the opportunity quartile - boarddocs, a diligent brandfil… · opportunity quartile, which is 3...
TRANSCRIPT
DPS Board of Education
The Opportunity Quartile:
A Study of the Trends
December 4, 2014
Denver Plan Goals
• School readiness– By 2020, 80% of DPS third-graders will be at or above grade level in reading and writing.
• Ready for college & career– By 2020, the four-year graduation rate for students who start with DPS in ninth grade will increase
to 90%.
– By 2020, we will double the number of students per class who graduate college and career ready while raising the bar (adding Science and Social Studies in addition to English and Math).
• Support the whole child– By 2015, A task force, including DPS staff, community partners and city agencies focused on
providing services to DPS students, will recommend to the Board of Education a metric to measure this goal and track progress.
• Close the opportunity gap– By 2020, the graduation rate for African American and Latino students will increase by 30%.
– The proficiency in reading and writing for third-grade African American and Latino students will increase by 25%.
Overarching Goal:Great schools in every neighborhood
By 2020, 80% of students from every region within DPS will attend a high performingschool in their region, as measured by the district’s school performance framework.
2
Opportunity QuartileBackground
3
With the emphasis on the Opportunity Gap in the Denver Plan 2020, along with the latest TCAP results, the BoE and leadership team have prioritized understanding and addressing our opportunity gaps.
Opportunity Gap Research Questions
4
Potential Research Questions
Pro
file • What students are in the lowest quartile (demographics, achievement, behavior)?
• What schools do the lowest quartile attend?
Tre
nd
s
• Where were the lowest quartile of students when they came into DPS?
• When does the lowest quartile fall off-track?
• What schools are catching kids back up or preventing them from dropping into the Opportunity Quartile?
• What are the characteristics of the students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile?
Stra
tegi
es
• What outlier schools/classrooms should we quantitatively evaluate?
• What specific strategies from national research have been shown to support this lowest quartile of students?
• How have social/emotional supports been correlated with improvement with the lowest quartile of students?
• How have specific behavioral responses been seen to prevent or address behavioral issues that can lead to students falling off-track?
Addressed in the October presentation
Addressed in the current presentation
Will be addressed in the next presentation
Objectives
• Achieve a deeper understanding of the characteristics and trends associated with students in the Opportunity Quartile
• Understand factors that contribute to students moving out of the Opportunity Quartile
• Identify schools that have demonstrated consistent success in moving students out of the Opportunity Quartile
5
The Opportunity QuartileReview of Student Characteristics
The Opportunity Quartile represents the 25% of DPS students in grades
K-11 who are most in need of significant intervention from educators to
get them back on track, as evidenced by their most recent academic
scores in literacy.
6
Demographics:
Mostly:
• Minority
• Low income
• ELL students
• Males of color
over-represented
• Students with
Disabilities over-
represented
Schooling pattern:
• Lower attendance
rates
• Shorter
enrollment
• More disciplinary
incidents
School characteristics:
• Slightly lower parent
engagement &
satisfaction rates
*See the October Board presentation for detailed data on these characteristics
Methodology Used for Trends
In the previous Profiling analysis, we used the most
recent cohort of students. For this presentation, as
the emphasis is on trend, we go back and use our
2011 students as the baseline cohort and follow
them the next three years to trace their progress.
Students must have data in all four years and have
progressed from one grade level to the next each
year to be included in the trend analyses.
7
Methodology Used for Cut Scores
In order to track student movement, we use the baseline
year’s cut scores and apply them to the subsequent years
instead of sorting students into quartiles every year.
Therefore, it is possible to have no students in the
Opportunity Quartile if all students were able to score
above the cut score after the baseline year.
8
Q4
Q3
Q2
Q1
2011 2012 2013 2014
Cut scores held constant over the next three years
Methodology used for ELLs
• ELLs were excluded from the analysis if their scores were from a test in English AND they were on track* to become proficient in English, but were not yet re-designated (i.e., their reading scores were not an appropriate indicator of performance). On Track status was determined using the students’ CELA scores, as they were the measure of English proficiency in 2011.
