The New York State District Report Card

The New York State District WILLIAMSON CENTRAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT
District Report Card

District ID 65-14-02-04-0000
Superintendent MARIA EHRESMAN
Telephone (315) 589-9661
Grades PK-12
Accountability
and Overview Report
2007 – 08
This District’s Report Card

The New York State District Report Card is an important part of Use this report to:
the Board of Regents effort to raise learning standards for all students.
It provides information to the public on the district’s status and
the status of schools within the district under the State and federal
1

Get District
Profile information.
This section shows comprehensive
accountability systems, on student performance, and on other data relevant to this district’s
measures of school and district performance. Knowledge gained learning environment.
from the report card on a school district’s strengths and weaknesses

can be used to improve instruction and services to students. 2 Review District
Accountability Status.
This section indicates whether
a district made adequate yearly
State assessments are designed to help ensure that all progress (AYP) and identifies districts
students reach high learning standards. They show whether in need of improvement and subject
students are getting the knowledge and skills they need to interventions under the federal
No Child Left Behind Act as well as
to succeed at the elementary, middle, and commencement districts requiring academic progress
levels and beyond. The State requires that students who are not and subject to interventions under
making appropriate progress toward the standards receive Commissioner’s Regulations.
academic intervention services.
3
View School
Accountability Status.
This section lists all schools in your
district by 2008–09 accountability status.
4

Review an Overview
of District Performance.
This section has information about
the district’s performance on state
assessments in English, mathematics,
For more information: and science, and on high school
Office of Information and Reporting Services graduation rate.
New York State Education Department
Room 863 EBA
Albany, NY 12234
Email: rptcard@mail.nysed.gov
March 10, 2009 Page 1

1 District Profile
District WILLIAMSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT District ID 65-14-02-04-0000
District Profile
This section shows comprehensive data relevant to this school district’s
learning environment, including information about enrollment, average
class size, and teacher qualifications.
Enrollment Enrollment
2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 Information
Pre-K 16 28 44 Enrollment counts are as of Basic Educational
Kindergarten 83 103 73 Data System (BEDS) day, which is typically
the first Wednesday of October of the school
Grade 1 77 68 87
year. Students who attend BOCES programs
Grade 2 92 78 67 on a part-time basis are included in a district’s
enrollment. Students who attend BOCES on
Grade 3 92 85 79
a full-time basis or who are placed full time
Grade 4 92 92 82 by the district in an out-of-district placement
Grade 5 94 91 95 are not included in a district’s enrollment.
Students classified by districts as “pre-first”
Grade 6 103 88 96
are included in first grade counts.
Ungraded Elementary 0 0 0
Grade 7 111 106 87
Grade 8 110 106 110
Grade 9 111 115 117
Grade 10 117 97 102
Grade 11 98 113 90
Grade 12 107 99 106
Ungraded Secondary 0 0 0
Total K–12 1287 1241 1191
Average Class Size Average Class Size

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 Information
Common Branch 17 18 17
Average Class Size is the total registration
Grade 8 in specified classes divided by the number
of those classes with registration. Common
English 21 20 15
Branch refers to self-contained classes in
Mathematics 20 20 19 Grades 1–6.
Science 20 19 20
Social Studies 21 19 20
Grade 10
English 20 18 14
Mathematics 19 12
Science 19 16 17
Social Studies 20 20 16

1 District Profile
Demographic Factors Demographic Factors

Information
2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 Eligible for Free Lunch and Reduced-Price
Lunch percentages are determined by dividing
# % # % # %
the number of approved lunch applicants
Eligible for Free Lunch 186 14% 203 16% 190 16%
by the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS)
Reduced-Price Lunch 131 10% 131 11% 127 11% enrollment in full-day Kindergarten through
Grade 12. Eligible for Free Lunch and Limited
Student Stability* N/A N/A N/A
English Proficient counts are used to determine
Limited English Proficient 21 2% 21 2% 13 1% Similar Schools groupings within a Need/Resource
Racial/Ethnic Origin Capacity category.
American Indian or Alaska Native 7 1% 6 0% 6 1%
Black or African American 73 6% 67 5% 62 5%
Hispanic or Latino 50 4% 56 5% 52 4%
Asian or Native 8 1% 8 1% 12 1%
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
White 1149 89% 1104 89% 1059 89%
Multiracial** N/A N/A 0 0% 0 0%
* Available only at the school level. Attendance

and Suspensions
** Multiracial enrollment data were not collected statewide in the 2005-06 school year.
Attendance and Suspensions Information

Annual Attendance Rate is determined by dividing
the school district’s total actual attendance
by the total possible attendance for a school year.
2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 A district’s actual attendance is the sum of
the number of students in attendance on each
# % # % # %
day the district’s schools were open during
Annual Attendance Rate 96% 96% 96%
the school year. Possible attendance is the sum
Student Suspensions 80 6% 58 5% 66 5% of the number of enrolled students who should
have been in attendance on each day schools
were open during the school year. Student
Suspension rate is determined by dividing
the number of students who were suspended
from school (not including in-school suspensions)
for one full day or longer anytime during
the school year by the Basic Educational Data
System (BEDS) day enrollments for that school
year. A student is counted only once, regardless
of whether the student was suspended one
or more times during the school year.

