ANNUAL SCORECARD Of SCHOOL PERFORMANCE - CMU Center For Charter Schools
DRAFTPrinted December 3, 2013ANNUALS C O R E C A R D ofSCHOOL PERFORMANCE2012-2013AcademyABC AcademyABCABCAcademyACADEMY
OUR MISSIONTo transform public education through our state and national leadership and gold standard approach tochartering schools, overseeing and supporting their operations, and evaluating their performance.OUR VISIONWe envision a diverse and dynamic public education marketplace that fosters academicexcellence for all children.The Governor John Engler Center for Charter SchoolsCentral Michigan University Mount Pleasant, MI 48859(989) 774-2100 www.TheCenterForCharters.org2Scorecard 2012-2013 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
Cynthia M. SchumacherExecutive DirectorTo the dedicated board members serving charter public schools authorized by Central Michigan University:On behalf of our entire team at The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools (Center), I am pleasedto provide you with the 2012-2013 Annual Scorecard of School Performance (Scorecard). This Scorecardis a critical tool that integrates the data from the Academy’s three performance reports – the AcademicPerformance Report, the Fiscal Performance Report and the Operational Performance Report – into onesummative report. Furthermore, the Scorecard paints a holistic picture of the Academy’s progress toward theexpectations outlined in the Charter Contract.Clear expectations and performance goals are the core of our professional authorizing practices. As youreview this information, I sincerely hope the Academy Board will find this Scorecard useful as an evaluationtool, and as a resource for decision-making and future planning. As your partner, the Center also welcomesyour feedback in our continuous efforts to maximize the usefulness of this information for the Academy’s team.Please know that I am sincerely grateful for your work as we relentlessly pursue excellence for Michiganstudents. Your dedication to creating quality educational opportunities will help provide each and every childwith the tools to be successful in college, work and life.Thank you for keeping kids first!Cynthia M. SchumacherExecutive Director 2014 The Governor John Engler Center forFooterCharter Schools at Central Michigan UniversityABC Academy3
PERFORMANCE SUITEPERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEARACADEMICPERFORMANCEREPORTThe annual performance report suite is madeup of three distinct reports: the AcademicPerformance Report, the OperationalTHEACADEMICPERFORMANCE REPORT2012-2013Performance Report and the Fiscal PerformanceABC ACADEMYReport, as well as one capstone report - theOPERATIONALPERFORMANCEREPORTAnnual Scorecard of School Performance.These reports, shown to the right, cover eachTHEof the primary content areas and are intendedO P E R AT I O N A LPERFORMANCE REPORT2012-2013ABC ACADEMYto provide a greater understanding of theacademic year (July through June).academic data becomes available, with theThe second performancereport, published annually in thefall, provides a comprehensiveoverview of the Academy’soperational outcomes for theacademic year ending in June.FISCALPERFORMANCEREPORTAcademy’s holistic performance for a completeThe first report is distributed in June when theThe first performance report,published annually in the summer,provides a comprehensiveoverview of the Academy’sacademic outcomes for theacademic year just completed.THEFISCALPERFORMANCE REPORT2012-2013ABC ACADEMYThe third and final performancereport, published annually in thewinter, provides a comprehensiveoverview of the Academy’sfinancial outcomes for theprevious academic year.operational and fiscal reports following suit. Thefinal report, the Scorecard, is released in theSCORECARDOF SCHOOLPERFORMANCEwinter of the following year, as the summary ofthe three performance reports.ANNUALS C O R E C A R D ofSCHOOL PERFORMANCE2012-2013ABC ACADEMY4Scorecard 2012-2013As a summary of the threeperformance reports, publishedannually in the winter, theScorecard provides an overviewof the Academy’s performance, asit relates to the Charter Contract. 