Your High School Name 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013

State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API)

State Accountability - API API continues to be an important part of public school accountability in California. 1 For 2013, schools must reach an API of 770 or grow at least 5 % of the difference between their Base API and 8 00 each year until they reach an API of Districts must also meet the yearly API target and reach 800 by the school year. 3 English-Language Arts, Mathematics, History-Social Science, and Science test results are included in the API calculation. 4 Graduation rates are also included in the high school API calculations. 5

School API 10-Year Growth Trend

3-Year API Growth Analysis – 20 Mile March Name of School Base 2010 Growth 2011 Diff Base 2011 Growth 2012 Diff Base 2012 Growth 2013 Diff Average Growth Per Year SCHOOLWIDE Asian Hispanic or Latino White N/A SES Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities

Summarizing Test Results CST

CSTs by Grade Level

CST– English/Language Arts Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST/CMA ELA – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in ELA Grade Grade Grade Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

CST– Algebra 1 Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Geometry Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Algebra 2 Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– High School Summative Math Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST/CMA Algebra 1 – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in Math Grade Grade Grade Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

CST/CMA Geometry – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in Math Grade Grade Grade Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

CST/CMA Algebra 2 – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in Math Grade Grade Grade Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

CST/CMA HS Summative Math – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in Math Grade Grade Grade Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

CST– Life Science (Grade 10) Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Biology Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Chemistry Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Earth Science Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– Physics Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– World History (Grade 10) Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST– US History (Grade 11) Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

CST Cluster Scores

CST Cluster Scores for English/Language Arts By Grade Level

CST Cluster Scores for Algebra 1

CST Cluster Scores for Geometry

CST Cluster Scores for Algebra 2

CST Cluster Scores for Summative HS Math

AYP Growth

Significant Subgroup Data – 2013 AYP Comparison of Percent Proficient or Above – English/Language Arts All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 81.9% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 81.9% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% % 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% Subgroup 3-Year Growth

Significant Subgroup Data – 2013 AYP Comparison of Percent Proficient or Above – Mathematics All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 84.8% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 84.8% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% % 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% Subgroup 3-Year Growth

English Language Development

3-Year CELDT Analysis

Percent of Students Redesignated English Proficient ( )

Long Term English Learners How are EL students performing on the CELDT based on the length of time they have been in U.S. schools? Length of Time in U.S. Schools Number Percent Early Advanced or Advanced; English Proficient Early Advanced or Advanced; Not English Proficient IntermediateEarly Intermediate BeginningTotal (by Time) 6 or more yearsN %65%2%26%2%4%90% 5 yearsN %78%11% 0% 4% 4 yearsN %83%0% 17%0%2% 3 years or lessN %25%13% 0%50%3% Total (by level) N %65%3%25%2%5%100%

Intermediate Level English Learners CST English-Language Arts How are EL students at the Intermediate level on CELDT performing on the CST E/LA by grade level? ELA CST Performance Number Percent Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Total (by CST) Far Below BasicN01012 %0%17%0%33%7% Below BasicN22015 %18%33%0%33%19% BasicN42118 %36%33%0%33%30% ProficientN31307 %27%17%43%0%26% AdvancedN20305 %18%0%43%0%19% Total by GradeN %41%22%26%11%100% Who are your Intermediate EL students who are scoring Basic and Below on the CST E/LA? What are your plans for these students?

Intermediate Level English Learners Mathematics How are EL students at the Intermediate level on CELDT performing on the CST Mathematics by grade level? ELA CST Performance Number Percent Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Total (by CST) Far Below BasicN01012 %0%17%0%33%7% Below BasicN22015 %18%33%0%33%19% BasicN42118 %36%33%0%33%30% ProficientN31307 %27%17%43%0%26% AdvancedN20305 %18%0%43%0%19% Total by GradeN %41%22%26%11%100% Who are your Intermediate EL students who are scoring Basic and below on the CST ELA? What are your plans for these students?

CAHSEE – Grade 10

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Gender – ELA

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Ethnicity - ELA

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Language Proficiency - ELA

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by SES Status - ELA

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates for Special Education Students - ELA

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Gender – Mathematics

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Ethnicity - Mathematics

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by Language Proficiency - Mathematics

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates by SES Status - Mathematics

CAHSEE Proficiency Rates for Special Education Students - Mathematics

AP Equity Access

Access to AP Exams (Equity) AP Data # of Test Takers # of Tests Taken # of Tests Scored 3 or Above Grade 11 and 12 Enrollment Passing Rate % of AP Students w/ Scores of 3 or Above *Qualifying Rate * Qualifying Rate = # Passed Tests/Grade 11 & 12 Enrollment

Other Indicators (Discipline, Attendance, SAT, ACT, Benchmarks, etc.)

How our School is Responding to the Data Signature Practice: – Next steps

Transition to Common Core Steps we are taking in