School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover · PDF fileSchool Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter February 10, 2017 ... or Mrs. Nawal Hamadeh (Founder, Superintendent, and CEO)

2015-16 AER – Universal Learning Academy Page 1

School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter February 10, 2017 Dear Parents and Community Members: We are pleased to present you with the Annual Education Report (AER) which provides key information on the 2015‐2016 educational progress for Universal Learning Academy (09827). The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about student assessment, accountability and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact Ms. Layal Boussi (principal) or Mrs. Nawal Hamadeh (Founder, Superintendent, and CEO) for assistance. The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following website www.ulapsa.org. You may also review a copy in the main office at your child’s school. The combined report is located online at: https://goo.gl/SV7aE3. For the 2016-17 year, no new Priority or Focus schools were named; some Priority or Focus schools did exit their status because they met the exit criteria. New Reward schools were identified using school rankings and Beating the Odds information. A Focus school is one that has a large achievement gap between the highest and lowest achieving 30% of schools. A Priority school is one whose achievement and growth is in the lowest 5% of all schools in the state. A Reward school is one that has achieved one or more of the following distinctions: top 5% of schools on the Top-to-Bottom School Rankings, top 5% of schools making the greatest gains in achievement (improvement metric), or “Beating the Odds” by outperforming the school’s predicted ranking and/or similar schools. Some schools are not identified with any of these labels. In these cases no label is given. Our school has not been given one of these labels.

Key Challenges and Initiatives English Language Learners (ELL) continue to need additional interventions, especially those who have been identified as at-risk. Universal Learning Academy has implemented the Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) process, and has incorporated a Title III after school program designed to further support ELLs. Universal Learning Academy’s at risk students are provided services through the MTSS process to ensure academic gaps are identified and an opportunity for success is established. Tier 1 interventions are designed to ensure 85% of the students receive high quality instruction. The Academy’s Tier 2 services (15% of students) provide students with support from paraprofessional and content area interventionists via small group instruction. The Academy’s Tier 3 Services (5% of students) provide students with one on one intensive interventions via paraprofessionals and interventionists which are supplemental. Students who qualify for 31a services are in need of academic and/or social and emotional support, based on teacher/team decision‐making, the use of multiple data sources, as well as evaluating progress every 6‐8 weeks in conjunction with the use of summative assessment data. The Academy continues to utilize the Epstein model for Parent Involvement. School Improvement Teams (SITs) have updated the school’s parent involvement plan, and parent compact in alignment with the MTSS process and expectations. State law requires that we also report additional information.

http://www.ulapsa.org/

https://goo.gl/SV7aE3


1. Process for Assigning Pupils to the Schools Section 504 of the Revised School Code states that public school academies shall neither charge tuition nor discriminate in pupil admissions, policies, or practices on the basis of intellectual or athletic ability, measures of achievement aptitude, status as a handicapped person, or any other basis that would be illegal if used by a Michigan public school district. Details are outlined in our Board Approved Application & Enrollment Procedures assuring the following:

Academy enrollment shall be open to all individuals who reside in Michigan. Except for a foreign exchange student who is not a United States citizen, a public school academy shall not enroll a pupil who is not a Michigan resident.

Academy admissions may be limited to pupils within a particular range/grade level or on any other basis that would be legal if used by a Michigan public school district.

The Academy Board may establish a policy providing enrollment priority to siblings of currently enrolled pupils. The Academy may provide a preference to children of Board members or Academy employees.

The Academy shall allow any pupil who was enrolled in the immediately preceding academic year to re-enroll in the appropriate age range/grade level unless that grade is not offered.

No student may be denied participation in the application process due to lack of student records. Homeless liaison ensures homeless children and unaccompanied youth are enrolled in and have an opportunity to succeed in school.

If the Academy receives more applications for enrollment than there are spaces available, pupils shall be selected for enrollment through a random selection drawing.

Universal Academy is a single school building district in which all students are equitably assigned to the same building and have equal access to full facility, programs, resources, technology, highly qualified staff and curriculum. 2. Status of the 3-5 Year School Improvement Plan At Universal Learning Academy, Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) is an ongoing and continuous process of analyzing data as it is readily available throughout the school year and involves all key stakeholders including staff, parents, students, and community members. Ongoing assessment, evaluation, mentoring/training and support is facilitated by the District through the Central Office who work close with and lead the School Improvement (SI) Team. We utilize the School Improvement Framework (SIF) Process Cycle which has four (4) major components that cycle in a continuous praxis.

Gather Data Where are we now (status) and where do we want to be (goals)?

Study/Analyze What did the data/information we collected tell us?

Plan How do we organize our work so that it aligns to our goals and resources?

Do Staff implements the strategies and action steps outlined in the plan.

Gather Data II Where are we now (status) and did we reach our goals?


