Table 5: Monomoy Regional School District 2016 CPI and Targets by Subgroup ELA Math Science Group 2016 CPI 2016 Target Rating 2016 CPI 2016 Target Rating 2016 CPI 2016 Target Rating All students 83.5 94.1 No Change 79.9 89.1 Improved Below Target 81.4 90.8 Declined High 70.5 87.3 No Change 66.9 80.2 Improved Below Target 68.4 82.3 Declined Economically Disadvantaged 75.2 78.4 No Change 70.7 70.3 On Target 72.2 80.9 Declined ELLs 71.3 86.6 No Change 63.3 82.0 Improved Below Target -- -- -- Students with disabilities 56.6 82.3 No Change 52.7 75.0 Improved Below Target 55.1 79.9 Declined Students’ growth in ELA was moderate compared with academic peers statewide for all students, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners and low for high needs students and students with disabilities. Students’ growth in math was high compared with their academic peers statewide for English language learners and moderate for all students, high needs students, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. 6: Monomoy Regional School District 2016 Median ELA and Math SGP by Subgroup Group 2016 Median ELA SGP 2016 Median Math SGP District CPI Rating Growth Level District CPI Rating Growth Level All students 42.0 Target Moderate 50.0 On Target Moderate High 40.0 Below Target Low 49.0 On Target Moderate Econ. Disad. 41.5 Below Target Moderate 49.0 On Target Moderate ELLs 52.0 On Target Moderate 69.0 Above Target High SWD 36.0 Below Target Low 45.0 On Target Moderate The district’s out-of-school suspension were below the state rates for all students, high need students, and economically disadvantaged students and similar to the state rate for students with disabilities. The district’s in-school suspension rates was almost one quarter of the state rates for all students and students with disabilities and were below the state rates for high needs students and economically disadvantaged students.
Student and school performance data, including achievement and growth, enrollment, graduation, dropout, retention, suspension, and attendance rates Data on the district’s staffing and finances Published educational reports on the district by ESE, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges and the former Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA) District documents such as district and school improvement plans, school committee policies, curriculum documents, summaries of student assessments, job descriptions, collective bargaining agreements, evaluation tools for staff, handbooks, school schedules, and the district’s end-of-year financial reports All completed program and administrator evaluations, and a random selection of completed teacher evaluations Review Schedule Monday 11/14/2016 Tuesday 11/15/2016 Wednesday 11/16/2016 Thursday 11/17/2016 Orientation with district leaders and principals; interviews with district staff and principals; document review; and interview with theteachers’ association. Interviews with district staff and principals; review of personnel files; teacher focus groups; parent focus group; and visits to Chatham Elementary, Harwich Elementary, Monomoy Regional Middle School, and Monomoy Regional High School for classroom observations. Interviews with town/city personnel; interviews with school leaders; interviews with school committee members; visits to Chatham Elementary, Harwich Elementary, Monomoy Regional Middle School, and Monomoy Regional High School for classroom observations. Interviews with school leaders; follow-up interviews; district review team meeting; visits to Chatham Elementary, Harwich Elementary, Monomoy Regional Middle School, and Monomoy Regional High School for classroom observations; and district wrap-up meeting with the superintendent.