• Students were included if their scores were from a test in English AND they were off-track*, as their lack of progress in acquiring English indicates that they needed additional support.
9*based on the CELA trajectory outlined in the next slide
Methodology used for Students with Disabilities
• We excluded students with significant disabilities who take CoAlt from this analysis. Similarly, students with significant disabilities who should not have taken the DRA or the Colorado ACT are excluded as well.
• The majority of students with disabilities taking the DRA, TCAP or the Colorado ACT do not have cognitive disabilities and should be performing at a level similar to their peers.
• Among the sub-groups within DPS, the biggest gap with state-level performance is DPS’ students with disabilities and, unlike the other subgroups in DPS, they have not been closing the gap with the state.
10
How is Off Track to English proficiency defined?
• In 2011, progress towards English Language proficiency was measured by the CELA trajectory.
• Students were expected to increase English proficiency by increasing their CELA scores in this progression:
• For example, students who had a CELA score of 2 in 2010 were expected to score at level 3 in 2011. If they scored at level 2, they were considered off track.
11
THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE:
ADDITIONAL PROFILING DATA
12
77%
7%
12%4%
All students in the analysis (2011 K-11 students)
• In 2011, about 23% of the students across all four quartiles were ELLs; however, 45%
of the Opportunity Quartile were ELLs.
• Of the ELLs, ELA-E programs have higher percentage of OQ students than the ELA-S
or Parent Opt-Out Programs; this could be due to the exclusion of on-track students
from the analysis.
ELLs students are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile, especially in ESL programs.
13
ELA-E students are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile
This identifies where the Opportunity Quartile students currently are and does not speak to program effectiveness.
55%
11%
26%
8%
Opportunity Quartile students in the analysis (2011 K-11 students)
Not an ELL
ELA-S
ELA-E
Parent Opt-Out
In the Opportunity Quartile, there is a larger proportion of students who
are off-track by 2 or more levels (22% compared to 14% of all ELLs in
this analysis).
ELLs in the Opportunity Quartile are more severely off-track to English pr0ficiency than students in the other quartiles.
14
0%
36%
38%
19%
3%
4%
ELLs in the Opportunity Quartile
Two Levels aboveExpectation
One Level aboveExpectation
As Expected or NewStudents
One Level belowExpectation
Two Levels belowExpectation
Three Levels belowExpectation
No Score
0% 1%
40%
41%
13%
1%
4%
All ELLs in the Analysis
Students with unknown ECE enrollment are slightly more likely to be in the Opportunity Quartile in Kindergarten.
15
• Students with unknown ECE enrollment are about 18
percent more likely to be in the Opportunity Quartile in
Kindergarten.
• That is, for every 6 students with ECE experience who
are in the Opportunity Quartile, there are about 7
students with unknown ECE experience in the
Opportunity Quartile.
ECE
Unknown ECE
Students with disabilities are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile
• In 2011, about 70% of the students with disabilities (with IEPs) were in the
Opportunity Quartile, which is 3 times the proportion of students without IEPs in
the Opportunity Quartile.
• Students with disabilities were over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile
(28% had IEPs) whereas the other quartiles had lower than district’s overall
proportion of students with disabilities (11%) .
16
23%
70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Students without IEPs Students with IEPs
% of Students in the Opportunity Quartile By IEP Status
28%
8%4% 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
% of Students with IEPs by Quartile
THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE TRENDS
17
The Opportunity QuartileSummary of Trends
• Students tend to stay in the same quartile year after year.
• Generally, the younger the student, the more likely they are to move out of the
Opportunity Quartile within 3 years. However, DPS high schools have seen large
percentages of students moving out of the Opportunity Quartile.
• Students who move out of the Opportunity Quartile typically transition to the next
highest quartile and remain there over time.
• Third Graders in the Opportunity Quartile typically began there in Kindergarten.
• Although rare, there are schools that have had success in moving students out of the
Opportunity Quartile, even when controlling for student demographics.
