730 likes | 850 Views
System Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools. Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama September 28, 2009. QUESTIONS What demographic challenges does the system face? Does the system focus spending to produce results? Does the system succeed with all kinds of students?
E N D
System Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama September 28, 2009
QUESTIONS What demographic challenges does the system face? Does the system focus spending to produce results? Does the system succeed with all kinds of students? Does the system prepare students for higher education and the workforce?
What demographic challenges does the system face? Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama
Does the system focus spending to produce results? Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama
How we define spending. We include all “core” academic expenditures: Instruction-related: Instruction – teachers, classroom supplies, etc. Instructional Support – principal’s office, library, instructional technology, counselor, nurse, etc. Facilities and Administration: Facility Operation & Maintenance – custodial & maintenance services, utilities, security, etc. Administration – board, central office, etc. We exclude Food Service and Transportation
Does the system succeed with all kinds of students? Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama
How we measure success. Performance on the Alabama Reading and Math Test (ARMT) in Grades 3-8 and the Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) in Grades 11-12 Measured by % of students performing at Level IV Level I – does not meet academic standards Level II – partially meets academic standards Level III – meets academic standards Level IV – exceeds academic standards Compared with the statewide average For key socioeconomic subgroups in the student body Poverty vs. Non-Poverty students (defined by free/reduced lunch percentage) White vs. Black students
Summary of Test Results for • 13 School Systems, Spring 2009 • Percent of 2009 results above statewide averages for the four subgroups • Comparison of 2008 and 2009 results (Percent of “green” results) • Percent of 2009 results showing improvement over 2008