Massachusetts School and District Profiles

Thomas R Plympton Elementary School

Districts
Schools

2016

2016 Accountability Data - Thomas R Plympton Elementary School

Organization Information

District:

Waltham (03080000)

School type:

Elementary School

School:

Thomas R Plympton Elementary School (03080050)

Grades served:

K,01,02,03,04,05

Region:

Greater Boston

Title I status:

Title I School (TA)

Accountability and Assistance Level:

Level 2

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		86.8	82.2	82.0	-0.2	92.3	93.4	33	193	25	No Change
High needs		80.7	73.5	73.1	-0.4	88.7	90.4	37	107	25	No Change
Econ. Disadvantaged		76.6	76.6	73.9	-2.7	78.6	88.3	35	70	0	Declined
EL and Former EL		80.8	59.6	62.7	3.1	88.8	90.4	24	51	50	Improved Below Target
Students w/ disabilities		71.6	62.2	65.2	3.0	83.4	85.8	53	46	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		78.3	-	76.6	-1.7	81.9	89.2	58	32	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		78.5	71.1	71.8	0.7	87.5	89.3	47	70	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		91.3	91.2	93.5	2.3	94.9	95.7	82	84	75	On Target

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		85.0	70.9	78.1	7.2	91.3	92.5	22	193	50	Improved Below Target
High needs		78.3	56.9	66.6	9.7	87.3	89.2	16	107	50	Improved Below Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		59.5	59.5	67.9	8.4	62.9	79.8	19	70	100	Above Target
EL and Former EL		80.8	47.3	63.2	15.9	88.8	90.4	18	51	50	Improved Below Target
Students w/ disabilities		73.3	44.5	55.4	10.9	84.4	86.7	23	46	50	Improved Below Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		69.0	-	-	-	-	84.5	-	32	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		77.7	58.3	67.5	9.2	87.0	88.9	29	70	50	Improved Below Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		89.1	83.8	89.0	5.2	93.6	94.6	56	84	50	Improved Below Target

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		80.6	71.3	70.9	-0.4	88.7	90.3	25	61	25	No Change
High needs		74.4	60.3	57.6	-2.7	85.1	87.2	23	36	0	Declined
Econ. Disadvantaged		62.9	62.9	61.1	-1.8	66.0	81.5	38	27	25	No Change
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	11	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	17	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		77.8	64.0	54.5	-9.5	87.1	88.9	34	22	0	Declined
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White		80.8	-	-	-	-	90.4	-	25	-	-

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	12.1	15.0	193	25	8.9	7.8	193	25
High needs	5.3	5.6	107	0	15.0	12.1	107	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	7.6	5.7	70	0	11.4	11.4	70	0
EL and Former EL	2.1	2.0	51	0	31.9	19.6	51	25
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	2.2	46	25	24.4	15.2	46	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	4	-	-	-	4	-
Afr. Amer./Black	13.3	9.4	32	-	6.7	9.4	32	-
Hispanic/Latino	2.6	7.1	70	25	17.1	12.9	70	25
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	22.0	23.8	84	0	3.7	1.2	84	25

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	11.6	21.8	193	25	22.8	14.0	193	25
High needs	3.6	5.6	107	25	36.6	22.4	107	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	5.1	7.1	70	25	36.7	18.6	70	25
EL and Former EL	2.2	2.0	51	0	47.8	25.5	51	25
Students w/ disabilities	0.0	0.0	46	0	53.7	32.6	46	25
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	4	-	-	-	4	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	32	-	-	-	32	-
Hispanic/Latino	2.7	7.1	70	25	33.3	22.9	70	25
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	19.5	35.7	84	25	11.0	2.4	84	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	13.3	8.2	61	0	20.0	13.1	61	25
High needs	10.3	2.8	36	0	30.8	22.2	36	25
Econ. Disadvantaged	10.3	3.7	27	0	27.6	18.5	27	25
EL and Former EL	-	-	11	-	-	-	11	-
Students w/ disabilities	-	-	17	-	-	-	17	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-
Afr. Amer./Black	-	-	13	-	-	-	13	-
Hispanic/Latino	8.0	0.0	22	0	28.0	27.3	22	0
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	-	-	25	-	-	-	25	-

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		48.0	60.0	12.0	51.0	No	128	100	Above Target
High needs		44.0	59.5	15.5	51.0	No	72	100	Above Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		44.0	56.0	12.0	51.0	No	46	75	On Target
EL and Former EL		44.0	59.0	15.0	51.0	No	31	100	Above Target
Students w/ disabilities		48.5	66.0	17.5	51.0	No	34	100	Above Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	3	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	18	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		56.0	58.0	2.0	51.0	No	49	75	On Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		45.0	63.0	18.0	51.0	Yes	57	100	Above Target

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		38.0	55.0	17.0	51.0	Yes	128	100	Above Target
High needs		33.5	52.0	18.5	51.0	Yes	72	100	Above Target
Econ. Disadvantaged		35.0	49.0	14.0	51.0	Yes	46	75	On Target
EL and Former EL		-	-	-	51.0	-	31	-	-
Students w/ disabilities		18.5	52.0	33.5	51.0	Yes	34	100	Above Target
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
Asian		-	-	-	51.0	-	3	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black		-	-	-	51.0	-	18	-	-
Hispanic/Latino		35.0	54.0	19.0	51.0	Yes	49	100	Above Target
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.		-	-	-	51.0	-	1	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.		-	-	-	51.0	-	-	-	-
White		45.0	57.0	12.0	51.0	Yes	57	75	On Target

Summary > 2016

2016 Extra credit for English language proficiency growth About the Data
	2016 SGPA	2016 Target	SGPA N Included	PPI Points
All students	69.0	60.0	88.00	25
High needs	69.0	60.0	88.00	25
EL and Former EL	69.0	60.0	88.00	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	202	202	100	Yes	202	202	100	Yes	65	65	100	Yes
High needs	114	114	100	Yes	114	114	100	Yes	40	40	100	Yes
Econ. Disadvantaged	76	76	100	Yes	76	76	100	Yes	31	31	100	Yes
EL and Former EL	55	55	100	Yes	55	55	100	Yes	14	-	-	-
Students w/ disabilities	51	51	100	Yes	51	51	100	Yes	19	-	-	-
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Nat.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Asian	4	-	-	-	4	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Afr. Amer./Black	36	36	100	Yes	36	36	100	Yes	16	-	-	-
Hispanic/Latino	72	72	100	Yes	72	72	100	Yes	23	23	100	Yes
Multi-race, Non-Hisp./Lat.	4	-	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nat. Haw. or Pacif. Isl.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	86	86	100	Yes	86	86	100	Yes	25	25	100	Yes

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.