DE 1.0 Monitoring Report - Poudre School District 1_0 2014 (1… · graduation rate, and the remediation rate for students entering Colorado Public Higher Education. The 2014 attendance

September 2014

DE 1.0 Monitoring Report Prepared for the Poudre School District

Board of Education

Prepared by:

Dwayne Schmitz, PhD.

Director of Research and Evaluation;

Johan Van Nieuwenhuizen

District Assessment Coordinator;

& Susan Thomas

Assessment Data Analyst

Dr. Sandra Smyser

Superintendent

ClickHereforTableofContents Page2

Executive Summary

The district has developed five goals that interpret DE 1.0. This annual report provides the data and analyses needed for the Board to monitor progress toward the performance targets that have been set in relation to these five district goals. Continued progress toward the sustainable attainment of the performance targets will require system‐wide alignment and ongoing improvement efforts across all grade levels. The metrics selected for target setting should provide Poudre School District (PSD) with a rich source of information that is responsive to changes in policy and practice. As PSD continuously improves services on behalf of students, the Board can anticipate improved outcomes on the measures described in this report. The district’s goals are intended to ensure that all students are prepared to capitalize on the opportunities available in our rapidly changing world. Third Grade Reading Proficiency In 2014, 83.5% of Poudre School District’s third grade students scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the Third Grade Reading TCAP. This is a 0.4% decrease when compared to 2013 and did not meet our mid‐range goal of 85%. The percentage of students scoring advanced decreased by 0.4% % in 2014. These results tie the 2nd highest third grade reading scores for the past five years. Fourteen schools met the district’s mid‐range learning goal of 85% proficiency in 2014 which falls short of 2013 outcomes by six schools. Four PSD elementary schools scored below the state average which is two fewer than last year. Based on five year averages, the district continues to have 3rd grade Reading CSAP/TCAP results stabilized at about 82.4%. PSD’s relative position to other high performing school districts has changed little in the past three years. The district is closely reviewing subgroup performance and literacy performance K‐3 as measured by READ Act requirements to gain insight into which student subgroups require more focus on improvements during the primary years. In support of reaching increased levels of proficiency on 3rd grade reading TCAP, the district will monitor the percentage of students on a READ Plan at the end of kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade. The expectation is to decrease the percentage in each cohort year to year to produce results that are in line with the overall reading goal of 90% proficient by the end of 3rd grade. Increases in K‐2 literacy performance will lead to top‐three performance in 3rd grade reading proficiency when compared to other high performing school districts. Summary of Goal 1 Outcomes 2013‐14


Annual Growth

PSD growth targets are monitored for the district as a whole and at the individual school level. Collective district targets have been set at a minimum median growth percentile (MGP) of 55, or the 85th percentile relative to other districts with at least 500 students included in their respective medians. PSD met our collective growth targets in three out of nine areas in 2013/14 (elementary math and reading, and middle school writing). The elementary level had very high levels of growth overall with MGPs at or above 54 in reading, writing, and math. The PSD elementary level captured some of the highest growth in math statewide for a second year in a row. Middle school math and reading, as well as elementary writing MGPs were at or above state norms of 50. High school growth results were below the state norm of 50. For the first time, PSD growth gaps for subgroups are smaller than the State’s comparable gaps for several subgroups of students and across several academic subjects. Prior to 2013/14, there has been a persistent body of evidence regarding wider gaps in PSD when compared to the state overall and these gaps had persisted over time. This new finding regarding PSD growth gaps is in alignment with the trend in ratings PSD has received for the Academic Growth Gaps Key Performance Indicator on the District Performance Frameworks (DPF). Based on the 2013 and also the 2014 one‐year DPFs, the elementary level met state expectations regarding growth gaps. These outcomes reverse an earlier trend (prior to 2012/13) of consistently not meeting state expectations regarding growth gap indicators overall or at any level of the PSD system.

