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 736 744
754
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
ent P
rofic
ent
or A
dvan
ced
CST ELA: Grade 2 remains flat
Proficiency Band 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Proficient/Advanced 52 52 49 55 53Basic 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
ent P
rofic
ent
or A
dvan
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
ent
Profi
cien
t or
Adv
ance
d
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
ent
Profi
cien
t or
Adv
ance
d
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
8691
88 90 90 88
79 79 80 82 84 84
77 78 80
74 7376 77
80 80
4144 44
4952
41
2732
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
8084 83 84 86 86
74
80 79 8083 82
71
78 77 78 80 79
56
66
60 6266
55
29
39 38 38
4440
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
6056
59
8 105
9 11 10
50
4347
78 7772
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
2621
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