School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter · School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter ... on the 2015-2016 educational progress for the Universal Academy (08671).

2014-15 AER - Universal Academy 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 the Universal Academy (08671). The AER addresses the complex reporting information required by federal and state laws. The school’s report contains information about student assessment, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and teacher quality. If you have any questions about the AER, please contact Mrs. Uzma Anjum (Acting Principal) or Mrs. Nawal Hamadeh (Founder, Superintendent, and CEO) for assistance. The AER is available for you to review electronically by visiting the following web site www.universalpsa.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/PZLNWd. 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 ELL students (in some subject areas more than others) continue to need additional interventions so we will implement MTSS and incorporate Title III after school program design with students. In general, we attempt to aim for continued success by implementing Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) for ALL students (General & Special Ed) to ensure focus on high quality instruction and assessment to 85% of students within the classroom and Tier II/III services (15% of students) which are supplemental for students who qualify (31a and/or TIA selection criteria) and need based on teacher/team decision- making using multiple data sources and evaluating progress every 4-6 weeks in alignment with when summative assessments take place (end of unit). We also aim to continue with the Epstein model for Parent Involvement incorporating MDE’s family engagement tool available online: School Improvement Teams have updated the school family involvement plans with parents including a revised NCLB compact aligned to MTSS expectations.

http://www.universalpsa.org/

https://goo.gl/PZLNWd


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 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 and reporting requirements. Strategies are described in detail and implemented with needed 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. The Academy’s 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.universalpsa.org or in print at the school upon request.

3. Brief Description of Each Specialized School

Universal Academy is a public school academy that is authorized by Oakland University and is operating in one single building located at 4833 Ogden, Detroit, in grades Pre-k through 12 with about 739 students in 2015-in Wayne County, Michigan. All students are equitably assigned to their buildings and have equal access to the full facility, programs, resources, technology, highly qualified staff and curriculum. The Academy was founded in 1998 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 Academy is not considered a specialized school.

http://www.universalpsa.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 improve 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-12): Data tables below provide trend data related to WIDA proficiency levels overall. This was the second year of WIDA testing. The following results are from the spring WIDA Access for ELL (English Language Learner) students. “Reaching” or “Bridging” are considered proficient per the chart 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.

Year Student Count Percentage

2014-15 658 100%

2015-16 652 100%

At Universal Academy we encourage all parents to volunteer 20 hours minimum annually at the school. For the 2015-16 academic year, we had 100% of students represented at conferences (652 students). In 2014-15, our conference representation rate was 100% (658 students). Though our enrollment and parent community changes each year, we are still able to keep attendance at/or above 90% overall. For parents that are not able to physically attend, they are able to participate by electronic communication/means or via telephone to ensure 100% of parents are engaged in their child(ren)’s education. With the improvements made to our parental involvement policy, we expect parental attendance not only parent teacher conferences to increase, but overall involvement in regular activities as well as we continue to implement Epstein’s Model and National standards in our implementation plan.

7. For High Schools, Only Also Report:

Universal Academy continues to service students in high school who enroll in Dual Enrollment. With a steady increase in enrollment the expenditures have continued to increase annually each year with a significant increase in 2010‐11 school year in which we were able to switch to trimester scheduling. The percentage of students who participate and qualify has remained stable. Below is a summary of enrollment trends which vary annually depending on the number of students enrolled by grade level and those who qualify according to pupil accounting and District requirements (college readiness) as reported via the SID (School Infrastructure Database) report.

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

Number of students 2015-16: 65

Percent from total population: 10%

b. The Number of College Equivalent Courses Offered

N/A

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 We have undergone many challenges as charter schools, yet we continue to achieve our mission, goals and objectives. Further, we continue to attract students and parents that are impressed with our progress and programs. We continue to remain financially sound during times of economic crisis, educationally oriented to success, and prepared to exceed expectations of all stakeholders and customers. We intend to continue improving our services to students and families well into the future. We are committed to our practice of involving all stakeholders in these efforts – parents, teachers, students, staff, and the surrounding community – as we realize it has only been through a collaborative process that we have been able to achieve the progress outlined in this report. And for that, we would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to all stakeholders for this collaborative spirit.

