AGENDA - WordPress.com · 2017-11-14 · AGENDA 2601 Bransford Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204 TIME I....

AGENDA

TIME

I.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 2601 Bransford Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204

Regular Meeting – November 14, 2017 – 5:00 p.m. Anna Shepherd, Chair

CONVENE and ACTION

5:00 A. Establish Quorum

5:05

5:20 5:30

5:45

II. III. IV. V.

B. Pledge of Allegiance C. 30 Seconds in My District… AWARDS AND RECOGNTIONS - OUR PEOPLE A. T.J. Williams – Maplewood High School B. Latoya Cobb – Amqui Elementary School C. Melissa Knapp – Harpeth Valley Elementary School AND THE GOOD NEWS IS… - OUR STUDENTS A. Student Ambassadors Stratford STEM Magnet School

a. Charlie Utley - Academy of Science and Engineering b. Payton Simmons - Academy of National Safety and

Security Technologies B. H.G. Hill Middle School C. J.T. Moore Middle School PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - OUR COMMUNITY The Board will hear from those persons who have requested to appear at this Board meeting. In the interest of time, interest of time, speakers are requested to limit remarks to three minutes or less. Comments will be timed. A. Ahmed White – Smithson Craighead Academy B. John Raphael – Smithson Craighead Academy C. Mark Faulkner – Smithson Craighead Academy

GOVERNANCE ISSUES- OUR ORGANIZATION A. Actions

1. Consent a. Approval of Minutes – 9/26/17 and 10/17/ 2017 – Regular Meetings

b. Recommended Approval of Change Order #3 for East Nashville Magnet High School Stadium Improvements – Romach, Inc. c. Recommended Approval of Change Order #4 for Overton High School Additions and Renovations American Constructors, Inc

Metropolitan Board of Public Education Agenda – November 14, 2017

5:55 7:00

VI. VII.

d. Awarding of Purchases and Contracts (1) Allovue, Inc. (2) Southern Kitchen Services, LLC (3) Tennessee Department of Children’s Services e. Legal Settlement L-16217 ($55,000)

REPORTS – OUR ORGANIZATION A. Director’s Report

1. KPI Report

B. Board Chairman’s Report 1. Chair Report 2. Announcements

ADJOURNMENT

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION MEETING AND WORK SESSION – Minutes

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Members present: Sharon Gentry, Jo Ann Brannon, Jill Speering (Vice-chair), Christiane Buggs, Tyese

Hunter, Mary Pierce, Amy Frogge Members absent:

Anna Shepherd (Chair), Will Pinkston, and Mary Pierce

Meeting called to order at 5:00 PM

CONVENE and ACTION Ms. Speering called the meeting to order.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dr. Felder led the pledge.

30 SECONDS IN MY DISTRICT...

Each Board Member gave a brief update on each of their districts. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS...

A. Nashville Tools for Schools gave a brief presentation of their work and partnership with the district.

B. MNPS Music Students who traveled to Charlottesville, VA preformed an original

song for the Board.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Minutes – 08/15/2017 and 08/22/2017 - Meetings

b. Recommended Award of Contract for General Construction for Hillsboro High School Additions & Renovations American Constructors, Inc.

c. Recommended Approval of Supplement #1 for Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet High School

Additions & Renovations Phase II – Bauer Askew Architecture PLL d. Awarding of Purchases and Contracts (1) Blackboard, Inc.

(2) Educational Based Services, Inc. (3) Pomeroy North America

(4) Robert J. Young

e. Legal Settlement Claim C-35590 ($8,000) f. Legal Settlement Claim C-35651 ($3,000) g. Legal Settlement Claim C-35369 ($48,000) h. Legal Settlement Claim C-35607 ($3,000) i. Legal Settlement Claim C-35346 ($15,000) j. Legal Settlement Claim C-35557 ($6,000) k. Legal Settlement Claim C-35324 ($19,000) l. Legal Settlement Claim C-35556 ($16,100) m. Legal Settlement Claim L-16298 ($15,000) n. Compulsory Attendance Waivers

Motion to approve consent agenda as read. Motion by Jo Ann Brannon, second by Tyese Hunter.

Final Resolution: Motion Passess Yes: Sharon Gentry, Jo Ann Brannon, Jill Speering, Christiane Buggs, Tyese Hunter, Amy Frogge

B. BEP Ms. Frogge deferred the item to a later meeting.

WRITTEN INFORMATION TO THE BOARD (not for discussion)

A. Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Operating Budget Financial Reports B. Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Operating Budget Financial Reports

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Speering adjourned the meeting at 5:21 p.m.

BOARD WORK SESSION The Board held a work session and discuss the following topics:

New Eagle View Elementary Attendance Zone MNPS Next

TVAAS Results

ADJOURNMENT Board Work Session adjourned at 7:03 p.m.

_____________________________________________________

Chris M. Henson Anna Shepherd Date

Board Secretary Board Chair

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION MEETING - Minutes Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Members present

Will Pinkston, Jo Ann Brannon, Jill Speering, Anna Shepherd, Christiane Buggs, Tyese

Hunter, Amy Frogge, Dr. Shawn Joseph

Members Absent Sharon Gentry and Mary Pierce

Meeting called to order at 5:00 PM

CONVENE and ACTION Ms. Shepherd called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance Led by Mr. Oldham.

30 Seconds in My District... Each Board Member gave a brief update on their districts.

AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS

Teachers Helping Teachers

The Board and Dr. Joseph recognized a teacher who recently surprised a teacher who is

color blind, with color-blind glasses. Sixth grade teacher Joshua Lawhorn at Two Rivers

Middle School in the MacGavock cluster surprised art teacher, Kimberly Catlin with the

glasses.

Goodlettsville Elementary School

The Board recognized Mr. Oldham a longtime volunteer at Goodlettsville Elementary School.

Ms. Gibson, principal of Goodlettsville Elementary, showed a video on their schools’ SEL

development and made brief comments.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS... The MLK String Quartet performed for the audience and Board before the meeting. Also

artwork from Tom Joy Elementary School was displayed in the Board Room.

Magnet School Grants Awards

Dr. Joseph updated the Board on the Magnet School Grant Awards.

Student Ambassadors - Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School and Overton High

School

Student Ambassadors from Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School and Overton High

School addressed the Board concerning their academies.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Laura Leonard – Did not attend

B. Angelica Cooks Lucas – Did not attend

C. Quasia Walker – Did not attend

D. Liza Ramage – Ms. Ramage addressed the Board concerning partnership with NOAH.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. Consent Agenda

Ms. Speering read the following consent agenda.

a. Recommended Award of Contract for General Construction for Hillsboro High

School Additions & Renovations – American Constructors, Inc.

b. Recommended Approval of Change Order #1 for Eagle View Elementary School

- Orion Building Corporation

c. Recommended Approval of Supplement #1 for Program Management Services –

Heery International, Inc.

d. Recommended Approval of Supplement #2 for Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet

High School Additions & Renovations Phase II – Bauer Askew Architecture, PLLC

e. Recommended Approval of Supplement #2 for McMurray Middle School Additions &

Renovations – HMK Architects, PLLC

f. Recommended Approval of Supplement #2 for Overton High School Additions &

Renovations – TM Partners, PLLC

g. Awarding of Purchases and Contracts

(1) Analyze-Ed

(2) BrightBytes, Inc.

(3) Dearborn National (2)

(4) Dell Marketing, LLC

(5) Education Networks of America, LLC (ENA)

(6) Lakeshore Learning Materials

(7) Neely Coble Company, Inc.

Motion to approve consent agenda as read.

Motion by Jill Speering, second by Jo Ann Brannon.

Final Resolution: Motion Passess

Yes: Will Pinkston, Jo Ann Brannon, Jill Speering, Anna Shepherd, Christiane

Buggs, Tyese Hunter, Amy Frogge

B. BEP Litigation

Motion to join Shelby County litigation over BEP inadequacy by engaging Baller

Donelson as our legal counsel.

Motion by Amy Frogge, second by Will Pinkston.

Final Resolution: Motion Passess

Yes: Will Pinkston, Jo Ann Brannon, Jill Speering, Anna Shepherd, Christiane

Buggs, Tyese Hunter, Amy Frogge

REPORTS

A. MAP-R and ACT

Dr. Changas presented the MAP-R and ACT results to the Board.

B. 2018-2019 District Calendar

Mr. McAdory presented the 2018-19 District Calendar to the Board.

Committee Reports

A. Teaching and Learning

Ms. Buggs gave a brief Teaching and Learning Committee report.

Board Chairman's Report

A. Chair Report

Ms. Shepherd announced the 2018-19 Committee Assignments.

B. Announcements

Dr. Brannon announcement that Granberry Elementary School will host their Trucks and

Tunes festival and concert event on October 21st.

Ms. Frogge announced that Westmeade Elementary School has partnered with Burlington as

their new PENCIL partner. Burlington donated $10,000 to the school for teacher supplies.

Ms. Speering offered condolences to Ms. Willet Lanier, a retired MNPS teacher.

Ms. Speering announced that she attended the Chamber of Commerce tour of Jere Baxter

Middle Prep.

Ms. Speering announced that she participated in a community meeting and luncheon at

Gra Mar Middle Prep.

Ms. Speering announced that she participated in Dan Mills Elementary Walk to School Day.

Ms. Speering thanked Dr. Joseph for conducting the Educator Voice Sessions.

Ms. Speering announced that the Parent Advisory Committee met at Park Avenue

Elementary School.

Ms. Speering announced that she attended the Hispanic Heritage Celebration at

Goodlettsville Middle Prep.

Ms. Speering announced that Maplewood Monday would resume October 23rd at 11:30 a.m.

Ms. Hunter announced that the CNAP festival would be held at the Global Mall on October

28th.

Ms. Buggs announced that Congressman Cooper will host an Academy day on October 21st.

Ms. Buggs announced in Ms. Pierces absence that the Hillsboro Construction Update meeting

will be held October 19th at 6:00 p.m. at Hillsboro High School.

Ms. Buggs announced that the Envision Napier meeting will be held October 19st at 8:00

a.m.

ADJOURNMENT Ms. Buggs adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.

________________________________________________________

Chris M. Henson Anna Shepherd Date

Board Secretary Board Chair

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. ACTIONS

1. CONSENT

b. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #3 FOR EAST NASHVILLE

MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM IMPROVEMENTS – ROMACH, INC.

We are requesting approval to make the following changes to this contract:

1. Revised scope due to Metro ADA drawing review $ 384.50 2. Reimbursement of NES Service Fee 9,143.78 3. Reimbursement of Sewer Tap Fee 903.00 4. Provide and install foundation drain at bleacher

grade beam 3,842.54 5. Add voltage transformer at scoreboard 796.66 6. Micropiles added during bleacher submittal process 9,032.02 7. Remove and replace unsuitable soils 32,016.00 8. Add flagpole 3,315.51 9. Add bracing of urinal screens 656.40 10. Add utility truck 9,968.52 11. Coat and restripe track 31,447.50 12. Add relocation of lighting fixtures due to conflict with

duct work 1,010.92 13. Delete owner’s contingency (50,000.00)

Total change order amount $ 52,517.35

It is recommended that this change order be approved.

Legality approved by Metro Department of Law.

FUNDING: 45017.80404317

DATE: November 14, 2017

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. ACTIONS

1. CONSENT

c. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR OVERTON HIGH SCHOOL

ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS – AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC. We are requesting approval to make the following changes to this contract: 1. Addition to Contract Contingency $652,160 2. Allowance for Site Drainage repair $ 75,000 3. Move Fire Alarm Panel $ 10,000 4. Repair Auditorium seats $ 10,000 5. Additional Asbestos Abatement $ 10,840 6. Allowance for ADA Inspector items $ 20,000 7. Allowance for additional door hardware $ 57,000 8. Allowance to add toilet to Clinic $ 15,000 Total $850,000 It is recommended that this change order be approved. Legality approved by Metro Department of Law. FUNDING: 45015.80404215 DATE: November 14, 2017

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. ACTIONS

1. CONSENT

d. AWARDING OF PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS

VENDOR: Allovue, Inc.

SERVICE/GOODS: Awarded from RFP 18-2. Allovue provides the consulting and implementation of Priority-Based Budget (PBB) framework across central office departments. Allovue assists departments to align their department priorities with district priorities and to align all budget requests with department priorities. Additionally, Allovue will work with departments to identify measurable, intended outcomes related to proposed programs and budget requests. The project will be phased in over a 3-year time period with approximately 20 programs per year being implemented.

TERM: November 15, 2017 through June 30, 2020

FOR WHOM MNPS Central Office Departments

COMPENSATION: $200 per/hour inclusive of travel

Estimated hours: Year 1: 450 x $200 per hour = $ 90,000 Year 2: 350 x $200 per hour = $ 70,000 Year 3: 350 x $200 per hour = $ 70,000

3-year Total: $230,000

Total Compensation under this contract is not to exceed $300,000.

OVERSIGHT: Office of Director of Schools

EVALUATION: Based on deliverables detailed in the contractor’s proposal and the benefits achieved relative to the cost.

MBPE CONTRACT NUMBER: TBD

SOURCE OF FUNDS: Operating Budget

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. ACTIONS

1. CONSENT

d. AWARDING OF PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS

VENDOR: Southern Kitchen Services, LLC

SERVICE/GOODS: Awarded from RFP 18-3. This contract is for the cleaning of kitchen hoods and exhaust ducts at schools.

TERM: November 15, 2017 through October 31, 2020

FOR WHOM: MNPS Schools

COMPENSATION: Service charge is a minimum of $325 per site with a maximum of $525 per site.

Total compensation for this contract is not to exceed $225,000.

OVERSIGHT: Nutrition Services

EVALUATION: Contractor will be evaluated on timeliness and successfulness of performance as outlined in contractor’s scope of work.

MBPE CONTRACT NUMBER: TBD

SOURCE OF FUNDS: Nutrition Services Fund

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

A. ACTIONS

1. CONSENT

e. AWARDING OF PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS VENDOR: Tennessee Department of Children’s Services

SERVICE/GOODS: Amendment 1 to the Grant Contract. The grant is for MNPS to employ a District Trauma-Informed Schools Coordinator to promote widespread awareness about the impacts of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on school success, lifelong health, and wellness. That information will drive trauma-informed school culture and practices throughout the district. This supports and enhances district priorities. The results of this Coordinator service improve academic achievement and school success for MNPS students. The Coordinator creates and updates ACEs training materials; establishes and supports a team of MNPS ACEs trainers; provides and coordinates district-wide professional development activities; establishes and supports trauma-informed culture and school-wide practices at one (1) district pilot school and ten (10) trauma-informed focus schools; promotes district-wide implementation; implements the Handle With Care notification system so district schools are notified when a student is a victim of or witness to an incident resulting in a police report (collaboration with the MNPD); and actively participates in ACE Nashville and other community collective impact groups. The grant is also used to employ a trauma-informed practitioner at the district’s trauma- informed pilot school to provide trauma-informed support for building staff and trauma- specific interventions for students at Fall Hamilton Enhanced Option School. This amendment extends the term an additional year and increases funding.

