2017 ready accountability report · board presentation september 28, 2017 ... graduate as...

2017 READY Accountability Report

Board Presentation

September 28, 2017

1

VISION: ACHIEVING EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

MISSION: GUILFORD COUNTY STUDENTS WILL

GRADUATE AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS PREPARED

TO SUCCEED IN HIGHER EDUCATION, OR IN THE

CAREER OF THEIR CHOICE.*

*This mission was adopted by the Guilford County Board of Education on December 12, 2000.

Highlights

• Highest Graduation Rate Ever

• Science 8 Proficiency Above 70%

• Science 5, Math 1, and English 2 Proficiency Above 60%

• Large Proficiency Increases (4-5 pts) in Grade 4 Math and Math 1

• Better EVAAS Growth

4

Opportunities for Improvement

• Some EOC/EOG proficiencies flat

• Gaps persist:

• Racial/Ethnic Groups

• Economically Disadvantaged Students (EDS) /

Free-Reduced Lunch (FRL)

• Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

• Students with Disabilities (SWD) /

Exceptional Children (EC)

*EOC = End-of-Course Assessment

*EOG = End-of-Grade Assessment

5

GCS Class of 2017 Results

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate!

• 2017 Rate = 89.8%

• 2016 Rate = 89.4%

• 2015 Rate = 89.3%

• 82% of schools with graduation rates of 90% or higher

• 11 schools had graduation rates = 100%

• GCS has outperformed other large districts in NC

• Some progress in closing gaps in graduation rate

7

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates For NC & 5

Largest NC Districts: 10-Year Trends

8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

State 70.3 71.8 74.2 77.9 80.4 82.5 83.8 85.6 85.8 86.5

GCS 79.7 79.9 80.7 83.1 84.5 86.2 88.5 89.3 89.4 89.8

Charlotte 66.6 66.1 69.9 73.5 76.4 81.0 85.2 88.0 89.6 89.4

Cumberland 71.3 73.2 75.1 78.1 80.7 81.7 81.2 81.7 81.9 82.0

Forsyth 70.8 72.7 73.6 78.8 80.9 82.1 83.5 85.4 85.7 86.5

Wake 78.8 78.4 78.2 80.9 80.6 81.0 82.2 86.1 87.1 88.6

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates For NC & 5

Largest NC Districts: Past 5-Years

9

State GCS Charlotte Cumberland Forsyth Wake

2013 82.5 86.2 81.0 81.7 82.1 81.0

2014 83.8 88.5 85.2 81.2 83.5 82.2

2015 85.6 89.3 88.0 81.7 85.4 86.1

2016 85.8 89.4 89.6 81.9 85.7 87.1

2017 86.5 89.8 89.4 82.0 86.5 88.6

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates For GCS By

Race/Ethnicity: 10-Year Trends

10

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Asian 84.0 82.3 81.4 84.0 84.5 83.5 87.8 88.4 90.2 93.8

