Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Impact Learning. Impact Lives.Impact Learning. Impact Lives.
Regular Meeting of the Board of Education September 24, 2013
Board Members & Members of the Public will:•Review SFUSD’s key strategies for improving student achievement in the 2012‐13 school year
•Understand SFUSD’s district and site student achievement results from the 2012‐13 school year and areas of focus for the 2013‐14 school year
•Learn about tangible best practices that have resulted in accelerated progress for students
•Review the Six Strategies for Success outlined in SFUSD’s 2013‐15 Strategic Plan Impact Learning. Impact Lives. to ensure the elimination of persistent achievement gaps
Presentation Outcomes:
Focus for the 2012
‐13 Scho
ol Year
Last Year’s Focus
• Developed performance tiers for our schools and aligned resources and supports to meet identified needs
• Expanded our balanced assessments; 100% schools participating in CLAs
• Collected baseline data for all of our early education students and families
• Professional Development: Premier RtICohort PD; Inclusive Practices; SFUSD Core Curriculum
• Developed Superintendent's Evaluation and aligned targets to site Balanced Score Card
Together, We Accomplished Much…
Achievement2013 CST results
TrendMovement
CST English Language ArtsTrend for Proficient and Above (Grades 2 to 11) 2008‐2013
+2.3+3.5+1.1
+3.1% at or above proficient
‐0.3
CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7)2008‐2013
+2.9 +0.8+2.0+1.6
% at or above proficient +1.6
CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)2008‐2013
+2.9+1.6
+1.9+0.2% at or above
proficient +0.2
CST HistoryTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 8 and 11, and End‐of‐Course)2008‐2013
+3.9+3.9
+3.2 +0.8% at or above proficient ‐1.3
CST Science Trend for Proficient and Above(Grades 5, 8, and 10)2008‐2013
+5.6+2.3+1.2 +1.3% at or above
proficient ‐1.1
California Comparison: ELA (Grades 2 to 11)
% at or above proficient
California Comparison: Mathematics(Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)
% at or above proficient
CST English Language ArtsMatched Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)
Prof & Ad 62.7%
TotalFar Below
BasicBelow Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
# Positive Change
% Postive Change
Far Below Basic 1533 713 532 253 29 6 820 53.5%
Below Basic 2820 529 1030 1072 173 16 1261 44.7%
Basic 6905 220 997 3755 1718 215 1933 28.0%
Proficient 8843 32 133 1980 4641 2057 6698 75.7%
Prof & Ad Advanced 10666 3 3 223 2443 7994 10437 97.9%
63.4% Total 30767 1497 2695 7283 9004 10288 21149 68.7%
2012 CST ELA
2013 CST ELA
Achievement Change in English Language Arts from Spring 2012 to Sping 2013
• Less than 20 students
CST MathematicsMatched Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)
Prof & Ad 70.6%
TotalFar Below
BasicBelow Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
# Positive Change
% Postive Change
Far Below Basic 351 131 171 45 4 0 220 62.7%
Below Basic 1717 220 817 525 141 14 680 39.6%
Basic 3075 72 636 1259 919 189 1108 36.0%
Proficient 4894 15 194 934 2324 1427 3751 76.6%
Prof & Ad Advanced 7675 1 23 173 1416 6062 7478 97.4%
71.0% Total 17712 439 1841 2936 4804 7692 13237 74.7%
2013 CST Math
2012 CST MATH
Achievement Change in Mathematics from Spring 2012 to Sping 2013
• Less than 20 students
Schools have 75% or more students at Proficient and above
26 on CST/ ELA
34 on CST/ Math
Top Performing Schools
Overall Performance in ELA
Schools
John Yehall Chin (98%) Clarendon (90%) Alice Fong Yu (87%)
Lilienthal (86%) Stevenson (86%) Lawton (83%)
Grattan (83%) Sunset (83%) Sherman (83%)
Ulloa (82%) Miraloma (82%) West Portal (81%)
Jefferson (81%) Lafayette (81%) Chinese Immersion (79%)
McKinley (79%) Peabody (78%) Rooftop (77%)
Sutro (77%) Sloat (76%) Feinstein (76%)
Alamo (76%) Giannini (80%) Presidio (79%)
Lowell (96%) SOTA (85%)
Top Performing Schoolshave 75% or more students at proficient and above26
Schools
