RESULTSMPS

(location of future logo)

Area BJune 14, 2011

2

Area B

Table of Contents

Performance Measures Page

Area Profile 3

1. Reading 5

2. Math 7

3. Science 9

4. Distribution of schools on MPS school performance grid 11

5. Value added by school 13

6. Ready for and post graduation 14

- On-track for graduation

- Performance on graduation tests

- College entry scores (ACT)

- Post graduation status

7. Student Engagement 16

- Attendance

- Student stability and mobility

8. School Climate 18

-Suspensions

9. Quality of Instruction-Teacher interventions (e.g. percent in PAR process) 19

Appendix 20

3

Area B profile

Area B Profile

Area B schools are located in southeast Minneapolis. Area B includes 16 Schools: 3 high schools (Roosevelt, South, Wellstone), 2 middle schools (Sanford, Keewaydin) , 4 K-8 schools (Andersen, Anishinabe, Seward, Sullivan), 5 K-5 schools (Bancroft, Dowling, Hiawatha, Northrop, Pratt), 1 K-3 school (Wenonah) and 1 alternative school (Success Academy, closing after 2011 school year).

Area B schools are in various stages of AYP: 2 schools-- Wenonah and Success Academy-- are in stage 0 (watch), 3 schools– Dowling, Pratt and Seward-- are in stage 2 (SES), 5 schools– Bancroft, Hiawatha, Northrop, Sanford and South-- are in stage 3 (corrective action), 1 school– Keewaydin-- is in stage 4 (pre-restructuring), 4 schools– Andersen, Anishinabe, Roosevelt and Sullivan-- are in stage 5 (restructuring) and 1 school– Wellstone-- is in “turnaround” status.

Area B schools serve more than 8800 students. The demographic make up of Area B reflects its rich diversity. The student body is 10% American Indian, 30% African American, 5% Asian American, 23% Hispanic American and 32% White. 68% of students qualify for free and reduced which is slightly below the district average of 72%. 14% of students receive special education services and 27% are English Language Learners. Both of these percentages are within 1% of the district average.

Andersen

Anishinab

e

Bancro

ft

Dowling

Hiawath

a

Keeway

din

Wen

onah

Northro

pPratt

Roosevelt

Sanford

Seward

South

Succe

ss*

Sulliv

an

Well

stone

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1157

345 482 483303 309 314 404

229

785598

846

1798

55

604

133

2010-2011 Enrollment for Area B

*Note: Success Academy enrollment is of 2009-10.

4

Area B profile

Andersen

Anishinab

e

Bancro

ft

Dowling

Hiawath

a

Keeway

din

Wen

onah

Northro

pPratt

Roosevelt

Sanford

Seward

South

Succe

ss

Sulliv

an

Well

stone

Area B Ave

rage

Distric

t Ave

rage

0%20%40%60%80%

100%97.8%94.8%

83.6%

34.4%

63.7%57.9%56.4%64.6%71.2%88.5%

63.9%49.8%44.8%

87.3%85.8%88.0%68.0%72.0%

2010-11 percentage of Free & Reduced Lunch students by school, Area B

Andersen

Anishinabe

Bancroft

Dowling

Hiawatha

Keewaydin

Wenonah

Northrop

Pratt

Rooseve

lt

Sanford

SewardSouth

Success

Sullivan

Wells

tone

Area B Average

Distric

t Ave

rage0%5%

10%15%20%25%

15.0%19.1% 19.1%

14.1%16.8%

12.9%18.2%

15.1%

7.0%

19.0%14.0%

11.0% 11.0%

23.6%

17.1%

0.8%

14.0% 15.0%

2010-11 percentage of Special Ed students by school, Area B

Andersen

Anishinabe

Bancroft

Dowling

Hiawatha

Keewaydin

Wenonah

Northrop

Pratt

Rooseve

lt

Sanford

SewardSouth

Success

Sullivan

Wells

tone

Area B Average

Distric

t Ave

rage0%

20%40%60%80%

100%66.6%

0.6%

37.3%

8.3%21.8%14.9%15.6%

25.7%24.0%42.7%

19.6%21.5%8.5% 9.1%

27.3%

96.2%

27.0%26.0%

2010-11 percentage of ELL students by school, Area B

5

Academics- Reading

American Indian African American Asian Hispanic White District0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

