Profile of Performance – 2003-04

1. Profile of Performance – 2003-04 Report to the Board of Education Anchorage School District September 27, 2004

2. Profile of Performance Report to the Board of Education Anchorage School District September 27, 2004

3. The Profile draws from multiple offices, departments and data sources: • Alaska Dept of Education & Early Development data • State test scores – TerraNova, Benchmark, HSGQE • State records of student membership and student ID’s • Anchorage School District Divisions, Departments & Offices • Demographic Dept. • Student Nutrition Dept. • Special Education Dept. • Instructional Divisions – EL, MS & HS • Migrant Ed Dept. • Bilingual Ed Dept. • Indian Ed Dept. • Title I Dept. • Information Technology Dept. • Student Management System

4. Profile is in two parts • Part I – District • Part II – Individual Schools • Part I is focus so this presentation • Both parts I & II are posted and available on the ASD web site: www.asdk12.org • The Profile will also be available in print form through the district office and at local libraries

5. Part I – ASD District Profile • Section 1 – Introduction (pages 1 – 12) • Overview, demographics, enrollment, & NCLB information • Section 2 - Tables for section I (pages 13 – 24) • Enrollment patterns, free & reduced lunch, special needs populations, attendance rates… Information on primary language groups (page 15) added this year. • Section 3 – ASD mission & goals (page 25-78) • Tables and charts showing progress towards each of the five goals • Section 4 – Other profile indicators (79 – 98) • SAT & ACT reports; • Parent, student & staff surveys • Glossary of terms

6. Part II – School level reports • Anchorage Assessment & Evaluation Dept. Web site - • http://www.asdk12.org/depts/assess_eval/ • Profile of Performance button on the left brings you to a screen for both parts I and II. • For a specific school - • Under “II” – select the school or level or district wide listing.

7. Measurements used • For state, district and site NCLB and state reporting and accountability: • Terra Nova – CAT 6 – A norm referenced test – grades 4, 5, 7 & 9 • State Benchmark Tests – standards based test – grades 3,6, 8 • High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) – a standards based test of essential skills in reading, writing and math - grade 10 and students in grades 11 and 12 who have not passed all three parts • Also referenced and discussed are: • District reading assessment (DRA) in grade 3 • American College Testing (ACT) & Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) • Parent, student and staff survey results

8. District Demographics • 83rd largest district in the nation – 49,663 in 2003 • Increasing diversity of the district – minority membership moved from 33% in 1997-98 to 43% in 2003-04 • Alaska natives - 12%, • Asian/Pacific Islanders - 10.7%, • African-American - 8.3%, • Hispanic - 6.2, • Multi-Ethnic - 4.3%, • American Indian – 1.3% • Attendance at 93.6% - has ranged from 92.4% – 93.6% in past 7 years • 6,795 students received special education services – approximately 13.7% (down from 7,218 in ’03) • 2,284 received gifted education services (2,236 in’03) – approximately 4.6% • Over 90 languages in the district – over 10% of the students come from homes where languages other than English are used (Table 2b)

9. District Demographics (continued)Free/reduced price Lunch • Percent of elementary students eligible for free/reduced priced lunch has increased from 30% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2003-04 (Table 3). • Percentages in individual schools range from 1% to 95% (Tables 4 & 5). • In fourteen elementary schools, more than half of the studentswere eligible for assistance. • There is a high correlation between economic status and achievement as reflected by scores on the state standardized tests. • In the ASD, test scores are inversely related to economic status. • However, individual performance varies greatly. Many individual students achieved well.

10. Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Source: Deep Curriculum Alignment By Fenwick English and Betty Steffy

11. What are some factors that can influence a student’s ability to achieve proficiency on an assessment? • The student has been taught the curriculum for the standards that are assessed • Student’s knowledge and skill level • Student’s familiarity with the test format • The difficulty of the test items contributing to the standard • Attitudes of those giving the test • Student’s attentiveness • Lots of others…..

12. “Low income” compared to “non low income” students • Table 6a and 6b (page 20) present results of students taking the TerraNova/CAT6 in 2003 and 2004. • In 2004, the average of the test scores for students identified as low income ranged from the 42nd to the 47th percentile, depending on grade and test area. • The average for students not identified as low income ranged from the 56th to the 61st percentile. • While individual students do score at any level, there appears to be a correlation between family income and achievement when group scores or averages are examined. • There was a general improvement in test scores by both groups: students identified as low income and those not identified as low income. • There was a narrowing of the gap in the average scores particularly in the upper grade levels.

