A



[pic]

District Data Profile

St. Louis Public Schools

Dr. Kelvin R. Adams

Superintendent

Office of Accountability (9/2009)

St. Louis District Overview

Table 1.1

|District |2004-2005 |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 ** |

|Indicator | | | | | |

|Enrollment |40,027 |39,556 |32,135 |27,574 |26,029 |

|Discipline Incident Rate |4.2% |6.3% |2.8% |6.3% |10.0% |

|Student Mobility Rate |N/A |N/A |N/A |41.5% |51.4% |

|Student Stability Rate |N/A |N/A |N/A |81.2% |73.5% |

|Gifted Education Rate |DNA |2.3% |2.1% |3.0% |3.9% |

|Average Number of Students per Classroom Teacher|20 |19 |19 |18 |18 *** |

|Average Number of Students per Administrator |178 |195 |169 |164 |160 *** |

|Highly Qualified Teachers |91.9% |84.3% |89.6% |86.6% |85.5% *** |

|Teacher Avg. Years of Service |12.7 |12.2 |12.5 |11.6 |11.5 *** |

|ACT |8.7% |12.6% |15.7% |12.5% |16.0% *** |

|Advance Courses |38.3% |44.4% |43.5% |45.5% |59.3% • |

|Career Education Courses |10.4% |11.0% |12.9% |13.6% |8.3% • |

|Career Education Placement |80.2% |74.5% |78.9% |73.2% |67.5% • |

|Graduation Rates |61.1% |56.2% |55.8% |53.1% |45.1% • |

|Attendance Rate |89.0% |88.7% |88.7% |88.6% |90.3% • |

|Free & Reduced Lunch Rate |86.1% |81.0% |80.1% |71.9% |71.2% |

|Special Education Rate |17.2% |16.8% |16.6% |18.2% |17.6% |

|LEP Rate |6.7% |6.9% |8.1% |8.2% |9.7% |

|Subgroup Achievement |N/A |N/A |N/A |11.1% |5.6% |

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 24, 2009.

Source: .

*Note: Mobility Rate, Special Education Rate, LEP, Gifted Education Rate data obtained from St. Louis Public Schools Annual Report to the Community – 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. For 2006, the Enrollment, the FR/L, and the Special Education Rate are end-of the year numbers and include preschool.

Source:

**Note: 2008-2009 data is Preliminary ONLY and subject to change based on the data validation process by DESE.

***Note: Based on statistical projections.

• Note: Per 2009 Preliminary APR updated August 13, 2009.

A. Enrollment

DESE defines as: The number of students in grades K-12 enrolled on the last Wednesday in September.

Chart 2.1: 2008 – 2009 St. Louis Public Schools Preliminary Enrollment Data

[pic]

Data posted on web July 24, 2009

Source:

*Note: 2008-2009 St. Louis District enrollment data obtained by the Office of Pupil Accounting. The enrollment data is a projection ONLY.

• In 2004-05, St. Louis Public Schools had an enrollment of 40,027; in 2005-06 the enrollment from 2004-05decreased by 471 to 39,556; in 2006-07 the enrollment decreased from 2005-06 by 7,421 to 32,135.

• In 2007-08 the enrollment from 2006-07decreased by 4,561 to 27,574; in 2008-09, the enrollment from 2007-08 decreased by 1,545 to 26,029.

B. Discipline

Per Section 160.261, RSMo, requires the local board of education to establish rules for student conduct and that school district teachers, administrators and staff hold every student accountable for any disorderly conduct in school. This includes behavior on school property including the school parking lot, playground, on the school bus, and during school-sponsored activities.  In addition, several courts have determined that the district policy may also apply to student behavior off school grounds that directly interferes with the operation of the school or endangers the safety of other students or staff.

In the St. Louis Public School’s Uniform Codes of Student Rights and Responsibilities Related to Conduct Handbook, there are four types of incident classifications: Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4.

Type 1 Behavior (Life or Health Threatening) – Includes possession of or use of weapons or dangerous instruments. Sale, use, possession or distribution of unlawful drugs or alcohol, assault/battery, rape/forced sexual acts, arson, bomb threat, other illegal or serious misconduct.

