Do you know what initiatives would make the biggest difference in your district? That's what our Gap Analysis is designed to show. The most effective approach is to start with the students most in need.

1. DRIVING
ACADEMIC
ACCELERATION
ELA & Math Gap Analysis
April 2016

2. Executive Summary
• The district is facing changes in demographics within the community
for children under six years of age. Please consider these changes
when evaluating the placement of investments to drive academic
improvements.
• The district is facing challenges in both English Language Arts and
Math. Please consider the use of critical mass calculations when
determining investment levels for driving academic improvement.
• In the face of these changes, how can we best be of service?
2

3. Growing Children from Fragile Families
3
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
2007 ACS
Data
2008 ACS
Data
2009 ACS
Data
2010 ACS
Data
2011 ACS
Data
2012 ACS
Data
2013 ACS
Data
2014 ACS
Data
Percent of Children
Growth of Children from Fragile Families in the County
2007 to 2014
Public Assistance
Poverty
Extreme Poverty
Source: American Community Survey

4. City Data
• Profile of Children Under Six Years of Age and Mothers that Gave Birth
in the Last 12 months
– Poverty: 52% public assistance, 32% below poverty and 16% in
extreme poverty
– Single Parent Households: This is your fastest growing student
population. 47% of children live in single parent households with a
poverty level of 54%. 34% of women giving birth in the last 12
months were unmarried with a poverty level of 56%. Among
unmarried mothers 51% had a high school education or less.
– Students with Disabilities: Disability level 2X higher in single parent
households
– Immigrants: 8% first generation plus 37% second generation
immigrants
4 Source: American Community Survey

5. Stakeholder
Communication
in City Z
Source: http://alldonemonkey.com/2012/09/20/grandparents-and-the-bilingual-child/
The fastest growing demographic
group is seniors 65+ years of age
The demographic profiles of seniors
and young children are very different
Poverty level is 14% versus 32% in
children under 6 years of age.
The senior population is 83%
Caucasian, but the mothers giving
birth in the last 12 months were 38%
Caucasian.
5
How do we fully support all
children and families??
Source: American Community Survey

6. English Language Arts
Achievement Data – State Test

7. ELA Challenge
7
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Asian
African-American
White
SWD
ELL
Hispanic
Econ Dis
All

8. ELA Challenge
8
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Est Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9 Est
Grade 10
Grade 11 Est
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results

9. ELA Challenge
9
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 100 200 300 400
West Tatnuck School
Midland St School
Flagg St School
Heard St School
Burncoat St School
Nelson Place School
Hiatt Magnet School
Grafton St School
Canterbury School
Tatnuck School
Union Hill School
Chandler School
Vernon Hill School
Rice Square School
Norrback Ave School
Belmont St SchoolSchool A"
School B"
School C"
School D"
School E"
School F"
School G"
School H"
School I"
School J"
School K"
School L"
School M"
School N"
School O"
School P"
"
"

10. ELA Challenge
10
City Z Public Schools Grades 9-11
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 9-11
Est Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test ELA in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
University Park School
Worcester Tech HS
Claremont Academy
Burncoat SHS
Doherty Mem HS
South HS
North HS
Sullivan MSSchool A"
"
School B"
"
School C"
"
School D"
"
School E"
"
School F"
"
School G"
"
School H"
"

11. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
District-Level State Test Totals
11
Note: Tier III is 15% and Tier II is 85% of the number of students at Below Proficient
District Level Data
Grades
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
Grade 3 922 18% 44% 33% 5% 62% 166 406 304 46 572 86 486
Grade 4 852 17% 37% 38% 8% 54% 145 315 324 68 460 69 391
Grade 5 803 14% 32% 40% 14% 46% 112 257 321 112 369 55 314
Grade 6 791 12% 25% 49% 14% 37% 95 198 388 111 293 44 249
Grade 7 381 14% 35% 48% 3% 49% 53 133 183 11 187 28 159
Grade 8 377 14% 24% 46% 15% 38% 53 90 173 57 143 21 122
Grade 9 (Est) 1,918 5% 14% 51% 30% 19% 96 269 978 575 364 55 310
Grade 10 1,632 5% 14% 51% 30% 19% 82 228 832 490 310 47 264
Grade 11 (Est) 1,713 5% 14% 51% 30% 19% 86 240 874 514 325 49 277
TOTALS 9,389 12% 27% 45% 17% 38% 887 2,136 4,377 1,984 3,024 454 2,570
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results

12. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
School-Level State Test Totals
12
Note: Tier III is 15% and Tier II is 85% of the number of students at Below Proficient
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
School Level Data
Schools
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
School A MS 733 14% 30% 48% 10% 44% 99 220 348 70 319 48 271
School B MS 221 24% 49% 27% 1% 72% 52 107 60 2 160 24 136
School C MS 292 15% 38% 38% 9% 54% 45 112 110 25 156 23 133
School D 218 24% 41% 33% 3% 65% 52 90 71 5 142 21 120
School E 209 25% 42% 28% 4% 68% 53 88 59 8 141 21 120
School F 200 18% 46% 28% 9% 63% 35 91 57 19 126 19 107
School G 222 8% 49% 37% 7% 57% 18 108 82 15 126 19 107
School H 221 16% 41% 35% 9% 57% 35 91 77 20 126 19 107
School I 167 28% 45% 25% 3% 73% 47 75 42 4 122 18 104
Magnet School J 163 28% 38% 28% 6% 66% 45 62 45 10 108 16 91
School K 220 8% 40% 43% 11% 47% 17 87 94 23 103 16 88
School L 293 10% 24% 55% 12% 34% 29 69 160 35 98 15 83
School M 110 15% 50% 34% 3% 65% 17 54 37 3 71 11 60
School N 164 3% 38% 50% 9% 41% 4 62 82 15 66 10 56
School O 255 4% 18% 44% 35% 22% 10 47 111 88 56 8 48
School P 121 4% 24% 61% 11% 28% 5 29 73 14 34 5 29
School A MS 144 11% 5% 48% 36% 16% 16 7 69 51 23 4 20
Grade 3-8 Totals 3,953 15% 36% 39% 10% 51% 577 1,400 1,576 406 1,977 297 1,680
School AA HS 979 10% 19% 57% 14% 29% 98 186 558 137 284 43 241
School BB HS 953 9% 11% 49% 30% 20% 86 105 467 286 191 29 162
School CC HS 1,081 4% 12% 46% 39% 16% 43 130 497 422 173 26 147
School DD HS 737 3% 17% 59% 21% 20% 22 125 435 155 147 22 125
School EE HS 223 3% 19% 49% 29% 22% 7 42 109 65 49 7 42
School FF HS 1,043 0% 4% 50% 46% 4% 0 42 522 480 42 6 35
School GG HS 126 0% 5% 44% 51% 5% 0 6 55 64 6 1 5
Grade 9-11 Totals (Est) 5,142 4% 12% 51% 33% 17% 256 636 2,643 1,608 892 134 758
SCHOOL TOTALS 9,095 9% 24% 45% 22% 34% 833 2,036 4,219 2,015 2,869 430 2,439

13. English Language Arts
Achievement Data - PARCC

14. ELA Challenge
14
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
Source: Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Asian
African-American
White
SWD
ELL
Hispanic
Econ Dis
All

15. ELA Challenge
15
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Source: Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results

16. ELA Challenge
16
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC ELA in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Worcester Arts Magnet
Wawecus Rd School
University Park School
Lake View School
McGrath ES
Clark Street School
Thorndyke Rd School
Lincoln St School
May Street School
Columbus Park School
Claremont Academy
Elm Park School
City View School
Chandler Magnet
Goddard School
Roosevelt School
Woodland Academy
Gates Lane School
Burncoat MS
Quinsigamond School
Forest Grove MS
Worcester East MSSchool A"
School B"
School C"
School D"
School E"
School F"
School G"
School H"
School I"
School J"
School K"
School L"
School M"
School N"
School O"
School P"
School Q"
School R"
School S"
School T"
School U"
School V"
"
"
"

17. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
District PARCC Totals
17
Note: Tier III is 15% and Tier II is 85% of the number of students at Below Proficient
District Level Data
Grades
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
L5
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
L5
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
Grade 3 967 22% 25% 22% 28% 3% 69% 213 242 213 271 29 667 100 567
Grade 4 885 12% 21% 32% 29% 5% 65% 106 186 283 257 44 575 86 489
Grade 5 843 11% 23% 30% 33% 2% 64% 93 194 253 278 17 540 81 459
Grade 6 829 9% 18% 34% 35% 5% 61% 75 149 282 290 41 506 76 430
Grade 7 1,172 11% 15% 25% 37% 12% 51% 129 176 293 434 141 598 90 508
Grade 8 1,127 8% 16% 27% 41% 9% 51% 90 180 304 462 101 575 86 489
TOTALS 5,823 12% 20% 28% 34% 6% 60% 705 1,127 1,628 1,991 374 3,460 519 2,941
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results

18. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
School PARCC Totals
18
Note: Tier III is 15% and Tier II is 85% of the number of students at Below Proficient
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results
School Level Data
Schools
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
L5
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
L5
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
School A MS 693 5% 17% 28% 45% 5% 50% 37 118 194 312 32 349 52 296
School B MS 840 6% 10% 23% 45% 18% 38% 46 80 193 378 147 319 48 271
School C MS 347 29% 29% 27% 14% 1% 85% 101 101 93 49 2 296 44 251
School D 501 13% 18% 26% 36% 9% 57% 63 90 130 178 43 283 42 241
School E 290 13% 24% 34% 27% 3% 71% 38 69 98 77 9 204 31 174
School F 261 13% 25% 34% 28% 0% 72% 33 64 89 73 1 187 28 159
School G 293 10% 21% 33% 36% 1% 64% 29 60 97 105 1 186 28 158
School H 232 13% 25% 36% 25% 2% 74% 31 57 83 57 3 171 26 145
School I 195 30% 30% 27% 12% 1% 88% 59 59 53 24 1 171 26 145
Magnet School J 254 8% 21% 38% 31% 3% 66% 19 53 96 77 8 168 25 142
School K 210 17% 30% 26% 27% 1% 73% 36 62 54 57 1 152 23 129
School L 185 22% 23% 32% 22% 2% 77% 41 43 58 41 3 142 21 120
School M 173 9% 20% 32% 36% 3% 61% 15 35 56 63 5 106 16 90
School N 165 3% 19% 30% 46% 4% 51% 4 31 49 76 6 84 13 71
School O 109 21% 26% 27% 26% 1% 74% 23 28 29 28 1 80 12 68
School P 180 9% 13% 22% 42% 14% 44% 16 24 40 76 26 80 12 68
School Q 125 18% 16% 29% 33% 4% 63% 22 20 37 41 5 79 12 67
School R ES 103 13% 19% 38% 25% 6% 69% 13 20 39 26 6 71 11 60
School S 140 4% 8% 27% 48% 14% 38% 5 11 37 67 20 53 8 45
School T 84 6% 8% 36% 39% 12% 50% 5 7 30 32 10 42 6 35
School U 63 6% 24% 32% 37% 2% 61% 4 15 20 23 1 38 6 33
School V 184 0% 2% 15% 63% 21% 17% 0 4 27 115 38 30 5 26
Grade 3-8 Totals 5,627 12% 19% 29% 34% 6% 61% 639 1,050 1,601 1,976 368 3,290 493 2,796

19. High School Loss Analysis
19
High School Student Loss Info
Group
Grade 9
in 2012
Grade 10
in 2013
Grade 11
in 2014
Grade 12
in 2015
Cumulative
Student Loss
at Grade 10
Cumulative
Student Loss
at Grade 11
Cumulative
Student Loss
at Grade 12
Number of Students (Gr 9-12) 1,896 1,753 1,633 1,615 143 263 281
Estimated State & Federal Funding
per Capita per Year =
$7,398
Estimated Annual State & Federal
Funding Loss per Cohort from
Grades 9-12
Loss of State
& Fed
Funding at
Grade 10
Loss of State
& Fed
Funding at
Grade 11
Loss of State
& Fed
Funding at
Grade 12
$1,057,914 $1,945,674 $2,078,838
TOTAL
$5,082,426
Source: U.S. Department of Educa4on, Na4onal Center for Educa4on Sta4s4cs, Na4onal Public Educa4on Financial Survey (State Fiscal),
2010-2011 (FY 2011)

