<ul><li>Alana M. Cumpston </li></ul>Jack Franscioni Elementary School Academic Success is Non-negotiable
What is API? <ul><li>Academic Performance Index or API is a score ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 that tells ...
Calculating A Schools API <ul><li>API gives a scale score of anywhere between 200 and 1,000 with a schools goal being 800....
What if you do not meet API? <ul><li>If a school doesn't meet its API target, it's put on a list of low-performing schools...
API Growth  (2006-2009) 55 points in 4 years API Growth(2007– 2010)
API – ELA %  proficient/advanced
API - Math % Proficient / Advanced
API - ELA Learning Gap
API - Math Learning Gap
English Learners % Proficient / Advanced ELA Math 23% increase 6% Decrease 6% decrease
English Learners - CELDT <ul><li>ELD: 30minutes daily </li></ul><ul><li>RTI in phonics, comprehension and fluency </li></u...
ELA Movement % of Students
  ELA Movement   Number of Students
Math Movement % of Students
Math Movement Number of Students
% Pro/Adv in ELA & Math by Grade Level
<ul><li>Focus on Explicit Direct Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Data Driven Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on...
Pyramid of  Intervention Intensive Students Leveled by need within  grade level;  So Simple and  Read Naturally, SIPPS (3 ...
Student Movement in CELDT 2008/09 – 2009/10 Summary   Score Key Level Total Gainers Stickers Sliders   Gainers n % n % n %...
English Learners - CELDT <ul><li>ELD: 30minutes daily </li></ul><ul><li>RTI in phonics, comprehension and fluency </li></u...
ELD Plan – 2010/11 Monitoring Progress:  <ul><li>All identified EL students will receive 30 min. ELD per day </li></ul><ul...
2009 Accountability Progress Report
What You Should Know… <ul><li>Our API was 724 </li></ul><ul><li>We decreased from 740 to 724, which equals a 16 point loss...
Where was our school when compared to other in California? <ul><li>We scored a 3 “State Wide Rank” which means we were in ...
Subgroups <ul><li>In terms of subgroups we did not meet any of our targets. </li></ul><ul><li>We had been making sufficien...
Why the downward shift? <ul><li>We had a number of changes the previous school year including adopting a new math, science...
API Growth  (2006-2009) 61   points in 4 years 727 APY Growth (2006 – 2010)
RTI – Data By June 2010: Benchmark students increased by 21% Strategic students decreased by 29% Intensive students decrea...
We are working hard to.... <ul><li>This year we need to: </li></ul><ul><li>Move 96 triple dippers </li></ul><ul><li>Improv...
Academic Success is Non-negotiable
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ed6157 sp11leadershiptechresearcha cumspton

250 views
204 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
250
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ed6157 sp11leadershiptechresearcha cumspton