29%34%

54%

34%

83%

49%

32% 36%

55%

33%

85%

51%

32% 35%

58%

33%

83%

49%

Percent proficient on MCA II reading, Area B, by race & ethnicity

2008 2009 2010

2008 2009 2010 National Norm Growth0%

10%20%30%40%50%60% 55.1% 57.1% 55.4%

60.0%53.0% 56.0% 56.0%

Area B and District reading growth (MAP fall to fall) compared to national norm

Area B District

20082009

2010

High '1

0 (Wen

onah)

Low'10 (A

ndersen

United)

Distric

t 2010

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

48.6% 50.9% 49.4%

77.5%

26.8%

52.0%

Percent Proficient on MCA II Reading, Area B combined

6

Why is this measure important?This measure is important because it indicates students’ reading proficiency relative to state standards. Student progress is measured in a variety of ways in reading. Each school has its own formative assessments designed to monitor student progress. The district has several common assessments used to determine progress. They include MCA proficiency data, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)data and Fountas and Pinell (F and P) data . MCA is the State assessment to determine proficiency. MAP is designed to show student growth over time. F and P is designed to show student growth/progress as they increase their instructional and independent levels of reading. All students in grades 3-8 and 10 take the MCA in reading each spring to determine grade level proficiency.

What does the data tell us?As a whole, students in Area B score slightly below the district average in reading proficiency on the state test. In 2010, 52% of district students were proficient in reading. In Area B, 49.4% of students were proficient. American Indian and Asian students are only subgroups showing consistent, but small improvements in proficiency.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist.Area B specific strategies in bold:• Explicit Vocabulary Instruction/Words Their Way• Collaboration with ELL department; training with Hamline University on ELL• Collaboration with Indian Education Department• Reader’s/Writer’s Workshop• Sheltered Instruction Strategies• Reading Coach• Professional Learning Communities• Professional Development for teachers and administrators• Arts Integration• Collaboration with Teaching and Learning to meet instructional needs• Relationships with community organizations• Use of information from Cambridge Reviews to highlight areas of strength and areas for growth• AYP monitoring from Academic Reform Specialist

We need more time with students for learning. Teachers need time with colleagues for planning and professional development in the workshop model and new materials. We need to actively engage parents and become true partners in educating children.

7

Academics- Math

2008 2009 2010 High '10 (Wenonah)

Low'10 (Roosevelt)

District 20100%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

40.7% 42.6% 42.9%

77.8%

11.6%

45.0%

Percent Proficient on MCA II Math, Area B combined

American Indian African American Asian Hispanic White District0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

26%22%

44%

29%

68%

41%

30% 27%

41%

29%

74%

43%

32%26%

52%

31%

75%

43%

Percent proficient on MCA II math, Area B, by race & ethnicity

2008 2009 2010

2008 2009 2010 National Norm Growth0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

46.1%

56.4% 58.0% 60.0%

47.0%55.0% 56.0%

Area B and District math growth (MAP fall to fall) compared to national norm

Area B District

8

Why is this measure important?This measure is important because it indicates students’ proficiency in mathematics relative to state standards. Student progress is measured in a variety of ways in math. At the school and classroom level, both formative and summative assessments are used. Most schools use Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) to determine student growth over time. All schools assess students on common grade-level district assessments each quarter. Students in grades 3-8 and grade 11 take the state MCA test each spring to determine grade level proficiency.