1 District Profile
Teacher Qualifications Teacher Qualifications

Information
2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 The Percent Teaching Out of Certification is the
percent doing so more than on an incidental basis;
Total Number of Teachers 122 118 125
that is, the percent teaching for more than five
Percent with No Valid 0% 2% 0% periods per week outside certification.
Teaching Certificate
Percent Teaching Out 1% 4% 2%
of Certification Core Classes are primarily K-6 common branch,
Percent with Fewer Than
2% 7% 10%
English, mathematics, science, social studies, art,
Three Years of Experience music, and foreign languages. The number of K-6
Percentage with Master’s Degree 13% 10% 11% common branch core classes is multiplied by five so
Plus 30 Hours or Doctorate that these core class counts are weighted the same
Total Number of Core Classes 514 351 417 as counts for middle- and secondary-level teachers
who report five classes per day. To be Highly
Percent Not Taught by
Highly Qualified Teachers
1% 4% 1% Qualified, a teacher must have at least a Bachelor’s
degree, be certified to teach in the subject area, and
Total Number of Classes 540 558 559
show subject matter competency.
Percent Taught by Teachers Without
1% 3% 1%
Appropriate Certification
Teacher Turnover Rate Teacher Turnover Rate

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07
Information
Teacher Turnover Rate for a specified school year
Turnover Rate of Teachers with Fewer 11% 31% 29%
is the number of teachers in that school year who
than Five Years of Experience
were not teaching in the following school year
Turnover Rate of All Teachers 10% 14% 13% divided by the number of teachers in the specified
school year, expressed as a percentage.
Staff Counts Staff Counts

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 Information
Total Other Professional Staff 14 15 15
Other Professionals includes administrators,
Total Paraprofessionals* 50 52 57 guidance counselors, school nurses, psychologists,
and other professionals who devote more than half
Assistant Principals 2 2 1
of their time to non-teaching duties. Teachers who
Principals 3 3 3 are shared between buildings within a district are
* Not available at the school level. reported on the district report only.

2 District Accountability
Understanding How Accountability

Works in New York State
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that states develop and report on measures of student
proficiency in 1) English language arts (ELA), in 2) mathematics, and on 3) a third indicator. In New York
State in 2007–08, the third indicator is science at the elementary/middle level and graduation rate at english
language arts
the secondary level. Schools or districts that meet predefined goals on these measures are making Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP).
For more information about accountability in New York State,
visit: www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/home.shtml. mathematics third indicator
1 English Language Arts (ELA)

To make AYP in ELA, every accountability group must make AYP. For a group to make AYP, it must meet the participation
and the performance criteria.
A Participation Criterion B Performance Criterion
At the elementary/middle level, 95 percent of Grades 3–8
At the elementary/middle level, the Performance Index (PI)
students enrolled during the test administration period in
of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled tested
each group with 40 or more students must be tested on the
students must equal or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable
New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) in ELA or, if appropriate,
Objective (AMO) or the group must make Safe Harbor. (NYSESLAT
the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement
is used only for participation.) At the secondary level, the PI of
Test (NYSESLAT), or the New York State Alternate Assessment
each group in the 2004 cohort with 30 or more members must
(NYSAA) in ELA. At the secondary level, 95 percent of seniors in
equal or exceed its Effective AMO or the group must make Safe
2007–08 in each accountability group with 40 or more students
Harbor. To make Safe Harbor, the PI of the group must equal or
must have taken an English examination that meets the
exceed its Safe Harbor Target and the group must qualify for Safe
students’ graduation requirement.
Harbor using the third indicator, science or graduation rate.
2 Mathematics
The same criteria for making AYP in ELA apply to mathematics. At the elementary/middle level, the measures used to determine
AYP are the NYSTP and the NYSAA in mathematics. At the secondary level, the measures are mathematics examinations that meet
the students’ graduation requirement.
3 Third Indicator
In addition to English language arts and mathematics, the school must also make AYP in a third area of achievement.
This means meeting the criteria in science at the elementary/middle level and the criteria in graduation rate at the secondary level.
Elementary/Middle-Level Science: To make AYP, the All Students group must meet the participation criterion and
the performance criterion.
A Participation Criterion B Performance Criterion

Eighty percent of students in Grades 4 and/or 8 enrolled The PI of the All Students group must equal
during the test administration period in the All Students or exceed the State Science Standard (100)
group, if it has 40 or more students, must be tested on an or the Science Progress Target.
accountability measure. In Grade 4, the measures are the Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Elementary/Middle-Level
Grade 4 elementary-level science test and the Grade 4 ELA and Math: To qualify, the PI must equal or exceed
NYSAA in science. In Grade 8 science, the measures are the State Science Standard or the Science Progress Target
the Grade 8 middle-level science test, Regents science in elementary/middle-level science for that group.
examinations, and the Grade 8 NYSAA in science.
Secondary-Level Graduation Rate: For a school to make AYP in graduation rate, the percent of students in the 2003 graduation-rate
total cohort in the All Students group earning a high school diploma by August 31, 2007 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate
Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target.
Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Secondary-Level ELA and Math: To qualify, the percent of the 2003 graduation-rate total cohort earning a local diploma
by August 31, 2007 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for that group.