Black 72.0 73.8 75.5 78.0 81.2 83.5 86.9 88.0 87.9 87.8

Hispanic 68.8 68.4 68.5 75.1 78.1 81.2 82.5 84.6 80.2 83.2

White 87.8 87.4 88.1 90.4 90.4 91.2 91.8 92.7 93.4 93.1

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates For GCS By

Race/Ethnicity: Past 5 Years

11

Asian Black Hispanic White

2013 83.5 83.5 81.2 91.2

2014 87.8 86.9 82.5 91.8

2015 88.4 88.0 84.6 92.7

2016 90.2 87.9 80.2 93.4

2017 93.8 87.8 83.2 93.1

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates for GCS By

Race/Ethnicity & Gender: Past 5 Years

12

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male


2013 88.7 79.5 88.6 78.4 86.9 75.0 94.2 88.3

2014 87.1 88.5 89.8 83.8 86.2 79.3 93.8 89.9

2015 89.3 87.6 91.8 84.2 86.3 82.9 94.6 90.9

2016 90.0 90.4 89.8 86.0 84.2 76.7 94.4 92.4

2017 93.0 94.7 91.4 84.2 85.8 80.7 94.8 91.5

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates for GCS By

Other Student Groups: Past 5 Years

13

All Students EDS/FRL LEP SWD/EC

2013 86.2 81.7 65.1 67.4

2014 88.5 84.3 63.6 70.0

2015 89.3 84.9 64.7 69.8

2016 89.4 86.3 65.3 71.8

2017 89.8 86.6 70.1 72.0

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

Schools With 100% Rate

• Bennett Middle College

• MC at GTCC – Greensboro

• MC at GTCC – High Point

• NC A&T Middle College

• Penn-Griffin School of the Arts

• STEM Early College at NC

A&T

• The Academy at Central

• The Academy at Smith

• The Early College at Guilford

• UNCG Middle College

• Weaver Academy

Schools With 90% or Higher

• Andrews High

• GC Middle College

• Grimsley High

• MC at GTCC – Jamestown

• Northern High

• Northwest High

• Page High

• Ragsdale High

• Southeast High

• Southern High

• Southwest High

• Western High

14

North Carolina READY

Accountability Model

Indicators for All Schools

• Proficiency based on EOG/EOC assessments:

• Grades 3-8 ELA/Reading

• Grades 3-8 Math

• Grades 5 & 8 Science

• Math I

• Biology

• English II

16*EOC = End-of-Course Assessment*EOG = End-of-Grade Assessment

EOG/EOC Achievement Levels

• Level 1: Limited Command

• Level 2: Partial Command

• Level 3: Sufficient Command (Grade-

Level Proficiency

• Level 4: Solid Command (College &

Career Readiness)

• Level 5: Superior Command (College &

Career Readiness)

17

Performance Composites

• Grade-Level Proficiency Performance

Composite:

• % of all assessments scored at levels 3, 4, or 5

• College & Career Ready Performance

Composite:

• % of all assessments scored at levels 4 or 5

18

Indicators for All Schools

• School Performance Grades:

• 80% of grade based on grade-level proficiency

• 20% of grade based on EVAAS School Accountability

Growth

• 15-point grading scale used

19

Additional Indicators for High Schools

• 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

• ACT Proficiency• % of Grade 11 students with composite score of 17 or

higher

• ACT WorkKeys• % of CTE concentrator graduates at silver level of higher

• Math Course Rigor• % of graduates taking & passing high-level math courses

20

NC Proficiency Standards in Context

21

• 2015 Mapping Study: State Standards to NAEP

• New NC standards were rated a “B” for

rigor

• Ratings prior to the new standards ranged

from C- to F

• NC is currently ranked #41 among the 51

states & DC

22

English Language Arts/Reading: Grade 6 EOG Sample Question

What is the effect of the simile in paragraph 25?

A to show how surprised Liam was to see the fairy queen

B to describe the speed of the old woman’s movements

C to explain how much the fairy queen liked Liam’s choices

D to illustrate that Liam was confused by the old woman

This item requires the student to identify the simile and then identify its impact/its purpose in the story. This goes beyond reading a story and re-telling the main events.

23

Mathematics: Grade 8 EOG Sample Question

Limousine Company P and Company R both charge a rental fee plus an additional charge per hour.

The equation y = 50 + 30x models the total cost (in dollars), y, of renting a limousine from Company P for x

hours.

The table below shows the cost to rent a limousine from Company R for different lengths of time.

Which statement accurately compares the per hour charges of the two companies?

A Company P charges $5 less per hour than Company R.

B Company P charges $5 more per hour than Company R.

C Company P charges $25 less per hour than Company R.

D Company P charges $25 more per hour than Company R.

This item requires the student to compare properties of two functions, each represented in a different way (equation and table). This goes beyond simply determining the rate of change of a function.

