2012 Accountability Progress Report (APR) Office of Accountability October 23, 2012

Accountability Progress Reports Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) –federal accountability Academic Performance Index (API) – state accountability Program Improvement (PI)– federal intervention 2

District-Level AYP Results 95% Participation Rate Annual Measurable Objectives API Indicator Graduation Rate District must test 95% of enrolled students districtwide and for each student group District must achieve 78.0% proficient in English language arts and 78.2% proficient in mathematics District must achieve a score of 740 District must achieve a rate of 90% or grow by 1/8 th of the difference of 90 minus the prior rate 3

4 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Elementary & Middle (Grades 2-8) Percent of students at Proficient or Above on: –California Standards Tests (CST) English Language Arts Mathematics –California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) –California Modified Assessment (CMA) Senior High (Grade 10) Percent of students at Proficient or Above on: –California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), Census Administration –California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) Note: Results for students not continuously enrolled and English Learners enrolled for less than one year in U.S. schools are not included in AMO calculations.

District Student Group Growth (2011 to 2012) on Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) 5 Group English Language Arts (Target 78.0%) Mathematics (Target 78.2%) % Proficient or Above Diff Diff. All Students African American American Indian Asian Filipino Hispanic Pacific Islander * 2.6 White Two or More Races * Econ. Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities * Safe Harbor

2012 Districtwide API Growth Base 2012 Growth Change Met 2012 AYP Criteria Districtwide Yes Criteria (districts must meet at least one) — Minimum of 740 Minimum 1 point growth

7 District Graduation Rates for 2012 (Class of 2011) Groups 2012 Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2011) 2012 Target Graduation Rate 2012 Graduation Rate Criteria Met LEA-wide Yes Black or African American Yes American86.49—N/A Asian Yes Filipino Yes Hispanic or Latino Yes Pacific Islander87.76—N/A White Yes Two or More Races Yes Economically Disadvantaged Yes English Learners Yes Students with Disabilities No

District-Level AYP Results (District Continues in Year 3 of Program Improvement) Made AYP – All Criteria Met 95% Participation Rate Met Annual Measurable Objectives Made API Indicator Made Graduation Rate NO District must test 95% of students districtwide and for each student group District must achieve 78.0% proficient in English language arts and 78.2% proficient in mathematics District must achieve a score of 740 District must achieve a rate of 90% or grow by 1/8 th of the difference of 90 minus the prior rate Yes No Made 5 of 24 Group Targets Yes NO Made 9 of 10 Group Targets 8

2012 AYP School-Level Results 9 Made All AYP Criteria Made Part. Rate and AMOs Made API Indicator* Made Grad. Rate* ELAMathematics SCHOOL# #%#%#%#%#% Elementary —N/A Middle —N/A Senior High ALL * Some schools do not meet the criteria for API or graduation rate targets.

2012 AYP Data for Selected California Urban School Districts 10 DISTRICT Made AYP — All Criteria Met 95% Participation Rate Met Annual Measurable Objectives Made API Indicator Made Graduation Rate Year of PI San Diego No (30 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Fresno No (24 of 46)YesNoYes No3 Garden Grove No (27 of 42)YesNoYes 3 Long Beach No (31 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Los Angeles No (33 of 50)YesNoYes No3 Oakland No (26 of 46)YesNoYes No3 Sacramento No (26 of 50)YesNoYes No3 San Bernardino No (28 of 50)YesNoYes No3 San Francisco No (32 of 50)YesNoYes 3 STATE No (27 of 50)YesNoYes NoN/A

2012 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report

Growth API District Results 2011 API (Base) STAR 2012 Percent Tested 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth 79799%808+11

13 SubgroupNumber 2011 API (Base) 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth African American 7, American Indian Asian 7, Filipino 5, Hispanic 35, Pacific Islander White 18, Two or More Races 3, Econ. Disadvantaged 50, English Learners 29, Students with Disabilities 9, Growth API Summary of Districtwide Student Group Performance

2012 Growth API Summary of School Performance (District-Managed Schools) Schools with API Target Growth Data Schools Meeting All Targets 65 (39%) 63 (38%) 91 (53%) 103 (60%) 115 (65%) 99 (56%) 94 (53%) Schools Meeting Schoolwide Targets 108 (65%) 104 (62%) 131 (76%) 136 (79%) 144 (82%) 141 (80%) 137 (76%) Schools At/ Above 800* 53* (30%) 54* (32%) 59* (33%) 76* (43%) 101* (56%) 92* (52%) 99* (56%) * This includes all schools for which API growth scores were reported, including schools without growth targets.

Growth API Large Urban District Comparison Data District Number Included in API 2011 API (Base) 2012 API (Growth) Overall Growth San Diego 79, Fresno 49, Garden Grove 35, Long Beach 60, Los Angeles 416, Oakland 25, Sacramento 31, San Bernardino 35, San Francisco 37,

2012 Title I Program Improvement Update

2011 – 12 Program Improvement (PI) Schools 126 District Schools are in PI 18 Schools were newly identified for PI 12 Schools in PI in made AYP 1 School exited PI 17

At-Risk Schools that Made AYP in 2012 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS  Barnard  Cabrillo  Chesterton  Gage  Perry 18 CHARTER SCHOOLS  Einstein Academy  Urban Discovery Academy

PI Schools that Made AYP in 2012 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS  Adams  Baker  Cadman  Carver  Central  Hamilton  Spreckels  Valencia Park 19 CHARTER SCHOOLS  KIPP Adelante  King/Chavez Academy  O’Farrell (Exited Program Improvement) MIDDLE SCHOOL ◆ Standley

20

Additional Resources  Office of Accountability  California Department of Education  Accountability Progress Reports (APR) 21