What does the data tell us?The data tells us that Area B has increased its math proficiency over a 3-year trend. However, math proficiency is slightly lower than the district average. 42.9% of students in Area B were proficient on the math test in 2010. The district average was 45%. 6-7% more American Indian, Asian and White students were proficient in last two years; there was an increase, but smaller for African American and Hispanic students.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist.

• 5 Disciplinary Literacy principles to engage students• 10 principles of Thinking math • Math investigations• Launch-Explore-Summarize lesson structure• MCA math prep classes• Math Coach• Professional Learning Communities• Professional Development for teachers and administrators• Collaboration with Indian Education Department• Collaboration with Teaching and Learning to meet instructional needs.• Collaboration with Teaching and Learning to meet instructional needs.• Collaboration with ELL• Relationships with community organizations• Use of information from Cambridge Reviews to highlight areas of strength and areas for growth• AYP monitoring from Academic Reform Specialist

The primary barrier we all face is time. We need more time with students for learning. We need to strengthen math skills for elementary teachers to increase their knowledge through PLCs and Professional Development. We need more time for collegial planning. We need to involve parents in supporting students’ math education.

Academics- Math

9

Academics- Science

Why is this measure important?This measure is important because it indicates students’ proficiency in science relative to state standards. Science tests are given to students in grades 5 and 8 and in the year in high school when students complete a life science course.

What does the data tell us?The data tells us that students in Area B have increased science proficiency since 2008. Students in Area B perform above the district average in science. As in reading and math, there is an approximately 50 point gap between the % of white students proficient and subgroup of students of color with the lowest % proficient.

Continued…

20082009

2010

High '1

0 (Sew

ard))

Low'10 (A

nishinab

e & Pratt

)

Distric

t 2010

0%20%40%60%

22.6% 30.6% 28.6%

52.2%

0.0%

25.0%

Percent Proficient on MCA II Science, Area B combined

American Indian African American Asian Hispanic White District0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

7.9% 7.4%

22.2%

13.4%

36.7%

23.0%16.5%

9.2%

42.9%

12.6%

53.7%

27.0%

10.9% 12.8%

26.1%

11.4%

60.7%

25.0%

Percent proficient on MCA II science, Area B, by race & ethnicity

2008 2009 2010

10

Academics- Science

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist.

• FOSS Science kits• Re-sequencing high school science courses• Adopting new science materials• Explicit vocabulary instruction• Science notebooks• District science content leads• Observational drawing• Integrate nonfiction materials into workshop model• Require science instruction in all classes at K-5

Our primary barrier is building time into the day at the K-5 level to teach explicit science vocabulary.

MPS School Portfolio Performance-as of September 2010 (Area B schools in CAPITALS and BOLD)

High Priority Schools (25%)

Middle 50% High Performers (25%)

Alphabetically

Exceeds or meets expectations with some needs

AnthonyArmatageBartonCyberVillage Charter (note no QR, no VADD)

Meets expectations w/some areas requiring support

Hmong Intl. Academy

MARCY SEWARDSOUTH

BurroughsDOWLINGHaleLake Harriet UpperLoringNORTHROP

Requires support in several areas

BethuneBroadwayCityviewEdisonFriendship Academy Charter (note no VADD) Lucy LaneyHallRamseyROOSEVELTSHERIDANSULLIVAN (-)WELLSTONE

ANDERSENANISHINABEBANCROFTEmerson (+)Folwell (closed)Green CentralHIAWATHA (-)Kenwood (-)Longfellow (closed)Parkview (closed)PRATTSANFORD(-)Washburn

Bryn Mawr (-)Field (-)JeffersonJenny LindKEEWAYDINNellie Stone (+)Northeast (+)Pillsbury (+)Waite Park (+)Windom

Henry (+)Kenny (+)LyndaleSouthwest Whittier (+)

Does not meet expectations

NorthOlson

Anwatin (+)

11

Scho

ol Q

ualit

y Re

view

200

8-20

09

Performance (2010 proficiency and 3-year average value-added)

Academics- Distribution of schools on MPS school performance grid

*Note Lake Harriet Lower and Lake Nokomis-Wenonah not shown due to lack of value-added data for their grade configurations

12

Academics- Distribution of schools on MPS school performance grid

Why is this measure important?The School Performance measure compares MPS schools based upon their proficiency and value-added.* This measure is important because it indicates which schools are in need of the most intervention, and which ones should be examined for sharable practices. It also helps us to prioritize schools for intervention.