16. AYP Tables • State Dept of EED format. • Used for NCLB Accountability: to guide schools in identification of areas needing improvement for accountability purposes. • Participation is counted when any part of the test had a valid score. • Achievement proficiency is based on only students who were present for the “Full Academic Year” (FAY). • Language Arts is determined from adding the scores for Reading and Writing. • Available at District, School, Test Type, & Grade Levels

18. Anchorage School District AYP • The number of Anchorage schools not making AYP decreased from 55 in 2003 to 38 in 2004, • As with the other large urban districts in the state, the Anchorage School District did not make Adequate Yearly Progress as a district in 2004 (Page 12, Table A). • The specific student groups for which the state target was not met by the District were the following: • Alaska Native students – language arts; • economically disadvantaged students – language arts and math; • disabled students – language arts and math; • limited English proficient students (LEP) – language arts and math. • The District will be developing and discussing with our various parent groups a district improvement plan designed specifically to address the areas wherein we did not meet state targets.

19. ASD Mission and Goals for 2003-04 • The Profile report is intended to show where the ASD made progress toward meeting Board goals in 2003-2004. • Summary statements with supporting tables and charts related to the five Board goals are presented in the following slides.

20. Designated student groups included in this report are as follows: • All students NCLB • African American NCLB • Alaska Native NCLB • American Indian NCLB • Asian / Pacific Islander NCLB • Caucasian NCLB • Multi-ethnic (also “mixed ethnic”) District • Hispanic NCLB • Economically disadvantaged NCLB • Not economically disadvantaged Comparison group to above • Students with disabilities NCLB • Students without disabilities Comparison group to above • Limited English proficient students NCLB • Not limited English proficient students Comparison group to above • Migrant student State report card • Not migrant students Comparison group to above • Male students State report card • Female students State report card

21. Goal 1 – RAISE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT • Students will demonstrate increased academic achievement as indicated by improved performance on State measures of academic performance. Students will meet the State defined Annual Measurable Objective (AMO). • Indicator ‘a’ – DECREASE PERCENT NON-PROFICIENT: There will be at least a ten percent decrease from the previous year in the percent of students who are not proficient in math and language arts in each designated group at every school. • Indicator ‘b’ – INCREASE PERCENT ADVANCED: The percentage of students in each designated group in the advanced proficient group at each school will increase by at least five percent over a two- year period.

22. For Goal 1 – indicator ‘a’ - The amount of decrease required for a student group for the goal to be met depends on the current percent not proficient for that group … … The higher the percent not proficient in 2003, the greater the percentage point decrease needed to meet the goal for 2004. As an example, the student group “Caucasian” requires a decrease of 1.5 (1.47) percentage points to meet the indicator, while students with disabilities requires a 6.4 (6.35) point decrease to achieve the indicator.

23. Indicator ‘a’ – DECREASE PERCENT NON-PROFICIENT: There will be at least a ten percent decrease from the previous year in the percent of students who are not proficient in math and language arts in each designated group …. • Results • 13 of 16 groups with 2 years of test scores showed decreases in percent not proficient in language arts. • One designated student group (Non-economically disadvantaged) achieved the target decrease of 10% of students not proficient as stated in Goal 1 – indicator ‘a’ in language arts. • 8 of 16 groups with 2 years of test scores showed decreases in percent not proficient in math. • No group achieved this target in math. • Percent changes ranged from a gain of 7.7 % to a decrease of -13.8% in language arts, and from a gain of 7.4% to a decrease of -8.3% in math.

28. Indicator ‘b’ – INCREASE PERCENT ADVANCED: The percentage of students in each designated group in the advanced proficient group at each school will increase by at least five percent over a two- year period. • In language arts, of the 16 designated groups that have two years of achievement results, all but one achieved some increase. • 10 designated groups achieved the interim (one year) target in indicator ‘b’ of 2.5% increase of students in the advanced proficient group. • In math, three group – • American Indians, • Economically Disadvantaged and • Not Economically Disadvantaged achieved the 2.5% interim target increase of students in the advanced. • 13 groups did not.

34. The District met the target in goal 1 – indicator ‘c’ of a 10 percent reduction in the number of designated student groups in schools not making AMO. • The District had a reduction from 10.8 percent of the student groups not making AMO in 2003, to 9.0 percent not making AMO in 2004 (a reduction of 1.8 percentage points). • In 2003, • The 92 ASD schools accountable under NCLB rules had 1840 targets (20 targets per school). • 199 of those targets (10.8 percent of the total) did not make AMO. • In 2004, • The 90 ASD schools had a total of 1800 targets. • 162 (9.0 percent) did not make AMO.

