1. 2011 Achievement Gaps By Various Subgroups: Reading and Math EOG Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Board of Education October 11, 2011

2. 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

3. MATH

4. Historical Math Gaps

5. 2011 Math 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Grade GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic 394.471.9 (-23)78.6 (-16) 493.774.3 (-19)80.0 (-14) 592.674.5 (-18)75.1 (-18) 692.467.7 (-25)73.4 (-19) 792.171.0 (-21)69.9 (-22) 892.474.7 (-18)74.5 (-18) ALL92.972.3 (-21)75.6 (-17)

6. 2011 Math 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Urban District GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic WSFCS92.972.3 (-21)75.6 (-17) DURHAM90.064.3 (-26)71.1 (-19) GUILFORD93.073.4 (-20)80.4 (-13) CHARLOTTE>9572.6 (-22+)79.3 (-16+) WAKE>9570.1 (-25+)78.7 (-16+)

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

8. 2011 EOG MATH 3-8: By Gender & Ethnicity 4.5 2.7 5.8 4.7 3.6 1.1 2.0 0.4 -- -1.1 2.5 1.9 0.9 -0.2

9. 2010 vs. 2011 Math EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: African-American

10. 2010 vs. 2011 Math EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: Hispanic

11. 2010 & 2011 EOG Math: WSFCS Gender Gaps by Ethnicity & Grade

12. 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

13. 2011 Math EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN262466.9%253069.9% HISPANIC224672.8%216275.5% WHITE126081.8%118985.3%

14. 2011 Math EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN80484.5%69587.6% HISPANIC21587.0%20986.6% WHITE407995.1%390796.5%

15. 2011 Math EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status FRL NOT LEPFRL LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN514368.3%11-- HISPANIC165488.2%275465.6% WHITE241283.6%37--

16. 2011 Math EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status PAID NOT LEPPAID LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN149186.0%8-- HISPANIC32991.8%9569.5% WHITE795495.8%32--

17. READING

18. Historical Reading Gaps

19. 2011 Reading 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Grade GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic 384.751.5 (-33)44.7 (-40) 487.855.7 (-32)53.4 (-34) 586.960.0 (-27)49.3 (-38) 688.257.0 (-31)57.5 (-31) 784.249.2 (-35)44.2 (-40) 885.953.4 (-33)47.7 (-38) ALL86.354.5 (-32)49.6 (-37)

20. 2011 Reading 3-8 Proficiency by Group and Urban District GradeWhiteAfrican-AmericanHispanic WSFCS86.354.5 (-32)49.6 (-37) DURHAM85.149.8 (-35)47.2 (-38) GUILFORD86.556.6 (-30)59.6 (-27) CHARLOTTE90.759.0 (-32)60.2 (-31) WAKE90.757.8 (-33)60.2 (-31)

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

22. 2011 EOG READING 3-8: By Gender & Ethnicity 8.9 7.0 8.2 9.8 6.6 2.8 4.3 1.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 7.1 5.3 5.0 3.3

23. 2010 vs. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: African-American

24. 2010 vs. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8 Gender Gap Difference: Hispanic

25. 2010 & 2011 EOG Reading: WSFCS Gender Gaps by Ethnicity & Grade

26. 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

27. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN261545.4%253052.8% HISPANIC222143.0%214250.6% WHITE125068.6%118376.2%

28. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and Gender MALEFEMALE N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN80269.7%69677.2% HISPANIC21178.2%20780.7% WHITE407389.0%390192.2%

29. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Free/Reduced Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status FRL NOT LEPFRL LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN513549.1%10-- HISPANIC165872.7%270530.8% WHITE239972.5%34--

30. 2011 Reading EOG 3-8: Paid Lunch By Ethnicity and LEP Status PAID NOT LEPPAID LEP N% PROFN AFRICAN-AMERICAN149073.2%8-- HISPANIC32987.5%8949.4% WHITE794290.7%32--

31. 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