St. Louis Public Schools Student Performance Update December 2009 Dr. Cleopatra Figgures Deputy Superintendent Accountability 1.

St. Louis Public SchoolsStudent Performance Update

December 2009

Dr. Cleopatra Figgures

Deputy Superintendent

Accountability

1

Key Performance IndicatorsKey Performance Indicators

Annual Performance Report (APR)◦ 14 performance indicators◦ Appeals and waivers

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – MAP/EOC◦ Ways to make AYP◦ Schools that made AYP – meeting all three (3) targets◦ Schools that made AYP in one area or in the additional

indicator District and State AYP comparisons Graduation and Attendance Rates Acuity Assessment Data Next Steps

Annual Performance Report – APRAnnual Performance Report – APRAccreditation Status 2009Accreditation Status 2009

Standard Indicator Description 2008 2009

9.1*1 MAP Grades 3-5 Mathematics9.1*2 MAP Grades 3-5 Communication Arts Met9.1*3 MAP Grades 6-8 Mathematics9.1*4 MAP Grades 6-8 Communication Arts9.1*4 MAP Grades 9-11 Mathematics9.1*5 MAP Grades 9-11 Communication Arts

Bonus Achievement Improvement in the MAP Performance Index Met Met9.3 ACT

9.4*1 Advanced Courses Met Met9.4*2 Career Education Courses9.4*3 College Placement Met9.4*4 Career Education Placement Met9.5 Graduation Rate9.6 Attendance

4 3

Performance Accreditation LevelsAccreditation levels and reviews types are as follows:

Accreditation Status Provisional Unaccredited

Review Status Mini Review Full Waiver Limited Waiver Full Review Full Review

K-12 Districts 12+ Met 9 – 11 Met 6 – 8 Met 1 – 5 Met

Source: http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/dar/understandingyouraprNovember2009.pdf

Accredited

Total Standards Met

Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009

School Name (2007-2008 School

Year)

2008 Communication

Arts Annual Proficiency Goal

2008 Mathematics

Annual Proficiency Goal

School Name (2007-2008 School Year)

2009 Communication

Arts Annual Proficiency Goal

2009 Mathematics

Annual Proficiency Goal

Froebel CI CI Clay S SHerzog Y Y Cote Brilliante G SCHodgen CI CI Dewey IS G SKennard Y Y Kennard Y YLaclede G G Lexington G GLexington G G Monroe S SCPeabody CI G Shepard S SCShenandoah CI CI

McKinley Classical Jr. Academy Y Y

McKinley Classical Jr. Academy Y Y

Cleveland NJROTC Y SCarnahan School of the Future N/A S

McKinley Classical Leadership Academy Y Y

Metro Y Y Metro Y YMiller Career Academy Y S

*Note: The requirement for MET is: 1) Attendance Rate is equal to or greater than 93% or show s any improvement from previous year, and

2) a school must have a graduation rate of at least 85% or demonstrate improvement from the prior year.

AYP Met Symbols:Y Annual Proficiency Target Met

CI Annual Proficiency Target Met with confidence interval

G Annual Proficiency Target Met using Growth

S Annual Proficiency Target Met Safe Harbor provision

SC Annual Proficiency Target Met using the confidence interval for Safe Harbor

Middle School(s)

Middle School(s)

Elementary Schools Elementary Schools

High/Small SchoolsHigh/Small Schools

Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009(Schools Met Communication Arts / Mathematics)(Schools Met Communication Arts / Mathematics)

Grade SpanSchool Name

(2008-2009 School Year) Grade SpanSchool Name

(2008-2009 School Year)

Total Elementary Schools: 9 Total Elementary Schools: 12

Clay Adams

Cote Brilliante Clay

Dewey IS Cote Brilliante

Herzog Dewey IS

Kennard Ford

Lexington Gallaudet

Elias Michael (Gateway-Michael) Henry

Monroe Kennard

Shepard Lexington

Total Middle Schools: 2 Elias Michael (Gateway-Michael)

McKinley Classical Jr. Academy Monroe

Yeatman Shepard

Total High/Small Schools:9 Total Middle School(s): 1

Beaumont Middle School(s) McKinley Classical Jr. Academy

Carnahan School of the Future Total High/Small Schools:6

Cleveland NJROTC Cleveland NJROTC

Community Access Job Training (CAJT) Community Access Job Training (CAJT)

