denver public schoolsfil… · cherry creek 5 - 0130 colorado springs 11 - 1010 denver county 1 -...
TRANSCRIPT
Denver Public Schools 2011-2012 School Year
1
1. 2011 Assessment Results (Slides 6-35)
2. 2010 Denver Plan Goals (36-49)
3. Four District Priorities for 2011-2012 (50)
2
3
We have increased by almost 500 graduates over the past 2 years!
DPS Graduates 2005-2011
* Estimated
4
AP Course Trend Number of students taking AP courses has been
increasing
1,475 1,325
1,773
2,095
2,767
3,063
3,329
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Number of Students Enrolled in AP Courses +1854 students in 7
years
5
Number of AP Tests with Scores of 3, 4, 5: 2005-2011
Note: Data for 2010-2011 is preliminary
870 954
1,061 1,071
1,175
1,462 1,577
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
2011 Assessment Results
Overall CSAP Improvement Colorado Growth Model
7
44
52
43
54
46
53
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Median Growth Percentile
Reading
Math
Writing
• Math median growth percentile has increased 11 points. •Reading median growth percentile increased by 8 points. • Writing median growth percentile has increased by 7 points.
Average MGP for FRL v. Paid in state
8
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
F&RL (state)
Paid (state
• Growth rates of F&RL and Paid students have remained fairly stable over time, with a consistent 5% gap over the last 4 years.
Math MGP for 10 largest districts
9
40
45
50
55
60
65
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Math Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020
Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180
Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480
Cherry Creek 5 - 0130
Colorado Springs 11 - 1010
Denver County 1 - 0880
Douglas County Re 1 - 0900
Jefferson County R-1 - 1420
Poudre R-1 - 1550
St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470
Reading MGP for 10 largest districts
10
40
45
50
55
60
65
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Reading Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020
Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180
Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480
Cherry Creek 5 - 0130
Colorado Springs 11 - 1010
Denver County 1 - 0880
Douglas County Re 1 - 0900
Jefferson County R-1 - 1420
Poudre R-1 - 1550
St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470
Writing MGP for 10 largest districts
11
40
45
50
55
60
65
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Writing Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020
Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180
Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480
Cherry Creek 5 - 0130
Colorado Springs 11 - 1010
Denver County 1 - 0880
Douglas County Re 1 - 0900
Jefferson County R-1 - 1420
Poudre R-1 - 1550
St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470
Average MGP in 2010 and 2011
12
42.00
43.00
44.00
45.00
46.00
47.00
48.00
49.00
50.00
51.00
52.00
53.00
54.00
55.00
Adams 12 AuroraPublic
Schools
BoulderValley
CherryCreek
ColoradoSprings
11
DenverPublic
Schools
DouglasCounty
JeffersonCounty
PoudreValley
St Vrain
2010
2011
• DPS is the top district in MGP in 2010 and 2011 among the 10 largest in Colorado.
Average MGP High-Poverty Districts in 2005
13
30
35
40
45
50
55
Pueblo City Greeley Denver PublicSchools
Harrison Aurora PublicSchools
Westminster ColoradoSprings 11
Average MGP High-Poverty Districts in 2011
14
30
35
40
45
50
55
Pueblo City Westminster ColoradoSprings 11
Greeley Harrison Aurora PublicSchools
Denver PublicSchools
District Summary
15
Content
Area
% Proficient
or Above
Change from
2010
Highlights DPS State DPS State
Reading 49% 68% -1% 0% • beat or met the state change on 5 of 8 tests
Lectura* 51% 60% 0% + 1% • 3rd grade performance stabilized
Math 41% 56% + 2% + 1% • up for the 8th consecutive year
• increase on 7 of 8 tests
• beat or met the state change on 7 or 8 tests
Writing 39% 55% + 4% + 2% • beat or met the state change on 7 of 8 tests
• this year’s students out-performed last year’s
students on all 8 tests
Escritura* 51% 59% + 4% + 6% • increase on both tests.