Useful Terms for Understanding Accountability

Accountability Cohort for English Graduation-Rate Total Cohort
and Mathematics This term is defined on the graduation-rate accountability page.
The 2004 school accountability cohort consists of all students Performance Index (PI)
who first entered Grade 9 anywhere in the 2004–05 school Performance Index is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an
year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a
their seventeenth birthday in the 2004–05 school year, required State test (or approved alternative) in English language
who were enrolled on October 3, 2007 and did not transfer arts, mathematics, or science. Student scores on the tests are
to a diploma granting program. Students who earned a high converted to four performance levels, from Level 1 to Level 4.
school equivalency diploma or were enrolled in an approved (See performance level definitions on the Overview Summary
high school equivalency preparation program on June 30, 2008, page.) At the elementary/middle level, the PI is calculated using
are not included in the 2004 school accountability cohort. The the following equation:
2004 district accountability cohort consists of all students in 100 × [(Count of Continuously Enrolled Tested Students
each school accountability cohort plus students who transferred Performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3
within the district after BEDS day plus students who were placed and 4) ÷ Count of All Continuously Enrolled Tested Students]
outside the district by the Committee on Special Education or
district administrators and who met the other requirements for At the secondary level, the PI is calculated using
cohort membership. Cohort is defined in Section 100.2 (p) (16) the following equation:
of the Commissioner’s Regulations. 100 × [(Count of Cohort Members Performing at
Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ Count of
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) All Cohort Members]
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicates satisfactory progress
A list of tests used to measure student performance for
by a district or a school toward the goal of proficiency for all
accountability is available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.
students.
Progress Target
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) For accountability groups below the State Standard in science
The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the Performance
or graduation rate, the Progress Target is an alternate method
Index (PI) value that signifies that an accountability group is
for making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or qualifying for Safe
making satisfactory progress toward the goal that 100 percent
Harbor in English language arts and mathematics based on
of students will be proficient in the State’s learning standards
improvement over the previous year’s performance.
for English language arts and mathematics by 2013–14. The
AMO’s for each grade level will be increased as specified in Safe Harbor
CR100.2(p)(14) and will reach 200 in 2013–14. (See Effective Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to demonstrate
AMO for further information.) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for accountability groups that
do not achieve their Effective Annual Measurable Objectives
Continuously Enrolled Students
(AMOs) in English or mathematics.
At the elementary/middle level, continuously enrolled students
are those enrolled in the school or district on BEDS day (usually Safe Harbor Targets
the first Wednesday in October) of the school year until the test The 2007–08 safe harbor targets were calculated using
administration period. At the secondary level, all students who the following equation:
meet the criteria for inclusion in the accountability cohort are 2006–07 PI + (200 – the 2006–07 PI) × 0.10
considered to be continuously enrolled.
Science Progress Target
Effective Annual Measurable Objective The elementary/middle-level 2007–08 Science Progress
(Effective AMO) Target is calculated by adding one point to the 2006–07 PI.
The Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) The 2008–09 Science Progress Target is calculated by adding
is the Performance Index (PI) value that each accountability one point to the 2007–08 PI. The 2007–08 target is provided
group within a school or district is expected to achieve to for groups whose PI was below the State Science Standard
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The Effective AMO is in 2007–08.
the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can
Science Standard
achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered
The criterion value that represents a minimally satisfactory
significantly different from the AMO for that subject. If an
performance in science. In 2007–08, the State Science Standard
accountability group’s PI equals or exceeds the Effective AMO,
at the elementary/middle level is a Performance Index (PI) of
it is considered to have made AYP. A more complete definition
100. The Commissioner may raise the State Science Standard
of Effective AMO and a table showing the PI values that each
at his discretion in future years.
group size must equal or exceed to make AYP are available
at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Understanding Your District Accountability Status

The list below defines the district status categories applied to each accountability measure under New York State’s district
accountability system, which is divided into a Federal Title I component and a State component. Accountability measures for districts
are English language arts (ELA), mathematics, elementary/middle-level science, and graduation rate. A district may be assigned
a different status for different accountability measures. The overall status of a district is the status assigned to the district for
the accountability measure with the most advanced designation in the hierarchy. If the district receives Title I funds, it is the most
advanced designation in the Title I hierarchy, unless the district is in good standing under Title I but identified as DRAP under
the State hierarchy. A district that does not receive Title I funding in a school year does not have a federal status in that year; however,
all districts receive a state status even if they do not receive Title I funding. Consequences for districts not in good standing can be
found at: www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/school-accountability/about.shtml.
Federal Title I Status New York State Status

(Applies to all New York State districts receiving Title I funds) (Applies to New York State districts)
District in Good Standing
A district is considered to be in good standing if it has not been identified as a District in Need of Improvement
or a District Requiring Academic Progress.
District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)
A district that has not made AYP for two consecutive years A district that has not made AYP on the same accountability
on the same accountability measure is considered a District measure for two consecutive years is considered a District Requiring
in Need of Improvement (Year 1) for the following year, if it Academic Progress (Year 1) for the following year.
continues to receive Title I funds.
A District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) that does not A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) that does not
make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified
identified is considered a District in Need of Improvement is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) for
(Year 2) for the following year, if it continues to receive the following year.
Title I funds.
Title I funds.
Title I funds.
District in Need of Improvement (Year 5 and above) District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 and above)
A District in Need of Improvement (Year 4 and above) A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 4 and above) that
that does not make AYP on the accountability measure does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was
for which it was identified is considered a District in Need identified is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress
of Improvement (Year 5 and above) for the following year, (Year 5 and above) for the following year.
if it continues to receive Title I funds.
Pending – A district’s status is “Pending” if the district requires special evaluation procedures and they have not yet been completed.

