academic achievement

Academic AchievementAcademic AchievementBoard Presentation

San Francisco Unified School DistrictSeptember 2011

CST by Content Area

47.5 49.2 50.554.0

56.357.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

% At or Above Proficient

2006(n=41,456)

2007(n=40,624)

2008(n=39,925)

2009(n=38,783)

2010(n=37,668)

2011(n=37,666)

CST English Language Arts:Trend for Proficient and Above

(Grade 2 to 11)

+2.3+1.3 +3.5+1.7

+1.1

56.6 57.9 59.462.2

65.2 66.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

% At or Above Proficient

2006(n=23,856)

2007(n=23,275)

2008(n=22,808)

2009(n=22,076)

2010(n=21,998)

2011(n=22,207)

CST Mathematics:Trend for Proficient and Above

(Grade 2 to 7)

+3.0

+1.3 +1.5+2.8 +0.8

48.2 48.8 50.652.5

55.4 55.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

% At or Above Proficient

2006(n=41,019)

2007(n=40,291)

2008(n=39,615)

2009(n=38,733)

2010(n=37,573)

2011(n=37,783)

CST Mathematics:Trend for Proficient and Above

(Grade 2 to 11)

+0.2

+0.6 +1.8 +1.9 +2.9

41.9

51.8 52.7

61.2 63.2

49.055.3 56.5

63.161.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

% At or Above Proficient

GR 5 Science GR 8 Science

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CST Science:Trend for Proficient and Above

(Grade 5 & 8)

+21.3 +12.6

CST

• Comparison to State

• API

• AYP

SFUSD Compared to the State

5754

6662 63

5862 63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% A

t o

r A

bo

ve

Pro

fici

ent

ELA (Gr 2-11) Math (Gr 2-7) Science (Gr 5) Science (Gr 8)

SFUSD State

Academic Performance Index (API)

SFUSD 5-Year Trend for Academic Performance Index (API)

753764

772 775

791

763771 777

791 796

650

700

750

800

850

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

AP

I S

core

Base Growth

+5

+10+7 +5

+16

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

CST Growthby Ethnicity & Program

21

27

232122

2826

2123

28

24 2527

3229 2829

3532

24

32

36 36

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

AA Latino Samoan ELL

% At or Above Proficient

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CST English Language Arts:Trend for Proficient and Above

(AA, Latino, Samoan, Grade 2-11)

+11+9

+13

+5

24

3438

47

25

3539

47

26

35 35

51

30

39 38

53

35

4246

53

35

4448

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AA Latino Samoan ELL

% At or Above Proficient

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CST Mathematics:Trend for Proficient and Above

(AA, Latino, Samoan, Grade 2-7)

+11

+10

+13 +7

CST English Language Arts:Trend for Proficient and Above by Ethnicity

(Grade 2-11)

Ethnicity

% at or above Proficient

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

AA 22 23 27 29 32

Latino 28 28 32 35 36

Samoan 26 24 29 32 36

Chinese 63 64 67 68 68

Filipino 49 49 53 55 56

Japanese 78 76 79 82 83

Korean 73 76 78 81 79

American Indian 38 40 48 48 49

Other Non-White 58 60 62 63 65

White 73 75 79 81 81

CST Mathematics:Trend for Proficient and Above by Ethnicity

(Grade 2-7)

Ethnicity

% at or above Proficient

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

AA 25 26 30 35 35

Latino 35 35 39 42 44

Samoan 39 35 38 46 48

Chinese 81 81 83 86 85

Filipino 56 57 60 62 63

Japanese 83 82 86 87 89

Korean 85 88 88 86 86

American Indian 43 45 51 47 51

Other Non-White 65 66 67 70 70

White 71 75 78 82 82

481

482

14451750

1920

39963298

26002328

459

457

455713

433

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007(N=4,451)

2008(N=4,188)

2009(N=3,772)

2010(N=4,254)

2011(N=4,152)

% of Total Test Takers

CST CAPA CMA

SPED Students:CST, CAPA, and CMA Test Participants

English Language Arts (Gr 2-11)

