1. Ross Valley School District 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary Toni Beal, Director of Student Services September 27, 2011

2. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 2 STAR: Standardized Testing and Reporting System Administered grades 2-11 Tests students in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science (grades 5 & 8) and History (grade 8) Measures how well the California education system and its students are performing on state standards Identifies strengths and weaknesses in order to improve student learning Provides a measure to compare individual academic abilities against grade-level requirements and other students in that grade

3. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 3 CST: Content Standards Test California Standards Tests (CSTs) are aligned to the state content standards. The California Board of Education determined the performance levels as:  Advanced — This category represents a superior performance. Students demonstrate a comprehensive and complex understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.  Proficient — This category represents a solid performance. Students demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.  Basic — This category represents a limited performance. Students demonstrate a partial and rudimentary understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.  Far Below/Below Basic — This category represents a serious lack of performance. Students demonstrate little or flawed understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area. The goal in California is to have all students perform at the proficient or advanced level in each subject area tested.

4. STAR Content Standards (CST) Test Results 10-11 Multi-year comparisons English Language Arts

5. What are Multi-Year comparisons? Multi-year comparisons are made by comparing the students in a grade level to students in that same grade level in other years. Multi-year comparisons are used to determine the State’s Academic Performance Index (API).) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 5

6. District Results – All Students English Language Arts Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 6

7. District Results – Grades 2 & 3 English Language Arts Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 7

8. District Results – Grades 4 & 5 English Language Arts Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 8

9. District Results – Grades 6 & 7 English Language Arts Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 9

10. District Results – Grade 8 English Language Arts Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 10

11. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 11 District Strengths in 10-11 ELA Multi-year CST performance 86% proficient or advanced, grades 2-8. 1% increase from 09-10. 89% or above in Grades 4, 5 and 7.  Grade 4 increased 1% from 89% to 90%  Grade 5 increased 2% from 88% to 90%  Grade 7 increased 9% from 80% to 89% Grade 3 increased 6%, from 73% proficient or advanced to 79%.

12. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 12 District Areas to Consider in ELA Multi-year CST performance Grade 2 declined 4%, from 86% to 82% proficient or advanced. Grade 6 declined 5%, from 92% to 87% proficient or advanced. Grade 8 declined 3%, from 87% to 84% achieving proficiency.

13. STAR Content Standards (CST) Test Results 10-11 Multi-year Comparisons Mathematics

14. District Results – All Students Mathematics Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 14

15. District Results – Grades 2 & 3 Mathematics Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 15

16. District Results – Grades 4 & 5 Mathematics Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 16

17. District Results – Grades 6 & 7 Mathematics Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 17

18. District Results – Grade 8 All Mathematics classes Multi Year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 18

19. District Results – Grade 8 General Mathematics Multi Year (69 students, in 10-11) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 19

20. District Results- Grade 7 & 8 Algebra Multi Year (7 th -7 students, 8 th -127 students in 10-11) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 20

21. District Results – Grade 8 Geometry, Multi-Year (3 students in 10-11) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 21

22. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 22 District Strengths in Math Multi-year CST performance 81% proficient or advanced, grades 2-8. Same as 09-10 Grade 3 increased 3%, from 81% in 09-10 to 84% proficient or advanced in 09-10 Grade 4 increased 1%, from 89% in 09-10 to 90% in 10-11. Grade 5 increased 4%, from 83% proficient or advanced, to 87%. 7 th grade showed an increase of 11%, from 68% to 79%. 100% proficient or advanced in Geometry

23. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 23 District Areas to Consider in Multi- Year Math CST performance Grade 2 decreased by 5%, from 91% to 86% proficient or advanced. Grade 6 results showed no growth, and remained stable at 78% proficient or advanced. 8 th grade showed a decrease in the percent proficient or advanced, down 19%. General math decreased 9%, from 58% to 48% scoring proficient or advanced. Algebra declined 23%, down from 86.3 to 62.7%

24. STAR Content Standards (CST) Test Results 10-11 Multi-year Comparisons History and Science 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary24

25. District Results - Grade 8 History Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 25

26. District Results – Grades 5 & 8 Science Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 26

27. District Areas to Consider in Multi-Year History & Science CST performance Multi-year comparisons for the History CST show a 7% increase in the percent proficient or advanced, from 73% to 80% over the 3 year period. In Science, multi-year data also shows an increase in proficiency over the 3 years:  5 th grade had a 1% increase, from 86% to 87% proficient or advanced  8 th grade had a 5% increase, from 85% to 90% proficient or advanced. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 27

28. STAR Results Grade Level Cohort Groups English Language Arts

29. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 29 What is a cohort group? 2010-11 Grade Level Roster Scores of same group of students on assessment in the previous years. Cohort comparisons help to answer the question: How are we doing with the same students over time?