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% 28.3% 28.3% 6.5% 21.7% 32.6% 39.1%


All Students 2015-16 46.0% 12.1% 12.1% 3.4% 8.6% 10.3% 77.6%


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

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


White 2014-15 58.2% 24.4% 24.4% 4.9% 19.5% 31.7% 43.9%


White 2015-16 53.9% 11.8% 11.8% 2.0% 9.8% 11.8% 76.5%


Female 2014-15 54.7% 30.8% 30.8% 11.5% 19.2% 30.8% 38.5%


Female 2015-16 49.5% 12.1% 12.1% 6.1% 6.1% 9.1% 78.8%


Male 2014-15 45.5% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Annual Education ReportUniversal Academy02/12/2017

A service of the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) Page 1 of 46

M-STEP Grades 3-11


Male 2015-16 42.6% 12.0% 12.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 76.0%


EconomicallyDisadvantaged

2014-15 35.3% 28.3% 28.3% 6.5% 21.7% 32.6% 39.1%



2015-16 31.1% 12.1% 12.1% 3.4% 8.6% 10.3% 77.6%


EnglishLanguageLearners

2014-15 34.7% 9.4% 9.4% 0.0% 9.4% 34.4% 56.3%



2015-16 31.9% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 10.0% 85.0%


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% 33.9% 33.9% 5.4% 28.6% 25.0% 41.1%


All Students 2015-16 46.3% 5.7% 5.7% 1.9% 3.8% 11.3% 83.0%



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



M-STEP Grades 3-11


White 2014-15 53.9% 32.7% 32.7% 5.8% 26.9% 25.0% 42.3%


White 2015-16 53.9% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 4.2% 10.4% 85.4%


Female 2014-15 51.5% 27.6% 27.6% 3.4% 24.1% 27.6% 44.8%


Female 2015-16 50.9% 6.7% 6.7% 3.3% 3.3% 13.3% 80.0%


Male 2014-15 41.8% 40.7% 40.7% 7.4% 33.3% 22.2% 37.0%


Male 2015-16 41.8% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 4.3% 8.7% 87.0%



2014-15 30.9% 33.9% 33.9% 5.4% 28.6% 25.0% 41.1%



2015-16 30.8% 5.7% 5.7% 1.9% 3.8% 11.3% 83.0%



2014-15 23.7% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% 7.7% 23.1% 69.2%



2015-16 24.3% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 5.3% 92.1%



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



2015-16 17.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


All Students 2014-15 48.7% 33.3% 33.3% 10.5% 22.8% 21.1% 45.6%


All Students 2015-16 50.6% 25.0% 25.0% 1.8% 23.2% 23.2% 51.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



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



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 38.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 55.7% 33.9% 33.9% 10.7% 23.2% 19.6% 46.4%


White 2015-16 58.1% 22.6% 22.6% 1.9% 20.8% 24.5% 52.8%


Female 2014-15 54.3% 44.4% 44.4% 14.8% 29.6% 25.9% 29.6%


Female 2015-16 55.8% 27.6% 27.6% 3.4% 24.1% 13.8% 58.6%


Male 2014-15 43.3% 23.3% 23.3% 6.7% 16.7% 16.7% 60.0%


Male 2015-16 45.5% 22.2% 22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 33.3% 44.4%



2014-15 32.6% 33.3% 33.3% 10.5% 22.8% 21.1% 45.6%



2015-16 34.4% 25.0% 25.0% 1.8% 23.2% 23.2% 51.8%



2014-15 22.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.6% 69.4%



2015-16 23.1% 3.7% 3.7% 0.0% 3.7% 18.5% 77.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



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% 16.7% 16.7% 3.7% 13.0% 38.9% 44.4%


All Students 2015-16 45.0% 23.7% 23.7% 6.8% 16.9% 11.9% 64.4%



2014-15 20.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 51.2% 18.4% 18.4% 4.1% 14.3% 36.7% 44.9%


