Archived Information

Assessment/Accountability School and District Accountability
Adequate Yearly Progress

2002 & Earlier

Select Review Year: 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 & Earlier

Summary: The Massachusetts School and District Accountability System was established in 1999. Between 1999 and 2006 school year, the Department issued accountability determinations at the end of each two-year accountability cycle. These cycles were based on performance and improvement calculations using two years of student performance data combined. The Department adopted the two-year cycle approach to mitigate the potential for error arising out of small sample sizes, thereby increasing the reliability of school and district accountability determinations. Beginning in 2003, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required Massachusetts to issue annual measures of student performance and improvement. The Department complied with this requirement by adding a "mid-cycle" AYP determination report in odd numbered years, calculated on a single year's data.

• 2001 and 2002 (Cycle II)
  Cycle II ratings were based on MCAS English language arts/reading (ELA) and mathematics test results for the years 2001 and 2002 combined, and separate ratings were issued for ELA and mathematics. Improvement was rated by comparing a school or district's 2001 and 2002 performance with its performance during 1999 and 2000 (the baseline years for Cycle II). Schools received separate ratings for elementary, middle, and high school performance and improvement, based on grades 4, 7, 8, and 10 ELA and mathematics results. Districts received composite ratings, based on performance across grades, for ELA and mathematics. Grade 7 results for 2002 were combined with Grade 8 results for 2001 to determine middle grades ELA proficiency indices and ratings for Cycle II. (Grade 7 ELA results for 2001, the first year in which MCAS tests were given at that grade level, were not factored into the calculation of Cycle II ratings.)

• 1999 and 2000 (Cycle I)
  In the first cycle, what was then known as the "School Performance Rating Process" included English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology MCAS tests; specific improvement expectations, based on 1998 results, for each content area and for overall performance; and performance and improvement ratings derived by averaging 1999 and 2000 results to rate absolute performance and improvement from the baseline year (1998).

• 1998 (Baseline)
  Schools were initially assigned to a performance category for each content area and for overall performance based on 1998 MCAS results. These baseline performance categories determined improvement expectations for Cycle I (the years 1999 and 2000 combined). At the end of Cycle II, schools received performance ratings based on the average of the 1999 and 2000 results and improvement ratings based on the comparison of those results to the 1998 baseline results.

• Show All

2001 and 2002 (Cycle II)

Summary: Cycle II ratings are based on MCAS English language arts (ELA) and mathematics test results for 2001 and 2002. Student performance data for the two years under review are combined. Separate ratings are given for ELA and mathematics. Improvement is rated by comparing performance in 2001 and 2002 with a school or district's performance during 1999 and 2000, the baseline years for Cycle II. For Cycle II, schools received separate ratings for elementary, middle, and high school performance and improvement, based on grades 4, 7, 8, and 10 ELA and mathematics results. Districts received composite ratings, based on performance across grades, for ELA and mathematics. Grade 7 results for 2002 were combined with Grade 8 results for 2001 to determine middle grades ELA proficiency indices and ratings for Cycle II. (Grade 7 ELA results for 2001, the first year in which MCAS tests were given at that grade level, were not factored into the calculation of Cycle II ratings.)

To accommodate changes to the MCAS testing program and requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, the school performance and ratings for Cycle II (2001-2002) were calculated by using a new proficiency index. The proficiency index was designed to assume the role scaled scores previously played in the School and District Accountability System. A proficiency index is calculated separately for English language arts and mathematics at each grade. The index is a measure of students' proximity to achieving the proficient level of performance on MCAS tests. A school with all of its students performing at the proficient and advanced levels receives the maximum score of 100.

" Back-mapped" proficiency index results for 1999 and 2000 were used as the baseline index for calculating Cycle II performance and improvement ratings. Baseline performance determined the adequate level of progress that schools and districts needed to make during Cycle II in order to ensure student performance at the proficient and advanced levels in English language arts and mathematics in the state by 2014.

	Explanation of the School Performance Rating Process Concise report that describes the School Performance Rating Process for Cycle II.
	State-Level Performance and Improvement Rating Report All Massachusetts schools and districts that received ratings for Cycle II.
	State Summary Report
	Cycle II Data File All Massachusetts schools and districts that received ratings for Cycle II.
	Proficiency Index Cycle II Baseline 1998-2001
	Schools Identified for Improvement Massachusetts public schools that did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Cycle II (2001 and 2002).
	Frequently Asked Questions: Cycle II School Performance Ratings
	Reproducible Information Sheet on the Proficiency Index.
	Summary of the changes to the performance rating process for Cycle II compared to Cycle I
	Informational slide presentation on the Cycle II School Performance Ratings

1999 and 2000 (Cycle I)

Summary: On January 9, 2001, the Commissioner and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released the first School Performance Ratings for Massachusetts Public Schools, as authorized in the School and District Accountability System, originally adopted by the Board of Education in 1999. The ratings are based on performance and improvement on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) from the 1998 baseline results to the results for 2000.

	School Performance Ratings 2000 Updated July 27, 2001 to include schools that previously had data under review.
	School and District Accountability System description Originally adopted by the Board of Education in 1999. The ratings are based on performance and improvement on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) from the 1998 baseline results to the results for 2000.
	School Performance Rating Process Implementation Guide
	Statewide Summary of Results
	Data File Complete School Performance Ratings State Summary Data
	Layout Schema For School Performance Ratings State Summary Data

1998 (Baseline)

Summary: This baseline report lists for each school the following information for each content area and for overall performance (average of content areas):

• Percent Proficient/Advanced;
• Percent Failing;
• Performance Category; and
• Average Scaled Score.

Schools with fewer than 30 test scores in a content area are not assigned a performance category for that content area. Schools with fewer than 15 test scores in any content area are not assigned an overall performance category.

	School Performance Rating Process Overview Provides information on how performance categories are assigned and their corresponding improvement expectations. To determine the schools specific improvement expectations, use the first table in the Overview and the performance categories in the Baseline Report.
	Complete Baseline Report Originally adopted by the Board of Education in 1999. The ratings are based on performance and improvement on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) from the 1998 baseline results to the results for 2000.
	DBF Files DBF files are in dBase Format, and can be understood by Act!, Clipper, FoxPro, Excel, Arago, Wordtech, xBase, and similar database or database-related products