1

Adequate Yearly Progress 2005 Status Report

Research, Assessment & AccountabilityNovember 2, 2005

Oakland Unified School District

2

• Overview of the AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• 2005-2006 Status Report for AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• Program Improvement (PI) Status• NCLB Timeline• OUSD Program Improvement Schools• Celebration of Success

Agenda

3

AYP represents the

Adequate Yearly Progress

a school must make under

No Child Left Behind.

What is AYP?

4

95% Participation

Rate

AMOsin ELA and

Math

API (California’s additional indicator)

Graduation rate (High Schools Only)

AA YY PP

Four Requirements To Make AYP

5

Requirement 1: Participation Rate

95% of students in grades 2-11 continuously enrolled from the CBEDS date (in October) must take each segment of required assessments; students who enroll prior to the first day of testing must also be tested.

Schools and the District must meet participation rates for each numerically significant subgroup (e.g. ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantaged…) as well as for the school/district as a whole.

6

Requirement 2: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

2005 AMOs

School Level

ELA Math

Elementary or Middle Schools

24.4 % Proficient

26.5% Proficient

High Schools

22.3% Proficient

20.9% Proficient

District23.0% Proficient

23.7% Proficient

• AMOs represent the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in English-Language Arts and Math. Students must meet or exceed the AMO goals prescribed by the state. The statewide goals are applicable to ALL: – Schools (including

alternative and charters)– Subgroups– Districts– States

Note: 2005 AMOs represent a significant increase over 2004 targets.

7

Requirement 3: API

Other AYP Indicator-

API 2004-2005590 API or 1 Point

Growth

Schools are required to achieve growth in the API of at

least one point from base to growth, OR meet an API

status target. The API base for each school is uniquely set

by the state. The 2005 API status target for all schools is

590.

8

Requirement 4: Graduation Rate

2005 Graduation Rate Requirement

82.9%

High schools must meet the minimum

graduation rate (82.9 for 2005) or show

improvement of at least 0.1% from the

previous year or improvement of 0.2% in the

average two-year rate.

9

• Overview of the AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• 2005-2006 Status Report for AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• Program Improvement (PI) Status• NCLB Timeline• OUSD Program Improvement Schools• Celebration of Success

Agenda

10

29.9%32.6%

44.0%46.0%

0.0%

15.8%13.3%

17.6%

0.0%

16.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

OUSD Elementary Middle H.S. ASAM*

2004 2005

Note: Graph excludes charters schools and schools that are not Title I.

What percentage of schools met all four AYP requirements?

More district schools met all four AYP requirements in 2005 compared to 2004.

*Alternative Schools Accountability Model

11

Participation Rates

• District-wide participation rates for 2005 were about 98% -- up 2 percentage points from 2004

• All sub-groups met or exceeded the 95% participation rate requirement

• OUSD participation rates are comparable to the state (99%), West Contra Costa Unified (98%), and San Francisco Unified (99%)

Overall, participation rates were high.

12

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): % Proficient in English-Language Arts, 2005

15.1%

20.2%

19.4%

34.1%

42.6%

76.3%

47.8%

17.0%

22.7%

28.5%

16.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Disabilities

ELL

Socio. Dis.

Pac. Isl.

Am Indian

Filipino

White

Asian

Hispanic

Af. Am.

OUSD

Percent Proficient or Above

District AMO Target=23.0%

Four of the 10 NCLB subgroups met or exceeded the AMO target for English-Language Arts.

13

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): % Proficient in Mathematics, 2005

Percent At or Above Proficient

18.5%

28.7%

24.5%

41.3%

47.4%

74.2%

61.6%

26.0%

21.9%

33.5%

30.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Disabilities

ELL

Socio. Dis.

Pac. Isl.

Am Indian

Filipino

White

Asian

Hispanic

Af. Am.

OUSD

District AMO Target=23.7%

Eight of the NCLB subgroups met or exceeded the AMO target for Math.

14

Academic Performance Index

601

635

689

709

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

OUSD State

2004 API Base

2005 API Growth

As a district, OUSD showed significant API Growth last year. However, we still fall behind the State average.