Type 2 Behavior (Not Life or Health Threatening) – Includes sexual misconduct/harassment, indecent exposure, theft, false alarms, bullying, extortion/coercion, gambling, trespassing, vandalism, racial harassment.

Type 3 Behavior (General Misconduct) – Includes gross insubordination/disrespect, disorder/disruption, fighting, forgery, profanity, refusal to/falsely identifying self, smoking, tardiness, verbal abuse, class cutting/truancy/no hall pass, and possession of any type of electronic communications device.

Type 4 Behavior (Bus Related Misconduct) – Includes throwing objects on bus, throwing objects out window, tampering with Emergency Door, refusal to stay seated, pushing/shoving when boarding or exiting, yelling from bus, head/hand out bus window, eating/drinking on bus, other/bus related.

Chart 3.1: 2007-2008 St. Louis Public Schools District Incidents (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4)

[pic]

Data obtained from Core Data Screens.

• In the 2007-2008 school year, the majority of the 23,250 school-reported incidents were Type-3, Behavior (General Misconduct).

Chart 3.2: St. Louis Public Schools District Incidents by Location (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4)

[pic]

Data obtained from Core Data Screens

*Note: Discipline Incidents data valid through December, 2008.

• In the 2008-2009 school year, the majority of the 17,593school-reported incidents were Type-3, Behavior (General Misconduct).

Chart 3.3: St. Louis Public School District and the State of Missouri Discipline Incident Rates

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on October 27, 2008 Source: .

• In 2004-05, St. Louis Public School District had a discipline incident rate of 4.2%; in 2005-06 the discipline incident rate increased by 2.1 percentage points to 6.3%; in 2006-07 the discipline rate decreased by 3.5 percentage points to 2.8%. In 2007-08 the discipline rate increased by 3.5 percentage points to 6.3%; in 2008-09, the discipline rate increased by 3.7 percentage points to 10.0%.

• In 2004-05, the State of Missouri had a discipline incident rate of 2.1%; in 2005-06 the discipline incident rate remained constant at 2.1%; in 2006-07 the discipline rate decreased by 0.2 percentage points to 1.9%. In 2007-08 the discipline rate increased by 0.1 percentage points to 2.0%, and remained constant at 2.0 percent in 2008-09.

C. Mobility / Stability Rates

DESE defines the mobility rate as: The percentage of students who move in and out of a school during a year.

DESE defines the stability rate as: The percent of students who remain in the same building for the entire year.

Chart 4.1: St. Louis Public Schools Mobility and Stability Rates

[pic]

Mobility/Stability Rate data are available for two years. District data were not calculated for year prior to 2006-07.

• For the 2007-08 school year, the St. Louis Public Schools mobility rate was at 41.5%. The mobility rate increased by 9.9 percentage points to 51.4% in the 2008-09 school year.

• For the 2007-08 school year, the St. Louis Public Schools stability rate was at 81.2%. The stability rate decreased by 7.7 percentage points to 73.5% in the 2008-09 school year.

D. Administrators / Staff

DESE defines Staffing Ratios as: The September enrollment divided by the number of teachers or administrators:

• Students to Classroom Teachers. The ratio of students in grades K-12 to regular classroom teachers (Core Data position code 60), excluding special education, remedial reading, Title I and vocational teachers.

Chart 5.1: St. Louis Public Schools Staffing Ratio: Students to Classroom Teachers

[pic] Data obtained from DESE Website posted on December 06, 2008 Source:

• Students to Administrators. The ratio of students in grades K-12 to central office and building-level administrators (Core Data position codes 10 and 20).

Chart 5.2: St. Louis Public Schools Staffing Ratio: Students to Administrators

[pic]Data obtained from DESE Website posted on December 06, 2008 Source:

*Note: 2008-2009 data is based on statistical projection and subject to change based on the data validation process by DESE.