McKinley Classical Leadership Academy McKinley Classical Leadership Academy

Metro Metro

Miller Career Academy Miller Career Academy

Roosevelt 9th Grade Center Northwest Transportation & Law

Soldan International Studies

*Note: = Schools That Made AYP

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High/Small Schools

Total Number of Schools That Met Communication Arts Indicator: 20

Elementary Schools

High/Small Schools

Total Number of Schools That Met Mathematics Indicator: 19

Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009Adequate Yearly Progress – MAP/EOC 2009(Schools Met Additional Indicator – Attendance/Graduation)(Schools Met Additional Indicator – Attendance/Graduation)

Grade Span

Total Elementary Schools:

Adams Laclede

Ashland Lexington

Baden Mallinckrodt

Buder Mann

Ames VPA Mason

Clay Meramec

Cole Monroe

Columbia Mullanphy

Cote Brilliante Oak Hill

Dewey IS Nance

Dunbar Peabody

Ford Scruggs

Froebel Shaw VPA

Gateway Shenandoah

Hamilton Shepard

Henry Sigel

Herzog Woerner

Hodgen Washington Montessori

Jefferson WoodwardKennard

Total Middle Schools:

Busch AAA McKinley Classical Jr. Academy

Bunche International Studies Langston

Carr Lane Long

Compton Drew ILC L'Ouverture

Fanning Stowe

Gateway Yeatman

Total High/Small Schools:Carnahan School of the Future Miller Career AcademyCleveland NJROTC Northwest Transportation & LawMcKinley Classical Leadership Academy Roosevelt 9th Grade CenterMetro

*Note: The additional indicator for elementary and middle schools is attendance rate. These schools must have an attendance rate of at least

93% or demonstrate improvement from the previous year. Graduation rate is the additional indicator for high schools. A school must

have a graduation rate of at least 85% or demonstrate improvement from the prior year. Source: Understanding Your AYP Report ,

Version 9 Updated August 11, 2009.

= Schools That Made AYP

Total Number of Schools That Met Additional Indicator: 58

Elementary Schools

High/Small Schools

School Name (2008-2009 School Year)

39

Middle Schools

12

7

District and State MAP Comparisons 2003-2009District and State MAP Comparisons 2003-2009

14.9 17.4 19.0 19.9 19.5 21.627.529.8 29.9 30.4

43.7 44.4 45.751.2

19.4 20.426.6

34.7

42.9

51.0

59.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Stu

de

nts

Communication Arts - AYP

St. Louis Public Schools State of Missouri Communication Arts AYP TargetYear

12.716.7 16.9 17.4 17.2 17.6 19.621.3 22.9 24.7

43.3 44.9 46.7 47.6

9.3 10.3

17.5

26.6

35.8

45.0

54.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Stu

de

nts Mathematics - AYP

St. Louis Public Schools State of Missouri Mathematics AYP TargetYear

Graduation and Attendance Rates 2004-2009Graduation and Attendance Rates 2004-2009

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

St. Louis District 89.4 89.0 88.7 88.7 88.6 90.3

State of Missouri 94.3 94.6 94.8 94.7 94.8 95.1

89.4 89.0 88.7 88.7 88.6 90.394.3 94.6 94.8 94.7 94.8 95.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Percen

tage of

Studen

ts

Attendance Rates

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

St. Louis Public Schools 62.8% 61.1% 56.2% 55.8% 52.9% 45.7%

State of Missouri 85.6% 86.0% 85.8% 86.3% 85.8% 85.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

% of St

udents

Graduation Rates

Acuity and MAP Correlations – Spring 2009Acuity and MAP Correlations – Spring 2009

25% 25% 24% 23% 23% 23%27% 25% 25% 22% 22% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

% S

cori

ng

in A

dva

nce

d &

Pro

fici

en

t

Grade

Communication Arts -Top Two Achievement Levels

(Advanced / Proficient)

2009 MAP Results Predictive C Results

21% 19% 17% 20% 20% 18%25%

20% 22% 24% 23%18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

% o

f Sco

rin

g i

n A

dvan

ce

d &

Pro

ficie

nt

Grade

Mathematics -Top Two Achievement Levels

(Advanced / Proficient)

2009 MAP Results Predictive C Results

Targeted approaches for meeting accreditation standards:◦ Inclusion in Accountability Plan(s)◦ National Clearinghouse Survey Augmentation◦ Career Education Course and Placement monitoring

Focus on AYP targets – focus on academic growth:◦ Use of student and teacher performance data◦ Intervention Program Models, e.g., Turnaround, Pilot

Revisit to assessment benchmarks used:◦ Acuity◦ Schoolnet

Student Information Data Warehouse For:◦ Accountability Plan monitoring◦ MSIP (Accreditation) Scorecard◦ District and school scorecards for progress monitoring

Next StepsNext Steps