  1. 1. <ul><li>Alana M. Cumpston </li></ul>Jack Franscioni Elementary School Academic Success is Non-negotiable
  2. 2. What is API? <ul><li>Academic Performance Index or API is a score ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 that tells how well your students did on the state standardized test. </li></ul><ul><li>The state has set a goal of 800 points for each school. A school's growth is then compared to how well they are meeting or moving towards that goal. </li></ul><ul><li>Your schools API score is calculated for all students in a school as well as “numerically significant subgroups” at the school (such as by Ethnicity, English Learners, students with disabilities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students) </li></ul><ul><li>API scores for schools that are of similar makeup are ranked into &quot;deciles,&quot; with a rank of “1” being the lowest-performing 10% of schools and ” 10” the highest-performing 10%. </li></ul><ul><li>Schools have two rankings: one a statewide ranking that compares each school with others of its type, and the second a “Similar Schools” ranking that compares ones school with 100 others that have similar student backgrounds and characteristics. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Calculating A Schools API <ul><li>API gives a scale score of anywhere between 200 and 1,000 with a schools goal being 800. </li></ul><ul><li>Then, the students scores are divide the five performance bands: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic. </li></ul><ul><li>Then, weights are applied to the percent of students with scores in each performance band (least weight for the lowest bands). These are added to give a value for the subject. </li></ul><ul><li>Then, each subject area and test is given a weight within the index. The weight vary by grade level. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore a school’s base API scores varies school by school, depending on number of students in the various grade levels and the number of students tested. </li></ul><ul><li>Then, these scores are added together to get one score for your school which is then your API. </li></ul>
  4. 4. What if you do not meet API? <ul><li>If a school doesn't meet its API target, it's put on a list of low-performing schools </li></ul><ul><li>It is then eligible to receive grants and special assistance to help to improve schools scores. </li></ul><ul><li>If a school API repeatedly does not meet target scores that your school may by subjected to state sanctions such as in the School Turn Around Model where school districts have to choose between four different routes including closing the school, letting go of at least half its staff, and/or extending the school day. </li></ul><ul><li>The most important is that the API is one of the main factors in deciding your schools AYP which determines whether your school is put in Program Improvement </li></ul>
  5. 5. API Growth (2006-2009) 55 points in 4 years API Growth(2007– 2010)
  6. 6. API – ELA % proficient/advanced
  7. 7. API - Math % Proficient / Advanced
  8. 8. API - ELA Learning Gap
  9. 9. API - Math Learning Gap
  10. 10. English Learners % Proficient / Advanced ELA Math 23% increase 6% Decrease 6% decrease
  11. 11. English Learners - CELDT <ul><li>ELD: 30minutes daily </li></ul><ul><li>RTI in phonics, comprehension and fluency </li></ul><ul><li>Use of frontloading, SDAIE, TAPPLE, and GLAD strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Unit test given according to curriculum guide </li></ul><ul><li>SpEd students – pullout/push-in small group support </li></ul>
  12. 12. ELA Movement % of Students
  13. 13. ELA Movement Number of Students
  14. 14. Math Movement % of Students
  15. 15. Math Movement Number of Students
  16. 16. % Pro/Adv in ELA & Math by Grade Level
  17. 17. <ul><li>Focus on Explicit Direct Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Data Driven Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Accelerated Reader, Read Naturally, </li></ul><ul><li>Study Island and So Simple </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on TAPPLE Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching to Mastery: Five question </li></ul><ul><li>quizzes after standard taught </li></ul><ul><li>RTI for below benchmark students </li></ul><ul><li>Post-It Charts by Grade Level </li></ul><ul><li>Data Walls in Classroom (student-centered) </li></ul><ul><li>and Data Room (grade-level centered) </li></ul><ul><li>High Expectations for everyone – teachers </li></ul><ul><li> and students! </li></ul>Jack Franscioni School Focus Items…
  18. 18. Pyramid of Intervention Intensive Students Leveled by need within grade level; So Simple and Read Naturally, SIPPS (3 rd ) Strategic Students Read Naturally- Students leveled among teachers for correct Read Naturally level, SIPPS (3 rd ) Benchmark Students Read Naturally at grade level
  19. 19. Student Movement in CELDT 2008/09 – 2009/10 Summary   Score Key Level Total Gainers Stickers Sliders   Gainers n % n % n % n %   Stickers   Sliders Level 1 46 26% 33 72% 13 28% 0 0% Level 2 40 23% 16 40% 19 48% 5 12%   Level 3 71 41% 19 27% 41 58% 11 15% Level 4 16 9% 1 6% 8 50% 7 44% Level 5 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% Total 174 100% 69 39% 81 46% 24 13%
  20. 20. English Learners - CELDT <ul><li>ELD: 30minutes daily </li></ul><ul><li>RTI in phonics, comprehension and fluency </li></ul><ul><li>Use of frontloading, SDAIE, TAPPLE, and GLAD strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Unit test given according to curriculum guide </li></ul><ul><li>SpEd students – pullout/push-in small group support </li></ul>
  21. 21. ELD Plan – 2010/11 Monitoring Progress: <ul><li>All identified EL students will receive 30 min. ELD per day </li></ul><ul><li>ELL will be grouped within their grade level by English proficiency level – determined by CELDT </li></ul><ul><li>All teachers will use Pearson Language Central ELD curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Assessments will be given at the end of every unit as built into the curriculum. </li></ul>Daily: EDI, TAPPLE, Complete Sentences, SUTW/6 Traits <ul><li>Monthly or Bi-monthly: </li></ul><ul><li>DIBELS for intensive and Strategic Students </li></ul><ul><li>Pearson assessments given; and then data given to principal </li></ul><ul><li>Principal Meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Trimesterly: </li></ul><ul><li>Summative Tests, </li></ul><ul><li>DIBELS for Benchmark students </li></ul>
  22. 22. 2009 Accountability Progress Report
  23. 23. What You Should Know… <ul><li>Our API was 724 </li></ul><ul><li>We decreased from 740 to 724, which equals a 16 point loss </li></ul><ul><li>Our target goal was 745. Which means we fell 21 points short of our goal. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Where was our school when compared to other in California? <ul><li>We scored a 3 “State Wide Rank” which means we were in the bottom 30% in the state of California when are API was compared to other schools </li></ul><ul><li>We scored a 5 “Similar Schools Rank” which means are school was in the bottom 50% when compared to schools with a similar makeup to ours </li></ul>
  25. 25. Subgroups <ul><li>In terms of subgroups we did not meet any of our targets. </li></ul><ul><li>We had been making sufficient progress up until this year and had managed to free ourselves in “Safe Harbor” </li></ul>
  26. 26. Why the downward shift? <ul><li>We had a number of changes the previous school year including adopting a new math, science, and ELD curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>We had a major change in-staff, with change of 6 out of 32 teachers </li></ul>
  27. 27. API Growth (2006-2009) 61 points in 4 years 727 APY Growth (2006 – 2010)
  28. 28. RTI – Data By June 2010: Benchmark students increased by 21% Strategic students decreased by 29% Intensive students decreased by 19%
  29. 29. We are working hard to.... <ul><li>This year we need to: </li></ul><ul><li>Move 96 triple dippers </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the percentage and number of students in pro/adv categories in 2 nd 3 rd and 6 th grade </li></ul><ul><li>Increase pro/adv in all subgroup categories </li></ul>
  30. 30. Academic Success is Non-negotiable

×