Summary
Overall Accountability Good Standing

Status (2008–09) ELA Good Standing Science Good Standing
Math Good Standing Graduation Rate Good Standing
Title I Part A Funding Years the District Received Title I Part A Funding
2006–07 2007–08 2008–09
YES YES YES
On which accountability measures did this district make Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) and which groups made AYP on each measure?
Elementary/Middle Level Secondary Level
English English
Student Groups Language Arts Mathematics Science Language Arts Mathematics Graduation Rate
All Students ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native – – – –
Black or African American ✔ – – –
Hispanic or Latino – – – –
Asian or Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander – –
White ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Multiracial
Other Groups
Students with Disabilities ✔SH ✔ – –
Limited English Proficient – – – –
Economically Disadvantaged ✔ ✔ – –
Student groups making

AYP in each subject ✔ 5 of 5 ✔ 4 of 4 ✔ 1 of 1 ✔ 2 of 2 ✔ 2 of 2 ✔ 1 of 1
Accountability Status Levels

Federal State
AYP Status
Good Standing Good Standing
4 Made AYP Improvement (Year 1) Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1)
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target Improvement (Year 2) Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2)
Improvement (Year 3) Requiring Academic Progress (Year 3)
✘ Did Not Make AYP
Improvement (Year 4) Requiring Academic Progress (Year 4)
— Insufficient Number of Students
Improvement (Year 5 & Above) Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 & Above)
to Determine AYP Status
Pending – Requires Special Evaluation

Elementary/Middle-Level English Language Arts

Accountability Status Good Standing
for This Subject
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 5 of 5 Student groups making AYP in English language arts
✔ Made AYP
Prospective Status This district will be in good standing in 2009-10. [201]
How did students in each accountability group perform on

elementary/middle-level English language arts accountability measures?
AYP Participation2 Test Performance3 Performance Objectives
Student Group Met Percentage Met Performance Effective Safe Harbor Target
(Total: Continuous Enrollment)1 Status Criterion Tested Criterion Index AMO 2007–08 2008–09
All Students (539:534) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 178 128

Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native – – – – – – –
(3:3)
Black or African American ✔ – – ✔ 140 116

(30:30)
Hispanic or Latino (18:18) – – – – – – –
Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
– – – – – – –
Islander (6:6)
White (482:477) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 179 128
Multiracial (0:0)
Other Groups
Students with Disabilities4
(74:70) ✔SH ✔ 100% ✔SH 114 122 106 123
5
Limited English Proficient
(1:1) – – – – – – –
Economically Disadvantaged ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 164 124
(141:139)
Final AYP Determination ✔ 5 of 5
notes
1
These data show the count of students enrolled during the test administration period (used for Participation) followed
by the count of continuously enrolled tested students (used for Performance). For accountability calculations,
students who were excused from testing for medical reasons are not included in the enrollment count.
2
Groups with fewer than 40 students enrolled during the test administration period are not required to meet the
participation criterion. If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2007–08, the enrollment shown
is the sum of 2006–07 and 2007–08 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation
rates over those two years.
3
AYP Status For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2007–08, data
for 2006–07 and 2007–08 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously
4 Made AYP
enrolled students in the All Students group in 2007–08, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target 4
tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.
If the district failed to make AYP solely because of the performance of students with disabilities, met the 95%
✘ Did Not Make AYP participation requirement for this group, and would meet or exceed the AMO for this subject if 34 points were
— Insufficient Number of Students added to the PI, then the district is considered to have made AYP for students with disabilities.
5
to Determine AYP Status If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the
performance calculations.
‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.
Elementary/Middle-Level Mathematics
for This Subject
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 4 of 4 Student groups making AYP in mathematics
✔ Made AYP

elementary/middle-level mathematics accountability measures?
(Total: Continuous Enrollment)1 Status Criterion Tested Criterion Index AMO 2007–08 2008–09
All Students (537:530) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 185 97

Ethnicity
(3:3)
Black or African American – – – – – – –

(29:29)
– – – – – – –
Islander (5:5)
White (482:475) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 187 97
Multiracial (0:0)
Other Groups
Students with Disabilities4
(74:70) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 119 91
5
(1:1) – – – – – – –
Economically Disadvantaged ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 171 93
(141:139)
notes
1
2
participation criterion. If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2007–08, the enrollment shown
3
AYP Status For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2007–08, data
for 2006–07 and 2007–08 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously
4 Made AYP
enrolled students in the All Students group in 2007–08, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target 4
tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.
If the district failed to make AYP solely because of the performance of students with disabilities, met the 95%
✘ Did Not Make AYP participation requirement for this group, and would meet or exceed the AMO for this subject if 34 points were
— Insufficient Number of Students added to the PI, then the district is considered to have made AYP for students with disabilities.
5
to Determine AYP Status If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the
performance calculations.
‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.
Elementary/Middle-Level Science
for This Subject
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in science
✔ Made AYP

elementary/middle-level science accountability measures?

Student Group Safe Harbor Met Percentage Met Performance State Progress Target
1
(Total: Continuous Enrollment) Status Qualification Criterion Tested Criterion Index Standard 2007–08 2008–09
All Students (186:183) ✔ Qualified ✔ 99% ✔ 188 100
Ethnicity
(3:3)
Black or African American – – – – – – –
(8:8)
Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific – – – – – – –

Islander (2:2)
White (167:164) Qualified ✔ 99% ✔ 188 100
Multiracial (0:0)
Other Groups
Students with Disabilities
(27:25) – – – – – – –
4
(0:0)
Economically Disadvantaged Qualified ✔ 98% ✔ 175 100

(54:53)

notes
1
2
AYP Status participation criterion. If the participation rate of a group fell below 80 percent in 2007–08, the enrollment shown
4 Made AYP
3
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target Groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.
For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in 2007–08, data for 2006–07 and 2007–08
✘ Did Not Make AYP were combined to determine counts and performance indices.
4
— Insufficient Number of Students If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the
to Determine AYP Status performance calculations.

