performance comparisons for dothan city schools
DESCRIPTION
Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools. Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama September 27, 2010. Financial Comparisons. ARMT Results. Math 3. Math 4. Math 5. Math 6. Math 7. Math 8. Reading 3. Reading 4. Reading 5. Reading 6. Reading 7. Reading 8. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools
Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama September 27, 2010
Financial Comparisons
Central Administration4.4%
Facil ity O & M10.3%
Instructional Support19.0%
Instruction66.3%
Typical System at $7,998 Core Spending Level(85 / 15)
Central Administration3.6% Facility O & M
7.5%
Instructional Support19.8%
Instruction69.1%
Dothan at $7,734 Spending Level(89 / 11)
Local LocalProperty Local Tax Property Local TaxTax Rates Revenue Tax Rates Revenue
for Schools Per Student for Schools Per Student
Dothan 10.0 1,962$ Dothan 10.0 1,962$
Alexander City 15.0 1,574 Andalusia 17.0 1,521 Auburn 24.0 4,565 Daleville 10.0 1,336 Decatur 22.0 3,694 Elba 16.0 1,371 Enterprise 16.0 3,994 Enterprise 16.0 3,994 Florence 25.0 3,549 Eufaula 20.0 1,657 Gadsden 22.0 1,664 Geneva 11.4 1,302 Hoover 46.1 4,887 Opp 12.0 1,522 Huntsville 27.5 3,478 Ozark 23.0 1,773 Opelika 24.0 3,174 Troy 10.7 2,146 Phenix City 28.5 1,743 Barbour Co. 10.0 1,394 Selma 23.3 976 Coffee Co. 17.0 1,471 Tuscaloosa 21.0 3,963 Covington Co. 10.0 1,428
Dale Co. 10.0 1,035 Geneva Co. 11.4 623 Henry Co 12.0 1,080 Houston Co. 10.0 1,522 Pike Co. 10.0 1,748
Dothan
Alexander City
Auburn
Decatur
Enterprise
Florence
Gadsden
Hoover
Huntsville
Opelika
Phenix City
Selma
Tuscaloosa
$0$1,000
$2,000$3,000
$4,000$5,000
$6,000$7,000
$8,000$9,000
$10,000
Core Expenditures Per Student, 2010
Dothan City
Alexander City
Auburn City
Decatur City
Enterprise City
Florence City
Gadsden City
Hoover City
Huntsville City
Opelika City
Phenix City
Selma City
Tuscaloosa City
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Instruction-Related Expenditure Percentage, 2010Instruction Instructional Support
Dothan City
Alexander City
Auburn City
Decatur City
Enterprise City
Florence City
Gadsden City
Hoover City
Huntsville City
Opelika City
Phenix City
Selma City
Tuscaloosa City
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000
Instruction-Related Expenditures Per Student, 2010
Instruction Instructional Support
Dothan City
Alexander City
Auburn City
Decatur City
Enterprise City
Florence City
Gadsden City
Hoover City
Huntsville City
Opelika City
Phenix City
Selma City
Tuscaloosa City
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Facility and Administrative Expenditure Percentage, 2010Facility O & M Administrative
Dothan City
Alexander City
Auburn City
Decatur City
Enterprise City
Florence City
Gadsden City
Hoover City
Huntsville City
Opelika City
Phenix City
Selma City
Tuscaloosa City
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800
Facility and Administrative Expenditures Per Student, 2010Facility O & M Administrative
ARMT Results
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Students Scoring at the Level Indicated
NAEP vs. ARMT ScoringAlabama 4th Grade Results for 2009
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Level I Level III Level IVLevel II
MATH
READING
NAEP
NAEP
ARMT
ARMT
Math Reading0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2010 ARMT Results in Math and ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV, Grades 3-8
Dothan vs. State Averages
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. State Averages
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Non-Pov Enterprise Non-Pov Dothan Pov Enterprise Pov Dothan
2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. Enterprise
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. State Averages
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Non-Pov Enterprise Non-Pov Dothan Pov Enterprise Pov Dothan
2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. Enterprise
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
System-Level Comparisons
PARCA Color-Coding of ARMT Test ResultsMore than 10 percentage points above state subgroup average at Level IV1 to 10 percentage points above state subgroup average at Level IVWithin +/- 1 percentage point of state subgroup average at Level IV1 to 10 percentage points below state subgroup average at Level IVMore than 10 percentage points below state subgroup average at Level IV
Gap is smaller than system / state average AND both subgroups are green.
