1

2

3

4

District score is the average composite score weighted by

the number of students

included in each matrix level.

5

Criteria increased.

6

Graduation Rate AMO

• 74.1% for each subgroup

• No minimum subgroup size for graduation rate

7

11 demographic categories

6 cells per category

Grade comes from table of 66 cells

= X

“Easily understood” letter grade for schools or districts under ESEA Waiver

6 cells per category

2 cells percent tested

= +

4 cells either average ≥ AMO or average > average for prior year’s students

Assign values of 1 = Met 0 = Not met .1 to .9 = Partial credit

Sum columns Multiply by weights Sum weighted column totals Compute weighted average of elementary, middle, & high Look up grade` in table 8

-0.3 -2.3 -3.5 -3.2 10 10

10 Sum weighted points across bottom line

11 -2.3 -0.3 -3.5 -3.15 Points lost by subject

-3.2 -6.4 -1.8 -0.9 12 Points lost by subject

13 7.5 7.5

-9.0 14 Points lost for graduation rate

-9.0 -2.3 -0.5 -1.0 -0.5 15

12,050 12,560

13,222 13,675

14,412 15,234

15,822 16,351

16,829 17,268

17,829 18,230

18,688 19,091

19,705 20,458

21,228 21,755

22,097 22,367 22,936

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Lexington One Enrollment 1993 to 2013

Source: 135-day Audited Average Daily Membership

16

17

Poverty Index =

𝑵𝒑

𝑬𝒅

where Np = unduplicated count of students who are receive free/reduced meals or Medicaid services and where Ed = enrollment on date when the file was created.

Source: Office of Research and Statistics, SC Budget and Control Board

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

York 4 Lexington 5 York 2 Lexington 1 Richland 2 Anderson 1 Dorchester 2

Poverty Indices for 7 Districts with Lowest Poverty Indices 2002-2012

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

18

79.0% 77.0%

74.8%

54.3%

76.7% 75.8% 78.6%

56.6%

88.7%

73.5%

82.5%

74.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Percent of Lexington One Students Meeting Dominie Reading Goals for 2011, 2012, 2013

2010 2011 2013 19

58% 59% 57%

61% 59%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percent of Lexington One Students Meeting Virtual Comparison Group Targets

on Measures of Academic Progress

Reading Mathematics 20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 SP13 4 SP13 5 SP12 SP13 6 SP13 7 SP13 8 SP12 SP13

PASS Writing Comparison 2012-2013

Ex5

Ex4

Met

NM2

NM1

21

> 45% Ex

<15% NM

District Goals

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 SP12 SP13 4 SP12 SP13 5 SP12 SP13 6 SP12 SP13 7 SP12 SP13 8 SP12 SP13

PASS ELA Comparison 2012-2013

Ex5

Ex4

Met

NM2

NM1

22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 SP12 SP13 4 SP12 SP13 5 SP12 SP13 6 SP12 SP13 7 SP12 SP13 8 SP12 SP13

PASS Math Comparison 2012-2013

Ex5

Ex4

Met

NM2

NM1

23

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 SP12 SP13 4 SP12 SP13 5 SP12 SP13 6 SP12 SP13 7 SP12 SP13 8 SP12 SP13

PASS Science Comparison 2012-2013

Ex5

Ex4

Met

NM2

NM1

24

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 SP12 SP13 4 SP12 SP13 5 SP12 SP13 6 SP12 SP13 7 SP12 SP13 8 SP12 SP13

PASS Social Studies Comparison 2012-2013

Ex5

Ex4

Met

NM2

NM1

25

• Dropout rate is annual rate of students who leave the school or district for any reason, other than death, prior to graduation or completion of a course of studies without transferring to another school district or institution, divided by the total number of students enrolled at the school.

• GED students do not count as dropouts.

26

Dropout rate ≠ graduation rate

Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate

27

Most rigorous and accurate method

Required by USDE and NGA

Tracks all students who began in Grade 9

Add students who transfer in

Remove students if adequate documentation Transfer out, death, emigration

Includes summer graduates

GED students count as non-graduates.