2017 Proficiency Measures

Abbreviations Used

• GLP = Grade-Level Proficiency

• CCR = College & Career Ready Proficiency

• EDS = Economically Disadvantaged Student

• LEP = Limited English Proficient

• SWD = Student With Disability

• AIG = Academically-Intellectually Gifted

25

Overall GCS Performance Composites

Since New Standards

GLP = Grade-Level Proficiency (Levels 3, 4, and 5)

CCR = College & Career-Ready Proficiency (Levels 4 and 5)

*Re-calculated with new Levels introduced in 2014

PC 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GLP 52.5* 53.6 53.2 54.7 55.6

CCR 43.2 43.9 44.0 46.0 46.5

26

State and Large District Comparisons:

Overall Grade-Level Performance Composites

Grade-Level Performance Composite 2016 2017 Change

North Carolina 58.3 59.2 +0.9

Guilford County Schools 54.7 55.6 +0.9

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 61.2 61.2 0.0

Cumberland County Schools 56.8 57.3 +0.5

Forsyth County Schools 53.2 53.6 +0.4

Wake County Schools 67.9 67.2 -0.7

27

State and Large District Comparisons:

Overall College & Career-Ready

Performance Composites

College & Career Ready Performance

Composite2016 2017 Change

North Carolina 48.8 49.2 +0.4

Guilford County Schools 46.0 46.5 +0.5

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 52.8 52.2 -0.6

Cumberland County Schools 46.2 46.2 0.0

Forsyth County Schools 44.6 44.8 +0.2

Wake County Schools 59.6 58.8 -0.8

28

2017 Grade-Level Performance Composites

By Race/Ethnicity

29

All Students Asian Black Hispanic White

GCS 55.6 67.2 40.0 47.9 75.8

NC 59.2 80.9 40.3 48.5 71.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Per

form

ance

Co

mp

osi

te

2017 Overall Performance CompositesBy Other Student Groups

30

All Students EDS LEP SWD AIG

GCS 55.6 40.2 20.7 20.2 94.2

NC 59.2 44.2 21.3 22.8 95.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Per

form

ance

Co

mp

osi

te

End-of-Grade (EOG) Results

Reading Grades 3-8 Grade-Level Proficiency

• All grades above 50%

• Overall Grade-Level Proficiency Grades 3-8 increased

• Grades 5 through 7 increased from 2016

• Gaps persist:• Race/Ethnicity

• Gender

• EDS & SWD & LEP

32

EOG Reading Grade-Level Proficiency:

Past 3 Years

33

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2015 53.8 53.4 48.7 52.3 50.2 50.9 51.6

2016 53.9 51.3 48.7 54.9 53.0 50.4 52.0

2017 53.4 51.3 50.2 55.6 54.3 50.5 52.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

ency

EOG Reading Grade-Level Proficiency

Over Time By Race-Ethnicity

34

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Asian 56.4 56.1 55.8 59.6 61.6

Black 36.6 37.0 37.1 37.7 38.1

Hispanic 39.5 39.5 39.7 40.9 42.5

White 72.1 73.2 72.6 73.2 73.8

All Other 53.6 53.8 53.3 52.7 55.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 EOG Reading Achievement Levels

By Race-Ethnicity

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asian Black Hispanic White All Other

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Proficiency Gaps

• Within each racial-ethnic group, gaps for:

• Gender

• EDS/FRL

• LEP

• SWD

• Racial-ethnic gaps still present after controlling

for each of the above factors

36

Proficiency Gaps: Example with Gender

• Male-Female Gap Within Each Racial/Ethnic Group• Hispanic Females > Hispanic Males by 8.6 pts

• White Females > White Males by 4.7 pts

• Race/Ethnicity Gaps Within Each Gender• White Females > Hispanic Females by 29.3 pts

• White Males > Both Hispanic Males & Hispanic Females

• Racial/ethnic gaps exist after controlling for gender

37

2017 EOG Reading Grade-Level Proficiency

By Race-Ethnicity & Gender

38


Female 65.2 42.3 46.9 76.2 59.5

Male 58.2 34.1 38.3 71.5 52.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Proficiency Gaps: Example with Poverty

• Poverty Gaps Within Each Racial/Ethnic Group

• Black Not EDS > Black EDS by 20.5 pts

• White Not EDS > White EDS by 29.5 pts

• Race/Ethnicity Gaps Within Poverty Groups

• White Not EDS > Black Not EDS by 28.5 pts

• White EDS > Black EDS by 19.5 pts

• Black Not EDS ≈ White EDS

• Racial/ethnic gaps exist after controlling for poverty

39


By Race-Ethnicity & Poverty

40


Not EDS 70.3 52.1 48.7 80.6 69.7

EDS 51.0 31.6 38.8 51.1 44.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Proficiency By White Enrollment