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S6 ACADEMY OVERVIEW: DEMOGRAPHICS8 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE8 Student Achievement10 Student Growth12 State & Federal Accountability13 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE13 Overview14 FISCAL PERFORMANCE14 Revenue & Expenditures15 Fund Balance, Liquidity, Borrowing History & Financial Audit16 ACADEMY COMPARISON16 MEAP Proficiency: Reading17 MEAP Proficiency: Math18 MDE’s Top-to-Bottom & ACT Rankings19 INDICATORS19 Performance Areas & Indicators20 END NOTES20 Acronyms & Glossary21 Sources & Citations 2014 The Governor John Engler Center forFooterCharter Schools at Central Michigan UniversityABC Academy5
ACADEMYOVERVIEWDEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEARDemographicsKnowing your students and which communities theycome from helps in understanding the make-up of the Academy and the student populationDemographicsit serves. The data displayed in this section represents a summary of the Academy’s demographics for the 2012-2013 school year and providesan overview of trending and comparison information.Enrollment by YearEnrollment by YearDistrictCodeDistrict CodeTotal Enrollment by Year2012-2013 MI-639012012-2013 MI-63901K-12Chart 21234 AbacusAve.Scholastic, MI 42860Number ofChart 245203127282432343027473141Chart 225K1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th10th11th12thNumber of Students in EFig. 3ESP:Mission Stmt:r243234302747314111th12thEnrollment20by Year152 YearsEnrollment by Grade:Scorecard 2012-20135 Years7%8%25%CEPI - Public Headcount Data6 Years7 Years8 YearsCEPI - Public Headcount Data0450397390382Fig. 4366K1st 2nd 338335325350LOE 2911 Year2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Chart 3School Average Average250Percent13%14%14%12%8%7%8%25%American Indian or Alaskan Native0.3%0.2%0.8%200150Sources:Asian American2.0%2.6%2.7%Fall 20121234 Chart 2 65.9%5 Enrollment651.2%718.8% 8 100AOIS or Africanby Year:BlackAmericanAOISChart 3Enrollment 0.1%by Grade:50NativeHawaiian or Other Pacific hnic BreakdownNotes:AOISHispanic or Latino2.3%5.0%Multi-Racial7.2%2.5%2) Years enrolled calculated by subtracting field 20 (Date of Enrollment) from field 123 (Date of Count)1) Source:AOISFall 2012 MSDS - Unaudited3) Students with duplicate UICs were not included in this ent by Year:24Chart 314%28Chart 23113%272827312010th4) Percentagesmay not total 100% due to roundingChart212-13Contract Term:9th11-12Grades Offered:7th74%8th10-11Date Opened:Fig. 101 YearAOIS1234 Abacus Ave. AOISScholastic, MI 42860ssion 2012-2013 MI-63901Address3rd08-09ntract Term:P:2nd3003-04ades Offered:1stCEPI - Public Headcount Data3 Year StudentsCEPI - Public Headcount Data4507-08District CodeEnrollment by Grade:506020te Opened:KEnrollment by Year:06-07AOISChart 305-06Mission Stmt:80Chart ources:Length of Student Enrollment2035520Contract Term:08-0915Chart15 3AOIS07-082045A.G.B.U. 25Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolGrades Offered:3Fig. 206-07302550300AOIS3384010Prepare students academically forsuccess in college, work and life.Date Opened:335in Each Grade03-04Students35Mission Statement342Number of Students in Each Grade40Self-managed348Number of Students in Each 50Students20015010050004-05Charter Contract39739712-13 12-13Address11-12 11-12Grades Served10-11 10-112012-2013 MI-6390109-10 09-109/1/199508-09 08-09District Code09-10ntdemically forrk and life.33839039038238236636633833533507-08 07-08ademically forwork and life.342342Enrollment by YeDate Opened50032529129103-04 03-04ent34834806-07 06-07tStudentsScholastic, MI 42860Demographics32505-06 05-06ABC Academy1234 Abacus Ave.1234Abacus Ave.Scholastic, MI 4286004-05 501502001001505010006.1%2.2%Fig. 5 2014The GovernorJohn EnglerCenterfor Charter Schools at Central Michigan University5) Compiled by: The Centerfor CharterSchools CentralMichiganUniversityNotes:Created: 5/27/2011 2:04:01 PM