General Ends Policy as revised in March of 2012, states that each PSD school will meet or exceed the 85th percentile relative to other schools at the same level statewide. For each level, once Alternative Education Campuses and Online Schools are excluded, the 85th percentile is reached when median growth percentiles meet or exceed 60, 61, and 63 for reading, writing, and math respectively. These targets are based on the MGP Rank Calculators being used throughout PSD by School Accountability Committees. In 2014, 25% of PSD schools meet these growth targets in math, 26.7% in reading, and 22.7% writing. Results above 15% indicate exceeding the statewide norm. Summary of Goal 2 Outcomes 2013/14


Students Demonstrate Post‐Secondary Readiness There is substantial evidence that students are demonstrating post‐secondary readiness with 87.7% of graduates completing a post‐secondary readiness class. PSD did not meet the target of 92% of students taking a post‐secondary, AP or IB course. The 2014 result was a slight decrease over the 2013 result by 1.8%. The district’s percentage of students taking AP courses was the second highest in the last five years, at 55.7%. The district also measures ACT scores as an indicator for post‐secondary readiness. The percentage of students meeting the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks increased in one of the four areas – Science (10%). English and Math outcomes stayed the same at 74% and 51% respectively. Only one of the areas saw a decline, Reading by 8%. In 2013‐14, there was a decrease in the percent of 8th grade students taking Algebra I or higher. This is seen for all students (↓6.2%), Hispanic students (↓14.7%), and White students (↓4.8%). Summary of Goal 3 Outcomes 2013/14

Successful Transitions In order to measure successful transitions, the district considers: attendance rate, dropout rate, graduation rate, and the remediation rate for students entering Colorado Public Higher Education. The 2014 attendance rates of all schools decreased slightly to 93.9% and the elementary school level met the 95% district goal. The district’s dropout rate has been well below the state average, but at 1.50% in 2013, it is does not meet our target of 0.7%. PSD’s comparison ranking with the 10 largest districts stayed the same at 4th overall. The PSD graduation rate decreased slightly to 84.0% but our ranking within the 10 largest districts raised to 4th position. The goal of having a remediation rate of 23% was met in each content area, but not overall. The state implemented a new calculation method that increased reported percentages statewide. Summary of Goal 4 Outcomes 2013/14


Table of Contents Introduction and Background 8 Goal One: Third Grade Reading Proficiency 9 3rd Grade Reading Performance 2010‐2014 10 Benchmarking with Colorado Districts 11 Subgroup Performance 12 K‐3 Literacy: The Colorado Basic Literacy Act (CBLA) 17 Colorado READ Act 20 Goal Two: Annual Growth 21 Academic Growth 2010‐2014 23 Benchmarking with Colorado Districts 25 Subgroup Growth 26 Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 34 School Growth Targets 35 Goal Three: Students Demonstrate Post‐Secondary Readiness 36

Post‐Secondary Course Completion 36 ACT College Ready Benchmarks 39 8th Grade Algebra I or Higher 40 Goal Four: Successful Transitions 41 Attendance rate 41 Dropout Rate 42 Graduation Rate 45 Remediation Rate 48 Goal Five: Health and Wellness 51 District Ends Conclusion 52


Table of Figures

Goal One: Third Grade Reading Proficiency Figure 1.1: Number of schools meeting the 85% target 9 Figure 1.2: Number of students who took TCAP 10 Figure 1.3: PSD vs. State 10 Figure 1.4: Proficiency Categories 11 Figure 1.5: Percent Proficient or Advanced for Top 10 Districts 12 Figure 1.6: Performance Gap by Socioeconomic Level 13 Figure 1.7: Performance Gap by Ethnicity 14 Figure 1.8: Performance Gap by Students with an IEP 15 Figure 1.9: Gap: Language Proficiency 16 Figure 1.10: Gaps Between the Different Subgroups 17 Figure 1.11: Percent of Students Meet/Exceed DRA2 Grade Level Benchmarks 18 Figure 1.12: Combined DRA2 Gap: Ethnicity 19 Goal Two: Annual Growth Figure 2.1: 2014 Median Growth Percentiles by Subject and Level 22 Figure 2.2: PSD & State 5‐Year MGP Trends by Level and Subject 23 Figure 2.3: PSD & State 5‐Year Trends for Free/Reduced Lunch MGP 27 Figure 2.4: PSD & State 5‐Year Trends for Minority Students MGP 28 Figure 2.5: PSD & State 5‐Year Trends for Students with Disabilities MGP 29 Figure 2.6: PSD & State 5‐Year Trends for ELL MGP 31 Figure 2.7: PSD 5‐Year MGP Trends by Prior Proficiency Levels 33 Goal Three: Students Demonstrate Post‐Secondary Readiness Figure 3.1(a) and (b): PSD 5‐Year Trends in Post‐Secondary Course Completion 36 Figure 3.2: PSD 5‐Year Trends in Post‐Secondary Course Completion by Ethnicity 37 Figure 3.3: PSD & State 5‐Year Trends in Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks 39 Figure 3.4: PSD 8th Grade Algebra I or Higher 40 Goal Four: Successful Transitions Figure 4.1: PSD 5‐Year Trends in Attendance Rates by Level and Overall 41 Figure 4.2: PSD 5‐Year Trend in Dropout Rates 43 Figure 4.3: PSD 2011 Dropout Rates by Ethnicity, Gender, and Grade 44 Figure 4.4: Top 10 Districts’ 2013 Dropout Rates 44 Figure 4.5: PSD & State 4‐Year Trends in Graduation Rate 46 Figure 4.6: PSD & State 4‐Year Trends in Graduation Rate by Ethnicity and Gender 46 Figure 4.7: Top 10 Districts’ 2013 Graduation Rates 47 Figure 4.8: PSD 5‐Year Trend in Remediation Rates 49 Figure 4.9: PSD 2013 Remediation Rates by Subject 50


