1. MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CST DATA ANALYSIS 2011-12 STAR RESULTS Presented by Audrey Lee Director, Curriculum & Educational Technology 10 September 2012

2. County & State Comparison  ELA  Above county and state averages (all grade levels)  Math  Above state averages (all grade levels)  Above county averages in all but 2 nd & 6 th  Secondary Math

3. ELA: Percent Proficient Trends Areas Showing Decline 5 th Grade (-5) To Watch 10 th & 11 th Grade (-3) Areas Showing Growth All other grades, especially 3rd, 6 th, and 8 th.

4. Math: Percent Proficient Trends Areas Showing Decline 2 nd Grade (-4) To Watch 5 th Grade Algebra 1 Algebra II HS Summative Areas Showing Growth 3 rd Grade General Math

5. History and Social Science  History (8 th, Grade 11, US History)  Flat over the years at ~50% proficiency  Slight growth in 8 th Grade History  Social Science (5 th, 8 th, 10 th, Bio, Chem, ES)  Decline in Biology and Earth Science  Growth in 8 th Grade Science

6. API & AYP

7. Comparison API Academic Performance Index State Measure Growth Targets Districts/Schools must meet API targets in subgroups as well AYP Adequate Yearly Performance Federal Measure Uniform Targets Requirements: API Growth proficient + percentage percentage participation graduation rate Because of a testing irregularity (not in MUSD) AYP and API will not be released until October

8. ASAM: Vicente & Briones  Indicators 1. Credit recovery 2. Student Persistence 3. Math Achievement 2009201020112012 (Projected) 4 Year Change Vicente 556518506554-2 Briones 489628647635+146

9. API: 4 Year Trends & Projections 2009201020112012 (Projected) 4 Year Change District808819832-+24 (3 yr) Alhambra High School 794815805813+19 Martinez Junior High School 800822846861+61 John Muir 807786831826+19 John Swett 893896905917+24 Las Juntas 857850850*835-22 Morello Park 886894909932+46 ** Projected API Scores are from Data Director and NOT official scores

10. Las Juntas – PI Update  2011 Testing Irregularity  Projected API could mean Year 2 PI Status is coming  Compliance Implications:  School Choice/Transportation  Set aside of Title I Funding for SES  Comprehensive Assessment + Plan for CDE

11. CONTEXT: AYP Targets Over Time

12. NUMERICALLY SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUPS

13. Numerically Significant Subgroups  Hispanic or Latino  White  English Learners  Socioeconomically Disadvantaged  Two or More Races  Students with Disabilities

14. Subgroup Comparison SubgroupAreas of GrowthTo WatchAreas of Decline Economically Disadvantaged Students (867 = 28%) 2 nd, 4 th, 6 th, 8 th ELA 4 th Math General Math Algebra 1 3 rd ELA 8 th ELA 10 th ELA 5 th ELA 6 th Math Algebra II Students with Disabilities (320 = 10%) 4 th, 8 th, 10 th ELA 3 rd ELA 7 th ELA 9 th ELA 7 th ELA 6 th Math English Learners (235 = 8%) 4 th, 9 th, 11 th ELA 4 th Math General Math 3 rd ELA 7 th ELA 3 rd Math 2 nd Math & ELA Algebra I

15. Comparison by Ethnicity: ELA Percent Proficient GradeWhite 1677 (54%) Hispanic/Latino 839 (27%) Two or More Races 304 (10%) 2 nd 75%59%76% 3 rd 75%63%67% 4 th 84%80%82% 5 th 76%74%71% 6 th 78%54%80% 7 th 84%53%80% 8 th 78%56%58% 9 th 86%63%68% 10 th 66%44%64% 11 th 65%43%53%

16. Comparison by Ethnicity: Math Percent Proficient GradeWhiteHispanic/ Latino 839 (27%) Two or More Races 304 (10%) 2 nd 75%61%78% 3 rd 89%84%87% 4 th 76%81%83% 5 th 75%68%62% 6 th 68%37%60% 7 th 79%59%62% General Math60%49%69% Algebra 149%45%48% Geometry66%43%47% Algebra II63%53%78%

17. CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPS

18. Identified for Further Analysis  2 nd & 5 th Grade Math, ELA  CST Cluster Analysis – site specific  6 th Grade Math  MJHS has already put changes in place to address  Earth Science  Increase in percent proficient = bump for AHS  Subgroups: ELs, Hispanic/Latino, SED, SPED  Evaluate Programs (Imagine Learning, Read 180)  CST Cluster Analysis – site specific  Target Interventions

19. Consistently above county and state percentages in ELA and Math 24 API point increase in 3 years. (More in 2012!) All of our schools are over 800 (Two are over 900 and California Distinguished Schools) We have an incredibly talented, dedicated staff committed to excellence and high expectations. Way to Go MUSD!

20. Schools Over 800 are Different Standards mastery & coverage is not enough! Academic Behaviors Problem Solving Communication Rigor & Relevance College & Career Readiness, Common Core State Standards, Tech Integration

21. With All That in Mind…Next Steps  Data Discussions at AC = model best practices  How do district trends look at each site?  What’s working for some teachers?  Continued critical analysis of Programs  Data around usage and student achievement  Professional Development around CCSS Big Ideas  Take the next step  Transition smoothly to CCSS

22. Questions?