performance indicators presentation september 2011
DESCRIPTION
Performance Indicators Presentation September 2011. Increase academic achievement of each significant subgroup on CST, API, and AYP Data Increase percentage of students making annual progress and attaining English fluency as measured by CELDT - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Performance Indicators PresentationSeptember 2011
Increase academic achievement of each significant subgroup on CST, API, and AYP Data
Increase percentage of students making annual progress and attaining English fluency as measured by CELDT
Increase percentage of kindergarteners who master phoneme segmentation on DIBELS assessment
Increase the percentage of students in grades 1-3 reading at grade level on Fountas and Pinnell reading assessment
Performance Indicators 2010-2011
Increase percentage of students proficient in Algebra 1 on CST
Increase percentage of 10th graders passing CAHSEE
Increase percentage of students meeting A-G requirements
Increase Advanced Placement qualifying rate Increase number of students on track for PACE
Promise
Performance Indicators 2010-2011
K – 12 IndicatorsIncrease academic achievement of each significant subgroup
District Subgroups (100 or more students with valid scores) White (4,468 = 41%) Hispanic/Latino (4,983 = 46%) Asian ( 549 = 5%) Black/African American ( 352 = 3%) Filipino ( 344 = 3%) English Learners (3,798 = 35%) Economically Disadvantaged (2,989 = 27%) Students with Disabilities (1,472 = 13%)
Purpose, Report and Target for…
CSTCalifornia
Standards Test
• State Requirement
• Assess Students on CA Content Standards
• 5 Performance Levels
• Proficient/ Advanced Levels
APIAcademic
Performance Index
• State Accountability
• All Pupils Improving
• Scale from 200 to 1000
• 800
AYPAdequate Yearly
Progress
• Federal Accountability
• All You Proficient
• Criteria Met/Not Met -Participation rate -% Proficient -API Target -Graduation Rate
• 100% Proficient by 2013-2014
2011 CST Performance Comparison with County and State
72.6% 74.2%
60.0%54.0%54.0% 50.0%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
Lang Arts Math
SMUSD SD County State
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
+5+2+6+5+5+3
CST/CMA English Language ArtsPerformance by Ethnicity
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
+5+6+3+3
CST/CMA English Language ArtsPerformance by Program
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
-2-1-1
+1-1-3
CST/CMA MathematicsPerformance by Ethnicity
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
-2-1-4
-6
CST/CMA MathematicsPerformance by Program
Academic Performance Index
776 786810
833854
700
750
800
850
900
API
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
865
2010 API Results - County Context
Only 4 out of 12 Unified Schools in San Diego County have an API over 850.
Coronado Unified 896 (+9)
Poway Unified 887 (+5)
Carlsbad Unified 867 (+8)
San Marcos Unified 865 (+11)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramona City Unified 820
(+11) Valley Center-Pauma Unified 805
(+6)
Surrounding North County District APIs San Dieguito Union High 886 (+9) Carlsbad 867 (+8) SAN MARCOS UNIFIED 865 (+11) Ramona City Unified 820 (+11) Valley Center Unified 805 (+6) Vista 792 (+6) Oceanside 779 (+6) Escondido Union Elem 751 (+16) Escondido Union High 737 (+11)
API 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010-11 Growth
STATE 728 742 754 767
DISTRICT ALL STUDENTS 786 810 833 854 865 +11
WHITE 858 874 897 913 919 +6HISPANIC 710 741 764 789 803 +14AF. AMER. 780 805 825 838 843 +5ASIAN 892 915 944 953 961 +8FILIPINO 876 895 916 932 947 +15ECON. DIS. 698 732 753 785 789 +4
ENG. LRN. 683 720 733 767 789 +22
DISABIL. 589 619 614 670 682 +12
District APIIncrease Academic Achievement of each Significant Subgroup
API Coronado Poway Carlsbad San Marcos
All Students 896 887 867 865
WHITE 71% 904 56% 891 58% 895 40% 919
HISPANIC 17% 851 12% 805 26% 774 47% 803
AF. AMER. 2% 885 3% 797 2% 793 3% 843
ASIAN 3% 941 20% 947 7% 957 5% 961
FILIPINO 3% 919 8% 881 2% 910 3% 947
ECON. DIS. 6% 824 14% 781 22% 754 14% 789
ENG. LRN. 4% 820 18% 830 13% 729 36% 789
DISABIL. 11% 734 10% 708 10% 653 13% 682
Subgroup API Comparison:% of STAR Population and API
The Top 15 of 97 Middle Schools and 65 Public High Schools
MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOLCARMEL VALLEY/SAN DIEGUITO 971 CANYON CREST/SAN DIEGUITO 910MESA VERDE/POWAY 933 SCRIPPS RANCH/SD 883EARL WARREN/SAN DIEGUITO 925 TORREY PINES/SAN DIEGUITO 881OAK VALLEY/POWAY 909 CORONADO 872CORONADO 909 DEL NORTE/POWAY 864DIEGUENO/SAN DIEGUITO 908 WESTVIEW/POWAY 860SEMS 903 SMHS 859OAK CREST/SAN DIEGUITO 902 POWAY 854
BERNARDO HTS/POWAY 896 SAN DIEGUITO ACAD/SAN DIEGUITO 854
TWIN PEAKS/POWAY 893 BONITA VISTA/SWEETWATER 851BLACK MTN/POWAY 892 LA JOLLA/SD 849AVIARA OAKS/CARLSBAD 892 MIRA MESA/SD 846EASTLAKE MIDDLE/SWEETWATER 876 OLYMPIAN HIGH/SWEETWATER 845WPMS 872 RANCHO BERNARDO/POWAY 841MADISON/VISTA 871 MHHS 834
Unified School Districts2002-2014 AYP Targets
District Program Improvement in SD2011- 2012 Program Improvement Status for 41 Districts in San Diego County Receiving Title I Funds
Not In PI
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4+
16 7 3 2 13
2011 SMUSD English Language Arts AYP Performance
2011 SMUSD Mathematics AYP Performance
Safe Harbor: an alternative means to meet AYP.