White 2015-16 51.9% 24.1% 24.1% 6.9% 17.2% 12.1% 63.8%


Female 2014-15 51.1% 21.1% 21.1% 10.5% 10.5% 36.8% 42.1%


Female 2015-16 49.8% 27.6% 27.6% 6.9% 20.7% 17.2% 55.2%


Male 2014-15 38.6% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 40.0% 45.7%


Male 2015-16 40.4% 20.0% 20.0% 6.7% 13.3% 6.7% 73.3%



2014-15 29.1% 16.7% 16.7% 3.7% 13.0% 38.9% 44.4%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 28.3% 23.7% 23.7% 6.8% 16.9% 11.9% 64.4%



2014-15 16.2% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 34.3% 60.0%



2015-16 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 97.1%



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% 50.0% 50.0% 1.8% 48.2% 26.8% 23.2%


All Students 2015-16 47.1% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 28.1% 66.7%



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



2015-16 21.5% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 55.4% 50.9% 50.9% 1.8% 49.1% 25.5% 23.6%


White 2015-16 53.7% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 24.5% 69.8%


Female 2014-15 56.3% 59.4% 59.4% 3.1% 56.3% 21.9% 18.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Female 2015-16 53.8% 9.5% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9%


Male 2014-15 42.2% 37.5% 37.5% 0.0% 37.5% 33.3% 29.2%


Male 2015-16 40.6% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 2.8% 27.8% 69.4%



2014-15 33.2% 50.0% 50.0% 1.8% 48.2% 26.8% 23.2%



2015-16 30.7% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 28.1% 66.7%



2014-15 18.9% 29.4% 29.4% 0.0% 29.4% 38.2% 32.4%



2015-16 17.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.9% 82.1%



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% 39.5% 39.5% 14.0% 25.6% 48.8% 11.6%


All Students 2015-16 48.9% 14.5% 14.5% 1.8% 12.7% 27.3% 58.2%



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

2014-15 36.2% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 53.8% 42.5% 42.5% 15.0% 27.5% 47.5% 10.0%


White 2015-16 55.2% 14.8% 14.8% 1.9% 13.0% 27.8% 57.4%


Female 2014-15 54.2% 50.0% 50.0% 18.2% 31.8% 45.5% 4.5%


Female 2015-16 54.9% 19.4% 19.4% 3.2% 16.1% 35.5% 45.2%


Male 2014-15 41.2% 28.6% 28.6% 9.5% 19.0% 52.4% 19.0%


Male 2015-16 43.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 16.7% 75.0%



2014-15 31.8% 39.5% 39.5% 14.0% 25.6% 48.8% 11.6%



2015-16 32.5% 14.5% 14.5% 1.8% 12.7% 27.3% 58.2%



2014-15 19.3% 15.4% 15.4% 3.8% 11.5% 65.4% 19.2%



2015-16 17.3% 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 22.2% 72.2%



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


All Students 2014-15 49.3% 30.8% 30.8% 11.5% 19.2% 32.7% 36.5%



2014-15 25.8% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 39.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 54.3% 30.0% 30.0% 12.0% 18.0% 34.0% 36.0%


Female 2014-15 55.4% 40.7% 40.7% 14.8% 25.9% 25.9% 33.3%


Male 2014-15 43.3% 20.0% 20.0% 8.0% 12.0% 40.0% 40.0%



2014-15 34.6% 30.8% 30.8% 11.5% 19.2% 32.7% 36.5%



2014-15 15.2% 18.2% 18.2% 3.0% 15.2% 24.2% 57.6%



2014-15 12.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Mathematics 3rd GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 48.8% 30.4% 30.4% 4.3% 26.1% 50.0% 19.6%


All Students 2015-16 45.2% 15.5% 15.5% 3.4% 12.1% 36.2% 48.3%



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

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



M-STEP Grades 3-11


White 2014-15 57.3% 26.8% 26.8% 4.9% 22.0% 51.2% 22.0%


White 2015-16 53.2% 15.7% 15.7% 3.9% 11.8% 37.3% 47.1%


Female 2014-15 48.1% 30.8% 30.8% 7.7% 23.1% 53.8% 15.4%


Female 2015-16 43.7% 12.1% 12.1% 3.0% 9.1% 39.4% 48.5%


Male 2014-15 49.5% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 45.0% 25.0%


