riverside county african-american performance shannon wells, phd 1
TRANSCRIPT
Riverside County African-American Performance
Shannon Wells, PhD
1
Cost of Dropout: AcademicEach day, 7 busses full of kids dropout in CA
• CA, estimated 1 out of 8 drop out before HS
• Benefit of effective dropout intervention– $392,000 for every HS
graduate
Riverside County, 3 busses each week
2
IMPORTANCE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
• Education is the civil rights issue of this time.
• Ongoing educational underachievement negatively impacts academic accountability and larger societal issues.
• The rigor of the CCCSS will result in a widening of the achievement gap if this issue is not addressed.
• To truly increase college and career readiness rates, we must address the performance of all underperforming students.
• It is a disadvantage to all if a significant group of Americans remains consistently under-educated.
3
4
“I am particularly concerned that our African-American students fall below national norms of student achievement and performance
measures….To support our belief that students are our future leaders, teachers, inventors, soldiers, doctors and so much more,
we need to readily address specific needs and provide appropriate support where needed. Changing California’s future for the better
begins with our students.”
-Tom TorlaksonState Superintendent of Public Instruction
Riverside County DemographicsRiverside County Enrollment Demographics
Hispanic or Latino
of Any Race
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Pacific Islander Filipino African
American WhiteTwo or More Races
Not Reported Total
255,337 2,390 12,061 1,793 8,145 28,698 106,164 8,588 2,531 425,70760.0% 0.6% 2.8% 0.4% 1.9% 6.7% 24.9% 2.0% 0.6%
• “Testing” Subgroups:– 62.6% SED– 30.5% EL– 11.9% SWD
5
Riverside County AA Subgroup Makeup
• 17317 AA Students Tested in 2012– 63.7% SED– 0.9% EL– 16.4% SWD
6
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS DOES EACH DISTRICT CONTRIBUTE TO THE COUNTY?
7
District African American %Moreno Valley Unified 6251 21.8%Riverside Unified 3372 11.7%Corona-Norco Unified 3336 11.6%Val Verde Unified 2754 9.6%Hemet Unified 1621 5.6%Palm Springs Unified 1288 4.5%Murrieta Valley Unified 1203 4.2%Temecula Valley Unified 1187 4.1%Lake Elsinore Unified 1078 3.8%Perris Union High 853 3.0%Alvord Unified 818 2.9%San Jacinto Unified 760 2.6%Desert Sands Unified 582 2.0%Menifee Union Elementary 558 1.9%Beaumont Unified 507 1.8%Jurupa Unified 501 1.7%RCOE 482 1.7%Perris Elementary 479 1.7%Banning Unified 423 1.5%Palo Verde Unified 270 0.9%Nuview Union 171 0.6%Romoland Elementary 130 0.5%California School For The Deaf 40 0.1%Coachella Valley Unified 34 0.1%Desert Center Unified 0 0.0%
828698 Total
WHAT PERCENT OF THE STUDENT POPULATION IS THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN SUBGROUP IN EACH DISTRICT?
9
10
District Total African American % of District
Moreno Valley Unified 35692 6251 17.5%Val Verde Unified 19615 2754 14.0%California School For The Deaf 385 40 10.4%Banning Unified 4503 423 9.4%Perris Elementary 5816 479 8.2%Perris Union High 10645 853 8.0%Riverside Unified 42406 3372 8.0%Palo Verde Unified 3486 270 7.7%San Jacinto Unified 9851 760 7.7%Hemet Unified 21977 1621 7.4%Nuview Union 2535 171 6.7%Corona-Norco Unified 53467 3336 6.2%RCOE 7796 482 6.2%Beaumont Unified 8660 507 5.9%Menifee Union Elementary 9784 558 5.7%Palm Springs Unified 23676 1288 5.4%Murrieta Valley Unified 22693 1203 5.3%Lake Elsinore Unified 22171 1078 4.9%Romoland Elementary 3032 130 4.3%Alvord Unified 19741 818 4.1%Temecula Valley Unified 30267 1187 3.9%Jurupa Unified 19884 501 2.5%Desert Sands Unified 29199 582 2.0%Coachella Valley Unified 18406 34 0.2%Desert Center Unified 20 0 0.0%
