The Superintendent’s Report to the Board of Education 2014 District Performance The Superintendent’s Report to the Board of Education

Contents of Presentation Monitoring Progress Towards The Denver Plan 2020 Goals Using Data to Inform our Improvement Strategy Questions and Dialogue Appendix: TCAP performance analyses

Mapping our Trajectory Towards The Denver Plan 2020 Goals

Overarching Goal: Great schools in every neighborhood Denver Plan Goals Overarching Goal: Great schools in every neighborhood By 2020, 80% of students from every region within DPS will attend a high performing school in their region, as measured by the district’s school performance framework. School readiness By 2020, 80% of DPS third-graders will be at or above grade level in reading and writing. Ready for college & career By 2020, the four-year graduation rate for students who start with DPS in ninth grade will increase to 90%. By 2020, we will double the number of students per class who graduate college and career ready while raising the bar (adding Science and Social Studies in addition to English and Math). Support the whole child (Not addressed in this deck) By 2015, A task force, including DPS staff, community partners and city agencies focused on providing services to DPS students, will recommend to the Board of Education a metric to measure this goal and track progress. Close the opportunity gap By 2020, the graduation rate for African American and Latino students will increase by 30%. The proficiency in reading and writing for third-grade African American and Latino students will increase by 25%.

What gains do we need to make to meet our goal? Great Schools in Every Neighborhood By 2020, 80% of students from every region within DPS will attend a high performing school in their region, as measured by the district’s school performance framework What gains do we need to make to meet our goal? 2% annual increase (about 300 students) Target *Note: 2008 was the first year that SPF was published. The regions are based on the 2014-15 school locations All school types are included.

high performing school? Great Schools in Every Neighborhood By 2020, 80% of students from every region within DPS will attend a high performing school in their region, as measured by the district’s school performance framework. Are we on track to ensure 80% of students in every region are attending a high performing school? Regional Rating Evidence Southeast In the Southeast, 88% of students currently attend high performing (blue/green) schools, thereby surpassing The Denver Plan 2020 goal. Far Northeast In the Far Northeast 63% of students currently attend high performing schools. If recent trends in Far Northeast performance continue, the region is on track to meet The Denver Plan 2020 goal. Near Northeast In the Near Northeast 59% of students currently attend high performing schools. In order to reach Denver Plan 2020 goals, performance gains in the Near Northeast will need to be accelerated. Southwest In the Southwest 45% of students currently attend high performing school. In order to reach Denver Plan 2020 goals, performance gains in the Southwest will need to be accelerated. Northwest In the Northwest 40% of students currently attend high performing schools. In order to reach Denver Plan 2020 goals, Northwest schools will need to double the percentage of students attending green or blue schools.

What gains do we need to make with students to meet our goal? School Readiness By 2020, 80% of DPS third-graders will be at or above grade level in reading and writing. What gains do we need to make with students to meet our goal? * Literacy includes Reading, Writing, Lectura and Escritura

School Readiness By 2020, 80% of DPS third-graders will be at or above grade level in reading and writing. Are we on track to ensure 80% of third graders are at or above grade level in reading and writing? Subject Rating Evidence TCAP Reading DPS third grade reading proficiency declined one percentage point in 2014 to 60%. To meet The Denver Plan 2020 goal, gains will need to be accelerated. TCAP Lectura DPS has made significant gains in Lectura, with percentage of students proficient or above in 2014 jumping from 57% to 62%. If we continue to generate similar gains, we are on track to meet this goal by 2020. TCAP Writing DPS has made modest gains in TCAP writing, with percentage of 3rd grade students proficient or above in 2014 moving from 42% to 43%. To meet The Denver Plan 2020 goal, gains will need to be accelerated. TCAP Escritura DPS has made significant gains in Escritura, with percentage of students proficient or above in 2014 on Escritura jumping from 46% to 59%. If we continue to generate similar gains, we are on track to meet this goal by 2020. Note: In aggregate, the percentage of 3rd grade students who were proficient or above in Reading, Writing, Lectura or Escritura has increased by 8 percentage points in the last 9 years, for an annual average gain of just under 1%. Currently, we are 28 percentage points below the 2020 goal, indicating that an annual increase of approximately 5 points is needed to reach the goal.

