Lodi Unified School District

Lodi Unified School District

Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE

2009-10 Results Update

Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Educationby the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department

043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010 2

Executive Summary – Academic Performance Index (API)The API is the state’s accountability system and its

focus is on how much schools are improving academically from year-to-year.

LUSD’s 2010 Growth API was 737, representing an increase of 10 points compared to the 2009 Base API of 727; California’s API was 767, representing an increase of 13 points.

31 district schools met their school-wide API targets 20 of these schools met all of their subgroup API

targetsNine of the 10 800+ schools from last year maintained

an 800+ ranking. One additional school achieved the 800 mark


Executive Summary – Academic Performance Index (API) There were strong API gains at 26 schools:

5 schools went up 40 or more points Elementary Schools – Beckman, Lakewood CDS Middle Schools – Henderson CDS High Schools – Independence, Liberty

2 schools went up 30-39 points Elementary Schools – Needham Middle Schools - McAuliffe

8 schools went up 20-29 points Elementary Schools – Heritage, Larson, Lawrence, Oakwood,

Podesta Ranch, Silva, Sutherland High Schools – Bear Creek

11 schools went up 10-19 points Elementary Schools – Adams, Borchardt, Creekside, Davis,

Live Oak, Nichols, Vinewood, Woodbridge Middle Schools – Lodi High Schools – Lodi, McNair

See Appendix A for a complete list of schools by 2010 API growth


Executive Summary – Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The AYP is the Federal accountability system, and its focus is

on school performance, regardless of growth or baseline data. AYP calculations will be revised in November 2010 to include

the new California Modified Assessment results for students with disabilities in grades 7 through 11.

LUSD made positive API growth and positive growth in AYP/English Language Arts and AYP/Mathematics for the sixth consecutive year.

A total of 46.6% of the students in LUSD performed at or above the Proficient level in English Language Arts; the 2010 AYP target was 56.0%.

A total of 47.7% of the students in LUSD performed at or above the Proficient level in Mathematics; the 2010 AYP target was 56.4%

A total of 2 Title I Program Improvement schools (Beckman and Lawrence) met 100% of their AYP criteria.

*Per the CDE exclusionary rules, AYP proficiency calculations only include grade 2-8 Standardized Testing and Reporting program and grade 10 California High School Exit Exam results, and excludes results for students who enrolled after the first week of October and for English Learner students enrolled for less than 12 months.


Executive Summary – AYP

Since 2007, the achievement gap between White students and African American students has widened in English Language Arts and Mathematics.

Over this same time period, the achievement gap between White students and Hispanic students has narrowed in English Language Arts and in Mathematics.


Executive Summary – AYP AYP Percent Proficient Criteria

46.6% of LUSD students were proficient in English Language Arts in 2010, representing a 1-year increase of .9 points and a 2-year increase of 8.6 points.

47.7% of LUSD students were proficient in Mathematics in 2010, representing a 1-year increase of .1 points and a 2-year increase of 4.5 points.

10 schools met all AYP targets with 1 additional school “pending” until the graduation rate is completed

The number of AYP Criteria LUSD met decreased from 39 of 46 in 2008 to 30 of 46 in 2010 due to the increased proficiency targets (see next slide).

2008 Missed Criteria 2009 Missed Criteria 2010 Missed Criteria

English Language Arts – Percent Proficient

African American Students

Hispanic Students

Economically Disadvantaged Students

English Learners

Students with Disabilities

Mathematics – Percent Proficient





Hispanic or Latino Students


English Learners





Pacific Islander Students


English Learners


Graduation Rate


Districtwide


American Indian/Alaska Native Students

Asian Students



English Learners



Districtwide


Asian Students


Pacific Islander Students


English Learners


Graduation Rate - Pending


Executive Summary – AYP Proficiency Targets

EL

A

23

.0%

EL

A

23

.0%

EL

A

23

.0%

EL

A

56

.0%

EL

A

67

.0%

EL

A

78

.0%

EL

A

89

.0%

EL

A

10

0.0

%

Mat

h

12

.8%

Mat

h

12

.8%

Mat

h

12

.8%

Mat

h

23

.7%

Mat

h

23

.7%

Mat

h

23

.7%

Mat

h

56

.4%

Mat

h

67

.3%

Mat

h

78

.2%

Mat

h

89

.1%

Mat

h

10

0.0

%

EL

A

34

.0%

EL

A

12

.0%

EL

A

12

.0%

EL

A

12

.0%

ELA

45.0%

Mat

h

34

.6%

Math

45.5%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

ELA

Math

English Language Arts Targets

Mathematics Targets


Executive Summary – Next Steps

APR information is shared with district and site leadership teams.