Male 2015-16 46.6% 20.0% 20.0% 4.0% 16.0% 32.0% 48.0%



2014-15 33.5% 30.4% 30.4% 4.3% 26.1% 50.0% 19.6%



2015-16 30.1% 15.5% 15.5% 3.4% 12.1% 36.2% 48.3%



2014-15 37.0% 18.8% 18.8% 0.0% 18.8% 53.1% 28.1%



2015-16 37.8% 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 37.5% 55.0%



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% 19.6% 19.6% 1.8% 17.9% 42.9% 37.5%


All Students 2015-16 44.0% 11.3% 11.3% 0.0% 11.3% 39.6% 49.1%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



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



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


White 2014-15 49.3% 17.3% 17.3% 0.0% 17.3% 46.2% 36.5%


White 2015-16 52.3% 10.4% 10.4% 0.0% 10.4% 41.7% 47.9%


Female 2014-15 40.3% 10.3% 10.3% 0.0% 10.3% 44.8% 44.8%


Female 2015-16 42.1% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 50.0%


Male 2014-15 42.4% 29.6% 29.6% 3.7% 25.9% 40.7% 29.6%


Male 2015-16 45.8% 13.0% 13.0% 0.0% 13.0% 39.1% 47.8%



2014-15 25.4% 19.6% 19.6% 1.8% 17.9% 42.9% 37.5%



2015-16 27.9% 11.3% 11.3% 0.0% 11.3% 39.6% 49.1%



2014-15 22.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 53.8%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 27.4% 7.9% 7.9% 0.0% 7.9% 28.9% 63.2%



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



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


All Students 2014-15 33.4% 26.3% 26.3% 12.3% 14.0% 36.8% 36.8%


All Students 2015-16 33.8% 7.1% 7.1% 1.8% 5.4% 21.4% 71.4%



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



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 39.7% 26.8% 26.8% 12.5% 14.3% 37.5% 35.7%


White 2015-16 41.0% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 20.8% 73.6%


Female 2014-15 32.6% 29.6% 29.6% 14.8% 14.8% 37.0% 33.3%


Female 2015-16 31.7% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 13.8% 82.8%


Male 2014-15 34.1% 23.3% 23.3% 10.0% 13.3% 36.7% 40.0%


Male 2015-16 35.8% 11.1% 11.1% 3.7% 7.4% 29.6% 59.3%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 18.2% 26.3% 26.3% 12.3% 14.0% 36.8% 36.8%



2015-16 17.7% 7.1% 7.1% 1.8% 5.4% 21.4% 71.4%



2014-15 13.6% 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 44.4% 50.0%



2015-16 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 92.6%



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% 9.3% 9.3% 3.7% 5.6% 53.7% 37.0%


All Students 2015-16 32.8% 17.2% 17.2% 5.2% 12.1% 13.8% 69.0%



2014-15 9.4% <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


White 2014-15 39.3% 10.2% 10.2% 4.1% 6.1% 55.1% 34.7%


White 2015-16 39.2% 17.5% 17.5% 5.3% 12.3% 14.0% 68.4%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


Female 2014-15 34.1% 15.8% 15.8% 10.5% 5.3% 42.1% 42.1%


Female 2015-16 31.4% 17.9% 17.9% 7.1% 10.7% 17.9% 64.3%


Male 2014-15 32.5% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 60.0% 34.3%


Male 2015-16 34.1% 16.7% 16.7% 3.3% 13.3% 10.0% 73.3%



2014-15 17.6% 9.3% 9.3% 3.7% 5.6% 53.7% 37.0%



2015-16 16.8% 17.2% 17.2% 5.2% 12.1% 13.8% 69.0%



2014-15 11.5% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 45.7% 51.4%



2015-16 10.7% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 97.1%



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% 17.9% 17.9% 0.0% 17.9% 35.7% 46.4%


All Students 2015-16 35.3% 3.5% 3.5% 1.8% 1.8% 31.6% 64.9%



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



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 10.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 39.0% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 18.2% 36.4% 45.5%