While the CNA is recommended to be conducted once every three to five years and revisited annually, we complete annually with updates made throughout the year as new data is made available. We continue to use the AdvancED online tools to complete the School Data Profile which is a comprehensive analysis of our CNA. Our Schoolwide Reform Strategies, commonly referred to as our Goals, are derived from the CNA and are focused on helping all students reach the state’s standards. The goals are comprehensively written to cover all programs and services in keeping with accountability, transparency & reporting requirements. Strategies are described in detail and in implementation need resources/materials and professional development to provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum for all students. We have utilized AdvancED District/School Improvement Plan Goals & NCA Accredited Schools templates online, which allows us to describe and present our strategies in an action plan format within our consolidated, district wide improvement plan. Our strategies address the needs of all children in the school, but particularly that who are low achieving, and meet the needs of students representing all major subgroups participating in our School-Wide Title I program. Teachers are directed to meet student needs in utilizing our School Improvement Plan strategies with continuous analysis to determine if student needs are met. CNA data and School Improvement Team (SIT) review and evaluation continue to demonstrate that our SIP strategies are effective and increasing student achievement allowing us to continue to meet AYP requirements. Our Goals & Objectives continue to address Title I assurances and have been updated based on MDE’s waiver approval to include targets through the year 2022 year in which 100% of students are expected to be proficient as well as updating our measures to include full year growth measures and additional details per our MDE On Site Review visit. Our SIP has been submitted online via AdvancED online planning tools by deadline and will be available on our school website at www.ulapsa.org or in print at the school upon request. 3. Brief Description of Each Specialized School Universal Learning Academy is a public school academy that is authorized by Bay Mills Community College and is operating in a single building that is located at 28015 Joy Road, Westland, Wayne County, Michigan Street that served students in grades Pre-k through 11 with approximately 686 students in 2015-16. All students are equitably assigned to their building and have equal access to the full facility, programs, resources, technology, highly qualified staff and curriculum. The Academy was founded in 2004 by Mrs. Nawal Hamadeh, President and Superintendent and is managed by Hamadeh Educational Services, Inc. The Academy prides itself on promoting diversity, culture of other's and culture of one's one. Teachers work on incorporating a global perspective into the classroom, in order to prepare students for real world careers and jobs in the 21st century. Since the inception, the Academy continues to make progress in achieving the mission and goals envisioned by the Founder. Through publication of this report, the aim is to share progress, along with plans for continued growth and improvement into the future, with all stakeholders. Universal Learning Academy is not considered a specialized school.

http://www.ulapsa.org/


4. Identify how to access a copy of the core curriculum, a description of its implementation, and an

explanation of the variances from the state’s model. Our district’s curriculum is housed in Rubicon/Atlas an online based software program. Atlas is designed to electronically encompass the entire process of curriculum mapping in direct correlation to the Michigan Department of Education’s (MDE) learning standards and Common Core standards for each grade level. Atlas allows for personalization in terms of curriculum mapping by allowing each teacher to download reports to their own dashboard for yearlong planning purposes, assessment categorizing and curriculum pacing. The district is in full implementation with the curriculum as Noor International Academy is in direct alignment with the MDE and Common Core Standards. All units are designed with the required learning standards. There is little to no variation with the state mandated learning standards. Teachers meet on a weekly basis as a grade level team and or department to review their units and lesson plan to ensure vertical and horizontal alignments are taking place. To get a copy of the district’s core curriculum the parent and or perspective parent can come into the main office and request (in writing) a copy of the core curriculum they want. At that point, the curriculum coordinator and or principal will download the curriculum documents for the parent in paper format within 3-5 days. The district will then reach out to the parent who made the request to let them know the file is ready to be picked up. 5. Aggregate Student Achievement Results for Local Competency Tests or Nationally Normed

Achievement Tests Data driven curriculum decisions are made as a part of the continuous improvement process updating curriculum materials to ensure alignment with the Michigan Core Curriculum Framework, the Grade Level Content Expectations, and Michigan Merit Curriculum in addition to thorough planning and completion of curriculum/unit maps per grade level across all subject areas taught. Such curriculum alignment activities are scheduled on a continuous basis, and formally on an annual basis. Instructional staff is provided with in‐service time, in which substitutes are assigned to cover teachers in the classroom, and allow for vertical and horizontal planning. Additionally, teacher work days are scheduled on the school calendar to allow for such collaboration and curriculum alignment as well. Analysis of formative and summative assessments are desegregated and analyzed to impact current programs in place, and plan for improvement measures to address high priority items identified from such assessment results. Best research practices are reviewed and actions are put in place to allow for improved upon instruction and practices in the classrooms to address specific sub group needs at each grade level.


World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA: K-10): The WIDA replaced the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) for 2013‐2014. Data tables below provide trend data related to WIDA proficiency levels overall. The data shows the first, second and third year of WIDA testing. The following results are from the spring 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 WIDA Access for ELL (English Language Learner) students. “Reaching” or” Bridging” are considered proficient per the charts below.


NWEA Measures of Academic Progress: K‐8 The student conditional growth percentiles, shown below, represent the quantity of growth made in relation to similarly-scoring students from fall to spring. A value of greater than 50% or greater indicates more growth made than similarly-scoring students, while less than 50% indicates less growth than similarly-scoring students.


PSAT Grades: 9th & 10th

SAT Grade: 11th

The following graph shows the percentage of 9th and 10th grade students considered to be on track for

college readiness on the PSAT exam and the percentage of 11th grade students considered to be on track

for college readiness on the SAT exam.


6. Identify the Number and Percentage of Students Represented by Parent at Parent-Teacher

Conferences. At Universal Learning Academy we request all parents to volunteer 20 hours annually. We continue to have 100% participation in parent‐teacher conferences, 94% to 95% of the parents attend in person and 4% to 5% of parents participate via alternative means (virtually, electronically, Skype and or via telephone) which brings the total parent participation in the conferences to 100%. Over the years the Academy has made amendments to its parental involvement policy effective 2009‐10. Since the changes parental involvement has increased during parent teacher conferences as well as during other school activities National standards in our implementation plan.

Year Student Count Percentage

2014-15 671 100%

2015-16 672 100%

7. For High Schools, Only Also Report:

a. The Number and Percentage of Postsecondary (Dual) Enrollments

Duel Enrollment Not Offered b. The Number of College Equivalent Courses Offered

No College Equivalent Courses Offered c. The Number and Percentage of Students Enrolled in College Equivalent Courses

N/A d. The Number and Percentage of Students Receiving a Score Leading to College Credit

N/A


CONCLUSION & STAKEHOLDER APPRECIATION Universal Learning Academy has undergone many challenges as other charter schools have, yet the Academy continues to achieve its mission, goals and objectives. Further, the Academy continues to attract students and parents that are impressed with the progress and programs. Universal Learning Academy continues to remain financially sound during times of economic crisis, educationally oriented to success, and prepared to exceed expectations of all stakeholders and customers. Universal Learning Academy intends to continue improving the services for students and families well into the future. The Academy is committed to the practice of involving all stakeholders in these efforts –parents, teachers, students, staff, and the surrounding community. All stakeholders realize that through the collaborative process, the Academy has been able to achieve the progress outlined in this report. We would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to all stakeholders for this collaborative spirit. The ultimate goal for Universal Learning Academy is to become a Reward School and rank in the 90th percentile in the state of Michigan.