15

API Growth by Subgroup

0

100200

300

400

500600

700

800900

Af. Am Hispanic Asian White Am.Indian

Filipino Pac. Isl SED

2004 API Base 2005 API Growth

All subgroups witnessed API growth in 2005.

16

GRADE# % # % # % # % # % # %

2 1,820 46% 1,452 40% (368) -5.7% 1,026 26% 1,195 33% 169 7.1%3 1,984 51% 1,753 47% (231) -3.5% 779 20% 801 22% 22 1.7%4 1,605 41% 1,110 30% (495) -10.0% 991 25% 1,221 34% 230 8.5%5 1,526 39% 1,166 31% (360) -7.6% 1,052 27% 1,207 32% 155 5.6%Elementary School 6,935 44% 5,481 37% (1,454) -6.7% 3,848 24% 4,424 30% 576 5.7%6 1,778 50% 1,469 46% (309) -4.3% 568 16% 657 21% 89 4.5%7 1,726 51% 1,459 44% (267) -6.9% 591 18% 788 24% 197 6.4%8 1,718 50% 1,490 47% (228) -3.3% 614 18% 628 20% 14 1.8%Middle School 5,222 51% 4,418 46% (804) -4.9% 1,773 17% 2,073 21% 300 4.3%9 1,583 54% 1,484 48% (99) -5.8% 534 18% 710 23% 176 4.8%10 1,538 58% 1,342 53% (196) -4.4% 397 15% 470 19% 73 3.8%11 1,123 56% 1,022 53% (101) -3.4% 320 16% 376 20% 56 3.4%High School 4,244 56% 3,848 51% (396) -4.8% 1,251 16% 1,556 21% 305 4.2%District 16,401 49% 13,747 44% (2,654) -5.6% 6,872 20% 8,053 26% 1,181 4.8%

ELA CST SCORES Far Below Basic and Below Basic Proficient and Advanced

Change2003-4 2004-5 Change 2003-4 2004-5

California Standards Test Results by Grade Level

GRADE# % # % # % # % # % # %

2 1,322 33% 1,126 31% (196) -2.1% 1,622 41% 1,627 45% 5 4.3%3 1,411 36% 1,140 31% (271) -5.3% 1,453 37% 1,610 44% 157 6.3%4 1,630 41% 1,212 33% (418) -8.0% 1,247 32% 1,442 40% 195 8.0%5 1,762 45% 1,444 39% (318) -6.3% 1,124 29% 1,405 38% 281 9.0%Elementary School 6,125 39% 4,922 34% (1,203) -5.4% 5,446 35% 6,084 42% 638 6.9%6 2,102 60% 1,627 51% (475) -8.9% 476 14% 751 24% 275 10.0%7 2,016 60% 1,840 56% (176) -4.2% 519 16% 601 18% 82 2.8%8 1,924 58% 1,803 58% (121) -0.4% 501 15% 481 15% (20) 0.3%Middle School 6,042 60% 5,270 55% (772) -4.5% 1,496 15% 1,833 19% 337 4.4%9 2,049 77% 2,001 68% (48) -9.7% 163 6% 277 9% 114 3.2%10 1,980 83% 1,752 77% (228) -6.6% 102 4% 144 6% 42 2.0%11 1,446 83% 1,398 79% (48) -4.1% 99 6% 131 7% 32 1.7%High School 5,475 81% 5,151 73% (324) -7.5% 364 5% 552 8% 188 2.5%District 17,642 54% 15,343 50% (2,299) -5.0% 7,306 22% 8,469 27% 1,163 4.7%

Change2004-52003-42003-4 2004-5 Change Far Below Basic and Below Basic Proficient and Advanced

MATH CST SCORES

A primary attribution to increased API growth was the advancement of all grade levels toward proficiency for both ELA and Math on 2005 CSTs.

17

Graduation Rates

67.8%

61.4%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

2004 Grad Rate (2002-03 Class) 2005 Grad Rate (2003-04 Class)

Graduation rates declined by 6.4% in 2005.