What gains do we need to make with students to meet our goal? Ready for College & Career By 2020, the four-year graduation rate for students who start with DPS in ninth grade will increase to 90%. What gains do we need to make with students to meet our goal? *The rate only applies to students who were enrolled in DPS as 9th graders. A student who transferred into DPS after 9th grade would be excluded from the calculation. Students who start in DPS as 9th graders are in the denominator; if they graduate from DPS, they are also counted in the numerator.

Ready for College & Career By 2020, the four-year graduation rate for students who start with DPS in ninth grade will increase to 90%. Are we on track to ensure 90% of students who start with DPS in 9th grade graduate in 4 years? Stoplight Evidence 4 Year 9th Grade Cohort Graduation Rate DPS increased the 9th grade cohort graduation rate by 8 percentage points in the last 3 years, an average of 2.6% increase annually. In the last 2 years, the gains have been dwindling. To reach the goal of 90% by 2020, we need to increase roughly 3 percentage points each year. Given secondary school interventions and programming put into place in the past five years, we are likely to see accelerated progress in graduation rates.

Ready for College & Career By 2020, we will double the number of students per class who graduate college and career ready while raising the bar (adding Science and Social Studies in addition to English and Math). State data prior to 2008 are no longer accessible via the State’s website.

Benchmarks changed for Reading and Science in 2013 Ready for College & Career CoACT by Content Area Average Scale Score and Percent Meeting College Readiness Benchmarks English: DPS has seen four consecutive years of increases in the percent of students meeting the ACT English Benchmark. Average English scale score has increased by 1.6 points since 2005. Reading: The percentage of students meeting the ACT Reading Benchmark has remained flat since 2010. DPS has maintained performance in spite of adjusted ACT Benchmarks in 2013, which increased the college readiness benchmark from 21 to 22. Average Reading scale score has increased by 1.2 points since 2005. Math: The percentage of students meeting the ACT Benchmark in Math increased 4% in 2014. This marks the largest increase in the last seven years. Average Math scale score has increased almost 2 points since 2005. Science: The percentage of students meeting the ACT Science Benchmark increased 4% in 2014. The large increase seen in 2013 was due primarily to the update to the Science Benchmark (the benchmark decreased one point to 23). Scale score increased by 1 point since 2005. Average scale score increased across all content areas in 2014. Benchmarks changed for Reading and Science in 2013 ACT's College Readiness Benchmark Scores are early indicators of likely college success and are set at 18 for English, 22 for Math, 22 for Reading, and 23 for Science. Reading and Science Benchmarks were updated in 2013.

Ready for College & Career CoACT Composite by School Six schools--DCIS, DSA, DSST: GVR, DSST: Stapleton, East, and George Washington--had average Composite ACT scores above the State average in 2014. The percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch at DSST:GVR in 2014 was 73%. Across the last seven years, there has not been any other school with 70% FRL or more to have an average Composite score above 20. 2014 FRL = 58% 2014 FRL = 87% 2014 FRL = 56% 2014 FRL = 53% 2014 FRL = 73% 2014 FRL = 15% 2014 FRL = 48%

Ready for College & Career Advanced Placement Exam Based on the 2010 Denver Plan, the number of tests getting a qualifying grade (3 or above) should increase by 3.5 percent each year. We have met that goal ever since 2008. An Advanced Placement score of 3 or higher is considered a qualifying score and equivalent to a college course of “middle C” or above. The Calculus AB Subscore score is used in overall calculations instead of the Calculus BC score.

