1 / 135

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

Anchorage School District Profile of Performance and School Report Card to the Public. Assessment and Evaluation Department October 27, 2008. Format of the Report. Part I – District Information Overview Board Goal Performance Part II – School Information School Goals Demographics

diamond
Download Presentation

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

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. Anchorage School DistrictProfile of PerformanceandSchool Report Card to the Public Assessment and Evaluation Department October 27, 2008

  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. Cautions for Interpretation-Race/Ethnicity • Re-identification of race/ethnicity occurred at the beginning of the 2007-08 school year • Overall changes noted from this process were an increase in the Multi-Ethnic and Hispanic and a decrease in all of the remaining race/ethnicity student groups. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  5. Demographic comparisons Re-identification year

  6. Cautions for Interpretation-Race/Ethnicity ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  7. Historical demographic changes

  8. Demographic Comparisons 1999-2008 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  9. Cautions for Interpretation-Limited English Proficient • Exit criteria changed in Spring 2007 • Resulted in a significant change in the academic needs of the overall eligible population for the 2007-08 school year • 2006-07—61% of students were classified as beginner or intermediate • 2007-08—83% of students were classified as beginner or intermediate ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  10. Change in Eligible ELL Population for 2007-08 School Year ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  11. Languages spoken by ASD students ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  12. Socioeconomic Status of Students—EDS • EDS is the proxy used for accountability who are eligible to participate in the free and reduced lunch program • 36 percent of all students in ASD were identified as EDS • Students included in this category for 2007-08 were: • All students meeting federal income guidelines • Students included in the Alaska Temporary Assistance program file • All Students in Provision 3 schools (Fairview, Mountain View, Muldoon, North Star, William Tyson, Williwaw and Mt. Iliamna) • Migrant Students • Sibling matches for all of the above • Students at AVAIL, the Child in Transition program, McLaughlin and Whaley Center (excluding ACE/ACT) but not their sibling matches ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  13. Socioeconomic Status of Students—EDS ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  14. Special Programs—5 year history

  15. Special Needs Population—Total Number Served ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  16. ASD Board Goals 1- Increase achievement on the state measures of academic performance 2- Increase reading achievement of grade 3 students 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

  17. Indicators • It is important to look at indicators within the context of the board goal • Example: The percentage of high school students successfully completing higher-level courses will increase. • Maintain or increase percentage of students in 4th quartile on TN • Increase the number of students taking college-preparedness tests • Increase the percentage of students successfully completing AP courses • Increase the percentage of students taking the College Board AP examination • Increase the number of seniors who have successfully completed a higher level math course • Increase the number of seniors who have successfully completed a higher level science course Goal Indicators ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  18. Indicators

  19. Reporting Direction Goal Indicators Reporting Direction • A reporting direction is measurable • It can be quantified ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  20. Process Direction Goal Indicators Process Directions • Process Direction cannot be quantified • Includes words like develop, implement, explore, focus on, etc. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  21. Reporting of Board Goals 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 grade 5 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 grade 5 reading scores with the same students’ grade 4 reading scores) ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

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

  23. Goal 1 - Indicator a-Language Arts and Mathematics • The percentage of students scoring not proficient in language arts and math will decrease by 10 percent in each AYP-designated student group. • Results (pages 35-36): • Language Arts – There were percent losses in not proficient in designated student groups of Asian, White, Hispanic, Multi-Ethnic, Students with Disabilities and Migrant. The target was not achieved in the All Students or any of the designated student groups. • Math – There were percent losses in not proficient in designated student groups of Hispanic, Multi-Ethnic, Students with Disabilities and Migrant. The target was not achieved at the All Students category or any of the designated student groups. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