DESE defines Certification Status of Teachers as: The percentage of teachers in the district who have regular teaching certificates; temporary authorization or special assignment certificates; and those with substitute, expired or no certificates. As required by federal law, the percentage of all classes taught by “highly qualified teachers” is reported. A highly qualified teacher is one who: has at least a bachelor’s degree; has demonstrated content expertise by passing a state-approved test or has completed an academic major or coursework equivalent to a major; and who holds full certification for his or her current teaching assignment.

Chart 5.3: St. Louis Public Schools Certification Status of Teachers.

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on December 06, 2008 Source:

DESE defines Years of Experience of Professional Staff as: The average years of public school experience for all members of the district’s professional staff (Core Data position codes 10-60).

Chart 5.4: St. Louis Public Schools Years of Experience of Professional Staff.

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on December 06, 2008 Source:

*Note: 2008-2009 data is based on statistical projection and subject to change based on the data validation process by DESE.

E. Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP)

Per Missouri Code of State Regulations, as authorized by Section 161.092, RSMO as part of Rule 5 CSR 50-345.100, the purpose of the Missouri School Improvement Program is: Implement a program of comprehensive assessments of school districts’ educational resources, instructional processes and educational outcomes designed to stimulate and encourage improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction, and provides information which will enable the State Board of Education to accredit and classify the districts as required by state law.

The Missouri School Improvement Program is designed to promote excellence in the public schools of the state. The state of Missouri has a dual responsibility for the quality of education provided its citizens. First, it must ensure that all schools meet certain minimum standards. Second, it has a responsibility to see that the schools continue to strive for excellence in an increasingly competitive world. The Missouri School Improvement Program incorporates these two responsibilities.

The Missouri School Improvement Program Standard and Indicators Manual document outlines the state’s vision and expectations for a quality school. Expectations are described in a nonprescriptive way so each school district has the flexibility and responsibility to explain how it provides quality education. These are the standards from which judgments will be made about the quality of district programs and what steps need to be taken to move to the highest level of excellence.

The standards are organized in three sections: Resource Standards, Process Standards and Performance Standards. The Resource Standards address the basic requirements that all districts must meet. They are generally quantitative in nature. Some standards are appropriate for all districts. Other standards need to be tailored for districts in different contextual settings. Dual criteria are used comparing the district with “minimums” determined by the State and what is deemed “desirable” as determined by research and/or professional judgment.

The Process Standards address the instructional and administrative processes used in schools. They include standards on Instructional Design and Practices, Differentiated Instruction and Supplemental Programs, and School Services. Each of the Process Standards incorporates multiple criteria and cannot be easily quantified. Therefore, assessment of the Process Standards is accomplished through an on-site review by a team of trained observers.

Performance Standards include fourteen measures of student performance. The standards against which all school districts will be assessed include academic achievement, reading achievement, ACT achievement, career preparation, and educational persistence (Graduation Rate, Attendance Rate, and Subgroup Achievement). DESE annually collects and analyzes data for those standards as part of the evaluation process.

An important component of the Missouri School Improvement Program is the district’s Comprehensive School Improvement Plan. This plan will guide the district in decision making about the Resource and Process Standards that should lead to higher student performance.

Source: Missouri School Improvement Program Standard and Indicators Manual: Accreditation Standards for Public School Districts in Missouri.

Performance Standard Indicators

Standard 9.1*1-6: General Academic Achievement - (MAP)

St. Louis Public Schools 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 MAP Results are graphically displayed below. Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) 4th Cycle uses four achievement levels to describe student performance. The four levels are: Basic, Below Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

Chart 6.1: St. Louis District 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 MAP Results in Communication Arts.

[pic]

*Note: Table includes data for ALL students tested. It may not match data used for accreditation (MSIP) purposes in the district Annual Performance Report (APR). For accreditation purposes, some limited-English and other students may be excluded from MAP reporting.