20. License Deployment Analysis
20
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at Below Proficient on State Test/PARCC Assessment in 2015
Compared with READ 180 Licenses
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
School V
School U
School T
School S
School R
School Q
School P
School O
School N
School M
School L
School K
School J
School I
School H
School G
School F
School E
School D
School C
School B
School A
#Read 180 Lic #BP
Source: SFDC 4/11/16, State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2015 State Test and PARCC Results

21. License Deployment Analysis
21
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at Below Proficient on State Test /PARCC Assessment in 2015
Compared with READ 180 Licenses
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
School V
School U
School T
School S
School R
School Q
School P
School O
School N
School M
School L
School K
School J
School I
School H
School G
School F
School E
School D
School C
School B
School A
#Read 180 Lic #BP
Source: SFDC 4/11/16, State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2015 State Test and PARCC Results

22. Mathematics Achievement Data -
State Test

23. Mathematics Challenge
23
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Asian
African-American
White
SWD
ELL
Hispanic
Econ Dis
All

24. Mathematics Challenge
24
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Est Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9 Est
Grade 10
Grade 11 Est

25. Mathematics Challenge
25
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 100 200 300 400
West Tatnuck School
Midland St School
Flagg St School
Burncoat St School
Heard St School
Tatnuck School
Jacob Hiatt School
Union Hill School
Chandler ES
Canterbury School
Grafton St School
Rice Square School
Nelson Place School
Vernon Hill School
Belmont St School
Norrback Ave SchoolSchool A"
School B"
School C"
School D"
School E"
School F"
School G"
School H"
School I"
School J"
School K"
School L"
School M"
School N"
School O"
School P"
"
"

26. Mathematics Challenge
26
City Z Public Schools Grades 9-11
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 9-11
Est Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on State Test Math in 2015
Warning/Failing Needs Improvement Proficient Advanced
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
University Park School
Claremont Academy
Worcester Technical HS
Doherty Memorial HS
Burncoat SHS
South HS
Sullivan MS
North HSSchool A"
"
School B"
"
School C"
"
School D"
"
School E"
"
School F"
"
School G"
"
School H"
"

27. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
District-Level State Test Totals
27
Note: Tier III is 30% and Tier II is 70% of the number of students at Below Proficient
District-Level Data
Grades
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
Grade 3 924 24% 27% 35% 15% 51% 222 249 323 139 471 141 330
Grade 4 856 21% 48% 21% 10% 69% 180 411 180 86 591 177 413
Grade 5 806 21% 33% 27% 19% 54% 169 266 218 153 435 131 305
Grade 6 787 18% 28% 33% 21% 46% 142 220 260 165 362 109 253
Grade 7 386 48% 25% 19% 7% 73% 185 97 73 27 282 85 197
Grade 8 379 50% 22% 16% 12% 72% 190 83 61 45 273 82 191
Grade 9 (Est) 1,918 18% 23% 23% 35% 41% 345 441 441 671 786 236 550
Grade 10 1,635 18% 23% 23% 35% 41% 294 376 376 572 670 201 469
Grade 11 (Est) 1,713 18% 23% 23% 35% 41% 308 394 394 600 702 211 492
TOTALS 9,404 26% 28% 24% 21% 54% 2,035 2,538 2,326 2,458 4,573 1,372 3,201
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results

28. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
School-Level State Test Totals
28
Note: Tier III is 30% and Tier II is 70% of the number of students at Below Proficient
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 State Test Results
School-Level Data
Schools
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
School A MS 733 49% 24% 18% 10% 72% 356 172 132 73 528 158 369
School B MS 292 22% 33% 33% 12% 55% 64 97 95 36 161 48 112
School C MS 221 23% 43% 26% 8% 67% 51 96 57 17 147 44 103
School D 209 31% 38% 26% 5% 69% 64 80 54 9 144 43 101
School E 291 14% 35% 33% 18% 49% 41 101 97 52 142 43 99
School F 218 22% 41% 26% 11% 63% 48 89 57 23 137 41 96
School G 163 42% 41% 13% 4% 83% 68 67 22 7 135 41 95
School H 167 51% 30% 18% 3% 80% 84 49 30 4 134 40 94
School I 199 26% 39% 28% 7% 65% 52 77 56 13 129 39 91
Magnet School J 223 16% 42% 28% 15% 57% 35 93 63 32 128 38 89
School K 219 13% 42% 26% 19% 55% 29 92 56 42 121 36 85
School L 220 20% 33% 29% 18% 53% 44 73 63 40 117 35 82
School M 164 11% 44% 28% 19% 54% 17 71 46 30 89 27 62
School N 109 21% 51% 22% 6% 72% 23 55 24 7 78 24 55
School O 255 5% 23% 44% 30% 27% 11 57 112 77 69 21 48
School P 121 16% 21% 26% 37% 37% 20 25 31 44 45 14 32
School A MS 144 11% 8% 34% 47% 19% 15 12 49 68 27 8 19
Grade 3-8 Totals 3,948 23% 34% 27% 16% 57% 1,023 1,307 1,043 574 2,330 699 1,631
School AA HS 979 32% 32% 23% 13% 64% 313 313 225 127 627 188 439
School BB HS 953 20% 27% 21% 32% 47% 191 257 200 305 448 134 314
School CC HS 737 17% 30% 23% 30% 47% 125 221 170 221 346 104 242
School DD HS 1,081 12% 16% 23% 49% 28% 130 173 249 530 303 91 212
School EE HS 1,043 5% 15% 27% 53% 20% 52 156 282 553 209 63 146
School FF HS 223 21% 29% 22% 29% 50% 47 65 49 65 112 33 78
School GG HH 126 7% 9% 30% 54% 16% 9 11 38 68 20 6 14
Grade 9-11 Totals (Est) 5,142 16% 23% 24% 37% 39% 867 1,197 1,212 1,869 2,064 619 1,445
SCHOOL TOTALS 9,090 20% 29% 26% 26% 48% 1,890 2,504 2,255 2,443 4,393 1,318 3,075

29. Mathematics Achievement Data -
PARCC

30. Mathematics Challenge
30
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Asian
African-American
White
SWD
ELL
Hispanic
Econ Dis
All

31. Mathematics Challenge
31
City Z Public Schools
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results

32. Mathematics Challenge
32
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Percentage of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
City Z Public Schools Grades 3-8
Number of Students at each Achievement Level
on PARCC Math in 2015
Not Meeting Partially Meeting Approaching Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results
0%20%40%60%80%100% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Worcester Arts School
Wawecus Rd School
University Park School
Lake View School
McGrath ES
May Street School
Lincoln Street
Thorndyke Rd School
Clark St Comm School
Columbus Park School
Claremont Academy
Elm Park Comm School
Chandler Magnet School
Roosevelt School
Goddard School
City View School
Woodland Academy
Gates Lane School
Quinsigamond School
Burncoat MS
Forest Grove MS
Worcester East MSSchool A"
School B"
School C"
School D"
School E"
School F"
School G"
School H"
School I"
School J"
School K"
School L"
School M"
School N"
School O"
School P"
School Q"
School R"
School S"
School T"
School U"
School V"
"

33. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
District PARCC Totals
33
Note: Tier III is 30% and Tier II is 70% of the number of students at Below Proficient
District Level Data
Grades
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
L5
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
L5
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
Grade 3 972 19% 27% 25% 25% 4% 71% 185 262 243 243 39 690 207 483
Grade 4 884 15% 31% 27% 25% 3% 73% 133 274 239 221 27 645 194 452
Grade 5 844 18% 32% 26% 20% 3% 76% 152 270 219 169 25 641 192 449
Grade 6 829 14% 28% 33% 23% 2% 75% 116 232 274 191 17 622 187 435
Grade 7 1,158 7% 29% 33% 28% 3% 69% 81 336 382 324 35 799 240 559
Grade 8 1,064 21% 23% 22% 28% 6% 66% 223 245 234 298 64 702 211 492
TOTALS 5,751 16% 28% 28% 25% 4% 72% 890 1,619 1,591 1,446 206 4,100 1,230 2,870
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results