11 13 1618 23

79 83 84 84 85

31 32 32 33

0

20

40

60

80

100

% At or Above Proficient

CST/ELA CAPA/ELA CMA/ELA

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

SPED Students:CST, CAPA, and CMA Test resultsEnglish Language Arts (Gr 2-11)

+6

+12

+2

477

479

11191580

2195

38963280

28082433

452456

452 628358

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007(N=4,348)

2008(N=4,094)

2009(N=3,888)

2010(N=4,029)

2011(N=4,254)

% of Total Test Takers

CST CAPA CMA

SPED Students:CST, CAPA, and CMA Test Participants

Mathematics (Gr 2-11)

14 16 1822 25

6372 69

7472

34 3237

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

% At or Above Proficient

CST/Math CAPA/Math CMA/Math

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

SPED Students:CST, CAPA, and CMA Test results

Mathematics (Gr 2-11)

+9

+11

-4

Other Measures

CST 8th Grade Algebra 1 or Higher: Trend for Proficient and Above

57.7 58.8 57.8 55.951.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

% At or Above Proficient

2007(n=2,385)

2008(n=2,395)

2009(n=2,512)

2010(n=2,960)

2011(n=3,084)

CST 8th Grade Algebra 1 or Higher: Trend for Proficient and Above

 Algebra 1 or Higher % Proficient

DISTRICT 51.6

Ethnicity

African American 14.5

Chinese 72.5

Filipino 24.1

Japanese 68.8

Korean 70.8

Latino 22.4

American Indian 30.4

Other Non-White 48.3

White 59.2

77.1 77.0 77.180.2 77.8

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

% Passing

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CAHSEE:ELA Passing Rate

(Grade 10)

81.5 79.3 78.4 80.2 81.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

% Passing

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CAHSEE:Mathematics Passing Rate

(Grade 10)

CAHSEE:ELA Passing Rate by Ethnicity

(Grade 10)

 ELA Passed

Rate

DISTRICT 77.8

Ethnicity

American Indian 90.0

Asian 84.9

African American 56.9

Declined to State 88.5

Filipino 81.4

Latino 63.7

Pacific Islander 66.0

White 88.7

CAHSEE:Mathematics Passing Rate by Ethnicity

(Grade 10)

 Math

Passed Rate

DISTRICT 81.0

Ethnicity

American Indian 88.9

Asian 95.7

African American 47.0

Declined to State 89.8

Filipino 82.7

Latino 61.3

Pacific Islander 60.0

White 87.9

5.2

6.77.4

6.35.7

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Suspension Rate(%)

Suspensions5-Year Trend

10.9%18.2%

7.1% 7.5%

82.0%74.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

SFUSD STATE

Percent of Class of 2009-10

Graduates Dropouts Others

Graduation & DropoutSFUSD vs State

Data Source: California Department of Education webiste

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CohortRates/GradRates.aspx?Agg=D&Topic=Dropouts&TheYear=2009-10&cds=38684780000000&RC=District&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial

SFUSD Grade 5 Student Satisfaction Survey 2011

3.55

3.59

3.77

3.52

3.53

3.77

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Q06

Q17

Q04

Q17

Q06

Q04

2010 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=3,193)

2011 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=3,550)

My teachers help me when I do not understand a lesson.

I enjoy the sports, library, and arts and music programs at my school.

I have friends at my school.

I enjoy the sports, library, and arts and music programs at my school.

My teachers help me when I do not understand a lesson.

I have friends at my school.

SFUSD Grade 8 Student Satisfaction Survey 2011

3.07

3.10

3.40

3.05

3.06

3.43

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Q23

Q10

Q21

Q04

Q10

Q21

2010 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,444)

2011 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,835)

The principal treats me and all other students with respect.

I know about the after school and other extra curricular activities that are offered at my school.

I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports me in my learning.

I have supportive and caring relationships with other students at my school.

I know about the after school and other extra curricular activities that are offered at my school.

I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports me in my learning.

SFUSD Grade 11 Student Satisfaction Survey 2011

3.13

3.18

3.35

3.10

3.10

3.29

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Q04

Q23

Q21

Q04

Q23

Q21

2010 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,528)

2011 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,496)

I have supportive and caring relationships with other students at my school.

