Muir Fundamental School - Santa Ana Unified School District

Report
MUIR FUNDAMENTAL SCHOOL
2010 - 11 CST Data Presentation
CST SCORES
2011 CST Results
Santa Ana Highlights
English–Language Arts



We had more than 900 additional students score proficient and advanced from 2009 to 2011
in English Language Arts; a 5.9% overall increase from 2009.
Overall growth in the percent proficient and advanced in English Language Arts increased from
2% to 5% in Grades 2-5, 7-8, and 10-11 from the prior year.
Percent proficient and advanced increased 5% in English Language Arts in Grades 3 and 7
from the prior year.
Mathematics





In Mathematics, we had more than 1,800 additional students score proficient and advanced
from 2009 to 2011; a 8.5% overall increase from 2009.
Grade 4 exceeded the 2011 NCLB Target (68.5%) in Mathematics for 2011.
Overall growth in the percent proficient and advanced in Mathematics increased from 2% to
8% in Grades 2-7 from the prior year.
Increased percent proficient and advanced in Algebra I (Grades 10-11), Geometry (Grade
10), and Algebra II (Grade 11) from the prior year.
There was an increase of approximately 250 students in Grade 10 Algebra II while maintaining
the same percent proficient and advanced from the prior year.
Santa Ana Highlights (cont.)
History-Social Science
There was an increase in the percent proficient and advanced in HistorySocial Science; furthermore, there is a general trend of yearly increases
since 2007 in Grade 8, 10, and 11.
Science



The number of students scoring proficient and advanced in Grade 5
Science increased by 3% from the prior year.
Overall growth in the percent proficient and advanced in Biology (Grades
10-11) increased from 2% to 4% from the prior year.
There was a 3% increase in Grade 10 Chemistry and a 6% increase in
Grade 11 Physics in percent proficient and advanced from the prior year.
Overview of SAUSD CST ELA Data
2007 - 11
Overview of SAUSD CST MATH Data
2007 - 11
Overview of SAUSD CST SCIENCE Data
2007 - 11
STATE AND FEDERAL
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS
Our Accountability System
Federal Accountability
State Accountability
•Status model
•Growth model with a statewide
performance goal of 800
•Every school & district has the
same target. Targets reach
100% proficient by 20132014
•Type of rating = Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP)
•Schools and all subgroups have
growth goals.
•Type of rating = Academic
Performance Index (API)
Meets or does not meet
AYP
Scale of 200-1000
The CST is used for both Accountability Systems.
The AYP also includes CAPA, CMA (All Schools) & CAHSEE (For High Schools)
Source: California Department of Education (CDE)
Adequate Yearly Progress - AYP
Academic Performance Index - API
Components of AYP
•
•
•
•
Participation rate
Percent Proficient
API
Graduation rate
All Proficient and
Advanced Students
Count on Your Score
Components of API
•
•
•
•
•
Advanced 1000
Proficient 875
Basic 700
Below Basic 500
Far Below Basic 200
Every Student
Counts
AYP Percent Proficient
Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs)
Elementary and Middle Schools
are based on:



The California Standards Tests
(CSTs)
The California Alternate
Performance Assessment (CAPA)
for students with severe
cognitive disabilities
High Schools are based on:


Results from the Grade 10 California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
administration
The California Alternate
Performance Assessment (CAPA) for
students with severe cognitive
disabilities in English-language arts
and mathematics in grade 10
California Modified Assessment
(CMA)
NCLB prohibits the use of norm-referenced test data in
measuring student achievement
Annual Measurable Objectives
To achieve AYP, a school must meet or exceed
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) schoolwide
and for each student subgroup:
 Economically disadvantaged
 Major ethnic and racial groups
 Students with disabilities
 English language learners
AMOs: English Language Arts
Elementary / Middle Schools
100.0%
100%
89.2%
78.4%
67.6%
56.8%
46.0%
35.2%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
24.4%
13.6%
2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 20132002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
AMOs: Math
Elementary / Middle Schools
100.0%
100%
89.5%
79.0%
68.5%
58.0%
47.5%
37.0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
26.5%
16.0%
2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 20132002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
API Test Weights
DATADIRECTOR:
WHAT’S NEW
Suggested Pre-Built Reports for
Viewing STAR Results on DataDirector
Report
Name:
What is it? What does it include?
Notes:
CST Scaled
Scores
Easy to read snapshot of individual
student performance on a CST as they
relate to the performance band.
•Identifies students who are on the margins of advancing or falling-back a
proficiency level
•Filters and identifies students by performance level or scaled score, e..g. I
only want to view students who were on the “bubble,” 340 and above on
the CST ELA for grade 9.
CST
Cluster
Scores
Identifies performance for individual
students, teachers, district and state on
each of the strands tested on the CST.
•Provides pie charts and bar graphs on classroom averages, school
averages, district averages as well as performance level distributions.
Important: Remember to use the Summary Options menu . Click on
the“Include Teacher Summary” option to view the pie charts.
Pivot Table
CST or CELDT student performance
comparison over a 2 year period.
Creates pivot tables that identify
“sliders, gainers, stickers.”
See next slide
CST Percent
Proficient
Trend Analysis
Multi-tiered analysis of students
proficient on the CST. Includes bar
graphs and charts of students’
performance over time. Includes
disaggregated subgroup performance.
Compare growth trends in number of students proficient or
at the varying proficiency levels for multiple years.
Select “Cohort Report” to see only students who took any of
the selected assessments. Select “Limited Cohort Report” for
students who took all selected assessments. The “Year to Year
Comparison” compares students and their test results from
Finally…

Let’s look at the good stuff!
Schoolwide
CST ELA 2005 - 2011
Schoolwide
CST Math 2005 - 2011
Schoolwide
CST Science 2005 - 2011
CAPA ELA 2005 - 2011
CAPA Math 2005 - 2011
CAPA Science 2009 - 2011
CMA ELA 2009 - 2011
CMA Math 2009 - 2011
CMA Science Trend 2009 – 2011
nd
2
Grade ELA 2005 - 2011
nd
2
Grade Math 2005 - 2011
3rd Grade ELA 2005 - 2011
rd
3
Grade Math 2005 - 2011
th
4
Grade ELA 2005 - 2011
4th Grade Writing Applications 2011
82% Proficient and
Advanced
56% Proficient and
Advanced
th
4
Grade Math 2005 - 2011
th
5
Grade ELA 2005 - 2011
th
5
Grade Math 2005 - 2011
th
5
Grade Science 2005 - 2011
Muir’s API Progress: 1999 - 2010
What was our API slogan?
“878 – We will
celebrate!”
2010-11 MUIR API
29 Points!

similar documents