White 2015-16 41.6% 3.8% 3.8% 1.9% 1.9% 30.2% 66.0%


Female 2014-15 33.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 34.4% 40.6%


Female 2015-16 34.5% 9.5% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8% 33.3% 57.1%


Male 2014-15 33.5% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 37.5% 54.2%


Male 2015-16 36.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.6% 69.4%



2014-15 17.8% 17.9% 17.9% 0.0% 17.9% 35.7% 46.4%



2015-16 18.7% 3.5% 3.5% 1.8% 1.8% 31.6% 64.9%



2014-15 12.0% 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% 5.9% 38.2% 55.9%



2015-16 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 74.4%



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



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



M-STEP Grades 3-11


All Students 2014-15 32.2% 18.6% 18.6% 4.7% 14.0% 27.9% 53.5%


All Students 2015-16 32.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 20.0% 78.2%



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



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 18.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 37.7% 20.0% 20.0% 5.0% 15.0% 27.5% 52.5%


White 2015-16 38.3% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 20.4% 77.8%


Female 2014-15 32.6% 13.6% 13.6% 4.5% 9.1% 22.7% 63.6%


Female 2015-16 34.1% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 22.6% 74.2%


Male 2014-15 31.8% 23.8% 23.8% 4.8% 19.0% 33.3% 42.9%


Male 2015-16 31.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3%



2014-15 17.0% 18.6% 18.6% 4.7% 14.0% 27.9% 53.5%



2015-16 16.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 20.0% 78.2%



2014-15 12.2% 7.7% 7.7% 3.8% 3.8% 23.1% 69.2%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9%



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


All Students 2014-15 28.5% 9.6% 9.6% 1.9% 7.7% 30.8% 59.6%



2014-15 8.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 16.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 32.4% 10.0% 10.0% 2.0% 8.0% 32.0% 58.0%


Female 2014-15 29.1% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0% 7.4% 25.9% 66.7%


Male 2014-15 27.8% 12.0% 12.0% 4.0% 8.0% 36.0% 52.0%



2014-15 14.1% 9.6% 9.6% 1.9% 7.7% 30.8% 59.6%



2014-15 11.9% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 27.3% 69.7%



2014-15 3.6% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Science 4th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 12.4% 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% 5.4% 21.4% 73.2%


All Students 2015-16 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 84.9%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



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


White 2014-15 15.4% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 21.2% 75.0%


White 2015-16 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 85.4%


Female 2014-15 10.4% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 24.1% 72.4%


Female 2015-16 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 86.7%


Male 2014-15 14.3% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0% 7.4% 18.5% 74.1%


Male 2015-16 16.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.4% 82.6%



2014-15 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% 5.4% 21.4% 73.2%



2015-16 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 84.9%



2014-15 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 92.3%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 94.7%



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



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


All Students 2014-15 22.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 14.3% 83.9%


All Students 2015-16 23.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 10.5% 87.7%



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



2015-16 5.4% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 27.4% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 14.5% 83.6%


White 2015-16 28.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 9.4% 88.7%


Female 2014-15 20.8% 3.1% 3.1% 0.0% 3.1% 12.5% 84.4%


Female 2015-16 22.6% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 9.5% 85.7%


Male 2014-15 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3%


Male 2015-16 25.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 10.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 14.3% 83.9%



2015-16 11.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 10.5% 87.7%



2014-15 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 97.1%



2015-16 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%



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



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


All Students 2014-15 29.4% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 26.4% 69.8%


All Students 2015-16 33.0% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 14.0% 83.7%



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



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 17.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 19.9% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 34.2% 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9% 27.5% 68.6%



M-STEP Grades 3-11


White 2015-16 38.7% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 7.9% 89.5%


Female 2014-15 26.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0%


Female 2015-16 29.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.4% 82.6%


Male 2014-15 32.1% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 8.0% 28.0% 64.0%


Male 2015-16 36.3% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 85.0%



2014-15 15.4% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 26.4% 69.8%



2015-16 17.9% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% 14.0% 83.7%



2014-15 4.3% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 24.2% 72.7%



2015-16 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 96.0%



2014-15 6.7% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Social Studies 5th GradeContent