TERM: Amendment 1 extends the term an additional year for a new term of: October 17, 2016 through June 30, 2018.

FOR WHOM Fall-Hamilton Enhanced Option School (pilot school), and trauma- informed focus schools including: Bellshire Design Center, Eakin Elementary School, Hermitage Elementary School, Inglewood Elementary School, Meigs Magnet Middle School, Murrell School, Napier Elementary School, Tulip Grove Elementary School, Warner Enhanced Option Elementary School, and Waverly Belmont Elementary School.

COMPENSATION: Amendment 1 adds additional grant revenue of $200,000.

OVERSIGHT: Student Support Services

EVALUATION: Quarterly reports summarizing grant activities, outputs and outcomes are provided to DCS as required using their grant monitoring template.

MBPE CONTRACT NUMBER: 2-00380-01A1

SOURCE OF FUNDS: Grant Revenue – Adverse Childhood Experiences

(ACEs) Initiative

EXCEEDINGGREATEXPECTATIONS

1

School Board Meeting November 14, 2017

2

Our FoundationOUR VISION

• Metro Nashville Public Schools will be the

fastest-improving urban school system in

America, ensuring that every student

becomes a life-long learner prepared for

success in college, career and life.

OUR MISSION

• We deliver a great public

education to every student, every

day.

OUR VALUES

• Whole learner, literacy,excellence,

relevance, innovation, talent,

collaboration, equity and diversity.

Strategic Framework Goal Areas

3

Strategic Planning Phases

Gather Input

& Information

Strategic Framework Annual & Baseline

Measures

Implementation

& Planning

Develop Infrastructure

& Skills

4

PLANNED

Strategic Planning Phases

Gather Input

& Information

Strategic Framework Annual & Baseline

Measures

Implementation

& Planning

Develop Infrastructure

& Skills

5

ACTUAL

APR 2017 to NOV 2017 JUL 2016 to JAN 2017 DEC 2016 to APR 2017

APR 2017 to NOV 2017 DEC 2017 to JUN 2018

PHASE PHASE

PHASE PHASE PHASE

MNPS Accountability and Assessment Results

TCAP/TNReady Results

TNReady was administered in 2016-17 for the first time in

grades 3-8 and for the second time in selected high school

courses

The new TNReady performance standards meet or exceed

the ACT college readiness standards

The majority of MNPS students and Tennessee students at

each tier fall short of the new On Track requirements for

English/Language Arts and Mathematics

The percentage of MNPS students scoring On Track or

higher is below the statewide percentage in all subject areas

7

2017 MNPS and Statewide TNReady Results for

English/Language Arts

25.4 25.8 24.7

34.0 33.6 34.3

0

25

50

75

3-5 ELA 6-8 ELA HS ELA

Perc

ent O

n T

rack

or

Maste

red

Grade Span/Subject

MNPS TN

8


Mathematics

29.225.9

12.5

40.135.8

21.5

0

25

50

75

3-5 Math 6-8 Math HS Math

Perc

ent O

n T

rack

or

Maste

red

Grade Span/Subject

MNPS TN

9


Science

39.5

46.7

36.2

55.861.4

51.0

0

25

50

75

3-5 Science 6-8 Science HS Science

Perc

ent O

n T

rack

or

Maste

red

Grade Span/Subject

MNPS TN

10

MNPS TNReady High School End of Course

Exam Results for 2016 and 2017

22.8

12.2

34.4

24.7

12.5

36.2

0

25

50

75

HS ELA HS Math HS Science

Perc

ent O

n T

rack

or

Maste

red

Grade Span/Subject

2016 2017

11

2017 MNPS TNReady Grades 3-8 Results by

Student Subgroup for English/Language Arts

30.723.0

36.4 35.5 34.519.6

40.449.5

63.6

43.7

36.9

45.5 46.941.4

39.6

45.141.2

27.3

21.3

30.6

16.1 16.120.7

31.8

13.3 8.6 7.64.3 9.5

2.0 1.5 3.4 9.01.2

0.7 1.5

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

All Asian Black Hispanic NativeAmerican

White EconomicDisadv

ELL SWD

Perc

ent of S

tudents

% Below % Approaching % On Track % Mastered

2017 MNPS TNReady Grades 3-8 Results by

Student Subgroup for Mathematics

36.921.9

46.538.8 36.2

24.4

47.2 46.1

67.3

35.4

33.1

35.038.8 41.4

34.2

35.8 37.0

21.521.5

30.1

15.9 19.1 19.0

30.0

14.8 14.6 8.46.2 14.9

2.6 3.3 3.411.4

2.2 2.3 2.8

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

All Asian Black Hispanic NativeAmerican

White EconomicDisadv

ELL SWD

Perc

ent of S

tudents

% Below % Approaching % On Track % Mastered

District State Accountability Status:

Achieving

Achieving is the 2nd highest of 4 performance categories:

Exemplary, Achieving, Progressing, In Need of Improvement

Districts designated as Achieving are meeting the

growth expectation for all students and historically

underserved student groups, on average.

14

State Recognition: Reward Schools

for Performance and Progress

East End Preparatory School

Hume-Fogg High

Martin Luther King Jr School

Meigs Middle

15


for Performance

Glendale Elementary

Lockeland Elementary

Percy Priest Elementary

Purpose Prep

16


for Progress

Cameron College Preparatory

KIPP Nashville Collegiate High

KIPP Nashville College Prep

LEAD Prep Southeast

New Vision Academy

Rose Park Middle

17

State Recognition: Improving

Priority Improving

Inglewood Elementary

John B. Whitsitt Elementary

Focus Improving – Gap Closure

May Werthan Shayne Elementary

18

Our Students

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

20

2017-18 Priorities by Goal Area

PRIORITY 1 Curriculum, Instruction

& Assessment

PRIORITY 2 School Culture &

Climate

PRIORITY 3 College & Career

Readiness

PRIORITY 4 Organizational

Development & Effectiveness

PRIORITY 6 Equity & Access

PRIORITY 5 Performance

Management & Operational Efficiency

PRIORITY 7 Family & Community

Engagement

Interdependencies Across Areas

21

Our Students [Priorities]

PRIORITY 1 Curriculum, Instruction

& Assessment

PRIORITY 2 School Culture &

Climate

PRIORITY 3 College & Career

Readiness

MNPS KPIsPerformance Management & Alignment

22

Schools

• Academic, Behavioral, SEL & Climate KPIs

• State Accountability Measures

• School Improvement Plans

District

•KPIs by Strategic Framework Goal Area•State Accountability Measures•Priority Project Plans

• Policy Governance

• Director of Schools Evaluation

Quarterly Monitoring & Reporting

23

GOLD FAST Early Reading & Math MAP-R & MAP-M TVAAS FAST Curriculum Based

Measures EL – English Proficiency Students with Disabilities

Proficiency Family Engagement Graduation Rate AP, IB & Cambridge Pathway Dual Credit/Dual

Enrollment ACT Industry Certifications

Academic KPIs

Chronic Absence Social Emotional

Learning Discipline Family

Engagement MTSS

Behavior, SEL & Climate KPIs

Our Students

KPIs

Pre-K Student Performance Assessment - GOLD

24

**GOLD is an observational assessment. Teachers with more

training, and experience with GOLD have higher reliability. Numbers

could fluctuate as they gain reliability.

Developmental Band

% of students meeting2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017

Physical 89.0% 89.1%

Cognitive 85.6% 84.9%

Social Emotional 86.4% 87.7%

Language 81.3% 81.8%

Literacy 90.4% 90.2%

Mathematics 80.6% 80.5%

Fall 2017 FAST Percent of MNPS Students in Grades K-1 Academically At Risk

Subject Area% of Students

at Risk

Reading 45.6%

Math 43.9%

Note: These numbers reflect the percentage of MNPS

K-1 students scoring below the 25th percentile on the

FAST Early Reading and Early Math assessments.

Fall 2017 MAP Percent of MNPS Students in Grades 2-8 in National Quintiles 4-5

Subject Area% of Students in

Quintiles 4-5

Reading 32.9%

Math 25.1%

Note: Quintiles 4-5 represent the top 40% of students

nationally (National Percentiles 61-99) with respect to

academic achievement.

TVAAS District-Wide Effectiveness

Subject Area Effectiveness

Composite Level 1

Literacy Level 3

Numeracy Level 1

Literacy and Numeracy Level 1

Science Level 4

Social Studies Level 1

Note: Level 3 indicates academic growth equivalent to the 2017

state average. Levels 4 and 5 reflect growth that is statistically

significantly above the state while levels 1 and 2 are significantly

below the state.

2017 TVAAS School Effectiveness

Distribution by Subject

TVAAS Score

Composite Literacy NumeracyLiteracy & Numeracy

ScienceSocial

Studies

# of Schools

% of Schools

# of Schools

% of Schools

# of Schools

% of Schools

# of Schools

% of Schools

# of Schools

% of Schools

# of Schools

% of Schools

5 24 31.6 23 30.7 19 25.0 21 27.6 29 38.7 4 15.4

4 1 1.3 4 5.3 3 3.9 0 0.0 3 4.0 3 11.5

3 7 9.2 13 17.3 9 11.8 13 17.1 3 4.0 7 26.9

2 4 5.3 9 12.0 2 2.6 3 3.9 4 5.3 1 3.8

1 40 52.6 26 34.7 43 56.6 39 51.3 36 48.0 11 42.3

Total 76 100.0 75 100.0 76 100.0 76 100.0 75 100.0 26 100.0

Note: The district did not receive TVAAS results for elementary schools in 2017 due to the state’s

failure to administer TNReady in 2016. The state did not compute TVAAS for grade 4. For grades 5

and up they measured gains over two years – from 2015 to 2017. Since testing begins in grade 3, we

did not have growth data for elementary schools.

English Proficiency of English Learners

29

EL AMAO 1 and 22014 ELDA

Assessment2015 ACCESSAssessment

2016 ACCESSAssessment

2017 ACCESS 2.0 Assessment***

English Language Fluency (Any

Improvement)67% 76.2% 79.0% 34.6%***

English Language Fluency (0.7 from

previous year)N/A*

48.3%(state target

39.7%)51.0%

13.7% ***(state target not

defined)

English Language Fluency (Based on

Differentiated Criteria)

N/A N/A N/A 41.2%****

Proficiency 19.3%9.4%**

(state target 4.7%)13.6%

14.5%*** (state target not

defined)

*Implemented in 2015 with ACCESS to measure language growth

**New criteria for exit rate changed to 5 total composite and 5 literacy composite.

***Implemented new standards, scoring scales, and criteria for ACCESS in 2017

****Differentiated Criteria for the Growth Standard uses either one year or two year growth metrics. Since new

standards, scoring scales, and criteria were adopted for ACCESS in 2017, we expect the two year growth rate

to drop from 2016-17 to 2017-18.

2017 TNReady MNPS Results for All Students and for Exceptional Ed Students

Note: Results include Multi-State Alternative Assessment (MSAA) data for severely

disabled students.

Subject Grades

All Students Exceptional Education

# Tested% On Track

or Mastered # Tested% On Track

or Mastered

English/LA 3-8 37,011 25.6 4678 9.1

9-12 14,829 26.7 1479 6.3

3-12 51,840 25.9 6157 8.4

Math 3-8 37,178 27.6 4694 11.2

9-12 15,053 14.8 1303 4.5

3-12 52,231 23.9 5997 9.7

Family Engagement

#

Students Having ParentWith Account

16246(17.27%)

Parent Accounts 11735

Parent Logins 130927

Average Weekly Logins 7050

31

Parent Portal

Account Use

2017-18 # of schools

Active SSO 69

Pending SSO 3

School Level Parent Advisory Group or Coalition

4

TOTAL 73

Active School Support

(SSO)/PTA/PAC

organization

Note: Data represents date range of 7/3/17 to

11/9/17 from the district level Infinite Campus Portal

Usage Summary Report.

Active = Organization has completed required

paperwork and may fundraise on behalf of their

school.

Pending/Incomplete = Organization has submitted

required paperwork but have some required

documents missing and they may not fundraise.

MNPS High School Graduation Rate by Subgroup

78

.7%

84

.4%

73

.0%

86

.9%

78

.4%

73

.2% 80

.7%

75

.3%

53

.6%

71

.0%

81

.6%

85

.9%

77

.4% 8

6.4

%

81

.4%

79

.2%

82

.3%

79

.3%

54

.6%

73

.5%81

.0%

85

.9%

76

.4%

87

.6%

82

.0%

75

.5% 81

.9%

79

.5%

60

.3%

71

.7%8

0.3

%

86.1

%

74.8

%

88.0

%

81.6

%

74.1

% 81.1

%

75.6

%

58.2

%

68.9

%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

All Female Male Asian Black Hispanic White EconDisadv

SpecialEd

LEP

Pe

rce

nt o

f S

tud

en

ts

2014 2015 2016 2017

32

Advanced Academics

Program# Tests

Attempted % Passed

Advanced Placement 5162 45%

International Baccalaureate 967 43%

Cambridge 727 53%

# Awarded

IB Diploma 39

CP Certificate 29

Industry Certification & Pathway Dual Credit

34

NOTE: In 2017-18, the large increase in participation is due to district funding availability.

Industry Certifications

2014-

2015

2015-

2016

2016-

2017

2017-2018Enrolled to

Test

Tested 307 437 700 1333

Passed 140 207 415

Passage

Rate

46% 47% 59%

Pathway Dual Credit

2014-

2015

2015-

2016

2016-

2017

2017-2018Enrolled to

Test

Tested 953 1372 983 1805

Passed 422 604 749

Passage

Rate

44% 44% 76%

35

Composite Results

Average Score

2016 2017

# of Graduates 4394 4412

# Tested 3865 4027

Participation Rate 88% 91%

# 21 or Higher

(Composite)

1209 1278

% 21 or Higher

(Composite)

31.3% 31.7%

Exam Results by

Subject

Subject

Average Score

2016 2017

Composite 18.7 19.0

English 18.1 18.1

Math 18.1 18.4

Reading 19.3 19.3

Science 18.9 19.3

MNPS ACT Results for 2016 and 2017

Chronic Absence

36

84.2%

15.8%

83.1%

16.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Non-Chronically Absent Chronically Absent

2015-2017 % Chronically Absent vs. Non-Chronically

Absent Students

2015-2016 2016-2017

59.6%

24.6%

11.9%3.8%

55.5%

27.5%

12.4%

4.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Satisfactory Borderline Moderate Severe


2015-2017 Breakdown by Attendance Category

2015-2016 2016-2017

NOTE: Chronic absence is defined as missing 10% or more of available school days for any reason (excused, unexcused,

suspension, etc).