Secondary-Level English Language Arts

for This Subject
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 2 of 2 Student groups making AYP in English language arts
✔ Made AYP

secondary-level English language arts accountability measures?
(12th Graders: 2004 Cohort)1 Status Criterion Tested Criterion Index AMO 2007–08 2008–09
All Students (109:114) ✔ ✔ 99% ✔ 183 155

Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native
(1:1) – – – – – – –
Black or African American

– – – – – – –
(4:4)
Islander (0:0)
White (101:105) ✔ ✔ 99% ✔ 184 155
Multiracial (0:0)
Other Groups
(15:17) – – – – – – –
4
(0:1) – – – – – – –
Economically Disadvantaged – – – – – – –
(11:13)
notes
1
These data show the count of 12th graders in 2007–08 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students
in the 2004 cohort (used for Performance).
2
Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.
If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2007–08, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2006–07
AYP Status and 2007–08 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over
those two years.
4 Made AYP 3
For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2004 cohort, data for 2003 and 2004 cohort members were combined
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2004 cohort in the All Students group,
groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2004 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.
✘ Did Not Make AYP 4
If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the
— Insufficient Number of Students performance calculations.
to Determine AYP Status ‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.

Secondary-Level Mathematics
for This Subject
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 2 of 2 Student groups making AYP in mathematics
✔ Made AYP

secondary-level mathematics accountability measures?
(12th Graders: 2004 Cohort)1 Status Criterion Tested Criterion Index AMO 2007–08 2008–09
All Students (109:114) ✔ ✔ 99% ✔ 189 149

Ethnicity
(1:1) – – – – – – –
Black or African American

– – – – – – –
(4:4)
Islander (0:0)
White (101:105) ✔ ✔ 99% ✔ 190 149
Multiracial (0:0)
Other Groups
(15:17) – – – – – – –
4
(0:1) – – – – – – –
Economically Disadvantaged – – – – – – –
(11:13)
notes
1
These data show the count of 12th graders in 2007–08 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students
in the 2004 cohort (used for Performance).
2
Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.
If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2007–08, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2006–07
AYP Status and 2007–08 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over
those two years.
4 Made AYP 3
For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2004 cohort, data for 2003 and 2004 cohort members were combined
✔ SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2004 cohort in the All Students group,
groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2004 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.
✘ Did Not Make AYP 4
If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the
— Insufficient Number of Students performance calculations.
to Determine AYP Status ‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.

Graduation Rate
for This Indicator
(2008–09)
Accountability Measures 1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in graduation rate
✔ Made AYP
How did students in each accountability group perform

on graduation rate accountability measures? Graduation Rate
Graduation Objectives Information
Student Group Met Graduation State Progress Target For a school or a district to make AYP in graduation
(Cohort Count)1 AYP Criterion Rate2 Standard 2007–08 2008–09 rate, the percentage of 2003 graduation-rate total
All Students (107) ✔ ✔ 89% 55% cohort members earning a local or Regents diploma
by August 31, 2007 for the “All Students” group
Ethnicity must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard
American Indian or or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for 2007–08.
Alaska Native (0)
Black or African – – –
The Graduation Rate Standard is the criterion
American (6)
value that represents a minimally satisfactory
Hispanic or – – – percentage of cohort members earning a local
Latino (3) diploma. The State Graduation-Rate Standard for
Asian or Native the 2003 cohort is 55 percent. The Commissioner
Hawaiian/Other may raise the Graduation-Rate Standard at his
Pacific Islander (0) discretion in future years.
White (98) ✔ 91% 55%
Multiracial (0) The 2007–08 Graduation-Rate Progress Target

is calculated by adding one point to the percentage
Other Groups
of the 2002 cohort earning a local or Regents
Students with diploma by August 31, 2006. The 2008–09
Disabilities (18) – – – Graduation-Rate Progress Target is calculated
Limited English by adding one point to the percentage of the
Proficient3 (2) – – – 2003 cohort earning a local or Regents diploma
by August 31, 2007. This target is provided for
Economically
– – – each group whose percentage earning a local or
Disadvantaged (19)
Regents diploma by August 31, 2007 is below the
Final AYP Graduation-Rate Standard in 2007–08 (55%). Groups
Determination ✔ 1 of 1 with fewer than 30 cohort members
notes are not subject to this criterion.
1
Graduation-rate total cohort differs from the accountability cohort in that the graduation-rate
total cohort includes students who left school prior to BEDS day of the fourth year after first entering
grade 9 and students who enrolled after BEDS day of the fourth year after first entering grade 9.
2
Percentage of the 2003 cohort that earned a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2007.
3
If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included
in the performance calculations.

3 School Accountability Status
2008–09 Accountability Status of Schools in Your District

This section lists all schools in your district by 2008–09 accountability status.
Federal Title I Status New York State Status

Good Standing Good Standing
2 schools identified 67% of total 1 school identified 33% of total
WILLIAMSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILLIAMSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