What does the data tell us?The data tells us that Area B schools are represented across the continuum. There are schools in Area B that are high performing as well as schools that have high needs. We have a lot of work to do in Area B. Only two of the schools are in the highest 25%. If we focus on the middle, we have opportunity to move forward. We need to acknowledge growth, but keep working.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist. School improvement plans have been tailored to meet the needs of individual schools. All schools have specific strategies in place to increase proficiency in reading and math. All schools have specific strategies in place to increase a healthy climate by decreasing the number of student suspensions and behavior referrals. All schools have a strategy in place to provide job-embedded professional development through professional learning communities. Schools need to break down data to individual students and create achievement goals for each student. All schools were reviewed by Cambridge Education Group to highlight strengths and areas of growth. A Cambridge consultant worked directly with Andersen, Anishinabe and Sullivan to improve instructional practices. In addition to monitoring AYP and designing school improvement plans, the Academic Reform Specialist worked with Keewaydin to design a restructuring plan and worked with Roosevelt, South, Northrop, Bancroft, Hiawatha and Sanford to implement Professional Development in the areas of PLCs and data-driven instruction.

* Methodology: the school performance rating combines proficiency (1/3) and value-added (2/3). Proficiency: an absolute measure of proficiency using the MCA-II test results for the most recent school year; Value-Added: a relative measure of proficiency that controls for factors beyond the school’s control (such as poverty). Value-Added is based on three years of data. Math and reading scores are equally weighted. The (+) or (-) indicates movement to a higher quartile or lower quartile, respectively, from the prior year. Note this is MPS’ internal value-added calculation, not the VARC calculation done for the State data set.

13

Area B value-added

Why is this measure important?Value Added is a relative measure of proficiency that controls for factors beyond the school’s control (such as poverty). It allows for comparing schools on an apples-to-apples basis, e.g., school X has added more value for its ELL students and its non-Free or Reduced Price Lunch students than has school Y (or all of the schools in the state serving ELL and non-Free or Reduced Price Lunch students). This data shows MPS schools compared to State. Note the appendix provides value-added data comparing just to MPS schools over the last 3 years.

What does the data tell us?Area B’s value-added mirrored the state average in math and was slightly above the state average in reading in the last two years.

Dowling was lower than the state average in 2009-10 in math. This is surprising because their 3-year value-added, compared only to District schools, was positive .8. Anishinabe was low in reading, which is consistent with their in-district value-added.

Keewaydin has been higher than average compared to both state and district in math; Pratt was above average compared to the state in reading, which contrasts sharply to very low 3 year value-added scores compared only to district schools.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist.

See page 12

20092010

High '1

0 (Sew

ard

&

Keeway

din)

Low'10 (D

owling)

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.0 0.0

0.3

-1.1

Area B Distributionon Value Added Math

State average is 0

-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.20.00.20.40.60.81.0

0.1 0.1

0.8

-0.6

Area B Distributionon Value Added Reading

Series1

State average is 0

14

Ready for and post graduation

Grad Exam Readiness

Credit Readiness

Composite Readiness

Grad Exam Readiness

Credit Readiness

Composite Readiness

Grad Exam Readiness

Credit Readiness

Composite Readiness

2008 2009 2010

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%85.4% 87.6%

78.8% 78.4%86.3%

72.6%77.9%

85.4%

70.9%

59.8%

84.3%

53.8%45.9%

78.8%

41.1%46.3%

83.0%

42.6%

71.9%

84.8%

65.5% 66.3%

84.5%

60.8%68.4%

86.1%

63.4%

Readiness to graduate, by exam, credit and overall

South Roosevelt District (Big 7)