Ready for College & Career By 2020, we will double the number of students per class who graduate college and career ready while raising the bar (adding Science and Social Studies in addition to English and Math). Are we on track to ensure our students are graduating college and career ready? Rating Evidence Advanced placement – number of courses taken DPS students took 4,208 more AP exams in 2014 than in 2005. The total number of AP tests taken by DPS students in 2014 increased by 17%, from 5,536 tests in 2013 to 6,492 tests in 2014. Advanced placement – tests with qualifying scores DPS students earned qualifying scores on 1,645 more tests in 2014 than in 2005. Denver Public Schools’ students AP performance decreased slightly (0.6%) to 38.5% of students earning a qualifying score (3 or above) in 2014. ACT composite score Both DPS’s and the States average Composite score increased in 2014. After several years of flat performance, DPS students have raised their ACT scores by nearly a full point from 17.6 to 18.4 between 2012-2014. The gap between DPS and the State was reduced slightly in 2014 (from 2.1 in 2013 to 1.9 in 2014)

Close the Opportunity Gap -By 2020, the graduation rate for African American and Latino students will increase by 25 percentage points. -Reading and writing proficiency for third-grade African American and Latino students will increase by 25 percentage points. Are we on track to close the opportunity gap with our African American and Latino students? Current baseline is 2013 until 2014 graduation data is released in January of 2015. The data only goes back to 2011 when new codes were first used to collect ethnicity data.

Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs. Adequate Growth (AGP) Reading What level of growth do we need to close the achievement gap with our below proficient students in reading? AGP is the growth needed for students to score proficient in 3 years or by 10th grade, whichever occurs first.

Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs. Adequate Growth (AGP) Math What level of growth do we need to close the achievement gap with our below proficient students in math? AGP is the growth needed for students to score proficient in 3 years or by 10th grade, whichever occurs first.

Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs. Adequate Growth (AGP) Writing What level of growth do we need to close the achievement gap with our below proficient students in writing? AGP is the growth needed for students to score proficient in 3 years or by 10th grade, whichever occurs first.

Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs Close the Opportunity Gap Current Growth (MGP) vs. Adequate Growth (AGP) Students who are Below Proficient in Reading are Not achieving the necessary growth to become proficient within 3 years or by 10th Grade. Below Proficient Students have a higher percentage of Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL), English Language Learner (ELL), and Minority students than Proficient Students. To close the opportunity gap and to increase district-wide proficiency rates, the growth of students who are below proficient must be substantially higher and must be sustained over time.

Gap in 3rd Grade Literacy Close the Opportunity Gap -By 2020, the graduation rate for African American and Latino students will increase by 25 percentage points. -Reading and writing proficiency for third-grade African American and Latino students will increase by 25 percentage points. Gap in Graduation Rate Gap in 3rd Grade Literacy Stoplight Evidence Graduation Rate In order to achieve the goal, there will need to be a gain of about 3.5 percentage points each year for the minority students’ graduation rate. DPS has been increasing at 2 or 3 percentage points annually. *The rate is the 4-year graduation rate for African American and Latino students combined. Students must graduate by their Anticipated Year of Graduation to be included in the numerator. Stoplight Evidence 3rd grade literacy In order to achieve that goal, there will need to be a gain of about 4 percentage points each year for the African American/Latino students’ 3rd grade literacy proficiency rate. DPS has had inconsistent progress in the last three years. On average, we increased by about 2 percentage points annually. The goal of 25 percent point increase for African American/Latino may not be enough to reach the overall 3rd grade proficiency of 80%. *Reading, Writing, Lectura and Escritura are included in the percentage.

Using Data To Inform our Improvement Strategy

Informing our Improvement Strategy Celebrate our Successes and Identify Key Challenges Deeper Data Analysis Explore Our Initial Hypotheses and Identify Any Needed Mid-Course Corrections Hypothesis for improving school performance Focus on data-driven instruction Implement high-dosage tutoring and study results to explore expansion Be more effective in replicating practices at high performing schools

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Celebrate Our Successes* DPS has demonstrated sustained increases in status since 2005. DPS has shown a general upward trend in median growth percentiles (MGPs) since 2005. Compared to other large districts with high FRL percentages, DPS has the highest MPGs. ELLs in DPS are out-performing the rest of the state. DPS’s 6th graders had high MGPs in 2014, with a reading MGP of 56, a writing MGP of 62 and a math MGP of 65. * All data is available in the appendix 6th grade MGP in 2014: (R=56, M=65, W=62)