Satisfactory 95% or more of all attendance days

Borderline 91% - 95% of all attendance days

Moderate 80% - 90% of all attendance days

Severe <80% of all attendance days

Pre-K Chronic Absence

37

76.1%

23.9%

74.7%

25.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%


2015-2017 Pre-K Data%Chronically Absent vs. Non-Chronically

Absent Students

2015-2016 2016-2017

Discipline

38

10,337

565 251

8,357

390 2020

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Suspended Remanded to ALC Expelled

2015-2017 # of Students with Discipline Incidents Resulting in Loss of Instruction Time

by Behavior Response Type

2015-2016 2016-2017

KPI Data Collection – Underway

• FAST Curriculum-Based Measures (Early Reading, Early Math, CBM Reading, CBM Math)

• Social Emotional Learning – School Admin team tier one behavior strategy training

• MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) – School conditions indicator and implementation progress monitoring

39

40

PHASE 2: Priority Plan Presentations

January February March AprilPRIORITY 1

Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment

PRIORITY 2 School Culture & Climate

PRIORITY 3 College & Career Readiness

PRIORITY 4 Organizational

Development & Effectiveness

PRIORITY 6 Equity & Access

PRIORITY 5 Performance Management

& Operational Efficiency

PRIORITY 7 Family & Community

Engagement

Consistent Presentation Structure What is the current state? (Problem) What are we doing about it? What help is needed?

PHASE 3 2018-19 Priority Planning Begins

2018-19 School Year

Next Steps

• Establishing a system to monitor the work

• Building capacity of key leaders to support and execute priority work with fidelity

• Continuing work to connect district strategies to direct school supports

• Supporting school prioritization of KPIs

• Aligning school-based budgets to KPIs

• Assessing school needs vs. available resources

• Prioritizing budget requests/needs vs. availability of budget resources

• Surveying schools currently underway re: school climate and culture

• Evolving budget priorities from 17/18 academic supports to 18/19 SEL supports

41

Questions?

42

Last Revised: 11/08/17 Page 1

School Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) & Data Analysis Guidance OUR STUDENTS: Create an environment that promotes active student engagement and consistent improvement

in academic achievement among pre-k-12 students from all backgrounds and programs.

PURPOSE: This document covers the following three aspects of the MNPS Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): 1 - Academics; 2 - SEL/Behavior (Climate); 3 - School Organization & Capacity Building. These KPIs will enable MNPS to focus efforts and resources to empower each MNPS student to exceed great expectations. The indicators included in this document are intended to act as a roadmap for data conversations among students, schools, staff, families, community partners and all central office supports. We commit to regularly reflecting and regrouping our actions by questioning how specific efforts help or hinder progress on these indicators.

Exceeding Great Expectations MTSS – Academics_ Key Performance Indicators (Target Range) Tools for Data Analysis GOLD (student performance assessment)

Pre K • 80% of all students will be on or above the appropriate developmental band in social-emotional, physical, language, literacy, math, cognition domains

• Monitor three checkpoint outcome measures from fall, winter, and spring at school level, classroom level, as well as within and across all subgroups

• Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results FAST Early Reading FAST Early Math

K - 1st

• Each year, reduce the percentage of all students considered at risk (below the 25th national percentile) by 3 - 5%

• Monitor three (3) benchmark outcome measures from fall, winter, and spring at school level, classroom level, as well as within and across all subgroups

• Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results MAP-R & MAP-M

2nd - 8th • 60% of all students will meet or exceed their projected RIT scores • Growth rate of 3 - 5 percentage points in the 4th quintile or

higher

• Monitor three (3) benchmark outcome measures at school level, classroom level, as well as within and across all subgroups

• Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results

TVAAS 4th - 12th • School-wide TVAAS scores at 3 or above (Composite and all tested areas)

• Review scores from previous school year. Utilize student level TVAAS Projection Report to identify students in need of additional support


FAST Curriculum-Based Measures (Early Reading, Early Math, CBM Reading, CBM Math)

K - 12th • Overall movement through the tiers of 3 -5% per year (all students moving from tier III to tier II, and from tier II to tier I)

• Monitor CBM screening and progress monitoring measures for students receiving skills-based interventions


English Proficiency of English Learners

K - 12th • Growth in four language domains Composite score of ACCESS by 1 proficiency level

• Review WIDA ACCESS scores from previous years • Monitor program patterns which minimally includes the number of students

exiting and time in program

Proficiency of Students with Disabilities (SWDs)

Pre K - 12th • Increase percentage of Exceptional Education students reaching proficiency by 3 - 5 percentage points each year in reading and math on the end of year summative assessments

• MAP, Fastbridge & end of year summative assessments, team evaluations and LRE data

Family Engagement Pre K - 12th • Increase the number of opportunities parents have to partner academically with the school

• Increase the percentage of students having parents with portal accounts and who access their students record by 3 - 5%

• Review parent/family suggestions • Infinite Campus Parent Portal Usage Summary Report


School Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) & Data Analysis Guidance

Exceeding Great Expectations

MTSS – Academics_ Key Performance Indicators (Target Range) Tools for Data Analysis Graduation Rate

9th – 12th • Annual gains in Graduation Rates of 2 - 3% school-wide and across all subgroups

• Review graduation rates from previous school year within and across all subgroups

• Monitor At-Risk Student List Report to identify students at risk of drop out • Monitor cohort data rosters • Track retention/promotion rates from year to year • Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results

Advanced Placement 9th - 12th • Increase the testing participation rate by 3 - 5% • Increase the number of students achieving a passing score (AP

score of 3 or higher, or IB score of 4 or higher, or a Cambridge score of A-E) on an advanced academic examination by 3 - 5% (Years 2-4)

• Increase the number of students receiving an IB diploma, Cambridge AICE diploma, or the CP (Career-related Programme) certificate by 3 - 5%

• Review enrollment of students taking courses, the number of students testing, and the number of students passing the exam

• View data within and across all subgroups to ensure opportunities are equitable

International Baccalaureate

9th - 12th

Cambridge 9th - 12th

Pathway Dual Credit/Dual Enrollment

10th - 12th • Annual gains in participation of 3 - 5% each year • Annual gains in pass rate of 3 - 5% (years 2-4)

• Review participation and pass rates for all students and subgroups • Review past student performance success rate

ACT 11th • Increase number of all students scoring 21+ on the ACT Composite Score by 2 - 3 percentage points

• School-wide average ACT composite score increases by 2 - 3 tenths of a point

• Review TVAAS projections for every student that aligns to ACT • Review Analyze ED data • Review ACT school wide report • Review students’ scheduling progression in preparation for ACT

Industry Certifications 12th • Annual gains in participation of 3 - 5% each year

• Annual gains in pass rate of 3 - 5% (years 2-4) • Review participation and pass rates for all students within and across

subgroups • Review past student performance success rate

NOTE: A formative assessment for 9th – 12th grade is TBD. Once determined, the information in this document will be updated.




MTSS-SEL/Behavior (School Climate)_ Key Performance Indicators (Target Range)

Tools for Data Analysis

Chronic Absence

Pre K -12th • Annual gains in satisfactory student attendance (Students with Average Daily Attendance of 95% or higher) – measured by a 3 - 5% reduction of students that do not have satisfactory attendance school-wide and across all subgroups

• Reduce the percentage of chronically absent students by 5% across all subgroups

• The percentage of chronically absent Pre-K students will be at or below the state average of 22%

• Increase number of students with an At Risk Attendance Flag being referred for additional services and support

• Review the following Data Warehouse Reports: Attendance Dashboard, At Risk Students List and Chronic Absence Summary Report at mid-terms and the conclusion of each quarter

• Review data by school level, grade level, as well as within and across all subgroups


Social Emotional Learning Pre K -12th • 100% of school administration team will be trained on a tier one behavior strategy

• 3 - 5% decrease in the number of student discipline incidents (Demonstrates the level of SEL training and implementation)

• Review Panorama and SEL Climate Walk-Through Rubric outcome measures

• Review SEL 5 Core Competencies in the elementary report card • Review Fidelity Checks of tier I behavior strategy • Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results

Discipline

Pre K - 12th • 3 - 5% decrease in the number of students with discipline incidents resulting in loss of instructional time ( e.g. out of school suspension, remanded to Alternative Learning Centers, and expulsion)

• Increase number of students with an At Risk Discipline Flag being referred for additional services and support

• Review the following Data Warehouse Reports: Discipline Dashboard, At Risk Students List, OSS-Expelled- Remanded Report, and Incident Counts Threshold Student Lists at mid-terms and the conclusion of each quarter

• Review data by school level, grade level, as well as within and across all subgroups to ensure equitable and equal treatment

• Monitor and audit application of processes to ensure practices are aligned with policies

• Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results Family Engagement Pre K - 12th • Form a minimum of one formal parent group (active school

support/PTA/PAC organization) at your school to strengthen collaboration between families and educators to enhance parent voice

• Increase Parent Survey participation 3 - 5% NOTE: Beginning in year two (2018-19) indicators will be based on specific opportunities for improvement identified in the parent survey baseline data trends.

• Review school level results of District Parent Survey and Family Engagement Readiness Survey

• Review parent focus group results

NOTE: A schools’ climate can consist of many aspects including areas like safety (emotional, intellectual, and physical), common high expectations, trust among students, trust among adults, trust between students and adults, connectedness among teachers, connectedness among students, behavior, absences/attendance, family engagement, and Social and Emotional Learning. The Panorama survey will measure several elements of a school climate and will provide schools with specific areas of refinement and reinforcement.




MTSS – School Organization & Capacity Building_ Key Performance Indicators (Target Range)

Tools for Data Analysis

MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support)

Pre K - 12th • Schools will have the necessary conditions in place for implementation of MTSS, as measured through a score of at least 80% on the MTSS School Assessment Tool

• Schools will increase fidelity of implementation each year, as measured through School Assessment Tool and implementation walk-throughs

• Review MTSS School Assessment Tool results • Review feedback from MTSS Leadership, Development, and School

Leadership team meetings • Review data from school visits and walkthroughs



ADDENDUM A

MNPS MTSS Definition & Visual

MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) is a comprehensive framework of evidence based, system-wide practices to support a timely response to a continuum of academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs, using data-based decision making to empower each MNPS student to exceed great expectations. See Figure 1

Figure 1: MTSS Comprehensive Framework Model



ADDENDUM B

Probing Questions – consider as you review data and determine adjustments to practice

GOLD (student performance assessment) Are work samples provided for each learning objective assessed? What evidence did you discover in the student’s work samples that indicate student is above, at or below expectations? How do work samples reflect valid student growth from fall to winter and winter to spring? How is data used to develop lesson plans at each developmental level? How will teachers use this information to adjust small groups in literacy and math? How will you identify and provide effective instruction around key objectives that fall below expectations? How do you ensure that all students (including SWDs) have access to high-quality differentiated core instruction (Tier I)? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) FAST Early Reading & Math How will teachers use the information from this skills based assessment to inform practice and guide instruction? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management)How will teachers use data to differentiate instruction to ensure growth for all students? How do you ensure that all students (including SWDs) have access to high-quality differentiated core instruction (Tier I) in ELA and math? How are you using these assessments to identify students for interventions targeted to meet specific skill needs and to progress monitor outcomes for those students? MAP-R (Reading) & MAP-M (Math) How will your school use RIT data to progress monitor all students that fall below the 2nd quintile? What interventions does your school intend to implement for students below the 2nd quintile? Are those students being progress monitored? If a large percentage of students fall below the 2nd quintile, what is being done to change core instruction? What interventions are being implemented to ensure growth for students meeting or exceeding projected growth? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) How are you using this RIT data to drive work of the professional learning community at your school? How do you ensure that all students (including students with disabilities) have access to high-quality differentiated core instruction (Tier I) in ELA and math? How are you using these assessments as part of the universal screening process to identify students for intervention, remediation, and enrichment? How are you using Fastbridge data to help determine skills-based needs of students falling below the 25th percentile on MAP? TVAAS What can be learned from previous year’s data? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management)Are there trends over the last three years? In reviewing progress monitor data with MAP, are there correlations with previous year TVASS scores? How are you using the diagnostic reports available through TVAAS to make adjustments to classroom practices and regular observations?

FAST Curriculum-Based Measures (Early Reading, Early Math, CBM Reading, CBM Math) What is your school's tier based intervention model? How are you using CBM screening assessments to identify students (including SWDs) for interventions targeted to meet specific skill needs? What skills-based interventions for ELA (using evidence-based practices) are being implemented for students falling below the 25th percentile? What skills-based interventions for Math (using evidence-based practices) are being implemented for students falling below the 25th percentile?



Is regular progress monitoring (using FAST) being conducted for students receiving Tier II and III and special education interventions in reading and math? Do students have access to interventions at increasing levels of intensity? How does the data-based decision making process facilitate transitions between tiers? Are you discussing students with disabilities in your data team meetings? English Proficiency of English Learners What percentage of students made progress in their reading, writing, listening, and speaking (ACCESS)? How long on average have students been active in the EL program? Are those students making progress in language and achievement? How will teachers use data to differentiate instruction to ensure growth for all students? What evidenced English Language strategies are present throughout your school to consistently support English Language Learners in their literacy growth? Are high school EL students also achieving in content classes? Proficiency of Students with Disabilities (SWDs) Are you analyzing data for SWDs using MAP and Fastbridge to determine if students are showing growth toward the end of year summative assessment? Are you using behavior data to determine how much instructional time is lost due to suspension/discipline? Does your data in Easy IEP (Individualized Education Plan) align with interventions that are being provided to SWDs? Are special education teachers providing intensive interventions aligned to the student’s area of need as outlined in the IEP as well as data from MAP and Fastbridge? How are you monitoring the IEPs written for students to make sure they are instructionally appropriate as outlined in the IAIEP rubric provided? Are you utilizing your individual student data (MAP/Fastbridge) to make sure students are receiving intervention and supports in their specific area of need (Data Based Decision Making)? Do you have interventions scheduled into the day and are SWDs receiving their most intensive interventions (from Exceptional Education teachers) in addition to the core instruction (from general

education teachers)? Are you utilizing the guidance for interventionist linked to the TEAM rubric for special education teachers? Are your special education teachers providing core content only to students on an alternative assessment? (all other students should be in general education setting with core content experts) For students on an alternative assessment, are special education teachers teaching core content connectors aligned to TN state standards and providing interventions in addition to core content

standards? Have you analyzed your least restrictive environment data (LRE) on a regular basis to make sure SWDs are included in the general education setting 80% or greater of their day. Are general education teachers differentiating instruction to support SWDs access to core instruction? Family Engagement Academics What strategies do we have in place to reach more parents/families regarding their students’ overall school performance? How do we tailor our outreach to meet the needs of our culturally diverse families? What are we doing to ensure educators have the capacity to engage parents around their student’s overall school performance? What practices (e.g. positive phone calls, texts, home

visits, data chats) are educators expected to use and how you support and hold them accountable to those practices? Who’s trained to monitor and communicate with families via the Infinite Campus portal at the school and classroom level? School Climate What does the data say regarding parent perception of your school? Does your school have effective two way communication strategies in place to reach all families of all demographics? Does the communication take place in multiple languages? Does your school have a strategy to recruit and retain parent leaders? Does your school have a functioning parent support group? What strategies does your school have in place to consistently and intentionally engage parents of Non-English Language backgrounds and disabilities to participate in their child's school? What is your school’s strategy to identify and form collaborations with external partners aligned with your school’s strategic goals? What impact does having or not having engaged families have on the schools’ overall climate? What other elements of climate (e.g. SEL, discipline, chronic absences, tier I behavior approach) does the school need to pay attention to the most in order to impact improvement in the

engagement of families in the learning process? What professional development have you offered your staff through Equity and Diversity University to build their capacity to engage families?