• Factors that contribute to moving out of the Opportunity Quartile differ by ed level,
but the percentage of FRL, ELL, and students with disabilities, along with attendance
rates, tend to be strong predictors of a school’s ability to move students out of the
Opportunity Quartile within one year.
18
Students in Q1 and Q4 tend to stay in the same quartile over time
56%
17%
3%
31%
40%
19%
3%
11%
31%
47%
18%
2%
12%
31%
79%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2011 Q1(N=7544)
2011 Q2(N=8834)
2011 Q3(N=6339)
2011 Q4(N=7694)
% of Students
Movement between Quartiles within 3 Years
2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4
19
79% of the top quartile students remained in the top quartile range
three years later.
56% of the Opportunity Quartile students remained in the
Opportunity Quartile range three years later.
• Even in Kindergarten, the reading achievement gap between students in the Opportunity Quartile and the top quartile is evident. Students in Q4 were reading at least 3 text levels higher than students in the Opportunity Quartile.
The achievement gaps are very large even in the early grades.
20
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
P A 01 02 03 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 28
Nu
mb
er o
f St
ud
ents
Text Level
Kindergarten Students' Spring 2011 DRA/EDL Performance
Opportunity Quartile Q2 Q3 Q4
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
K→3 (N=1914)
1→4 (N=851)
2→5 (N=817)
3→6 (N=759)
4→7 (N=750)
5→8 (N=672)
6→9 (N=745)
7→10 (N=602)
8→11 (N=434)
Grade Level Progression
% of Students Moving Out of OQ
• A kindergartner’s chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade is greater than the chance of staying in the quartile.
• In high school, the rates rise again, possibly due to the exclusion of students who repeated a grade or dropped out.
However, the younger the student, the more likely they are to move out of the Opportunity Quartile range within three years
21
Students’ FRL status, ethnicity, IEP status, gender are strongly related to their chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.
• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were in the Opportunity
Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what percentage moved
out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.
22
62%
77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FRL (N=1541) Non-FRL (N=291)
FRL Status
50%
85%
58% 61%
82% 79%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Race/Ethnicity
71%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female (N=892) Male (N=1033)
Gender
33%
74%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
IEP (N=454) No IEP (N=1471)
IEP Status
A smaller % of FRL students moved
out of Q1 compared to Non-
FRL students.
Students’ ELL status, native language, ECE enrollment, and attendance are weakly related to their chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.
• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were in the Opportunity
Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what percentage moved
out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.
23
62% 64%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
English (N=900) Spanish (N=896)
Native Language
64% 65%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Unknown ECE(N=1012)
ECE (N=913)
ECE Enrollment
93.2%94.5%
88.0%
90.0%
92.0%
94.0%
96.0%
98.0%
100.0%
Move Out of Q1(N=690)
Stayed in Q1 (N=1235)
Attendance RateBoth ELL and Non-ELL groups
have similar % of students moving
out of Q1.
63% 64%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non ELL (N=774) ELL (N=1228)
ELL Status
A school’s ability to move students out of the Opportunity Quartile range is NOT strongly determined by student demographics.
Contribution of different factors on student movements
Factor Elem K-8 Middle High
Year 2.9%
Mobility Rate 2.5% 0.7%
SPED% 12.4% 2.8% 1.4%
FRL% 14.7% 17.4% 3.0%
ELL% 3.9% 9.7%
GenderBlack or Hispanic % 4.3% 2.7%
Attendance Rate 15.6% 34.9%Unknownfactors 64.7% 85.0% 67.0% 54.5%
24
• As shown in the previous slides,
demographics account for some of
district-wide student movement among
the quartiles. However, a school’s ability
to move students out of the Opportunity
Quartile is mostly explained by factors
that are not student demographics like
race or gender.
• Attendance rates of high school students
have a strong impact on students’
moving out of Q1 within a year,
accounting for 35% of the schools’ ability
to move students out of the Opportunity
Quartile.
• Unknown factors may include classroom
characteristics, educational programs,
instruction practices, or other
opportunities that DPS can provide.