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

• Data chart indicates that in the Advanced Level student performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 9.6 to 8.3, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 8.3 to 8.0, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 8.0 to 8.3 percent in the 3rd grade; in 4th grade performance increased from 2006 to 2007 from 6.6 to 6.9, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 6.9 to 3.6, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.6 to 6.4 percent; in 5th grade performance increased from 5.5 to 6.4 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 6.4 to 6.1 percent in 2007 to 2008, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 6.1 to 5.2 percent; in 6th grade performance increased from 2.9 to 3.7 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 3.7 to 3.6 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.6 to 4.6 percent; in 7th grade performance increased from 2.7 to 3.6 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 3.6 to 2.9 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 2.9 to 4.6 percent; and in 8th grade performance increased from 3.7 to 3.8 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 3.8 to 4.2 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 4.2 to 5.7 percent in the Advanced Level in Communication Arts.

• Data chart indicates that in the Proficient Level, student performance increased from 16.2 to 16.5 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 16.5 to 15.6 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 15.6 to 16.6 percent in the 3rd grade; decreased from 16.4 to 14.0 percent 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 14.0 to 18.6 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 18.6 to 18.2 percent in the 4th grade; decreased from 15.9 to 15.6 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 15.6 to 19.1 percent, and remained constant at 19.1 percent in 2009 in the 5th grade; increased from 12.6 to 13.2 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 13.2 to 15.0 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 15.0 to 18.0 percent in the 6th grade; increased from 12.5 to 16.0 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 16.0 to 16.8 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 16.8 to 18.7 percent in the 7th Grade; and in 8th grade performance decreased from 12.2 to 10.8 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 10.8 to 15.1 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 15.1 to 16.9 percent in the Proficient Level in Communication Arts.

Chart 6.2: St. Louis District 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 MAP Results in Mathematics.

[pic]

*Note: Table includes data for ALL students tested. It may not match data used for accreditation (MSIP) purposes in the district Annual Performance Report (APR). For accreditation purposes, some limited-English and other students may be excluded from MAP reporting.

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

• Data chart indicates that in the Advanced Level student performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 4.3 to 3.2, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 3.2 to 3.7 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.7 to 3.0 percent in the 3rd grade; in 4th grade performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 3.6 to 2.4, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 2.4 to 2.0 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 2.0 to 2.1 percent; in 5th grade performance increased from 4.0 to 4.7 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 4.7 to 3.1 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.1 to 2.2 percent; in 6th grade performance increased from 2.4 to 2.8 percent in 2006 to 2007, remained constant at 2.8 percent in 2007 and 2008, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 2.8 to 3.3 percent; in 7th grade performance increased from 1.7 to 2.5 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 2.5 to 3.9 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.9 to 4.2 percent; and in 8th grade performance increased from 2.8 to 2.9 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 2.9 to 3.1 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 3.1 to 3.5 percent in the Advanced Level in Mathematics.

• Data chart indicates that in the Proficient Level, student performance decreased from 20.0 to 16.5 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 16.5 to 16.1 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 16.1 to 18.4 percent in the 3rd grade; decreased from 16.7 to 12.8 percent 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 12.8 to 14.5 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 14.5 to 16.5 percent in the 4th grade; decreased from 17.5 to 14.3 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 14.3 to 15.6 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 15.6 to14.6 percent in the 5th grade; increased from 11.4 to 15.4 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 15.4 to 16.4 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 16.4 to 16.5 percent in the 6th grade; increased from 10.2 to 14.2 percent in 2006 to 2007,decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 14.2 to 13.6 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 13.6 to 15.3 percent in the 7th Grade; and in 8th grade performance increased from 10.0 to 10.2 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 10.2 to 10.0 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 10.0 to 14.4 percent in the Proficient Level in Mathematics.

Standard 9.2: Reading Achievement – Terra Nova

The St. Louis Public School District administers the Terra Nova assessment. Terra Nova is a Nationally Norm-Referenced Test – intended to show how well St. Louis Public School students have performed in relation to other students their age and in similar grade levels across the nation.

It is administered to Grades 2 – 10 in September each year in the areas of reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies in a multiple choice format. It can be used as a diagnostic test to determine gaps in student achievement that can be addressed during the school year. Terra Nova aids in producing district reports, school reports, and individual student reports to measure objective performance that assist in identifying academic strengths and weaknesses.

