Massachusetts School and District Profiles

Glickman Elementary

Districts
Schools

2016

2016 Accountability Data - Glickman Elementary

Organization Information

District:

Springfield (02810000)

School type:

Elementary School

School:

Glickman Elementary (02810068)

Grades served:

K,01,02,03,04,05

Region:

Commissioner's Districts

Title I status:

Title I School (SW)

Accountability and Assistance Level:

Level 3

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		76.0	73.4	75.5	2.1	86.0	88.0	17	156	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		73.4	71.7	71.8	0.1	84.5	86.7	31	124	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		72.5	72.5	72.3	-0.2	74.8	86.3	29	103	25	No Change
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	20	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		63.1	55.2	61.3	6.1	78.5	81.6	41	51	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		69.9	78.0	88.6	10.6	82.4	85.0	94	35	100	Above Target
Hispanic/Latino		81.4	63.6	67.2	3.6	89.2	90.7	26	77	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		77.4	83.8	77.9	-5.9	86.8	88.7	10	35	0	Declined

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		68.9	72.7	73.9	1.2	81.9	84.5	13	155	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		66.9	71.5	70.7	-0.8	80.7	83.5	28	123	25	No Change
Econ. Disadvantaged		72.1	72.1	72.3	0.2	74.4	86.1	33	102	50	Improved Below Target
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	20	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		55.9	55.8	63.2	7.4	74.3	78.0	46	51	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		60.3	72.7	81.4	8.7	76.8	80.2	82	35	100	Above Target
Hispanic/Latino		77.1	66.7	67.4	0.7	86.6	88.6	28	76	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		73.2	79.7	75.7	-4.0	84.4	86.6	8	35	0	Declined

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		67.4	64.4	76.1	11.7	81.0	83.7	36	45	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		65.6	59.9	72.8	12.9	79.9	82.8	68	34	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		60.3	60.3	75.0	14.7	63.6	80.2	78	28	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	15	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	9	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		75.0	-	-	-	-	87.5	-	20	-	-
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	-	-

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	5.0	9.0	156	25	18.4	13.5	156	25
High needs	5.3	6.5	124	25	19.3	16.1	124	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	5.9	6.8	103	25	17.6	14.6	103	25
EL and Former EL	-	-	20	-	-	-	20	-
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	0.0	51	0	39.5	27.5	51	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	8	-	-	-	8	-
Afr. Amer./Black	9.1	20.0	35	25	12.1	2.9	35	25
Hispanic/Latino	0.0	2.6	77	25	30.3	20.8	77	25
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	8.1	8.6	35	0	5.4	8.6	35	0

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	11.3	15.5	155	25	17.7	16.1	155	0
High needs	8.8	12.2	123	25	20.2	18.7	123	0
Econ. Disadvantaged	8.8	13.7	102	25	18.6	17.6	102	0
EL and Former EL	-	-	20	-	-	-	20	-
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	0.0	51	0	37.2	27.5	51	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	8	-	-	-	8	-
Afr. Amer./Black	9.1	22.9	35	25	18.2	5.7	35	25
Hispanic/Latino	6.1	9.2	76	25	19.7	23.7	76	0
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	18.9	20.0	35	0	16.2	14.3	35	25

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	8.5	4.4	45	0	23.4	4.4	45	25
High needs	7.9	2.9	34	0	28.9	5.9	34	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	8.8	3.6	28	0	26.5	3.6	28	25
EL and Former EL	-	-	6	-	-	-	6	-
Students w/ disabilities	-	-	15	-	-	-	15	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	9	-	-	-	9	-
Hispanic/Latino	-	-	20	-	-	-	20	-
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	-	-	13	-	-	-	13	-

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		46.0	41.0	-5.0	51.0	No	85	50	Below Target
High needs		45.0	36.0	-9.0	51.0	No	61	25	Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		45.5	30.5	-15.0	51.0	No	50	25	Below Target
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	51.0	-	12	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		-	-	-	51.0	-	21	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	6	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	18	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		38.5	23.0	-15.5	51.0	No	41	0	Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	51.0	-	19	-	-

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		44.0	47.0	3.0	51.0	No	85	50	Below Target
High needs		43.0	43.0	0.0	51.0	No	61	50	Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		43.5	43.0	-0.5	51.0	No	50	50	Below Target
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	51.0	-	12	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		-	-	-	51.0	-	21	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	6	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	18	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		32.5	36.0	3.5	51.0	No	41	50	Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		-	-	-	51.0	-	19	-	-

Summary > 2016

2016 Extra credit for English language proficiency growth About the Data
	2016 SGPA	2016 Target	SGPA N Included	PPI Points
All students	45.0	60.0	30.00	0
High needs	45.0	60.0	30.00	0
EL and Former EL	-	60.0	30.00	-

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	179	179	100	Yes	179	177	99	Yes	54	54	100	Yes
High needs	147	147	100	Yes	147	145	99	Yes	43	43	100	Yes
Econ. Disadvantaged	125	125	100	Yes	125	123	98	Yes	37	37	100	Yes
EL and Former EL	26	-	-	-	26	-	-	-	9	-	-	-
Students w/ disabilities	61	61	100	Yes	61	61	100	Yes	20	-	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	8	-	-	-	8	-	-	-	3	-	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black	42	42	100	Yes	42	41	98	Yes	11	-	-	-
Hispanic/Latino	90	90	100	Yes	90	89	99	Yes	27	27	100	Yes
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	2	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	37	37	100	Yes	37	37	100	Yes	13	-	-	-

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.