COMPARISON SUBGROUPS
11
12
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AA 702 724 732 746 748
Hispanic 701 722 739 753 758
White 809 822 837 846 850
SED 690 713 730 745 751
EL 668 689 702 715 718
SWD 579 610 629 641 640
525
575
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
975
702724 732
746 748
668689
702715 718
Riverside County Comparison Subgroups for API
API
13
Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
AA 41.6% 46.3% 48.5% 51.4% 51.9%
Hispanic 0.369 0.424 0.455 0.484 0.5
White 0.638 0.682 0.7 0.717 0.728
SED 0.346 0.405 0.438 0.468 0.486
EL 29.2% 34.5% 36.4% 39.2% 40.2%
SWD 0.277 0.373 0.393 0.391 0.378
5.0%
15.0%
25.0%
35.0%
45.0%
55.0%
65.0%
75.0%
41.6%
46.3%48.5%
51.4% 51.9%
29.2%
34.5%36.4%
39.2% 40.2%
Riverside County ELA AYP Comparison Subgroups%
Pro
f/Ad
v
14
Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012
AA 39.9% 43.8% 44.6% 47.8% 48.2%
Hispanic 0.429 0.471 0.495 0.526 0.53
White 0.634 0.657 0.683 0.703 0.7
SED 0.409 0.455 0.477 0.513 0.516
EL 38.8% 43.5% 45.1% 48.5% 48.4%
SWD 0.316 0.386 0.411 0.422 0.412
5.0%
15.0%
25.0%
35.0%
45.0%
55.0%
65.0%
75.0%
39.9%43.8% 44.6%
47.8% 48.2%
38.8%
43.5% 45.1%48.5% 48.4%
Riverside County Math AYP Comparison Subgroups
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICTS: ACHIEVEMENT GAP DATA
15
16
Menife
e Union El
emen
tary (
7%)
Lake E
lsinore
Unified (6
%)
Alvord
Unified (4
%)
Banning U
nified (1
0%)
Corona-N
orco Unified
(6%)
Perris E
lemen
tary (
9%)
Beaumont U
nified (7
%)
Val Verd
e Unified
(14%)
Jurupa U
nified (3
%)
Temecu
la Vall
ey Unified
(4%)
Murrieta
Valley
Unified (5
%)
San Ja
cinto Unified
(8%)
Desert
Sands U
nified (2
%)
Riversi
de Unified
(8%)
Moreno Vall
ey Unified
(18%)
Hemet
Unified (8
%)
Palm Sp
rings
Unified (6
%)
Perris U
nion High (8
%)
Palo Verd
e Unified
(8%)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
828785 781
703
811722
768 774730
806 791706
789 761697 683 701 690
592
4648 52
53
53
55
68 7581
82 83
86
8894
102 116 118 119
146
874833 833
756
864
777
836 849811
888 874
792
877855
799 799819 809
738
2012 Growth API Achievement Gap for the African American Subgroup
GapDistrict Subgroup ApiWhite Subgroup APIState Subgroup API
Note* Only districts with a numerically significant number of students within the listed subgroup are included. Chart is sorted from lowest achievement gap, to largest, with the White subgroup's API at the top.
API
17
Alvord
Unified (4
%)
Banning U
nified (1
0%)
Lake E
lsinore
Unified (6
%)
Corona-N
orco Unified
(6%)
Menife
e Union El
emen
tary (
7%)
Jurupa U
nified (3
%)
Perris E
lemen
tary (
9%)
Beaumont U
nified (7
%)
Val Verd
e Unified
(14%)
Desert
Sands U
nified (2
%)
Murrieta
Valley
Unified (5
%)
Temecu
la Vall
ey Unified
(4%)
San Ja
cinto Unified
(8%)
Riversi
de Unified
(8%)
Moreno Vall
ey Unified
(18%)
Palm Sp
rings
Unified (6
%)
Hemet
Unified (8
%)
Perris U
nion High (8
%)
Palo Verd
e Unified
(8%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
56.345.8
60.365.6 62.2
5037.8
57.4 55.9 58.7 59.365.2
40
55.5
42.2 42.5 38.6 39
17.3
8.7
9.8
9.9000000000000110.3
10.9
12.9
12.9
13 16.117.2 17.4
17.6
18.3
18.5
20 21.923
28.3
33.9
65
55.6
70.275.9
73.1
62.9
50.7
70.4 7275.9 76.7
82.8
58.3
74
62.2 64.461.6
67.3
51.2
AYP ELA Achievement Gap for the African American Subgroup as Compared to the White Subgroup 2012
GapDistrict Subgroup RateWhite SubgroupState Subgroup Rate
*Note: Only districts with a numerically significant number of students within the listed subgroup are included. Chart is sorted from lowest achievement gap to greatest, with the white subgroup's % prof/adv at the top of each column.