Graph6.3: St. Louis District 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Terra Nov Results in Reading.

[pic]

• Data chart indicates that student performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 39.6 to 37.3,increased from 2007 to 2008 from 37.3 to 43.5 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 43.5 to 43.7 percent in the 2nd grade; in 3rd grade performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 29.7 to 27.7 percent, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 27.7 to 33.0 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 33 to 32.7 percent; in 4th grade performance decreased from 2006 to 2007 from 32.6 to 20.0, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 20.0 to 24.0 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 24 to 24.7 percent; in 5th grade performance decreased from 26.1 to 23.9 percent in 2006 to 2007, decreased from 2007 to 2008 from 23.9 to 23.1 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 23.1 to 24.9 percent; in 6th grade performance decreased from 20.9 to 18.7 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 18.7 to 20.6 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 20.6 to 22 percent; in 7th grade performance decreased from 25.1 to 22.3 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 22.3 to 24.1 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 24.1 to 25.4; in 8th grade performance decreased from 25.7 to 20.8 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 20.8 to 23.0 percent, and increased from 2008 to 2009 from 23 to 24.8 percent; and in 9th grade performance decreased from 29.8 to 21.3 percent in 2006 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008 from 21.3 to 23.4 percent, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 from 23.4 to 22.5 percent in Reading.

Standard 9.3: Scholastic Preparedness - ACT

The ACT is a national college admissions examination that consists of four subject area tests: English, Mathematics, Reading and Science. The ACT is curriculum-based, and used in evaluating the effectiveness of instruction. The ACT also aids in identifying students who need special help with certain subject areas or academic skills. It provides test takers with a unique interest inventory that provides valuable information for career and educational planning and a student profile section that provides a comprehensive profile of a student's work in high school and their future plans.

ACT Composite Score

The composite score, as reported by ACT, is the average of the four test scores earned during a single test administration, rounded to the nearest whole number. The score range for each of the four tests is 1 – 36.

Graph 6.4: St. Louis District and the State of Missouri ACT Composite Scores.

[pic]

National Rank for ACT Score

The national rank shows the percent of recent high school graduates who took the ACT and scored at or below each of your scores. The national ranks can be used to get a sense of the students’ strengths and weaknesses in the four broad areas represented by the test scores and in the seven specific areas represented by the subscores.

Graph 6.5: St. Louis District and the State of Missouri ACT National Rank.

[pic]

Source:

Standard 9.4: Career Preparation

9.4*1-2: Advanced Courses & Career Education Courses

Graph 6.6: St. Louis District Percentage of Credits Earned in Advance Courses and Career Education.

[pic]

9.4*3 College Placement

Graph 6.7: St. Louis District Career Preparation.

[pic]

9.4*4 Career Education Placement

Graph 6.8: St. Louis Percent of Career Education Completers that are placed.

[pic]

9.5 Graduation Rates

Graph 6.9: St. Louis District Graduation Rates

[pic]

• Data show that for the past five years, St. Louis Public Schools has maintained an average graduation rate of 54.3%

• In 2003-04, St. Louis Public Schools had a graduation rate of 62.8%; in 2004-05 the graduation rate decreased by 1.7 percentage points to 61.1%; in 2005-06 the graduation rate decreased by 4.9 percentage points to 56.2%. In 2006-07, the graduation rate decreased by 0.4 percentage points to 55.8; in 2007-08, the graduation rate decreased by 2.7 percentage points to 53.1%; and in 2008-09, the graduation rate decreased by 8 percentage points to 45.1%.

9.6 Attendance Rate

Per state statute section R5115.4, “attendance is the actual physical presence of the student in school on any day; attendance for each school shall be recorded on an hourly basis”.

To meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Standards in elementary and middle schools, schools must have an attendance rate of at least 93% or be able to show improvement from the previous year [1]

Chart 6.10: Attendance Rates for St. Louis Public Schools School

[pic]

Data posted on web July 24, 2009

Source:

*Note: 2008-2009 St. Louis District attendance rate obtained by the School Information Systems (SIS). The State of Missouri

attendance rate is a projection ONLY.