Schools that beat the odds in moving students out of the Opportunity Quartile range for 2 out of 3 years
• Based on the predicting factors listed on the previous slide, schools
have a predicted percentage (e.g., the odds) of students moving out
of the Opportunity Quartile.
• Because of the lack of predictability based on demographics, it is
difficult to identify schools that consistently beat their odds in
moving the students out of the Opportunity Quartile.
• The only schools that succeeded in beating the odds by moving
more than an expected percentage of students out of the
Opportunity Quartile for two out of three years were
– Traylor Academy
– DSST: Green Valley Ranch HS
25
Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile had Reading MGPs quite a bit above 50, while students who stayed in the Opportunity Quartile had Reading MGPs at or below 50.
Note that it is extraordinarily unusual for a school to have MGPs above 65 consistently in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (only 1% of all Colorado schools).
High academic growth is needed to move out of the Opportunity Quartile range
26
0102030405060708090
100
2012
(4t
h G
r)
2013
(5t
h G
r)
2014
(6t
h G
r)
2012
(5t
h G
r)
2013
(6t
h G
r)
2014
(7t
h G
r)
2012
(6t
h G
r)
2013
(7t
h G
r)
2014
(8t
h G
r)
2012
(7t
h G
r)
2013
(8t
h G
r)
2014
(9t
h G
r)
2012
(8t
h G
r)
2013
(9t
h G
r)
201
4 (1
0th
Gr)
2011 3rdGraders
2011 4thGraders
2011 5thGraders
2011 6thGraders
2011 7thGraders
Students who Moved Out of the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth
Median Growth Percentile State median
0102030405060708090
100
201
2 (4
th G
r)
201
3 (5
th G
r)
201
4 (6
th G
r)
2012
(5t
h G
r)
201
3 (6
th G
r)
201
4 (7
th G
r)
201
2 (6
th G
r)
201
3 (7
th G
r)
201
4 (8
th G
r)
201
2 (7
th G
r)
201
3 (8
th G
r)
201
4 (9
th G
r)
201
2 (8
th G
r)
201
3 (9
th G
r)
2014
(10
th G
r)
2011 3rdGraders
2011 4thGraders
2011 5thGraders
2011 6thGraders
2011 7thGraders
Students who Stayed in the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth
Median Growth Percentile State median
• Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile range had MGPs that
were much closer to their Adequate Growth Percentiles than the students
who stayed in the quartile.
Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile range demonstrated growth that was more in line with their adequate growth percentiles.
27
0102030405060708090
100
2012
(4t
h G
r)
2013
(5t
h G
r)
2014
(6t
h G
r)
2012
(5t
h G
r)
2013
(6t
h G
r)
2014
(7t
h G
r)
2012
(6t
h G
r)
2013
(7t
h G
r)
2014
(8t
h G
r)
2012
(7t
h G
r)
2013
(8t
h G
r)
2014
(9t
h G
r)
2012
(8t
h G
r)
2013
(9t
h G
r)
2014
(10
th G
r)
2011 3rdGraders
2011 4thGraders
2011 5thGraders
2011 6thGraders
2011 7thGraders
Students who Stayed in the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth
Median Growth Percentile Median Adequate Growth Percentile
0102030405060708090
100
2012
(4t
h G
r)
2013
(5t
h G
r)
2014
(6t
h G
r)
2012
(5t
h G
r)
2013
(6t
h G
r)
2014
(7t
h G
r)
2012
(6t
h G
r)
2013
(7t
h G
r)
2014
(8t
h G
r)
2012
(7t
h G
r)
2013
(8t
h G
r)
2014
(9t
h G
r)
2012
(8t
h G
r)
2013
(9t
h G
r)
2014
(10
th G
r)
2011 3rdGraders
2011 4thGraders
2011 5thGraders
2011 6thGraders
2011 7thGraders
Students who Moved Out of the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth
Median Growth Percentile Median Adequate Growth Percentile
• About 70% of the students who
are in the Opportunity Quartile
in 3rd grade in 2014 started in
the Opportunity Quartile in
Kindergarten.