Site specific information is used by the Educational Services Division for program monitoring and assistance efforts. Graduation rate

Information is used to develop and guide systemic program improvement efforts.


Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting System

The California Department of Education (CDE) uses the Accountability Progress Report (APR) to report LUSD’s: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for

federal accountability, and Academic Performance Index (API) results for

state accountability.


Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting SystemDifference Between API and AYP API results focus on how much schools are improving

academically from year-to-year. Results are reported using scores ranging from 200 to 1000. California’s expectation is that every school will annually

make-up at least 5% of the difference between their base API and the statewide performance target of 800.

AYP results focus on school performance, regardless of growth or baseline data. Results are reported in terms of the:

Participation rate for English Language Arts and Mathematics Annual Measureable Objective (AMO) - percent proficient* in

English Language Arts and Mathematics API as an other indicator Graduation rate as an other indicator

*See Safe Harbor Slide


Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting System Safe Harbor is an alternate method of

meeting the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). Specifically, if a school, an LEA, or a subgroup

does not meet its AMO criteria in either or both content areas and shows significant progress in moving students from scoring below the proficient level to the proficient level or above on the assessments, AYP may be achieved.



Tests Used in Calculating the API and AYP

Test Academic Performance Index (API) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

California Standards Test (CST)

Grade 2-11

English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History-Social Science (Heavily Weighted test)

Grades 2-8

English Language Arts and Mathematics(Heavily weighted test)

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

Students with Disabilities in Grades 2-11

English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science

Grades 2-8, and 10

English Language Arts and Mathematics

California Modified Assessment (CMA)

Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8

English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and History-Social Science

Grades 3-8

English Language Arts, Mathematics and Science

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

Grade 10 (and 11 and 12 if passed)


Score of 350 = Passed = 1000

Grade 10


Score of 380 – Proficient (Heavily weighted test)



Yearly AYP targets for LUSD

YearParticipation

Rate

Percent Proficient – English

Language Arts

Percent Proficient –

Mathematics

API or growth of at least 1

point

Graduation rate or average growth of

at least 0.1 percentage point

2002 to 2004 95 12 12.8 560 82.8

2005 to 2007 95 23 23.7 590 82.9

2008 95 34 34.6 620 83.0

2009 95 45 45.5 650 83.1

2010 95 56 56.4 680 83.2

2011 95 67 67.3 710 83.3

2012 95 78 78.2 740 83.4

2013 95 89 89.1 770 83.5

2014 95 100 100 800 83.6


High Achieving Comparative Districts

In 2008 high achieving comparative districts were selected using the following criteria: District type Size of English Learner population Size of Economically Disadvantaged population

Alhambra, Garden Grove, and San Francisco were selected

Comparing our results along with the results of these high achieving districts highlights available growth opportunities for our district related to API and AYP.


Academic Performance Index680 Total Points or Growth of At Least 1 Point Improvement

to Meet 2010 AYP Criteria

696

710

720

729

737

762

766

782

804

814

755

763

771

777

791

756

766

778

792

802

720

728

742

755

767

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Lodi USD Alhambra USD San Francisco USD Garden Grove USD State of California2010 API includes:# tested: 21,568%EL: 35.5%SED: 64.8

2010 API includes:# tested: 13,756%EL: 43.1%SED: 67.3



2010 API includes:# tested: 4,676,660%EL: 33.1%SED: 56.8


Adequate Yearly Progress - English Language Arts56.0% Proficient Needed to Meet 2010 Criteria

37.0

38.0

40.8

45.4

46.6

54.4

54.4

56.6

61.6

64.0

51.0

52.1

53.2

56.4

58.3

47.1

47.3

50.8

53.9

55.4

44.8

45.5

48.2

52.0

55.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Lodi USD Alhambra USD San Francisco USD Garden Grove USD State of California