2008 2009 20100.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.023.9 23.3 23.1

16.4 16.5 16.620.5 20.7 20.3

ACT average composite score

South Roosevelt District

2008 2009 20100%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 74.4%

67.4% 68.9%

12.6% 11.8% 12.9%

46.2% 45.9% 44.0%

Percent of ACT scores at or above 21

South Roosevelt District

2007 2008 2009 20100%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

63%68%

73% 70%

42%49% 46% 46%

52%58% 59% 58%

Percent of students enrolled in college in the fall immediately following graduation

South Roosevelt District (Big 7)

15

Ready for and post graduation

Why is this measure important?The measure is important so that we can see how well we are preparing students for their future.

What does the data tell us? There is a large gap in achievement between the two big high schools (Roosevelt and South). Students at South average 7 points higher on the ACT. South averages more than 30% higher than Roosevelt in GRAD test results for reading, writing and math. South students achieve at high levels higher than the district average in all areas. Roosevelt achieves well below the district average in all areas except credit readiness.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets?

• Intentionally placing students in rigorous courses. • AVID• Formative Assessment• Sheltered Instruction Strategies• MCA Preparation Classes• Change administration/leadership team at Roosevelt High School

Identify barriers if they exist. There is a significant difference in the number of ELL students that attend Roosevelt and South. The barriers are time and professional development. We need more time and professional development for teachers so they can successfully educate ELL students to accelerate their growth.

16

Student Engagement- Attendance, Student stability and mobility

0%20%40%60%80% 59.1% 57.6% 58.0%

75.1%

26.0%

59.0%

Attendance of 95 percent or more days, Area B(of students attending at least 95 days)

2008-09 2009-10 High 2009-10 (Dowling)

Low 2009-10 (Roosevelt)

District 2009-100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%81.4% 85.4%

96.5%

75.1%84.8%

Student stability, Area B(of the students enrolled on Oct 1, the number

enrolled at least 165 days)

2008-09 2009-10 High 2009-10 (Hiawatha)

Low 2009-10 (Seward)

District 2009-100%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

15% 14%

26%

3%

14%

Student mobility "new faces", Area B(number of new students after Oct 1 divided by Oct 1

enrollment)

17

Student Engagement-Student stability and mobility

Why is this measure important?These measures are important because they indicate student attendance and mobility rates. Research shows that student attendance and stability is directly related to success in school.

What does the data tell us?Area B has had a relatively stable rate for students who attend at least 95%. Student stability is on par with the district average. Student mobility is slightly lower than the district average.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist.

•Students attending schools in their area•Follow enrollment guidelines•Family Outreach

A barrier is many of our sites are overcrowded. We may have to open additional buildings.

18

School Climate-Suspensions

Why is this measure important?The number of student suspensions and the rate of suspension are indicators of school climate.

What does the data tell us?While the student population stayed relatively the same In Area B, suspensions decreased over the three-year period from 2008-2010. In 2008, 2220 students were suspended. That rose slightly in 2009 to 2240, then dropped to 1850 in 2010.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist. The chief strategies schools are using are Responsive Classroom, Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) and Second Step.

Note: Current year we are seeing a significant increase in suspensions at both South and Roosevelt. A barrier is limited choice to transfer students within the zone.

2007/08 2008/09 2009/100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 2220 2240

1850

Total Suspensions, Area B

2007/08 2008/09 2009/100%

20%40%60%80%

100%

61.1% 56.9% 63.0%

38.9% 43.1% 37.0%

Percentage of suspensions by type, Area B

Out of schoolIn-school & Removal from Instruction

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 High 09/10 (Pratt)

Low 09/10 (Anishinabe)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

55.6% 54.5% 53.2%

86.7%

2.7%

Percent of students suspended who are African American, Area B

19

Quality of Instruction and Teacher interventions (e.g. percent in PAR process)

Why is this measure important?This measure is important because it demonstrates how many teachers received intervention and assistance to improve performance.