18

• Overview of the AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• 2005-2006 Status Report for AYP Components• Participation Rate• Annual Measurable Objectives• API• Graduation Rate

• Program Improvement (PI) Status• NCLB Timeline• OUSD Program Improvement Schools• Celebration of Success

Agenda

19

NCLB Program Improvement Timeline

Miss AYPMiss AYP

Miss AYP

Year 1 Year 2: Supplemental

Education Services

Miss AYP

Year 3: Corrective

Action

Miss AYP

Year 4: Restructure (Planning

Year)

Miss AYP

Year 5: Restructure

(Implementation Year)

Advancement Timeline:

Schools and districts exit PI after two consecutive years of meeting AYP requirements.

Currently, OUSD is in Year 1 of Program Improvement.

20

Why is OUSD a PI District?

2004

OUSD did not meet the participation rate for students with disabilities.

2005

PI identification rules were modified. OUSD did not make AYP in the same content areas (ELA or Math) for the 6-8 and 10th grade spans for 2 consecutive years.

21

Met ELA

AMO?

Met Math

AMO?

2004 Grades 2-5 No Yes

Grades 6-8 No No

Grades 10 No No

2005 Grades 2-5 No Yes

Grades 6-8 No No

Grades 10 No NoBeginning in 2005, a district is identified as PI if it does not make AYP in the same content area (English-language arts [ELA] or mathematics) AND does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (grades two through five, grades six through eight, and grade ten) for two consecutive years.

Changes to PI Identification for Districts

As a district, OUSD is in Year 1 of Program Improvement.

22

Percentage of OUSD Schools in Program Improvement

37

15

12

22

13

45% of OUSD schools are currently in Program Improvement status.

Year 113%

Year 4 or 512%

Year 2 or 320%

Not Title 115%

Not In PI40%

42

13

12

20

15

Total Number of Schools Excluding Charters: 102

23

Situations NumberAt risk of Entering Year 1 18*

Entered PI Year 1 11

Maintained at Year 1 2

Advanced from Year 1 to Year 2

12

Maintained at Year 2 1

Advanced from Year 2 to Year 3

7

Advanced from Year 3 to Year 4

0

Maintained at Year 4 2

Advanced from Year 4 to Year 5

10

Program Improvement Overview

In 2006-2007, more OUSD schools could be in Program Improvement status.

*8 schools do not have API Growth Rates

24

The Schools At Risk of Entering PI Year 1

At-risk schools with API Growth Rates1. ASCEND2. Brewer (Edna) Middle3. Bunche4. Far West (Cont.)5. Hoover Elementary6. International Community7. Markham Elementary8. Merritt Middle College High (Alt)9. Santa Fe Elementary10. Emerson Elementary

At-risk schools without API Growth Rates (Most are New Schools)1. Business and Information Technology High2. East Oakland Community High (EOCH)3. East Oakland School of the Arts4. Leadership Preparatory High5. MetWest High6. Oakland Community Day High7. Street Academy (Alter)8. YES, Youth Empowerment

25

Celebration of Success: Exiting PI

22.0% 22.0%

31.0%35.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

ELA % Proficient

30.0%

41.0%48.0%

59.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Math % Proficient

Franklin Elementary

26

Celebration of Success: Exiting PI

29.0%

37.0% 39.0%

47.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

ELA % Proficient

26.0%

43.0%40.0%

56.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Math % Proficient

Glenview Elementary

27

Celebration of Success: Exiting PI

31.0%33.0%

28.0%

34.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

ELA % Proficient

5.0%

44.0% 42.0%48.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Math % Proficient

Laurel Elementary

28

Conclusion

•As a district we are pleased with the growth achieved in 2004-2005 with all grade levels moving in the direction of proficiency on the California Standards Test.

• However, we also recognize the work ahead with many schools currently in PI or at risk of entering PI.

•To proactively improve our schools, we will:

•Continue refining our system for effectively intervening in schools before they require mandated action based on their Program Improvement status

•Share best practices from schools that have effectively exited Program Improvement.