http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/amao/amao_report.aspx?linkid=35&fycode=2013&orgtypecode=5&orgcode=01650000
Screen Shot 2014-06-15 at 12.09.46 PM.png
ELLs and MCAS Resources: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/overview.html?faq=4
Screen Shot 2014-06-15 at 12.12.47 PM.png

MA DESE Malden MCAS Overview:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid=32&orgcode=01650000&orgtypecode=5&
Screen Shot 2014-06-15 at 12.11.20 PM.png

MA DESE Assessment links: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/overview.html?faq=4


Crosswalk from MEPA to Access for ELLs
2013 AMAO 1 - Progress Determinations and Targets
Screen Shot 2014-09-03 at 9.23.01 AM.png
2013 AMAO 2 - Attainment Targets

Screen Shot 2014-09-03 at 9.25.58 AM.png

2013 AMAO 3 – Cumulative PPI
Through 2011, AMAO 3 was based on whether the district made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for its ELL subgroup. Under the state’s 2012 ESEA Flexibility Waiver, “making AYP” was replaced in Massachusetts by meeting the cumulative Progress and Performance Index (PPI) target of 75. Accordingly, the statewide performance target for AMAO 3 is a cumulative PPI of 75 for the ELL/former ELL subgroup. In addition, for AMAO 3, districts must also meet the 95% MCAS participation rate on English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science for the ELL/former ELL subgroup.

The cumulative PPI is a four-year measure of progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps that incorporates:
  • MCAS scores in English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science and Technology/Engineering;
    • growth in ELA and Mathematics;
    • graduation rates; and
    • dropout rates.

The cumulative PPI represents a group’s performance over multiple years, weighted to give more credit to more recent years: the most recent year is weighted by a factor of four, the year before by three, the year before that by two, and the first year by one.

Federal rules require the use of the equivalent of AYP in Title III AMAO determinations. Although AYP and the cumulative PPI are not the same measure, the PPI is a more fair measure of performance than AYP for a number of reasons: the targets are more attainable; it gives schools and districts credit for student growth; it incorporates data over four years across a variety of indicators thus providing a better sense of a school’s trajectory; it does not require year-to-year linear improvement; and it does not require schools and groups to hit all targets in all subjects to be considered to be making progress.