1. Sample Elementary School 3-Year Achievement Results Analysis September 2013

2. State Accountability Academic Performance Index (API)

3. State Accountability - API API continues to be an important part of public school accountability in California. 1 For 2013, schools must reach an API of 770 or grow at least 5 % of the difference between their Base API and 8 00 each year until they reach an API of 800. 2 Districts must also meet the yearly API target and reach 800 by the 2013-14 school year. 3 English-Language Arts, Mathematics, History-Social Science, and Science test results are included in the API calculation. 4 Graduation rates are also included in the high school API calculations. 5

4. School API 10-Year Growth Trend

5. 3-Year API Growth Analysis – 20 Mile March Name of School Base 2010 Growth 2011 Diff. 2010-11 Base 2011 Growth 2012 Diff. 2011-12 Base 2012 Growth 2013 Diff. 2012-13 Average Growth Per Year 2010-2013 SCHOOLWIDE 644659156836907 7091913.7 Asian 79079998118187 83618 11.3 Hispanic or Latino 59161019642635-7666642-24 -4.0 White 712682-307067159N/A SES Disadvantaged 632649176736741 70127 15.0 English Learners 623621-264466622666657-9 3.7 Students with Disabilities 36136213744224843145524 24.3

6. Summarizing Test Results CST

7. CSTs by Grade Level

8. CST– English/Language Arts Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

9. CST/CMA ELA – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in ELA -3-20+1+2+3 Grade 3101342300 Grade 4031144210 Grade 5101342300 Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

10. CST– Mathematics Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

11. CST/CMA Math – Sliders, Stickers, and Jumpers Number of Students Making Proficiency Band Growth in Math -3-20+1+2+3 Grade 3101342300 Grade 4031144210 Grade 5101342300 Who are your students who have/have not made proficiency band growth? What are your plans for students who have dropped one or more levels?

12. CST– Science (Grade 5) Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

13. CST Cluster Scores

14. CST Cluster Scores for ELA By Grade Level

15. CST Cluster Scores for Math For Grades 2 & 3

16. CST Cluster Scores for Math For Grade 4

17. CST Cluster Scores for Math For Grade 5

18. AYP Growth

19. Significant Subgroup Data – 2013 AYP Comparison of Percent Proficient or Above – English/Language Arts All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 81.9% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 81.9% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 2013 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 2011 2012 Subgroup 3-Year Growth +4 +9.4 +1.3 +2.8 +7.3 -.5 +1.0 +7.9 +7.7 +.8

20. Significant Subgroup Data – 2013 AYP Comparison of Percent Proficient or Above – Mathematics All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities All Students African American Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 84.8% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 73.3% 64.1% 93.9% 85.6% 57.3% 84.8% 83.3% 56.4% 57.3% 49.0% 2013 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 70.7% 51.2% 93.4% 84.0% 53.8% 82.3% 86.1% 52.3% 53.7% 49.8% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 69.3% 54.7% 92.6% 82.8% 50.0% 82.6% 82.3% 48.5% 49.6% 48.2% 2011 2012 Subgroup 3-Year Growth +4 +9.4 +1.3 +2.8 +7.3 +2.2 +1.0 +7.9 +7.7 +.8

21. English Language Development

22. 3-Year CELDT Analysis

23. Percent of Students Redesignated English Proficient (2012-13)

24. Long Term English Learners How are EL students performing on the CELDT based on the length of time they have been in U.S. schools? Length of Time in U.S. Schools Number Percent Early Advanced or Advanced; English Proficient Early Advanced or Advanced; Not English Proficient IntermediateEarly Intermediate BeginningTotal (by Time) 6 or more yearsN14355858219 %65%2%26%2%4%90% 5 yearsN711009 %78%11% 0% 4% 4 yearsN500106 %83%0% 17%0%2% 3 years or lessN211048 %25%13% 0%50%3% Total (by level) N157760612242 %65%3%25%2%5%100%

25. Intermediate Level English Learners How are EL students at the Intermediate level on CELDT performing on the CST ELA by grade level? ELA CST Performance Number Percent Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Total (by CST) Far Below BasicN01012 %0%17%0%33%7% Below BasicN22015 %18%33%0%33%19% BasicN42118 %36%33%0%33%30% ProficientN31307 %27%17%43%0%26% AdvancedN20305 %18%0%43%0%19% Total by GradeN1167327 %41%22%26%11%100% Who are your Intermediate EL students who are scoring Basic and below on the CST ELA? What are your plans for these students?

26. Intermediate Level English Learners How are EL students at the Intermediate level on CELDT performing on the CST ELA by grade level? ELA CST Performance Number Percent Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Total (by CST) Far Below BasicN01012 %0%17%0%33%7% Below BasicN22015 %18%33%0%33%19% BasicN42118 %36%33%0%33%30% ProficientN31307 %27%17%43%0%26% AdvancedN20305 %18%0%43%0%19% Total by GradeN1167327 %41%22%26%11%100% Who are your Intermediate EL students who are scoring Basic and below on the CST ELA? What are your plans for these students?

27. Other Indicators (PBIS, Attendance, Benchmarks, etc.)

28. How our School is Responding to the Data Signature Practice: – Next steps

29. Transition to the Common Core Steps we are taking in 2013-14