Graduation Rate • What can be learned from previous year’s data? • Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management)Are there trends over the last three years? • What supports are in place for students identified through early warning indicator reports? • What is your process for identifying over age under credit students? What are your intervention strategies for over age under credit students (School options and Non-Traditional Options)? How are you working to make sure SWDs are on track to graduate? Are your counselors involved in course of study and alignment to graduation requirement for SWDs? Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Cambridge How are students identified and/or selected for AP, IB, and Cambridge courses? Are we capturing all students with the potential to succeed in these classes? Are additional supports accessible to all students (i.e. Do they require internet at home, etc.)? What are we doing to support students who are not successful with grades and have low test scores in these courses? Are all subgroups reflected in the enrollment in these courses? Is there disproportionality? How will you address any gaps? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) How are students who participated in Advanced Academics identified? Are Advance Academics students enrolled in these courses? Pathway Dual Credit/Dual Enrollment • How/when are students being encouraged to participate in pathway dual credit test options? • How representative is enrollment within Dual Credit/Dual enrollment of your student demographics? • What are some additional resources or supports that you will need/strategies you will use to address any gaps in successful performance? Are additional supports accessible to all students (e.g. Do

they require internet at home, etc.)? • How/when are students supported to complete the extra work to be successful in passing the challenge exam? • How are students recognized and celebrated within the academy/school for being pathway dual credit/dual enrollment students? • How do teachers help support the pathway teachers in prepping and mentoring dual credit/enrollment students? • How are pathways teachers monitored to see if they are following NSCC (or other post-secondary) resources? Is your school utilizing PLT time to help students prepare for pathway dual credit/dual enrollment exams? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) ACT What can be learned from previous year’s data? What percentage of students met the college readiness benchmark (Reading 22, English 18, Science 23, Math 22, & Composite 21)? What instructional strategies are in place for students who are not on track to meet the benchmark? How is the school using the College Readiness Rubric? Have students taken Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Algebra 1 and 2 in advance of ACT test? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings/gaps? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) Industry Certifications • How/when are students being encouraged to participate in industry certification test options? • How representative is participation and pass rates of your student demographics?



• What are some additional resources or supports that you will need/strategies you will use to address any gaps in pass rates? Are additional supports accessible to all students (i.e. Do they require

internet at home, etc.)? • How/when are students supported to complete the extra work to be successful in passing the certification exam? • How are students recognized and celebrated within the academy for being industry certification student? • How do teachers help support the pathway teachers in prepping and mentoring industry certification students? • How are pathways teachers monitored to see if they are utilizing certification resources? • Is your school utilizing PLT time to help students prepare for industry certification exams? Are students working with a business partner mentor to prepare for the exam? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) Chronic Absence Is chronic absence concentrated among particular students? Is it higher or lower among particular grades? What might explain some of these differences? What additional information is needed to identify barriers or effective strategies in place? Is chronic absence a sign of low levels of school outreach to and engagement of parents? Is chronic absence a sign of challenging social, health and/or economic conditions in the community? Does the level of need (reflected in the severity of absences) compare to availability of supports to improve attendance in your school? How do school disciplinary practices contribute to the chronic absence rate? What impact does absenteeism have on the schools’ overall climate? What other elements of climate (e.g. SEL, family engagement, discipline, tier I behavior approach) does the school need to pay attention to the most in order to impact improvement in chronic

absenteeism? Does the school provide increasingly intensive evidence based behavior interventions to meet student need? Has the school identified strategies to improve active student engagement? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) What impact is teacher attendance having on students, staff and climate of school? What supports can you put in place or assistance you’ve requested to address/determine root cause? Social Emotional Learning Has the school identified a Tier 1 approach to MTSS for behavior? Has the school identified an MTSS SEL/behavior lead? How is the effectiveness of your tier I behavior strategy being measured? Does the school’s master schedule allow for all students (including SWDs) to participate in a community gathering, restorative circle, or morning meeting? If a walk through has been completed, were the next steps implemented? Were additional supports put in place? How is the school using data analysis tools to guide practices around the work of SEL? How is the school using discipline data to drive work of the professional learning community at your school? With families/community? What impact does the current state of SEL (student and adult) have on our schools’ overall climate? What other elements of climate (e.g. family engagement, chronic absences, tier I behavior approach) does the school need to pay attention to the most in order to impact improvement in SEL and its

core competencies? Do the outcomes vary among subgroups? What does it look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your findings? (e.g. family meetings,

equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) Discipline Does the school have a school-wide classroom management strategy? Is instructional time lost, due to class disruptions that impede learning but not referred to administration, documented and communicated? If so, how? What professional development has been provided around classroom management and culture?



Does our school discipline policy and practice ensure students do not miss instruction due to unnecessary suspensions? What level of severity are the majority of discipline offenses? Are discipline offenses concentrated among particular subgroups? What do offenses look like for super-subgroups? What does the subgroup data tell you? What can you do to address your

findings? (e.g. family meetings, equity & diversity trainings for staff, classroom management) Are offenses high among particular grades? Are there outliers in behavior referral rates across faculty members? Are discipline responses consistent across the administration team? What impact does our approach and management of discipline have on the schools’ overall climate? What other elements of climate (e.g. SEL, family engagement, chronic absences, tier I behavior approach) does the school need to pay attention to the most in order to impact improvement in

discipline? Has the school identified a Tier 1 approach to MTSS for behavior and been trained in/provided training in that approach? Does the school provide evidence based behavior interventions to meet student need? Has the team considered a functional behavior assessment and a behavior intervention plan for a student with repeated behavior concerns? MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) Has the school identified two leads for coordination of MTSS within the school (academics and behavior), defined their roles, and communicated roles and responsibilities within the school? Has the school identified an MTSS Leadership Team and Data Teams, defined roles, and communicated team roles and responsibilities? How does the School MTSS Team and/or School Leadership Team monitor the percentages of students responding to core instruction; interventions; and enrichment, and make programmatic

decisions based on data analysis? What schedules, processes, and protocols ensure that MTSS Data Teams meet every five (5) weeks to review data and make academic and behavior decisions for students? What system is in place for documenting interventions and student progress and communicating with parents? Does the school’s master schedule allow for all students (including SWDs) to have access to core instruction in literacy and math; Personalized Learning Time; and a daily community gathering,

restorative circle, or morning meeting? What additional professional development is needed to support data-based decision-making and delivery of interventions? Has the school team analyzed discipline data to determine area of implementation weakness in the area of behavior? Has the team considered how many students are being referred to special day school? Has the team utilized the behavior consulting process before referring to special day school?

MNPS School Level Accountability/Assessment Data (November 2017)

1 589 8055 Acad of Computer Sci CS Hunters Land 289 27.7 32.2 297 24.6 29.3 297 53.9 56.8

1 375 5 Alex Green ES NW Whites Creek 101 11.9 17.4 102 6.9 12.7

1 114 125 Bass Adult SW

1 116 126 Bass ALC SW Hillwood

1 117 725 Bass Transitions SW Hillwood

1 135 45 Bellshire ES NW Hunters Lane 203 11.8 17.3 204 11.3 16.8

1 165 70 Buena Vista ES NW Pearl-Cohn 85 14.1 19.5 86 11.6 17.1

1 215 120 Cockrill ES NW Pearl-Cohn 121 19.0 24.1 125 29.6 34.0

1 783 700 Creswell MS NW Whites Creek 408 18.6 23.7 408 11.0 16.6 408 29.4 33.8

1 240 150 Cumberland ES NW Whites Creek 185 10.8 16.4 184 4.9 10.8

1 152 7010 Davis ELC NE Whites Creek

1 400 305 Haynes MS NW Whites Creek 261 10.7 16.3 264 7.6 13.4 259 13.1 18.5

1 451 350 Hull-Jackson ES NW Pearl-Cohn 110 30.0 34.4 110 30.9 35.2

1 465 380 Joelton ES NW Whites Creek 97 37.1 41.0 97 39.2 43.0

1 470 385 Joelton MS NW Whites Creek 311 6.1 12.0 312 2.2 8.3 307 12.4 17.9

1 285 386 John Early MS NW Pearl-Cohn 347 19.3 24.3 361 15.2 20.5 356 27.0 31.6

1 485 387 Jones ES NW Pearl-Cohn 144 32.6 36.8 144 27.1 31.7

1 503 8042 KIPP College Prep CS Whites Creek 343 16.6 21.8 343 39.7 43.5 339 64.9 67.1

1 508 8003 LEAD Academy HS CS Pearl-Cohn 259 24.3 29.0 279 13.3 18.7

1 535 35 Moses McKissack MS NW Pearl-Cohn 324 8.0 13.8 323 11.5 17.0 326 18.7 23.8

1 211 614 Old Cockrill Acad SE Hillwood 0 0

1 652 8046 Purpose Prep CS Pearl-Cohn 82 68.3 70.3 82 42.7 46.3

1 660 8100 Republic HS CS Hunters Lane 301 34.9 39.0 281 13.5 18.9

1 784 618 Robert Churchwell ES NW Pearl-Cohn 162 15.4 20.7 163 15.3 20.6

1 500 420 Robert E. Lillard ES NW Whites Creek 152 12.5 18.0 152 11.2 16.8

1 667 8050 Rocketship TN CS Maplewood 195 20.0 25.0 195 20.5 25.5

1 787 704 Whites Creek HS NW Whites Creek 0 0 0 502 9.2 14.9 502 1.4 7.6

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

2017 TNReady Math 2017 TNReady Science 2017 TNReady HS ELA 2017 TNReady HS Math

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

Note: There is a 1-year lag in state accountability reporting for ACT and graduation rate. Some schools are missing TNReady results due to insufficient student counts for state to generate Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). 1


Acad of Computer Sci

Alex Green ES

Bass Adult

Bass ALC

Bass Transitions

Bellshire ES

Buena Vista ES

Cockrill ES

Creswell MS

Cumberland ES

Davis ELC

Haynes MS

Hull-Jackson ES

Joelton ES

Joelton MS

John Early MS

Jones ES

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Academy HS

Moses McKissack MS

Old Cockrill Acad

Purpose Prep

Republic HS

Robert Churchwell ES

Robert E. Lillard ES

Rocketship TN

Whites Creek HS

School Engl Math Read Scie All 4 Engl Math Read Scie Comp

162 43.2 46.8 36 33.3 37.5 39 38.5 53.8 30.8 23.1 20.5 10.3 18.5 19.8 18.9 20.0 19.5 93.0%

0 43 14.0 19.4 39 15.4 28.2 5.1 17.9 7.7 2.6 15.5 16.1 16.9 16.3 16.4 56.9%

302 33.4 37.6

259 9.7 15.3 122 9.0 14.7 111 7.2 17.1 2.7 8.1 6.3 0.9 13.8 15.7 15.6 16.1 15.5 76.5%

2017 TNReady HS Science 2017 ACT

Met College Readiness Benchmarks

#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate




Alex Green ES

Bass Adult

Bass ALC

Bass Transitions

Bellshire ES

Buena Vista ES

Cockrill ES

Creswell MS

Cumberland ES

Davis ELC

Haynes MS

Hull-Jackson ES

Joelton ES

Joelton MS

John Early MS

Jones ES

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Academy HS

Moses McKissack MS

Old Cockrill Acad

Purpose Prep

Republic HS



Rocketship TN

Whites Creek HS

School # Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

890 1.4 Level 5 -0.9 Level 2 0.0 Level 3 5.1 6.40

1186 -0.4 Level 3 2.6 Level 5 -1.8 Level 1 -2.1 -3.24

757 -5.1 Level 1 -1.5 Level 2 -6.9 Level 1 -7.1 -8.82



1042 7.9 Level 5 2.7 Level 5 8.9 Level 5 12.2 17.53

1.3 Level 4 0.0 Level 3 -0.8 Level 3


-1.7 Level 3

-2.9 Level 1 -2.0 Level 1 -8.3 Level 1

-1.4 Level 1 -1.1 Level 2 -1.0 Level 2 -6.9 Level 1

2017 TVAAS Growth Scores

Composite ELA Math Science English I English II English III Algebra I Algebra II




Alex Green ES

Bass Adult

Bass ALC

Bass Transitions

Bellshire ES

Buena Vista ES

Cockrill ES

Creswell MS

Cumberland ES

Davis ELC

Haynes MS

Hull-Jackson ES

Joelton ES

Joelton MS

John Early MS

Jones ES

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Academy HS

Moses McKissack MS

Old Cockrill Acad

Purpose Prep

Republic HS



Rocketship TN

Whites Creek HS

School

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

5 2 3 3 5

-14.0 Level 1 3 5 1 3 1

1 2 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

-6.7 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 5

6.5 Level 5 5.0 Level 5 -7.0 Level 1 0.3 Level 3 3.2 Level 3 2.8 Level 5 5 4 5 5 3 5

-8.1 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1

-6.5 Level 1 1 3 3 1

-3.8 Level 2 -4.9 Level 1 -8.6 Level 1 -36.6 Level 1 -5.9 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