30. Cohort Group-Grade 8 (147 students) English Language Arts 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 30

31. Cohort Group- Grade 7 (151 students) English Language Arts 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 31

32. Cohort Group- Grade 6 (140 students) English Language Arts 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 32

33. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 33 ELA Cohort Results Strengths & Issues to Consider 74% proficient or advanced over all years Consistent decline in grade 3 performance, with corresponding rise in 4 th grade. Relative consistency across all grade levels: once you achieve a certain proficiency level, there is little movement in percentage rates from below proficient to the proficient levels.

34. STAR Results Grade Level Cohort Groups Mathematics

35. Cohort Group- Grade 8 (149 students) Mathematics 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 35

36. Cohort Group- Grade 7 (146 students) Mathematics 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 36

37. Cohort Group- Grade 6 (153 students) Mathematics 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 37

38. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 38 Math Cohort Results Strengths and Issues to Consider 58% proficient or advanced in all years represented Data shows a decline in the percentage of students scoring above proficient in all cohort groups  In the 8 th grade cohort group, the number of students scoring proficient or advanced declines from 80% to 58% over three years.  For the 7 th grade cohort, the decline is from 89% to 81% proficient or advanced over 4 years.  The 6 th grade cohort drops 9%, from 92% proficient or advanced in 4 th grade to 83% in 6 th.

39. Results by Student Groups Students with Disabilities, Socio-economically disadvantaged Students and English Language Learners

40. Students with Disabilities (SWD)

41. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 41 A Student with a Disability is defined as A student who receives special education services and has a valid disability code OR A student who was previously identified as special education but who is no longer receiving special education services for two years after exiting special education

42. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 42 Students with Disabilities can take CST with or without variations, accommodations and/or modifications California Modified Assessment (CMA)  Designed for students with disabilities to provide access so students can demonstrate their knowledge of standards.  shorter passages, less answer choices and more visuals.  FBB or BB on CST prior year and determination of IEP team. California Alternative Performance Assessment  Assesses students with significant cognitive abilities

43. Students with Disabilities CST Multi-Year Comparison English Language Arts (ELA)

44. Students with Disabilities: Districtwide CST ELA Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 44

45. Students with Disabilities: Grades 2-5 CST ELA Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 45

46. Students with Disabilities: Grades 6-8 CST ELA Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 46

47. Students with Disabilities CST Cohort Comparison English Language Arts (ELA)

48. Students with Disabilities: District CST ELA Cohort (6 th -23, 7 th -18, 8 th -24 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 48

49. Students with Disabilities Brookside CST ELA Cohort (4 th -13, 5 th -16 students) (4 th -14, 5 th -16 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 49

50. Students with Disabilities CST ELA Strengths and Issues to Consider District wide multi-year comparison data shows a 12% increase in the number of students scoring proficient or advanced, from 58% to 70%, with all grade levels showing growth. 8 th grade showed a growth of 8%, but student proficiency is still low, 38%. District cohort data shows mixed results.  6 th grade cohort is consistent at 88% proficient or above  7 th and 8 th grade cohort both show declines from last year, 11% for 7 th and 4% for 8 th, with only 41% proficient or above. All grades in the Brookside cohort show above 71% percent proficient or advanced, remaining steady from past years, or showing up to a 14% increase from last year. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary

51. Students with Disabilities CST Multi-Year Comparison Mathematics

52. Students with Disabilities: District & Grades 2-5 CST Math Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 52

53. Students with Disabilities: Grades 6-8, CST Math Multi-year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 53

54. Students with Disabilities CST Algebra Multi-year (11 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 54

55. Students with Disabilities CST General Math Multi-year (19 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 55

56. Students with Disabilities: CST Math Multi-year Strengths and Issues to Consider Multi-year comparisons for SWD overall, show 2% decline in the number of students at proficient levels, from 58% to 56%.  Grades 2, 4, and all showed declines 2 nd grade – 5%, 52% to 47% 4 th grade-10%, from 75% to 65% 8 th grade-30%, from 37% to 7%  Grades 3, 5, and 6 showed gains 3 rd grade – 12%, 58% to 70% 5 th grade-18%, from 66% to 84% 6 th grade-6%, from 61% to 67%  Grade 7 remained the same at 42%. Further analysis of 8 th grade math shows a substantial drop in the percentage of students scoring proficient in both Algebra (66% in 09-10 to 0% in 10-11) and General math (30% in 09-10 to 15% in 10-11) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 56