• Data show that for the past five years, St. Louis Public Schools has maintained an average attendance rate of 89.1%

• In 2003-04, St. Louis Public Schools had an attendance rate of 89.4%; in 2004-05 the attendance rate decreased by 0.4 percentage points to 89.0%; in 2005-06 the attendance rate decreased by 0.3 percentage points to 88.7%. In 2006-07, the attendance rate remained the same at 88.7%; in 2007-08, the attendance rate decreased by 0.1 percentage points to 88.6%; and in 2008-09 the attendance rate increased by 1.7 percentage points to 90.3%.

9.7 Subgroups

Per DESE’s Understanding Your AYP Report 2008-2009 (Version 7, Updated August 28, 2008), Missouri was required to adopt a minimum cell size of 30 for all subgroups beginning with the 2007-2008 assessment data. Subgroups include but not limited to the following:

• School or District Total (All Students)

• Race / Ethnicity

o Asian/Pacific Islander

o American Indian/Alaskan Native

o Black (Not Hispanic)

o Hispanic

o White (Not Hispanic)

o Other/Non-Response

• LEP – Limited English Proficient – All students identified in MOSIS as being in the USA 12 months or less will be excluded from AYP calculations.

• IEP –students with an Individualized Educational Program

• F/R Lunch – students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches

Below is a graphic representation of the distribution of students by ethnicity groups.

Chart 6.11: 2008 – 2009 St. Louis Public Schools Preliminary Demographic Data

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on December 06, 2008.

Source:

• For the 2008 – 2009 school year, St. Louis Public Schools enrolled 26,029 students

• 14% White; 81% African American/Black; 3% Hispanic and 2% Asian

Chart 6.12: 2008-2009 St. Louis Public Schools Preliminary Special Education and LEP Rate

[pic]

Chart 6.13: 2008-2009 St. Louis Public Schools Preliminary Free/Reduced Lunch Status

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on July 24, 2009.

Source:

F. Adequate Yearly Progress

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires all schools, districts and states to show that students are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). NCLB requires states to establish targets in the following ways:

• Proficiency: The law requires setting of a target for all students and student sub-groups to meet in a progressive nature that would result in all students scoring at the proficient level on the state’s assessment by 2014

• Attendance/Graduation: the law requires schools, districts and states to meet an additional indicator based on improvement or established targets in attendance and/or graduation rate

• Participation Rates: the law requires all students and student sub-groups to meet a 95% participation rate.

Missouri’s AYP targets were established by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) based on a formula from the NCLB Act and an analysis of Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) data, attendance rate and graduation rate data from prior years. When all targets are met, the requirements of AYP are met.

To make AYP, a school or district must have enough students scoring Proficient or Above to meet or exceed the Annual Proficiency Target. The school or district is required to meet the Annual Proficiency Target in the aggregate (all students) and for up to nine subgroups. The nine subgroups include: six racial/ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, White, Other/Non-response), students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency and students receiving free or reduced-price lunches.

Only students who have been enrolled for a full academic year will be included in AYP calculations. A full academic year is from the last Wednesday in September through the MAP test administration window.

Ell students who have been in the United States less than one year are not required to take the Communication Arts assessment. These students are required to take the Mathematics assessment. For AYP purposes, ELL students who have been in the United States less than one year, and are coded appropriately, are not included in the LND.

Some students with severe cognitive disabilities are not able to take the standard MAP content area assessments. However, students are to be accounted for in the MAP content area assessments. If the student’s IEP team determine he/she is unable to participate in the standard MAP assessments, the student takes a MAP-Alternate (MAP-A) assessment. The MAP-A is given in the same grade levels as the MAP for both Communication Arts and Mathematics. Students taking the MAP-A will receive an achievement level score and will be included in the Annual Proficiency Target calculations. [2]

Chart 7.1: St. Louis District 2003 – 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress in Communication Arts

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

Chart 7.2: St. Louis District 2003 – 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress in Mathematics

[pic]

Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

Below are data tables ranking all elementary schools in the St. Louis Public School District for the 2008-2009 school year in advanced and proficient categories on the MAP in Communication Arts.