2017 TVAAS Growth Scores (continued)

Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies

2017 TVAAS School-wide Composites

Integr Math II Integr Math III Biology Chemistry U.S. HistoryIntegr Math I

Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry




Alex Green ES

Bass Adult

Bass ALC

Bass Transitions

Bellshire ES

Buena Vista ES

Cockrill ES

Creswell MS

Cumberland ES

Davis ELC

Haynes MS

Hull-Jackson ES

Joelton ES

Joelton MS

John Early MS

Jones ES

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Academy HS

Moses McKissack MS

Old Cockrill Acad

Purpose Prep

Republic HS



Rocketship TN

Whites Creek HS

School # Tested Med NP % Q1 % Q2 % Q3 % Q4 % Q5

% Q4-

Q5 # Tested Med NP % Q1 % Q2 % Q3 % Q4 % Q5

% Q4-

Q5

156 32.0 35.3% 25.0% 14.7% 16.0% 9.0% 25.0% 157 27.0 43.9% 21.0% 17.2% 12.1% 5.7% 17.8% 198 55.6%

201 25.0 45.3% 23.4% 14.4% 13.4% 3.5% 16.9% 201 18.0 55.7% 18.9% 11.9% 8.5% 5.0% 13.4% 246 45.1%

150 23.0 47.3% 22.7% 15.3% 12.0% 2.7% 14.7% 149 20.0 53.0% 18.8% 16.1% 7.4% 4.7% 12.1% 192 37.5%

194 26.5 43.8% 18.6% 20.6% 12.9% 4.1% 17.0% 194 23.0 47.9% 22.2% 18.0% 8.8% 3.1% 11.9% 252 40.1%

413 45.0 26.2% 21.1% 21.8% 23.2% 7.7% 31.0% 416 31.5 34.6% 27.4% 22.8% 12.0% 3.1% 15.1%

234 23.0 45.3% 26.1% 14.1% 11.5% 3.0% 14.5% 234 16.0 58.1% 25.6% 10.7% 3.8% 1.7% 5.6% 278 44.2%

224 20.0 50.4% 22.3% 15.2% 9.4% 2.7% 12.1% 227 19.0 53.7% 27.3% 11.9% 6.2% 0.9% 7.0%

174 40.0 26.4% 24.1% 24.1% 16.7% 8.6% 25.3% 174 38.0 30.5% 24.7% 16.7% 19.0% 9.2% 28.2% 231 68.4%

135 56.0 17.0% 20.0% 20.0% 23.0% 20.0% 43.0% 137 53.0 17.5% 19.0% 21.2% 24.8% 17.5% 42.3% 188 58.0%

290 17.5 52.4% 19.3% 17.2% 8.6% 2.4% 11.0% 292 12.5 62.7% 17.5% 15.1% 3.4% 1.4% 4.8%

318 21.5 49.1% 17.6% 10.7% 11.3% 11.3% 22.6% 328 15.0 57.6% 17.1% 8.8% 8.5% 7.9% 16.5%

188 58.0 14.9% 12.2% 23.4% 31.4% 18.1% 49.5% 188 43.5 22.3% 23.4% 22.9% 21.8% 9.6% 31.4% 238 80.7%

294 24.0 44.9% 29.3% 14.3% 10.2% 1.4% 11.6% 290 18.0 53.1% 20.7% 17.9% 6.9% 1.4% 8.3%

202 33.0 33.2% 22.8% 19.8% 18.8% 5.4% 24.3% 196 30.0 39.3% 24.0% 20.4% 12.2% 4.1% 16.3% 272 52.6%

195 24.0 45.6% 21.0% 17.4% 8.7% 7.2% 15.9% 197 18.0 52.8% 20.3% 13.7% 11.2% 2.0% 13.2% 241 55.2%

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

2 225 130 Cole ES SE Cane Ridge 348 16.7 21.9 349 24.4 29.1

2 235 145 Crieve Hall ES SW Overton 150 50.0 53.1 152 63.8 66.1

2 370 290 Granbery ES SW Overton 283 51.9 54.9 285 51.9 54.9

2 405 310 Haywood ES SW Overton 291 17.5 22.7 290 23.4 28.2

2 615 395 John Overton HS SW Overton 0 0 0 1268 22.9 27.7 1410 9.8 15.4

2 682 608 May Werthan Shayne ES SW Overton 287 47.0 50.3 288 56.9 59.6

2 540 480 McMurray MS SW Overton 750 9.5 15.2 760 13.9 19.3 755 16.8 22.0

2 725 645 Tusculum ES SW Overton 242 10.7 16.3 244 16.4 21.6

2 743 8045 Valor Flagship Acad CS Overton 362 69.1 71.0 362 73.5 75.2 364 91.8 92.3

2 744 8080 Valor Voyager CS Overton 361 47.4 50.7 361 59.0 61.6 361 83.9 84.9

2 612 538 William Henry Oliver MS SW Overton 805 30.7 35.0 810 27.5 32.0 809 54.1 57.0



School

Cole ES

Crieve Hall ES

Granbery ES

Haywood ES

John Overton HS

May Werthan Shayne ES

McMurray MS

Tusculum ES

Valor Flagship Acad

Valor Voyager

William Henry Oliver MS

Engl Math Read Scie All 4 Engl Math Read Scie Comp



#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

898 27.7 32.2 325 24.3 29.0 373 28.4 42.1 16.4 27.1 19.3 8.8 17.3 18.0 18.5 19.0 18.4 85.6%



School

Cole ES

Crieve Hall ES

Granbery ES

Haywood ES

John Overton HS


McMurray MS

Tusculum ES

Valor Flagship Acad

Valor Voyager


# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level



-0.1 Level 3 0.4 Level 4 0.0 Level 3 -4.3 Level 1




2419 -1.4 Level 1 -2.1 Level 1 -2.7 Level 1 0.4 0.90



School

Cole ES

Crieve Hall ES

Granbery ES

Haywood ES

John Overton HS


McMurray MS

Tusculum ES

Valor Flagship Acad

Valor Voyager


SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

-3.4 Level 1 -7.9 Level 1 -4.6 Level 1 -9.6 Level 1 1.2 Level 5 1 3 1 1 1 5

-9.9 Level 1 1 3 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

5.4 Level 4 1 1 1 1 3



School

Cole ES

Crieve Hall ES

Granbery ES

Haywood ES

John Overton HS


McMurray MS

Tusculum ES

Valor Flagship Acad

Valor Voyager


# Tested Med NP % Q1 % Q2 % Q3 % Q4 % Q5

% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

413 27.0 42.4% 22.5% 16.2% 13.1% 5.8% 18.9% 410 27.0 42.7% 25.1% 17.8% 10.5% 3.9% 14.4% 559 33.3%

257 60.0 19.5% 11.7% 19.5% 21.4% 28.0% 49.4% 257 58.0 19.1% 12.1% 23.7% 21.8% 23.3% 45.1% 358 73.7%

437 63.0 15.6% 14.0% 16.9% 22.4% 31.1% 53.5% 436 58.5 20.6% 15.6% 16.5% 20.6% 26.6% 47.2% 582 70.1%

337 27.0 44.2% 22.3% 16.9% 11.9% 4.7% 16.6% 348 24.5 48.0% 19.5% 15.5% 12.6% 4.3% 17.0% 505 44.8%

426 56.0 20.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.9% 24.2% 45.1% 428 50.0 22.9% 17.3% 21.3% 18.9% 19.6% 38.6% 577 60.8%

690 18.0 53.0% 17.5% 15.2% 10.7% 3.5% 14.2% 606 18.5 53.3% 22.8% 14.0% 7.4% 2.5% 9.9%

414 19.0 51.4% 19.3% 16.2% 7.5% 5.6% 13.0% 414 18.0 52.4% 19.8% 14.3% 9.9% 3.6% 13.5% 544 34.4%

869 61.0 15.2% 14.3% 20.5% 28.3% 21.7% 50.1% 870 47.0 19.7% 22.3% 24.4% 20.9% 12.8% 33.7%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

3 105 10 Amqui ES NW Hunters Lane 209 7.7 13.5 215 13.5 18.9

3 200 105 Chadwell ES NE Maplewood 130 23.1 27.9 128 21.1 26.0

3 560 160 Dan Mills ES NE Stratford 190 45.3 48.7 191 45.0 48.4

3 315 235 Gateway ES NW Hunters Lane 109 24.8 29.5 110 19.1 24.2

3 350 270 Goodlettsville ES NW Hunters Lane 134 30.6 34.9 134 34.3 38.4

3 355 275 Goodlettsville MS NW Hunters Lane 502 12.0 17.5 504 8.9 14.6 503 32.0 36.3

3 365 285 Gra-Mar MS NE Maplewood 336 7.7 13.5 338 13.9 19.3 336 19.9 24.9

3 452 358 Hunters Lane HS NW Hunters Lane 0 1025 14.8 20.1 1044 4.1 10.1

3 510 365 Isaac Litton MS NE Stratford 460 18.7 23.8 464 16.6 21.8 463 43.6 47.1

3 120 375 Jere Baxter MS NE Maplewood 289 5.9 11.8 288 8.3 14.0 286 19.9 24.9

3 501 8085 KIPP ES CS Maplewood

3 545 622 Madison MS NW Hunters Lane 507 7.9 13.7 506 6.7 12.5 515 20.6 25.6

3 550 445 Maplewood HS NE Maplewood 633 5.4 11.3 615 2.0 8.1

3 595 515 Neelys Bend ES NW Hunters Lane 161 13.0 18.4 160 20.0 25.0

3 600 520 Neelys Bend MS 220 14.1 19.5 220 7.7 13.5 220 15.5 20.8

3 610 535 Old Center ES NW Hunters Lane 120 24.2 28.9 119 25.2 29.9

3 687 8001 Smithson-Craighd Acad CS Hunters Lane 83 10.8 16.4 83 14.5 19.8

3 710 625 Stratton ES NW Hunters Lane 223 19.3 24.3 224 28.1 32.6

3 495 635 Tom Joy ES NE Maplewood 155 10.3 15.9 157 3.2 9.3



School

Amqui ES

Chadwell ES

Dan Mills ES

Gateway ES

Goodlettsville ES

Goodlettsville MS

Gra-Mar MS

Hunters Lane HS

Isaac Litton MS

Jere Baxter MS

KIPP ES

Madison MS

Maplewood HS

Neelys Bend ES

Neelys Bend MS

Old Center ES

Smithson-Craighd Acad

Stratton ES

Tom Joy ES




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

504 39.5 43.3 289 14.2 19.6 280 15.0 31.1 8.6 15.4 9.3 4.3 15.6 16.3 16.4 17.0 16.5 80.3%

394 9.9 15.5 131 6.1 12.0 192 6.8 21.9 3.6 11.5 7.3 1.6 14.5 16.0 16.2 16.7 16.0 78.6%



School

Amqui ES

Chadwell ES

Dan Mills ES

Gateway ES

Goodlettsville ES

Goodlettsville MS

Gra-Mar MS

Hunters Lane HS

Isaac Litton MS

Jere Baxter MS

KIPP ES

Madison MS

Maplewood HS

Neelys Bend ES

Neelys Bend MS

Old Center ES


Stratton ES

Tom Joy ES

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level




1037 -2.4 Level 1 -4.2 Level 1 0.1 Level 3 -3.0 -4.11

-0.3 Level 3 -0.3 Level 3 0.3 Level 3 -2.3 Level 1








School

Amqui ES

Chadwell ES

Dan Mills ES

Gateway ES

Goodlettsville ES

Goodlettsville MS

Gra-Mar MS

Hunters Lane HS

Isaac Litton MS

Jere Baxter MS

KIPP ES

Madison MS

Maplewood HS

Neelys Bend ES

Neelys Bend MS

Old Center ES


Stratton ES

Tom Joy ES

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

-11.6 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 3 1 1

-5.4 Level 1 -7.3 Level 1 -1.4 Level 3 30.7 Level 5 2.4 Level 5 3 3 1 1 5 5

-15.6 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

-2.4 Level 3 1 1 1 1 1

-3.4 Level 2 -12.5 Level 1 -14.5 Level 1 -8.7 Level 1 -31.9 Level 1 -6.8 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 5 1 3 1



School

Amqui ES

Chadwell ES

Dan Mills ES

Gateway ES

Goodlettsville ES

Goodlettsville MS

Gra-Mar MS

Hunters Lane HS

Isaac Litton MS

Jere Baxter MS

KIPP ES

Madison MS

Maplewood HS

Neelys Bend ES

Neelys Bend MS

Old Center ES


Stratton ES

Tom Joy ES


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

247 15.0 56.3% 24.3% 10.1% 6.9% 2.4% 9.3% 257 13.0 61.1% 16.3% 16.0% 3.5% 3.1% 6.6% 387 45.7%

197 33.0 33.0% 24.4% 16.8% 16.8% 9.1% 25.9% 194 27.0 45.9% 17.5% 21.1% 13.4% 2.1% 15.5% 236 63.6%

278 67.0 16.2% 12.2% 16.2% 18.0% 37.4% 55.4% 278 61.5 18.7% 15.8% 15.1% 25.5% 24.8% 50.4% 398 76.9%

181 26.0 37.6% 26.5% 12.2% 14.9% 8.8% 23.8% 180 24.0 46.1% 21.7% 16.7% 8.3% 7.2% 15.6% 227 36.6%

179 51.0 26.8% 14.0% 19.6% 21.2% 18.4% 39.7% 184 40.5 29.9% 20.1% 17.4% 26.1% 6.5% 32.6% 252 55.2%

553 37.0 34.2% 20.8% 21.3% 15.6% 8.1% 23.7% 556 23.0 46.8% 24.8% 15.8% 9.2% 3.4% 12.6%

306 16.5 56.2% 16.7% 15.0% 8.2% 3.9% 12.1% 304 12.0 62.8% 21.1% 10.9% 4.3% 1.0% 5.3%

476 45.0 27.9% 19.5% 17.6% 18.9% 16.0% 34.9% 478 31.0 36.6% 24.9% 17.4% 13.2% 7.9% 21.1%

278 13.5 59.4% 18.7% 14.7% 5.0% 2.2% 7.2% 280 11.0 69.3% 21.4% 5.7% 2.5% 1.1% 3.6%

505 20.0 50.7% 18.8% 14.9% 12.5% 3.2% 15.6% 495 16.0 55.8% 23.2% 11.3% 8.3% 1.4% 9.7%

213 34.0 38.0% 20.2% 20.2% 13.6% 8.0% 21.6% 213 27.0 43.2% 23.5% 16.9% 11.7% 4.7% 16.4% 268 49.6%

183 42.0 26.2% 18.6% 25.1% 19.7% 10.4% 30.1% 183 41.0 26.8% 22.4% 24.0% 18.0% 8.7% 26.8% 239 55.6%

321 27.0 41.7% 23.1% 16.2% 13.1% 5.9% 19.0% 320 22.0 48.1% 24.7% 16.3% 8.4% 2.5% 10.9% 408 47.1%