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 3-5, SPRING 2010 COMPARISON OF GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Florence 22 1 1 24 92% 5 42%Dothan 21 2 1 24 88% 4 33%Enterprise 18 3 3 24 75% 4 33%Auburn 17 2 5 24 71% 1 8%Alexander City 16 3 5 24 67% 3 25%Decatur 13 2 9 24 54% 0 0%Selma 13 3 8 24 54% 1 8%Hoover 12 4 8 24 50% 0 0%Huntsville 8 1 15 24 33% 0 0%Opelika 7 1 16 24 29% 0 0%Tuscaloosa 7 2 15 24 29% 0 0%Gadsden 2 3 19 24 8% 0 0%Phenix City 2 7 15 24 8% 0 0%
COMPARISON OF GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010 IMPROVEMENT IN GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
School 2008 2009 2010Systems % Green % Green % Green
Florence 67% 54% 92%Dothan 67% 88% 88%Enterprise 83% 88% 75%Auburn 83% 75% 71%Alexander City 71% 71% 67%Decatur 54% 42% 54%Selma 33% 38% 54%Hoover 67% 58% 50%Huntsville 38% 42% 33%Opelika 63% 33% 29%Tuscaloosa 25% 38% 29%Gadsden 38% 25% 8%Phenix City 71% 38% 8%
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 6-8, SPRING 2010 COMPARISON OF GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Enterprise 24 0 0 24 100% 4 33%Hoover 23 1 0 24 96% 0 0%Auburn 22 0 2 24 92% 1 8%Dothan 21 2 1 24 88% 1 8%Alexander City 20 2 2 24 83% 2 17%Florence 15 3 6 24 63% 0 0%Decatur 13 4 7 24 54% 0 0%Huntsville 13 3 8 24 54% 0 0%Opelika 12 4 8 24 50% 0 0%Tuscaloosa 9 0 15 24 38% 0 0%Gadsden 4 3 17 24 17% 0 0%Phenix City 2 1 21 24 8% 0 0%Selma 0 0 18 18 0% 0 0%
COMPARISON OF GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010 IMPROVEMENT IN GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
School 2008 2009 2010Systems % Green % Green % Green
Enterprise 100% 92% 100%Hoover 92% 96% 96%Auburn 79% 92% 92%Dothan 46% 46% 88%Alexander City 100% 71% 83%Florence 88% 83% 63%Opelika 38% 58% 54%Huntsville 50% 54% 54%Decatur 50% 58% 50%Tuscaloosa 29% 33% 38%Gadsden 46% 17% 17%Phenix City 17% 13% 8%Selma 6% 6% 0%
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 3-5, SPRING 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Ozark 22 0 2 24 92% 4 33%Dothan 21 2 1 24 88% 4 33%Enterprise 18 3 3 24 75% 4 33%Pike Co. 17 5 2 24 71% 3 25%Geneva 16 0 8 24 67% 4 33%Troy 15 3 6 24 63% 2 17%Coffee Co. 12 2 6 20 60% 3 30%Opp 14 0 10 24 58% 3 25%Covington Co. 12 1 9 22 55% 2 18%Andalusia 12 3 9 24 50% 2 17%Houston Co. 11 2 11 24 46% 2 17%Daleville 6 2 16 24 25% 0 0%Barbour Co. 2 0 10 12 17% 0 0%Dale Co. 3 2 19 24 13% 0 0%Eufaula 3 2 19 24 13% 0 0%Elba 2 1 21 24 8% 0 0%Geneva Co. 1 2 21 24 4% 0 0%Henry Co. 1 2 21 24 4% 0 0%
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 6-8, SPRING 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Enterprise 24 0 0 24 100% 4 33%Dothan 21 2 1 24 88% 4 33%Andalusia 21 0 3 24 88% 1 8%Troy 15 3 6 24 63% 0 0%Coffee Co. 13 2 7 22 59% 2 18%Geneva 12 2 8 22 55% 4 36%Pike Co. 11 2 11 24 46% 3 25%Covington Co. 11 4 9 24 46% 2 17%Ozark 8 0 16 24 33% 1 8%Houston Co. 7 1 16 24 29% 0 0%Dale Co. 7 3 14 24 29% 0 0%Geneva Co. 6 1 17 24 25% 0 0%Opp 6 0 18 24 25% 1 8%Elba 5 2 17 24 21% 0 0%Daleville 1 0 23 24 4% 0 0%Henry Co. 1 0 23 24 4% 0 0%Eufaula 0 0 24 24 0% 0 0%Barbour Co. 0 0 12 12 0% 0 0%
Elementary Schools
SCHOOL-LEVEL SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS, SPRING 2010 COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
Elementary Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSchools Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Montana 24 0 0 24 100% 10 83%Heard 24 0 0 24 100% 12 100%Landmark 13 1 4 18 72% 2 22%Highlands 12 2 6 20 60% 2 20%Hidden Lake 13 2 9 24 54% 1 8%Grandview 6 1 5 12 50% 0 0%Kelly Springs 9 2 13 24 38% 1 8%Cloverdale 7 1 12 20 35% 0 0%J. L. Faine 4 0 8 12 33%Girard 5 1 16 22 23% 0 0%Selma Street 3 1 14 18 17% 0 0%
Totals 120 11 87 218 55% 28 26%
COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010 IMPROVEMENT IN ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
Elementary 2008 2009 2010Schools % Green % Green % Green
Montana 92% 100% 100%Heard 75% 63% 100%Landmark 20% 55% 72%Highlands 13% 21% 60%Hidden Lake 67% 42% 54%Grandview 67% 29% 50%Kelly Springs 54% 88% 38%Cloverdale 82% 70% 35%J. L. Faine 0% 33% 33%Girard 42% 42% 23%Selma Street 13% 35% 17%