Science 28% 48% + 1% + 1%
• this year’s students out-performed last year’s
students on all 3 tests
• 5th grade scores increased for the 5th consecutive
year
2000-2005 Change in Proficiency- matched grade levels only
4%
6%
-6%
7%
9%
5%
15%
8%
Mathematics** Reading*** Science** Writing***
Change in CSAP % Proficient or Above from 1999/2000 to 2005
District 1999/2000-2005 State 1999/2000-2005
*DPS results excluded for state data **Math and Science: 2000 (Grade 8 only) through 2005 (Grade 8 only) ***Reading and Writing: 1999 (Grades 4 and 7 only) through 2005 (Grades 4 and 7 only)
6-Year Growth in Proficiency Outpaces State
17 * DPS excluded in state data
12%
9%
8%
9%
4%
1%
-3%
0%
Mathematics Reading Science Writing
Change in CSAP % Proficient or Above Since 2005
District 2005-2011 State* 2005-2011
Middle School CSAP Performance
18
37%
50%
32%
43%
23%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
% P
rofi
cie
nt
and
ab
ove
Reading Writing Math
+11 pts
+19 pts
+13 pts
19
Schools with Cumulative MGPs >180 in All CSAP Content Areas 2011
School Name CSAP
Reading MGP
CSAP Writing
MGP
CSAP Math MGP
Cumulative Sum MGP
West Denver Prep - Harvey Park Campus 71 79 94 244 DSST: HS 72 77 86 235 Steck Elementary 70.5 78 82.5 231 DSST: GVR 63 84 82 229 West Denver Prep - Federal Campus 72 78 77 227 West Denver Prep - Lake Campus 63.5 72.5 87 223 West Denver Prep - Highland Campus 58.5 66 96 220.5 DSST: MS 61 74.5 67 202.5 Beach Court Elementary 67 74 61 202 Cory Elementary 71 64.5 66 201.5 Carson Elementary 69 64 68 201 Lincoln Elementary 59 72.5 68 199.5 KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy 66.5 60 72 198.5 Polaris at Ebert 67.5 64 66 197.5 Garden Place Elementary 54 61.5 81 196.5 Slavens Elementary 63.5 66 65 194.5
20
School Name CSAP
Reading MGP
CSAP Writing
MGP
CSAP Math MGP
Cumulative Sum MGP
Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College HS 74 60.5 60 194.5 Denver School of Arts HS 70 67 56 193 Ridgeview Academy 56 70 64.5 190.5 Bromwell Elementary 56 75 58 189 Valdez Elementary 59.5 57 72 188.5 Sandoval Elementary 58 64 66 188 Eagleton Elementary 62 72 53.5 187.5 Girls Athletic Leadership 63.5 71 53 187.5 University Park Elementary 55.5 66 65 186.5 Doull Elementary 59 67 58 184 Bradley Elementary 62 70 51 183 McMeen Elementary 57 61 65 183 Castro Elementary 58 59 65.5 182.5 William R. Roberts 61 56 65 182 Montclair Elementary 67 63 52 182 Hallett Fundamental Academy 61 61 59 181
Schools with Cumulative MGPs >180 in All CSAP Content Areas 2011
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Reading
21
52
57
43
51
46
52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Charter: N 2011= 4,557
Innovation: N 2011= 757
Non-Charter: N 2011=27,144
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Reading
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Writing
22
57 59
46
55
49 52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Charter: N 2011= 4,543
Innovation: N 2011= 759
Non-Charter: N 2011=27,143
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Writing
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Math
23
56
61
49
57
50 52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Charter: N 2011= 4,548
Innovation: N 2011= 764
Non-Charter: N 2011=27,841
Median Growth Percentile CSAP Math
24
Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes)
Reading – all grades
• Gap increased across all minority groups from 2010 to 2011.
– Black students experienced the greatest increase in gap.
• 7-year trend toward gap reduction – Trend slightly declined in
2011.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
American Indian/Alaskan Native(2011 n= 508)
Asian/Pacific Islander (2011 n=1749)
Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n=7115)
Hispanic (2011 n= 23287)
White (Not Hispanic) (2011 n=9659)
25
Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes)
Writing – all grades
• Slight increase in overall gap from 2010 to 2011.
– Due to sharp increase in White students’ performance.
