Massachusetts School and District Profiles

Morgan Full Service Community School

Districts
Schools

2016

2016 Accountability Data - Morgan Full Service Community School

Organization Information

District:

Holyoke (01370000)

School type:

Elementary-Middle School

School:

Morgan Full Service Community School (01370025)

Grades served:

PK,K,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08

Region:

Commissioner's Districts

Title I status:

Title I School (SW)

Accountability and Assistance Level:

Level 5

Summary > 2016

2016 English Language Arts Proficiency Gap Narrowing About the Data
	0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100	Baseline CPI	2015 CPI	2016 CPI	CPI Change	2016 Target	6 Year Goal	CPI Percentile in School Type	N	PPI Points	Rating
All students		56.9	49.3	62.6	13.3	74.9	78.5	7	200	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		56.5	48.4	61.2	12.8	74.6	78.3	9	192	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		48.7	48.7	61.4	12.7	53.0	74.4	10	188	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		45.1	45.8	56.5	10.7	68.0	72.6	16	100	50	Improved Below Target
Students w/ disabilities		41.8	26.0	35.2	9.2	66.1	70.9	5	44	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		55.9	48.3	60.7	12.4	74.3	78.0	8	187	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Mathematics Proficiency Gap Narrowing About the Data
	0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100	Baseline CPI	2015 CPI	2016 CPI	CPI Change	2016 Target	6 Year Goal	CPI Percentile in School Type	N	PPI Points	Rating
All students		45.3	38.4	55.1	16.7	68.1	72.7	9	198	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		45.3	37.8	54.2	16.4	68.1	72.7	13	190	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		38.4	38.4	54.3	15.9	43.5	69.2	13	186	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		38.3	35.6	52.8	17.2	64.0	69.2	20	98	50	Improved Below Target
Students w/ disabilities		28.1	21.5	31.4	9.9	58.1	64.1	5	43	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		45.5	37.7	54.1	16.4	68.2	72.8	12	185	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Science Proficiency Gap Narrowing About the Data
	0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100	Baseline CPI	2015 CPI	2016 CPI	CPI Change	2016 Target	6 Year Goal	CPI Percentile in School Type	N	PPI Points	Rating
All students		38.0	38.4	39.3	0.9	63.8	69.0	5	70	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		38.0	37.9	38.6	0.7	63.8	69.0	5	66	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		38.1	38.1	38.9	0.8	43.3	69.1	7	63	50	Improved Below Target
EL and Former EL		32.0	35.2	37.5	2.3	60.3	66.0	24	34	50	Improved Below Target
Students w/ disabilities		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	15	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		38.4	37.5	38.6	1.1	64.1	69.2	10	66	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 English Language Arts Extra Credit About the Data
	Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)				Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
	2015 % Advanced	2016 % Advanced	N	PPI Points	2015 % Warning/Failing	2016 % Warning/Failing	N	PPI Points
All students	0.0	2.0	200	25	44.2	28.5	200	25
High needs	0.0	2.1	192	25	45.1	29.7	192	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	0.0	2.1	188	25	44.6	29.3	188	25
EL and Former EL	0.0	0.0	100	0	48.0	35.0	100	25
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	0.0	44	0	82.0	65.9	44	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	-
Hispanic/Latino	0.0	1.1	187	25	45.8	29.9	187	25
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	2	-	-	-	2	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	-	-	7	-	-	-	7	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Mathematics Extra Credit About the Data
	Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)				Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
	2015 % Advanced	2016 % Advanced	N	PPI Points	2015 % Warning/Failing	2016 % Warning/Failing	N	PPI Points
All students	0.9	6.6	198	25	58.8	41.9	198	25
High needs	1.0	6.3	190	25	59.7	43.2	190	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	1.1	6.5	186	25	58.4	43.0	186	25
EL and Former EL	2.1	4.1	98	25	61.9	45.9	98	25
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	0.0	43	0	92.0	76.7	43	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	-
Hispanic/Latino	1.0	4.9	185	25	60.9	43.2	185	25
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	2	-	-	-	2	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	-	-	7	-	-	-	7	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Science Extra Credit About the Data
	Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)				Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
	2015 % Advanced	2016 % Advanced	N	PPI Points	2015 % Warning/Failing	2016 % Warning/Failing	N	PPI Points
All students	0.0	1.4	70	25	56.7	57.1	70	0
High needs	0.0	1.5	66	25	57.8	59.1	66	0
Econ. Disadvantaged	0.0	1.6	63	25	57.6	58.7	63	0
EL and Former EL	0.0	0.0	34	0	63.0	61.8	34	0
Students w/ disabilities	-	-	15	-	-	-	15	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Hispanic/Latino	0.0	0.0	66	0	59.7	57.6	66	0
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	-	-	2	-	-	-	2	-

