) was 67%. Overall scores for Hopkins were and continue to be well above the state and global average for all exams administered in 2015. Exams were taken in a total of 24 curricular areas, 18 of which are courses offered at Hopkins High School. Some students also prepared independently for AP exams in subjects where we do offer coursework as well as in curricular subjects for which we do not offer coursework. Students who take multiple exams over their years in school, and receive scores of 3 or higher on these exams, can earn a recognition award for their excellence on AP exams they have taken. After the 2015 AP exam administration, 71 students received recognition of AP Scholar, 35 students received the recognition of AP Scholar with Honors, 46 students received the recognition of AP Scholar with Distinction, and 10 students received the recognition of National AP Scholar. Different tiers of awards are based on

3 Report to the School Board AP Exam Results Summary October 1, 2015

Excellence. Every School. Every Student. Every Day

the number of exams the student has taken over their school career, the individual score on exams, and the average score for all exams taken. Enrollment in AP courses at Hopkins High School is open access. This means that any student wishing to take an AP course is allowed to take the course if they choose. There are no barriers to enrollment in any class. There are suggested prerequisites for some courses to help give the student the best opportunity to succeed in the AP course in which they enroll. However, students are open to enroll in the course if they so choose. Therefore, the students taking the courses and AP exams are varied with a wide variety of experience and preparation. The goal of this practice is to give all students the chance to excel and push their learning experience to the highest level and push them toward college readiness. The table below shows the number of students scoring at each level, 1-‐5 for students who enrolled in an AP course at Hopkins High School and took the corresponding exam. A score of 3-‐5 may earn a student college credit.

Score of 5 Score of 4 Score of 3 Score of 2 Score of 1

145 209 247 147 137 Below we see results for students who independently prepared for AP exams for any subject and did not take an AP course in the subject matter offered by Hopkins High School.

Score of 5 Score of 4 Score of 3 Score of 2 Score of 1

7 6 5 12 8


Report to the Schoo l Board 2015 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) Results Oc tobe r 1 , 2 015 Repo r t p r epa r ed b y K a r en T e rhaa r , D i r e c t o r o f T e a ch i n g & L e a rn i n g and K a th r yn O ’Go rman , A s s e s smen t Coo rd i n a to r

Overview This report provides the School Board with information about the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and the 2015 results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. We have also provided the ways in which these results are used to improve student instruction. Primary Issues to Consider

• Student Proficiency Overall and by Grade Level - MCA Reading Results - MCA Math Results - MCA Science Results

• Proficiency Comparisons by District • Proficiency by Student Mobility • Proficiency by Student Group • Use of MCA Results for Instructional Improvement • Future Considerations in Statewide Assessment

- Meeting Assessment Requirements

Supporting Documents • MCA supporting figures • Minnesota Statewide Testing Program

2 Report to the School Board

2015 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Results October 1, 2015


Introduction of Test Instruments

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments are given to public school students in Minnesota as an accountability measure mandated by the Minnesota Department of Education, in order to meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Some Special Education students (approximately 50 in Hopkins) take an alternate assessment, called the Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS). This report contains results for MCA only. The tests are administered in the spring. Students in grades 3-‐8 take both the reading and mathematics tests, students in grade 10 take the reading test, and students in grade 11 take the math test. The MCA science test is given to students in grades 5, 8, and to high school biology students. The reading and mathematics tests are used to determine whether schools and districts have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Science results are not used for AYP determinations. Important context for the 2015 MCA tests:

• Reading results for 2015 reflect the third year in which the assessments were based on more rigorous state standards.

• Students in grades 3-‐8 have been tested with the more rigorous math standards (MCAIII) since 2011; however, high school students have been tested with the MCAIII only since 2014.

• Students have been taking the MCAIII Science online since 2012. • 2015 was the first year that the MCA-‐Modified (MOD) Reading and

Math was not available to Special Education students in Grades 5-‐11. Those approximately 70-‐80 students who would have qualified to take the MOD in previous years were tested with the regular MCA in 2015.

• Students in all tested grade levels took the MCAs online in 2015. Unlike the other grade levels, 2015 was the first year for online administration of the MCA Reading and Math at high school.

