1 / 98

Anchorage School District Profile of Performance and School Report Card to the Public 2006-2007

Assessment and Evaluation Department October 22, 2007. Anchorage School District Profile of Performance and School Report Card to the Public 2006-2007. Format of the Report. Part I – District Information Overview Board Goal Performance Part II – School Information School Goals

geoff
Télécharger la présentation

Anchorage School District Profile of Performance and School Report Card to the Public 2006-2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment and Evaluation Department October 22, 2007 Anchorage School DistrictProfile of Performanceand School Report Card to the Public2006-2007

  2. Format of the Report • Part I – District Information • Overview • Board Goal Performance • Part II – School Information • School Goals • Demographics • Student Academic Achievement ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  3. Data Reporting Points for Profile • FallOASIS-data submission to EED with reports of our foundation average daily membership (ADM) for the 20 school calendar days ending with the 4th Friday in October • Participation File—data submission to EED with detailed student enrollment information as of the first day of testing (April) • NCLB Summer Data Collection (Summer OASIS)—data submission to EED with detailed student data collection to support the annual submittal to the U.S. Dept. of Ed; data based upon enrollment for the school year (July 15 submittal) • Report Card DataSubmission—data submission to EED on the performance of each school in the district; supports annual report on the performance of school in the state to the Governor, the state legislature and the U.S. Dept. of Ed (July 15 submittal) • SMSYear-End—data source from ASD’s system of record as of June 30th; data used for several reports and analyses; uses the last entry available for student ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  4. Race/Ethnic Distribution MembershipFall OASIS (p. 13) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  5. Home Language (p.14) The number of families with English as a second language is increasing. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  6. Socioeconomic Status of Students (p.15) • Economically Disadvantaged Students (EDS): • Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch • Students included in the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP) file provided by the state • All Students in Provision 3 Schools • Migrant Students • Sibling Matches for all the above • Students at McLaughlin, Child in Transition Program and AVAIL • 37.3 percent of all ASD students were EDS in 2006-2007 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  7. Special Programs (pages 20-21) During 2006-2007: • Special Education Services: 8,431 students served • Bilingual Program: 7,528 students eligible; 6,645 served • Migrant Program: 1,820 students eligible; 1,100 served • Title I Targeted Assistance: 111 students served • Title I Schoolwide Program: 10,113 students served • Homeless Program: 1,637 students served • Neglected & Delinquent: 535 students served • Title VII Indian Ed.: 7,000 students eligible; 2,176 served • Gifted Program: 3,404 students served ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  8. Bilingual Data for 2006-2007 School Year ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  9. ASD Board Goal Indicators 1- Increase achievement on the state measures of academic performance 2- Increase reading achievement of 3rd graders 3- Increase the percentage of students in the accelerated math sequence 4- Decrease the dropout rate 5- Increase the graduation rate 6- Increase in the percentage of high school students successfully completing higher-level courses 7- Improve customer service and satisfaction 8- Improve parent/guardian involvement 9- Increase diversity in the work force ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  10. Board Goal Indicators • Some goals are reported looking at a status comparison while others look at growth or a sequential cohort • Status—looks at a subgroup, grade, or school’s level of proficiency for a specific year or average of years. This level of proficiency is then compared to an established target (comparing last year’s 5th grade reading scores to this year’s 5th grade reading scores) • Growth—tracks achievement scores of the same students from one year to the next with the intent of determining whether or not the students have made progress (comparing this year’s 5th grade reading scores with the same students’ 4th grade reading scores) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  11. Same grade (status) vs. Sequential Cohort (same students in sequential years) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  12. Goal 1 - Indicator a-Language Arts • The percentage of students scoring not proficient in language arts and math will decrease by 10 percent in each AYP-designated student group. • Results (tables on pages 38 and 40): • Language Arts – percent losses in not proficient for All Students and in all designated student groups. Target not achieved at All Students category but was met by designated student groups of Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, EDS and LEP. • Math – percent losses in not proficient for All Students and in all designated student groups. Target achieved at All Students category and all designated student groups except Students with Disabilitites. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  13. For Goal 1 – Indicator a:Year-to-Year Comparison of % Not Proficient in Language Arts ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  14. For Goal 1 – Indicator a:Year-to-Year Comparison of % Not Proficient in Mathematics ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  15. Goal 1 - Indicator b-Reading • In a year-to-year comparison, the percentage of student scoring proficient in reading on the Alaska Standards Based Assessment will increase by 2.5 percent in each AYP-designated student group in each grade 3-10. • Results (tables on pages 42-57): • Gains made at the All Students category at all grades 3-10 • Percent gains ranged from 2.1 percent gained in gr.4 to 8.4 percent gained in gr. 9 • Grades 5 and 9 met the target at the All Students category and in all of the designated student groups ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  16. Goal 1-Indicator b—Reading-Gr.3,4,5,62.5% increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  17. Goal 1-Indicator b—Reading-Gr.7,8,9,102.5% increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  18. Goal 1 - Indicator c-Math • In a year-to-year comparison, the percentage of student scoring proficient in mathematics on the Alaska Standards Based Assessment will increase by 2.5 percent in each AYP-designated student group in each grade 3-10. • Results (tables on pages 58-73): • Gains made at the All Students category at all grades 3-10 • Percent gains ranged from 1.05 percent gained in gr. 4 to 13.28 percent gained in gr. 9 • Grades 5, 7 and 8 met the target at the All Students category and in all of the designated student groups ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  19. Goal 1-Indicator c—Math-Gr.3,4,5,62.5% increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  20. Goal 1-Indicator c—Math-Gr.7,8,9,102.5% increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  21. Goal 1 - Indicator d - Math • In a sequential cohort comparison, the percentage of students scoring proficient in mathematics on the Alaska Standards Based Assessment in 8th grade will be greater than the percentage of those same students scoring proficient in 7th grade the previous year. • Results (tables on pages 74-75): • Percentage point gains achieved in the All Students category and all designated student groups • All groups achieved the target ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  22. For Goal 1 – Indicator d:Sequential Cohort Comparison of % Proficient in Mathematics Grade 7 to 8Increased percentage points ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  23. For Goal 1 – Indicator d:Sequential Cohort Comparison of % Proficient in Mathematics Grade 7 to 8Increased percentage points ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  24. Achievement Gap There are three ways to reduce the achievement gap: • Both the identified group and the identified comparison group have gains but the identified group has a greater gain than the comparison group (positive) • The identified group has a gain and the identified comparison group has a loss (negative) • The identified group and the identified comparison group both have losses but the loss of the comparison group is greater than the identified group (negative) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  25. Achievement Gap Reduced Achievement Gap Increased Achievement Gap ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  26. Goal 1-Indicator e – Achievement GapEthnicity Student Groups • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and math will decrease significantly between each AYP-designated group and the White group, narrowing the achievement gap. • Results (tables on pages 76-79): • In language arts, the achievement gap decreased between each designated ethnic group and the White group. A significant decrease was achieved in the Black and Asian/Pacific Islander student groups. • In math, the achievement gap decreased between each designated ethnic group and the White group, except for Alaska Native/American Indian. The ethnic group that significantly decreased its achievement gap with the White group was the Asian/Pacific Islander. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  27. For Goal 1 – Indicator e:Year-to-Year Comparison of Achievement Gap—Ethnicity Student Groups-Language ArtsDecrease Significantly ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  28. For Goal 1 – Indicator e:Year-to-Year Comparison of Achievement Gap—Ethnicity Student Groups-MathDecrease Significantly ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  29. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapEDS and non-EDSDecrease Significantly • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and math will decrease significantly between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students. • Results (tables on pages 80-83): • In language arts, the achievement gap decreased significantly. • In math, the achievement gap decreased but was not significantly significant. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  30. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapLEP vs. Non-LEPDecrease Significantly • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and math will decrease significantly between limited English proficient and non-limited English proficient students. • Results (tables on pages 84-87): • In language arts, the achievement gap decreased significantly. • In math, the achievement gap decreased significantly. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  31. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapDisabled vs. Non-Disabled • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and math will decrease significantly between Disabled and Non-Disabled Students • Results (tables on pages 88-91): • In language arts, the achievement gap increased between the disabled and non-disabled students. • In math, the achievement gap increased between the disabled and the non-disabled students. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  32. Goal 1 - Indicator g – Writing Content Strands • The performance of the sequential cohort of students in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades will show a 2.5 percent increase in the percent proficient from the previous year on the writing content strand of Structures and Conventions of Writing • Results (tables on pages 92-97): • Loss in mean scale score at the All Students category for all three sequential cohorts • Loss in mean scale score ranged from -1.37 for grade 4 to 5 to -22.83 for grade 8 to 9 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  33. Goal 1 - Indicator g – Structures and Conventions of Writing2.5 percent increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  34. Goal 1 - Indicator g – Revision • The performance of the sequential cohort of students in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades will show a 2.5 percent increase in the percent proficient from the previous year on the writing content strand of Revision • Results (tables on pages 98-103): • Loss in mean scale score at the All Students category for all three sequential cohorts • Loss in mean scale score ranged from -8.92 for grade 8 to 9 to 28.39 for grade 4 to 5 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  35. Goal 1 - Indicator g – Revision2.5 percent increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  36. 3-yr. trend of percent proficient in writing by strands ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  37. HSGQE Performance-Gr. 12 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  38. HSGQE Performance-Gr. 11 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  39. HSGQE Performance-Gr. 10 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  40. TerraNova—Maintained or increased NCE scores at tested grades (5 and 7) on all subtests ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  41. 3-yr. trend Reading (Status/Sequential Cohorts) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  42. 3-yr. trend Writing (Status/Sequential Cohorts) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  43. 3-yr. trend Math (Status/Sequential Cohorts) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  44. 3-yr. SBA Proficiency ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  45. Goal 2 - Indicator a—SBA Reading Gr.3 • In a year-to-year comparison, the percentage of students scoring proficient in reading on the Alaska Standards Based Assessment will increase by 2.5 percent in each AYP-designated group in grade 3. • Results (tables on pages 134-135): • Percent gains made for All students and all designated student groups, except Asian/Pacific Islander. • Target achieved at the All Students category and in all designated student groups except Asian/Pacific Islander, White, LEP, Migrant and Female ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  46. For Goal 2 – Indicator a:Year-to-Year Comparison of Percent Proficient—3rd Grade SBA Reading2.5 percent increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  47. Goal 2 - Indicator b— DRA Gr.3 • In a year-to-year comparison, the percentage of students scoring proficient in reading on the Development Reading Assessment will increase by 2.5 percent in each AYP-designated group in grade 3. • Results (tables on pages 136-137): • Percent gain was not made at the All Student category. • Percent gains made by designated student groups of Black, White, 2 or more races, Hispanic, EDS and Female. • Target was achieved in the designated student groups of Black and Hispanic. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  48. For Goal 2 – Indicator b:Year-to-Year Comparison of Percent Proficient—3rd Grade DRA2.5 percent increase ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  49. Comparison of SBA and DRA ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  50. Goal 3 - Indicator a— Algebra I- Gr. 8 • The percentage of students in each AYP-designated student group who successfully complete Algebra I in 8th grade or earlier with a grade of C or higher will increase by 5 percent in a year-to-year comparison. • Results (tables on pages 139-140): • Percent gains for the All Students category and all designated student groups except Alaska Native/American Indian, 2 or more races, Hispanic, Students with Disabilities and Migrant. • The target was achieved at the All Students category and in the designated student groups of Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, EDS, LEP and Female. • A 7.1 percent gain for All Students from previous school year ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

More Related