Summary > 2016

2016 English Language Arts Growth About the Data
	0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100	2015 SGP	2016 SGP	SGP Change	6 Year Goal	Met Safe Harbor?	N	PPI Points	Rating
All students		33.0	56.5	23.5	51.0	Yes	158	100	Above Target
High needs		32.0	54.0	22.0	51.0	Yes	151	100	Above Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		32.0	54.0	22.0	51.0	Yes	147	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		40.0	57.5	17.5	51.0	Yes	76	100	Above Target
Students w/ disabilities		31.0	48.0	17.0	51.0	No	34	100	Above Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		34.5	53.5	19.0	51.0	Yes	150	100	Above Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	51.0	-	5	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Mathematics Growth About the Data
	0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100	2015 SGP	2016 SGP	SGP Change	6 Year Goal	Met Safe Harbor?	N	PPI Points	Rating
All students		35.0	61.0	26.0	51.0	Yes	156	100	Above Target
High needs		34.5	60.0	25.5	51.0	Yes	149	100	Above Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		33.5	58.0	24.5	51.0	Yes	145	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		30.5	64.0	33.5	51.0	Yes	73	100	Above Target
Students w/ disabilities		33.5	45.0	11.5	51.0	No	33	75	On Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		35.0	61.0	26.0	51.0	Yes	148	100	Above Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	51.0	-	5	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Extra credit for English language proficiency growth About the Data
	2016 SGPA	2016 Target	SGPA N Included	PPI Points
All students	73.0	60.0	100.00	25
High needs	73.0	60.0	100.00	25
EL and Former EL	73.0	60.0	100.00	25

Summary > 2016

2016 Assessment Participation About the Data
	English Language Arts				Mathematics				Science
	Enrolled	Assessed	%	Met Target (95%)	Enrolled	Assessed	%	Met Target (95%)	Enrolled	Assessed	%	Met Target (95%)
All students	241	240	100	Yes	240	237	99	Yes	81	80	99	Yes
High needs	233	232	100	Yes	232	229	99	Yes	77	76	99	Yes
Econ. Disadvantaged	228	227	100	Yes	227	224	99	Yes	73	72	99	Yes
EL and Former EL	125	124	99	Yes	125	123	98	Yes	43	43	100	Yes
Students w/ disabilities	55	55	100	Yes	54	53	98	Yes	18	-	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	5	-	-	-	5	-	-	-	2	-	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black	6	-	-	-	6	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Hispanic/Latino	221	220	100	Yes	220	218	99	Yes	76	76	100	Yes
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	2	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	7	-	-	-	7	-	-	-	2	-	-	-

NOTE: In 2016, assessment participation was calculated two ways: First, the 2016 participation rate for each subgroup in each subject area test was calculated. If the actual 2016 participation rate was lower than 95 percent for any group in any subject, that rate was compared to the average of the most recent two years of assessment participation data for that group and subject. The higher of the two resulting rates was factored into the assignment of the school or district's 2016 accountability and assistance level.