3 Report to the School Board 2015 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Results October 1, 2015


MCA Student Proficiency Overall and by Grade Level In reading, Hopkins students in most grade levels performed better than the State overall. In Mathematics, most grade levels were either very close to or exceeded proficiency levels statewide. In Science, proficiency was lower than the state. MCA Reading Results (Figures 1 and 2) The overall reading proficiency rate (all grades combined) for Hopkins students is 2 percentage points higher than that of the state. Every grade level in Hopkins from grades 4 to 8 and grade 10 performed better than students statewide or achieved at comparable levels (as was true in the past). Grade 3 was the exception, with Hopkins’ proficiency about 1 percentage point lower than that of the state in 2015 and about 5 percentage points lower than in 2014. While statewide, grade 10 proficiency dropped from 2014 to 2015, the drop was sharper for Hopkins. Nonetheless, Hopkins grade 10 proficiency was still almost 4 percentage points higher than the state in 2015. MCA Math Results (Figures 3 and 4) The overall math proficiency rate (all grades combined) for Hopkins students is close to that for the state as a whole (about 1 percentage point lower). Hopkins math proficiency is mixed by grade level. Proficiency rates are higher than the state in grades 6, 7 and 11. Proficiency is comparable in grade 4 and 5. In grades 3 and 8, proficiency is lower than for the state, which is different from last year. Proficiency rates for Hopkins students dropped from 2014 to 2015 at every grade except grade 4. This follows a pattern of more modest drops statewide. MCA Science Results (Figures 5 and 6) The overall science proficiency rate (all grades combined) for Hopkins students is about 2 percentage points lower than that for the state as a whole. As in the past, student proficiency in Hopkins High School is higher than that of high schoolers statewide. Student proficiency in grade 8 is very comparable with the state (.5 percentage points lower). Grade 5 performance is almost 5 percentage points lower than that of the state.




This gap is similar to the gap at grade 5 between Hopkins and the state in 2014. Proficiency Comparisons by District (Figures 7 -‐ 9) Included is a comparison of Hopkins MCA results with districts that are either geographically or demographically similar. Three years of comparison data are provided for reading and science; only two years are provided for math since the MCAIII has only been administered at all grades since 2014. When compared to districts with similar populations, such as Bloomington, Burnsville, St. Louis Park and Robbinsdale, our results in MCA Reading and Math are consistently higher or very similar. Science results are similar to the state and above a number of comparable districts. Proficiency by Student Mobility (Figures 10 -‐ 12) Results indicate that students continuously enrolled in our schools tend to perform higher in all assessed areas than those who are not. It is important to note that the vast majority of Hopkins students stay in the same school all year. The number of students tested who were not enrolled in the same school on October 1 is a rather small number of students for Hopkins (approximately 120 students for reading and math, under 40 for science). Proficiency by Student Group (Figures 13 -‐ 15) As we analyze student MCA results for instructional purposes, we consider the following student groups: American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Special Education, English Learners (EL), and those students who qualify for Free/Reduced Price Lunch. It is important to note that with some student groups, such as American Indian, the cell size is too small to report. While our district continues to have ongoing achievement gaps between some groups of students, we found the following data to be encouraging:

• All student group results from the MCA Reading test had higher or comparable rates of proficiency than that of the State, other than our Free/Reduced Price Lunch eligible students and EL students.

• Math shows similar results, with Hispanic students also somewhat lower than the state.

5 Report to the School Board 2015 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Results October 1, 2015


• Science results were lower than the state for groups other than Asian and White students.

Use of MCA Results for Instructional Improvement We use our MCA student results in multiple ways. These include:

• Review and analysis of strengths and weaknesses in our curriculum and instruction. For example, during the past three years we have implemented more standardized time requirements at the elementary level for science instruction. We look forward to seeing a positive change in test results in the future.

• Implementation of focused professional development in the areas tested where results demonstrate that need.

• Review at school data retreats, to inform the creation of school QComp goals, strategic planning, and site professional development planning.

• Inclusion with other student achievement information, such as common formative assessments, curriculum-‐based assessments, and MAP tests, to inform instructional decisions by teachers.

• Focused discussions in Professional Learning Communities by teachers.

• Informing Response to Intervention (RtI) models at both the elementary and secondary levels.

• Involvement of principals, District curriculum coordinators, literacy and math coaches, and departmental leaders, focused on the needs of individual learners, student groups, and school populations.

Meeting State Assessment Requirements A number of changes took place this year with State-‐Required Assessments. Below are the required assessments for 2015-‐16:

• MCA Reading – grades 3-‐8, and 10 • MCA Math – grades 3-‐8, and 11 • MCA Science – grades 5, 8, and high school • ACCESS tests for English Learners in all grades: speaking,

listening, reading, writing • MTAS for identified students with Special Education needs




The requirements for students first enrolled in grade 8 in 2012–2013 and later have been revised based on current legislation:

• These students are no longer required to participate in the series of Career and College Assessments.

• Districts must provide students the opportunity to participate in a national college entrance exam during the school day. The college entrance exam is not provided through a statewide administration from MDE. Hopkins School District will provide the ACT to all juniors in April of 2016.

• All students must be offered the opportunity but are not required to participate. MDE will no longer be tracking graduation assessment requirements for students first enrolled in grade 8 in 2012–2013 or later (likely grade 11 students) through MDE systems.

• The GRAD tests are no longer a requirement for high school graduation.

