| Summary of Exit Portfolio Spring 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall Programs Consists of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=36 |
Early Childhood (ECED) |
|
|
|
|
| N=3 |
Middle School (MLED) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N=23 |
Secondary School (SEED) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highly Effective=3,
Acceptable=2, Unacceptable=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| N=62 |
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 1 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
Criteria 8 |
Criteria 9 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
47 |
53 |
31 |
36 |
48 |
57 |
38 |
34 |
46 |
390 |
57.02% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
29 |
23 |
42 |
36 |
28 |
17 |
37 |
42 |
30 |
284 |
41.52% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
1.46% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
61.84% |
69.74% |
40.79% |
47.37% |
63.16% |
75.00% |
50.00% |
44.74% |
60.53% |
684 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
38.16% |
30.26% |
55.26% |
47.37% |
36.84% |
22.37% |
48.68% |
55.26% |
39.47% |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
0.00% |
3.95% |
5.26% |
0.00% |
2.63% |
1.32% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 2 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
47 |
29 |
44 |
35 |
35 |
190 |
50.00% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
29 |
45 |
29 |
40 |
40 |
183 |
48.16% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
1.84% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
61.84% |
38.16% |
57.89% |
46.05% |
46.05% |
380 |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
38.16% |
59.21% |
38.16% |
52.63% |
52.63% |
|
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
2.63% |
3.95% |
1.32% |
1.32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 3 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
Criteria 8 |
Criteria 9 |
Criteria 10 |
Critera 11 |
Criteria 12 |
Criteria 13 |
Criteria 14 |
Criteria 15 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
35 |
42 |
43 |
41 |
52 |
46 |
53 |
31 |
43 |
49 |
50 |
40 |
47 |
46 |
41 |
659 |
57.86% |
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
37 |
32 |
33 |
34 |
23 |
26 |
23 |
41 |
33 |
27 |
25 |
34 |
29 |
26 |
35 |
458 |
40.21% |
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
22 |
1.93% |
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
46.05% |
55.26% |
56.58% |
53.95% |
68.42% |
60.53% |
69.74% |
40.79% |
56.58% |
64.47% |
65.79% |
52.63% |
61.84% |
60.53% |
53.95% |
1139 |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
48.68% |
42.11% |
43.42% |
44.74% |
30.26% |
34.21% |
30.26% |
53.95% |
43.42% |
35.53% |
32.89% |
44.74% |
38.16% |
34.21% |
46.05% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
5.26% |
2.63% |
0.00% |
1.32% |
1.32% |
5.26% |
0.00% |
5.26% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
1.32% |
1.32% |
0.00% |
5.26% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 4 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
38 |
41 |
43 |
43 |
42 |
45 |
42 |
294 |
55.26% |
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
38 |
34 |
31 |
29 |
30 |
24 |
32 |
218 |
40.98% |
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
20 |
3.76% |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
50.00% |
53.95% |
56.58% |
56.58% |
55.26% |
59.21% |
55.26% |
532 |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
50.00% |
44.74% |
40.79% |
38.16% |
39.47% |
31.58% |
42.11% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
1.32% |
2.63% |
5.26% |
5.26% |
9.21% |
2.63% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 5 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
43 |
40 |
40 |
36 |
42 |
201 |
52.89% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
31 |
32 |
31 |
36 |
33 |
163 |
42.89% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
2 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
16 |
4.21% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
56.58% |
52.63% |
52.63% |
47.37% |
55.26% |
380 |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
40.79% |
42.11% |
40.79% |
47.37% |
43.42% |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
2.63% |
5.26% |
6.58% |
5.26% |
1.32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 6 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
42 |
39 |
41 |
122 |
53.51% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
34 |
35 |
34 |
103 |
45.18% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1.32% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
55.26% |
51.32% |
53.95% |
228 |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
44.74% |
46.05% |
44.74% |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
2.63% |
1.32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Overall
Programs Task 7 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
48 |
39 |
51 |
40 |
37 |
215 |
56.58% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
28 |
34 |
23 |
34 |
38 |
157 |
41.32% |
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
2.11% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
63.16% |
51.32% |
67.11% |
52.63% |
48.68% |
380 |
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
36.84% |
44.74% |
30.26% |
44.74% |
50.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
3.95% |
2.63% |
2.63% |
1.32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|