– All other groups increased, but at a slower rate.
• 7-year trend shows limited gap reduction.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
American Indian/AlaskanNative (2011 n= 510)
Asian/Pacific Islander (2011n= 1751)
Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n=7120)
Hispanic (2011 n= 23271)
White (Not Hispanic) (2011n= 9654)
26
Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes) Math – all grades
• Slight increase in overall gap from 2010 to 2011.
– Due to sharp increase in White students’ performance.
• No substantial 7-year trend toward gap reduction.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
American Indian/Alaskan Native (2011n= 511)
Asian/Pacific Islander (2011 n= 1748)
Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 7105)
Hispanic (2011 n= 23884)
White (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 9670)
27
Gap Analysis – SES Reading – all grades
• Small reduction in overall gap from 2010 to 2011 due to decreased scores for higher SES students.
• 7-year trend toward gap increase.
27%
31% 30%
33% 34% 37% 36%
57%
67%
63% 67%
70%
77% 75%
43%
47% 47% 49% 50%
53% 52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Free (2011 n = 26593)
Paid (2011 n = 12793)
Reduced (2011 n = 2932)
Lunch Status
28
Gap Analysis – SES Writing – all grades
• Virtually no change in gap status from 2010 to 2011.
• 7-year trend toward gap increase due to rapid improvement in students with higher SES.
19%
18% 20% 20%
24% 23% 26%
47%
53%
50%
54%
58%
62% 65%
31% 33% 34% 34%
38% 36%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Free (2011 n = 26588)
Paid (2011 n = 12790)
Reduced (2011 n = 2928)
Lunch Status
29
Gap Analysis – SES Math – all grades
• Virtually no change in gap status overall from 2010 to 2011.
• 7-year trend toward gap increase due to rapid improvement in students with higher SES.
20% 22%
24% 25% 28% 29%
31%
41%
49% 49% 51%
54%
61% 63%
31% 34%
36% 36% 40%
41% 41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Free (2011 n = 27140)
Paid (2011 n = 12815)
Reduced (2011 n = 2963)
Lunch Status
30
Gap Analysis – SPED Reading – all grades
• Small increase in gap from 2010 to 2011.
– SPED students lost more ground than Non-SPED students.
• 7-trend toward gap increase.
Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population.
Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been
implemented regarding SPED placement .
11% 13% 13%
14% 16% 13%
11%
44%
48% 47% 51%
52% 55% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
SPED (2011 n= 4805)
NonSPED (2011 n= 37513)
31
Gap Analysis – SPED Writing – all grades
• Substantial increase in gap from 2010 to 2011.
• 7-year trend toward gap increase.
Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population.
Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been
implemented regarding SPED placement .
6% 6% 7%
8% 9% 7% 7%
34% 34% 35% 37%
40% 39% 43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
SPED (2011 n= 4805)
NonSPED (2011 n= 37501)
32
Gap Analysis – SPED Math – all grades
• Moderate increase in gap from 2010 to 2011.
• Strong 7-year trend toward gap increase due to steady progress of non-SPED students.
Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population.
Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been
implemented regarding SPED placement .
8% 9% 10% 11% 13% 11% 11%
31%
35% 37% 38%
41% 43%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
SPED (2011 n= 4844)
NonSPED (2011 n= 38074)
33
Gap Analysis – ELL Reading – all grades
• Moderate reduction in gap between Non-ELL students and ELLs from 2010 to 2011.
– Gap reduction due to drop in Non-ELL student performance.
– Gap increased for Parent opt-out students.
– Exited ELLs out-performing Non-ELLs.
• No significant 7-year trend toward gap reduction.
There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007.
In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately.
Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Not ELL (2011 n = 23916)
Exited ELL (2011 n = 6295)
Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2687)
Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8566)
Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 800)
34
Gap Analysis – ELL Writing – all grades
• No significant change in gap overall from 2010 to 2011.
– Gap increased for parent opt-out and for Non-exited Bilingual ELLs.
– Exited ELLs now out-performing Non-ELLs.
• No significant 7-year trend toward gap reduction.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Not ELL (2011 n = 23921)
Exited ELL (2011 n = 6295)
Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2689)
Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8566)
Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 787)
There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007.