Tables

Goal One: Third Grade Reading Proficiency Table 1.1: Percent Proficient/Advanced 3rd Grade Reading‐Top 10 Districts 12 Table 1.2: 3rd Grade Reading Performance by Socioeconomic level 13 Table 1.3: 3rd Grade Reading Performance by Ethnicity 14 Table 1.4: 3rd Grade Reading Performance by IEP Status 15 Table 1.5: 3rd Grade Reading Performance by ELL Status 16 Table 1.6: Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding DRA2 Benchmarks 17 Table 1.7: Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding DRA2 Benchmarks by Ethnicity 18 Table 1.8: Percent of K‐2 Students with an Individualized Literacy Plan (ILP) 19

24 25 27 29 30 31 33 34

Goal Two: Annual Growth Table 2.1: 2012 Median Growth Percentiles and Percentile Ranks 2010‐2014 Table 2.2: PSD Median Growth Ranking Among Comparison Districts 2010‐2014 Table 2.3: PSD & State Free/Reduced Lunch MGPs 2010‐2014 Table 2.4: PSD & State Minority Students MGPs 2010‐2014 Table 2.5: PSD & State Students with Disabilities MGPs 2010‐2014 Table 2.6: PSD & State Language Proficiency Status MGPs 2010‐2014Table 2.7: PSD MGPs by Prior Proficiency Levels 2010‐2014 Table 2.8: Percent of Students Meeting NWEA Growth Targets 2010‐2014 Table 2.9: Schools Meeting or Exceeding 85th Percentile Targets 35

Goal Three: Students Demonstrate Post‐Secondary Readiness Table 3.1: Percentage of Graduates Completing Post‐secondary Options 38 Table 3.2: PSD 5‐Year Trends in Number of AP Tests Taken and Scores Earned 38 Table 3.3: PSD 8th Grade Algebra I or Higher ; Overall and by Ethnicity 40

Goal Four: Successful Transitions Table 4.1: PSD Attendance Rates Overall and by Level 2009‐2013 42 Table 4.2: PSD Dropout Rates Overall and by Grade 2008/09‐2012/13 43 Table 4.3: Top 10 Districts’ 2011 Dropout Rates Overall and by Ethnicity 45 Table 4.4: PSD & State Graduation Rates 2008/09‐2012/13 45 Table 4.5: Top 10 Districts’ 2013 Graduation Rates 47


Introduction and Background

Poudre School District has developed five goals that interpret District Ends 1.0 (DE 1). Each fall PSD provides the Board of Education with an annual report that provides the data and analyses needed for the Board to monitor progress toward the performance targets that have been set in relation to the five district goals. This report was prepared by Dwayne Schmitz, PSD Director of Research and Evaluation and Johan Van Nieuwenhuizen, PSD District Assessment Coordinator at the direction of Dr. Sandra Smyser, Superintendent. Continued progress toward the sustainable attainment of the performance targets will require system‐wide alignment and ongoing improvement efforts across all grade levels. The metrics selected for target setting should provide Poudre School District (PSD) with a rich source of information that is responsive to changes in policy and practice. As PSD continuously improves services on behalf of students, the Board can anticipate improved outcomes on the measures described in this report. The district’s goals are intended to ensure that all students are prepared to capitalize on the opportunities available in our rapidly changing world.


Goal One: Third Grade Reading Proficiency

In order for students to graduate and be post‐secondary ready with minimal post‐secondary

remediation and to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world, Poudre School District

learners will demonstrate levels of achievement consistent with high individual expectations.