222 18.5 52.3% 22.5% 14.0% 9.9% 1.4% 11.3% 222 14.0 62.2% 17.6% 13.1% 5.4% 1.8% 7.2% 303 33.7%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

4 460 15 Andrew Jackson ES NE McGavock 214 41.6 45.3 214 29.0 33.4

4 252 165 Dodson ES NE McGavock 176 19.3 24.3 176 28.4 32.9

4 260 175 Donelson MS NE McGavock 707 18.1 23.2 706 15.4 20.7 704 29.0 33.4 0

4 265 180 Dupont ES NE McGavock 158 27.2 31.8 158 22.8 27.6

4 270 190 Dupont-Hadley MS NE McGavock 599 24.2 28.9 599 27.0 31.6 598 61.0 63.4

4 275 185 Dupont-Tyler MS NE McGavock 553 16.3 21.5 562 12.8 18.3 550 28.9 33.3

4 415 320 Hermitage ES NE McGavock 118 26.3 30.9 118 28.0 32.5

4 420 327 Hickman ES NE McGavock 220 24.5 29.2 219 23.3 28.1

4 100 450 Margaret Allen MS SE Antioch 431 15.5 20.8 433 10.6 16.2 427 25.5 30.2

4 530 465 McGavock ES NE McGavock 101 13.9 19.3 101 20.8 25.8

4 532 470 McGavock HS NE McGavock 0 0 0 1607 28.4 32.9 1502 8.7 14.4

4 613 612 Opry Mills Acad SE McGavock 0 0

4 640 565 Pennington ES NE McGavock 122 28.7 33.2 123 22.8 27.6

4 522 607 Ruby Major ES NE McGavock 216 31.5 35.8 216 37.5 41.4

4 690 615 Stanford ES NE McGavock 105 50.5 53.6 108 42.6 46.2

4 712 8090 STRIVE Collegiate Acad CS McGavock 183 27.3 31.8 183 28.4 32.9 181 59.7 62.2

4 717 637 Tulip Grove ES NE McGavock 203 24.1 28.8 203 27.6 32.1

4 730 650 Two Rivers MS NE McGavock 444 18.5 23.6 447 12.8 18.3 442 34.8 38.9



School

Andrew Jackson ES

Dodson ES

Donelson MS

Dupont ES

Dupont-Hadley MS

Dupont-Tyler MS

Hermitage ES

Hickman ES

Margaret Allen MS

McGavock ES

McGavock HS

Opry Mills Acad

Pennington ES

Ruby Major ES

Stanford ES

STRIVE Collegiate Acad

Tulip Grove ES

Two Rivers MS




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

1055 37.1 41.0 348 29.6 34.0 379 29.6 45.9 17.9 32.7 21.1 10.6 17.8 17.6 19.4 18.8 18.5 77.9%

0 33 27.3 31.8 43 16.3 34.9 7.0 25.6 9.3 0.0 16.5 16.8 17.6 18.0 17.3 64.1%



School

Andrew Jackson ES

Dodson ES

Donelson MS

Dupont ES

Dupont-Hadley MS

Dupont-Tyler MS

Hermitage ES

Hickman ES

Margaret Allen MS

McGavock ES

McGavock HS

Opry Mills Acad

Pennington ES

Ruby Major ES

Stanford ES


Tulip Grove ES

Two Rivers MS

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level




1778 0.1 Level 3 -2.0 Level 1 -1.8 Level 1 3.9 7.49



1.7 Level 5 1.4 Level 5 0.8 Level 5 -7.0 Level 1





School

Andrew Jackson ES

Dodson ES

Donelson MS

Dupont ES

Dupont-Hadley MS

Dupont-Tyler MS

Hermitage ES

Hickman ES

Margaret Allen MS

McGavock ES

McGavock HS

Opry Mills Acad

Pennington ES

Ruby Major ES

Stanford ES


Tulip Grove ES

Two Rivers MS

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

0.0 Level 3 1 2 2 2 1

6.8 Level 4 3 1 1 1 5

-10.5 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1

-7.6 Level 1 1 4 1 1 1

-3.0 Level 2 1.8 Level 4 -5.6 Level 1 5.0 Level 5 -4.2 Level 1 0.7 Level 4 4 5 1 3 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

-3.3 Level 3 1 2 1 1 3



School

Andrew Jackson ES

Dodson ES

Donelson MS

Dupont ES

Dupont-Hadley MS

Dupont-Tyler MS

Hermitage ES

Hickman ES

Margaret Allen MS

McGavock ES

McGavock HS

Opry Mills Acad

Pennington ES

Ruby Major ES

Stanford ES


Tulip Grove ES

Two Rivers MS


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

289 61.0 15.9% 10.4% 22.5% 24.9% 26.3% 51.2% 291 52.0 18.2% 20.3% 22.3% 25.4% 13.7% 39.2% 405 77.3%

226 37.0 33.6% 20.8% 19.9% 15.9% 9.7% 25.7% 227 29.0 38.8% 23.8% 16.3% 14.1% 7.0% 21.1% 308 45.1%

719 37.0 33.4% 20.9% 16.1% 17.7% 12.0% 29.6% 698 25.0 47.1% 19.6% 16.6% 11.7% 4.9% 16.6%

205 40.0 30.7% 21.0% 20.0% 16.6% 11.7% 28.3% 208 34.0 32.7% 24.0% 24.0% 12.5% 6.7% 19.2% 275 58.2%

631 51.0 24.7% 15.5% 18.7% 24.1% 17.0% 41.0% 636 36.5 32.7% 22.2% 19.7% 18.1% 7.4% 25.5%

481 35.0 34.9% 22.5% 19.8% 14.6% 8.3% 22.9% 516 27.0 43.6% 22.7% 20.3% 12.0% 1.4% 13.4%

174 53.0 20.7% 17.2% 21.8% 20.7% 19.5% 40.2% 174 43.0 29.3% 17.8% 23.6% 16.7% 12.6% 29.3% 237 66.7%

278 46.0 29.5% 17.6% 15.5% 23.0% 14.4% 37.4% 278 38.0 34.5% 21.2% 16.9% 16.5% 10.8% 27.3% 370 57.8%

412 29.5 38.8% 21.4% 17.0% 17.0% 5.8% 22.8% 419 19.0 51.6% 21.0% 16.5% 6.9% 4.1% 11.0%

129 43.0 33.3% 14.0% 22.5% 20.9% 9.3% 30.2% 130 32.0 33.8% 27.7% 16.9% 13.8% 7.7% 21.5% 196 55.6%

168 47.5 30.4% 14.3% 16.7% 16.1% 22.6% 38.7% 166 41.0 28.9% 19.3% 18.1% 21.1% 12.7% 33.7% 225 57.3%

322 49.0 22.7% 19.9% 16.1% 18.9% 22.4% 41.3% 321 38.0 32.7% 19.6% 17.1% 17.4% 13.1% 30.5% 440 62.3%

166 65.0 8.4% 16.3% 21.7% 28.9% 24.7% 53.6% 166 51.5 20.5% 18.7% 25.3% 14.5% 21.1% 35.5% 225 81.8%

293 45.0 28.7% 18.8% 17.4% 19.8% 15.4% 35.2% 295 37.0 31.5% 23.4% 21.4% 15.3% 8.5% 23.7% 402 58.7%

360 33.0 36.9% 19.4% 17.5% 17.8% 8.3% 26.1% 354 19.0 52.3% 19.8% 13.3% 11.9% 2.8% 14.7%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

5 175 80 Caldwell ES NE Maplewood 82 14.6 19.9 84 8.3 14.0

5 181 8010 Cameron College Prep CS Glencliff 611 13.6 19.0 617 15.7 21.0 616 52.3 55.3

5 185 670 Carter-Lawrence ES NW Pearl-Cohn 132 21.2 26.1 132 25.0 29.7

5 448 443 Cora Howe School SW Hillsboro 37 8.1 13.8 37 10.8 16.4 30 10.0 15.6 0 0

5 286 8009 East End Prep CS Stratford 300 41.0 44.7 301 63.8 66.1 94 88.3 89.0

5 290 203 East Nashville Magnet NE Stratford 0 549 20.6 25.6 551 4.7 10.7

5 296 296 East Nashville MS NE Stratford 442 14.7 20.0 441 14.7 20.0 441 24.0 28.8

5 308 220 Fall-Hamilton ES SE Glencliff 91 14.3 19.7 91 20.9 25.8

5 340 260 Glenn ES NE Maplewood 62 14.5 19.8 63 25.4 30.1

5 230 140 Hattie Cotton ES NE Maplewood 106 21.7 26.6 105 15.2 20.5

5 410 315 Head MS NW Pearl-Cohn 540 45.2 48.6 541 58.0 60.6 541 71.0 72.8

5 450 355 Hume-Fogg Magnet NW Pearl-Cohn 643 87.6 88.4 609 83.3 84.3

5 455 360 Inglewood ES NE Stratford 69 21.7 26.6 69 13.0 18.4

5 480 740 Johnson ALC SW Glencliff

5 499 8095 KIPP Academy ES CS Stratford

5 502 8002 KIPP Academy MS CS Maplewood 361 36.8 40.8 361 56.2 58.9 361 80.6 81.8

5 504 8011 KIPP Collegiate HS CS Maplewood 244 34.8 38.9 258 37.2 41.1

5 505 425 Kirkpatrick ES 97 5.2 11.1 98 3.1 9.2

5 517 8005 Liberty Collegiate Acad CS Maplewood 449 30.5 34.8 451 44.3 47.8 450 70.9 72.7

5 520 435 Lockeland ES NE Stratford 122 77.9 79.3 122 85.2 86.1

5 497 456 M.L. King Jr Magnet NW Pearl-Cohn 255 78.0 79.4 256 83.6 84.6 257 96.1 96.3 718 81.9 83.0 683 73.5 75.2

5 555 330 Meigs MS NW Pearl-Cohn 689 81.1 82.3 689 79.7 81.0 689 90.9 91.5

5 585 505 Murrell School SW Hillsboro 53 3.8 9.8 55 1.8 7.9 36 2.8 8.9

5 590 510 Napier ES NE McGavock 121 4.1 10.1 122 3.3 9.3

5 242 512 Nashv School of Arts NW Whites Creek 412 50.0 53.1 417 21.1 26.0

5 592 8044 Nashville Prep CS Stratford 73 67.1 69.2 73 54.8 57.6

5 594 8008 Nashville Prep CS Pearl-Cohn 368 25.3 30.0 373 28.4 32.9 373 48.5 51.7

5 620 545 Park Avenue ES NW Pearl-Cohn 157 13.4 18.8 156 28.8 33.3

5 632 555 Pearl-Cohn HS NW Pearl-Cohn 0 0 0 456 6.8 12.6 427 3.5 9.5

5 675 595 Rose Park MS NW Pearl-Cohn 430 50.9 54.0 430 47.7 51.0 430 79.1 80.4

5 670 600 Rosebank ES NE Stratford 86 18.6 23.7 86 8.1 13.8

5 681 7015 Ross ELC NE Stratford

5 685 610 Shwab ES NE Maplewood 104 12.5 18.0 108 12.0 17.5

5 695 8006 STEM Prep Academy CS Glencliff 515 30.7 35.0 517 46.0 49.4 518 68.9 70.8

5 696 8075 STEM Prep HS CS Glencliff 242 47.1 50.4 243 42.0 45.6

5 705 620 Stratford HS NE Stratford 371 8.6 14.3 376 6.6 12.4 374 13.9 19.3 467 11.6 17.1 444 1.6 7.8



School

Caldwell ES

Cameron College Prep

Carter-Lawrence ES

Cora Howe School

East End Prep

East Nashville Magnet

East Nashville MS

Fall-Hamilton ES

Glenn ES

Hattie Cotton ES

Head MS

Hume-Fogg Magnet

Inglewood ES

Johnson ALC

KIPP Academy ES

KIPP Academy MS

KIPP Collegiate HS

Kirkpatrick ES

Liberty Collegiate Acad

Lockeland ES

M.L. King Jr Magnet

Meigs MS

Murrell School

Napier ES

Nashv School of Arts

Nashville Prep

Nashville Prep

Park Avenue ES

Pearl-Cohn HS

Rose Park MS

Rosebank ES

Ross ELC

Shwab ES

STEM Prep Academy

STEM Prep HS

Stratford HS




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

0 0 9 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 14.9 14.4 13.8 14.1 62.5%

293 45.7 49.1 149 26.2 30.8 147 18.4 38.1 12.2 23.8 8.8 4.1 16.8 17.7 17.7 18.6 17.8 99.3%

446 91.0 91.6 220 98.2 98.3 225 98.2 98.7 90.7 92.9 85.8 78.7 28.5 26.8 29.2 27.4 28.1 99.6%

0 12.5%

142 64.8 67.0

441 87.3 88.1 192 96.4 96.6 236 94.9 95.3 87.3 85.2 71.2 60.6 25.9 25.8 27.0 25.3 26.1 98.3%

290 40.7 44.4 137 53.3 56.2 135 57.0 80.7 27.4 57.0 42.2 21.5 22.9 19.3 23.2 21.3 21.8 98.6%

246 15.9 21.2 137 4.4 10.4 125 10.4 15.2 5.6 10.4 5.6 1.6 14.4 16.0 15.8 16.9 16.0 79.7%

243 63.4 65.7

253 14.2 19.6 127 22.8 27.6 136 14.0 28.7 8.1 16.2 9.6 4.4 15.6 16.5 17.0 17.2 16.7 78.2%



School

Caldwell ES


Carter-Lawrence ES

Cora Howe School

East End Prep


East Nashville MS

Fall-Hamilton ES

Glenn ES

Hattie Cotton ES

Head MS

Hume-Fogg Magnet

Inglewood ES

Johnson ALC

KIPP Academy ES

KIPP Academy MS

KIPP Collegiate HS

Kirkpatrick ES


Lockeland ES

M.L. King Jr Magnet

Meigs MS

Murrell School

Napier ES


Nashville Prep

Nashville Prep

Park Avenue ES

Pearl-Cohn HS

Rose Park MS

Rosebank ES

Ross ELC

Shwab ES

STEM Prep Academy

STEM Prep HS

Stratford HS

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level




25 0.0 Level 3 -3.4 Level 3 15.3 Level 5 -10.5 -2.23


3.5 Level 5 2.7 Level 5 -0.4 Level 3 -7.2 Level 1



1.3 Level 5 3.2 Level 5 2.4 Level 5 4.8 Level 5


0.4 Level 3 1.5 Level 4 1.1 Level 4 15.5 Level 5 6.3 Level 5


691 2.8 Level 5 0.2 Level 3 5.5 Level 5 3.4 4.59 3.7 Level 5 2.2 Level 5 1.2 Level 4 4.7 Level 5

