2013 Rowland Unified School DistrictAccountability and Assessment Update

Principals MeetingAugust 28, 2013

Brian Huff

2013 Academic Performance Index (API)

2013 API Results

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

766 (Base)

777 (Base)

792 (Base)

791 (Base)

802 (Base)

779 (Growth)

792 (Growth)

792 (Growth)

800 (Growth)

807 (Growth)

+13 +15 +0 +9 +5

2013 API ResultsRUSD California Hacienda

La PuenteWest

CovinaWalnut Valley

Norwalk La Mirada

LAUSD

2012 Base API

802 791 814 832 909 775 746

2013 Growth

API807 789 813 830 908 781 749

+5 -2 -1 -2 -1 +6 +3

Academic Performance Index (API) RUSD Three-Year Trend:

Schools Meeting Schoolwide Targets

Schools Meeting Schoolwide and

Subgroup Targets

Schools that did not make API targets

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

53%

37%

47%

68%

47%

26%

84%

58%

16%

201120122013

Insert graphic of API results

Projected 2012 Academic Performance Index (API Growth) for RUSD Subgroups

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013550

600

650

700

750

800779

792 792 800 807

710727 729 735 742

727747 747

757 760

606625

612

638 635

RUSDELLEconomically Disad-vantagedStudents with Disabilities

Projected Academic Performance Index (API) for RUSD Subgroups

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013700

750

800

850

900

777792 792 799

807

912

924924

925 925

856866 869 876 882

718734 736

744754

RUSDAsianFilipinoHispanic

2013 Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)

Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): ELA Subgroups

2011 2012 201320.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

56.4%59.0% 58.6%

42.3%45.4% 44.5%46.1%49.4% 50.4%

38.5%41.2% 40.7%

68%

78%

89%RUSD

English Learners

Economically Disadvantaged

Students with Disabilities

NCLB Target(RUSD overall and subgroups above did not meet Safe Harbor requirements for AYP)

Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): ELA Subgroups

2011 2012 201335.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

85.0%

56.4%59.0% 58.6%

84.0% 84.0% 84.3%

75.8%77.6%

80.2%

44.1%47.9% 46.7%

68%

89%

RUSDAsianFilipinoHispanicNCLB Target

(RUSD overall and Asian and Hispanic subgroupsdid not meet Safe Harbor requirements for AYP)

Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Mathematics

2011 2012 201325.0%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

85.0%

95.0%

59.9% 61.8%64.4%

52.5%54.3%

56.1%51.0% 53.2%

56.9%

36.9%42.4%

44.4%

69.0%

79.0%

89.0%RUSD

English Learners

Economically Disadvantaged

Students with Disabilities

NCLB Target

(RUSD overall and subgroups above did not meet Safe Harbor requirements for AYP)

Projected Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in Mathematics

2011 2012 201340.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

59.9%62.0%

64.4%

89.2% 90.0%92.3%

74.6%

79.0% 79.6%

48.3% 50.0%53.2%

69.0%

79.0%

89.0%

RUSDAsianFilipinoHispanicNCLB Target

(Asian subgroup met Safe Harbor requirements for AYP)

2013 Program Improvement Status

Program Improvement Status• On watch – Hurley• Year 1 – Telesis• Year 2 – Jellick• Year 3 – Hollingworth, Rorimer• Year 4 - Alvarado• Year 5 – Northam, Rowland Elem., Villacorta, Yorbita, Giano, Nogales High School• Not Title I* – Blandford, Killian, Shelyn, Oswalt, Ybarra, Rowland High School

*all schools listed here would be in Program Improvement if they received Title I funding

UPDATE:2012-2013 Areas of Focus

Early Literacy: Grades TK-3

2013 STAR:

• Five year trend on CST ELA shows Grade 2 remaining flat and Grade 3 moving students into “Basic” from above and below

2009 2010 2011 2012 201330

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

52 5249

5553

42 41 4043

40

64 6462 62 61

54

5957

615859 59

56

6162.9

RUSD English Language Arts 2013 CST

Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cen

t or

Ad

van

ced

CST ELA: Grade 2 remains flat

Proficiency Band 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Proficient/Advanced 52 52 49 55 53

Basic 27 26 26 24 26Below Basic/Far Below Basic 21 22 25 22 21

GRADE 2 RUSD

2009 2010 2011 2012 201330

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

52 5249

5553

42 41 4043

40

64 6462 62 61

54

5957

615859 59

56

6162.9

RUSD English Language Arts 2013 CST

Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cen

t or

Ad

van

ced

CST ELA: Grade 3 moving kids into “Basic” from above and below

Proficiency Band 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Proficient/Advanced 42 41 49 43 40

Basic 30 34 26 31 35Below Basic/Far Below Basic 28 24 26 27 24

GRADE 3

Star Early Literacy Results: TK-3

2012-2013 Universal Screening Star Early Literacy

• High achieving, low growth compared to national average

• RUSD kindergarteners start high compared to national literacy scores on Star Early Literacy but decrease through grades 1-3

Mathematics

2011-2012

2013 Algebra 1 Results• Increased enrollment in Algebra 1 by 12% or 78

students.