• About 30% of students started
in higher quartiles in
kindergarten and dropped to
the Opportunity Quartile by the
end of 2014.
Most students in the Opportunity Quartile in 2014 started in the Opportunity Quartile in 2011.
28
34 students (1%) were in Q4 3 years ago
184 students (3%) were in Q3 3 years ago
1486 students (25%) were in Q2
3 years ago
4214students (71%) were in the
Opportunity Quartile
3 years ago
5918students in
the Opportunity Quartile in
2014
Kindergarten 2011
Third Grade 2014
Every grade level has slightly below 10% of students dropping down to the
Opportunity Quartile range. The 2011 7th grade cohort had a smaller
percentage, possibly due to the exclusion of repeaters and dropouts.
The students dropping into the Opportunity Quartile range are found in every grade level at similar rates
29
7% 7% 8% 7% 9% 9% 6% 4%11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
K→3 1→4 2→5 3→6 4→7 5→8 6→9 7→10 8→11
Grade
Percent of Students Dropping into the Opportunity Quartile within 3 years (By Grade)
Students’ FRL status, ethnicity, and IEP status are strongly related to their chance of dropping into the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.
• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were not in the
Opportunity Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what
percentage dropped into the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.
30
10%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
FRL (N=1884) Non-FRL (N=1216)
FRL Status
0%
9%10%
1%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
NativeAmerican
(N=15)
Asian(N=83)
Black(N=320)
Hisapnic(N=1634)
White(N=993)
Hawaiian(N=3)
Two orMore
(N=98)
Race/Ethnicity
19%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
IEP (N=219) No IEP (N=2928)
IEP Status
10 % of FRL students dropped
down to Q1 compared to 1%
Non-FRL students.
Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4, and therefore they had a higher likelihood of dropping down to the Opportunity Quartile.
• Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in
much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4, and therefore they had a
higher likelihood of dropping down to the Opportunity Quartile.
Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4.
31
0%
50%
100%
Q2 Q3 Q4
% Students Receiving FRL in Each Quartile above Q1
0%
5%
10%
15%
Q2 Q3 Q4
% Students with IEPs in Each Quartile above Q1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Q2 Q3 Q4
Ethnicity Representation in each Quartile above Q1
NativeAmericanAsian
Black
Hispanic
White
PacificIslanderTwo or More
Other factors related to students dropping to the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade include ELL status, gender, native language, ECE enrollment and attendance rates.
32
5%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Female(N=1658)
Male (N=1489)
Gender
5%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
English (N=1981) Spanish(N=1047)
Native Language
6%8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Unknown ECE(N=1464)
ECE (N-1683)
ECE Enrollment
95.4%94.0%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Dropped to Q1 Did not drop toQ1
Attendance Rate
• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were not in the
Opportunity Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what
percentage dropped into the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.
5%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Non ELL(N=1796)
ELL (N=1197)
ELL Status
Schools with large percent of FRL have more challenge with preventing students dropping into the Opportunity Quartile.
Contribution of different factors on student movements
Factor Elem K-8 Middle High
Year 2.62% 2.88%
Mobility Rate
SPED% 0.98% 0.44%
FRL% 48.10% 54.58% 13.62%
ELL% 7.69% 26.44% 0.28% 5.09%
Gender 1.33% 1.13% 1.61%
Black or Hispanic % 20.03% 1.85% 6.45%Attendance Rate 0.88% 2.92% 12.08% 28.27%Unknownfactors 38.40% 50.61% 25.65% 42.68%
33
• A school’s FRL percentage
strongly predicts its percentage
of students dropping down to
the Opportunity Quartile,
especially for elementary and
middle schools.
• In K-8 schools, ELL status and
race correlate strongly with the
drop.
• Again, low attendance rates of
high schools students have a
strong impact on their dropping
down to the Opportunity
Quartile within a year.
Noel Community Arts HS prevent students from dropping into the Opportunity Quartile for 3 consecutive years.
• Based on the predicting factors listed on the
previous slide, schools have a predicted
percentage (e.g., the odds) of students dropping
into the Opportunity Quartile.
