Advanced External Review

AdvancEd External Review
Student Performance Data
Academic Center
Program Analysis
All PLC groups were asked the question, Why

have grades improved during the last four years
at Kettering? All groups agreed one factor
contributing to the improvement is the
mentoring, tutoring, and support students receive
in the Academic Center.
As Kettering staff continually strives to grow, they
meet on their own time as a part of the Academic
Center Steering Committee. During this time
teachers work on skills to be better mentors and
research ideas on how to improve the Academic
Center.
The Academic Center has given Kettering a setting
in which to create a complete Response To
Intervention (RTI) process. A part of the process
is peer tutoring for struggling students. A junior
who was paired with a senior tutor passed all of
her classes which had not happened since she
was in 5th grade.
As we work to meet our school improvement
goals we gather together as an Academic Center
student/staff community to celebrate student
achievement and the positive behavior of our
students (Positive Behavior Interventions
Supports).
86% of students responded positively in a survey
that they found ACT Prep pullout sessions through
the Academic Center to be extremely valuable in
preparing them for the test.
Academic Center
Yearly Focus Calendar
August
Mentor Training
September
Meet all the Mentors in A.C.
Student Profile Worksheet
EDP/Career Cruising
MiPHY Survey
College visits
Study skills sessions
Peer tutoring kick off
Bi-weekly academic progress meetings
Curriculum Night Parent Orientations
October
Fall NWEA
College visits
Curriculum Night
Elem./Middle staff recognition
End of card marking All A Parent Letters
Monthly peer tutoring meeting/RTI
November
Im Thankful Cards
Day of Code
College visits
ACT Preparation
December
Staff/Student AC Survey
College visits
ACT Preparation
Holiday Break Parent Letter-D/E student
January
Midterm Exam Review Sessions
Winter NWEA
ACT Preparation
Academic Success Awards ceremony
Semester PBIS Postcard drawing
February
EDP
Pre-enrollment
ACT Preparation
College & Financial Aid Night
National Love your Mentee Month
Peer tutoring kick off
MDE/ASSIST Student Surveys
March
National Reading Month
ACT Preparation Survey
MME
8th Grade Orientation
Music in Our Schools
April
National Poetry Month
Spring NWEA
May
AP Testing
Staff/Student AC Survey
Senior Honors Night
Underclassman Awards
Semester PBIS Postcard drawing
June
Final Exam Review Sessions
Academic Center
Focus on Mentoring
How Do Youth Benefit from Mentoring?

Findings suggest that mentoring benefited youths emotional/psychological well-being, peer relationships,
academic attitudes, and grades. At the 13-month follow-up assessment, findings from the quasi-experimental
portion of the evaluation indicated that mentored youth were doing significantly better than youth in the nonmentored comparison group on a number of important outcome measures. In particular, these youth
reported: Fewer depressive symptoms; Greater acceptance by their peers; more positive beliefs about their
ability to succeed in school; and Better grades in school
The Value of Mentoring
At its most basic level, mentoring helps because it guarantees a young person that there is someone who cares
about them. A child is not alone in dealing with day-to-day challenges.
Think back. Did you know how to study for a test or make plans for college? Do you remember wanting your
first car or looking for a part-time job? Simple things that seem easy or straightforward to you now may appear
to be a complete mystery to a young person.
Mentors provide their mentees with an experienced friend who is there to help in any number of situations.
Support for education
Mentors help keep students in school.

Students who meet regularly with their mentors are 52% less likely than their peers to skip a day of
school and 37% less likely to skip a class (Public/Private Ventures study of Big Brothers Big Sisters).
Mentors help with homework and can improve their mentees academic skills.
Support with day-to-day living
Mentors help improve a young person's self-esteem.