M-STEP Grades 3-11

Subject Grade TestingGroup

School Year State PercentStudentsProficient

DistrictPercentStudentsProficient

SchoolPercentStudentsProficient

PercentAdvanced

PercentProficient

PercentPartiallyProficient

Percent NotProficient

ELA 3rd GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 50.0% 60.8% 60.8% 25.3% 35.4% 22.8% 16.5%


All Students 2015-16 46.0% 38.2% 38.2% 14.5% 23.7% 28.9% 32.9%


Asian 2014-15 69.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Asian 2015-16 65.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Black orAfricanAmerican

2014-15 23.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 20.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 37.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 33.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 47.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 42.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 58.2% 64.7% 64.7% 25.0% 39.7% 19.1% 16.2%


White 2015-16 53.9% 38.8% 38.8% 14.9% 23.9% 31.3% 29.9%

Annual Education ReportUniversal Learning Academy02/12/2017

A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 1 of 47

M-STEP Grades 3-11


Female 2014-15 54.7% 71.4% 71.4% 25.7% 45.7% 14.3% 14.3%


Female 2015-16 49.5% 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 36.4% 27.3% 27.3%


Male 2014-15 45.5% 52.3% 52.3% 25.0% 27.3% 29.5% 18.2%


Male 2015-16 42.6% 32.6% 32.6% 18.6% 14.0% 30.2% 37.2%


EconomicallyDisadvantaged

2014-15 35.3% 59.7% 59.7% 26.4% 33.3% 22.2% 18.1%



2015-16 31.1% 31.3% 31.3% 12.5% 18.8% 29.7% 39.1%


EnglishLanguageLearners

2014-15 34.7% 40.0% 40.0% 13.3% 26.7% 23.3% 36.7%



2015-16 31.9% 14.8% 14.8% 3.7% 11.1% 22.2% 63.0%


Students WithDisabilities

2014-15 23.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 20.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

ELA 4th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 46.6% 48.1% 48.1% 25.3% 22.8% 25.3% 26.6%


All Students 2015-16 46.3% 49.4% 49.4% 29.9% 19.5% 20.8% 29.9%


Asian 2014-15 70.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Asian 2015-16 67.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 21.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 20.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 33.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 34.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 45.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 43.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 53.9% 48.5% 48.5% 25.0% 23.5% 22.1% 29.4%


White 2015-16 53.9% 50.0% 50.0% 29.4% 20.6% 22.1% 27.9%


Female 2014-15 51.5% 59.0% 59.0% 35.9% 23.1% 17.9% 23.1%


Female 2015-16 50.9% 50.0% 50.0% 30.6% 19.4% 22.2% 27.8%


Male 2014-15 41.8% 37.5% 37.5% 15.0% 22.5% 32.5% 30.0%


Male 2015-16 41.8% 48.8% 48.8% 29.3% 19.5% 19.5% 31.7%



2014-15 30.9% 45.1% 45.1% 19.7% 25.4% 25.4% 29.6%



2015-16 30.8% 46.9% 46.9% 28.1% 18.8% 21.9% 31.3%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 23.7% 25.8% 25.8% 12.9% 12.9% 29.0% 45.2%



2015-16 24.3% 20.0% 20.0% 16.7% 3.3% 23.3% 56.7%



2014-15 17.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 48.7% 43.2% 43.2% 9.9% 33.3% 32.1% 24.7%


All Students 2015-16 50.6% 40.3% 40.3% 16.9% 23.4% 32.5% 27.3%


Asian 2015-16 74.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 22.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 23.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 35.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 47.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 49.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 55.7% 42.3% 42.3% 8.5% 33.8% 32.4% 25.4%


White 2015-16 58.1% 39.7% 39.7% 17.6% 22.1% 33.8% 26.5%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Female 2014-15 54.3% 45.8% 45.8% 10.4% 35.4% 35.4% 18.8%


Female 2015-16 55.8% 45.0% 45.0% 25.0% 20.0% 30.0% 25.0%


Male 2014-15 43.3% 39.4% 39.4% 9.1% 30.3% 27.3% 33.3%


Male 2015-16 45.5% 35.1% 35.1% 8.1% 27.0% 35.1% 29.7%



2014-15 32.6% 39.5% 39.5% 5.3% 34.2% 34.2% 26.3%



2015-16 34.4% 36.1% 36.1% 13.1% 23.0% 29.5% 34.4%



2014-15 22.7% 23.1% 23.1% 2.6% 20.5% 38.5% 38.5%



2015-16 23.1% 23.3% 23.3% 10.0% 13.3% 36.7% 40.0%



2014-15 14.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 16.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 44.7% 45.1% 45.1% 9.8% 35.4% 36.6% 18.3%


All Students 2015-16 45.0% 17.6% 17.6% 2.7% 14.9% 35.1% 47.3%


Asian 2015-16 70.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 20.0% 54.5% 54.5% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4% 9.1%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 19.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 32.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 31.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 42.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 42.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 51.2% 42.0% 42.0% 10.1% 31.9% 37.7% 20.3%


White 2015-16 51.9% 16.4% 16.4% 3.0% 13.4% 34.3% 49.3%


Female 2014-15 51.1% 42.9% 42.9% 7.1% 35.7% 40.5% 16.7%


Female 2015-16 49.8% 21.4% 21.4% 2.4% 19.0% 52.4% 26.2%


Male 2014-15 38.6% 47.5% 47.5% 12.5% 35.0% 32.5% 20.0%


Male 2015-16 40.4% 12.5% 12.5% 3.1% 9.4% 12.5% 75.0%



2014-15 29.1% 41.4% 41.4% 10.0% 31.4% 37.1% 21.4%



2015-16 28.3% 19.7% 19.7% 3.0% 16.7% 36.4% 43.9%



2014-15 16.2% 20.0% 20.0% 2.9% 17.1% 51.4% 28.6%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 15.0% 7.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 37.2% 55.8%