In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately.
Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.
35
Gap Analysis – ELL Math – all grades
• No significant change in gap overall from 2010 to 2011.
– Gap increased for Parent opt-out students.
– Exited ELLs now out-performing Non-ELLs.
• No significant 7-year trend toward gap reduction.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nt
pro
fici
en
t o
r ab
ove
Not ELL (2011 n = 23901)
Exited ELL (2011 n = 6293)
Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2685)
Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8720)
Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 1277)
There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007.
In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately.
Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.
2010 Denver Plan Goals
36
2010 Denver Plan
We’re UP to the Challenge!
2010 Denver Plan Goals Student Enrollment Goals
• DPS total enrollment will grow 500 students a year to a total exceeding 77,000 in 2012, from ECE-12, including charter school students.
• By 2013, 84% of children in DPS will re-enroll in district schools the following year, excluding students graduating out of the district.
School Readiness Goal
• By 2013, full-day Kindergarten will be available to 100% of parents who choose to enroll their student in a full-day program.
• An additional 3.5% of 3rd Grade students will become proficient on CSAP in reading or Lectura each year for the next five years.
School Success Goal
• The number of schools scoring above 50% of possible points on SPF will grow by 3.5% annually.
Student Growth Goal
• The percentage of students scoring above the state median growth percentile on CSAP will grow by 2.0% each year.
• The performance gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American and Hispanic students scoring Proficient & above on CSAP will decrease by 3.5% annually, closing the achievement gap. 38
2010 Denver Plan Goals Student Performance Goals
• On average, the proficiency rate for grade level cohorts will increase 3.5% in reading, writing, and math over each year.
• On average, the percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory will decrease by 3.5% in reading, writing, and math each year.
• 3.5% of grade level English language learners will become proficient or better on the CELA Overall rating each year.
Postsecondary Readiness Goals
• The number of DPS students taking AP classes each year will grow by 3.5% and the number of students who take the test and who receive 3, 4 or 5 will increase by 3.5% per year.
• The number of DPS students concurrently enrolled in college classes will grow by 3.5% per year.
• The number of students scoring 20 or better on the ACT will grow by 3.5% students per year by 2013.
• The graduation rate for DPS students will increase by 5% per year (base of 52% for 06-07).
• The dropout rate for DPS students will decrease by 1.0% per year.
• College enrollment rates will grow by 3.5% each year.
39
Schedule for Reporting on Denver Plan Goals
40
Month Measures Yrs Reported
August - Full-day Kindergarten availability - 3rd Grade students’ reading proficiency - Percentage of students above state median for growth - Achievement Gap - Proficiency rate for cohorts - Percent scoring unsatisfactory - ACT scores
-1112 -1011 -1011 -1011 -1011 -1011 -1011
September -School success measured by SPF - English language learners’ performance on CELA - AP enrollment - AP test results - Concurrent enrollment in college classes
-1011 -1011 -1011 -1011 -1011
November - DPS enrollment - Re-enrollment
-1112 -1112
December - College enrollment rates -1011
January - Graduation rate - Dropout rate
-1011 -1011
Participation in Full-day Kindergarten Goal: Available to 100%
41
• By 2013, Full-day Kindergarten will be available to 100% of parents who choose to enroll their students in full-day programs.
• 2011-12 Status: MET GOAL
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Half-Day Kindergarten 2534 2279 1864 800 425 275 275
Full-Day Kindergarten 3473 3796 4661 5722 6300 6360 6628
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Axi
s Ti
tle
6007 6075 6525 6522 6725 6635 6903 Total # of Students
3rd Grade Reading Proficiency Goal: At least an additional 3.5% per year
42
• An additional 3.5% of 3rd Graders will be proficient on CSAP Reading or Lectura each year.