88.7% General EducationEnglish Language Learners (ELL)2012-2013ABC AcademyABC ABCAcademyAcademyNotes: ABC AcademyFree andReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility9.4% ReducedELLStudentPop.Free igibility2012-2013Freeand ReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility2012-20132012-20132012-201390.6% General Education1)Sources:Fall 2011 , 2012 MEAP; Fall 2012 MSDS - Unaudited; Spring 2012, 2013 MME; Fall 2012 CEPI Public FRL DataNotes:Notes:Notes:2012-2013MEAP and MME Achievement ResultsFree and Reduced Price Lunch EligibilityFree and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility2)Numbers:A10.04.00;D40.03.001) ChartSources:1)Sources:Fall 2011Fall, Unaudited;MSDS-- Unaudited;Spring 2,2013MME;Fall2012CEPIPublicFRL DataDataNotes:Centertotals doSpringnot includeACEAcademyresults3)by: anUniversity2) CompiledChart ;D40.03.001) ChartSources:Fall20112012MEAP;Fall 2012MSDS- Unaudited;Spring 2012, 2013 MME; Fall 2012 CEPI Public FRL Data3) Compiled3)by: alMichiganCentralUniversityUniversity3)Compiledby: TheTheCenterforD30.03.00;Charter SchoolsSchoolsCentral MichiganMichiganUniversity2) ted:3)7/18/201312:12:10PM for Charter Schools Central Michigan UniversityCompiledby:TheCenter1) Sources: Fall 2011 , 2012 MEAP; Fall 2012 MSDS - Unaudited; Spring 2012, 2013 MME; Fall 2012 CEPI Public FRL 2:10PMPMUpdated: 7/18/2013PMD40.03.00COMPOSITE2) Chart 01312:12:103) Compiledby:TheCenter forCharterPMSchools Central Michigan UniversitySUBJECT/RESIDENTGRADEUpdated: 7/18/201312:12:10 PM2012-20132012-20132011-2012CHANGEDISTRICTSTATE AVERAGEReading 361.7%56.4%5.3%72.3%66.5%Reading 463.6%69.0%-5.4%67.6%68.1%Reading 579.3%60.0%19.3%74.4%70.4%Reading 666.7%70.6%-3.9%72.5%68.2%Reading 777.4%48.0%29.4%67.6%62.0%Reading 878.9%44.0%34.9%65.5%65.7%Reading 1172.7%57.7%15.0%59.8%53.5%Math 342.6%20.5%22.1%37.0%40.9%Math 452.9%23.3%29.6%40.2%44.9%Math 533.3%36.7%-3.4%39.3%45.7%Math 624.2%35.3%-11.1%37.3%40.2%Math 739.4%24.0%15.4%40.8%38.4%Math 826.3%12.5%13.8%32.4%32.5%Math 1128.1%20.0%8.1%34.5%28.6%62% Free62% Free62% Free62% Free9.6% Reduced9.6%9.6%ReducedReduced62% Free9.6% Reduced28.4% Reduced28.4% Not-Eligible28.4% Not-EligibleFig. 7General and Special Education StatusGeneralGeneraland 2-2013General andSpecialEducation Status2012-20132012-20132012-2013General and Special Education Status2012-2013General and Special Education Status2012-201311.3% Special n11.3% Special Education88.7% General %88.7%SpecialEducation88.7% General Education88.7% General EducationFig. 6Fig. 8English Language Learners s(ELL)(ELL)2012-2013English LanguageLearners (ELL)2012-20132012-20132012-2013English Language Learners (ELL)2012-2013English Language Learners (ELL)2012-2013*Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – Federal law that prohibits student identifiable education data from being publiclydisseminated. A group of 10 or less students is considered to contain student identifiable data.- - No Data Available.Note: Center totals do not include ACE Academy resultsNote: CenterNote: Centertotals dototalsnotdoincludenot includeACE AcademyACE AcademyresultsresultsNote: Center totals do not include ACE Academy resultsPrinted: 4/4/2014 2:34 PM9.4% ELL Student Pop.9.4% 9.4%ELL StudentELL StudentPop. Pop.9.4% ELL Student Pop.90.6% General Education90.6%GeneralEducationGeneralEducation9.4% 90.6%ELLStudentPop.90.6% General Education90.6% General EducationFig. 9Note: Center totals do not include ACE Academy -20132011-2012CHANGEDISTRICTSTATE 3 2011-20122011-2012 CHANGECHANGE ESIDENTReading .7%61.7%56.4%56.4%5.3%5.3%72.3%72.3% Reading 3 2012-201361.7%56.4%5.3%72.3%66.5%The CompositeResidentis a breakdown-5.4%of the traditional 67.6%public school districtsstudents would be assigned to if they were not enrolled in theReading463.6% District %68.1%Academy.list of those districtsalong with an illustratedthe Academy68.1%(red dot), including the surrounding traditional public schoolReading 4Below is a63.6%69.0%-5.4% map showing67.6%Reading5 Due to79.3%60.0% the map may19.3%70.4%districts.geographicalnot19.3%show all the 74.4%districts.Please referto70.4%the list for a complete 5579.3%79.3% constraints,60.0%60.0%19.3%74.4%74.4%70.4%A.G.B.U. Alexand Marie Manoogian School2012-2013Reading 579.3%60.0%19.3%74.4%70.4%Reading 666.7%70.6%-3.9%72.5%68.2%5Number ofPercent .7%70.6%70.6%-3.9%-3.9%72.5%72.5%68.2%68.2%Reading 666.7%70.6%-3.9% Macomb County 72.5%68.2%Students fromStudents Resident District Resident DistrictStudents' Resident DistrictABC6 chesterSouthfield62.0%Public School District11329.7%Reading 777.4%48.0%29.4%67.6%1Reading 878.9% West Bloomfield44.0%34.9%65.5%65.7%Public School 7.6%62.0%ReadingReading8878.9%78.9% 40 loomfieldSchool District4010.5%ValleyWaterford!