All grades grade 3 grade 4 grade 5 grade 6 grade 7 grade 8 grade 10

Hopkins Reading 2015 61.4 57.5 59.1 66.6 67.6 62.3 56.7 60.6

State Reading 2015 59.4 58.7 57.9 66.7 63.8 55.6 56 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 1: MCA 2015 READING Proficiency by Grade Hopkins vs State


Hopkins Reading 2014 63.6 62.2 56 70.8 68.2 59.8 60.1 69.1

State Reading 2014 59.1 58.1 54.9 67.7 61 56 55.7 60.1

Hopkins Reading 2015 61.4 57.5 59.1 66.6 67.6 62.3 56.7 60.6

State Reading 2015 59.4 58.7 57.9 66.7 63.8 55.6 56 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100P

erce

nt

of

Stu

den

ts P

rofi

cien

t

Figure 2: MCA 2014 and 2015 READING Proficiency by Grade Hopkins vs State


Hopkins Math 2015 59 66.8 70.3 59.3 61 56.4 51.9 50.5

State Math 2015 60.2 70.9 70 59.7 57.6 55.1 57.8 48.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

Pro

fici

en

t Figure 3: MCA 2015 MATH Proficiency by Grade

Hopkins vs State


Hopkins Math 2014 63.7 72.5 67.8 65.2 66.5 57.1 58 61.1

State Math 2014 61.4 71.8 70.2 61.8 57.1 57.1 59.7 50.6

Hopkins Math 2015 59 66.8 70.3 59.3 61 56.4 51.9 50.5

State Math 2015 60.2 70.9 70 59.7 57.6 55.1 57.8 48.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 4: MCA 2014 and 2015 MATH Proficiency by Grade Hopkins vs State

All grades grade 5 grade 8 high school

Hopkins Science 2015 51.1 54.4 44.8 55.1

State Science 2015 53 59.1 45.3 54.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

en

ts P

rofi

cien

t Figure 5: MCA 2015 SCIENCE Proficiency by Grade

Hopkins vs State

All grades grade 5 grade 8 high school

Hopkins Science 2014 53.8 57.3 47.1 57.3

State Science 2014 53.2 61.3 45 53.2

Hopkins Science 2015 51.1 54.4 44.8 55.1

State Science 2015 53 59.1 45.3 54.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 6: MCA 2014 and 2015 SCIENCE Proficiency by Grade Hopkins vs State

ROBBINSDALE

BURNSVILLE

StateBLOOMING

TONST. LOUIS

PARKHOPKINS

EDENPRAIRIE

EDINA WAYZATAMINNETON

KA

Reading 2013 49.67 53.40 57.80 60.10 63.38 63.40 72.01 80.95 78.15 80.23

Reading 2014 48.98 53.85 59.05 58.61 64.24 63.59 72.83 80.45 80.36 79.87

Reading 2015 47.8 53.9 59.4 60.6 60.8 61.4 72.8 80.1 80.3 81.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 7: MCA 2013 - 2015 READING Proficiency by Districts Rank Ordered by 2015 Results (Combined Grades 3 -8 and 10)

ROBBINSDALE

BURNSVILLE

WEST ST.PAUL

HOPKINSBLOOMINGTON

ST. LOUISPARK

NORTHST PAUL

StateEDEN

PRAIRIEMINNET

ONKAEDINA

WAYZATA

Math 2014 44.70 53.58 53.65 63.68 60.66 61.03 61.18 61.37 72.27 80.84 81.87 81.89

Math 2015 41.3 50.7 58.7 59 59.9 59.9 60 60.2 71.3 80.6 80.6 82.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 8: MCA 2014 and 2015 MATH Proficiency by Districts Rank Ordered by 2015 Results

(Combined Grades 3 - 8 and 11)

Only 2 years of MCA-III data for all grades

ROBBINSDALE

BURNSVILLEST. LOUIS

PARKHOPKINS State

BLOOMINGTON

EDENPRAIRIE

EDINAMINNETON

KAWAYZATA

Science 2013 40.4 47.3 43.5 51.4 52.1 54 65.5 68.2 77.7 75.5

Science 2014 40.30 50.40 50.90 53.80 53.20 51.50 62.50 71.70 79.20 77.50

Science 2015 38 47.5 47.8 51.1 53 55.1 65.6 71.9 77.4 78.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 9: MCA 2013 - 2015 SCIENCE Proficiency by Districts Ranked Ordered by 2015 Results

(Combined Grades 5, 8, and HS Biology)

Reading 2015 Reading 2015

Hopkins State

All students 61.4 59.4

Same School Oct 1 62.1 60.5

Different School Oct 1 38.7 33.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 10: MCA 2015 READING Proficiency by Student Mobility (Combined Grades 3 - 8 and 10)