All Students 2014-15 22.2% 14.0% 14.0% 0.0% 14.0% 64.9% 21.1%


All Students 2015-16 18.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 67.9% 30.4%



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



M-STEP Grades 3-11



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2015-16 10.3% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 26.9% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 64.3% 21.4%


White 2015-16 23.0% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 66.0% 32.1%


Female 2014-15 20.6% 18.5% 18.5% 0.0% 18.5% 70.4% 11.1%


Female 2015-16 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 69.0% 31.0%


Male 2014-15 23.8% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 60.0% 30.0%


Male 2015-16 21.0% 3.7% 3.7% 0.0% 3.7% 66.7% 29.6%



2014-15 10.9% 14.0% 14.0% 0.0% 14.0% 64.9% 21.1%



2015-16 8.5% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 67.9% 30.4%



2014-15 6.1% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 2.8% 63.9% 33.3%



2015-16 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 51.9% 48.1%



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% 9.3% 9.3% 0.0% 9.3% 34.9% 55.8%


All Students 2015-16 29.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 41.8% 56.4%



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



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 18.1% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


White 2014-15 35.2% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 35.0% 55.0%


White 2015-16 34.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 42.6% 55.6%


Female 2014-15 25.2% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 31.8% 59.1%


Female 2015-16 26.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 38.7% 58.1%


Male 2014-15 34.0% 9.5% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 38.1% 52.4%


Male 2015-16 32.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.8% 54.2%



2014-15 15.9% 9.3% 9.3% 0.0% 9.3% 34.9% 55.8%



2015-16 15.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 41.8% 56.4%



2014-15 5.8% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 30.8% 65.4%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2015-16 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.6% 69.4%



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


All Students 2014-15 43.9% 11.3% 11.3% 0.0% 11.3% 52.8% 35.8%


All Students 2015-16 43.1% 11.6% 11.6% 0.0% 11.6% 48.8% 39.5%



2014-15 18.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10



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


Hispanic ofAny Race

2014-15 33.0% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10


Hispanic ofAny Race

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


White 2014-15 49.4% 11.8% 11.8% 0.0% 11.8% 52.9% 35.3%


White 2015-16 49.3% 13.2% 13.2% 0.0% 13.2% 42.1% 44.7%


Female 2014-15 40.5% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 46.4% 39.3%


Female 2015-16 39.1% 17.4% 17.4% 0.0% 17.4% 39.1% 43.5%


Male 2014-15 47.2% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 8.0% 60.0% 32.0%


Male 2015-16 47.1% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 60.0% 35.0%



M-STEP Grades 3-11



2014-15 27.9% 11.3% 11.3% 0.0% 11.3% 52.8% 35.8%



2015-16 26.3% 11.6% 11.6% 0.0% 11.6% 48.8% 39.5%



2014-15 12.6% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 54.5% 42.4%



2015-16 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%



2014-15 15.0% <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

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score All Students 886.0 N/A <10 9.5% 38 90.5% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Black orAfricanAmerican

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

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score White 882.4 N/A <10 10.5% 34 89.5% 38

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Female 881.8 N/A <10 9.1% 20 90.9% 22

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Male 890.5 N/A <10 10.0% 18 90.0% 20

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score EconomicallyDisadvantaged

886.0 N/A <10 9.5% 38 90.5% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score EnglishLanguageLearners

845.2 N/A <10 <5% 24 >95% 25

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Not EnglishLanguageLearners

945.9 N/A <10 17.6% 14 82.4% 17

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Not Migrant 886.0 N/A <10 9.5% 38 90.5% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score StudentsWithoutDisabilities

886.0 N/A <10 9.5% 38 90.5% 42

UniversalAcademy

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

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Total Score Not Homeless 887.1 N/A <10 9.8% 37 90.2% 41



SAT

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Evidence-Based Readingand Writing