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Identify Key Challenges* While DPS has made steady progress over the past several years, we must accelerate our trajectory to meet The Denver Plan 2020 goals. Our growth is not sufficient to ensure All Students Succeed. Substantive gaps remain and are growing in both status and growth. We have not deeply enough transferred best practices from our highest performing schools to all schools. Our elementary school reading scores continue to show a lack of necessary progress. Reading achievement in elementary schools is not where it needs to be to ensure students are successful in subsequent grades. * All data is available in the appendix

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Deeper Data Analysis Effectiveness consideration criteria As we monitor the effectiveness of larger district initiatives, we will consider: Student outcomes. Outcomes can be tracked, which includes clean identification of students impacted by initiative, and comparison (control) groups. Clear initiative planning. Plans for initiative/program are documented, allowing for the identification of essential initiative elements to be measured. Implementation. Initiative or program implementation is tracked and we can confirm process is being followed as planned. Costs. Cost associated with initiative or program are being tracked. This allows us to determine return for given investment for similar initiatives or programs.

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Deeper Data Analysis Using the aforementioned criteria, DPS will engage in the following deeper data analyses, including: Additional analytical approaches: Classroom level data analysis Gap analyses SPF analyses Pilot initiative analyses, including: Extended learning. Being considered as part of district return-on-investment work (Fall 2014) Blended learning. Part of an ongoing program evaluation that is nearing completion (Fall 2014) ELA focus. ELA focus is included in wider ELA program planning which includes ELA program evaluation (Summer 2015) SCAN. Will be included in assessment pathways evaluation currently being planned for SY1415 (Summer 2015) Denver teacher residency. Several evaluation activities in place Differentiated roles. Data from first year pilot (13-14) under investigation. External three-year evaluation kicking off this summer, with results expected in 2017 Early Education investment. Leverage the newly implemented TS Gold assessment to learn more about predictors of success in subsequent grades (Summer 2016)

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Focus on Data Driven Instruction Hypothesis: Deep implementation of data driven instruction will accelerate student achievement in all categories Implementation: RELAY DDI district initiatives (SCAN, etc) Data Culture Rubric Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Professional Learning Days (green/blue days) Initial findings: Promising results in schools that have shown exemplary data driven practice.

Initial Results: Growth Among Schools Engaged in Data Driven Instruction DPS: 163

Informing our Improvement Strategy: High Dosage Tutoring Hypothesis: Deep implementation of high dosage math tutoring in select schools will drive significant gains in math proficiency Initial results: 4th grade - higher growth (8 points) and status (3 points) results compared to peers not receiving high dosage tutoring 6th grade – no impact 8th grade - higher growth (16 points) and status (4 points) results compared to peers not receiving high dosage tutoring

Denver Math Fellows- Matched Comparison Using a student list provided by the Denver Math Fellows Program a one-to-one student match was created. Every student on the list was in the tutoring program for the majority of the year. he matched comparison group was created based on the 2013 TCAP Math score, grade level, school SPF rating, and student ethnicity, FRL, ELL, and IEP statuses. Out of 3,515 students, a match was found for 2,617. 4th Grade =Matched Comparison* =DMF The DMF students outperformed their matched comparison group by 1 percentage point. Additionally, DMF students’ MGP was 9 percentile points higher than non-DMF students. 6th grade DMF students struggled in comparison to their peers with TCAP Math status. DMF students’ MGP was 2.5 percentile points higher than non- DMF students. The lower status improvement and higher MGP could be due to the improvement of students in the Unsatisfactory category, as many schools provided tutoring exclusively to these students. These students may have improved but were still below the “proficient” cut score. 6th Grade 8th Grade The 8th grade DMF students were able to outperform their peers on TCAP Math status by 2 percentage points. Additionally, DMF students’ MGP was 16 percentile points higher than non-DMF students. *For methodology, refer to appendix.