What does the data tell us?There are 556 teachers in Area B. In the most recent year, 23 teachers were referred for PAR services. That is 4% of the total number of teachers. In 2010, teachers in Area B were referred less often for PAR services than teachers in Area A, but more often than teachers in Area C.

What strategies are in place to achieve the targets? Identify barriers if they exist. The PAR process and the PSP process exist to provide intensive assistance to improve teacher performance. The new teacher evaluation system should help with identifying candidates for PAR and supporting other teachers to improve.

2007 2008 2009 2010 Area A 2010 Area C 201005

10152025303540

12

25

1823

37

18

Total PAR References, Area B

Assessment (6)

Guided PDP (9)

PSP (4)Return to PDP (4)

2010 PAR Service Determinations and Flow, Area B

20

APPENDIX

21

Area B Reading Proficiency2008

Proficiency2009

Proficiency2010

ProficiencyAndersen United 24.1% 24.0% 26.8%Anishinabe 19.0% 25.2% 29.6%Bancroft 39.3% 47.0% 37.7%Dowling 72.0% 70.0% 78.9%Hiawatha 52.0% 43.8% 48.5%Keewaydin 54.8% 63.1% 59.7%Northrop 50.9% 53.3% 48.0%Pratt 40.0% 48.3% 35.7%Roosevelt 42.9% 36.9% 32.5%Sanford 39.9% 50.0% 47.9%Seward Montessori 72.9% 71.0% 70.5%South 74.9% 73.9% 71.7%Sullivan 25.0% 34.0% 31.3%Wellstone 8.3% 3.8% 0.0%Wenonah 67.9% 68.2% 77.5%

Area B 48.6% 50.9% 49.4%District 49.0% 51.0% 52.0%

22

Area B Math Proficiency2008

Proficiency2009

Proficiency2010

ProficiencyAndersen United 19.0% 22.0% 27.8%Anishinabe 17.9% 22.0% 26.6%Bancroft 39.3% 36.0% 34.4%Dowling 80.9% 72.1% 74.0%Hiawatha 47.7% 48.2% 51.1%Keewaydin 50.2% 56.8% 57.8%Northrop 52.0% 51.1% 47.7%Pratt 35.5% 36.2% 46.4%Roosevelt 8.9% 10.8% 11.6%Sanford 30.0% 40.1% 41.6%Seward Montessori 64.0% 62.0% 65.0%South 49.1% 46.1% 43.6%Sullivan 28.2% 31.2% 28.5%Wellstone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Wenonah 78.6% 72.3% 77.8%

Area B 40.7% 42.6% 42.9%District 41.0% 43.0% 45.0%

23

Area B Science Proficiency2008

Proficiency2009

Proficiency2010

ProficiencyAndersen United 0.0% 9.6% 5.3%Anishinabe 3.4% 13.3% 0.0%Bancroft 14.6% 28.9% 6.5%Dowling 35.0% 48.6% 51.4%Hiawatha 15.8% 29.3% 10.4%Keewaydin 31.4% 29.7% 32.1%Northrop 8.6% 17.5% 27.9%Pratt 25.0% 7.1% 0.0%Roosevelt 6.8% 8.0% 10.0%Sanford 9.1% 24.1% 17.9%

Seward Montessori 44.8% 40.0% 52.2%South 40.0% 49.1% 47.0%Sullivan 15.6% 12.5% 10.0%Wellstone 9.1% 11.1% 8.3%Wenonah NA NA NA