1952 2.3 Level 5 3.4 Level 5 6.7 Level 5 -2.3 -4.89




0.4 Level 3 -0.3 Level 3 -0.6 Level 2 -4.1 Level 1



7.8 Level 5 1.7 Level 5 -3.0 Level 2

1137 -6.1 Level 1 -3.6 Level 1 -7.0 Level 1 -7.6 -10.77 -2.1 Level 1 -1.8 Level 1 -2.0 Level 1 -11.6 Level 1



School

Caldwell ES


Carter-Lawrence ES

Cora Howe School

East End Prep


East Nashville MS

Fall-Hamilton ES

Glenn ES

Hattie Cotton ES

Head MS

Hume-Fogg Magnet

Inglewood ES

Johnson ALC

KIPP Academy ES

KIPP Academy MS

KIPP Collegiate HS

Kirkpatrick ES


Lockeland ES

M.L. King Jr Magnet

Meigs MS

Murrell School

Napier ES


Nashville Prep

Nashville Prep

Park Avenue ES

Pearl-Cohn HS

Rose Park MS

Rosebank ES

Ross ELC

Shwab ES

STEM Prep Academy

STEM Prep HS

Stratford HS

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

4.2 Level 4 5 5 3 5 5

-15.2 Level 1 2 3 3 3 1

5 5 5 5 5

-5.4 Level 1 -10.0 Level 1 6.6 Level 5 -6.9 Level 2 1.9 Level 5 5 5 1 3 5 5

-6.5 Level 2 1 2 1 1 1

11.0 Level 5 5 5 5 5 5

11.6 Level 5 11.7 Level 5 6.9 Level 5 10.5 Level 5 0.4 Level 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

5 5 5 5 5

7.1 Level 5 9.0 Level 5 11.9 Level 5 -1.9 Level 3 5 4 5 5 5 3

5 5 5 5 5

11.1 Level 5 8.8 Level 5 5.6 Level 5 5.8 Level 5 -0.3 Level 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

15.7 Level 5 24.3 Level 5 5 5 5 5 1

3 2 5 3 2


1 3 1 3 1

6.7 Level 5 4.9 Level 5 -11.4 Level 1 3.2 Level 4 -22.1 Level 1 0.4 Level 3 1 3 1 1 2 3

1.6 Level 3 5 5 5 5 5

5.1 Level 5 5 5 5 5 5

12.8 Level 5 9.4 Level 5 11.9 Level 5 4.4 Level 4 -0.1 Level 3 5 5 5 5 5 3




School

Caldwell ES


Carter-Lawrence ES

Cora Howe School

East End Prep


East Nashville MS

Fall-Hamilton ES

Glenn ES

Hattie Cotton ES

Head MS

Hume-Fogg Magnet

Inglewood ES

Johnson ALC

KIPP Academy ES

KIPP Academy MS

KIPP Collegiate HS

Kirkpatrick ES


Lockeland ES

M.L. King Jr Magnet

Meigs MS

Murrell School

Napier ES


Nashville Prep

Nashville Prep

Park Avenue ES

Pearl-Cohn HS

Rose Park MS

Rosebank ES

Ross ELC

Shwab ES

STEM Prep Academy

STEM Prep HS

Stratford HS


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

148 21.0 49.3% 23.0% 14.2% 11.5% 2.0% 13.5% 146 18.0 54.8% 19.9% 19.2% 5.5% 0.7% 6.2% 183 42.6%

177 43.0 26.0% 18.1% 16.9% 24.9% 14.1% 39.0% 178 38.0 35.4% 20.2% 21.3% 13.5% 9.6% 23.0% 228 62.3%

25 16.0 60.0% 20.0% 4.0% 12.0% 4.0% 16.0% 28 4.5 75.0% 7.1% 14.3% 3.6% 0.0% 3.6%

420 35.0 35.0% 20.7% 20.7% 16.0% 7.6% 23.6% 427 25.0 44.5% 24.6% 16.9% 11.0% 3.0% 14.1%

125 35.0 38.4% 18.4% 20.8% 17.6% 4.8% 22.4% 125 24.0 45.6% 20.8% 19.2% 10.4% 4.0% 14.4% 183 65.0%

91 33.0 35.2% 24.2% 19.8% 14.3% 6.6% 20.9% 92 24.5 48.9% 18.5% 18.5% 8.7% 5.4% 14.1% 126 38.9%

162 29.5 38.3% 22.2% 16.7% 16.7% 6.2% 22.8% 157 25.0 45.2% 24.8% 15.9% 8.3% 5.7% 14.0% 209 50.7%

583 67.0 6.7% 11.7% 24.7% 26.4% 30.5% 56.9% 581 59.0 10.5% 15.7% 24.4% 27.9% 21.5% 49.4%

98 25.0 40.8% 22.4% 15.3% 13.3% 8.2% 21.4% 97 34.0 30.9% 26.8% 29.9% 8.2% 4.1% 12.4% 144 59.0%

19 15.0 73.7% 10.5% 10.5% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 21 12.0 61.9% 28.6% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 4.8%

184 84.5 7.1% 8.2% 12.0% 18.5% 54.3% 72.8% 184 76.5 7.1% 6.5% 19.0% 26.1% 41.3% 67.4% 243 83.1%

265 81.0 1.9% 3.4% 9.4% 33.6% 51.7% 85.3% 253 79.0 0.4% 4.0% 14.2% 35.6% 45.8% 81.4%

686 85.0 0.3% 2.6% 9.5% 28.4% 59.2% 87.6% 686 78.0 0.3% 5.2% 16.3% 32.7% 45.5% 78.1%

57 4.0 77.2% 8.8% 8.8% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 61 1.0 85.2% 11.5% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% 26 23.1%

146 12.5 59.6% 21.2% 13.7% 3.4% 2.1% 5.5% 147 11.0 67.3% 19.0% 8.2% 4.8% 0.7% 5.4% 198 33.8%

227 34.0 35.7% 23.8% 18.9% 16.3% 5.3% 21.6% 227 27.0 42.7% 22.9% 22.0% 10.1% 2.2% 12.3% 315 32.7%

432 66.0 9.7% 12.5% 22.5% 25.2% 30.1% 55.3% 430 56.0 13.5% 18.6% 23.0% 25.6% 19.3% 44.9%

119 30.0 37.0% 22.7% 20.2% 13.4% 6.7% 20.2% 118 30.0 42.4% 21.2% 16.1% 13.6% 6.8% 20.3% 163 50.9%

156 23.0 47.4% 15.4% 16.0% 14.1% 7.1% 21.2% 156 20.0 53.2% 19.9% 14.1% 10.3% 2.6% 12.8% 199 54.8%

380 12.5 64.7% 18.2% 10.3% 4.7% 2.1% 6.8% 379 5.0 78.4% 13.7% 5.5% 2.1% 0.3% 2.4%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

5 755 675 Warner ES NE Stratford 111 9.0 14.7 110 4.5 10.5



School

Warner ES




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate



School

Warner ES

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level





School

Warner ES

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry



School

Warner ES


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

161 19.0 52.2% 19.9% 14.9% 12.4% 0.6% 13.0% 162 15.0 63.6% 20.4% 11.1% 4.9% 0.0% 4.9% 217 39.2%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

6 496 1 A. Z. Kelley ES SE Cane Ridge 313 34.8 38.9 313 46.0 49.4

6 110 20 Antioch HS SE Antioch 1430 14.6 19.9 1382 7.5 13.3

6 111 23 Antioch MS SE Cane Ridge 684 9.8 15.4 696 10.2 15.8 685 22.0 26.9

6 577 25 Apollo MS SE Antioch 756 17.1 22.3 736 13.3 18.7 754 42.6 46.2

6 419 7005 Cambridge ELC SE Cane Ridge

6 184 82 Cane Ridge ES SE Cane Ridge 384 21.9 26.8 392 20.7 25.7

6 182 77 Cane Ridge HS SE Cane Ridge 1227 15.2 20.5 1302 4.1 10.1

6 305 8060 Explore Community CS Stratford

6 552 318 Henry C Maxwell ES SE Cane Ridge 221 20.8 25.8 225 26.7 31.3

6 422 720 Hickory Hollow Acad SE Cane Ridge 0

6 457 8048 Intrepid Prep CS Cane Ridge 366 33.6 37.8 366 60.4 62.9 366 82.0 83.1

6 310 370 J.E. Moss ES SE Antioch 317 17.4 22.6 314 23.9 28.7

6 498 393 John F. Kennedy MS SE Antioch 735 12.8 18.3 741 10.1 15.7 740 27.2 31.8

6 506 8012 Knowledge Acad CS Cane Ridge 273 16.8 22.0 278 10.4 16.0 277 59.6 62.1

6 511 8065 Knowledge Acad CS Cane Ridge 170 22.9 27.7 143 7.7 13.5

6 512 8105 Knowledge@Crossings CS Stratford 144 14.6 19.9 141 11.3 16.8 146 54.8 57.6

6 122 430 Lakeview ES SE Antioch 232 28.0 32.5 233 25.8 30.4

6 507 8013 LEAD Prep SE CS Glencliff 487 25.1 29.8 491 26.3 30.9 491 70.1 72.0

6 576 493 Mt. View ES SE Antioch 259 21.6 26.5 262 23.7 28.5

6 618 540 Paragon Mills ES SE Glencliff 252 9.5 15.2 253 17.0 22.2



School

A. Z. Kelley ES

Antioch HS

Antioch MS

Apollo MS

Cambridge ELC

Cane Ridge ES

Cane Ridge HS

Explore Community

Henry C Maxwell ES

Hickory Hollow Acad

Intrepid Prep

J.E. Moss ES

John F. Kennedy MS

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge@Crossings

Lakeview ES

LEAD Prep SE

Mt. View ES

Paragon Mills ES




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

928 19.0 24.1 380 22.1 27.0 386 18.1 39.6 12.7 21.5 12.7 6.2 17.1 17.4 18.1 18.4 17.9

80.7%

81.6%

781 23.4 28.2 329 19.5 24.5 311 18.0 35.0 9.6 20.9 11.3 4.8 16.1 16.7 17.6 18.0 17.3

61 6.6 12.4 77 7.8 16.9 2.6 11.7 5.2 0.0 13.8 15.9 15.6 16.4 15.6 66.1%

110 42.7 46.3 0.0%



School

A. Z. Kelley ES

Antioch HS

Antioch MS

Apollo MS

Cambridge ELC

Cane Ridge ES

Cane Ridge HS

Explore Community

Henry C Maxwell ES

Hickory Hollow Acad

Intrepid Prep

J.E. Moss ES

John F. Kennedy MS

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge@Crossings

Lakeview ES

LEAD Prep SE

Mt. View ES

Paragon Mills ES

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level





2281 0.0 Level 3 0.3 Level 3 -2.4 Level 1 2.0 4.24

1.5 Level 5 -1.3 Level 1 -3.4 Level 1 -10.9 Level 1

1078 11.2 Level 5 6.9 Level 5 12.8 Level 5 13.9 21.57 31.7 Level 5


811 -1.4 Level 1 -1.5 Level 2 -7.9 Level 1 4.8 6.42 -8.7 Level 1






School

A. Z. Kelley ES

Antioch HS

Antioch MS

Apollo MS

Cambridge ELC

Cane Ridge ES

Cane Ridge HS

Explore Community

Henry C Maxwell ES

Hickory Hollow Acad

Intrepid Prep

J.E. Moss ES

John F. Kennedy MS

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge@Crossings

Lakeview ES

LEAD Prep SE

Mt. View ES

Paragon Mills ES

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

-6.8 Level 1 -1.6 Level 2 -10.5 Level 1 -4.1 Level 1 -18.5 Level 1 -3.4 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2.5 Level 3 1 3 1 1 1

-7.7 Level 1 3 3 1 1 5


5 5 5 5 5

-2.9 Level 3 1 2 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 5

1.4 Level 3 0.9 Level 3 6.9 Level 4 -6.6 Level 1 3 5 4 5 4 1

5 3 1 2 5

-0.3 Level 3 5 5 4 5 5



School

A. Z. Kelley ES

Antioch HS

Antioch MS

Apollo MS

Cambridge ELC

Cane Ridge ES

Cane Ridge HS

Explore Community

Henry C Maxwell ES

Hickory Hollow Acad

Intrepid Prep

J.E. Moss ES

John F. Kennedy MS

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge Acad

Knowledge@Crossings

Lakeview ES

LEAD Prep SE

Mt. View ES

Paragon Mills ES


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

440 48.0 21.4% 18.0% 24.1% 23.6% 13.0% 36.6% 453 40.0 28.5% 21.6% 20.3% 18.8% 10.8% 29.6% 610 59.8%

701 25.0 44.4% 20.7% 17.0% 12.7% 5.3% 18.0% 722 18.5 52.9% 21.5% 15.1% 7.6% 2.9% 10.5%

769 30.0 39.3% 18.9% 18.2% 16.6% 7.0% 23.7% 801 21.0 49.3% 22.1% 15.6% 9.4% 3.6% 13.0%

552 34.0 34.1% 20.7% 16.5% 16.5% 12.3% 28.8% 568 33.0 33.5% 26.2% 18.5% 14.1% 7.7% 21.8% 764 49.7%

344 30.5 39.2% 19.8% 16.9% 14.0% 10.2% 24.1% 344 32.0 36.0% 26.2% 17.2% 14.0% 6.7% 20.6% 457 53.2%

447 27.0 41.4% 21.7% 17.7% 14.8% 4.5% 19.2% 447 24.0 46.5% 21.3% 19.0% 9.2% 4.0% 13.2% 598 41.8%

645 32.0 38.0% 20.2% 18.6% 17.1% 6.2% 23.3% 702 23.0 44.4% 23.9% 16.1% 12.4% 3.1% 15.5%

329 33.0 34.7% 24.9% 14.6% 17.9% 7.9% 25.8% 330 34.5 36.4% 21.2% 19.1% 16.4% 7.0% 23.3% 451 42.1%

375 42.0 30.1% 18.4% 21.3% 18.1% 12.0% 30.1% 374 43.0 28.3% 20.3% 18.2% 21.9% 11.2% 33.2% 497 52.1%

326 29.0 38.7% 24.2% 15.6% 14.7% 6.7% 21.5% 327 25.0 45.0% 22.9% 19.3% 9.8% 3.1% 12.8% 414 31.2%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