John Yehall Chin (100%) Chinese Immersion (94%) Alice Fong Yu (93%)
Stevenson (93%) Clarendon (92%) Ulloa (91%)
Sherman (91%) Sunset (89%) Jefferson (88%)
Lawton (88%) Alamo (87%) Yick Woo (87%)
West Portal (86%) Sloat (86%) Lafayette (85%)
Peabody (85%) Garfield (84%) Grattan (83%)
Lilienthal (83%) Sutro (83%) Key (82%)
Taylor (82%) Lau (80%) Miraloma (80%)
McKinley (79%) Argonne (78%) Feinstein (78%)
New Traditions (78%) Lowell (77%) Parker (77%)
Alvarado (77%) Presidio (76%) Rooftop (76%)
Ortega (75%)
Overall Performance in MathTop Performing Schoolshave 75% or more students at proficient and above34
Schools demonstrating at least double the district’s growth trends over five years
23 on CST/ ELA
26 on CST/ Math
Schools on the Move
Overall Growth in ELA 2009‐2013Schools on the Move
* School grade span changed during last 5 years.
SchoolsBuena Vista Horace Mann* SF Montessori* John Yehall Chin
Fairmount Revere Starr King
McKinley John Muir Sunnyside
New Traditions Grattan Parks
Webster Ortega Sunset
Sutro Alvarado Hillcrest
Everett Bessie Carmichael O’Connell
Burton Mission HS
Overall Growth in Math 2009‐2013Schools on the Move
* School grade span changed during last 5 years.
SchoolsBuena Vista Horace Mann* SF Montessori* Revere
Carver Starr King Fairmount
New Traditions John Muir Bryant
Redding McKinley Bret Harte
Sanchez Grattan Rosa Parks
Alvarado Ortega Cleveland
Everett Bessie Carmichael Wallenberg
SOTA Thurgood Marshall O’Connell
Mission High June Jordan
Acceleration Schools
Schools posting Double Digit Gains between 2012 & 2013
4 on CST/ ELA
7 on CST/ Math
Schools
Fairmount Serra
New Traditions Webster
Acceleration Schools
ELA
Schools
Fairmount Everett
Revere Sheridan
Chinese Ed Center Webster
Cleveland
Math
Cohort Best Practices
Elementary Schools Building Instructional Leadership Capacity•Focus on specific problems of practice•Teacher involvement•Work across school teams to identify solutions
Frequent school visits and feedback
Focus on English Learner Success•Short curriculum alignment and assessment cycles (1‐2 weeks)•Building professional capacity for reflection thru use of formative assessment
Access & Equity
Student Subgroup Performance
Algebra ParticipationProgram Performance
CST English Language Arts Trend for Proficient and Abovefor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 11)
+10+11
+15
+9
% at or above proficient
Overall District Trend
CST English Language Arts Trend for Proficient and Abovefor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 11)
% at or above proficient
CST Mathematics Trend for Proficient and AboveFor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 7)
+12+11
+13
+15
% at or above proficient
Overall District Trend
CST Mathematics Trend for Proficient and AboveFor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 7)
% at or above proficient
English Language LearnersTrend for Proficient and AboveELA (Grades 2 to 11)Math (Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)
% at or above proficient
English Language Arts Mathematics
EL Redesignation Rate (%)
Students with Disabilities/ ELACST & Alternative Assessments Trend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 11)% at or above proficient
N=3,306 2,600 2,333 1,920 2,094 2,203 N = 433 713 1,445 1,733 1,880 1,860 N= 457 459 481 481 458 444
Students with Disabilities/ MathematicsCST & Alternative AssessmentsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)% at or above proficient
N = 3,288 2,813 2,436 2,196 2,286 2,376 N = 358 628 1,119 1,563 1,646 1,641
N = 456 452 477 478 456 443
CST English Language ArtsMatched African American Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)
• Less than 20 students
CST MathematicsMatched African American Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)
• Less than 20 students
CST English Language ArtsMatched Latino Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)
• Less than 20 students
CST MathematicsMatched Latino Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)
• Less than 20 students