• Increase in students scoring Proficient or Advanced by 11% in Grades 7-11 (33% to 44%).

• Increase in students scoring Proficient or Advanced by 19% in Grade 8 (43% to 64%).

• Increase of students scoring Proficient or Advanced in every subgroup.

2009 2010 2011 2012 201345

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

64 64 65 6563

69 69 69 706869

71

6866

74

60

64

60

65

70

56

59

53

58

53

RUSD Mathematics 2013 CST

Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ad

van

ced

2009 2010 2011 2012 201320

30

40

50

60

70

80

37

47

41

4953

23

30 3033

3632

3633 33

44

25

3234 34

25

40 4043 42 41

RUSD Mathematics 2013 CST

Pre-AlgebraGen MathAlgebra 1GeometryAlgebra 2

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

or

Ad

van

ced

Long-Term English learners

Title III AccountabilityAMAO 1 – 56% Target• English learners have met the AMAO 1 goal for the last

three years (63% meeting target)

AMAO 2• English learners have met the AMAO 2 goal for the last

three years (Cohort 1-25.6%; Cohort 2 -51.8%)

AMAO 3• English learners have not met AMAO 3 for the last four

years in ELA, three years in Math.

Title III Accountability

Although we are meeting AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 overall in RUSD, our Intermediate level English

learners are not.

2013 RUSD CAHSEE Grade 10 Census% Pass in English Language Arts (July 1, 2013)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201310

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

86

9188

90 9088

79 79 8082

84 84

7778 80

74 7376 77

80 80

4144 44

4952

41

27

32

37

24

45

33

Asian

RUSD

Economically Disadvantaged

Hispanic

English Learners

Special Education Students

N=1,262March and May Combined

N=1,160March results only(May scores of 26 remaining 10th graders released in August; these scores historically do not greatly alter the March results shown here)

2013 RUSD CAHSEE Grade 10 Census% Pass in Mathematics (July 1, 2013)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201310

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10097 97 97 98 98 98

80

84 83 8486 86

74

80 79 8083 82

71

78 77 7880 79

56

66

6062

66

55

29

39 38 38

44

40

Asian

RUSD

Economically Disadvantaged

Hispanic

English Learners

Special Education Students

N=1,151March results only(May scores of 26 remaining10th graders released in August; these scoreshistorically do not greatly alter the March results shown here)

N=1,271March and May Combined

2013 RUSD CAHSEE Grade 10% Proficient English Language Arts

2011 2012 20130

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

60

5659

810

5

911 10

50

43

47

78 77

72

All Grade 10ELLSPEDHispanicAsian

2013 RUSD CAHSEE Grade 10 Census% Proficient in Mathematics

2011 2012 20130

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6164 63

15

26

21

1216

18

4952

48

9288

83

All Grade 10ELLSPEDHispanicAsian

• The overall pass rate of Grade 10 students in RUSD held at 86% in mathematics and 84% in English language arts.

• English learners overall decreased 11 points in both mathematics and English language arts.

• Students in special education decreased 4 points in mathematics and 12 points in English language arts.

Summary overall

• Rowland High School – Math – increased in all subgroups– ELA – slight decrease overall, ELL decreased 16

points

• Nogales High School– Math – slight decrease overall, ELL decreased 22

points, SPED decreased 16 points– ELA – held steady overall, ELL decreased 11

points, SPED decreased 20 points

Summary by school

Begin a Causal Analysis• 5 minutes : Reflect on the data for your focus

area and the work you know occurred this year in Rowland at your site and the district.

• 10 minutes : Individually use a causal analysis tool to brainstorm possible factors in the areas of assessment, curriculum, instruction, equity, critical supports.

• 45 minutes : Ordered sharing process – choose two key possible factors and share with the group. When everyone is finished, have an open discussion.

Collaborative Inquiry: 2013-2014

PROCESS:• Data dialogue with multiple

sources of data• Identify student learning problem• Uncover the root cause• Identify strategies• Monitor and adjust

Collaborative Inquiry: 2013-2014

TEAMS NEED:• Time• Structure• Leadership

CST ELA Grade 2: Percent of students who scored Proficient or Advanced

Blandford

Hollingw

orthHurle

yJellic

kKilli

an

Northam

Oswalt

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

79

36

21

47

69

35

8177

48

26

46

71

33

89

79

45

33

49

57

34

79

201120122013

CST ELA Grade 2: Percent of students who scored Proficient or Advanced

Series110

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

201120122013