Totals 49% 54% 55%
Cloverdale Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Faine Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Girard Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Grandview Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Heard Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Hidden Lake Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Highlands Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Kelly Springs Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Landmark Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Montana Street Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Selma Street Elementary
2010
2008
2009
Middle Schools
SCHOOL-LEVEL SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS, SPRING 2010 COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
Middle Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSchools Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Carver 24 0 0 24 100% 10 83%Beverlye 24 0 0 24 100% 10 83%Girard 9 3 12 24 38% 0 0%Honeysuckle 1 1 22 24 4% 0 0%
Totals 58 4 34 96 60% 20 42%
COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010 IMPROVEMENT IN ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
Middle 2008 2009 2010Schools % Green % Green % Green
Carver 92% 83% 100%Beverlye 4% 8% 100%Girard 25% 21% 38%Honeysuckle 4% 8% 4%
Totals 31% 30% 60%
Beverlye Magnet School
2010
2008
2009
Carver Magnet School
2010
2008
2009
Girard Middle School
2010
2008
2009
Honeysuckle Middle School
2010
2008
2009
High Schools
SUMMARY OF AHSGE RESULTS, SPRING 2010 COMPARISON OF AHSGE RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Hoover 22 2 0 24 92% 0 0%Florence 21 2 1 24 88% 1 8%Enterprise 20 8 2 24 83% 1 8%Auburn 20 1 3 24 83% 0 0%Huntsville 17 4 3 24 71% 0 0%Alexander City 14 5 5 24 58% 2 17%Dothan 8 7 9 24 33% 0 0%Opelika 8 6 10 24 33% 0 0%Tuscaloosa 6 1 17 24 25% 0 0%Decatur 4 7 13 24 17% 0 0%Gadsden 3 6 15 24 13% 0 0%Selma 1 3 14 18 6% 0 0%Phenix City 0 2 22 24 0% 0 0%
COMPARISON OF AHSGE RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2010 IMPROVEMENT IN AHSGE RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
School 2008 2009 2010Systems % Green % Green % Green
Hoover 96% 92% 92%Florence 54% 71% 88%Enterprise 96% 88% 83%Auburn 62% 75% 83%Huntsville 63% 63% 71%Alexander City 13% 25% 58%Dothan 8% 25% 33%Opelika 46% 75% 33%Tuscaloosa 25% 33% 25%Decatur 58% 54% 17%Gadsden 8% 21% 13%Selma 6% 6% 6%Phenix City 0% 0% 0%
SUMMARY OF ASHGE RESULTS, SPRING 2010Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Enterprise 20 8 2 24 83% 1 8%Dale Co. 17 3 4 24 71% 3 25%Covington Co. 15 4 5 24 63% 2 17%Troy 10 3 11 24 42% 0 0%Dothan 8 7 9 24 33% 0 0%Coffee Co. 8 2 14 24 33% 1 8%Eufaula 7 6 11 24 29% 2 17%Geneva 6 3 15 24 25% 0 0%Andalusia 6 2 16 24 25% 0 0%Opp 5 4 15 24 21% 1 8%Houston Co. 5 5 14 24 21% 0 0%Barbour Co. 2 1 9 12 17% 0 0%Henry Co 4 5 15 24 17% 0 0%Pike Co. 3 4 17 24 13% 0 0%Daleville 3 1 20 24 13% 0 0%Elba 3 3 18 24 13% 0 0%Geneva Co. 3 3 18 24 13% 1 8%Ozark 2 5 17 24 8% 0 0%
2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for MathPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
AHSGE Math
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 20105
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for MathPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for ReadingPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
AHSGE Reading
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for ReadingPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
AHSGE Science/Biology
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 20100
10
20
30
40
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for Science/BiologyPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 20105
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for Science/BiologyPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
Dothan High
2010
2008
2009
Northview High
2010
2008
2009
