2011 Achievement Gaps By Various Subgroups: Reading and Math EOG Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Board of Education October 11, 2011

Introduction The following charts compare the EOG performance in reading and math by gender and other subgroup classifications for African- American, Hispanic and White students –Due to the small number of students for American Indian, Asian and Multiracial subgroups, results are variable and demonstrate inconsistent patterns Charts include the 5 Urban Districts when data are available

MATH

Historical Math Gaps

2011 Math 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Grade GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic (-23)78.6 (-16) (-19)80.0 (-14) (-18)75.1 (-18) (-25)73.4 (-19) (-21)69.9 (-22) (-18)74.5 (-18) ALL (-21)75.6 (-17)

2011 Math 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Urban District GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic WSFCS (-21)75.6 (-17) DURHAM (-26)71.1 (-19) GUILFORD (-20)80.4 (-13) CHARLOTTE> (-22+)79.3 (-16+) WAKE> (-25+)78.7 (-16+)

LEP URBAN COMPARISONS Percent of Math 3-8 Tested Population that is LEP 2011 Math 3-8 LEP vs. Not LEP

2011 EOG MATH 3-8: By Gender & Ethnicity

2010 vs Math EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: African-American

2010 vs Math EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: Hispanic

2010 & 2011 EOG Math: WSFCS Gender Gaps by Ethnicity & Grade

2011 Math EOG 3-8: Lunch Eligibility By Ethnicity PAID LUNCHFREE-REDUCED LUNCH N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN1499 (23%)85.9%5154 (77%)68.4% HISPANIC424 (9%)86.8%4408 (91%)74.1% WHITE7986 (77%)95.8%2449 (23%)83.5% Numbers in parentheses reflect percent of population

2011 Math EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN % % HISPANIC % % WHITE % %

2011 Math EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN % % HISPANIC % % WHITE % %

2011 Math EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status FRL NOT LEPFRL LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN %11-- HISPANIC % % WHITE %37--

2011 Math EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status PAID NOT LEPPAID LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN %8-- HISPANIC %9569.5% WHITE %32--

READING

Historical Reading Gaps

2011 Reading 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Grade GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic (-33)44.7 (-40) (-32)53.4 (-34) (-27)49.3 (-38) (-31)57.5 (-31) (-35)44.2 (-40) (-33)47.7 (-38) ALL (-32)49.6 (-37)

2011 Reading 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Urban District GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic WSFCS (-32)49.6 (-37) DURHAM (-35)47.2 (-38) GUILFORD (-30)59.6 (-27) CHARLOTTE (-32)60.2 (-31) WAKE (-33)60.2 (-31)

LEP URBAN COMPARISONS Percent of Reading 3-8 Tested Population that is LEP 2011 Reading 3-8 LEP vs. Not LEP

2011 EOG READING 3-8: By Gender & Ethnicity

2010 vs Reading EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: African-American

2010 vs Reading EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: Hispanic

2010 & 2011 EOG Reading: WSFCS Gender Gaps by Ethnicity & Grade

2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Lunch Eligibility By Ethnicity PAID LUNCHFREE-REDUCED LUNCH N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN1498 (23%)73.2%5145 (77%)49.1% HISPANIC418 (9%)79.4%4363 (91%)46.7% WHITE7974 (77%)90.6%2433 (23%)72.3% Numbers in parentheses reflect percent of population

2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN % % HISPANIC % % WHITE % %

2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN % % HISPANIC % % WHITE % %

2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status FRL NOT LEPFRL LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN %10-- HISPANIC % % WHITE %34--

2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status PAID NOT LEPPAID LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN %8-- HISPANIC %8949.4% WHITE %32--

Summary Gender Gaps are larger in the middle grades Gender Gaps are larger for the African-American and Hispanic subgroup as a whole and increasingly in middle grades for African-American students Economic differences account for about 1/3 – 1/2 of the gap for African-American students English proficiency and economic differences account for virtually all of the gap for Hispanic students