The Principal treats me and all other students with respect

I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports me in my learning.

I have supportive and caring relationships with other students at my school.

The Principal treats me and all other students with respect

I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports me in my learning.

SFUSD Family Satisfaction Survey 2011

3.47

3.50

3.52

3.48

3.51

3.54

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Q02

Q24

Q01

Q02

Q24

Q01

2010 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=14,354)

2011 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=11,680)

The teachers at the school motivate my child to learn.

My child's teachers deal with me in a fair and respectful manner

My child enjoys going to school.

The teachers at the school motivate my child to learn.

My child's teachers deal with me in a fair and respectful manner

My child enjoys going to school.

SFUSD School Staff Satisfaction Survey 2011

3.29

3.38

3.42

3.23

3.34

3.38

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Q04

Q06

Q03

Q12

Q06

Q03

2010 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,838)

2011 3 Highest Rated Questions (n=2,711)

Teachers in my school work together to improve their instructional practice.

Students at this school have a meaningful and caring relationship with at least one adult advocate.

Teachers at my school believe that their efforts make a difference in their students' learning.

Teachers in this school use multiple assessment practices to measure student progress throughout the year.

Students at this school have a meaningful and caring relationship with at least one adult advocate.

Teachers at my school believe that their efforts make a difference in their students' learning.

School Data ConferenceResults

Reasons for Celebration

School Data Conference Results

1. Using Formative Assessments to inform instructionCorrelation between MAP (CLA) and CST-ELA was 0.77 and between MAP (CLA) & CST-Math was 0.75 (Districtwide).eg. Carver (ELA 3.2%, Math 9.0%)

Starr King (ELA 20.4%, Math 7.1%)ER Taylor (ELA 5.8%, Math 6.1%)

2. Balanced Literacy Reading & Writing Focuseg. Mission Zone (ELA 2%)

Sherman (86% proficiency)Hillcrest ( 6.3%)

School Data Conference Results

3. Focus on Closing the Achievement Gapeg. Milk (ELA: school 4.8%, Latino 14.2%; Math: school 0.8%, Latino 2.5%)

Flynn (ELA: school 4.5%, AA 5.1%; Math: school 3.7%, AA 12.0%)Washington HS (ELA: school 2.0%, AA 21%)

4. Focus on EL StudentsQuality of ELD program, Structure Time when ELD was delivered, Rigorous Professional Development, Monitoring Delivery of Instruction.eg. Ulloa (N=122, 80% prof, 8.5%)

Redding (N=117, 43.6% prof, 16.6%)Paul Revere (N=104, 25% prof, 8.3%)

5. Focal Student Approacheg. George Peabody (ELA: 81% prof, 7.9%, 84% prof, Math: 4.5%) Sunset (ELA: 79% prof, 4.2%, Math: 85% prof, 5.2%) A. Fong Yu (ELA: 84% prof, 5%, Math: 94% prof, 3.3%)

School Data Conference Results

6. Vigorous Intense Curriculum Focuseg. Muir (ELA 38.2%, 12.8%)

New Tradition (Math 71.4%, 10.8%)Aptos (Algebra EL participation N from 276 to 336, 55%, 7%)

7. Grade Level Collaboration – Practice of ROCI eg. Monroe, Carver, Starr King, Everett, Chavez

8. Additional Resources – SIG Schools showed API Growth eg. Muir +54, Everett +31, Mann +29, Mission +15, Revere +28,

Bryant +5

School Data Conference Results

9. WISE Program Grant for Science in grades 3, 4 and 5

More Science Instruction, Analytical Writing in Science, Project Based Learning, Science Notebooks, Increased Analytical thinking in all curriculum areas.

10.Restorative Practices

Intensive Professional Development, Community Meetings, Modeling of Restorative Practices

11.Support of Area TeamsProfessional Development in Complex Instruction for MathImplementation of ALEKSELD Focus for Immersion SchoolsAlgebra PD by SERP for Middle SchoolsBalanced Literacy Model Support for Mission Zone SchoolsData Coaching for Elementary and Zone Schools