Lodi Unified School District

1. 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

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 targets • Nine of the 10 800+ schools from last year maintained an 800+ ranking. • One additional school achieved the 800 mark 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

3. 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 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

4. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

5. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

6. 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). 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

7. Executive Summary – AYP Proficiency Targets 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

8. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

9. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

10. Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting System Difference 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 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

11. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

12. Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting System Tests Used in Calculating the API and AYP 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

13. Overview of California’s Accountability Reporting System Yearly AYP targets for LUSD 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

14. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

15. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

16. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

17. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

18. 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). 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

19. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

20. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

21. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

22. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

23. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

24. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

25. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

26. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

27. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

28. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

29. 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

30. 2010 CAHSEE ResultsGrade 10 First Time Test Takers • 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

31. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

32. 2010 CAHSEE ResultsGrade 10 First Time Test Takers • 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

33. 2010 CAHSEE ResultsGrade 10 First Time Test Takers • 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. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

34. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

35. 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

36. Appendix A • API Results by School 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

37. Appendix A 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

38. Appendix A 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010

39. Appendix A 043 Accountability Progress Report Update _ September 2010