WILLIAMSON MIDDLE SCHOOL

4 Overview of District Performance
Summary of 2007–08 About the Performance

Level Descriptors
District Performance Level 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards.
Performance on the State assessments in English language arts, mathematics, Student performance does not demonstrate an
and science at the elementary and middle levels is reported in terms of mean understanding of the content expected in the subject
scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above Level 2, and grade level.
Level 3, and Level 4. Performance on the State assessments in ELA and Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards.
mathematics at the secondary level is reported in terms of the percentage Student performance demonstrates a partial
of students in a cohort scoring at these levels. understanding of the content expected in the subject
and grade level.
Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance demonstrates an understanding
Percentage of students that Total of the content expected in the subject and grade level.
scored at or above Level 3 Tested
Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction.
Student performance demonstrates a thorough
English Language Arts 0% 50% 100%
understanding of the content expected in the subject
Grade 3 90% 78 and grade level.
Grade 4 81% 78 How are Need/Resource Capacity
Grade 5 86% 94 (N/RC) categories determined?
Grade 6 70% 91 Districts are divided into high, average, and low need
Grade 7 83% 87 categories based on their ability to meet the special
needs of their students with local resources. Districts in
Grade 8 67% 107 the high need category are subdivided into four categories
based on enrollment size and, in some cases, number
Mathematics of students per square mile. More information about
the categories can be found in the Report to the Governor
Grade 3 96% 78
and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State’s
Grade 4 91% 77 Schools at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.
Grade 5 94% 93 In this section, this district’s performance is compared
with that of public schools statewide.
Grade 6 74% 89
Grade 7 90% 87 This District’s N/RC Category:
Grade 8 85% 106 Average Need Districts
This is a school district with average student needs in
Science
relation to district resource capacity.
Grade 4 94% 77
Grade 8 87% 106
Percentage of students that 2004 Total

scored at or above Level 3 Cohort
Secondary Level 0% 50% 100%
English 85% 120
Mathematics 89% 120

This District's Results in Grade 3 English Language Arts

This District NY State Public
Percentage scoring at level(s): Percentage scoring at level(s):
2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 681 Range: 616–780 650–780 720–780*

2007 Mean Score: 685 100%
100% 99% 94% 91%
90%
80%
70% 67%
2007–08

2006–07 15% 19% 12% 10%
Number of Tested Students: 78 80 70 65 12 15
Results by
2007–08 School Year 2006–07 School Year
Total Percentage scoring at level(s): Total Percentage scoring at level(s):
Student Group Tested 2–4 3–4 4 Tested 2–4 3–4 4
All Students 78 100% 90% 15% 81 99% 80% 19%
Female 34 100% 91% 18% 41 100% 85% 15%
Male 44 100% 89% 14% 40 98% 75% 23%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 – – –
Black or African American 3 – – – 4 – – –
Hispanic or Latino 4 – – – 1 – – –
Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
White 71 100% 90% 15% 75 99% 81% 19%
Multiracial
Small Group Totals 7 100% 86% 14% 6 100% 67% 17%
General-Education Students 69 100% 93% 17% 76 100% 82% 20%
Students with Disabilities 9 100% 67% 0% 5 80% 60% 0%
English Proficient 77 – – – 81 99% 80% 19%
Limited English Proficient 1 – – –
Economically Disadvantaged 15 100% 87% 7% 28 100% 68% 11%
Not Disadvantaged 63 100% 90% 17% 53 98% 87% 23%
Migrant
Not Migrant 78 100% 90% 15% 81 99% 80% 19%
notes
The – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,
,
data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.
* Level 4 range is for 2007–08 only. The 2006–07 range is 730–780.
Other
Total Number scoring at level(s): Total Number scoring at level(s):
Assessments Tested 2–4 3–4 4 Tested 2–4 3–4 4
New York State Alternate Assessment

0 0
(NYSAA): Grade 3 Equivalent
New York State English as a Second

Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)†: 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A
Grade 3
† These counts represent recently arrived LEP students who used the NYSESLAT to fulfill the English language arts participation requirement.

This District's Results in Grade 3 Mathematics

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 695 Range: 624–770 650–770 703–770

2007 Mean Score: 691 100%
99% 100% 96% 95% 98% 96%
90% 85%
2007–08
24% 30% 26% 29%
2006–07
Results by
All Students 78 99% 96% 24% 82 100% 95% 30%
Female 34 100% 97% 26% 42 100% 95% 24%
Male 44 98% 95% 23% 40 100% 95% 38%
Pacific Islander
White 71 99% 96% 24% 75 100% 95% 31%
Multiracial
English Proficient 77 – – – 81 – – –
Limited English Proficient 1 – – – 1 – – –
Migrant 1 – – –
Not Migrant 78 99% 96% 24% 81 – – –
notes
,
Other

0 0


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 677 Range: 612–775 650–775 716–775

2007 Mean Score: 676 100%
97% 97% 93% 92%
81% 83%
71% 68%
2007–08

2006–07
6% 8% 8% 8%
Results by
All Students 78 97% 81% 6% 90 97% 83% 8%
Female 41 100% 83% 7% 40 98% 90% 8%
Male 37 95% 78% 5% 50 96% 78% 8%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 69 97% 84% 7% 85 96% 84% 8%
Multiracial
English Proficient 78 97% 81% 6% 90 97% 83% 8%
Migrant
Not Migrant 78 97% 81% 6% 90 97% 83% 8%
notes
,
Other

0 0

Grade 4


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 686 Range: 622–800 650–800 702–800

2007 Mean Score: 684 100%
97% 99% 91% 89% 95% 94%
84% 80%
2007–08
30% 29% 28%
2006–07 19%
Results by
All Students 77 97% 91% 19% 91 99% 89% 30%
Female 40 100% 93% 13% 40 98% 90% 25%
Male 37 95% 89% 27% 51 100% 88% 33%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 69 97% 93% 19% 86 99% 88% 29%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 77 97% 91% 19% 91 99% 89% 30%
notes
,
Other

0 0

This District's Results in Grade 4 Science

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 83 Range: 45–100 65–100 85–100

2007 Mean Score: 83 100%
100%100% 94% 95% 97% 97%
85% 85%
53% 54% 50% 49%

2007–08

2006–07
Results by
All Students 77 100% 94% 53% 92 100% 95% 54%
Female 40 100% 93% 48% 41 100% 90% 51%
Male 37 100% 95% 59% 51 100% 98% 57%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 69 100% 94% 54% 87 100% 94% 56%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 77 100% 94% 53% 92 100% 95% 54%
notes
,
Other