2010 AYP Includes: # Enrolled: 18,121 %EL: 35.7 %SES: 64.5




2010 AYP Includes: # Enrolled: 3,759,414 %EL: 34.1 %SES: 58.2


Adequate Yearly Progress - Mathematics56.4% Proficient Needed to Meet 2010 Criteria

42.4

43.2

45.5

47.4

47.7

62.3

62.3

64.0

68.9

70.5

57.0

58.4

59.8

60.8

62.8

56.4

55.3

56.8

61.6

66.4

48.0

48.5

51.0

54.2

57.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Lodi USD Alhambra USD San Francisco USD Garden Grove USD State of California





2010 AYP Includes: # Enrolled: 3,759,137 %EL: 34.1 %SES: 58.2


Subgroup Performance Based on API

Subgroups with a positive 2010 API growth that exceeded the district’s overall growth of 10 points: Asian (+19), African American (+18), Students with Disabilities (+17), and Economically Disadvantaged (+15).

Subgroups with a positive 2010 API growth that did not exceed the districts overall growth: Filipino (+10), Hispanic or Latino (+10), White (+9), Pacific Islander (+8), and English Learner (+8).


Achievement Gap Update Based on API Growth The achievement gap between White

students and African American students narrowed by 7 points.

The achievement gap between White students and Hispanic students was unchanged.

The achievement gap between all LUSD students and students with disabilities narrowed by 7 points.


LUSD Academic Performance IndexSubgroup Performance

2010 API Growth

10

18

19

10

8

9

15

8

17

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

LUSD AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian

Asian Filipino Hispanic Pacific Islander White EconomicallyDisadvantaged

EnglishLearner

Students WithDisabilities

(21,568) (1,767) (138) (3,775) (1,141) (8,314) (180) (5,985) (13,970) (7,653) (2,689)


Subgroup Performance Based on AYP

From 2009 to 2010, there were proficiency increases in English Language Arts for every numerically significant subgroup except for African American which remained constant.

From 2009 to 2010, there were proficiency increases in Mathematics for every numerically significant subgroup except for African American and Pacific Islander.


LUSD Adequate Yearly Progress - English Language Arts Subgroup Performance for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

56.0% Proficient Needed to Meet 2010 Criteria

26.7

46.5

37.7

52.4

27.4

34.7

52.4

26.8

24.2

17.4

28.3

51.3

42.8

55.4

30.0

37.6

55.0

30.0

26.7

22.0

33.2

51.8

46.9

57.6

35.5

43.5

59.2

35.5

31.0

26.1

33.2

41.2

50.2

61.6

36.7

41.8

60.6

37.6

31.5

27.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

African American

American Indian

Asian

Filipino

Hispanic

Pacif ic Islander

White

Economically Disadvantaged

English Learner

Students With Disabilities

Percent of students performing at or above the Proficient Level

2007 2008 2009 2010


LUSD Adequate Yearly Progress - MathematicsSubgroup Performance for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

56.4% Proficient Needed to Meet 2010 Criteria

28.1

46.4

48.6

57.7

34.6

40.7

53.0

35.2

35.4

23.7

28.9

50.0

23.5

59.4

36.1

41.4

55.8

37.0

37.4

27.5

30.9

47.7

54.3

58.1

39.2

42.8

57.6

39.8

39.3

30.0

29.0

49.1

55.6

62.5

39.7

41.8

57.7

40.7

39.5

31.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

African American

American Indian

Asian

Filipino

Hispanic

Pacific Islander

White

Economically Disadvantaged

English Learner

Students With Disabilities

Percent of students performing at or above the Proficient Level

2007 2008 2009 2010


Achievement Gap Update Based on AYP – Percent of Proficient Students From 2007 to 2010, the achievement gap

between White students and African American students widened by 1.7 points in English Language Arts and 3.8 points in Mathematics.

From 2007 to 2010, the achievement gap between White students and Hispanic students narrowed by 1.1 points in English Language Arts and 0.4 points in Mathematics.


