Performance Comparisons for Mobile County Schools

Performance Comparisons for Mobile County Schools

Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama November 4, 2010

The PARCA Approach

ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHICS AND FINANCES

The Goal: Provide a brief analysis of size, diversity, revenues, and expenditures.

• Factors that must be managed to maximize student performance.• Today we are looking at Alabama’s 10 largest school systems.• Some have high levels of student poverty, others do not.

- Demographics do not determine destiny.• Some enjoy higher levels of local tax support than others.

- The state foundation program ensures access to basic educational opportunity, but additional local support enhances quality.

• Some allocate a higher percentage of spending to instructional activities than others.

ANALYSIS OF ARMT RESULTS

The Goal: Engage the System and Community in a process focused on improving student performance.

• A positive process that celebrates successes while recognizing areas of focus for improvement.• Two important principles:

1. All students can learn at high levels. Demographics do not determine destiny.

- Set expectations high.

- Develop improvement goals.

2. All schools can improve. Every performance number can change for the better. Labels are inappropriate.

- Recognize where we are at the start of the process.

- Focus on how to improve from there.

THE WAY WE LOOK AT THE DATA

The Method: Easily Understood Comparisons• The best way to engage the community: comparisons all can understand.

- Straightforward comparisons create common understanding.

- Complicated methods deny transparency.

- Recognizing multiple levels of performance avoids labeling.• Data are readily available, but improvement-oriented perspectives are scarce.

- Measure where we are, in terms of high expectations.- Celebrate successful performance.

- Use the data to raise questions and suggest where to focus.

- Set goals for improvement.

ANALYZING STUDENT PERFORMANCE

The Focus: Subgroup Performance• Subgroup analysis ensures that we focus on success for all students.

- Goal: Close the gaps between subgroups,

- By bringing all performance to the highest level.• Focus first on the major student subgroups in the school system.

- White – Black, Non-Poverty – Poverty are the major subgroups in Alabama.

- Measure each subgroup against its statewide benchmark, as a starting comparison.

- Measure the gaps between subgroups in the same way.

- Move to higher benchmarks as improvement occurs.

SETTING HIGH STANDARDS

Focus on Level IV Results• Best correlate with what NAEP tells us about Alabama student performance.

AVOIDING LABELS

Recognize a Range of Performance• We score results in five categories.• “Pass-fail” scoring methods can categorize schools arbitrarily and lead to labeling.

Demographic Comparisons

Mobile Co.

Jefferson Co.

Montgomery Co.

Shelby Co.

Baldwin Co.

Birmingham

Huntsville

Madison Co.

Tuscaloosa Co.

Hoover

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Students in ADM, 2010 School Year

Birmingham

Montgomery Co.

Mobile Co.

Tuscaloosa Co.

Jefferson Co.

Huntsville

Baldwin Co.

Madison Co.

Shelby Co.

Hoover

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage, 2010

Financial Comparisons

Hoover*

Birmingham

Jefferson Co.

Shelby Co.

Mobile Co.*

Huntsville

Madison Co.

Baldwin Co.*

Montgomery Co.

Tuscaloosa Co.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Local Property Tax Rates for Schools

*Higher of 2 tax districts.

Hoover

Birmingham

Huntsville

Mobile Co.

Jefferson Co.

Montgomery Co.

Shelby Co.

Baldwin Co.

Madison Co.

Tuscaloosa Co.

$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

Central Administration4.4% Facil i ty O & M

10.3%

Instructional Support19.0%

Instruction66.3%

Typical System at $7,998 Core Spending Level(85 / 15)

Central Adminis tration6.4%

Facil i ty O & M13.6%

Instructional Support15.6%

Instruction64.4%

Mobile Co. at $8,143 Spending Level(81 / 19)

Tuscaloosa Co.

Shelby Co.

Jefferson Co.

Madison Co.

Baldwin Co.

Huntsville

Montgomery Co.

Hoover

Birmingham

Mobile Co.