34. Estimated Tiered Intervention Metrics
School PARCC Totals
34
Note: Tier III is 30% and Tier II is 70% of the number of students at Below Proficient
School Level Data
Schools
#
Tested
%
L1
%
L2
%
L3
%
L4
%
L5
%
BP
#
L1
#
L2
#
L3
#
L4
#
L5
#
BP
Est. #
Tier III
Est. #
Tier II
School A MS 690 14% 29% 36% 20% 1% 79% 94 200 248 136 9 543 163 380
School B MS 836 7% 19% 24% 41% 10% 49% 54 155 201 343 79 410 123 287
School C MS 433 19% 29% 31% 21% 1% 79% 82 123 134 89 4 340 102 238
School D 348 30% 38% 22% 10% 1% 89% 105 131 75 35 2 311 93 217
School E 290 12% 35% 32% 20% 2% 79% 35 101 93 57 4 228 69 160
School F 262 14% 37% 32% 16% 1% 83% 37 98 84 41 3 218 65 153
School G 255 12% 34% 34% 20% 1% 80% 30 87 86 50 3 203 61 142
School H 231 20% 36% 25% 20% 0% 81% 45 83 58 45 0 187 56 131
School I 293 10% 20% 34% 34% 3% 64% 29 59 98 99 10 186 56 130
Magnet School J 194 46% 32% 15% 7% 1% 92% 90 61 28 14 1 179 54 125
School K 212 22% 37% 25% 14% 3% 84% 46 78 54 30 5 177 53 124
School L 182 24% 44% 22% 10% 1% 90% 44 79 40 17 1 163 49 114
School M 174 15% 34% 30% 19% 1% 80% 27 60 52 33 2 138 41 97
School N 126 19% 29% 33% 18% 2% 80% 23 36 42 22 2 101 30 71
School O 181 9% 20% 26% 39% 7% 55% 17 36 47 70 12 100 30 70
School P 112 22% 31% 31% 17% 0% 84% 25 34 35 18 0 94 28 66
School Q 163 3% 16% 29% 46% 7% 48% 5 26 47 74 11 79 24 55
School R ES 103 12% 29% 35% 22% 3% 75% 12 29 36 22 3 78 23 54
School S 140 5% 14% 33% 42% 6% 52% 7 19 46 59 8 72 22 51
School T 84 9% 26% 27% 32% 6% 62% 7 22 23 27 5 52 15 36
School U 63 11% 36% 30% 22% 2% 77% 7 23 19 14 1 48 15 34
School V 184 0% 6% 16% 60% 19% 21% 0 11 29 110 35 39 12 27
Grade 3-8 Totals 5,556 15% 28% 28% 25% 3% 72% 820 1,551 1,574 1,405 201 3,945 1,183 2,761
Source: State Department of Elementary And Secondary Education, 2015 PARCC Results

35. Driving Academic Improvement
What We’ve Learned, What the Research Shows
Intensive
and Tiered
Intervention
Instructional
Excellence
for All
Teachers
Strong
Instructional
Leaders
Comprehensive Implementation Support and
Monitoring
360 Degree Needs Assessment and Planning
35

36. PLANNING SUCCESS
• A focused plan with 2-3 primary goals
• Plan built on comprehensive assessment of demographic,
academic, economic, and human resource needs
• Clear milestones tied to specific leaders and linked to
progress monitoring system with strong metrics
• Adequate personnel and fiscal resources
• Ability to make mid-course adjustments in challenging
times
36

37. • Screening, progress
monitoring, and
summative assessments
for all students
• Assessments for math
and reading for all
students on single vertical
scale to measure both
proficiency and growth
trajectory
• Tier #3: Intensive
intervention treatment in
foundational skills
• Tier #2: Intervention
treatment for students
below grade level
• Tier #1: Core instruction
• All three linked to
coherent K-12 curriculum
Assessment Data
Intensive & Tiered Intervention
3 Tiers for Reading
and Math Instruction
37

38. Professional Development
• Tailored approach based on specific teacher growth needs
• Focused on high leverage areas
• Curriculum
• Effective teaching practices
• Content area literacy
• Effective math instruction
• Sustained approach to build internal capacity
• Blended model of delivery
• Face-to-face
• Job-embedded
• Online
38

39. Professional Development
• Agreement on a coherent curriculum and instructional goals
• Individualized leadership growth plans
• Building system-wide leadership capacity
• Focus on high leverage leadership practices
• Planning and goal setting
• Observation
• Data analysis and decision making
• Strong practices for mentoring and coaching
39

40. Sign up for a Free Gap Analysis for Your
District
To receive your district Gap Analysis, visit
learn.hmhco.com/gapanalysis and fill out the form.
One of our solution architects will work with you to plan
for next year.
40