All Students 439.0 480 11 26.2% 31 73.8% 42

UniversalAcademy



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

UniversalAcademy


White 437.1 480 10 26.3% 28 73.7% 38

UniversalAcademy


Female 437.3 480 <10 31.8% 15 68.2% 22

UniversalAcademy


Male 441.0 480 <10 20.0% 16 80.0% 20

UniversalAcademy



439.0 480 11 26.2% 31 73.8% 42

UniversalAcademy



417.2 480 <10 12.0% 22 88.0% 25

UniversalAcademy


Not EnglishLanguageLearners

471.2 480 <10 47.1% <10 52.9% 17

UniversalAcademy


Not Migrant 439.0 480 11 26.2% 31 73.8% 42

UniversalAcademy


StudentsWithoutDisabilities

439.0 480 11 26.2% 31 73.8% 42

UniversalAcademy


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



SAT

UniversalAcademy


Not Homeless 440.5 480 11 26.8% 30 73.2% 41

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics All Students 446.9 530 <10 14.3% 36 85.7% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Black orAfricanAmerican

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

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics White 445.3 530 <10 15.8% 32 84.2% 38

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Female 444.5 530 <10 13.6% 19 86.4% 22

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Male 449.5 530 <10 15.0% 17 85.0% 20

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics EconomicallyDisadvantaged

446.9 530 <10 14.3% 36 85.7% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics EnglishLanguageLearners

428.0 530 <10 12.0% 22 88.0% 25

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Not EnglishLanguageLearners

474.7 530 <10 17.6% 14 82.4% 17

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Not Migrant 446.9 530 <10 14.3% 36 85.7% 42

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics StudentsWithoutDisabilities

446.9 530 <10 14.3% 36 85.7% 42

UniversalAcademy

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

UniversalAcademy

2015-16 Mathematics Not Homeless 446.6 530 <10 14.6% 35 85.4% 41



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% 99.5% 31.4% 99.5% 31.4%

All Students Mathematics 98.6% 62.1% 99.2% 28.4% 99.2% 28.4%

All Students Science 98.1% 50.0% 100.0% 14.7% 100.0% 14.7%

All Students Social Studies 98.1% 59.3% 99.4% 31.0% 99.4% 31.0%

Bottom 30% ELA N/A 25.1% N/A 0.0% N/A 0.0%

Bottom 30% Mathematics N/A 19.0% N/A 0.9% N/A 0.9%

Bottom 30% Science N/A 9.8% N/A 0.0% N/A 0.0%

Bottom 30% Social Studies N/A 13.3% N/A 0.0% N/A 0.0%

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% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Asian Mathematics 99.4% 83.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Asian Science 99.3% 65.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Asian Social Studies 99.3% 76.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A

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





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


Two or MoreRaces


White ELA 99.0% 75.6% 99.4% 31.4% 99.4% 31.4%

White Mathematics 98.9% 68.4% 99.2% 27.0% 99.2% 27.0%

White Science 98.6% 57.1% 100.0% 12.7% 100.0% 12.7%

White Social Studies 98.5% 65.8% 99.3% 28.2% 99.3% 28.2%


ELA 98.3% 56.8% 99.5% 31.4% 99.5% 31.4%


Mathematics 98.2% 48.5% 99.2% 28.4% 99.2% 28.4%


Science 97.5% 35.0% 100.0% 14.7% 100.0% 14.7%


Social Studies 97.5% 43.9% 99.4% 31.0% 99.4% 31.0%


ELA 98.8% 49.5% 99.6% 17.8% 99.6% 17.8%


Mathematics 99.0% 48.4% 99.6% 19.9% 99.6% 19.9%





Science 98.5% 22.0% 100.0% 6.7% 100.0% 6.7%


Social Studies 98.2% 30.9% 100.0% 19.6% 100.0% 19.6%


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% 98.28% 98.28%

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% 98.08% 98.08%

Female 83.76% N/A N/A

Male 76.00% N/A N/A

Economically Disadvantaged 67.48% 98.28% 98.28%

English Language Learners 72.14% 100.00% 100.00%

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% 96.54% N/A



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

UniversalAcademy

Green 2 Green 2 Red 0 Green 2 Yellow 36



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 52 12 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

4.5%



‡ 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 Letter · School Annual Education Report (AER) Cover Letter ... on the 2015-2016 educational progress for the Universal Academy (08671).

Documents