LUSD Achievement Gap Between White and African American StudentsAdequate Yearly Progress - English Language Arts

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0 P

erc

en

t o

f stu

de

nts

pe

rfo

rmin

g a

t o

r

ab

ove

the

Pro

ficie

nt l

eve

l

White 42.8 43.3 49.0 52.9 52.4 55.0 59.2 60.6

African American 17.3 17.2 20.7 24.0 26.7 28.3 33.2 33.2

Achievement Gap 25.5 26.1 28.3 28.9 25.7 26.7 26.0 27.4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


LUSD Achievement Gap Between White and African American StudentsAdequate Yearly Progress - Mathematics

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0 P

erc

en

t o

f stu

de

nts

pe

rfo

rmin

g a

t o

r

ab

ove

th

e P

roficie

nt le

ve

l

White 45.4 46.3 49.0 53.6 53.0 55.8 57.6 57.7

African American 17.4 16.4 20.7 25.1 28.1 28.9 30.9 29.0

Achievement Gap 28.0 29.9 28.3 28.5 24.9 26.9 26.7 28.7

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


LUSD Achievement Gap Between White and Hispanic StudentsAdequate Yearly Progress - English Language Arts

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0 P

erc

en

t o

f stu

de

nts

pe

rfo

rmin

g a

t o

r

ab

ove

th

e P

roficie

nt le

ve

l

White 42.8 43.3 49.0 52.9 52.4 55.0 59.2 60.6

Hispanic 17.0 18.2 22.6 25.7 27.4 30.0 35.5 36.7

Achievement Gap 25.8 25.1 26.4 27.2 25.0 25.0 23.7 23.9

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


LUSD Achievement Gap Between White and Hispanic StudentsAdequate Yearly Progress - Mathematics

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0 P

erc

en

t o

f stu

de

nts

pe

rfo

rmin

g a

t o

r

ab

ove

th

e P

roficie

nt le

ve

l

White 45.4 46.3 49.0 53.6 53.0 55.8 57.6 57.7

Hispanic 23.5 24.6 28.8 32.8 34.6 36.1 39.2 39.7

Achievement Gap 21.9 21.7 20.2 20.8 18.4 19.7 18.4 18.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


2010 CAHSEE ResultsGrade 10 First Time Test Takers

Overall English Language Arts Results English Language Arts - A total of 79% of LUSD

Grade 10 students passed the English Language Arts (ELA) sub-test in 2010. The 2010 school year represented the second year in a row that there was an increase in the percent of LUSD students passing this sub-test.

LUSD’s 2010 passing rate was – higher than San Joaquin County’s passing rate by 1

percentage point, and lower than California’s passing rate by 2 percentage

points.



Overall Mathematics Results Math - A total of 78% of LUSD Grade 10

students passed the Math sub-test in 2010. After maintaining a passing rate of 79% on the Math sub-test from 2007 to 2009, this passing rate represented a slight decrease in scores for this sub-test.

LUSD’s 2010 passing rate was – higher than San Joaquin County’s passing rate by 1

percentage point, and lower than California’s passing rate by 3 percentage

points.


California High School Exit Examination English Language Arts

Percent of Students Who Passed by Academic YearAll Grade 10 Students

75% 74%78% 79% 78% 81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 LodiUSD

2008 LodiUSD

2009 LodiUSD

2010 LodiUSD

2010 SanJoaquin Co.

2010 California

California High School Exit Examination Mathematics

Percent of Students Who Passed by Academic YearAll Grade 10 Students

79% 79% 79% 78% 77%81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 Lodi USD 2008 Lodi USD 2009 Lodi USD 2010 Lodi USD 2010 San JoaquinCo.

2010 California



Achievement Gap between White and African American Students

From 2007 to 2010, the achievement gap on the CAHSEE between White and African American students has been narrowing in ELA and Math. On the ELA sub-test, the passing rate increased by 3

percentage points for White students and increased by 10 percentage points for African American students. This represents a narrowing in the CAHSEE ELA achievement gap by 7 percentage points.

On the Math sub-test, the passing rate increased by 1 percentage point for White students and increased by 6 percentage points for African American students. Again, this represents a narrowing in the CAHSEE Math achievement gap by 5 percentage points.