Youth who meet regularly with their mentors are 46% less likely than their peers to start using illegal
drugs and 27% less likely to start drinking (Public/Private Ventures study of Big Brothers Big Sisters).
About 40% of a teenager's waking hours are spent without companionship or supervision. Mentors
provide teens with a valuable place to spend free time.
Mentors teach young people how to relate well to all kinds of people and help them strengthen
communication skills.
Support in the workplace
Mentors help young people set career goals and start taking steps to realize them.
Mentors can use their personal contacts to help young people meet industry professionals, find
internships and locate job possibilities.
Mentors introduce young people to professional resources and organizations they may not know.
Mentors can help their mentees learn how to seek and keep jobs.
Academic Center
Focusing on Mentoring
The Mentoring Effect, February 2014

Can a simple mentoring relationship rescue a life in peril? In a world with few easy solutions, there are
innumerable storiesand a new surveythat demonstrate this could be possible.
The survey found that mentored youth set higher educational goals and are more likely to attend college.
These positive outcomes are especially true for opportunity youth who are between the ages of 16 to 24
and are neither in school or employed. For example, youth at-risk for becoming disconnected in this way but
who have a mentor are 55 percent more likely than those without a mentor to enroll in some type of
postsecondary education, such as college or a trade school.
Helping these young Americans succeed is a national priority. Young adults who are not connected cost
society $93 billion annually in lost wages, taxes, and social services. However, it is estimated that every
dollar invested in quality youth mentoring programs yields a $3 return in benefits to society.
The Mentoring Effect reports findings stand as a powerful call to action to service and volunteerism this
January as we celebrate the 13th annual National Mentoring Month and the 20th anniversary of the Martin
Luther King Jr. National Day of Service.
Earlier this month, President Obama announced the Promise Zones Initiative to create jobs, increase
economic security, and expand educational opportunities in distressed communities. Mentoring is one
gateway to help deliver on this promise through investment in our young people.
Encouragingly, more and more people are volunteering in this way. An estimated 4.5 million at-risk youth
will have a structured mentoring relationship while growing up. In the early 90s, an estimated 300,000 had
this type of relationship. Despite the number who are now benefitting, The Mentoring Effect report shows
that 1-in-3 young Americans, including an estimated 9 million opportunity youth, will reach adulthood
without a mentor of any kind. A mentor could be the difference between staying in school or dropping out;
engaging as a citizen or disconnecting from school, work, and civic life.
Lets make a promise to close the mentoring gap and ensure all young people have this powerful asset in
their lives. As we celebrate National Mentoring Month and reflect upon what Dr. King taught us about
service, lets unleash the power of the mentoring effect. Having had a mentor is correlated with engaging in
more positive behaviors for at risk youth
Bibliography
DuBois, D. L., N. Portillo, J. E. Rhodes, N. Silverthorn and J. C. Valentine. 2011. How Effective Are
Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 12 (2), 5791
Grossman, J. B. and J. E. Rhodes. 2002. The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects of Duration in Youth
Mentoring Programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199219.
Herrera, C., J. B. Grossman, T. J. Kauh, A. F. Feldmanand J. McMaken, with L. Z. Jucovy. 2007. Making a
Difference in Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures
Climate and Culture

Student Code of Conduct
Out of School Suspensions (Sem 1)

Number of Students
120
100
No
80
60
40
20
0
Total
2012
80
2013
111
2014
36
2015
38
Number of Students
Total Level 3 Violations (Sem 1 Total)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total
2012
30
2013
39
2014
30
2015
15
A Level III violation is a behavior of an aggravated nature, generally unlawful, which seriously disrupts or
interferes with teaching, learning, or the effective functioning of the school. These behaviors include but not
limited to:
Alcohol and Drugs
Disorderly Conduct
Persistent Misbehavior
Physical Assault
Weapons
Reponses to Level III violations include:
Expulsion
Long Term Suspension
Climate and Culture

Student Code of Conduct
Students with IEPs Out of School

Suspension (Sem 1)
Number of Students
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total
2012
31
2013
18
2014
11
2015
10
Number of Students
Total Infractions (Students violating

WSD Code of Conduct)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Total Infactions
2013
215
2014
157
2015
140
Student Support Services

Enrollment and Achievement by Subject
Number Enrolled
Enrollment of Students with an IEP in

General Education Classes
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
Math
65
79
84
87
Lang.
Arts
43
118
115
110
Science
20
98
88
77
Social
Studies
56
109
104
103
WKHS Student Achievement
Language Arts
Trend Analysis
COURSE: LANGUAGE ARTS 1
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
13.02%
1.94%
2012
19.55%
3.30%
2013
9.61%
1.30%
2014
12.38%
1.62%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK LANGUAGE ARTS 1
Total Students
Failing
14.96%
22.85%
10.91%
14.00%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
% of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
21
33.33%
32
11
34.38%
31
16.13%
29
17.24%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
9.30%
1.00%
2012
5.66%
2.26%
2013
1.24%
1.65%
2014
2.60%
1.12%
2015
10.30%
7.92%
2.89%
3.72%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
% of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
31
9.68%
31
19.35%
39
10.26%
33
9.09%
Language Arts
Trend Analysis