2014-15 10.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 10.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 49.1% 34.0% 34.0% 6.0% 28.0% 46.0% 20.0%


All Students 2015-16 47.1% 27.7% 27.7% 9.2% 18.5% 36.9% 35.4%


Asian 2014-15 73.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 25.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 21.5% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 30.0% 40.0% 20.0%


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 35.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 35.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 47.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 55.4% 32.6% 32.6% 4.7% 27.9% 44.2% 23.3%


White 2015-16 53.7% 24.1% 24.1% 9.3% 14.8% 37.0% 38.9%


Female 2014-15 56.3% 42.9% 42.9% 4.8% 38.1% 52.4% 4.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Female 2015-16 53.8% 27.0% 27.0% 5.4% 21.6% 43.2% 29.7%


Male 2014-15 42.2% 27.6% 27.6% 6.9% 20.7% 41.4% 31.0%


Male 2015-16 40.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9%



2014-15 33.2% 36.2% 36.2% 6.4% 29.8% 42.6% 21.3%



2015-16 30.7% 21.8% 21.8% 9.1% 12.7% 40.0% 38.2%



2014-15 18.9% 26.9% 26.9% 3.8% 23.1% 38.5% 34.6%



2015-16 17.5% 15.6% 15.6% 0.0% 15.6% 37.5% 46.9%



2014-15 10.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 11.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 47.6% 63.5% 63.5% 15.4% 48.1% 30.8% 5.8%


All Students 2015-16 48.9% 29.5% 29.5% 4.5% 25.0% 45.5% 25.0%



2014-15 23.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 24.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 35.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 47.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 53.8% 67.4% 67.4% 15.2% 52.2% 26.1% 6.5%


White 2015-16 55.2% 26.3% 26.3% 5.3% 21.1% 47.4% 26.3%


Female 2014-15 54.2% 67.7% 67.7% 19.4% 48.4% 29.0% 3.2%


Female 2015-16 54.9% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 50.0% 20.0%


Male 2014-15 41.2% 57.1% 57.1% 9.5% 47.6% 33.3% 9.5%


Male 2015-16 43.0% 29.2% 29.2% 8.3% 20.8% 41.7% 29.2%



2014-15 31.8% 61.2% 61.2% 16.3% 44.9% 32.7% 6.1%



2015-16 32.5% 30.0% 30.0% 5.0% 25.0% 47.5% 22.5%



2014-15 19.3% 59.1% 59.1% 4.5% 54.5% 31.8% 9.1%



2015-16 17.3% 19.0% 19.0% 4.8% 14.3% 47.6% 33.3%



2014-15 9.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 10.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11

Mathematics 3rd GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 48.8% 53.2% 53.2% 17.7% 35.4% 22.8% 24.1%


All Students 2015-16 45.2% 36.8% 36.8% 13.2% 23.7% 35.5% 27.6%


Asian 2014-15 73.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Asian 2015-16 73.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 20.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 17.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 35.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 31.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 43.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 40.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 57.3% 57.4% 57.4% 19.1% 38.2% 20.6% 22.1%


White 2015-16 53.2% 38.8% 38.8% 13.4% 25.4% 35.8% 25.4%


Female 2014-15 48.1% 48.6% 48.6% 11.4% 37.1% 25.7% 25.7%


Female 2015-16 43.7% 36.4% 36.4% 9.1% 27.3% 42.4% 21.2%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Male 2014-15 49.5% 56.8% 56.8% 22.7% 34.1% 20.5% 22.7%


Male 2015-16 46.6% 37.2% 37.2% 16.3% 20.9% 30.2% 32.6%



2014-15 33.5% 52.8% 52.8% 18.1% 34.7% 22.2% 25.0%



2015-16 30.1% 28.1% 28.1% 7.8% 20.3% 39.1% 32.8%



2014-15 37.0% 26.7% 26.7% 0.0% 26.7% 26.7% 46.7%



2015-16 37.8% 14.8% 14.8% 3.7% 11.1% 40.7% 44.4%



2014-15 24.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 21.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Mathematics 4th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 41.4% 35.4% 35.4% 13.9% 21.5% 48.1% 16.5%


All Students 2015-16 44.0% 49.4% 49.4% 9.1% 40.3% 32.5% 18.2%


Asian 2014-15 69.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Asian 2015-16 71.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 13.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 15.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 27.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 30.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 38.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 39.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 49.3% 33.8% 33.8% 11.8% 22.1% 50.0% 16.2%


White 2015-16 52.3% 51.5% 51.5% 10.3% 41.2% 32.4% 16.2%


Female 2014-15 40.3% 35.9% 35.9% 20.5% 15.4% 51.3% 12.8%


Female 2015-16 42.1% 44.4% 44.4% 0.0% 44.4% 36.1% 19.4%


Male 2014-15 42.4% 35.0% 35.0% 7.5% 27.5% 45.0% 20.0%


Male 2015-16 45.8% 53.7% 53.7% 17.1% 36.6% 29.3% 17.1%



2014-15 25.4% 31.0% 31.0% 11.3% 19.7% 50.7% 18.3%



2015-16 27.9% 43.8% 43.8% 6.3% 37.5% 35.9% 20.3%



2014-15 22.1% 19.4% 19.4% 6.5% 12.9% 54.8% 25.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 27.4% 26.7% 26.7% 0.0% 26.7% 36.7% 36.7%



2014-15 17.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 33.4% 16.0% 16.0% 7.4% 8.6% 37.0% 46.9%