• Proficiency for all groups is lower when schools are less integrated

• Research has shown that minority students [students of color] perform better on standardized assessments and have improved graduation rates in schools that are integrated. The effect is greater the earlier students enter integrated schooling.– Harris, D. N. (2006); Guryan, J. (2004)

41


By Race-Ethnicity & White Enrollment

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% +

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Percent White Enrollment By School

Black

Hispanic

White

less white more white

2017 EOG Reading Achievement Levels


43

0102030405060708090

100B

lack

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% +

% o

f St

ud

en

ts


Level 1 Level2 Level 3 Level 4 Level5


Proficiency Gaps: Example with LEP/ELL

• Gaps Within Each Racial/Ethnic Group

• Asian Not LEP > Asian LEP by 50.3 pts

• Hispanic Not LEP > Hispanic LEP by 36.1 pts

• Race/Ethnicity Gaps Within LEP Groups

• White Not LEP > all other racial/ethnic groups

• Asian LEP > Hispanic LEP by 28.5 pts

• Racial/ethnic gaps exist after controlling for LEP

44


By Race-Ethnicity & LEP Status

45


Not LEP 72.5 38.6 51.0 74.2

LEP 22.2 14.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Proficiency Gaps: Example with SWD

• SWD Gaps Within Each Racial/Ethnic Group

• White Not SWD > White SWD by 47.1 pts

• Black Not SWD > Black SWD by 31.3 pts

• Race/Ethnicity Gaps Within SWD Groups

• White Not SWD > All Other Not SWD

• White SWD > All Other SWD

• Racial/ethnic gaps exist after controlling for SWD

46


By Race-Ethnicity & SWD Status

47


Not SWD 65.4 43.6 47.7 79.9 62.5

SWD 17.3 12.3 12.2 32.8 20.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 Grade 3 Reading BOG to EOG

BOG-3 Level

Black Hispanic White

#

Students

% of

Students

% Passed

EOG

#

Students

% of

Students

% Passed

EOG

#

Students

% of

Students

% Passed

EOG

1 – Lowest 516 23.1% 2.3% 227 24.4% 3.1% 124 7.6% 9.7%

1 – Middle 420 18.8% 11.4% 187 20.1% 13.9% 145 8.9% 18.6%

1 – Highest 365 16.3% 31.0% 136 14.6% 38.2% 193 11.8% 49.2%

2 469 21.0% 59.1% 211 22.7% 68.2% 354 21.7% 77.7%

3 – 5 464 20.8% 90.5% 169 18.2% 96.4% 814 49.9% 97.7%

Total 2,234 100.0% 40.9% 930 100.0% 42.8% 1,630 100.0% 75.0%

48BOG = Beginning of Grade

• Grades 3 through 6 above 50%

• Overall Grade-Level Proficiency Grades 3-8 increased

• Grade 4 increased 4.5 percentage points from 2016

• Gaps persist:• Race/Ethnicity

• Gender

• EDS & SWD & LEP

49

Math Grades 3-8 Grade-Level Proficiency

EOG Math Grade-Level Proficiency

50

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2015 54.6 48.4 55.0 45.9 46.3 41.5 48.5

2016 60.0 49.4 54.8 50.6 46.3 42.2 50.6

2017 58.0 53.9 54.6 50.1 48.2 41.7 51.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

ency

EOG Math Grade-Level Proficiency


51

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Asian 63.0 62.7 61.7 65.5 67.3

Black 31.7 31.8 31.8 34.1 34.6

Hispanic 42.9 43.8 42.3 44.8 46.3

White 68.9 69.1 68.7 70.9 71.6

All Other 48.9 47.8 47.5 50.3 51.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 EOG Math Achievement Levels

By Race-Ethnicity

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts


2017 EOG Math Grade-Level Proficiency


53


Female 68.7 37.6 47.3 71.7 54.5

Male 66.0 31.9 45.3 71.5 48.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



54


Not EDS 76.8 47.1 53.0 78.6 65.9

EDS 55.7 28.9 42.2 48.2 39.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



55


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% +

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy


Black

Hispanic

White

2017 EOG Math Achievement Levels


56


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100B

lack

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

Bla

ck

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% +

% o

f St

ud

en

ts





57


Not LEP 76.8 34.9 52.9 71.9

LEP 32.9 24.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



58


Not SWD 71.0 39.9 51.2 77.3 58.3

SWD 24.8 10.3 17.4 33.9 15.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Science Grades 5 & 8 Grade-Level Proficiency