AYP
% P
rof/
Adv
18
Perris E
lemen
tary (
9%)
Lake E
lsinore
Unified (6
%)
Banning U
nified (1
0%)
Corona-N
orco Unified
(6%)
Menife
e Union El
emen
tary (
7%)
Beaumont U
nified (7
%)
Alvord
Unified (4
%)
Desert
Sands U
nified (2
%)
Temecu
la Vall
ey Unified
(4%)
San Ja
cinto Unified
(8%)
Val Verd
e Unified
(14%)
Riversi
de Unified
(8%)
Murrieta
Valley
Unified (5
%)
Palm Sp
rings
Unified (6
%)
Jurupa U
nified (3
%)
Moreno Vall
ey Unified
(18%)
Hemet
Unified (8
%)
Perris U
nion High (8
%)
Palo Verd
e Unified
(8%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4757.4
47.559.6 57.8 53.3 52
61.2 59.9
43.355.7 52.8 54.5
43.9 45.235.9 33.8 32.7
24.7
9.6
10.8
11.7
12.2 13.716 16.4
16.9 17.2
17.9
18.3 19.4 20.1
20.2 20.7
23.4 26 29.4
31.3
56.668.2
59.2
71.8 71.5 69.3 68.4
78.1 77.1
61.2
74 72.2 74.6
64.1 65.9
59.3 59.8 62.156
AYP Math Achievement Gap for the African American Subgroup as Compared to the White Subgroup 2012
GapDistrict Subgroup RateWhite SubgroupState Subgroup Rate
*Note: Only districts with a numerically significant number of students within the listed subgroup are included. Chart is sorted from lowest achievement gap to greatest, with the white subgroup's % prof/adv at the top of each column.
AYP
% P
rof/
Adv
DISSECTING AA PERFORMANCE
19
20
White
Ove
rall
AA Female
non-SED
AA Non-SED
AA Male
Non-SED
AA Female
AA Ove
rall
AA Female
SED
AA Male
AA SED
AA Male
SED
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
850828
802777 775
748 743722 716
691
Riverside County AA Performance on API on 2012 Growth API
21
White
Ove
rall
AA Female
non-SED
AA Non-SED
AA Female
AA Male
Non-SED
AA Ove
rall
AA Female
SED
AA Male
AA SED
AA Male
SED
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
72.8% 72.2%
63.8%
58.5%55.6%
51.1% 50.7%
44.3% 44.1%
38.2%
Riverside County AA Performance AYP ELA
22
White
Ove
rall
AA Female
non-SED
AA Non-SED
AA Male
Non-SED
AA Female
AA Ove
rall
AA Male
AA Female
SED
AA SED
AA Male
SED
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
70.0%
62.2%
58.2%
54.4%50.7%
47.4%44.3% 44.3%
41.5%38.8%
Riverside County AA Performance AYP Math
IT’S BEING DONE: A LOOK AT SUCCESSFUL MODELS
24
HOW MANY EXAMPLES DO WE HAVE TO SEE OF HIGH POVERTY, HIGH ACHIEVING SCHOOLS BEFORE WE
BELIEVE THAT ALL STUDENTS CAN ACHIEVE?
25
“We can, whenever, and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of
interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we
haven’t so far.”
-Ronald EdmondsHarvard University
DEMOGRAPHICS DATA (2012 Growth)•20% African American•79% Hispanic or Latino•1% Pacific Islander•92% SED
•API • Overall- 919• African American- 913
•AYP (ELA)• Overall- 77.5%• African American- 78.6%
•AYP (Math)• Overall- 89.9%• African American- 82.1%
26
LAUREL STREET ELEMENTARYCOMPTON, CALIFORNIA
KEY STRATEGIES FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
NEXT STEPS
WHAT NEXT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN AT THE DISTRICT AND COUNTY LEVELS TO INCREASE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS?
Be prepared to share one item from your table discussion.