50 60 70 80 90

Instruction-Related Expenditure Percentage, 2010

System-Level ARMT Comparisons

Mobile vs. State Benchmarks

Math Reading0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Non-Pov State Non-Pov Mobile Co Pov State Pov Mobile Co

2010 ARMT Results in Math and ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV, Grades 3-8

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 White State White Mobile Black State Black Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile 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 Mobile Pov State Pov Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. State Averages

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White State White Mobile BlackState Black Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile 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 Mobile Pov State Pov Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. State Averages

Math 3 Math 4

Math 5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV

Math 6 Math 7

Math 8

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co 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

70Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV

Reading 3 Reading 4

Reading 5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV

Reading 6 Reading 7

Reading 8

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Mobile Co N-P Mobile Co P State N-P State P

Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV

Mobile vs. Other Systems

Baldwin Co. (42% FRL)

Madison Co. (31% FRL)

Hoover (19% FRL)

Mobile Co. (68% FRL)

Shelby Co. (29% FRL)

Montg'y Co. (71% FRL)

Huntsville (46% FRL)

Birmingham (86% FRL)

Jefferson Co. (47% FRL)

Tuscaloosa Co. (51% FRL)

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

10+ Above Above Equal Below 10+ Below

2010 ARMT Results at Level IVSystem Compared to State Benchmarks

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

Mobile Co. 24 0 0 24 100% 11 92%Baldwin Co. 21 0 3 24 88% 7 58%Madison Co. 18 2 4 24 75% 8 67%Montgomery Co. 17 3 4 24 71% 0 0%Hoover 12 4 8 24 50% 0 0%Huntsville 8 1 15 24 33% 0 0%Shelby Co. 7 8 9 24 29% 0 0%Jefferson Co. 5 2 17 24 21% 0 0%Birmingham 4 2 18 24 17% 0 0%Tuscaloosa Co. 0 4 20 24 0% 0 0%

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

Hoover 23 1 0 24 96% 0 0%Baldwin Co. 20 1 3 24 83% 4 33%Madison Co. 18 4 2 24 75% 5 42%Shelby Co. 18 4 2 24 75% 5 42%Huntsville 13 3 8 24 54% 0 0%Birmingham 9 0 15 24 38% 0 0%Mobile Co. 8 11 5 24 33% 0 0%Montgomery Co. 8 1 15 24 33% 0 0%Jefferson Co. 4 2 18 24 17% 0 0%Tuscaloosa Co. 0 1 23 24 0% 0 0%

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 White Baldwin White Mobile Black Baldwin Black Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. Baldwin

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Non-Pov Baldwin Non-Pov Mobile Pov Baldwin Pov Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. Baldwin

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 White Baldwin White Mobile Black Baldwin Black Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. Baldwin

Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Non-Pov Baldwin Non-Pov Mobile Pov Baldwin Pov Mobile

2010 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV

Mobile vs. Baldwin

School-Level ARMT Comparisons

Chickasaw (3)Clark-Shaw (4-8)

E Coll ier (3-5)G Hall (3-5)

Phil l ips Prep (6-8)W H Council (3-5)

Dickson (3-5)W C Griggs (3-5)Dauphin Is . (3-5)

O'Rourke (3-5)Hutchens (3-5)Holloway (3-5)

McDavid-Jones (3-5)Old Shell Creative (3)

M B Austin (3-5)

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

10+ Above Above Equal Below 10+ Below

2010 ARMT Results at Level IV for Mobile Co.Top 20% of Schools Compared to State Benchmarks

Demographics don’t determine destiny: All students can learn at high levels.

George Hall Elementary, Mobile Co.

Brookwood Forest Elementary, Mt. Brook

Fairhope (4-5)

Spanish Fort (6-8)

Gulf Shores (3-6)

Rockwell (3-5)

Fairhope (6-8)

Fairhope (3)

Elberta (4-8)

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

10+ Above Above Equal Below 10+ Below

2010 ARMT Results at Level IV for Baldwin Co.Top 20% of Schools Compared to State Benchmarks

ASHGE Comparisons

Hoover

Huntsvil le

Shelby Co.

Baldwin Co.

Madison Co.

Montgomery Co.

Birmingham

Mobile Co.

Jefferson Co.

Tuscaloosa Co.

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

10+ Above Above Equal Below 10+ Below

2010 AHSGE Results at Level IVSystem Compared to State Benchmarks

Enrollment by Grade and Graduates

1st2nd

3rd4th

5th6th

7th8th

9th10th

11th12th

Completers30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000 Class of 2007 Class of 2008 Class of 2009 Class of 2010

Statewide ADM by Grade and GraduatesLast Four Class Cohorts

31%

1st2nd

3rd4th

5th6th

7th8th

9th10th

11th12th

Completers1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000 Class of 2007 Class of 2008 Class of 2009 Class of 2010

Mobile ADM by Grade and GraduatesLast Four Class Cohorts

38%

http://parca.samford.edu