Area B 22.6% 30.6% 28.6%District 23.0% 27.0% 25.0%

24

Performance on GRAD TestsGRAD WRITING - GR 9PASSING RATES 2009 2010 2011 PC TEST N PCT TEST N PCT TEST N352 EDISON 50.3% 183 66.0% 203 69.2% 250354 HENRY 81.3% 316 78.2% 284 74.4% 273358 NORTH 61.2% 116 60.9% 110 64.0% 50AREA A/ZONE 1 68.3% 615 70.9% 597 71.2% 573360 ROOSEVELT 48.4% 248 58.3% 211 53.2% 173362 SOUTH 85.7% 488 87.7% 486 83.4% 457363 WELLSTONE 2.9% 34 10.0% 10 2.9% 34AREA B/ZONE 2 70.0% 770 77.8% 707 71.4% 664364 SOUTHWEST 88.3% 454 90.5% 411 88.3% 426368 WASHBURN 74.2% 229 84.5% 245 81.6% 294AREA C/ZONE 3 83.6% 683 88.3% 656 85.6% 720DIST ALL HS 71.6% 2262 76.6% 2168 74.5% 2130

GRAD READING - GR 10PASSING RATES 2009 2010 2011 PC TEST N PCT TEST N PCT TEST N352 EDISON 34.7% 202 38.0% 166 37.4% 174354 HENRY 56.3% 272 63.7% 295 59.2% 262358 NORTH 27.8% 108 32.1% 106 30.9% 68AREA A/ZONE 1 43.5% 582 50.3% 567 47.8% 504360 ROOSEVELT 41.1% 282 35.1% 239 39.1% 192362 SOUTH 76.6% 449 75.3% 494 73.3% 457363 WELLSTONE 0.0% 26 0.0% 24 0.0% 29AREA B/ZONE 2 60.8% 757 60.2% 757 60.5% 678364 SOUTHWEST 87.2% 461 84.9% 431 78.1% 429368 WASHBURN 51.3% 187 54.9% 193 63.4% 243AREA C/ZONE 3 76.9% 648 75.6% 624 72.8% 672DIST ALL HS 57.2% 2394 57.8% 2538 57.8% 2075

GRAD MATH - GR 11PASSING RATES 2009 2010 2011 PC TEST N PCT TEST N PCT TEST N352 EDISON 24.2% 157 17.3% 139 20.8% 154354 HENRY 42.6% 270 41.5% 236 47.9% 261358 NORTH 9.9% 101 13.3% 90 14.5% 55AREA A/ZONE 1 30.9% 528 28.8% 465 35.1% 470360 ROOSEVELT 22.9% 201 19.5% 215 27.9% 183362 SOUTH 60.9% 417 57.2% 414 57.5% 454363 WELLSTONE 0.0% 6 2.9% 34 7.1% 14AREA B/ZONE 2 48.1% 624 42.2% 663 48.1% 651364 SOUTHWEST 65.9% 384 73.1% 424 72.6% 401368 WASHBURN 27.0% 189 29.8% 151 31.9% 163AREA C/ZONE 3 53.1% 573 61.7% 575 60.8% 564DIST ALL HS 38.7% 2016 39.5% 2234 42.2% 1978

25

95% Attendance for last three school years2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Andersen 67.5% 57.5% 64.1%Anishinabe 30.1% 40.1% 26.0%Bancroft 60.1% 56.6% 48.3%Dowling 68.6% 67.8% 70.1%Hiawatha 65.4% 66.2% 64.0%Lake Nokomis-Keew 71.0% 75.3% 75.1%Lake Nokomis-Weno 69.8% 61.6% 66.0%Marcy Open 62.5% 66.3% 69.5%Northrop 61.7% 62.0% 57.5%Pratt 50.6% 47.7% 62.0%Roosevelt 46.1% 40.3% 48.1%Sanford 59.9% 58.6% 58.0%Seward 71.3% 69.6% 71.2%Sheridan 53.1% 54.8% 49.9%South 60.6% 58.2% 55.5%Success Academy 0.0% 0.0%Sullivan 54.1% 57.6% 53.1%Wellstone 38.6% 34.0% 34.7%