Informing our Improvement Strategy: Learning from our Outliers Hypothesis: Studying successful practices at our outlier schools and deepening “cross pollination” systems will support us in identifying and replicating best practices to accelerate gains across all schools.

Relationship between Status and Growth Sandoval Teller Traylor Sabin Morey Montessori MS Generally, schools with higher growth have higher status. Some schools did not follow this pattern in 2014 (circled in the graphs).

What Can We Learn from our Outliers What Can We Learn from our Outliers? Relationship between Status and FRL Univ Prep DSST : College View Kunsmiller HS CEC District=72% Generally, schools with higher FRL percentage have lower status. Some schools did not follow this pattern in 2014 (circled in the graphs).

What Can We Learn from Our Outliers What Can We Learn from Our Outliers? Schools with at least 5 Consecutive TCAP MGPs of 60 or Above Consecutive MGP ≥ 60 Since 2010 Reading 2014 MGP Math Writing Steck Elementary School* 79 Steck Elementary School 83 DSST: Stapleton High School* 72.5 DSST: Stapleton Middle School 74 69 78.5 Highline Academy Charter School 73 Slavens K-8 School 64 McMeen Elementary School 72 Lincoln Elementary School* 70 Bradley International School 61.5 KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy Polaris at Ebert Elementary School* 60.5 Cory Elementary School 71 Polaris at Ebert Elementary School STRIVE Prep - Westwood 66 67.5 67 65 STRIVE Prep - Federal 60 These schools have all had MGP’s at 60 or higher for at least five consecutive years. Several schools are found in 2 or more content areas. Efforts should be made to determine how these schools are successful in promoting TCAP MGP Growth. *Indicates consecutive TCAP MGPs of 60 or more since 2005. Italics indicate schools that were present in 2 content areas. Bold indicates schools that were present in all 3 content areas. Schools that opened after 2009-2010 school year were not included in this analysis. Schools with N<20 are also excluded.

Future Efforts and Mid-Course Corrections School Improvement Strategy Current Efforts Future Efforts Mid-Course Corrections Data Driven Instruction RELAY SCAN Data culture work Identification of what works using Data Culture Rubric Maximize impact of Green/Blue days Network 2020 High Dosage Tutoring Align more deeply with Teaching & Learning Study results from FNE and scale to explore lessons learned 6th grade implementation Learning from Outliers Learning tours Compact Blue Cohort-based pilots REDDI Expand Compact Blue Upgrade rigor and intentionality of learning tours

Appendix: TCAP performance analyses

TCAP Status and Growth Summary The bold number for each year indicates the % proficient or above.

District Overall MGP This slide is hidden and will not be shown in projection mode. This is for the presenter’s information only. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Content Area MGP Reading 44 49 46 53 50 55 52 54 Math 43 47 51 Writing 48 57

DPS vs. Large Districts Reading Similar District: >10,000 enrollment. Districts are ordered such that the largest district is at the left.

DPS vs. Large Districts Math Similar District: >10,000 enrollment. Districts are ordered such that the largest district is at the left.

DPS vs. Large Districts Writing Similar District: >10,000 enrollment Districts are ordered such that the largest district is at the left.

Elementary School Reading Performance

Elementary Reading (Grades 3-5) DPS vs. Similar Districts DPS’s Grade 3-5 reading performance is lower than 4 of the 6 similar districts.

Gaps—FRL District vs. State: TCAP Reading Status The DPS/State FRL gap for paid lunch students has narrowed by 18 percentage points since 2005. In the same time period, the DPS/State FRL gap for free or reduced lunch students reduced by 1 percentage point. The intra-district gap between paid lunch and free/reduced lunch students has widened from 29 percentage points to 36 percentage points The intra-state gap between paid lunch and free/reduced students lunch has narrowed 4 percentage points (from 33 to 29 percentage points). Gap = 1 % pt Gap = 19 % pts Gap = 8% pts Gap = 9 % pts