B6: Monomoy Regional School District Expenditures, Chapter 70 State Aid, and Net School Spending Fiscal Years 2014–2016 FY14 FY15 FY16 Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Expenditures From school committee budget $30,571,301 $31,097,988 $31,243,280 $35,012,973 $34,409,498 From revolving funds and grants --- $4,160,366 --- $5,048,131 --- $3,845,499 Total expenditures --- $34,731,667 --- $36,291,411 --- $38,254,997 Chapter 70 aid to education program Chapter 70 state aid* --- $2,506,360 --- $2,708,296 --- $2,755,146 Required contribution --- $16,031,006 --- $15,518,373 --- $15,720,020 Required net school spending** --- $18,537,366 --- $18,226,669 --- $18,475,166 Actual net school spending --- $28,785,557 --- $29,002,749 --- $30,714,654 Over/under required ($) --- $10,248,191 --- $10,776,080 --- $12,239,488
Appendix C: Instructional Inventory Focus Area #1: Learning Objectives & Instruction Insufficient Minimal Moderate Strong Avg. Number of points (0) (1) (2) (3) (0 to 3) 1.The teacher demonstrates knowledge of subject matter and content. ES 4% 30% 33% 33% 2.0 MS 6% 11% 61% 22% 2.0 HS 11% 17% 44% 28% 1.9 Total # 4 13 28 18 2.0 Total % 6% 21% 44% 29% 2.The teacher provides and refers to clear learning objective(s) in the lesson. ES 41% 19% 26% 15% 1.1 MS 11% 17% 61% 11% 1.7 HS 28% 39% 33% 0% 1.1 Total # 18 15 24 6 1.3 Total % 29% 24% 38% 10% 3.The teacher implements a lesson that reflects high expectations aligned to the learning objective(s). ES 26% 30% 41% 4% 1.2 MS 11% 11% 61% 17% 1.8 HS 28% 50% 22% 0% 0.9 Total # 14 19 26 4 1.3 Total % 22% 30% 41% 6% 4.The teacher uses appropriate instructional strategies well matched to the learning objective(s). ES 19% 26% 33% 22% 1.6 MS 11% 11% 72% 6% 1.7 HS 39% 44% 17% 0% 0.8 Total # 14 17 25 7 1.4 Total % 22% 27% 40% 11% Score for Focus Area #1 ES 5.9 MS 7.3 HS 4.7 Total 6.0 Focus Area #2: Student Engagement & Critical Thinking Insufficient Minimal Moderate Strong Avg. Number of points (0) (1) (2) (3) (0 to 3) 5.Students are motivated and engaged in the lesson. ES 0% 30% 26% 44% 2.1 MS 0% 28% 56% 17% 1.9 HS 17% 11% 67% 6% 1.6 Total # 3 15 29 16 1.9 Total % 5% 24% 46% 25% ES 19% 52% 26% 4% 1.1
6.The teacher facilitates tasks that encourage students to develop and engage in critical thinking. MS 11% 22% 50% 17% 1.7 HS 28% 56% 17% 0% 0.9 Total # 12 28 19 4 1.2 Total % 19% 44% 30% 6% 7.Students assume responsibility for own learning whether individually, in pairs, or in groups. ES 7% 37% 33% 22% 1.7 MS 0% 22% 56% 22% 2.0 HS 11% 44% 33% 11% 1.4 Total # 4 22 25 12 1.7 % 6% 35% 40% 19% Total Score for Focus Area #2 ES 5.0 MS 5.6 HS 3.9 Total 4.9 Area #3:Differentiated Instruction & Classroom Culture Insufficient Minimal Moderate Strong Avg. Number of points (0) (1) (2) (3) (0 to 3) 8.The teacher appropriately differentiates instruction so the lesson content is accessible for all learners. ES 11% 67% 19% 4% 1.1 MS 17% 50% 33% 0% 1.2 HS 56% 17% 17% 11% 0.8 Total # 16 30 14 3 1.1 % 25% 48% 22% 5% 9.The teacher uses appropriate resources aligned to students’ diverse learning needs (e.g., teachnology, manipulatives, support personnel). ES 11% 33% 44% 11% 1.6 MS 11% 11% 61% 17% 1.8 HS 56% 17% 22% 6% 0.8 Total # 15 14 27 7 1.4 Total % 24% 22% 43% 11% 10.The classroom climate is characterized by ES 0% 19% 33% 48% 2.3 MS 0% 6% 72% 22% 2.2 HS 11% 22% 33% 33% 1.9
respectful behavior, routines, tone, and discourse. Total # 2 10 28 23 2.1 % 3% 16% 44% 37% 11.The teacher conducts appropriate formative assessments to check for understanding and provide feedback to students. ES 4% 37% 44% 15% 1.7 MS 17% 17% 56% 11% 1.6 HS 28% 28% 39% 6% 1.2 Total # 9 18 29 7 1.5 % 14% 29% 46% 11% Total Score for Focus Area #3 ES 6.7 MS 6.8 HS 4.7 # 6.2