( 15Oak Park, School District of the City nsity72.7%Quartiles:Hamtramck,School District of the City of348.9%Reading8 dingLowest11 25%72.7%57.7%15.0%59.8%53.5% SchoolsWarren Consolidated215.5%Bloomfield Hills4Math 3 25% - 50% 42.6%20.5%22.1% Warren37.0%40.9%LivoniaPublic Schools School .7%15.0%59.8%53.5%MathMath311 %ConsolidatedConsolidatedDetroit City School District102.6%8Math 50%3 - 75%42.6%20.5%22.1%37.0%40.9%321Royal OakWarrenWoods Public Schools82.1%Math 4 Highest oviDearbornHeights School District 421136Math 452.9%23.3%29.6%40.2%Dearborn 44.9%City School District61.6%!(4South LyonBerkleyMath 5 Miles33.3% 136.7%-3.4%39.3%45.7%SchoolDistrict of the City of Royal %45.7%1104Novi Community School District61.6%DetroitLivoniaFerndaleMath 533.3%36.7%-3.4%39.3%45.7%BloomfieldHills Schools51.3%105Math 4%39.3%45.7%WaterfordSchool 11.1%37.3%37.3%40.2%40.2%35Math 624.2%35.3% Dearborn -11.1%37.3%40.2%Ferndale PublicSchools51.3%HamtramckMath 739.4%24.0%15.4%40.8%38.4%NorthvillePublic ne 24.0%CountyEcorseMadison DistrictPublic Schools41.0%Math 739.4%24.0%15.4%40.8%38.4%TroySchool District41.0%WashtenawDearborn HeightsMath 826.3%12.5%13.8% .5%Other153.9%7Math 826.3%12.5%13.8%32.4%32.5%Woodhaven-BrownstownMath 1128.1%20.0%8.1%34.5%28.6%( 28.1%MathMath8 11 %8.1% 334.5%34.5%28.6%28.6%Total Numberof Districts: 28Math 1128.1%20.0%8.1%34.5%28.6%COMPOSITE RESIDENT DISTRICTWHERE YOUR STUDENTS COME FROMMath 1128.1%20.0%8.1%34.5% 2014 The Governor John Engler Center forFooterCharter Schools at Central Michigan University28.6%Fig. 10ABC Academy7
AS T UCD E AN T DA C HEI E MICPERFORMANCEVEMENTProof Point 5A - PS AchievementA.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolPerformance Series Spring ResultsSTUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSThe Center has established one educational goal: to prepare students academically for success in college, work and life. To determine whether or notReadingstudents who are continuously enrolled at the Academy are meeting, or demonstrating measurable progress toward this goal, specific achievement targets have been set for each grade, and are measured by the Performance Seriesby Scantron or NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)3300tests. The results of these tests are shown here, illustrating the Academy’s progress49%3100 toward this goal over the past three years.2049%51%2900MeasureScaled Score2700Prepare students academically for success incollege, work and life.Metric2500Achievement TargetTo determine whether the Academy is achievingor demonstrating measurable progress towardthe achievement of this goal, the Center willannually assess the Academy’s performanceusing the following measure:Scaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled ScoreSpring 2012-2013Spring 2012-2013Spring 2012-2013Spring 2011-201277Achievement TargetsAchievement TargetsAchievement TargetsMath3100UNDERSTANDING STUDENT 3001900GRADE15003002300262% Students Did Not Me30022010-201138% Students Met Target300238%38% Students Met Target62% Students Did Not Me2010-2011Achievement Targets62% Students Did Not Me2158For use in UTCAchievement TargetsFor use in 438%Students DidMet NotTarget61% StudentsMeAchievement TargetsFor use in UTC2345Spring 2011-2012Spring 2011-2012Charts (PS)Charts (PS)42% Students Met Target58% Students Did Not Meet Target215842%42% Students Met Target58% Students Did Not Me58% Students Did Not Me8300230%7 Achievement8Targets85 Spring 2012-201367 Achievement8TargetsSpring 2012-2013Achievement Targets6Spring 2012-2013730%2012-20132011-201237%2011-201239%63% Students Did Not Me2011-20122010-201137%Students Met Target30% StudentsStudents DidMet NotTarget63%Me70% Students Did Not Me2010-2011Scaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled Score70% Students Did Not30%Me70% Students Did Not Me8Achievement TargetsAchievement TargetsUpdated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PMChart 9 and 10PS