All Students 2015-16 33.8% 29.9% 29.9% 16.9% 13.0% 35.1% 35.1%


Asian 2015-16 63.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 9.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 8.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 19.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 30.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 30.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 39.7% 16.9% 16.9% 8.5% 8.5% 35.2% 47.9%


White 2015-16 41.0% 30.9% 30.9% 16.2% 14.7% 35.3% 33.8%


Female 2014-15 32.6% 10.4% 10.4% 4.2% 6.3% 45.8% 43.8%


Female 2015-16 31.7% 30.0% 30.0% 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 40.0%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Male 2014-15 34.1% 24.2% 24.2% 12.1% 12.1% 24.2% 51.5%


Male 2015-16 35.8% 29.7% 29.7% 18.9% 10.8% 40.5% 29.7%



2014-15 18.2% 13.2% 13.2% 6.6% 6.6% 38.2% 48.7%



2015-16 17.7% 24.6% 24.6% 13.1% 11.5% 36.1% 39.3%



2014-15 13.6% 10.3% 10.3% 0.0% 10.3% 25.6% 64.1%



2015-16 12.8% 20.0% 20.0% 13.3% 6.7% 26.7% 53.3%



2014-15 9.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 10.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 33.3% 22.0% 22.0% 13.4% 8.5% 42.7% 35.4%


All Students 2015-16 32.8% 6.8% 6.8% 2.7% 4.1% 35.1% 58.1%


Asian 2015-16 64.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 9.4% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 36.4%



2015-16 8.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 19.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 18.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 29.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 29.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 39.3% 23.2% 23.2% 14.5% 8.7% 40.6% 36.2%


White 2015-16 39.2% 7.5% 7.5% 3.0% 4.5% 32.8% 59.7%


Female 2014-15 34.1% 14.3% 14.3% 9.5% 4.8% 50.0% 35.7%


Female 2015-16 31.4% 7.1% 7.1% 2.4% 4.8% 38.1% 54.8%


Male 2014-15 32.5% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 12.5% 35.0% 35.0%


Male 2015-16 34.1% 6.3% 6.3% 3.1% 3.1% 31.3% 62.5%



2014-15 17.6% 21.4% 21.4% 12.9% 8.6% 42.9% 35.7%



2015-16 16.8% 7.6% 7.6% 3.0% 4.5% 36.4% 56.1%



2014-15 11.5% 11.4% 11.4% 8.6% 2.9% 40.0% 48.6%



2015-16 10.7% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 27.9% 69.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 7.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 7.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 33.3% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 8.0% 38.0% 54.0%


All Students 2015-16 35.3% 18.5% 18.5% 4.6% 13.8% 32.3% 49.2%


Asian 2014-15 66.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 10.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 10.4% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 70.0% 20.0%


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 19.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 20.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 29.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 39.0% 4.7% 4.7% 0.0% 4.7% 39.5% 55.8%


White 2015-16 41.6% 18.5% 18.5% 5.6% 13.0% 25.9% 55.6%


Female 2014-15 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 57.1%


Female 2015-16 34.5% 13.5% 13.5% 2.7% 10.8% 32.4% 54.1%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Male 2014-15 33.5% 13.8% 13.8% 0.0% 13.8% 34.5% 51.7%


Male 2015-16 36.1% 25.0% 25.0% 7.1% 17.9% 32.1% 42.9%



2014-15 17.8% 8.5% 8.5% 0.0% 8.5% 40.4% 51.1%



2015-16 18.7% 14.5% 14.5% 3.6% 10.9% 29.1% 56.4%



2014-15 12.0% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% 7.7% 34.6% 57.7%



2015-16 13.0% 12.5% 12.5% 3.1% 9.4% 21.9% 65.6%



2014-15 6.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 7.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 32.2% 36.5% 36.5% 13.5% 23.1% 30.8% 32.7%


All Students 2015-16 32.7% 11.4% 11.4% 2.3% 9.1% 31.8% 56.8%



2014-15 9.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 9.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 18.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 29.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 37.7% 37.0% 37.0% 13.0% 23.9% 30.4% 32.6%


White 2015-16 38.3% 10.5% 10.5% 2.6% 7.9% 26.3% 63.2%


Female 2014-15 32.6% 35.5% 35.5% 9.7% 25.8% 35.5% 29.0%


Female 2015-16 34.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.0% 55.0%


Male 2014-15 31.8% 38.1% 38.1% 19.0% 19.0% 23.8% 38.1%


Male 2015-16 31.4% 20.8% 20.8% 4.2% 16.7% 20.8% 58.3%



2014-15 17.0% 36.7% 36.7% 12.2% 24.5% 28.6% 34.7%



2015-16 16.7% 10.0% 10.0% 2.5% 7.5% 35.0% 55.0%



2014-15 12.2% 22.7% 22.7% 9.1% 13.6% 27.3% 50.0%



2015-16 11.8% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 28.6% 66.7%



2014-15 5.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 5.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Science 4th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 12.4% 6.3% 6.3% 1.3% 5.1% 19.0% 74.7%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


All Students 2015-16 14.7% 13.5% 13.5% 5.4% 8.1% 29.7% 56.8%


Asian 2014-15 23.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Asian 2015-16 28.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 2.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 2.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 5.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 6.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 11.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 12.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 15.4% 7.4% 7.4% 1.5% 5.9% 16.2% 76.5%


White 2015-16 18.4% 13.8% 13.8% 4.6% 9.2% 29.2% 56.9%


Female 2014-15 10.4% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 28.2% 69.2%


Female 2015-16 13.0% 8.6% 8.6% 5.7% 2.9% 34.3% 57.1%


Male 2014-15 14.3% 10.0% 10.0% 2.5% 7.5% 10.0% 80.0%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Male 2015-16 16.4% 17.9% 17.9% 5.1% 12.8% 25.6% 56.4%



2014-15 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 1.4% 4.2% 15.5% 78.9%