Gaps—FRL District vs. State: TCAP Math Status The DPS paid lunch students have outperformed their state paid peers since 2013. In the same time period, the DPS/State FRL gap for free or reduced lunch students has narrowed by 8 percentage points. The intra-district gap between paid lunch and free/reduced lunch students has widened from 20 percentage points to 34 percentage points (up 1 percentage point from 2013). The intra-state gap between paid lunch and free/reduced lunch students has remained the same. Gap = 19 % pts Gap = 3 % pts Gap = 11 % pts Gap = 3 % pts

Gaps—FRL District vs. State: TCAP Writing Status The DPS paid lunch students have outperformed their state paid peers since 2012. In the same time period, the DPS/State FRL gap for free or reduced lunch students has narrowed by 9 percentage points. The intra-district gap between paid lunch and free/reduced lunch students has widened from 27 percentage points to 36 percentage points. The intra-state gap between paid lunch and free/reduced lunch students has stayed the same since 2005. Gap = 3 % pts Gap = 18 % pts Gap = 12 % pts Gap = 3 % pts

Gaps – FRL District vs. State TCAP Reading growth District FRL students’ MGP decreased since 2012. District Non-FRL students continue to outpace the state non-FRL students. District FRL students have had consistently lower growth than the district non-FRL students. State includes DPS.

Gaps – FRL District vs. State TCAP Math growth Both FRL and Non-FRL students outgrew their state counterparts and both have done so since 2008. District FRL students had higher MGP than the state non-FRL students in 2014. District FRL students have had consistently lower growth than the district non-FRL students. The gap widened in 2014. State includes DPS.

Gaps – FRL District vs. State TCAP Writing growth Both FRL and Non-FRL students had higher MGPs than their state counterparts and both have done so since 2008. District FRL students continue to have higher MGPs than state non-FRL students. District FRL students have had consistently lower growth than the district non-FRL students. State includes DPS.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Reading Status The gap between the Non-Ethnic Minority and Ethnic Minority is now 38 percentage points. The gap widened by 2 percentage points from 2013 to 2014. 4 out of 7 ethnic groups had a higher proportion of students at Proficient or Above than the district overall on TCAP Reading in 2014. The largest gaps between Non-Minority and Minority students are between white students and Black and Hispanic students. The gap is 40 percentage points. The non-ethnic minority group consists of students classified as White, Asian, and Multi-racial. The ethnic minority group consists of students classified as American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Math Status The gap between the Non-Ethnic Minority and Ethnic Minority is now 37 percentage points. he gap between the Non-Ethnic Minority and Ethnic Minority groups increased by 1 percentage point from 2013 to 2014. 4 out of 7 ethnic groups have a higher % Proficient or Above than the district overall on TCAP Math. The largest gaps between Non-Minority and Minority students are between white students and Black students. The gap is 47 percentage points. While the gap between the district and Hispanic students is smaller, at 40 percentage points, it had widened gradually since 2011. The gap between the district and American Indian students continues to widen. The non-ethnic minority group consists of students classified as White, Asian, and Multi-racial. The ethnic minority group consists of students classified as American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Writing Status The gap between the Non-Ethnic Minority and Ethnic Minority is 38 percentage points. The gap reduced by 1 percentage point from 2013 to 2014. 4 out of 7 ethnic groups have a higher % Proficient or Above than the district overall on TCAP Writing. The gaps between white students and Black and Hispanic students both slightly decreased, however, the gap is 42 percentage points. The gap between the district and American Indian students continues to widen. \ The non-ethnic minority group consists of students classified as White, Asian, and Multi-racial. The ethnic minority group consists of students classified as American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Reading growth 5 out of 7 Ethnic groups saw gains in 2014. The largest ethnic group—Hispanics—had a decrease in their MGP. No groups have MGPs below 50, an improvement from last year. The gap between White and Hispanic students stayed the same at 5 percentile points.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Math growth Only 2 out of 7 ethnic groups saw gains from 2013 to 2014. 6 out of 7 ethnic groups have MGPs higher than 50. The gap between Hispanic and White students increased by 3 percentile points. This is due to white students increasing while Hispanic students decreased. The gap between White and Black students increased by 2 percentile points.

