What you are looking at

You are looking at four of the possible eight subtests (the K-3 schools have only one, RI Writing) that contribute to determining whether or not a school is improving or not improving on the School Performance list. See below for specifics as to how the determination was made. The ‘progress summary’ on the graph shows the school’s identification as a high, moderate or low-performing school, but the data to make that determination is not represented in this particular field; please see the State Section for that information.

What you are looking for

You are hoping to see that the percentage of students in the lowest levels of achievement has declined, that percent proficient has gone up and that overall, this school is improving in both math and ELA.

How was ‘improving’ and ‘not improving’ determined?
(Download a graphic explanation of this determination.)

Using the cumulative percent of the two “baseline” years to the cumulative percent of two “current” years, the conditions for improvement being considered are:

Both:	at least a 3% gain in students achieving Proficiency and at least a 3% decline in students at the Lowest Levels of Achievement
In either:	Math English Language Arts or Both

Schools satisfying the above criteria are ‘improving’ schools. Those who are not making such improvements are ‘not improving'.

A degree of leeway

To make these determinations, RIDE only counted two out of three math subtests and three of the four ELA subtests – RI Writing results can substitute for either of the NSRE writing subtests in order to attain the standard.

The school-level Information Works! graph shows only four subtests – the same four for every school – even though these specific subtests might not have been the ones that actually led to the school’s designation.

Special to web “School details and goals” page

All subtests are on the web.

All subtests not represented in the hardcopy of Information Works! – as well as those that are – are represented on the web page 3.

Please note: both the State Section and the annual analysis provide further information of the lists and the criteria by which they were sorted.

Why are the promised three-year averages not being used?

Because RI has only four years of comparable testing data so far, in 2002 the progress trendlines were based on only two years of data each, two for the ‘baseline’ – 1998 and 1999 – and the following two years for the ‘current’ – 2000 and 2001. As soon as RI has collected a full six years of assessment data, the baseline and current will both be based on three-year cumulative results.

The 10th grade New Standards ELA exam was not administered for the first time until 1999 and, therefore, does not yet have three years of data. The 1999 exam alone was used as the baseline.