Table 7.3

|Communication Arts |

|Elementary Schools AYP Results Spring, 2009 |

|School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking | |School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking |

|Adams |17.6 |29 | |Lexington |44.1 |5 |

|Ames VPA |19.3 |26 | |Lyon ABI |11.2 |40 |

|Ashland |8.8 |42 | |Mallinckrodt |33 |14 |

|Baden |5.3 |50 | |Mann |12.3 |38 |

|Big Picture |5.6 |48 | |Mark Twain |12.5 |37 |

|Bryan Hill |47.2 |4 | |Mason |30.2 |15 |

|Buder |27.3 |18 | |Meramec |8.7 |44 |

|Clark |15.7 |33 | |Michael |90 |1 |

|Clay |35.3 |11 | |Monroe |39.4 |7 |

|Cole |14.1 |35 | |Mullanphy BG |34 |13 |

|Columbia |8.1 |45 | |Nance |13.5 |36 |

|Cote Brilliante |34.3 |12 | |Oak Hill |8.8 |42 |

|Dewey IS |43.5 |6 | |Peabody |37.7 |8 |

|Dunbar |7.2 |46 | |Scruggs |17.4 |30 |

|Farragut |22.4 |23 | |Shaw VPA |27.5 |16 |

|Ford |36.6 |9 | |Shenandoah |19.4 |25 |

|Froebel |36.5 |10 | |Shepard |27.5 |16 |

|Gallaudet |22.5 |22 | |Sherman |14.9 |34 |

|Gateway |25.4 |19 | |Sigel |5.4 |49 |

|Hamilton |3 |51 | |Simmons |9.9 |41 |

|Henry |17.1 |31 | |Stix |N/A |N/A |

|Herzog |57.5 |3 | |Walbridge |7.1 |47 |

|Hickey |23.9 |21 | |Washington Montessori |17.7 |28 |

|Hodgen |25.2 |20 | |Wilkinson |N/A |N/A |

|Jefferson |12.1 |39 | |Woerner |19.9 |24 |

|Kennard |81.4 |2 | |Woodward |18.4 |27 |

|Laclede |16.4 |32 | |

Note: Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

Below are data tables ranking all middle and high schools in the St. Louis Public School District for the 2008-2009 school year in advanced and proficient categories on the MAP in Communication Arts.

Table: 7.4

Note: Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

|Communication Arts |

|Middle School AYP Results Spring, 2009 | |High School AYP Results, Spring 2009 |

|School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking | |School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking |

|Big Picture |12.7 |10 | |Beaumont |51.9 |8 |

|Blewett |10.1 |13 | |Big Picture |18.5 |16 |

|Blow Prep |N/A |N/A | |CAJT |100 |1 |

|Bunche IS |24.9 |5 | |Carnahan School |69.5 |4 |

|Busch AAA |24.2 |6 | |Central VPA |46 |10 |

|Carr Lane VPA |27.9 |3 | |Cleveland NJROTC |59.4 |6 |

|Compton Drew |32.9 |2 | |Gateway IT |51.9 |8 |

|Fanning |11.6 |11 | |McKinley CLA |100 |1 |

|Gateway Prep |21.7 |7 | |Metro |100 |1 |

|Langston |10.6 |12 | |Miller Career Academy |61.4 |5 |

|Long |16.6 |8 | |Northwest Transp & Law |35.7 |11 |

|L'Ouverture |8.7 |14 | |Roosevelt |29.5 |13 |

|McKinley |86 |1 | |Roosevelt 9th Grade Ctr. |30 |12 |

|Northwest Middle |13.6 |9 | |Soldan |58.5 |7 |

|Stevens |6.8 |16 | |Sumner |29.5 |13 |

|Stowe Prep |8.2 |15 | |Vashon |25.4 |15 |

|Yeatman Prep |26.2 |4 | |

Below are data tables ranking all elementary schools in the St. Louis Public School District for the 2008-2009 school year in advanced and proficient categories on the MAP in Mathematics.