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
8.97%
1.30%
2012
10.56%
3.34%
2013
4.95%
.50%
2014
6.60%
1.42%
2015
Total Students
Failing
10.27%
13.90%
5.45%
8.02%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
% of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
30
10.00%
38
10
26.32%
18
5.56%
32
9.38%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
7.53%
0.00%
2012
5.21%
2.89%
2013
2.00%
.50%
2014
3.85%
0.00%
2015
7.53%
8.10%
2.50%
3.85%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.0%
17
29.41%
18
5.56%
16
0.0%
Math
Trend Analysis
COURSE: ALGEBRA 1
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
14.03%
2.15%
2012
25.30%
3.80%
2013
7.46%
1.87%
2014
10.40%
.40%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK ALGEBRA 1
Total Students
Failing
16.18%
29.10%
9.33%
10.80%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
32
18.75%
25
36.00%
35
14.29%
28
3.60%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: GEOMETRY
School Year
(Semester 1)
16.30%
1.25%
2012
7.20%
1.20%
2013
8.77%
3.07%
2014
8.50%
1.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK GEOMETRY
17.55%
8.40%
11.84%
9.50%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
43
9.3%
23
13.04%
26
26.92%
32
9.40%
Math
Trend Analysis
COURSE: ALGEBRA II
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
22.32%
0.00%
2012
24.55%
.6%
2013
12.08%
.67%
2014
10.90%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK ALGEBRA II
Total Students
Failing
22.32%
25.15%
12.75%
10.90%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
33.33%
20.00%
0.00%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: PRE-CALCULUS
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
17.95%
0.00%
2012
20.30%
0.00%
2013
7.61%
0.00%
2014
5.10%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK PRE-CALCULUS
17.95%
20.30%
7.61%
5.10%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Science
Trend Analysis
COURSE: BIOLOGY
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
16.06%
4.70%
2012
13.60%
2.80%
2013
8.94%
.84%
2014
11.94%
2.05%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK BIOLOGY
Total Students
Failing
20.76%
16.40%
9.78%
13.99%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
43
16
37.21%
59
14
23.73%
38
7.89%
32
18.75%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: CHEMISTRY
School Year
(Semester 1)
10.66%
1.64%
2012
8.98%
3.92%
2013
1.96%
2.44%
2014
3.31%
.66%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK CHEMISTRY
12.30%
12.90%
4.40%
3.97%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
16
25.00%
35
10
28.57%
45
10
22.22%
26
7.69%
Science
Trend Analysis
COURSE: PHYSICS
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
11.48%
0.00%
2012
26.20%
0.00%
2013
16.67%
1.67%
2014
3.54%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK PHYSICS
Total Students
Failing
11.48%
26.20%
18.33%
3.54%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
11
0.00%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: ANATOMY
School Year
(Semester 1)
0.00%
0.00%
2012
1.90%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
2014
.77%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK ANATOMY
0.00%
1.90%
0.00%
.77%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Social Studies
Trend Analysis
COURSE: WORLD STUDIES
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
8.16%
2.55%
2012
NA
NA
2013
5.39%
2.36%
2014
5.15%
0.96%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK WORLD STUDIES
Total Students
Failing
10.71%
NA
7.74%
6.11%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
39
10
31.25%
NA
NA
NA
40
17.50%
31
9.70%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: US HISTORY
School Year
(Semester 1)
12.59%
.70%
2012
10.50%
2.10%
2013
5.43%
.64%
2014
6.04%
1.67%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK US HISTORY
13.29%
12.60%
6.03%
7.71%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
39
10
31.25%
NA
NA
NA
50
17.50%
37
13.50%
Social Studies
Trend Analysis
COURSE: AMERICAN CIVICS
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
14.62%
2.40%
2012
2.43%
.90%
2013
4.74%
.36%
2014
5.33%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK AMERICA CIVICS
Total Students
Failing
17.02%
3.33%
5.11%
5.33%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
30
26.67%
38
7.89%
28
3.57%
28
0.00%
World Language
Trend Analysis
COURSE: GERMAN I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
0.00%
0.00%
2012
7.54%
0.00%
2013
5.26%
0.00%
2014
3.23%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK GERMAN I
Total Students
Failing
0.00%
7.54%
5.26%
3.23%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: FRENCH I
School Year
(Semester 1)
0.00%
0.00%
2012
4.30%
0.00%
2013
1.40%
0.00%
2014
4.48%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK FRENCH I
0.00%
4.30%
1.40%
4.48%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
World Language
Trend Analysis
COURSE: SPANISH I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
3.63%
0.00%
2012
3.60%
2.20%
2013
9.00%
2.50%
2014
9.27%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK SPANISH I
Total Students
Failing
3.63%
5.80%
11.50%
9.27%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
37.50%
16
25.00%
12
0.00%
Career/Technical Education
Trend Analysis
COURSE: CADD ENGINEERING

