impact learning. impact lives.web.sfusd.edu/services/research_public/rpa_cst... · •review the...

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)


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


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


Overall District Trend

CST English Language Arts Trend for Proficient and Abovefor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 11)


CST Mathematics Trend for Proficient and AboveFor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 7)

+12+11

+13

+15


Overall District Trend

CST Mathematics Trend for Proficient and AboveFor Student Subgroups(Grades 2 to 7)


English Language LearnersTrend for Proficient and AboveELA (Grades 2 to 11)Math (Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)


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)


CST MathematicsMatched African American Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)


CST English Language ArtsMatched Latino Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)


CST MathematicsMatched Latino Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)


CST English Language ArtsMatched English Learner Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)


CST MathematicsMatched English Learner Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)


CST English Language ArtsMatched SPED Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 11)


CST MathematicsMatched SPED Student Cohort Movement 2012‐2013(Grades 3 to 7)


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


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


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


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


+9

+15 +18

CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7)



+26+31


+10

CST MathematicsTrend for Proficient and Above(Grades 2 to 7, and End‐of‐Course)

+6

+24




+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.

impact learning. impact lives.web.sfusd.edu/services/research_public/rpa_cst... · •review the...

Documents