2015-16 6.6% 9.7% 9.7% 3.2% 6.5% 29.0% 61.3%



2014-15 2.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 6.5% 90.3%



2015-16 2.9% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 10.3% 86.2%



2014-15 4.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 22.7% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 2.0% 88.0%


All Students 2015-16 23.9% 15.4% 15.4% 9.2% 6.2% 16.9% 67.7%


Asian 2014-15 43.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 5.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 5.4% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 80.0%


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 11.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 12.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 21.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 27.4% 7.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 2.3% 90.7%


White 2015-16 28.9% 16.7% 16.7% 11.1% 5.6% 16.7% 66.7%


Female 2014-15 20.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 95.2%


Female 2015-16 22.6% 8.1% 8.1% 0.0% 8.1% 16.2% 75.7%


Male 2014-15 24.6% 17.2% 17.2% 0.0% 17.2% 0.0% 82.8%


Male 2015-16 25.1% 25.0% 25.0% 21.4% 3.6% 17.9% 57.1%



2014-15 10.9% 10.6% 10.6% 0.0% 10.6% 2.1% 87.2%



2015-16 11.7% 12.7% 12.7% 9.1% 3.6% 14.5% 72.7%



2014-15 2.3% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 96.2%



2015-16 3.5% 12.5% 12.5% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 81.3%



2014-15 4.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 5.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2015-16 33.0% 21.7% 21.7% 4.3% 17.4% 34.8% 43.5%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Asian 2015-16 50.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 8.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2015-16 38.7% 20.0% 20.0% 5.0% 15.0% 30.0% 50.0%


Female 2015-16 29.8% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% 7.7% 38.5% 53.8%


Male 2015-16 36.3% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%



2015-16 17.9% 19.0% 19.0% 4.8% 14.3% 33.3% 47.6%



2015-16 4.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Social Studies 5th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 22.2% 13.6% 13.6% 0.0% 13.6% 66.7% 19.8%


All Students 2015-16 18.9% 24.7% 24.7% 1.3% 23.4% 59.7% 15.6%


Asian 2015-16 35.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2014-15 5.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 4.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 12.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Two or MoreRaces

2014-15 20.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 17.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 26.9% 12.7% 12.7% 0.0% 12.7% 67.6% 19.7%


White 2015-16 23.0% 25.0% 25.0% 1.5% 23.5% 60.3% 14.7%


Female 2014-15 20.6% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 77.1% 14.6%


Female 2015-16 16.7% 27.5% 27.5% 0.0% 27.5% 60.0% 12.5%


Male 2014-15 23.8% 21.2% 21.2% 0.0% 21.2% 51.5% 27.3%


Male 2015-16 21.0% 21.6% 21.6% 2.7% 18.9% 59.5% 18.9%



2014-15 10.9% 9.2% 9.2% 0.0% 9.2% 69.7% 21.1%



2015-16 8.5% 18.0% 18.0% 0.0% 18.0% 63.9% 18.0%



2014-15 6.1% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 5.1% 66.7% 28.2%



2015-16 3.7% 16.7% 16.7% 3.3% 13.3% 56.7% 26.7%



2014-15 6.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 5.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


All Students 2014-15 29.7% 19.2% 19.2% 0.0% 19.2% 57.7% 23.1%


All Students 2015-16 29.3% 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 11.4% 52.3% 36.4%



2014-15 9.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 9.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 18.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Two or MoreRaces

2015-16 28.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 35.2% 19.6% 19.6% 0.0% 19.6% 56.5% 23.9%


White 2015-16 34.3% 10.5% 10.5% 0.0% 10.5% 50.0% 39.5%


Female 2014-15 25.2% 16.1% 16.1% 0.0% 16.1% 64.5% 19.4%


Female 2015-16 26.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 55.0% 40.0%


Male 2014-15 34.0% 23.8% 23.8% 0.0% 23.8% 47.6% 28.6%


Male 2015-16 32.6% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3%



2014-15 15.9% 18.4% 18.4% 0.0% 18.4% 57.1% 24.5%



2015-16 15.8% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 40.0%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 5.8% 13.6% 13.6% 0.0% 13.6% 59.1% 27.3%



2015-16 7.2% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 57.1% 38.1%



2014-15 7.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 7.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2015-16 43.1% 43.5% 43.5% 8.7% 34.8% 56.5% 0.0%


Asian 2015-16 59.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



2015-16 15.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2015-16 49.3% 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 30.0% 60.0% 0.0%


Female 2015-16 39.1% 38.5% 38.5% 0.0% 38.5% 61.5% 0.0%


Male 2015-16 47.1% 50.0% 50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% 0.0%



2015-16 26.3% 38.1% 38.1% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9% 0.0%



2015-16 9.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



SAT

LocationName

School Year Subject StudentGroup

Mean SATScore

Benchmark Met orExceeded

% Met orExceeded

Did Not Meet % Did NotMeet

NumberAssessed

UniversalLearningAcademy

2015-16 Total Score All Students 970.0 N/A <10 17.4% 19 82.6% 23


2015-16 Total Score Asian <10 N/A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Total Score Black orAfricanAmerican

<10 N/A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Total Score White 974.5 N/A <10 20.0% 16 80.0% 20


2015-16 Total Score Female 936.2 N/A <10 <5% 13 >95% 13


2015-16 Total Score Male 1014.0 N/A <10 40.0% <10 60.0% 10


2015-16 Total Score EconomicallyDisadvantaged

975.2 N/A <10 19.0% 17 81.0% 21


2015-16 Total Score NotEconomicallyDisadvantaged

<10 N/A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Total Score EnglishLanguageLearners

<10 N/A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Total Score Not EnglishLanguageLearners

1004.4 N/A <10 25.0% 12 75.0% 16



SAT


2015-16 Total Score Not Migrant 970.0 N/A <10 17.4% 19 82.6% 23


2015-16 Total Score StudentsWithoutDisabilities

970.0 N/A <10 17.4% 19 82.6% 23


2015-16 Total Score Homeless <10 N/A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Total Score Not Homeless 983.6 N/A <10 18.2% 18 81.8% 22