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
0.00%
0.00%
2012
6.38%
2.13%
2013
7.41%
5.55%
2014
6.25%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK CADD ENGINEERING
0.00%
8.51%
12.90%
6.25%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
33.33%
50.00%
0.000%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: ACCOUNTING
School Year
(Semester 1)
3.65%
0.00%
2012
2.80%
0.00%
2013
.86%
1.72%
2014
1.16%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK ACCOUNTING
3.65%
2.80%
2.58%
1.16%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
0.00%
Career/Technical Education
Trend Analysis
COURSE: CAREERS W/CHILDREN
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
0.00%
0.00%
2012
0.00%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
2014
0.00%
2.44%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK CAREERS W/CHILDREN
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.44%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
33.3%
Physical Education
Trend Analysis
COURSE: HEALTH
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
9.25%
5.10%
2012
14.49%
3.41%
2013
8.20%
.82%
2014
6.60%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK HEALTH
Total Students
Failing
14.35%
17.90%
9.02%
6.60%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
23
11
47.83%
44.44%
20.00%
0.00%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: PERSONAL FITNESS

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
3.45%
2.35%
2012
1.20%
1.20%
2013
0.00%
3.84%
2014
2.32%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK PERSONAL FITNESS
5.88%
2.40%
3.84%
2.32%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
11
18.18%
12.50%
25.00%
0.00%
Performing Arts
Trend Analysis
COURSE: HONORS CONCERT BAND
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2012
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2014
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK HONORS CONCERT BAND
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: HARMONIA
School Year
(Semester 1)
0.00%
0.00%
2012
0.00%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
2014
0.00%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK HARMONIA
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Performing Arts
Trend Analysis
COURSE: THEATER I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
0.00%
0.00%
2012
0.00%
2.63%
2013
0.00%
2.71%
2014
9.52%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK THEATER I
Total Students
Failing
0.00%
2.63%
2.71%
9.52%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
33.33%
66.67%
0.00%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: ADVANCED ORCHESTRA

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2012
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2014
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK ADVANCED ORCHESTRA
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Visual Arts
Trend Analysis
COURSE: CERAMICS I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
2.05%
.68%
2012
2.48%
0.00%
2013
3.50%
.69%
2014
3.75%
2.68%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK CERAMICS I
Total Students
Failing
2.73%
2.48%
4.19%
6.25%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
25.00%
0.00%
13
7.69%
13
23.08%
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
Total Students
Failing
COURSE: DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY I

School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
6.12%
4.08%
10.20%
2012
7.69%
0.00%
7.69%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2014
18.97%
5.17%
24.14%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
50.00%
0.00%
0.00
33.33%
Visual Arts
Trend Analysis
COURSE: JEWLERY I
School Year
(Semester 1)
Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Students Failing
Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Students Failing
1.40%
4.20%
2012
3.70%
0.00%
2013
0.00%
0.00%
2014
0.00%
0.00%
2015
STUDENTS WITH AN IEP WHO TOOK JEWELRY I
Total Students
Failing
5.60%
3.70%
0.00%
0.00%
School Year
(Semester 1)
Number of
Students with
IEPs Enrolled
Number of Students
with IEPs who Did
Not Earn Credit
%of Students
with an IEP Who
Lost Credit
2012
2013
2014
2015
75.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
NWEA Trend Information