0 0


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 671 Range: 608–795 650–795 711–795

2007 Mean Score: 661 100%
100% 95% 98% 95%
86%
77% 78%
68%
2007–08

2006–07
4% 7% 6% 7%
Results by
All Students 94 100% 86% 4% 88 95% 77% 7%
Female 40 100% 90% 3% 40 95% 83% 8%
Male 54 100% 83% 6% 48 96% 73% 6%
2 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 87 100% 87% 5% 80 96% 79% 8%
Multiracial
English Proficient 94 100% 86% 4% 87 – – –
Migrant
Not Migrant 94 100% 86% 4% 88 95% 77% 7%
notes
,
Other

0 1 – – –

Grade 5


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 683 Range: 619–780 650–780 699–780

2007 Mean Score: 674 100%
100% 96% 94% 96% 94%
78% 83%
76%
2007–08
24% 22% 27% 22%
2006–07
Results by
All Students 93 100% 94% 24% 85 96% 78% 22%
Female 40 100% 93% 25% 38 97% 74% 16%
Male 53 100% 94% 23% 47 96% 81% 28%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 87 100% 94% 25% 77 99% 78% 25%
Multiracial
English Proficient 93 100% 94% 24% 84 – – –
Migrant
Not Migrant 93 100% 94% 24% 85 96% 78% 22%
notes
,
Other

0 3 – – –


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 660 Range: 598–785 650–785 705–785

2007 Mean Score: 667 100%
99% 100% 98% 98%
70% 73% 67% 63%
2007–08

2006–07
9% 5% 9%
2%
Results by
All Students 91 99% 70% 2% 89 100% 73% 9%
Female 41 98% 73% 0% 48 100% 77% 10%
Male 50 100% 68% 4% 41 100% 68% 7%
Black or African American 6 – – – 9 100% 67% 11%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 81 99% 73% 2% 74 100% 72% 9%
Multiracial
Not Migrant 91 99% 70% 2% 88 – – –
notes
,
Other

1 – – – 0

Grade 6


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 665 Range: 616–780 650–780 696–780

2007 Mean Score: 670 100%
93% 94% 94% 91%
74% 77% 79%
71%
2007–08
26% 20%
2006–07 15% 19%
Results by
All Students 89 93% 74% 15% 90 94% 77% 19%
Female 39 92% 77% 10% 47 98% 72% 17%
Male 50 94% 72% 18% 43 91% 81% 21%
Black or African American 6 – – – 9 67% 56% 11%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 79 96% 76% 16% 76 97% 79% 18%
Multiracial
Not Migrant 89 93% 74% 15% 89 – – –
notes
,
Other

3 – – – 0


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 671 Range: 600–790 650–790 712–790

2007 Mean Score: 660 100%
98% 95% 98% 94%
83%
68% 70%
58%
2007–08

2006–07
3% 7% 3% 6%
Results by
All Students 87 98% 83% 3% 106 95% 68% 7%
Female 42 100% 86% 2% 46 96% 78% 9%
Male 45 96% 80% 4% 60 95% 60% 5%
Hispanic or Latino 3 – – – 5 100% 100% 0%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 74 99% 84% 4% 94 95% 68% 7%
Multiracial
Not Migrant 87 98% 83% 3% 105 – – –
notes
,
Other

1 – – – 2 – – –

Grade 7


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 681 Range: 611–800 650–800 693–800

2007 Mean Score: 668 100%
98% 93% 96% 93%
90%
79% 79%
67%
2007–08
29% 28%
2006–07 18% 18%
Results by
All Students 87 98% 90% 29% 107 93% 79% 18%
Female 42 98% 90% 31% 47 96% 81% 21%
Male 45 98% 89% 27% 60 92% 78% 15%
Hispanic or Latino 3 – – – 5 100% 100% 20%
1 – – – 1 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 74 99% 93% 28% 95 95% 79% 18%
Multiracial
Not Migrant 87 98% 90% 29% 106 – – –
notes
,
Other

1 – – – 2 – – –


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 666 Range: 602–790 650–790 715–790

2007 Mean Score: 657 100%
97% 94% 95% 94%
67%
60% 56% 57%
2007–08

2006–07
6% 8% 6% 6%
Results by
All Students 107 97% 67% 6% 104 94% 60% 8%
Female 47 100% 81% 6% 44 95% 66% 7%
Male 60 95% 57% 5% 60 93% 55% 8%
Hispanic or Latino 5 100% 100% 0% 2 – – –
1 – – – 2 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 96 98% 66% 6% 91 95% 62% 9%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 107 97% 67% 6% 104 94% 60% 8%
notes
,
Other

2 – – – 2 – – –

Grade 8


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
2008 Mean Score: 670 Range: 616–775 650–775 701–775

2007 Mean Score: 657 100%
95% 90% 93% 88%
85%
70%
61% 59%
2007–08

2006–07 12% 11% 17% 12%
Results by
All Students 106 95% 85% 12% 103 90% 61% 11%
Female 46 100% 93% 11% 42 95% 55% 12%
Male 60 92% 78% 13% 61 87% 66% 10%
1 – – – 2 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 95 96% 84% 12% 88 92% 63% 10%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 106 95% 85% 12% 103 90% 61% 11%
notes
,
Other

2 – – – 2 – – –

This District's Results in Grade 8 Science

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
100%
97% 96% 95% 91%
87% 83%
73% 68%
50% 46%
2007–08
30% 28%
2006–07
Results by
All Students 106 97% 87% 50% 103 96% 83% 46%
Female 46 98% 87% 48% 43 95% 81% 40%
Male 60 97% 87% 52% 60 97% 85% 50%
1 – – – 2 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 95 98% 86% 47% 89 98% 87% 49%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 106 97% 87% 50% 103 96% 83% 46%
notes
,
Other