Hopkins vs State

Math 2015 Math 2015

Hopkins State

All Students 59 60.2



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

en

ts P

rofi

cien

t Figure 11: MCA 2015 MATH Proficiency by Student Mobility

(Combined Grades 3 - 8 and 11) Hopkins vs State

Science 2015 Science 2015

Hopkins State

All Students 51.1 53



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 12: MCA 2015 SCIENCE Proficiency by Student Mobility (Combined Grades 5, 8, and HS Biology)

Hopkins vs State

Asian Hispanic Black White Spec Ed ELFRP Lunch

Eligible

Hopkins Reading 2015 62 35 37 76 28 12 37

State Reading 2015 54 36 34 67 25 15 40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 13: MCA 2015 READING Proficiency by Student Group (Combined Grades 3 - 8 and 10)

Hopkins vs State


Eligible

Hopkins Math 2015 66 33 33 74 30 16 34

State Math 2015 59 36 31 68 26 22 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 14: MCA 2015 MATH Proficiency by Student Group (Combined Grades 3 - 8 and 11)

Hopkins vs State


Eligible

Hopkins Science 2015 51 22 22 67 22 5 24

State Science 2015 46 27 24 62 23 9 32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t o

f St

ud

ents

Pro

fici

ent

Figure 15: MCA 2015 SCIENCE Proficiency by Student Group (Combined Grades 5, 8, and HS Biology)

Hopkins vs State

Minnesota Assessment System and Requirements Changes 2014–2017

Assessments Provided by MDE The following table provides an overview of the assessments that were provided in 2014–2015 and planned to be provided in the next two years by MDE based on changes in legislation and funding. View the 2015 Minnesota Session Laws Final Engrossment (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2015&type=1&doctype=Chapter&id=3).

School Year 2014–2015 Assessments

2015–2016 Assessments

2016–2017 Assessments

Standards-‐Based Accountability Assessments

MCA OR

MTAS

Reading grades 3–8, 10; mathematics grades 3–8, 11; science grades 5,

8, and HS

MCA OR

MTAS

Reading grades 3–8, 10; mathematics grades 3–8, 11; science grades 5, 8,

and HS

MCA OR

MTAS

Reading grades 3–8, 10; mathematics grades 3–8, 11; science grades 5,

8, and HS Standards-‐Based

Minnesota Assessment

None None High School Writing TBD

English Language Proficiency Assessments

ACCESS for ELLs OR

Alternate ACCESS for ELLs

ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 OR


ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 OR


Graduation Assessments

(see next table for requirements)

GRAD Retests ACT Explore ACT Plan

ACT Compass ACT Plus Writing

None None

Optional Assessments

Grades 3–8 Mathematics OLPA Grade 3–8 and 10 Reading OLPA

Grades 3–8 and 11 Mathematics OLPA Grade 3–8 and 10 Reading OLPA

None

Optional Resources Perspective WriteToLearn

None None

Minnesota Assessment System and Requirements Changes 2014–2017

Meeting State Graduation Assessment Requirements

This table outlines the requirements for meeting graduation assessment requirements based on when students first enrolled in grade 8. The requirements for students first enrolled in grade 8 in 2012–2013 and later have been revised based on current legislation:

• These students are no longer required to participate in the series of Career and College Assessments. • Districts must provide students the opportunity to participate in a national college entrance exam during the

school day. The college entrance exam is not provided through a statewide administration from MDE. • All students must be offered the opportunity but are not required to participate. MDE will no longer be tracking

graduation assessment requirements for students first enrolled in grade 8 in 2012–2013 or later through MDE systems.

First Enrolled in Grade 8 in 2010–2011 or Earlier

(Likely students older than grade

12 in school year 2015–2016)

First Enrolled in Grade 8 in 2011–2012

(Likely grade 12 student in

school year 2015–2016)

First Enrolled in Grade 8 in 2012–2013 and Later

(Likely grade 11 student and

younger in school year 2015–2016) Meet requirements through any combination of the three options

below as long as met in each subject (writing, reading, and mathematics):

Meet or have met graduation assessment requirements through GRAD by: achieving proficiency on

high school Standards-Based Accountability Assessments; passing

GRAD retests; and/or meeting GRAD alternate routes*

OR Take or have taken ACT/ WorkKeys/ACT Compass/

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)

OR Have or receive score on equivalent

assessment (district determined)

Took the grade 11 ACT plus Writing during the statewide administration in 2014–2015 to meet requirements

in writing, reading, and mathematics.

If unable to participate in the grade

11 ACT Plus Writing statewide administration or receive a valid score in each subject, meet the

graduation assessment requirements in each subject

through any combination of the options outlined in the first column.

Be provided the opportunity to participate in a district-provided

college entrance exam in grade 11 or grade 12

* GRAD alternate routes refers to mathematics alternate pathway (only for students first enrolled in grade 8 through 2009–2010), individual passing score, EL exemption, and pass other state (reciprocity).