9th Grade (Class of 2018)
MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
359
355
344
-15
227.1
230.2
231.1
+4
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
233.8
234.9
236
+2.2
Students at or Above
Grade Level
123
149
147
+24
Total Students
Tested
Mean RIT
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2)
FALL
Lo
LoAverage
Average
Hi Average
Hi
%tile <21
%tile 21-40
%tile 41-60
%tile 61-80
%tile >80
Count
Count
Count
Count
Count
110
31%
79
22%
89
25%
45
13%
31
10%
32
9%
30
8%
189 (53%) Below Average

WINTER
94
26%
79
22%
165 (47%) Average or Above

71
20%

SPRING
78
22%
94
26%
Below Average
Average or Above
22%

78
22%
Ratio of Achievement
9th Grade Math
2015
79
73
21%
WKHS NWEA Achievement

9th Grade Math
2015
NWEA Norm Score
WKHS Actual Mean Score

236
234.9
233.8
47
52
52
231.1
230.2
227.1
53
FALL
48
WINTER
48
SPRING
FALL
WINTER
SPRING

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
Total Students Tested
359
353
350
-4
Mean RIT
217.8
219.9
221.3
+3.5
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.4
221.9
222.9
+1.5
Grade Level
168
181
173
+5
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP READING 6+ Common Core 2010 V2)

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
86
24%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
68
19%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
85

WINTER
74
21%
70
20%
61
17%
79
23%
84
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
23%
36
10%
44
12%
46
13%

71

SPRING
24%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
20%
94
27%

96
27%
68
19%
210 (60%) Average of Above

LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
359
355
352
-7
Mean RIT
216.5
218.9
219.8
+3.3
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
220.6
221
221.8
+2.2
Grade Level
143
167
165
+22
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP LANGUAGE 2-12 Common Core 2010)

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
91
25%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
83
23%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
89

WINTER
71
20%
77
22%
61
17%
86
24%
60
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
17%
36
10%
35
10%
38
11%

94

SPRING
25%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
26%
78
22%

93
26%
74
21%

Students with Disabilities
MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
25
25
29
+4
Mean RIT
200.36
199.24
205.59
+5.23
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
233.8
234.9
236
+2.2
Grade Level
+1

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
21
84%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
3
12%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
1
4%
24(96%) Below Average

WINTER
23
92%
22
76%
0%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
0
0%
0%
0%

8%
0%

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
17%
0%

2
7%
0%

OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - FALL
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex Number
Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
20
80%
8%
8%
4%
0%
200.72
21
84%
16%
0%
0%
0%
200.28
20
80%
20%
0%
0%
0%
200.8
MEAN
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - WI
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex Number
Systems
Geometry
MEAN
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
22
88%
4%
8%
0%
0%
199.6
23
92%
8%
0%
0%
0%
199.64
23
92%
8%
0%
0%
0%
198.04
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - SPRING MEAN
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex Number
Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
19
66%
20%
7%
7%
0%
207.45
22
76%
17%
7%
0%
0%
202.97
24
84%
13%
3%
0%
0%
205.24

9th Grade (Class of 2018)SWD

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
25
24
29
+4
Mean RIT
197.36
193.67
203.13
+5.77
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.4
221.9
222.9
+1.5
Grade Level
+1

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
18
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
72%
20%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
2
8%

WINTER
19
79%
17%
19
65%
21%
Ratio of Achievement
9th Grade Reading SWD
2015
Below Average
Average or Above
4
8
14
96
92
86
FALL
WINTER
SPRING
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
0%
0%
0%
4%

1
4%

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
0%

2
6%
4%

MEAN
MAP READING 6+ Common Core 2010 V2- FALL

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
19
76%
12%
12%
0%
0%
195.96
Informational Text
20
80%
12%
4%
4%
0%
196.8
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
18
72%
20%
0%
8%
0%
199.48
MAP READING 6+ Common Core 2010 V2 - WINTER

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
22
92%
0%
4%
4%
0%
193.04
Informational Text
21
88%
4%
8%
0%
0%
192.92
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
18
76%
12%
8%
4%
0%
195.04
MAP READING 6+ Common Core 2010 V2 - SPRING
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
22
75%
17%
0%
4%
4%
201.76
Informational Text
18
62%
24%
10%
4%
0%
203.41
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
16
55%
31%
6%
4%
4%
204.45

LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
25
25
29
+4
Mean RIT
196.36
198.92
202.83
+6.23
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
220.6
221
221.8
+1.2
Grade Level
+1

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
21
84%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
4
16%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
0
0%