Area B 59.1% 57.6% 58.0%District 60.2% 59.3% 59.0%

26

Area B Stability and Mobility “New Faces”Stability Mobility / “New Faces”

2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10Andersen 79.0% 86.6% 17.8% 18.7%

Anishinabe 73.4% 79.7% 16.4% 18.5%

Bancroft 76.2% 84.3% 15.2% 15.4%

Dowling 89.8% 96.5% 5.9% 4.9%

Hiawatha 83.8% 87.7% 5.3% 26.4%Lake Nokomis- Keewaydin 86.5% 89.9% 7.7% 10.4%Lake Nokomis- Wenonah 83.7% 89.0% 11.0% 19.4%

Marcy Open 88.9% 92.2% 10.1% 9.9%

MPS Success 21.6% 12.7% 321.6% 229.1%

Northrop 89.1% 82.3% 10.6% 5.7%

Pratt 68.1% 77.4% 44.8% 24.5%

Roosevelt 70.0% 75.1% 18.7% 15.3%

Sanford 85.9% 84.7% 18.6% 16.9%

Seward 90.9% 94.4% 5.2% 3.7%

Sheridan 74.2% 84.8% 22.6% 15.4%

South 86.7% 88.3% 8.6% 8.3%

Sullivan 77.5% 82.9% 22.0% 14.7%

Wellstone 62.1% 62.0% 50.0% 95.7%

Area B 81.4% 85.4% 15.1% 14.4%

27

Total Suspensions 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10Andersen 179 142 145Anishinabe 352 284 186Bancroft 18 12 16Dowling 105 103 14Hiawatha 6 27 19

Lake Nokomis Keewaydin 165 95 117

Lake Nokomis Wenonah 9 34 6Marcy Open 315 154 129Northrop 32 24 23Pratt 69 81 45Roosevelt 284 333 246Sanford 214 119 133Seward 158 160 127Sheridan 356 438 402South 408 507 444

Success Academy 0 121 192Sullivan 198 179 113Wellstone 23 19 24

Area B 2220 2240 1850

MCAII Value Added – VARC K-8

2010 Reading 2009 Reading

Pratt 0.8 -0.3Seward Montessori 0.7 0.3Sanford 0.5 0.2Bancroft 0.4 0.1Hiawatha 0.3 -0.2Northrop 0.2 0.3Sullivan 0.1 0.1Andersen United -0.1 -0.6Dowling -0.3 -0.5Keewaydin -0.5 0.7

Anishinabe -0.6 0.4Wenonah n/a n/a

MCAII Value Added – VARC K-8

2010 Math 2009 Math

Keewaydin 0.3 0.3Seward Montessori 0.3 -0.1Hiawatha 0.1 -0.4Sanford 0.0 0.3Bancroft 0.0 -0.4Anishinabe -0.1 -0.4Andersen United -0.1 -0.5Sullivan -0.2 0.4Pratt -0.2 -0.5Northrop -0.4 0.1

Dowling -1.1 -0.1Wenonah n/a n/a

Analysis of MPS K-8 Value-Added Data – VARC analysis (statewide) and REA analysis (MPS only; 3-year average)

MCAII Value Added – REA

Reading

Northrop 1.02

Dowling 0.83

Seward 0.82Bancroft -0.22Sanford -0.25Keewaydin -0.39Sullivan -0.42Anishinabe -0.53Andersen -0.86Hiawatha -1.20Pratt -2.53Wenonah n/a

South 0.04Roosevelt -1.05Wellstone -4.45

MCAII Value Added – REAMath

Keewaydin 1.49Northrop 1.23Dowling 0.82Anishinabe 0.23Seward 0.19Hiawatha 0.17Andersen 0.02Bancroft -0.04Pratt -0.07Sanford -0.26Sullivan -1.47Wenonah n/a

South 0.17Roosevelt 0.05Wellstone -4.00