57. Students with Disabilities CST Cohort Comparison Mathematics

58. Students with Disabilities: District CST Math Cohort (6th-25, 7 th -17, 8 th -22 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 58

59. Students with Disabilities Brookside CST Math Cohort (4 th -13, 5 th -16 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 59

60. Students with Disabilities CST Math Cohort Strengths and Issues to Consider Cohort comparisons for SWD on the Math CST show mixed results.  Performance for the 6 th grade fluctuates from 72% in 3 rd and 5 th grade, with a high of 88% proficient in 4 th grade.  The 7 th grade cohort experienced a drop of 11% in 10-11, from 58% to 47%, with an overall trend of decreasing proficiency as students get older.  The 8 th grade cohort shows the lowest proficiency levels overall, with a drop in performance in 5 th and 7 th grade and a substantial decrease in proficiency last year, from 31% proficient in 09-10 to 4% in 10-11. The Brookside cohort group, while exceeding the target of 68.5% overall, did drop 4%, from 80% to 76%.  The 4 th grade cohort decreased by 15%, from 76% to 61% proficient and above  The 5 th grade cohort showed a gain of 12% over 3 years. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 60

61. Students with Disabilities CMA Results English Language Arts (ELA)

62. Students with Disabilities: District & Grades 3-6, ELA CMA, Multi-year (All-24, 3 rd -8, 4 th -6, 5 th -4, 6 th -6 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 62

63. Students with Disabilities: District Cohort, ELA CMA, (18 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 63

64. Students with Disabilities: CMA ELA Strengths and Issues to Consider For the CMA ELA district wide multi-year, 21% increase, from 54% to 75% proficient. Mixed results by grade:  Grades 3, 5, & 6 – dramatic gains Grade 3 – 50% gain: 37% to 87% proficient Grade 5 – 50% gain: 25% to 75% proficient Grade 6 - 34% gain: 66% to 100% proficient  Grade 4 decrease 10% from 83% to 73% proficient Cohort results show a 17% gain district wide, from 44% to 61% proficient. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 64

65. Students with Disabilities CMA Results Mathematics

66. Students with Disabilities: District & Grades 3-6, CMA Math Multi year (All-22, 3 rd -5, 4 th -6, 5 th -6, 6 th -5 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 66

67. Students with Disabilities: District Cohort, Math CMA (18 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 67

68. Students with Disabilities: CMA Math Strengths and Issues to Consider CMA Multi-year data show mixed results, with a decrease in the district wide percent proficient, by 4%, from 63% to 59%.  Grades 3 and 5, with dramatic increases, 11% (from 60% to 71%) and 37% (50% to 87%) respectively  Grades 4 & 6, with decreases, 23% (83% to 50%) and 24% (80% to 66%) respectively. District cohort increased from 44% to 61%, by 17%. Special note: Small numbers of students taking the CMA affect the wide swing in percentages 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 68

69. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 69 Students with Disabilities: CMA Something to Consider The California Modified Assessment (CMA) has a cap that limits the number of students that can take the exam and score proficient and still be counted as part of the district’s API and AYP. Percent Prof or above Cap  09-10 1.1% ELA 2.7% 1.2% Math 2.8%  10-11 2.5% ELA 2.9% 2.2% Math 3.0% Implication: All students who qualify to take the CMA in any subject area should take it to show proficiency in content areas with accommodations. There are no consequences for going over the cap except to not count the additional students in the API/AYP..

70. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students Multi-Year and Cohort Group Comparison English Language Arts (ELA)

71. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 71 A Socio-economically Disadvantaged Student is defined as A student neither of whose parents have received a high school diploma OR A student who participates in the free or reduced-price lunch program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

72. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: District, ELA Multi year 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 72

73. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: District, ELA Cohort Comparison 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 73

74. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: Grades 4-6, ELA Cohort (4 th -13, 5 th -13, 6 th -15 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 74

75. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: Manor ELA Cohort comparison 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 75

76. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: Manor ELA Cohort (4 th - 6, 5 th -9 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 76

77. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 77 Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students ELA: Strengths and Issues to Consider ELA Multi-year comparisons show that Non SED students displayed a 2% increase, from 85% to 87% as compared to a drop for SED students of 12%, from 70% to 58% proficient or advanced. ELA District wide cohort comparisons show an increase of 5% over 3 years for Non SED and 10% increase in SED, from 62%-72% proficient or advanced. Grade level cohort group comparison show inconsistent results, dramatic gains and losses in each grade level, likely affected by small cohort sizes. While the Manor Non SED groups shows a 3% increase over 3 yrs, the SED groups also shows an decrease of 6% over 3 years, from 66% to 60% proficient or advanced. Manor grade level cohorts show dramatic swings in results, likely due to low cohort numbers.

78. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students Multi-Year and Cohort Group Comparison Mathematics

79. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: District Math Multi-year comparison 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 79

80. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: District Math Cohort 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 80

81. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: District, Grades 4-6, Math Cohort (4 th -13, 5 th -13, 6 th -15 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 81

82. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: Manor, Grades 4 & 5, Math Cohort (4 th -6, 5 th -9 students) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 82

83. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 83 Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students Math: Strengths and Issues to Consider Math Multi-year comparisons show that Non SED students with a 3% increase over 3 years, from 80% to 83% as compared with SED students who show a 10% swing in performance over the 3 year period, from 55% to 65% and returning to 55% proficient or advanced. Math District wide cohort comparisons show an decrease of 4% over 3 years for Non SED and a 7% decrease in SED, from 74%-67% proficient or advanced. The Manor Cohort Non SED cohort shows a 2% increase over 3 years with a high of 90% proficient or advanced, while the SED groups shows a decline of 6% over the same 3 years, with groups shows a 13% decrease over 3 yrs, the SED groups also shows an decrease of 6% over 3 years, with 60% proficient or advanced in 10- 11. District and Manor grade level cohorts show dramatic swings in results, likely due to low cohort numbers.

84. English Language Learner Students Multi-Year and Cohort Group Comparison English Language Arts (ELA)

85. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 85 An English Language Learner (EL) Student is defined as A student who is identified as EL based on results of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) OR A reclassified fluent-English-proficient (RFEP) student who has not scored at the proficient level or above on the CST in ELA three times after being reclassified

86. English Learner Students: EL District Cohort, ELA 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 86

87. English Learner Students: RFEP District Cohort, ELA 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 87

88. English Language Learner Students Multi-Year and Cohort Group Comparison Mathematics

89. English Learner Students: EL District Cohort, Math 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 89

90. English Learner Students: RFEP District Cohort, Math 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 90

91. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 91 English Learner Students: Strengths and Issues to Consider The District wide English Learner ELA cohort increased 9% from 36%-45% over 3 years, while grade level cohorts were mixed. RFEP students showed a stable pattern for district wide ELA cohort groups, but had declines in cohort group performances, with the most notable in 8 th grade with a 18% decline to 45% proficient. EL Math cohorts showed a decrease in scores in all groups over a 3 year period. RFEP math cohorts also showed inconsistent results  6 th and 8 th grade showed substantial decreases, 20% drops in proficiency  While 4 th increased from 63% to 90% proficient.

92. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 92 Summary of Subgroup findings Students with Disabilities in grades 2-6 showed gains in both math and ELA. As SWD move into middle school, the percent of proficient students decreases, with the largest drops in 8 th grade. The CMA should be considered as a viable option for SWDs that qualify. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students consistently achieve lower than their non socio-economic peers. There is little movement in their levels of achievement over time in either math or ELA. EL and RFEP learners showed inconsistent results in both ELA and Math. Future efforts for all significant subgroups should focus on consistent, research based programs and strategies that provide targeted instruction while ensuring access to grade level curriculum.

93. Gifted and Talented Students (GATE) CST Cohort Groups English Language Arts and Mathematics Site Grade Level Groups 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary93

94. Gifted and Talented Students Gifted and Talented (GATE) students are identified in our district in 3 rd grade. Our district does not currently operate a structured GATE program. The State and Federal accountability systems do not identify GATE students as a subgroup or disaggregate data specifically for this group of students. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 94

95. Gifted and Talented Students Grades 4 & 5, 3 Year Cohort, ELA CST BrooksideTotal GATE Students All AdvancedUpward Trend: Proficient to Advanced Downward Trend: Advanced to Proficient 418 00 5262060 Total443860 Manor 45500 56321 Total11821 (9%) Wade Thomas 46402 59810 Total151212 (13%) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary

96. Gifted and Talented Students Grades 6-8, 3 Year Cohort, ELA CST White HillTotal GATE Students All AdvancedUpward Trend: Proficient to Advanced Downward Trend: Advanced to Proficient 6312740 7332751 8423345 Total10687136 (5%) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 96

97. Gifted and Talented Students Grades 4 & 5, 3 Year Cohort, Math CST BrooksideTotal GATE Students All AdvancedUpward Trend: Proficient to Advanced Downward Trend: Advanced to Proficient 418 00 5262321 Total444121 (2%) Manor 45500 56510 Total111010 Wade Thomas 46600 59900 Total15 00 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 97

98. Gifted and Talented Students Grades 6-8, 3 Year Cohort, Math CST White HillTotal GATE Students All AdvancedUpward Trend: Proficient to Advanced Downward Trend: Advanced to Proficient 6312731 7332625 84228410 Total10681916 (15%) 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 98

99. Gifted and Talented Subgroup Findings 169 of the 171 GATE identified students in the district scored Advanced or Proficient on both the ELA and the Math CST test for the 3 year Cohort period. The two students that did not score proficient or advanced for all 3 years, scored Basic in Math for one of the cohort years. One of those students scored proficient in the following year. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 99

100. Academic Performance Index (A.P.I.) State Measure of School Success

101. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 101 Academic Performance Index Looks at school performance and growth on STAR test from year to year Based on scale from 100-1000 Goal is for school to reach 800 Significant Subgroups are defined as  100 or more students with valid STAR scores OR  50 or more students who make up at least 15 percent of the total STAR test scores.

102. District API District wide and Significant Subgroups

103. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 103 District (LEA) Academic Performance Index

104. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 104 District Subgroup API (09-10 data in italics, 10-11 data in bold) SubgroupNumber of students Numerically Significant? 2010 Growth 2009 Base Growth Target 2009-10 Growth Met Subgroup Growth Target? White1209 1275 Yes 932 933 912 932 AAAA 20 1 Yes Socio- economically Disadvantaged 162 163 Yes 824 826 778 824 5151 46 2 Yes Students with Disabilities 216 223 Yes 745 790 718 746 5151 27 44 Yes Hispanic or Latino 89 104 No YES78777116n/a English Learners 83 80 No 788795-7n/a

105. District Schools All Student and Significant Subgroup API

106. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 106 Brookside All Students

107. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 107 Brookside Subgroups (09-10 data in italics, 10-11 data in bold) SubgroupNumber of students Numerically Significant both years? 2010 Growth 2009 Base Growth Target 2009-10 Growth Met Subgroup Growth Target? White356 375 Yes 945 951 907 945 AAAA 38 6 Yes Students with Disabilities 75 72 Yes NO 768 825 720 768 5 n/a 48 57 Yes n/a Socio- economically Disadvantaged 16 20 No 880739n/a141n/a Hispanic or Latino 19 23 No 857744n/a113n/a English Learners 19 18 No 858727n/a131n/a

108. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 108 Wade Thomas All Students

109. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 109 Wade Thomas Subgroups (09-10 data in italics, 10-11 data in bold) SubgroupNumber of students Numerically Significant both years? 2010 Growth 2009 Base Growth Target 2009- 10 Growth Met Subgroup Growth Target? White189 198 Yes 937 945 932 AAAA -5 13 Yes Socio- economically Disadvantaged 38 30 No 903930n/a-73n/a Students with Disabilities 30 26 No 872 809n/a63n/a Hispanic or Latino 89 18 No 771829n/a-58n/a English Learners 11 22 No 870872n/a-2n/a

110. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 110 Manor All Students

111. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 111 Manor Subgroups (09-10 data in italics, 10-11 data in bold) SubgroupNumber of students Numerically Significant? 2010 Growth 2009 Base Growth Target 2009-10 Growth Met Subgroup Growth Target? White186 203 Yes 920 910 920 AAAA 10 -10 Yes Socio- economically Disadvantaged 46 50 No YES784810n/a-26n/a Students with Disabilities 26 35 No 794 747n/a47n/a Hispanic or Latino 89 30 No 757768n/a11n/a English Learners 19 No 696713n/a-17n/a

112. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 112 White Hill All Students

113. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 113 White Hill Subgroups (09-10 data in italics, 10-11 data in bold) SubgroupNumber of students Numerically Significant both years? 2010 Growth 2009 Base Growth Target 2009- 10 Growth Met Subgroup Growth Target? White472 493 Yes 931 925 915 931 AAAA 16 -6 Yes Socio- economically Disadvantaged 61 63 No 840805n/a35n/a Students with Disabilities 66 85 No 740 703n/a37n/a Hispanic or Latino 32 33 No 777786n/a-9n/a English Learners 26 21 No 731844n/a-113n/a

114. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 114 Academic Performance Index Summary All schools achieved an API of 890 or above with an average growth of 8 pts. The District achieved an API of 922 with a growth of 2 points. All significant subgroups, school wide and district wide, achieved their growth targets. The Hispanic/Latino subgroup has become a significant subgroup for our district. Brookside’s Students with Disabilities (SWD) subgroup is not a significant subgroup in 10-11. Socio-economically Disadvantaged students are now a significant subgroup at Manor.

115. Annual Yearly Progress (A.Y.P.) Federal Measure of School Progress No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

116. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 116 Federal Accountability based upon 3 criteria: Participation Rate: 95% Percent Proficient: ELA 67.6%; Math 68.5% API: 620 or Above

117. Criteria for Program Improvement Schools that Receive Title 1 funds and For each of two consecutive years, does not make AYP in the same content area school wide or for any numerically significant subgroup on the same indicator Districts that Receive Title 1 funds and For each of two consecutive years, does not make AYP in the same content area school wide or for any numerically significant subgroup on the same indicator and Does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (grades two through five, grades six through eight). 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 117

118. How did we do? District Adequate Yearly Progress

119. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 119 District wide

120. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 120 District wide

121. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 121 AYP summary (Black: 09-10; Red: 10-11) All Components ELAMathAPIPI Status DistrictNO NO-SWD YES NO –SWD NO-SED & SWD YES Not in PI BrooksideNO YES NO -SWD YES Not Title 1 ManorYES NO YES NO-SED YES NO-SED YES Not in PI Wade Thomas YES Not in PI White HillYES Not Title 1

122. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 122 AYP Highlights Manor is the only school in the district with a significant subgroup, Socio- economically disadvantaged (other than White). Manor does receive Title 1 funds. Brookside did not have a significant subgroup other than White in the 10-11 school year. (SWD were a significant subgroup in 09-10.) Wade Thomas and White Hill do not have any significant subgroups other than the White subgroup. RVSD receives Title 1 funds. In the 10-11 school year, RSVD has 4 significant subgroups: White, Student with Disabilities, Socio-economically disadvantaged and Hispanic or Latino. Two of RSVD subgroups, Students with Disabilities and Socio- economically disadvantaged students, did not meet performance targets in Math this year. If we do not meet these targets next year, then we are at risk of entering PI. In the 09-10 school, RVSD met all grade span requirements. In the 10-11 school year, we did not meet grade span requirements for grades 2-5 in math. Percent proficient performance targets increase each year. (ELA 78.4%, Math 79% in 11-12)

123. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 123 AYP Safe Harbor NCLB contains a “safe harbor” provision:  Percentage of students in the school, district, or subgroup performing below proficient target in ELA or math “decreases by at least 10 percent the students scoring below proficient from the proceeding year.”  And demonstrates at least a 1 point growth in API.

124. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 124 Program Improvement Requirements Year 1 Notify all parents of District’s PI status. Convene a district level team to analyze achievement data for all students. Conduct school and district level assessments (provided by CDE: APS, DAS, ELSSA, and ISS) Identify specific academic areas of concern based on assessments. Revise district plan and implement plan. Reserve 10% of Title 1 allocation for professional development.

125. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 125 Next Steps Celebrate our successes and achievements! The District and all schools achieved an API of over 890! Develop each school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) based on district goals and the analysis of site specific data. Continue with elementary trimester math assessment pilot which includes MARs performance based tasks. Continue with White Hill’s participation in TALK 12 math project and the development of common assessments and structured intervention programs. Foster the transition of district special education programs to allow all students access to grade level curriculum while implementing targeted remediation and support. Utilize the Administrative Intern position to support the identification of students with additional needs, the development of research based intervention programs and the monitoring of programs to ensure student success. Complete the development and implementation of the elementary standards based report card, aligned to essential standards. Develop site systems and structures that support research based, targeted interventions that address student needs. Provide staff development that supports teachers in meeting the needs of ALL students in the classroom setting.

126. 2010-2011 STAR, API and AYP Summary 126 Questions