• It is very rare to consistently beat the odds in
preventing students from dropping into the
Opportunity Quartile
– Noel Community Arts HS has been dropping
less students than expected in the last 3 years.
34
THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE TREND:
DOCUMENTING PROGRESS
35
Tracking Our Progress
Because there will always be 4 quartiles, we will not sort students into quartiles each year.
We will use the new CMAS Literacy scores of 2015 to identify the score that defines the Opportunity Quartile in 2015 and measure our success in helping students perform above that cut score.
36
NEXT STEPS:
What strategies would you like to explore based on the profile and trend information shared today?
37
APPENDIX A
KINDERGARTEN ANALYSIS
What do we know about Kindergartners who started in the Fall school-ready but dropped below grade level by end of the year?
38
How many school-ready Kindergartens fell below grade level by the end of the year?
• Students are considered school-ready for Kindergarten if they scored “gaining or control” for 4 of the 7 Word Analysis tasks assessed in the Fall.
• In 2013-14, of the 2439 Kindergarten students who were school-ready in the Fall, only 5% (121 students) finished the year reading below grade level. Because all assessments have measurement errors*, it is possible that this small percentage overlaps with the measurement error and not completely reflect student performance.
Due to the small number of these students, the
following analyses are to be interpreted with caution.
*Measurement error=discrepancy between measured
performance and the actual performance.
39
2318, 95%
121, 5%
Stayed at grade level
Fell below grade level
What factors predict school-ready Kindergarteners falling below grade by end of the year?
40
• Student Ethnicity is the only
demographic that predicts which
students were school-ready in the
Fall but were below grade level by
end of Kindergarten. However, only
8% of the drop pattern is explained
by ethnicity differences. Using such
low prediction value to predict the
fall-below-grade percentage will
yield inaccurate data.
• Most of the time, students fall below
grade level due to factors that are
not explained by demographics.
Factors like instruction, program
effectiveness, and parental
involvement are not captured here.
2%
7%7% 8%
3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Percent of Kindergartners Falling Below Grade Level
Fell below grade level
• Because Ethnicity overlaps with FRL and attendance, these factors also are
closely related to the percentages of students falling below grade level.
What other factors are related to school-ready Kindergarteners falling below grade by end of the year?
41
91%
95%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Fell Below Grade Level Stayed at Grade Level
Attendance Rate during Kindergarten
3%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Non-FRL (N=1319) FRL (N=1120)
FRL Status
Fell Below Grade Level
• Having attended preschool or not does not have much impact on students falling
below grade level after being school-ready at the beginning of Kindergarten.
• Students who fell below grade level came from 41 different preschools. There were
no specific schools with substantially more students falling below grade.
Did the school-ready Kindergartners who fell below grade level attend preschool and where?
42
4%6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Unknown EC EC
Preschool Enrollment
% of School-Ready Kinders who Fell Below Grade Level
• Of the 64 elementary schools that had at least 15 school-ready Kindergarten students, 24 had more than 5% (district average) of
students fall below grade level. These, however, are usually a few students. The list below is based on the actual numbers and
not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds cannot be predicted accurately because demographics account for so little
of students’ pattern in falling below grade level.
In what elementary schools are more school-ready students falling below grade level in kindergarten?
43
School NameTotal School-Ready
Kindergarteners# Fell Below Grade Level
% Fell Below Grade Level
Hallett Fundamental Academy 15 5 33%
Creativity Challenge Community (C3) 33 6 18%
Valverde Elementary School 18 3 17%
Valdez Elementary School 19 3 16%
Farrell B. Howell ECE-8 School 20 3 15%
Downtown Denver Expeditionary School 20 3 15%
Force Elementary School 32 4 13%
Smith Renaissance School 16 2 13%
Omar D Blair Charter School 25 3 12%
Brown International Academy 42 5 12%
Schmitt Elementary School 19 2 11%
School Name
Total School-Ready
Kindergarteners# Fell Below Grade Level
% Fell Below Grade Level
Centennial School 29 3 10%
Marrama Elementary School 30 3 10%
Denison Montessori 30 3 10%
Florida Pitt-Waller 33 3 9%
Lincoln Elementary 36 3 8%
Stephen Knight Ctr for Early Education 76 6 8%
Monarch Montessori 26 2 8%
Steele Elementary 52 4 8%
Holm Elementary 27 2 7%
Bradley International 47 3 6%
Goldrick Elementary 16 1 6%
Samuels Elementary 33 2 6%
Stedman Elementary 18 1 6%
CONVERSELY…
What do we know about Kindergartners who started in the Fall not school-ready but were able to catch up to be at grade level by the end of the year?