If the number of students who are not proficient decreases by 10% of the number from the previous year, safe harbor may be applied.
Example: 100 students in the subgroup 60% of these students (60 students) were
not proficient in 2008-2009 If 10% of the 60 students (6 students)
reached proficient in 2009-10, safe harbor is applied.
Part. Rate
STAR Proficient and Advanced
CAHSEE Pass (380)
API Grad. Rate
Set Target 95%ELA/Math
ELA67.0%
Math67.3%
ELA Math 710 88.12%
All 100/100 72.6% 74.2% 89% passed
90%passed
865 88.56%
White 100/100 85% 84.5%
Hispanic 100/100 58.1% SH 61.9%
African Am. 99/99 70.2% 69.2%
Filipino 100/100 89.2% 90.4%
Asian 100/100 92% 94.7%
Econ. Dis. 100/100 54.3% 59.3%
EL 100/100 54.2% SH 60%
Students w/Disabilities
98/99 41.1% 42.7%
Adequate Yearly Progress 2010-11
The CELDT Assesses Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing. Reports five levels: Beginning, Early Intermediate,
Intermediate, Early Advanced, Advanced
For NCLB there are 3 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs), or targets, for the CELDT:
AMAO 1: The percentage of students making annual progress in learning English.
AMAO 2: The percentage of students attaining English Proficiency (Level 4 or 5 on CELDT).
AMAO 3: Adequate yearly progress for English Learner subgroup.
K – 12 IndicatorsIncrease English Acquisition rates for English LearnersCalifornia English Language Development Test (CELDT)
CELDTAMAO 1- % of Students Making Annual Progress in Learning EnglishAMAO 2 - % of Students Attaining English Proficiency on CELDT
53.559.657.4
67.8
23
56.861.7
26.1
52.1
01020304050607080
AMAO 1 AMAO 2 < 5 Years AMAO 2 > 5 Years
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
54.6%
18.7%
43.2%
Phoneme Segmentation FluencySegmenting single syllable words into their components
Example: cat = c/a/tOne of the top predictors of future reading success
Proficiency based upon number of sounds segmented in 60 seconds
K – 12 IndicatorsIncrease Percentage of Kindergartners who Master PhonemesDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
DIBELSDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
Deficit Emerging Established0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
3.0%
17.0%
80.0%
3.0%
14.0%
83.0%
4.8%
11.8%
83.2%
Percent Students at Each Level2009 2010 2011
Fountas and Pinnell Increase the percentage of students in grades 1–3 reading at grade levelFountas & Pinnell is a reading assessment that measures decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills
The information from this assessment enables teachers to:
• Determine students’ independent and instructional reading level
• Group students for reading instruction
• Select texts that will be productive for a student’s instruction
• Identify students who need intervention and extra help
• Document student progress across a school year and across grade levels
Fountas & PinnellPercent of Students Reading at Grade Level
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3*0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
63%56%
44%
75%63%
45%
75.7%66.5%
54.7%
Percent of Students at Each Grade* Grade 3 administered to “at-risk” students
only
2009 2010 2011
Algebra IPercent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced
28%34%
44%51% 54%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
In 1999, state law authorized the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Students in California public schools must pass CAHSEE in order to earn a High School diploma.
Only 10th grade pass rate is calculated in AYP. Pass rate for 10th-12th is included in API calculation.
9 – 12 IndicatorsIncrease Percentage of 10th Graders Passing the CAHSEE
Percent of 10th Graders Passing California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
81%83%82% 81%
84%86%86% 88%88.0% 88.0%89.0% 90.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
English Language Arts Math
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A – GStudents meeting UC / CSU entrance requirements.
These requirements are greater than those needed for graduation.
9 – 12 IndicatorsIncrease Percentage of Students Meeting A – G Requirements
Students Meeting A-G Requirements
46%50.50%
57.50% 60.00% 61.50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Qualifying Rate:
9 – 12 IndicatorsIncrease Advanced Placement (AP) Test Qualifying Rate
Number of AP Exams Passed (Score of 3 or better on a 5 point scale)
11th and 12th Grade Enrollment
Advanced Placement (AP) Test Qualifying Rate
42.00%45.50%
49.50%
58.00%
65.50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PACE PromiseSan Marcos Unified School District CSUSM Enrollees by Semester
Term Newly Enrolled
PACE Eligible
Fall 2011 109 68 freshmen + 88 continuing = 156
Fall 2010 125 64 freshmen + 46 continuing = 110
Fall 2009 121 47Fall 2008 104 29Fall 2007 77 25Fall 2006 48 18Fall 2005 35 12Fall 2004 28 9
SMUSD System-Wide Priorities
Deep Implementation of …
Standards-Based Instruction
The Essential Elements of Instruction
A Culture of Collaboration and Inquiry
Focus on Essential Standards/Common Pacing Guides
Test Score Analysis and Goal Setting Ongoing Monitoring-Common Interim
Assessments Disaggregated Data: “Know Students by
Name and Need” Targeted, Focused and Timely Intervention
Programs District-wide Articulation: Teacher Leaders
(EEI, Technology), Secondary Curriculum Council, Elementary Team Leaders
Structured Teacher Planning/Collaboration Time
Instructional Leaders as Administrators/Feedback Focused on Standards and EEI
Continued Professional Development
Continuous Improvement Strategies
Congratulations to the San Marcos Team for building a program that generates student