35. Goal 1 Reports – Graduation Upon completion of the spring 2004 administration of the HSGQE – • 95 percent of the seniors with sufficient credits to graduate and who were required to pass the HSGQE, passed (page 40). • Upon completion of the spring 2004 administration of the HSGQE: • 94.8 percent of the Alaska Native seniors, • 84.6 percent of the American Indian seniors, • 90.0 percent of the Asian or Pacific Island seniors, • 93.2 percent of the Filipino seniors, • 88.3 percent of the Hispanic seniors, • 97.8 percent of the Caucasian seniors, and • 88.5 percent of the multi-ethnic seniors ….with sufficient credits to graduate had passed the HSGQE (page 43).

36. HSGQE Status for 12th Graders Anchorage School District As of April 20, 2004 HSGQE for 12th Graders

37. Goal 1 – Report – Achievement Grades 3 – 9 • Average scores on the TerraNova (CAT 6) for grades 4, 5, 7, and 9 ranged from 52 percentile to 57 percentile in reading composite, language composite, math composite and total scores. • These are all within one percentage point plus or minus of the 2003 scores for these grade levels and tests (Page 49, Table 13).

38. Goal 1 – Report – Achievement Grades 3 – 9 (cont’d) • Goal 1 – Benchmark & HSQGE Reading and Writing Report: • The percent proficient or above for ASD students in 2004 in reading and writing for grades 3, 6, 8 and 10 were not significantly different from the percentages in 2003. • Range: 72%-77% in reading; 64%-87% in writing. • Percentages proficient or above for ASD students at all grade levels were above the state percentages in 2004 (Pages 50 & 51, Tables 14 & 15). • Goal 1 – Benchmark & HSGQE Math Report: • There was a decrease of 4.5 percentage points (from 74.3% to 69.8%) for ASD 10th grade students at the proficient or above level in 2004 compared to 2003. • For grades 3, 6 & 8, the percents proficient or above in the Benchmark math tests were within one or two points of scores in 2003: • 68 percent in grade 8 • 69.9 percent in grade 6 • 76.3 percent in grade 3. (Page 52, Table 16)

39. Goal 2 – INDEPENDENT READERS INCREASE • A higher percentage of students in each designated group at each school will master basic skills and strategies to read independently by the end of the third grade. • Indicator ‘a’ - Over a two year period, there will be an increase of at least five percent of students in each designated group at each school demonstrating proficiency or higher on the reading portion of the grade three Alaska Benchmark Reading Exam. • Indicator ‘b’- Over a two year period, there will be an increase of at least five percent of students demonstrating proficiency or higher at each school as measured by the district assessment of student reading.

40. Goal 2 – indicator ‘a’ – increase on benchmark test • Results: Nine of the 16 groups with two years of scores to compare, showed increases in the percent of students demonstrating proficiency: • African American, • Asian/Pacific Islander, • Caucasian, • Hispanic, • economically disadvantaged students, • not economically disadvantaged students, • students without disabilities, • not limited English proficient students, • male students. • Of these nine, two groups – Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanic students – made at least a 2.5 percent increase from the 2003 percent proficient (Pages 56 – 57).

43. Goal 2 – indicator ‘b’ – increase on district reading assessment • Fifteen of the 16 groups with two years of scores to compare showed increases in the percent of students demonstrating proficiency. • Of the 15 student groups showing gains, eleven groups made at least a 2.5 percent increase from the 2003 percent proficient: • all students, • African American, • Alaska Native, • American Indian, • Caucasian, • multi-ethnic, • economically disadvantaged students, • not limited English proficient students, • not migrant students, • male and • female students. (Pages 58-59). • The group - migrant students - showed a slight decrease of 0.1 percent.

46. Comparing the percent proficient on 3rd grade benchmark reading score to the percent proficient on the district reading assessment

47. Goal 3 -INCREASE PERCENT IN ADVANCED MATH • The percentage of students in accelerated math sequence will increase. • Indicator - The percentage of students in each group who successfully complete will increase by five percent in a two year period. • Algebra I in grade eight • Geometry in grade nine • Algebra II in grade ten

48. Algebra I in 8th Grade • Seventeen of the 18 designated student groups in eighth grade are on target to meet the District two year goal of a 5 % increase in the percent of students enrolled in upper level math (Algebra I) in eighth grade. • Only one student group - students with disabilities - experienced a decrease in percent of students successfully completing Algebra I (Pages 62-63).