44
How many non-ready Kindergarten were at grade level by end of the year?
• Of the 4147 students who were not school-
ready for Kindergarten (having less than 4
of the 7 Word Analysis tasks in the Fall),
56% were able to catch up and read at
grade level by end of Kindergarten.
45
2343, 56%
1804, 44% Caught Up to Grade Level
Stayed Below Grade Level
What factors predict the non-ready Kindergarteners’ catching up to grade level?
46
• Attendance rate is the only factor
that predicts a school’s percentage
of student who were not school-
ready in the Fall but were on grade
level by end of Kindergarten.
However, only 12% of the catch-up
pattern is explained by differences in
attendance rates. Using such low
prediction value to predict the catch
up percentages will yield inaccurate
data.
• Most of the time, students fall below
grade level due to factors that are
not explained by demographics.
Factors like instruction and program
effectiveness, for example, are not
captured here.
*Attendance accounts for .12 of the R2 in the regression model.
91.4%
93.7%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Stayed Below GradeLevel
Caught Up to GradeLevel
Attendance Rate during Kindergarten
• Because Attendance overlaps with FRL and ethnicity, these
factors also are closely related to the percentages of these
students.
What other factors are related to the non-ready Kindergarteners’ catching up to grade level?
47
41%52% 51% 55%
70%61%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
NA/AI(N=17)
Asian(N=161)
Black(N=546)
Hispanic(N=2762)
White(N=547)
HI/PI(N=14)
Two+(N=98)
Ethnicity
% Caught Up to Grade Level
55%67%
0%
50%
100%
FRL (N=3465) Non-FRL (N-672)
FRL Status
Caught Up to Grade Level
• Having attended preschool or not has some impact on students catching up to grade
level after starting not school-ready at the beginning of Kindergarten.
• Students who caught up to grade level came from 82 different preschools.
Did the non-ready Kindergartners who caught up attend preschool and where?
48
53%61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Unknown EC (N=2263) EC (N=1885)
% of School-Ready Kinders who stayed below grade Level
• Of the 93 elementary schools that had at least 15 Kindergarten students who were not school-ready, the
following 23 were able to catch up at least 70% of the students to be at grade level by the end of the year. .
The list below is based on the actual numbers and not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds
cannot be predicted accurately because demographics account for so little of students’ pattern in catching
up.
What elementary schools are accelerating the students who were not school-ready?
49
School
Number of Not-Ready Students
# Caught Up to Grade
Level
%Caught Up to Grade
Level
Ellis Elementary School 43 38 88%
The Odyssey School 17 15 88%
Trevista 25 22 88%
Slavens K-8 School 16 14 88%
Escalante-Biggs Academy 117 101 86%
Swigert 27 23 85%
McMeen Elementary 56 47 84%
McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School 16 13 81%
Whittier Elementary School 34 27 79%
University Park Elementary School 34 27 79%
Stephen Knight Ctr for Early Education 23 18 78%
Park Hill School 36 28 78%
School
Number of Not-Ready Students
# Caught Up to Grade Level
%Caught Up to Grade Level
Steck Elementary School 22 17 77%
Montclair Elementary 44 34 77%
Carson Elementary School 21 16 76%
Edison Elementary School 42 31 74%
Cheltenham Elementary School 53 39 74%
Green Valley Elementary School 68 49 72%
Newlon Elementary School 57 41 72%
William (Bill) Roberts K-8 School 21 15 71%
Ashley Elementary School 37 26 70%
Doull Elementary School 80 56 70%
Traylor Academy 43 30 70%
APPENDIX B
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
50
Who are our ECE students?