WINTER
21
84%
8%
21
84%
24%
27 (93%%) Below Average
0%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
0
0%
0%
0%

2
8%

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
0%

0
0%
8%

MEAN
(MAP LANGUAGE 2-12 Common Core 2010) - FALL
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
21
84%
12%
4%
0%
0%
195.00
20
80%
20%
0%
0%
0%
197.84
19
76%
24%
0%
0%
0%
196.04
(MAP LANGUAGE 2-12 Common Core 2010)- WINTER
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
19
76%
16%
0%
8%
0%
198.28
19
76%
16%
8%
0%
0%
201.32
23
92%
4%
0%
4%
0%
197.48
MEAN
(MAP LANGUAGE 2-12 Common Core 2010) - SPRING
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
18
61%
27%
4%
4%
4%
204.03
20
69%
21%
10%
0%
0%
202.55
21
71%
21%
4%
4%
0%
201.97

Academic Center At-Risk Pod (31a)
MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
47
44
44
-3
Mean RIT
222.36
227.40
227.75
+5.39
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
233.8
234.9
236
+2.2
Grade Level
12
+4

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
21
45%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
14
30%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
8

WINTER
10
23%
17
39%
12
27%
16
36%
17%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
4%
4%
2%
0%

9

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
20%
16%

9
21%
17%

GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
16
34%
13
28%
11
23%
4%
11%
225.27
20
43%
13
28%
19%
6%
4%
222.38
26
55%
19%
15%
9%
2%
219.79
MEAN
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) WINTER
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
MEAN
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
12
27%
21%
12
27%
10
23%
2%
14
32%
13
29%
11
25%
12%
2%
11
26%
20
46%
21%
5%
2%
230.25
226.14
227.02
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - SPRING MEAN
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
18%
13
30%
20%
10
23%
9%
232.5
13
30%
12
27%
14
32%
11%
0%
226.05
13
30%
17
39%
11%
18%
2%
225.93

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
47
44
44
-3
Mean RIT
213.85
216
217.16
+3.31
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.4
221.9
222.9
+1.5
Grade Level
13
15
18
+5

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
16
34%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
10
21%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
13

WINTER
10
23%%
17
37%
10
23%
11
25%
28%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
13%
4%
4%
7%

9

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
20%
16%

14
32%
13%

GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
17
35%
19%
13
28%
9%
9%
213.02
Informationa
l Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition
and Use
14
30%
15
32%
19%
13%
6%
213.87
12
26%
12
26%
12
26%
16%
6%
214.77
MEAN
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
16
36%
10
23%
13%
21%
7%
214.52
Informationa
l Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition
and Use
14
32%
10
23%
21%
13%
11%
216.84
14
32%
18%
21%
10
23%
6%
216.52
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
13
30%
11
25%
21%
18%
6%
215.57
Informationa
l Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition
and Use
12
27%
12
27%
10
23%
10%
13%
216.80
21%
10
23%
15
33%
10%
13%
218.98

LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
47
44
44
-3
Mean RIT
214.28
215.94
216.70
+2.42
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
220.6
221
221.8
+1.2
Grade Level
13
10
+2

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
14
30%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
13
28%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
15

WINTER
11
25%
12
27%
10
23%
13
29%
32%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
6%
4%
5%
2%

12

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
27%
16%

13
30%
16%

MEAN

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
13
28%
16
34%
10
21%
11%
6%
214.53
16
34%
14
30%
10
21%
11%
4%
214.04
12
26%
14
30%
15
31%
11%
2%
214.30

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
11
25%
12
27%
11
25%
13%
10%
215.59
14
32%
20%
12
27%
11%
10%
216.29
12
27%
12
27%
11
25%
17%
4%
216.09
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
11
25%
10
23%
10
23%
16%
13%
217.91
11
25%
16
36%
13
30%
7%
2%
215.32
11
25%
11
25%
13
216.75

MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
359
360
356
-3
Mean RIT
228.4
232.5
234.3
+5.9
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
234.2
235.5
236.6
+2.4
Grade Level
124
161
166
+42

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
78
22%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
113
31%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
77

WINTER
58
16%
93
26%
53
15%
90
25%
73
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
20%
18
5%
29
8%
31
9%