2015-16 Evidence-Based Readingand Writing

All Students 498.3 480 13 56.5% 10 43.5% 23



Asian <10 480 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10




<10 480 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



White 499.5 480 11 55.0% <10 45.0% 20



Female 491.5 480 <10 61.5% <10 38.5% 13



Male 507.0 480 <10 50.0% <10 50.0% 10




501.0 480 12 57.1% <10 42.9% 21



SAT



NotEconomicallyDisadvantaged

<10 480 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10




<10 480 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



Not EnglishLanguageLearners

521.9 480 10 62.5% <10 37.5% 16



Not Migrant 498.3 480 13 56.5% 10 43.5% 23



StudentsWithoutDisabilities

498.3 480 13 56.5% 10 43.5% 23



Homeless <10 480 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



Not Homeless 506.4 480 13 59.1% <10 40.9% 22


2015-16 Mathematics All Students 471.7 530 <10 21.7% 18 78.3% 23


2015-16 Mathematics Asian <10 530 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Mathematics Black orAfricanAmerican

<10 530 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Mathematics White 475.0 530 <10 25.0% 15 75.0% 20



SAT


2015-16 Mathematics Female 444.6 530 <10 <5% 13 >95% 13


2015-16 Mathematics Male 507.0 530 <10 50.0% <10 50.0% 10


2015-16 Mathematics EconomicallyDisadvantaged

474.3 530 <10 23.8% 16 76.2% 21


2015-16 Mathematics NotEconomicallyDisadvantaged

<10 530 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Mathematics EnglishLanguageLearners

<10 530 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Mathematics Not EnglishLanguageLearners

482.5 530 <10 25.0% 12 75.0% 16


2015-16 Mathematics Not Migrant 471.7 530 <10 21.7% 18 78.3% 23


2015-16 Mathematics StudentsWithoutDisabilities

471.7 530 <10 21.7% 18 78.3% 23


2015-16 Mathematics Homeless <10 530 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


2015-16 Mathematics Not Homeless 477.3 530 <10 22.7% 17 77.3% 22



No Data to Display

MI-Access Functional Independence

Subject Grade Testing Group School Year State PercentStudentsProficient


School PercentStudentsProficient

PercentSurpassed

PercentAttained

PercentEmerging



No Data to Display

MI-Access Supported Independence




PercentSurpassed

PercentAttained

PercentEmerging



No Data to Display

MI-Access Participation




PercentSurpassed

PercentAttained

PercentEmerging



Accountability Details Subject Data

TestingGroup

Subject State TestedTotal

State PercentProficient

DistrictTested Total

DistrictPercentProficient*

School TestedTotal

SchoolPercentProficient**

All Students ELA 98.7% 69.6% 100.0% 58.2% 100.0% 58.2%

All Students Mathematics 98.6% 62.1% 100.0% 51.1% 100.0% 51.1%

All Students Science 98.1% 50.0% 98.8% 42.8% 98.8% 42.8%

All Students Social Studies 98.1% 59.3% 100.0% 55.4% 100.0% 55.4%

Bottom 30% ELA N/A 25.1% N/A 5.6% N/A 5.6%

Bottom 30% Mathematics N/A 19.0% N/A 6.4% N/A 6.4%

Bottom 30% Science N/A 9.8% N/A 4.2% N/A 4.2%

Bottom 30% Social Studies N/A 13.3% N/A 11.9% N/A 11.9%

AmericanIndian orAlaska Native

ELA 98.4% 63.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Mathematics 98.4% 55.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Science 98.0% 46.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Social Studies 97.3% 54.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Asian ELA 99.3% 84.3% <30 <30 <30 <30

Asian Mathematics 99.4% 83.7% <30 <30 <30 <30

Asian Science 99.3% 65.5% <30 <30 <30 <30

Asian Social Studies 99.3% 76.0% <30 <30 <30 <30

Black or AfricanAmerican

ELA 97.7% 46.9% <30 <30 <30 <30


Mathematics 97.4% 37.3% <30 <30 <30 <30


Science 96.5% 23.9% <30 <30 <30 <30


Social Studies 96.6% 33.6% <30 <30 <30 <30

Hispanic of AnyRace

ELA 98.8% 60.8% <30 <30 <30 <30

Hispanic of AnyRace

Mathematics 98.8% 51.1% <30 <30 <30 <30

Hispanic of AnyRace

Science 98.1% 36.7% <30 <30 <30 <30




Hispanic of AnyRace

Social Studies 98.0% 47.7% <30 <30 <30 <30

NativeHawaiian orOther PacificIslander

ELA 99.5% 72.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Mathematics 99.7% 65.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Science 99.7% 59.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A


Social Studies 99.6% 65.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Two or MoreRaces

ELA 98.9% 67.8% <30 <30 <30 <30

Two or MoreRaces

Mathematics 98.7% 59.2% <30 <30 <30 <30

Two or MoreRaces

Science 98.5% 45.2% <30 <30 <30 <30

Two or MoreRaces

Social Studies 98.5% 57.3% <30 <30 <30 <30

White ELA 99.0% 75.6% 100.0% 58.9% 100.0% 58.9%

White Mathematics 98.9% 68.4% 100.0% 51.2% 100.0% 51.2%

White Science 98.6% 57.1% 98.6% 42.7% 98.6% 42.7%

White Social Studies 98.5% 65.8% 100.0% 53.7% 100.0% 53.7%


ELA 98.3% 56.8% 100.0% 56.4% 100.0% 56.4%


Mathematics 98.2% 48.5% 100.0% 48.0% 100.0% 48.0%


Science 97.5% 35.0% 99.3% 38.5% 99.3% 38.5%


Social Studies 97.5% 43.9% 100.0% 52.5% 100.0% 52.5%


ELA 98.8% 49.5% 100.0% 40.6% 100.0% 40.6%


Mathematics 99.0% 48.4% 100.0% 38.3% 100.0% 38.3%





Science 98.5% 22.0% 100.0% 28.8% 100.0% 28.8%


Social Studies 98.2% 30.9% 100.0% 35.7% 100.0% 35.7%


ELA 97.2% 40.1% <30 <30 <30 <30


Mathematics 97.1% 36.5% <30 <30 <30 <30


Science 97.0% 26.5% <30 <30 <30 <30


Social Studies 96.6% 30.8% <30 <30 <30 <30



* All data based on students enrolled for a full academic year.