• Almost half of DPS Kindergarten students
came from a DPS EC program.
• Most of our current EC students come
from low income families and
Black/Hispanic ethnic groups (about the
same percentages as district-wide
numbers).
This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.
Preschool Student Enrollment and FRL data
This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.
*Families in community agencies supported with funds through DPS Early Education Department
Preschool Students Ethnicity Data
This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.
APPENDIX C
FIRST GRADE ANALYSIS
What do we know about students who were at grade level by the end of Kindergarten but fell below grade level at the end of 1st grade?
54
How many at-grade-level Kindergarten students fell below grade by end of 1st grade?
• Of the 4313 who were reading at grade
level* at the end of Kindergarten in 2013,
16% (672) fell below grade level at the end
of 1st grade in 2014.
55
84%
16%
Stayed at Grade Level
Fell Below Grade Level
*DRA or EDL text level 4
What factors predict at-grade-level Kindergarten students falling below grade by end of 1st grade?
56
• Student FRL status is the only factor
that predicts a school’s percentage
of students who were at grade level
at the end of Kindergarten but below
grade level at the end of 1st grade.
However, only 12% of the drop
pattern is explained by differences in
FRL status. Using such low prediction
value to predict the falling-below-
grade percentages will yield
inaccurate data.
• Most of the time, students fall below
grade level due to factors that are
not explained by demographics.
Factors like instruction and program
effectiveness, for example, are not
captured here.
9%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Non-FRL (N=1597) FRL (N=2695)
FRL Status
Fell Below Grade Level
• Because FRL overlaps with ethnicity and attendance, these
factors also are closely related to the percentages of these
students.
What other factors are related to at-grade-level Kindergarten students falling below grade by end of 1st grade
57
94.23% 95.30%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Fell Below Grade Level Stayed on Grade Level
Attendance Rate during 1st Grade
18%22%
18%15%
11%9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Asian(N=136)
Black(N=524)
HI/PI(N=12)
Hispanic(N=2089)
NA/AI(N=20)
Two +(N=178)
White(N=1354)
Race/Ethnicity
Fell Below Grade Level
• Of the 100 schools that had at least 15 at-grade-level Kindergarten students, 28 had more than 20% of students fall below
grade level. The list below is based on the actual numbers and not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds cannot be
predicted accurately because demographics account for so little of students’ pattern in falling below grade level.
In what elementary schools are more at-grade K students falling below grade level in 1st grade?
58
School NameTotal At Grade Kindergarteners
# Fell Below Grade Level
% Fell Below Grade Level
College View Elementary School 28 21 75%
Denver Language School 35 18 51%
Place Bridge Academy 44 22 50%
Castro Elementary School 40 18 45%
Montclair Elementary School 38 15 39%
Pioneer Charter School 27 10 37%
Schmitt Elementary School 30 11 37%
Greenlee Elementary School 27 9 33%
Valverde Elementary School 21 7 33%
Trevista ECE-8 at Horace Mann 48 15 31%
Harrington Elementary School 36 11 31%
Bradley International School 63 19 30%
Monarch Montessori 47 14 30%
SOAR at Oakland 31 9 29%
School NameTotal At Grade Kindergarteners
# Fell Below Grade Level
% Fell Below Grade Level
Rocky Mountain Prep 59 17 29%
Beach Court Elementary School 32 9 28%
Wyatt Academy 18 5 28%
Cheltenham Elementary School 37 10 27%
Barnum Elementary School 41 11 27%
Omar D Blair Charter School 51 13 25%
Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy ES 24 6 25%
Kaiser Elementary 20 5 25%
Green Valley Elementary School 86 21 24%
Force Elementary School 40 9 23%
Cesar Chavez Academy Denver 27 6 22%
Maxwell Elementary School 41 9 22%
Bryant Webster Dual Language ECE-8 32 7 22%
Dora Moore ECE-8 28 6 21%