ProficiencyCreated: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PMUpdated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PMChart 9 and 10PS ProficiencyCreated: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PMUpdated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PMPrinted: 6/14/20Printed: 6/14/20Charts (PS)Printed: 6/14/2042% Students Met Target58% Students Did Not Meet Target2761276130% Students Met Target30%30% Students Met Target34Spring2011-20125 Spring 2012-20136270070% Students Did Not Meet Target25002011-20127 ’sperformance demonstrates that students, on average, who 37%remain 37%continuouslyenrolled in the Academy are currently not on-track to beStudents Met Target37%2100210063% Students DidNot MeetTargetacademicallyprepared for success in college, work and life, as determined by the Academy’sCharterContract (average scaled scores equal to or greater2100Chart 9 and ment PStargets).Created: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PM37% Students Met Target23 2012-2013458GRADEScorecardSpring 2010-2011Spring 2010-2011Spring 2011-2012Spring 2011-201267Spring 2012-2013Spring 2012-2013788Achievement TargetsAchievement Targets70% Students Did Not Meet TargetGRADEPrinted: 6/14/2013 4:47 PM2345672761272530%70%Did Not Meet TargetPMStudents30% 4:47StudentsMet Target130030%Printed: 6/14/2013274717002010-2011Printed: 6/14/2013 4:47PM1500 Met Target2010-201130% d: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PMUpdated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PM26462359242021902Charts (PS)23591300GRADE13002190Charts (PS)¹ The1700EducationalGoal isCreated:describedSchedule7b of the charter contract.4/28/2011in3:32:42PM1500Updated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PM9 and information)10PS Proficiency* FERPApage(PS)17 forChartmore1500 (see Charts2761Updated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PMChart 9 and 10PS Proficiency170063% Students Did Not Meet TargetAchievement Targets2420Spring 2012-20132359Spring 2011-20122190Spring 2010-201142%70% Students Did Not Meet Target2010-20111300GRADE2Spring 2010-201158% StudentsDidNotTargetMeet Target58% StudentsDidNotMeet290030%27612725272527477 Achievement8Targets8272525002010-201176Spring 2012-2013Spring 2011-201242% Students Met Target70% Students Did Not Meet TargetScaled Score2500264615002010-2011Spring242023592190Scaled ScoreScaled SULTS30% StudentsStudents DidMet NotTarget63%Meet Target2747670%30% Students Met Target2010-201137%Students Met 042030% Students Met Target30%2010-201138%2011-2012363%37% Students Met Target63% Students Did Not Meet Target237%63% Students Did Not MeusedMathin determining whether or notas the average scores of studentswho werefor three or more years. The achievement target for37%each grade is illustrated. Additionally, student results from3300 enrolled33003300 by a horizontal red bar2012-20132012-201337%3100and 2012 are presented for reference.3100spring3100201130%42% Students Met Target42%42%29002042% Students Met Target37%Students DidMet NotTarget58% StudentsMeChart 9 and 10PS Proficiency2012-20132011-2012Created:4/28/2011 3:32:42 PM42% StudentsMet Target the 2012-2013 school year areThe scaled scores of students enrolledfor three or more years in the Academyduring42%Math37% StudentsStudents DidMet NotTargetMath58%MeetTarget37%Updated: 6/7/2013 1:29:14 PM63% Students Did Not Meet Target2011-2012the Academy met the achievement targets in reading and math. Studentare illustrated by the dark green barsCharts (PS)scores37% Students Met Target290058%42% Students Met Target37%30%2761272572725274727475 Spring 2012-2013610PS Proficiency Spring 2012-2013Spring2010-2011Chart 9 andSpring2011-2012For usein UTCCreated: 4/28/2011 3:32:42 PMFor use in 2012627252646534Spring2011-20124Spring 2010-2011Spring 2010-20112042%2012-201328941300GRADE2Spring 7%2420170013002012-201337%242021300GRADEPercent Meetingthe Target2011-201242%25972359 2359264615002012-201342%Scaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled Score2320For use in UTC82010-201139%Students Met Target2012-2013250424202190 2190Scaled ScoreFor use in UTC61% Students Did Not Me38%Math21500130062% Students Did Not Meet Target Spring 2010-201162% Students Did Not Meet Target2012-201342%Math3300290038% Students Met TargetFig. 