• Grade 8 increased from 2016 and is now above

70%

• Gaps persist:

• Race/Ethnicity

• EDS & SWD

• LEP for Asian & Hispanic students

59

EOG Science Grade-Level Proficiency

60

Grade 5 Grade 8 Grades 5 & 8

2015 58.5 65.9 62.5

2016 66.1 68.4 67.3

2017 65.2 70.1 67.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

ency

EOG Science Grade-Level Proficiency


61

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Asian 61.9 66.0 68.4 73.3 76.0

Black 40.1 44.7 46.5 54.3 53.6

Hispanic 45.5 53.1 54.4 61.7 62.6

White 75.8 79.4 81.7 84.4 85.2

All Other 58.8 59.8 66.2 66.9 73.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 EOG Science Achievement Levels

By Race-Ethnicity

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts


2017 EOG Science Grade-Level Proficiency


63


Female 77.3 54.7 65.3 85.9 76.9

Male 74.8 52.6 60.0 84.6 68.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 EOG Science Grade-Level Proficiency


64


Not EDS 84.4 66.6 69.0 90.3 83.9

EDS 65.8 47.2 58.3 67.2 64.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

End-of-Course (EOC) Results

EOC Grade-Level Proficiency

• Math 1 & English 2 increased proficiency

• Math 1 increased 4 percentage points

• Gaps persist:

• Race/Ethnicity

• Gender

• EDS & SWD & LEP

66

EOC Grade-Level Proficiency

67

Math 1 Biology English 2

2015 62.2 53.3 58.8

2016 62.8 54.1 59.2

2017 66.9 54.0 61.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EOC

Pro

fici

ency

EOC Grade Level Proficiency

• Similar results to EOG when disaggregate

• Focus on Biology – our lowest proficiency

68

EOC Biology Grade-Level Proficiency


69

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Asian 58.4 59.1 55.6 60.8 61.9

Black 36.8 38.3 37.1 37.2 37.3

Hispanic 46.2 51.5 41.8 42.5 44.4

White 76.1 75.9 73.5 75.0 73.6

All Other 55.3 55.9 54.5 56.4 56.1

0102030405060708090

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

2017 EOC Biology Achievement Levels

By Race-Ethnicity

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts


2017 EOC Biology Grade-Level Proficiency


71


Female 69.0 42.0 44.7 75.2 56.1

Male 55.2 32.3 44.2 72.1 56.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



72


Not EDS 78.1 51.4 55.3 78.1 71.6

EDS 48.4 29.8 38.9 52.8 38.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



73


Not LEP 73.1 37.8 51.5 74.9

LEP 16.0 6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy



74


Not SWD 64.1 42.2 47.9 78.1 63

SWD 11.3 14.3 25.5 17.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GLP

Pro

fici

en

cy

Other Performance Indicators

Other High School Indicators: ACT

Percent of 11th Grade Students Meeting

UNC Minimum ACT Composite of 17

2014 2015 2016 2017

NC 59.3 59.7 59.9 58.8

GCS 58.7 61.5 60.9 59.3

Charlotte 59.0 58.3 60.3 56.3

Cumberland 50.2 57.1 55.4 53.0

Forsyth 60.6 59.0 56.7 58.4

Wake 71.4 70.0 69.4 67.9

76

School Performance Grades &

Low-Performing Schools

School Performance Grades

School Performance Grades

2014 2015 2016 2017

# % # % # % # %

A or B 38 32.2% 38 31.9% 42 35.3% 41 34.4%

C 32 27.1% 34 28.6% 34 28.6% 36 30.3%

D or F 48 40.7% 47 39.5% 43 36.1% 42 35.3%

Totals 118 100.0% 119 100.0% 119 100.0% 119 100.0%

78

State-Identified Low-Performing Schools

79

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

# Schools Identified as Low-Performing

42 40 38

GCS State-Identified Low-Performing

Schools By Performance Grade

School Performance Grade

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

# % # % # %

D 30 71% 30 75% 32 84%

F 12 29% 10 25% 6 16%

Total 42 100% 40 100% 38 100%

80

State-Identified Low-Performing Schools

By Large Districts

81

District

2016 2017

# % # %

NC 489 18.9% 505 19.5%

GCS 40 33.6% 38 31.9%

Charlotte 25 14.7% 40 23.5%

Cumberland 11 12.6% 13 14.9%

Forsyth 32 44.4% 23 31.9%

Wake 13 7.8% 26 15.7%

GCS Alternative Accountability

Model Ratings

School

Model C Ratings

2014-15 (Baseline)