Four-year on-time graduation rate

28

2011 2012 2013

Four-year

graduates 1332 1385 1343

Students 1586 1651 1599

On-time

graduation

rate

84.0% 83.9% 83.9%

S.C. Rate

74.1%

Goal

85% AMO

79.6%

90.3 89.9 87.8 89.0

92.3 92.1 90.8 88.5

94.5 92.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

ELA 2+ Math 2+

HSAP Accountability Summary for Lexington One for 2009-2013

Students Scoring 2 and Above

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2013 HSAP 90.6%

Passed both

29

59.6

67.6

60.6

64.9

70.8 67.4

64.0 66.4

73.7

66.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

ELA 3+ Math 3+

HSAP Accountability Summary for Lexington One for 2009-2013

Students Scoring 3 and Above

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

30

92.0 91.3 90.9

81.6 81.0 84.0 85.1

83.4 85.9

66.0 66.9

75.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

Algebra I Algebra I Algebra I English I English I English I Biology Biology Biology US History US History US History

EOCEP Percent Passing for Students in Lexington One 2011-2013

31

64%

60% 57%

28%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percent of Students Who Met Standard on State Technology Test for Grade 8

Lexington 1 SC 32

71.9%

51.8%

66.2%

60.60%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Senior Project Capstone Projects Completed Major

Percent of Lexington One Seniors Who Passed Senior Projects or Completed Majors in 2011-12 and 2012-13

2011-12

2012-13

Op

tio

nal

Yea

r-lo

ng

Pro

ject

33

99.8%

94.1%

99.1%

95.5%

99.6% 97.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Highly Qualified Teachers TOPA

Percent of Lexington One Teachers Who Were Highly Qualified or Met Technology Online Proficiency Assessment Requirement

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

34

ADDITIONAL INDICATORS

35

1016

1141

1091 1098

1181

686

784

740 740

825

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Advanced Placement Tests Number of Total Attempts and Number Scoring 3 or Higher

Lexington One Students 2008-09 to 2012-13

TESTS 3 OR HIGHER36

67.5% 68.7% 67.8% 67.4% 69.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-12 2012-13

Percent of Lexington One students scoring 3 or higher on AP exams 2008-09 through 2012-2013

37

1436 1431 1436

1500 1498 1498 1500 1490 1503

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2011 (817 students) 2012 (869) students 2013 (817)

Mean Total Verbal, Writing, and Math SAT Scores (Recomputed for comparability with 2011 methodology change)

STATE NATION LEX. 138

39

20.1 20.2 20.4

21.1 21.1 20.9

22.2 22.1 21.9

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2010-2011(600 students) 2011-2012(688 students) 2012-2013 (676 students)

Mean Composite ACT Scores for State, Nation, and District

State Nation Lexington One

50% probability of making at least B and

75% probability of making at least C on related college course

676 Lexington One students from Class of 2013 chose to take ACT

Self-selected sample

Benchmark +1

Benchmark -1

40

65%

33%

45%

24%

16%

64%

33%

44%

26%

17%

71%

37%

48%

29%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

English Math Reading Science Met All 4

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

Me

eti

ng

Benchmark

Plan Benchmark Performance 2010-2012

2010 2011 2012

41

64%

38%

43%

21%

16%

64%

33%

45%

17%

13%

63%

39%

43%

21%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

English Math Reading Science All 4

Pe

cen

t o

f St

ud

en

ts M

ee

tin

g

Benchmark

Explore Benchmark Performance 2010-2012

2010 2011 2012

42

Lexington One does well in national comparisons.

43

Nationally normed assessments

ACT, Plan, Explore

SAT, PSAT

MAP

Lexington One does well in national comparisons, but...

44

PASS, HSAP, & EOCEP — ONLY in South Carolina

Any national comparison based solely on PASS, HSAP or EOCEP cannot be technically adequate.

ESEA Waivers for AYP have added to confusion about comparability among states.

ESEA Waiver criteria increase annually.

State accountability system criteria are more stable than ESEA Waiver criteria.

Challenges Remain

45

Providing for increasing population

with increasing poverty

and closing achievement gaps

for subgroups

while

continuing to innovate

46