Achievement Gap between White and Hispanic or Latino Students

From 2007 to 2010, the achievement gap on the CAHSEE between White and African American students has been narrowing in ELA and widening in Math. On the ELA sub-test, the passing rate increased by 3

percentage points for White students and increased by 6 percentage points for Hispanic or Latino students. This represents a narrowing in the CAHSEE ELA achievement gap by 3 percentage points.

On the Math sub-test the passing rate increased by 1 percentage point for White students and decreased by 4 percentage points for Hispanic or Latino students. This represents a widening in the CAHSEE Math achievement gap by 5 percentage points.


California High School Exit Examination English Language Arts

Percent of Students Who Passed by Academic YearGrade 10 Students by Ethnic Student Groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 Lodi USD 68% 58% 74% 89% 67% 75% 86%

2008 Lodi USD 75% 63% 72% 87% 61% 56% 89%

2009 Lodi USD 66% 77% 92% 70% 67% 88%

2010 Lodi USD 68% 80% 73% 56% 89% 88%

2010 San Joaquin Co. 78% 68% 81% 89% 71% 78% 88% 67%

2010 California 79% 71% 91% 92% 73% 80% 91% 82%

American Indian or Alaska

African American

Asian FilipinoHispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

WhiteTwo or more races


California High School Exit Examination Mathematics

Percent of Students Who Passed by Academic YearGrade 10 Students by Ethnic Student Groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 Lodi USD 54% 80% 83% 90% 74% 73% 87%

2008 Lodi USD 57% 82% 84% 91% 69% 59% 89%

2009 Lodi USD 60% 81% 94% 72% 87% 89%

2010 Lodi USD 60% 85% 70% 69% 88% 78%

2010 San Joaquin Co. 64% 77% 85% 89% 70% 88% 88% 61%

2010 California 67% 78% 95% 92% 74% 80% 91% 81%

African American

American Indian or Alaska

Asian FilipinoHispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

WhiteTwo or more races


Appendix A

API Results by School


Appendix A

Growth from 2009 Base to 2010 Growth APIElementary Schools

(40)

(30)

(20)

(10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lake

woo

d C

omm

unity

Day

Bec

kman

Ele

men

tary

Cly

de W

. N

eedh

am E

lem

enta

ry

Elle

rth

E. L

arso

n E

lem

enta

ry

Sut

herla

nd E

lem

enta

ry

Pod

esta

Ran

ch E

lem

enta

ry

Her

itage

Ele

men

tary

Oak

woo

d E

lem

enta

ry

Law

renc

e E

lem

enta

ry

Man

lio S

ilva

Ele

men

tary

Ans

el A

dam

s

Vin

ewoo

d E

lem

enta

ry

Dav

is E

lem

enta

ry

Lero

y N

icho

ls E

lem

enta

ry

Woo

dbrid

ge

Cre

eksi

de E

lem

enta

ry

Live

Oak

Ele

men

tary

Lois

E.

Bor

char

dt E

lem

enta

ry

Hou

ston

Joe

Ser

na J

r. C

hart

er

Erm

a B

. Ree

se E

lem

enta

ry

Geo

rge

Linc

oln

Mos

her

Vic

tor

Ele

men

tary

Tok

ay C

olon

y E

lem

enta

ry

John

Mui

r Ele

men

tary

Wag

ner-

Hol

t E

lem

enta

ry

Lock

efor

d E

lem

enta

ry

Par

klan

e E

lem

enta

ry

Julia

Mor

gan

Ele

men

tary

Geo

rge

Was

hing

ton

Ele

men

tary

Wes

twoo

d E

lem

enta

ry

Lake

woo

d E

lem

enta

ry

Cla

irmon

t E

lem

enta

ry


Appendix A

Growth from 2009 Base to 2010 Growth APIMiddle Schools

(10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

HendersonCommunity Day

Christa McAuliffeMiddle

Lodi Middle Elkhorn Millswood Middle Morada Middle Delta SierraMiddle


Appendix A

Growth from 2009 Base to 2010 Growth APIHigh Schools

(30)

(20)

(10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Independence Liberty High Bear CreekHigh

Lodi High Ronald E.McNair High

Tokay High Middle CollegeHigh

Plaza RoblesContinuation

High

Documents

Lodi Unified School District