2015-16 2016-17

Christine-Joyner Greene Maintaining Maintaining Declining

Gateway Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining

Haynes-Inman Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining

Herbin-Metz Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining

SCALE-Greensboro Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining

Pruette SCALE Maintaining Declining Maintaining

82

EVAAS* Growth*Education Value-Added Assessment System

2017 EVAAS Growth

• Improvement since 2013

• More schools Exceeded growth

• Fewer schools Did Not Meet growth

84

GCS EVAAS Growth

EVAAS Growth -All GCS Schools

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# % # % # % # % # %

Not Met 38 32.8% 27 23.3% 23 19.7% 20 17.1% 16 13.7%

Met 54 46.6% 58 50.0% 60 51.3% 52 44.4% 63 53.8%

Exceeded 24 20.7% 31 26.7% 34 29.1% 45 38.5% 38 32.5%

Totals 116 100.0% 116 100.0% 117 100.0% 117 100.0% 117 100.0%

Met or Exceeded

78 67.2% 89 76.7% 94 80.3% 97 82.9% 101 86.3%

85

GCS EVAAS Growth

• Kiser Middle had 5th highest EVAAS in NC

• Northeast High had 11th highest EVAAS in

NC

• GCS had 20 schools in top 10% of EVAAS

growth in NC (out of 2,532 schools)

86

State and Large District Comparisons

2017 EVAAS Growth

87

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NC GCS Charlotte Cumberland Forsyth Wake

% o

f Sc

ho

ols

Not Met Met Exceeded

GCS 2017 EVAAS Growth By Subject/Grade

Grade Reading Math Science

3 Not Met

4 Not Met Met

5 Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded

6 Exceeded Exceeded

7 Exceeded Met

8 Exceeded Not Met Exceeded

EOCMath 1 Biology English 2

Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded

88

Schools that Exceeded Expected Growth:

High Schools (N = 18)

• Academy at Smith

• Bennett Middle College

• Dudley High

• Eastern High

• Grimsley High

• High Point Central High

• Kearns Academy at Central

• MC at GTCC-Greensboro

• MC at GTCC-High Point

• MC at NC A&T

• Northeast High

• Northwest High

• Page High

• Ragsdale High

• Smith High

• Southeast High

• Southern High

• Southwest High

89


Middle Schools (N = 9)

• Brown Summit Middle

• Eastern Middle

• Ferndale Middle

• Jackson Middle

• Kernodle Middle

• Kiser Middle

• Mendenhall Middle

• Northwest Middle

• Southern Middle

90


Elementary Schools (N = 11)

• Archer

• Colfax

• Guilford

• Hunter

• Jamestown

• Jesse Wharton

• Peck

• Reedy Fork

• Sedgefield

• Sedalia

• Summerfield

91

Summary of Results

Opportunities for Improvement

• Some EOC/EOG proficiencies flat

• Gaps persist:• Racial/Ethnic Groups

• Economically Disadvantaged Students (EDS) /

Free-Reduced Lunch (FRL)

• Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

• Students with Disabilities (SWD) /

Exceptional Children (EC)

*EOC = End-of-Course Assessment

*EOG = End-of-Grade Assessment

93

Areas to Build Upon

• Highest Graduation Rate Ever

• Grades 3-8 Reading and Math Proficiency Increases

• Science 8 Proficiency Above 70%

• Math 1 and English 2 increased proficiency

• Large Proficiency Increase in Math 1

• Better EVAAS Growth

• Rate of improvement exceeds NC large school districts

94

2017 ready accountability report · board presentation september 28, 2017 ... graduate as...

Documents