Gaps – Ethnicity TCAP Writing growth Every ethnic group but 1 (American Indian/Alaska Native) has an MGP over 50. The gap between Black and White students decreased by 1 due to White students decreasing. The gap between Hispanic and White students decreased by 1 due to White students decreasing.

Gaps—ELLs District vs. State: TCAP Reading All Grades Status All State and DPS ELLs have seen increases in the percent Proficient or Above on TCAP Reading since 2005. DPS students have surpassed their state counterparts in the recent years. However, the gap with the Non-Existed ELLs and Exited-ELLs have been widening. State Gap= 47% State data is WITH DPS included. This is due to how the state provided DPS subgroup data.

Gaps—ELLs District vs. State: TCAP Math All Grades Status Similar to the pattern in Reading, All State and DPS ELLs have seen increases in the percent Proficient or Above on TCAP Reading since 2005. DPS students have surpassed their state counterparts in the recent years. However, the gap with the Non-Existed ELLs and Exited-ELLs have been widening. State data is WITH DPS included. This is due to how the state provided DPS subgroup data.

Gaps—ELLs District vs. State: TCAP Writing All Grades Status Similar to the pattern in Reading, all State and DPS ELLs have seen increases in the percent Proficient or Above on TCAP Reading since 2005. DPS students have surpassed their state counterparts in the recent years. However, the gap with the Non-Existed ELLs and Exited-ELLs have been widening. State data is WITH DPS included. This is due to how the state provided DPS subgroup data.

ACCESS Overall MGPs – DPS vs. State 7 Year Performance growth District growth increased by 6 percentile points from 2013 to 2014. 2014 is the fifth consecutive year that DPS has been above the state median of 50. *2008 through 2012 reflect CELA data.

ACCESS Overall MGPs DPS 2014 ACCESS Growth by Education Level The Elementary Ed Level increased by 9 percentile points (MGP of 52 to 61). The High School Ed Level increased by 3 percentile points (MGP of 57 to 60). The Middle School Ed Level remained flat from 2013 to 2014 (MGP of 53). State Median *2008 through 2012 reflect CELA data.

DPS vs. Other Districts growth 2014 N 3169 19216 1326 4417 10512 2650 3099 2014 %ELL 15% 36% 19% 17% 39% 24% In 2014, DPS had the second highest MGP among large districts (>10000 pupils) with >15% ELLs, just slightly below St Vrain.

Schools in ACCESS MGP Buckets over Time growth The proportion of schools with high growth (>65 MGP) has more than quadrupled since 2008. The proportion of schools with low growth (<35) has gone down by two thirds over the same period. In 2008, only 34% of schools were in the top two categories. In 2014, 79% of schools are in the top two categories. For the 2014 list of schools and their MGP buckets, see Appendix B. Schools with less than 20 students not included. MGP buckets for low (<35), typical (35-65) and high growth (>65) were used to determine groupings. 2008 through 2012 reflect CELA data

TCAP Growth by Governance Types Charter schools have higher MGPs than direct-run schools and innovation schools. Direct-run schools tend to have higher MGPs than innovations schools except for a few occasions. Student demographic by governance type varies, with innovation schools serving the highest percentage of students who qualify for FRL. Why just charter vs district-run?

TCAP Status by Governance Types Charter schools have similar status as direct-run schools. Innovation schools have lower proficiency rate than charter and direct-run schools. Student demographic by governance type varies, with innovation schools serving the highest percentage of students who qualify for FRL.

Denver Math Fellows Analysis Methodology Using student list provided by the Denver Math Fellows Program a one-to-one student match was created. Every student on the list was in the tutoring program for the majority of the year. The matched comparison group was created based on the 2013 TCAP Math score, grade level, school SPF rating, and student ethnicity, FRL, ELL, and IEP statuses. Out of 3,515 students, a match was found for 2,615. These students were then compared in their 2014 proficiency and growth, see how the students performed after the baseline year (2013).