97

SPRING
21%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
27%
83
23%

96
27%
86
24%

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
357
355
349
-8
Mean RIT
219.8
223.6
224.2
+4.4
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
223.2
223.4
223.8
+.6
Grade Level
154
206
204
+50

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
73
20%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
86
24%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
92

WINTER
48
14%
62
17%
48
14%
56
16%
70
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
20%
36
10%
47
13%
41
12%

92

SPRING
26%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
26%
106
30%

104
30%
100
29%

th
10 Grade (Class of 2018)
LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
353
360
353
Mean RIT
217.3
221.2
221.6
+4.3
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.9
222.2
222.7
+.8
Grade Level
149
189
181
+32

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
82
23%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
79
22%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
101

WINTER
51
14%
75
21%
48
14%
83
24%
65
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
18%
26
7%
27
8%
24
7%

87

SPRING
29%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
24%
120
33%

98
28%
100
28%

MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
30
30
29
-1
Mean RIT
202.56
201.7
205.59
+3.03
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
233.8
234.9
236
+2.2
Grade Level

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
24
80%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
4
13%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
2
7%

WINTER
26
86%
14%
22
76%
17%
0%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
0
0%
0%
0%

0
0%

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
0%

2
7%
0%

GOAL AREA
Operations
and Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number
Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
22
73%
17%
6%
4%
0%
202.24
24
89%
17%
4%
0%
0%
203.0
24
89%
17%
4%
0%
0%
202.57
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - WINTER MEAN
GOAL AREA
Operations
and Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number
Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
25
83%
6%
11%
0%
0%
202.33
28
94%
6%
0%
0%
0%
201.03
26
86%
10%
4%
0%
0%
200.97
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - SPRING
GOAL AREA
Operations
and Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number
Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
19
65%
21%
7%
7%
0%
207.44
22
76%
17%
7%
0%
0%
202.96
24
83%
14%
3%
0%
0%
205.24

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
31
31
34
+3
Mean RIT
206.1
209.03
210.8
+4.7
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
223.2
223.4
223.8
+.6
Grade Level
+2

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
17
53%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
7
22%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
2
6%

WINTER
15
50%
23%
18
54%
18%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
6%
3%
12%
8%

3

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
9%
6%

4
12%
8%

MEAN
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
18
58%
16%
10%
6%
10%
204.90
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
20
64%
10%
13%
3%
10%
204.16
16
51%
13%
20%
3%
13%
208.90
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
16
53%
20%
12%
3%
12%
207.34
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
15
50%
23%
9%
9%
9%
208.03
11
35%
27%
20%
9%
9%
211.32
MEAN
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
19
56%
12%
16%
8%
8%
209.53
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
17
50%
12%
24%
8%
6%
209.94
15
45%
20%
12%
20%
3%
213.0

LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
31
32
34
+2
203.90
206.81
208.61
+4.71
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.9
222.2
222.7
+.8
Grade Level
+1
Total Students
Tested
Mean RIT

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
16
52%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
9
29%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
2

WINTER
18
56%
16%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
6%
16
47%
26%
13%
0%
6%
0%

5
16%

SPRING
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
6%

5
15%
12%

MEAN

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
17
55%
19%
10%
10%
6%
202.97
16
52%
22%
13%
13%
0%
205.13
18
58%
19%
13%
10%
0%
203.58

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
20
62%
13%
3%
9%
13%
206.59
18
56%
13%
19%
6%
6%
206.75
16
50%
25%
13%
9%
3%
206.84
MEAN
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
16
47%
24%
12%
12%
5%
208.50
20
59%
21%
12%
3%
5%
208.55
18
52%
18%
15%
15%
0%
209.06

MATHEMATICS
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
24
27
24
Mean RIT
225.04
228.37
228.29
+3.25
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
234.2
235.5
236.6
+2.4
Grade Level

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
25%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
11
46%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
6

WINTER
26%
33%
25%
38%
25%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
4%
0%
4%
0%

7

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
26%
11%

6
25%
12%

GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
21%
10
42%
21%
16%
0%
225.71
16%
10
42%
33%
9%
0%
226.21
29%
10
42%
25%
4%
0%
221.63
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - WINTER MEAN
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
15%
33%
30%
18%
4%
230.81
26%
12
44%
11%
11%
8%
227.30
11
41%
11%
26%
18%
4%
225.96
OVERALL PERFORMANCE (MAP Math 6+ Common Core 2010 V2) - SPRING
GOAL AREA
Operations and
Algebraic
Thinking
The Real and
Complex
Number Systems
Geometry
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
17%
29%
25%
29%
0%
233.00
33%
25%
33%
9%
0%
225.75
29%
10
42%
20%
9%
0%
225.81