• 2010-11 Goal: 54.3% in Reading; 54.8% in Lectura
• 2010-11 Status: MET GOAL in Reading; DID NOT MEET GOAL in Lectura
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Percentage of 3rd Graders Proficient in Reading 51.6% 50.6% 50.4% 50.7% 51.4% 50.8% 56%
Percentage of 3rd Graders Proficient in Lectura 59.3% 57.0% 53.6% 52.5% 59.5% 51.3% 51%
44.0%
46.0%
48.0%
50.0%
52.0%
54.0%
56.0%
58.0%
60.0%
62.0%
Student Growth Goal: At least an additional 2.0% or 54% of students will exceed the state’s 50th Percentile for Growth
43
• Growing at or above the 50th percentile of the state on CSAP indicates above-average growth.
• 2010-11 Goal: 54%
• 20010-11 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
48.4%
51.8%
51.3%
53.4%
53.0%
45.0%
46.0%
47.0%
48.0%
49.0%
50.0%
51.0%
52.0%
53.0%
54.0%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Percentage of Students Testing over State Median
Student Proficiency Goal: Grade Level Cohorts will increase by at least 3.5% in reading, writing, and math
44
• 2010-11 Goal: 53.2%; Status - Reading: DID NOT MEET GOAL
• 2010-11 Goal: 38.9%; Status – Writing: MET GOAL
• 2010-11 Goal: 40.7%; Status – Math: DID NOT MEET GOAL
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Percentage of Students in Grade-LevelCohorts Proficient & Above in Reading
38.35% 42.50% 41.36% 45.40% 45.80% 49.70% 48.07%
Percentage of Students in Grade-LevelCohorts Proficient & Above in Writing
30.05% 30.70% 31.30% 32.95% 35.98% 35.44% 39.10%
Percentage of Students in Grade-LevelCohorts Proficient & Above in Math
25.91% 29.25% 31.36% 32.75% 35.09% 37.21% 39.73%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%A
xis
Titl
e
Closing the Achievement Gap Goal: The gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American and Hispanic students will decrease
by 3.5% each year.
45
• Stronger performance by white students in 2010-11 increased the achievement gap.
• 2010-11 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Gap between Asian / Caucasian andAfrican-American
33.6% 34.4% 35.2% 35.0% 34.6% 31.3% 31.0%
Gap between Asian / Caucasian andHispanic
38.7% 39.3% 38.4% 37.7% 35.5% 33.1% 35.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Scoring Unsatisfactory Goal: Percentage Scoring Unsatisfactory will decrease by at least 3.5%
46
• Having fewer students scoring unsatisfactory on CSAP indicates our models are effective with our students.
• 2010-11 Goal: 17.1%
• 2010-11 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
25.6%
24.3% 23.4%
21.8% 20.6%
19.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Percentage of Students Scoring Unsatisfactory on CSAP
Colorado ACT Performance Goal: Increase percentage scoring 20+ by at least 3.5% per year
47
22.7%
24.8% 25.1% 26.2%
28.9% 28.8% 29.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Percentage of Students Scoring 20+ on ACT • An ACT score of
20 is required for admission to most state colleges & universities.
• 2010-11 Goal: 32.3%
• 2010-11 Status: DID NOT MEET GOAL
2010 Denver Plan Goals Denver Plan Goals 2010 2011
Full-day Kindergarten access Met goal Met goal
3rd Grade CSAP proficiency Did not meet Partially met
Students scoring above state median for growth Met goal Did not meet
Achievement gap Did not meet Did not meet
Cohort proficiency rates on CSAP Partially met Partially met
Percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory on CSAP Did not meet Did not meet
Students scoring 20+ on ACT Did not meet Did not meet
English language learners’ performance on CELA Met goal Met goal
AP Enrollment Met goal Met goal
AP Tests Taken Met goal Met goal
AP Tests Passed Met goal Met goal
School success measured by SPF Did not meet Not Available
Concurrent enrollment in College Courses Met goal Not Available
DPS Enrollment Met goal Not Available
DPS Re-enrollment Met goal Not Available
College Enrollment Did not meet Not Available
Graduation Rate Met goal Not Available
Dropout Rate Met goal Not Available 48
2010 Denver Plan
We’re UP to the Challenge!
1. Educator Effectiveness
2. English Language Learners
3. Common Core and State Academic Standards and Assessments
4. Supporting and Improving Our Highest Need Schools
50