12Math330038% Students Met Target8Spring 2012-2013Fig. 1162% Students Did Not Meet TargetFor useGRADEin UTCAchievement 22894628942941294129416 2012-2013Spring82010-201138%39% Students Met Target2320Spring 2011-20122894279127912941259758Achievement Targets2010-20111700150062% Students Did Not Meet Target2320Spring 2011-2012Spring 2010-201147738%2320Spring 2010-201136Spring 2012-201338%21582320Spring 2010-20115Spring 2011-201256821584572010-201121582Spring 2010-20114259725043Spring ng 033002900250031002700230039% StudentsStudents DidMet NotTarget51%Meet 2300Target2500290061%Students DidNot Meet Target61% Students Did Not MeetTarget250021002011-201239% Students Met Target270021002300230039% Students Met Target61% Students Did Not Meet Target 190061% Students Did Not Meet %Students Met Target1900150038% StudentsStudents DidMet NotTarget61%Meet Target2100190062% Students Did Not Meet Target150038% Students Met Target39%7Spring 2012-2013Spring 1239% Students Met Target49% Students Met Target2158GRADEGRADE15003427911300 0025971700310051% Students Did Not Meet Target39%2504210023172300190049%39%Spring 2011-2012330051% Students Did Not Meet Target270049% Students Met Target2011-2012259723172100250425008Math290049% Students Met Target2012-201361% Students Did Not Me39%38%Reading51% Students Did Not Meet 01900GRADE1500270023172300330029002900Math310049% Students Met Target2012-20132011-201249% Students Met Target39%Students DidMet NotTarget51% StudentsMeSTUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS51% StudentsDidNot Meet Target2012-201333002012-201349%Reading67Spring 2012-201349% Students Met Target49%STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS3100Scaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled ScoreScaled Score2500Reading330031002504Scaled Score270049%5Spring 2011-20122012-201333002012-2013STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSPerformance Series Spring Results23172900PerformanceSeries Spring ResultsReadingA.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian g 2011-2012Spring 2010-2011Performance Series Spring ResultsPercent MeetingA.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian School STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSthe TargetProof Point 5A - PS Achievement51% Students Did Not Me39%2345678PerformanceSeriesSpringResultsSpring 2010-2011FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS2012-2013Achievement % Students Did Not Me2011-2012Spring 2010-2011A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolA.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolSTUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSGRADE49% Students Met Targetis not sufficient in size to conduct a valid analysis, the cohort ofstudents enrolled for two or more years will be used. 49%39%17001300MATH38%49% Students Met TargetMORE YEARS,TO THE ACHIEVEMENT23 TARGETS4Proof Point 5A - PS Achievement AVERAGES FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE ORProofPoint AS5ACOMPARED- PS AchievementAchievementSeries Spring ResultsREADINGProof Point 5A - PSPerformanceReading202012-2013STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSSpring 2011-2012Performance Series Spring . Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolProof Point 5A - PS Achievement61%STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS3300Performance Series or MAP Spring ResultsSTUDENTSENROLLEDA.G.B.U. Alex and Marie ManoogianSchool39%STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THREE1 OR MORE YEARS, AS COMPARED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT TARGETSSpring 2010-2011of Point 5A - PS Achievement20The academic achievementThe average collegeStudents enrolled for three or more39%2300A.G.B.U. Alex and Marie Manoogian SchoolProof Point5A based- PS Achievementof all students in grades 2-7,readinesslevelonyears will on average achieve scaledPerformance Series Spring Results2100A.G.B.U.Alex and MarieManoogianwho have been enrolled forscaledscorestheSchool scores equal to or greater than theProofPoint5Afrom- PSAchievement1900Series Spring ResultsReadingthree or more years at thePerformanceor School Performancegrade-levelachievement targets forA.G.B.U. Alex andSeriesMarie Manoogian1700PerformanceSeriesAcademy, will be assessedMAP reading and mathreadingand SpringmathResultsidentified in this 38%Reading150049%using the following metrictests administered in theschedule.Reading130049%yearsenrolled for three or moreand achievement target: GRADE spring.2345 NOTE: If the6 cohort of students78Proof Point 5A - PS Achievement2158Educational Goal 18 2014 The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan UniversitySpring 2010-2011Spring 2011-2012Spring 2012-2013Achievement Targets37%30%
MathACADEMICPERFORMANCESTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT3100300029002800Scaled Score27002600250024002300Student Achievement measures whether2200or not students in middle and high school are on track to be successful in college, work and life as measured by the2100 Inc. These tests, administered annually in the subjects of reading, mathematics, science and English, reveal howEXPLORE , PLAN and ACT tests by ACT,2000students are performing against the achievementtargets derived from standards developed by ACT, Inc., which are aligned with expectations of colleges and19001800employers around the country. Whetherit’s college, a career or other pursuits, these targ
SCORECARD SCHOOL PERFORMANCE of Footer 2012-2013 Cover Created: 5/27/2011 2:35:44 PM Updated: 6/12/2013 10:04:44 AM . with the tools to be successful in college, work and life. Thank you for keeping kids first! Cynthia M. Schumacher . Scorecard provides an overview of the Academy's performance, as it relates to the Charter Contract. SCORECARD
Assign a scorecard template to a new scorecard to transfer the scorecard components and their weightings to the scorecard. To guarantee that the components on the scorecard cannot be removed or modified, lock the scorecard. See Chapter 8 of the Hyperion Performance Scorecard – Sy
How to Create a Successful Balanced Scorecard What is a Balanced Scorecard The balanced scorecard is a concept and tool first conceived by by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. The balanced scorecard idea debuted in the Harvard Business Review in 1992. "The balanced scorecard retains traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the .
Balanced Scorecard – “Strategic Performance Management System” The main component parts of BSC as Strategic Performance Management System are: the Desired Evolution State, the Strategy Map, the Performance Scorecard (or Balanced Scorecard) and the Initiative Portfolio. Balanced Scorecard / P
Human Resources Scorecard Human Resources Scorecard is a comprehensive system of measuring human resource performance by describing company vision, mission and strategy. The difference between human resources scorecard with balanced scorecard is that balanced scorecard measures a
Balanced Scorecard 5 Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (1996b). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85. Financial Performance Scorecard: Doing Things Right More Than Just Revenue and Expenses 6 Ruben, Brent, D. (1999, Fall). Toward A Balanced Scorecard for Higher
HR function, and firm leadership with respect to their impact on the workforce and ulti-mately upon a firm's strategic success. FROM BUSINESS SCORECARD TO HR SCORECARD Our approach starts with Kaplan & Norton's Balanced Scorecard, a familiar concept in most firms. While maintaining the scorecard's CUSTOMER SUCCESS BUSINESS PROCESS SUCCESS
the preparation of a blueprint for Balanced Scorecard development and implementation. BALANCED SCORECARD BASICS PROGRAM OUTLINE I. Module I: Understanding the Balanced Scorecard A. What is the balanced scorecard? . programs, such as, Certificate in Strategic Human Resource Transformation and Organization Development from the Penn State .
For AOl or A02 Transactions where abo·ve situations apply. 9 characters 853: Date (mm/dd/yy) DESCRIPTION: REQUIRED: LENGTH: ENTER: CODES DEFINED: EXAII1PLE: 033-1 c6/0084 2.105 (Rev. 05/90) ITEM 856 - DEMOTION REASON Explanation of employee's preference in voluntarily demoting or choosing a demotion other than that which was directed (e.g., layoff, reassignment, etc.). For A02 Transaction .