Table 7.5

|Mathematics |

|Elementary Schools AYP Results Spring, 2009 |

|School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking | |School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking |

|Adams |22.2 |17 | |Lexington |35.3 |5 |

|Ames VPA |11.4 |33 | |Lyon ABI |9.4 |35 |

|Ashland |11.9 |32 | |Mallinckrodt |21.4 |21 |

|Baden |6 |42 | |Mann |8.5 |37 |

|Big Picture |0 |51 | |Mark Twain |6.7 |40 |

|Bryan Hill |33.7 |6 | |Mason |26.9 |12 |

|Buder |30.9 |10 | |Meramec |4.3 |46 |

|Clark |18 |24 | |Michael |65 |2 |

|Clay |25.9 |15 | |Monroe |31.9 |9 |

|Cole |9.4 |35 | |Mullanphy BG |26 |14 |

|Columbia |1.2 |50 | |Nance |5.1 |45 |

|Cote Brilliante |26.3 |16 | |Oak Hill |5.3 |44 |

|Dewey IS |33.5 |8 | |Peabody |21.5 |20 |

|Dunbar |7.2 |39 | |Scruggs |22.8 |16 |

|Farragut |5.8 |43 | |Shaw VPA |15.5 |29 |

|Ford |43.4 |4 | |Shenandoah |16.1 |25 |

|Froebel |14.8 |30 | |Shepard |21.7 |18 |

|Gallaudet |46.7 |3 | |Sherman |16.1 |25 |

|Gateway |20.6 |22 | |Sigel |1.8 |49 |

|Hamilton |6.1 |41 | |Simmons |4.3 |46 |

|Henry |15.8 |27 | |Stix |N/A |N/A |

|Herzog |33.6 |7 | |Walbridge |2.7 |48 |

|Hickey |18.5 |23 | |Washington Montessori |10.9 |34 |

|Hodgen |29.6 |11 | |Wilkinson |N/A |N/A |

|Jefferson |7.8 |38 | |Woerner |21.6 |19 |

|Kennard |77.4 |1 | |Woodward |13.6 |31 |

|Laclede |15.6 |28 | |

Note: Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

Below are data tables ranking all middle and high schools in the St. Louis Public School District for the 2008-2009 school year in advanced and proficient categories on the MAP in Mathematics.

|Mathematics |

|Middle School AYP Results Spring, 2009 | |High School AYP Results, Spring 2009 |

|School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking | |School Name |Advanced & Proficient |Ranking |

|Big Picture |4.8 |12 | |Beaumont |24.6 |7 |

|Blewett |2 |16 | |Big Picture |7.9 |15 |

|Blow Prep |N/A |N/A | |CAJT |100 |1 |

|Bunche IS |24.9 |4 | |Carnahan School |16.7 |10 |

|Busch AAA |36.4 |2 | |Central VPA |13.9 |12 |

|Carr Lane VPA |17.8 |5 | |Cleveland NJROTC |35.9 |5 |

|Compton Drew |30.2 |3 | |Gateway IT |17.8 |9 |

|Fanning |7.5 |10 | |McKinley CLA |10.5 |13 |

|Gateway Prep |16.5 |6 | |Metro |80 |3 |

|Langston |4.4 |14 | |Miller Career Academy |22.8 |8 |

|Long |14.6 |7 | |Northwest Transp & Law |34.7 |6 |

|L'Ouverture |9.2 |9 | |Roosevelt |7 |16 |

|McKinley |77.3 |1 | |Roosevelt 9th Grade Ctr. |93.1 |2 |

|Northwest Middle |10.6 |8 | |Soldan |49.4 |4 |

|Stevens |6.4 |11 | |Sumner |10 |14 |

|Stowe Prep |4.7 |13 | |Vashon |15.9 |11 |

|Yeatman Prep |3.3 |15 | |

Table 7.6

Note: Data obtained from DESE Website posted on August 12, 2009.

Source:

-----------------------

[1] Understanding Your Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report issued by DESE on August 29, 2006.

Source:

[2] “Understanding Your Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report issued by DESE on August 29, 2006

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download