7 186 7020 Casa Asafran ELC SE Glencliff

7 238 148 Croft MS SW Overton 615 23.4 28.2 616 18.7 23.8 617 51.7 54.7

7 320 240 Glencliff ES SE Glencliff 203 17.7 22.8 203 26.6 31.2

7 325 245 Glencliff HS SE Glencliff 826 12.1 17.6 826 2.9 9.0

7 335 255 Glengarry ES SE Glencliff 162 12.3 17.8 163 21.5 26.4

7 345 265 Glenview ES SE Glencliff 233 12.0 17.5 234 23.9 28.7

7 790 390 John B. Whitsitt ES SW Glencliff 169 11.8 17.3 170 25.9 30.5

7 605 8004 New Vision Acad CS Glancliff 198 25.3 30.0 199 19.6 24.6 199 60.8 63.3

7 145 525 Norman Binkley ES SW Overton 148 37.2 41.1 148 32.4 36.6

7 668 8070 Rocketship United CS Glencliff 174 13.2 18.6 173 35.8 39.8

7 686 750 Smith Springs ES SE Antioch 201 19.4 24.4 201 31.3 35.6

7 575 208 Thomas A Edison ES SE Antioch 273 20.5 25.5 276 26.4 31.0

7 551 633 Thurgood Marshall MS SE Cane Ridge 818 15.6 20.9 830 13.5 18.9 819 26.6 31.2

7 735 655 Una ES SE Antioch 315 18.1 23.2 314 34.1 38.2

7 805 715 Wright MS SE Glencliff 647 7.6 13.4 650 4.9 10.8 647 17.5 22.7



School

Casa Asafran ELC

Croft MS

Glencliff ES

Glencliff HS

Glengarry ES

Glenview ES

John B. Whitsitt ES

New Vision Acad

Norman Binkley ES

Rocketship United

Smith Springs ES

Thomas A Edison ES

Thurgood Marshall MS

Una ES

Wright MS




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

593 20.9 25.8 255 15.7 21.0 239 15.1 27.6 9.6 18.4 12.6 3.8 15.5 16.9 16.9 18.0 17.0 70.0%



School

Casa Asafran ELC

Croft MS

Glencliff ES

Glencliff HS

Glengarry ES

Glenview ES

John B. Whitsitt ES

New Vision Acad

Norman Binkley ES

Rocketship United

Smith Springs ES

Thomas A Edison ES


Una ES

Wright MS

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level










School

Casa Asafran ELC

Croft MS

Glencliff ES

Glencliff HS

Glengarry ES

Glenview ES

John B. Whitsitt ES

New Vision Acad

Norman Binkley ES

Rocketship United

Smith Springs ES

Thomas A Edison ES


Una ES

Wright MS

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

-4.7 Level 2 1 1 1 1 5

0.1 Level 3 -1.8 Level 2 -12.0 Level 1 0.9 Level 3 -9.7 Level 1 -4.0 Level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 2 5 5

-2.1 Level 3 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1



School

Casa Asafran ELC

Croft MS

Glencliff ES

Glencliff HS

Glengarry ES

Glenview ES

John B. Whitsitt ES

New Vision Acad

Norman Binkley ES

Rocketship United

Smith Springs ES

Thomas A Edison ES


Una ES

Wright MS


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

597 49.0 23.3% 20.3% 18.6% 24.6% 13.2% 37.9% 573 34.0 33.0% 22.9% 19.7% 16.2% 8.2% 24.4%

267 29.0 41.2% 21.3% 16.5% 14.6% 6.4% 21.0% 261 27.0 44.1% 21.8% 19.5% 9.6% 5.0% 14.6% 367 45.2%

216 28.5 41.7% 23.1% 16.7% 15.3% 3.2% 18.5% 223 27.0 45.3% 21.1% 20.6% 11.2% 1.8% 13.0% 307 44.0%

352 21.0 48.9% 22.2% 18.8% 7.7% 2.6% 10.2% 353 20.0 52.7% 19.8% 14.2% 9.6% 3.7% 13.3% 450 46.0%

240 28.5 37.1% 27.9% 12.1% 15.4% 7.5% 22.9% 239 29.0 42.7% 23.4% 16.7% 13.4% 3.8% 17.2% 327 47.4%

309 33.0 35.9% 23.6% 14.6% 17.2% 8.7% 25.9% 308 29.5 40.6% 21.8% 17.9% 14.0% 5.8% 19.8% 429 42.0%

312 46.0 26.6% 17.9% 24.7% 15.7% 15.1% 30.8% 310 43.0 26.1% 21.0% 22.3% 16.8% 13.9% 30.6% 433 60.0%

377 40.0 30.0% 21.5% 19.1% 19.4% 10.1% 29.4% 377 35.0 35.5% 19.9% 22.8% 14.1% 7.7% 21.8% 540 56.5%

749 39.0 32.8% 19.9% 22.0% 17.2% 8.0% 25.2% 802 29.0 40.3% 22.7% 18.7% 13.7% 4.6% 18.3%

386 43.0 28.2% 18.4% 22.0% 19.9% 11.4% 31.3% 392 40.0 30.1% 22.2% 20.9% 19.9% 6.9% 26.8% 274 49.3%

679 28.0 40.8% 23.3% 19.1% 12.4% 4.4% 16.8% 685 19.0 52.4% 22.2% 14.5% 9.2% 1.8% 10.9%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

8 280 195 Eakin ES SW Hillsboro 225 52.9 55.8 228 56.6 59.3

8 330 250 Glendale ES SW Hillsboro 145 73.8 75.4 146 82.2 83.3

8 397 302 Harris-Hillman SW Hillsboro 0 0 0 0 0

8 435 335 Hillsboro HS SW Hillsboro 0 778 33.4 37.6 866 18.7 23.8

8 563 490 J.T. Moore MS SW Hillsboro 653 44.6 48.1 653 50.1 53.2 651 74.2 75.8

8 380 415 Julia Green ES SW Hillsboro 181 79.0 80.3 181 82.3 83.4

8 650 570 Percy Priest ES SW Hillsboro 210 75.2 76.8 211 84.4 85.4

8 765 755 Waverly-Belmont ES SW Hillsboro 129 41.9 45.5 130 33.8 37.9

8 770 690 West End MS SW Hillsboro 450 38.2 42.1 449 33.9 38.0 450 59.3 61.8



School

Eakin ES

Glendale ES

Harris-Hillman

Hillsboro HS

J.T. Moore MS

Julia Green ES

Percy Priest ES

Waverly-Belmont ES

West End MS




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

0.0%

524 41.8 45.4 221 39.4 43.2 270 41.5 64.1 28.9 42.6 31.1 19.3 20.0 19.2 21.0 20.6 20.4 84.9%



School

Eakin ES

Glendale ES

Harris-Hillman

Hillsboro HS

J.T. Moore MS

Julia Green ES

Percy Priest ES

Waverly-Belmont ES

West End MS

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level




1841 -0.6 Level 2 -4.5 Level 1 1.1 Level 5 1.7 3.51




School

Eakin ES

Glendale ES

Harris-Hillman

Hillsboro HS

J.T. Moore MS

Julia Green ES

Percy Priest ES

Waverly-Belmont ES

West End MS

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

1.0 Level 3 -6.5 Level 1 -4.1 Level 1 1.7 Level 3 -2.3 Level 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

10.0 Level 5 9.4 Level 5 2 1 5 1 5

6.9 Level 4 3 1 3 1 5



School

Eakin ES

Glendale ES

Harris-Hillman

Hillsboro HS

J.T. Moore MS

Julia Green ES

Percy Priest ES

Waverly-Belmont ES

West End MS


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

333 66.0 19.5% 10.5% 14.7% 21.9% 33.3% 55.3% 334 58.0 22.5% 11.4% 18.6% 20.4% 27.2% 47.6% 448 72.1%

232 85.0 1.3% 5.6% 11.2% 23.3% 58.6% 81.9% 237 78.0 3.4% 6.8% 16.9% 29.5% 43.5% 73.0% 322 91.9%

655 71.0 16.6% 10.7% 13.6% 25.2% 33.9% 59.1% 654 63.0 18.5% 11.9% 16.2% 25.2% 28.1% 53.4%

252 87.5 2.8% 4.0% 9.9% 20.6% 62.7% 83.3% 251 82.0 4.0% 5.2% 11.2% 25.5% 54.2% 79.7% 341 82.7%

321 84.0 1.9% 5.6% 8.7% 26.2% 57.6% 83.8% 322 82.0 1.9% 4.7% 14.0% 27.3% 52.2% 79.5% 422 85.3%

252 58.0 22.2% 11.9% 18.3% 23.4% 24.2% 47.6% 256 49.0 26.6% 16.0% 20.3% 16.8% 20.3% 37.1% 367 74.4%

455 56.0 23.5% 13.0% 16.5% 20.9% 26.2% 47.0% 426 41.0 31.2% 18.3% 16.0% 19.0% 15.5% 34.5%



% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

MNPS

Schl #

TN

Schl # School

2017 TNReady ELA

Quad-

rant Cluster

#

Tested

Dist-

rict

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO


#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

9 130 40 Bellevue MS SW Hillwood 638 28.5 33.0 640 31.3 35.6 639 58.2 60.8

9 142 53 Big Picture HS SW Hillwood 106 32.1 36.3 66 6.1 12.0

9 205 110 Charlotte Park ES SW Hillwood 176 13.6 19.0 177 16.9 22.1

9 718 745 Cohn Learning SE Hillwood 0 0

9 360 280 Gower ES SW Hillwood 259 29.7 34.1 260 36.5 40.5

9 434 295 H.G. Hill MS School SW Hillwood 600 24.2 28.9 603 24.0 28.8 602 48.8 52.0

9 395 300 Harpeth Valley ES SW Hillwood 315 54.3 57.2 314 48.7 51.9

9 440 340 Hillwood HS SW Hillwood 785 24.5 29.2 822 11.2 16.8

9 562 437 Middle College HS SE Hillwood 0 0

9 715 630 Sylvan Park ES SW Hillsboro 189 53.4 56.3 189 48.1 51.3

9 748 3 Virtual School SE Hillsboro 0 0 0 0 0

9 775 695 Westmeade ES SW Hillwood 174 33.3 37.5 175 34.9 39.0



School

Bellevue MS

Big Picture HS

Charlotte Park ES

Cohn Learning

Gower ES

H.G. Hill MS School

Harpeth Valley ES

Hillwood HS

Middle College HS

Sylvan Park ES

Virtual School

Westmeade ES




#

Tested

% 21 or

Above

2016 ACT Composite

% 21 or

Above

2018

AMO

Average Score

#

Tested

% On

Track/

Master

2018

AMO

#

Tested

HS Grad

Rate

70 22.9 27.7 36 19.4 24.4 32 28.1 43.8 15.6 18.8 15.6 9.4 18.0 17.7 18.6 18.6 18.4 100.0%

0 0.0%

468 41.7 45.3 222 32.4 36.6 187 32.6 48.1 20.3 32.6 26.2 12.3 18.1 18.3 19.1 19.6 18.9 80.8%

0 46 43.5 47.0 45 66.7 91.1 35.6 64.4 40.0 22.2 22.5 20.6 23.5 22.2 22.3 92.2%

0 0 11 72.7 90.9 45.5 63.6 54.5 45.5 24.5 20.5 26.6 24.4 24.1 64.3%



School

Bellevue MS

Big Picture HS

Charlotte Park ES

Cohn Learning

Gower ES

H.G. Hill MS School

Harpeth Valley ES

Hillwood HS

Middle College HS

Sylvan Park ES

Virtual School

Westmeade ES

# Stu

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

NCE

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level




1.7 Level 4 0.0 Level 3 0.4 Level 3 0.6 Level 3

-4.6 Level 1 -4.3 Level 1 -3.0 Level 1

1831 -0.4 Level 2 0.3 Level 3 0.0 Level 3 -1.5 -2.89

-0.2 Level 3 0.0 Level 3 -1.1 Level 2 -1.1 Level 3

-0.2 Level 3 1.3 Level 4 3.5 Level 4

20 -6.2 Level 2 -0.8 Level 3 -10.6 -2.30 -0.5 Level 3 -1.0 Level 3 -0.2 Level 3



School

Bellevue MS

Big Picture HS

Charlotte Park ES

Cohn Learning

Gower ES

H.G. Hill MS School

Harpeth Valley ES

Hillwood HS

Middle College HS

Sylvan Park ES

Virtual School

Westmeade ES

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level

SS

Growth Level


Overall

Comp-

osite Literacy

Social

Studies



Numer-

acy

Literacy

& Numer Science

Geometry

-5.1 Level 2 1 1 4 2 2



5.7 Level 4 2 3 3 3 1

-3.8 Level 1 -5.8 Level 1 -11.9 Level 1 -5.7 Level 1 12.0 Level 5 -0.9 Level 2 1 2 1 1 4 2

-1.8 Level 3 22.9 Level 5 1.8 Level 4 5 3 3 3 5 4

-0.5 Level 3 2 3 3 3 1 3



School

Bellevue MS

Big Picture HS

Charlotte Park ES

Cohn Learning

Gower ES

H.G. Hill MS School

Harpeth Valley ES

Hillwood HS

Middle College HS

Sylvan Park ES

Virtual School

Westmeade ES


% Q4-


% Q4-

Q5

Fall 2017-18 TLA

# Tested

% At/Above

Benchmrk

Fall 2017-2018 MAP

Reading Math

585 52.0 23.8% 15.7% 18.8% 21.4% 20.3% 41.7% 594 41.0 28.3% 21.2% 20.4% 18.5% 11.6% 30.1%

230 24.0 46.5% 24.3% 16.1% 9.1% 3.9% 13.0% 229 18.0 53.7% 17.9% 15.3% 11.4% 1.7% 13.1% 315 42.5%

385 53.0 18.7% 20.3% 17.1% 22.6% 21.3% 43.9% 381 49.0 24.9% 16.5% 21.0% 18.1% 19.4% 37.5% 498 65.1%

620 45.0 26.1% 19.2% 20.2% 21.1% 13.4% 34.5% 639 35.0 34.6% 21.4% 19.9% 17.1% 7.0% 24.1%

426 70.0 12.0% 12.7% 13.6% 24.9% 36.9% 61.7% 428 60.0 14.7% 14.0% 21.7% 23.4% 26.2% 49.5% 586 77.8%

253 70.0 17.4% 8.7% 15.0% 24.1% 34.8% 58.9% 250 60.0 19.2% 10.4% 21.6% 21.6% 27.2% 48.8% 342 72.5%

238 55.0 19.7% 16.0% 19.3% 28.6% 16.4% 45.0% 240 46.0 27.5% 15.0% 20.8% 25.0% 11.7% 36.7% 328 62.2%


AGENDA - WordPress.com · 2017-11-14 · AGENDA 2601 Bransford Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204 TIME I....

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - WordPress.com · 2017-11-14 · AGENDA 2601 Bransford Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204 TIME I....