READING
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
24
27
23
-1
Mean RIT
217.54
220.93
219.39
+1.85
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
223.2
223.4
223.8
+.6
Grade Level
13
-2

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
33%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
3
13%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
9

WINTER
19%
19%
22%
22%
37%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
13%
4%
7%
9%

8

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
29%
26%

7
30%
17%

MEAN
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
29%
25%
29%
13%
4%
216.67
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
21%
37%
29%
13%
0%
216.83
33%
13%
26%
21%
7%
219.00
MEAN
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
26%
15%
33%
22%
4%
219.22
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
19%
22%
26%
22%
11%
220.63
15%
22%
19%
11
41%
3%
222.78
GOAL AREA
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
Literature
26%
30%
18%
26%
0%
Informational
Text
Vocabulary
Acquisition and
Use
22%
38%
22%
18%
0%
215.52
219.17
22%
18%
22%
26%
12%
223.78

LANGUAGE USAGE
Fall 2014
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
FA to SP Change
24
27
22
-2
Mean RIT
216.58
218.96
221.27
+4.69
Norm Grade Level

MEAN RIT
221.9
222.2
222.7
+.8
Grade Level
11
-1

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
FALL
29%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
4
17%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
9

WINTER
22%
19%
4%
42%
37%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
17%
0%
0%
4%

10

SPRING
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
37%
22%

6
27%
23%

MEAN

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
21%
29%
29%
17%
4%
216.83
38%
16%
38%
7%
0%
213.71
27%
21%
29%
16%
7%
219.13

Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
MEAN
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
22%
19%
19%
33%
7%
220.85
19%
33%
29%
19%
0%
217.44
15%
26%
11
40%
19%
0%
218.19
MEAN
GOAL AREA
Plan, Organize,
Develop, Revise,
Research
Understand, Edit
for Grammar,
Usage
Understand, Edit
Mechanics
Lo
%tile <21
Count
%
LoAverage
%tile 21-40
Count
%
Average
%tile 41-60
Count
%
Hi Average
%tile 61-80
Count
%
Hi
%tile >80
Count
%
14%
27%
18%
32%
9%
221.04
19%
23%
11
50%
4%
4%
220.14
4%
32%
41%
14%
9%
222.23
College Readiness Trends

ACT State of Michigan
5 Year Trends Percentages of students who met college readiness benchmarks

Year
# of
Students
Tested
Percent Who Met Benchmarks
2010-2011
382
English
61
Math
31
Reading
45
Science
27
Met all Four

19
2011-2012
364
59
30
40
22
13
2012-2013
374
60
27
40
17
12
2013-2014
314
56
22
35
26
15
2014-2015
295
62
32
32
30
16
5 Year Trends Average ACT Scores

Year
# of
Students
Tested
Average ACT Score
2010-2011
382
English
19.3
Math
19.4
Reading
19.9
Science
20.4
Composite
19.9
2011-2012
364
19.1
19.5
19.3
20.2
19.6
2012-2013
374
18.7
19.0
19.1
19.7
19.2
2013-2014
314
18.4
18.7
19.4
19.6
19.2
2014-2015
295
19.1
19.4
19.2
19.9
19.5

Advanced External Review - Waterford Kettering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced External Review - Waterford Kettering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Performance Data

All PLC groups were asked the question, Why

How Do Youth Benefit from Mentoring?

Mentors help keep students in school.

Support with day-to-day living

Mentors help improve a young person's self-esteem.

Support in the workplace

The Mentoring Effect, February 2014

Climate and Culture

Out of School Suspensions (Sem 1)

Total Level 3 Violations (Sem 1 Total)

Climate and Culture

Students with IEPs Out of School

Total Infractions (Students violating

Student Support Services

Enrollment of Students with an IEP in

WKHS Student Achievement

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

COURSE: LANGUAGE ARTS 2

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

COURSE: LANGUAGE ARTS 3

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

COURSE: LANGUAGE ARTS 4

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

COURSE: CADD ENGINEERING

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or

Gen. Ed. Ratio of

Spec. Ed. Ratio or