Accountability Details Graduation Data

Student Group Statewide District School

All Students 79.79% N/A N/A

American Indian or AlaskaNative

70.88% N/A N/A

Asian 90.77% N/A N/A

Black or African American 67.31% N/A N/A

Hispanic of Any Race 72.07% N/A N/A

Native Hawaiian or Other PacificIslander

76.67% N/A N/A

Two or More Races 74.74% N/A N/A

White 83.48% N/A N/A

Female 83.76% N/A N/A

Male 76.00% N/A N/A

Economically Disadvantaged 67.48% N/A N/A

English Language Learners 72.14% N/A N/A

Students With Disabilities 57.12% N/A N/A

Bottom 30% N/A N/A N/A



* All data based on students enrolled for a full academic year.

Accountability Details Attendance Data

Student Group Statewide District School

All Students 94.32% 91.16% 91.16%



No Data to Display

Accountability Status District Data

DistrictName

ELA Status ELA Score Math Status Math Score ScienceStatus

ScienceScore

SocialStudiesStatus

SocialStudiesScore

OverallStatus

Overall Score



Accountability Status School Data

School Name ELA Status ELA Score Math Status Math Score ScienceStatus

ScienceScore

SocialStudiesStatus

SocialStudiesScore

OverallStatus

Overall Score


Green 2 Green 2 Green 2 Green 2 Lime 38



Professional Qualifications are defined by the State and may include information such as the degrees of public school teachers (e.g.,percentage of teachers with Bachelors Degrees or Masters Degrees) or the percentage of fully certified teachers

Teacher Quality - Qualification

Other B.A. M.A. P.H.D.

ProfessionalQualifications of All PublicElementary andSecondary SchoolTeachers in the School

3 45 13 0

Teacher Quality - Class

School Aggregate High-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools

Percentage of Core AcademicSubject Elementary andSecondary School Classes notTaught by Highly QualifiedTeachers

0.0% 0.0% N/A

Teacher Quality - Provisional

Certification Percent

Percentage of Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachersin the School with Emergency Certification

4.9%



‡ Reporting Standards not met. Note: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to totalbecause of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for EducationStatistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015 Mathematics Achievement.

NAEP Grade 4 Math

Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic

Percent Basic Percent Proficient Percent Advanced

All Students 100 23 77 34 5

MaleFemale

5149

2223

7877

3632

64

National LunchProgram EligibilityEligibleNot EligibleInfo not available

4753#

3610‡

6490‡

1749‡

19‡

Race/EthnicityWhiteBlack or AfricanAmericanHispanicAsianAmerican Indian orAlaska NativeNative Hawaiian orOther PacificIslanderTwo or More Races

7215641#3

15533811‡‡‡

85476289‡‡‡

39102158‡‡‡

5&#35319‡‡&#8225

Student classified ashaving a disabilitySDNot SD

1288

4719

5381

1437

15

Student is an EnglishLanguage LearnerELLNot ELL

595

4222

5878

1635

15



‡ Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to totalbecause of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for EducationStatistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015 Mathematics Achievement.

NAEP Grade 8 Math

Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic



MaleFemale

5149

3134

3939

2321

76


4555#

4819‡

3940‡

1230‡

211‡


6920431#2

23663811‡‡‡

43294418‡‡‡

2651539‡‡‡

7#432‡‡‡


1189

7727

1941

324

#7


397

5432

3339

1122

27



‡ Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to totalbecause of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for EducationStatistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015 Mathematics Achievement.

NAEP Grade 12 Math

Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic



MaleFemale

5149

3235

4142

2622

11


35640

54220

37440

9320

020


761453101

26685826000

42273332000

305935000

2007000


991

7830

1943

325

02


298

033

041

024

02



# Rounds to zero‡ Reporting Standards not met. NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant. Detail may not sum to totalbecause of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for EducationStatistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 Reading Assessment.

NAEP Grade 4 Reading

Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic



MaleFemale

5050

3934

6166

2631

56


4852#

5024‡

5076‡

1640‡

18‡


7214641#3

32664916‡‡30

68345184‡‡70

3291749‡‡37

61115‡‡8


1288

7632

2468

731

#6


496

5236

4864

1629

25





Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic



MaleFemale

5149

2920

4542

2534

24


4555#

3714‡

4543‡

1739‡

14‡

Race/EthnicityWhiteBlack or AficanAmericanHispanicAsian/NativeHawaiian or PacificIslanderAmerican Indian orAlaska NativeTwo or More Races

69204312

18472713‡‡

44444135‡‡

3492941‡‡

3&#35310‡‡


1090

6420

3045

532

#3


397

5723

3744

630

#3





Percent ofStudents

Percent belowBasic



MaleFemale

5050

3120

3737

2837

46


35641

37190

39360

22380

270


761453100

20523421000

38364426000

36122141000

60112000


793

6623

2538

834

15


298

025

037

033

05



NAEP Participation Data

Grade Subject Participation Ratefor Students withDisabilities

Standard Error Participation Ratefor Limited EnglishProficient Students

Standard Error

4 MathReading

8773

1.93.7

9590

2.02.5

8 MathReading

8476

3.63.3

8483

5.24.0



School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover · PDF fileSchool Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter February 10, 2017 ... or Mrs. Nawal Hamadeh (Founder, Superintendent, and CEO)

Documents