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

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

  26. Overview of Performance on the Indicators ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  27. 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 (pages 37-44): • Gains were made at the All Students category in grades 4 and 9. • The target not met at the All Students category in any of the grades 3-10. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  28. Goal 1-Indicator b—Reading-Gr.3,4,5,6 Grade 3 Reading Grade 4 Reading Grade 6 Reading Grade 5 Reading ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  29. Goal 1-Indicator b—Reading-Gr.7,8,9,10 Grade 7 Reading Grade 8 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 9 Reading ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  30. 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 (pages 53-60): • There were gains made at the All Students category at grade 9. • The target not met at the All Students category in any of the grades 3-10. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  31. Goal 1-Indicator c—Math-Gr.3,4,5,6 Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 5 Math ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  32. Goal 1-Indicator c—Math-Gr.7,8,9,10 Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 9 Math ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  33. 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 the transition years of elementary to middle and middle to high school will be greater than the same students scoring proficient in the previous year (grade 6 to 7 and grade 8 to 9 will be compared). • Results for grades 6 to 7 (page 61): • There was a loss in percentage points in the All Students category and all designated student groups. • The target was not achieved at the All Students category or in any of the designated student groups. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  34. Goal 1 – Indicator d: Increase in percentage of students proficient in mathematics in the sequential cohort of grades 6 to 7 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  35. Goal 1 – Indicator d: Increase in percentage of students proficient in mathematics in the sequential cohort of grades 6 to 7 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  36. 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 the transition years of elementary to middle and middle to high school will be greater than the same students scoring proficient in the previous year (grade 6 to 7 and grade 8 to 9 will be compared). • Results for grades 8 to 9 (page 62): • There was a loss in percentage points in the All Students category and all designated student groups. • The target was not achieved at the All Students category or in any of the designated student groups. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  37. Goal 1 – Indicator d: Increase in percentage of students proficient in mathematics in the sequential cohort of grades 8 to 9 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  38. Goal 1 – Indicator d: Increase in percentage of students proficient in mathematics in the sequential cohort of grades 8 to 9 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  39. Reducing the 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

  40. Achievement Gap Reduced Achievement Gap Increased Achievement Gap 19.5 21.4 21.9 43.9 40.5 44.7 ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  41. Goal 1-Indicator e – Achievement GapRace/Ethnicity Student Groups – language arts • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and mathematics will decrease significantly between each AYP-designated group and the White group, narrowing the achievement gap. • Results (page 63): • In language arts the achievement gap decreased between each designated race/ethnicity group and the White group except African American and Alaska Native/American Indian. The decreases in the designated student groups of Asian, Hispanic and Multi-Ethnic were not statistically significant. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  42. Goal 1 – Indicator e:Achievement Gap—Race/Ethnicity Student Groups-Language Arts ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  43. Goal 1-Indicator e – Achievement GapRace/Ethnicity Student Groups – mathematics • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and mathematics will decrease significantly between each AYP-designated group and the White group, narrowing the achievement gap. • Results (pages 64): • In mathematics the achievement gap decreased between each AYP-designated race/ethnicity group and the White group except for African-American and Alaska Native/American Indian. The decrease in the designated student groups of Asian, Hispanic and Multi-Ethnic were not statistically significant. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  44. Goal 1 – Indicator e:Year-to-Year Comparison of Achievement Gap—Race/Ethnicity Student Groups-Mathematics ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  45. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapEDS and Non-EDS – language arts and mathematics • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and mathematics will decrease significantly between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students. • Results (pages 65 and 66): • In language arts the achievement gap increased. • In mathematics the achievement gap increased. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  46. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapEDS and Non-EDS – language arts 87.3 89.2 88.8 19.5 21.9 21.4 65.9 69.7 66.9

  47. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapEDS and Non-EDS – mathematics 78.1 83.9 81.4 20.9 22.1 21.7 56.4 62.9 59.3

  48. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapLimited English Proficient and Non-Limited English Proficient – language arts and mathematics • In a year-to-year comparison, the achievement gap in language arts and mathematics will decrease significantly between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students. • Results (pages 67 and 68): • In language arts the achievement gap increased. • In mathematics the achievement gap increased. ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  49. Change in Eligible ELL Population for 2007-08 School Year ASD Assessment & Evaluation Department

  50. Goal 1-Indicator f – Achievement GapLEP and Non-LEP – language arts 83.1 84.8 84.5 20.6 21.6 42.7 62.5 63.2 41.8

More Related