District 58% 59% 58% 56% -2% All students 2 State 53% 55% 54% 54% 1 District 41% 40% 35% 34% -7% High Needs 3 State 31% 33% 31% 31% 0 Economically District -- -- 40% 40% -- 8 Disadvantaged State -- -- 34% 32% -- ELL and former District -- 18% -- 6% -- -13 ELL students State 19% 18% 19% 19% 0 Students with District 24% 25% 21% 22% -2% 1 disabilities State 21% 21% 22% 21% 0 The district did not reach its 2016 Composite Performance Index (CPI) targets in ELA, math, and science for all students and each group that makes up the high needs population with reportable data. Table 5: Plymouth Public Schools 2016 CPI and Targets by Subgroup ELA Math Science 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Group Rating Rating Rating CPI Target CPI Target CPI Target Improved Improved No All students 87.3 94.1 Below 81.6 89.2 Below 81.0 90.0 Change Target Target Improved Improved No High Needs 75.3 88.6 Below 66.7 81.8 Below 68.4 83.1 Change Target Target Improved Improved Economically No 78.8 80.5 Below 71.4 72.9 Below 71.1 74.2 Disadvantaged Change Target Target Improved Improved ELLs 62.3 81.3 Below 59.9 77.9 Below -- -- -- Target Target Improved Improved Improved Students with 64.8 83.1 Below 53.3 76.0 Below 60.8 78.2 Below disabilities Target Target Target In 2016, students’ growth in ELA and math was moderate in math compared with their academic peers across the state for all students, high needs students, and students from economically disadvantaged families. Growth for students with disabilities was low in ELA and was moderate in math compared with their academic peers statewide. Table 6: Plymouth Public Schools 2016 Median ELA and Math SGP by Subgroup
All students District 58% 59% 58% 56% -2% 2 State 53% 55% 54% 54% 1 High Needs District 41% 40% 35% 34% -7% 3 State 31% 33% 31% 31% 0 Economically Disadvantaged District -- -- 40% 40% -- 8 State -- -- 34% 32% -- ELL and former ELL students District -- 18% -- 6% -- -13 State 19% 18% 19% 19% 0 Students with disabilities District 24% 25% 21% 22% -2% 1 State 21% 21% 22% 21% 0 The district did not reach its 2016 Composite Performance Index (CPI) targets in ELA, math, and science for all students and each group that makes up the high needs population with reportable data. Table 5: Plymouth Public Schools 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 87.3 94.1 Improved Below Target 81.6 89.2 Improved Below Target 81.0 90.0 No Change High Needs 75.3 88.6 Improved Below Target 66.7 81.8 Improved Below Target 68.4 83.1 No Change Economically Disadvantaged 78.8 80.5 Improved Below Target 71.4 72.9 Improved Below Target 71.1 74.2 No Change ELLs 62.3 81.3 Improved Below Target 59.9 77.9 Improved Below Target -- -- -- Students with disabilities 64.8 83.1 Improved Below Target 53.3 76.0 Improved Below Target 60.8 78.2 Improved Below Target In 2016, students’ growth in ELA and math was moderate in math compared with their academic peers across the state for all students, high needs students, and students from economically disadvantaged families. Growth for students with disabilities was low in ELA and was moderate in math compared with their academic peers statewide. Table 6: Plymouth Public Schools 2016 Median ELA and Math SGP by Subgroup
plymouth-public-schools-comprehensive-district-review-report-august2017.docx