2 – – – 2 – – –
Regents Science 0 0

This District's Total Cohort* Results in Secondary-Level

English after Four Years of Instruction
2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
100%
88% 89% 85% 81% 80% 79% 75% 73%
35% 37% 30% 30%

2004 Cohort

2003 Cohort
Results by 2004 Cohort

Number Percentage scoring at level(s):
2003 Cohort**
Student Group of Students 2–4 3–4 4 of Students 2–4 3–4 4
All Students 120 88% 85% 35% 107 89% 81% 37%
Female 53 92% 89% 47% 58 93% 84% 48%
Male 67 85% 82% 25% 49 84% 78% 24%
Black or African American 5 80% 80% 40% 6 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 110 89% 85% 35% 98 92% 86% 40%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 120 88% 85% 35%
notes
Other 2004 Cohort

Number Number scoring at level(s):
2003 Cohort
Assessments of Students 2–4 3–4 4 of Students 2–4 3–4 4
0 0
(NYSAA): High School Equivalent ***
* A total cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 in a particular year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in that
year, and were enrolled in the school/district for five months. Students are excluded from the cohort if they transferred to another school district, nonpublic school, or criminal
justice facility, or left the U.S. and its territories or died before the report date. Statewide total cohort also includes students who were enrolled for fewer than five months.
** 2003 cohort data are those reported in the 2006-07 Accountability and Overview Report.
*** The majority of cohort members took an older version of the NYSAA, developed before 2007.

This District's Total Cohort* Results in Secondary-Level

Mathematics after Four Years of Instruction
2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4
100%
89% 92% 89% 89% 83% 81%
76% 74%
44%
36%
29% 26%
2004 Cohort

2003 Cohort
Results by 2004 Cohort

2003 Cohort**
Student Group of Students 2–4 3–4 4 of Students 2–4 3–4 4
All Students 120 89% 89% 44% 107 92% 89% 36%
Female 53 92% 92% 49% 58 93% 90% 33%
Male 67 87% 87% 40% 49 90% 88% 41%
Black or African American 5 80% 80% 20% 6 – – –
Pacific Islander
White 110 90% 90% 46% 98 94% 92% 38%
Multiracial
Migrant
Not Migrant 120 89% 89% 44%
notes
Other 2004 Cohort

2003 Cohort
Assessments of Students 2–4 3–4 4 of Students 2–4 3–4 4
0 0
(NYSAA): High School Equivalent ***
* A total cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 in a particular year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in that
year, and were enrolled in the school/district for five months. Students are excluded from the cohort if they transferred to another school district, nonpublic school, or criminal
justice facility, or left the U.S. and its territories or died before the report date. Statewide total cohort also includes students who were enrolled for fewer than five months.
** 2003 cohort data are those reported in the 2006-07 Accountability and Overview Report.
*** The majority of cohort members took an older version of the NYSAA, developed before 2007.

The New York State District Report Card

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The New York State District Report Card

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The New York State District WILLIAMSON CENTRAL SCHOOL

District Report Card

This District’s Report Card

from the report card on a school district’s strengths and weaknesses

academic intervention services.

March 10, 2009 Page 1

Grade 7 111 106 87

Grade 8 110 106 110

Grade 9 111 115 117

Grade 10 117 97 102

Grade 12 107 99 106

Total K–12 1287 1241 1191

Average Class Size Average Class Size

March 10, 2009 Page 2

Demographic Factors Demographic Factors

American Indian or Alaska Native 7 1% 6 0% 6 1%

Black or African American 73 6% 67 5% 62 5%

White 1149 89% 1104 89% 1059 89%

Multiracial** N/A N/A 0 0% 0 0%

* Available only at the school level. Attendance

Attendance and Suspensions Information

March 10, 2009 Page 3

Teacher Qualifications Teacher Qualifications

Teacher Turnover Rate Teacher Turnover Rate

Staff Counts Staff Counts

March 10, 2009 Page 4

Understanding How Accountability

1 English Language Arts (ELA)

A Participation Criterion B Performance Criterion

March 10, 2009 Page 5

Useful Terms for Understanding Accountability

March 10, 2009 Page 6

Understanding Your District Accountability Status

Federal Title I Status New York State Status

March 10, 2009 Page 7

Overall Accountability Good Standing

Math Good Standing Graduation Rate Good Standing

On which accountability measures did this district make Adequate

Black or African American ✔ – – –

Student groups making

Accountability Status Levels

March 10, 2009 Page 8

Elementary/Middle-Level English Language Arts

Prospective Status This district will be in good standing in 2009-10. [201]

How did students in each accountability group perform on

All Students (539:534) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 178 128

Black or African American ✔ – – ✔ 140 116

Prospective Status This district will be in good standing in 2009-10. [201]

How did students in each accountability group perform on

All Students (537:530) ✔ ✔ 100% ✔ 185 97

Black or African American – – – – – – –

Prospective Status This district will be in good standing in 2009-10. [201]

How did students in each accountability group perform on

AYP Participation2 Test Performance3 Performance Objectives

All Students (186:183) ✔ Qualified ✔ 99% ✔ 188 100

Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific – – – – – – –

Economically Disadvantaged Qualified ✔ 98% ✔ 175 100

Final AYP Determination ✔ 1 of 1

March 10, 2009 Page 11

Secondary-Level English Language Arts

Prospective Status This district will be in good standing in 2009-10. [201]

How did students in each accountability group perform on