CST English Language ArtsMatched English Learner Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)
• Less than 20 students
CST MathematicsMatched English Learner Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)
• Less than 20 students
CST English Language ArtsMatched SPED Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)
• Less than 20 students
CST MathematicsMatched SPED Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)
• Less than 20 students
CST 8th Grade Algebra 1 or higher:Trend for Algebra Test Participation Rate
% 8th Grade Test Takers
n=3,25
6
n=3,19
6
% at or above proficient
CST 8th Grade Algebra:Trend for Proficient and Above
58.7 57.8 56.151.5 49.5 49.6
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Schools demonstrating higher than the school’s overall average growth in both
ELA and Mathematics from 2012‐2013
for Targeted Subgroups of Students(at least 30 students or 15% of the enrollment)
Schools Closing the Achievement Gap
Schools Closing the Achievement Gap for African American Students in ELA and Math
Higher than the school’s growth from 2012 to 2013 CST
Schools
SOTA Balboa
Burton Denman
Grattan Revere
Roosevelt
Schools Closing the Achievement Gap for Latino Students in ELA and Math
Higher than the school’s growth from 2012 to 2013 CST
Schools
Chavez Denman
El Dorado Francis Scott Key
Francisco Garfield
Bret Harte Hoover
June Jordan Lilienthal
Marina McCoppin
Redding Sheridan
Sherman Sunnyside
Wallenberg
Schools Closing the Achievement Gap for English Language Learners in ELA and Math
Higher than the school’s growth from 2012 to 2013 CST
Schools
Buena Vista Horace Mann Bret Harte Martin Luther King MS
Marshall ES Mission High Muir
O’Connell Rooftop Sunnyside
Webster
Cohort Best Practices
High Schools Clear Theory of Action•Supporting high school principals to align resources around priority areas
Concentration on Early Warning Indicators with ninth grade focus and sharing of best practices
Professional Learning Networks•Focus on areas such as African American achievement and inclusive practices for students with disabilities•Site visits and use of critical friends protocol
Superintendent’s ZoneFive Year Trend
Compared to Overall District
Superintendent’s Zone SIG schools have posted almost DOUBLE the gains in ELA
.Superintendent’s Zone SIG schools have posted TRIPLE the gains in MATH compared to the district
CST English Language ArtsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 11)
Zone launched in 2010
SIG implementation in 2011
% at or above proficient
+9
+15 +18
CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7)
Zone launched in 2010
SIG implementation in 2011
+26+31
% at or above proficient
+10
CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)
+6
+24
% at or above proficient
Zone launched in 2010
SIG implementation in 2011
+21
Superintendent’s Zone Best Practices
Implementation of comprehensive literacy framework (K‐8)•Teachers across schools received
on‐going training, PD and coaching•Focus on coherent strategies and best practices
Building Leadership Capacity through Learning Networks•Weekly grade level collaboration and instructional planning across all schools•Coaching Network•Instructional Rounds•Enhanced Principal Meetings•Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs)
The Next Level of Work: Six Strategies for Success
Implement the SFUSD Core Curriculum and use student data to make informed decisions and monitor our progress toward goals.
Provide tiered levels of academic and behavior support to all students using a Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI2) model.
Build a clear vision, culture and conditions for college and career readinessat all school levels.
Differentiate central office supports to schools through a Multi‐Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).
Recruit, develop and retain highly qualified teachers, leaders, and staff.
Increase awareness and build the supports necessary to fully implement SFUSD’s Family engagement Standards.