The School Board adopted the following goal regarding 3rd grade reading proficiency:

At the completion of third grade students will be proficient in reading;

The target is 85% proficient and above as a mid‐range goal towards a long term

goal of 90% proficient for all schools.

Based on the 2014 TCAP results, 83.5% of PSD’s third grade students tested at the proficient or

advanced levels. PSD did not meet the 85% mid‐range goal in 2014. Figure 1.1 displays the

number of schools meeting or exceeding the 85% target over the past five years. The number of

schools reaching the PSD target decreased from 20 to 14 schools.

Figure 1.1 Number of schools meeting the 85% target

It is important to be aware of the change in the number of students who took the 3rd grade

CSAP/TCAP assessment and obtained a score, over the last five years. The trend indicates that

the total number of 3rd grade students taking the state assessment has increased over the last

five years with the exception of 2014. The total number of students decreased slightly, with a

larger decrease in Hispanic students while the White student total remained about the same as

2013. The following graph shows the number of students who obtained a valid score on the

state assessment in the two biggest ethnic groups represented in PSD.


Figure 1.2 Number of 3rd grade students that took TCAP

3rd Grade Reading Performance 2010‐2014

It is important to remember that the comparison of yearly results is more challenging when a

portion of the variance in performance can be attributed to changes in the cohort of students

being measured. Figure 1.3 shows the percent of 3rd grade students proficient or above on the

CSAP/TCAP reading assessments for PSD and the State for the past five years.

Figure 1.3. PSD versus State performance


PSD 3rd grade performance ranges between 80.9% and 83.9% for the last five years. The black trend line that has been fit to PSD’s scores clearly indicates that performance has had a positive trend over the past five years. The State’s trend line also indicates a slight increase in 3rd grade proficiency percentages over the same period. PSD has consistently outperformed the state by about 10 percentage points each year.

In 2014, 83.5% of Poudre School District’s third grade students scored at proficient or advanced

levels on the Third Grade Reading TCAP. This is a 0.4% decrease when compared to 2013; these

results are the 2nd highest third grade reading scores over the past five years.

Figure 1.4. Proficiency categories by percent

Benchmarking with Colorado Districts

To put PSD’s 3rd grade TCAP Reading performance in context, a comparison of proficiency rates

with other Colorado districts is made. Because larger districts tend to have more stability in

their results and those results tend to be centered closer to the state average than is true for

smaller districts, a ranking of districts with 500 or more students in 3rd grade is presented

below. Within these comparison districts, the list has been reduced to the 10 districts with the

highest 3rd grade reading proficiency rates.

Based on the 2014 results, PSD improved their ranking from 4th to 2nd among the top 10

performing large districts. The top ten performing districts’ proficiency rates range from 76.2%

to 84.2%. In 2014 there is little separation between the top 4 districts, with each of these

districts having proficiency rates between 83.41 and 84.2%.


Table 1.1

Percent Proficient or Advanced on 3rd Grade Reading CSAP/TCAP ‐ Top 10 Districts

District 2012 2013 2014

LITTLETON 6 88.2% 85.7% 84.2%

POUDRE R‐1 82.3% 83.9% 83.5%

BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 83.9% 84.3% 83.4%

ACADEMY 20 87.0% 85.9% 83.1%

DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 82.8% 81.5% 79.1%

JEFFERSON COUNTY R‐1 80.3% 79.5% 78.8%

ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J 81.1% 81.5% 78.6%

CHERRY CREEK 5 80.8% 79.6% 76.7%

WIDEFIELD 3 75.1% 74.2% 76.7%

FOUNTAIN 8 75.3% 78.0% 76.2%

Figure 1.5. Percent proficient for top ten districts Subgroup Performance In order to gain greater understanding of which students are not meeting proficiency standards, this report reviews the five years of results disaggregated by the subgroup categories that are identified in CDE’s District Performance Framework, which is also a part of the state’s


Accountability Alignment initiative. Figure 1.6 and Table 1.2 provide 3rd grade reading results by free/reduced lunch program status over the past five years.

Figure 1.6. Performance gap by socioeconomic level

Table 1.2

3rd Grade Reading TCAP Performance by Socioeconomic Level 2010‐2014

Test Year Lunch Status U PP P A P or A P or A Gap

2010 Non 2.3% 9.6% 75.2% 12.8% 88.1%

F/R 17.0% 18.8% 61.4% 2.6% 64.0% ‐24.0%

2011 Non 1.6% 6.3% 78.4% 13.6% 92.0%

F/R 13.1% 19.6% 62.7% 4.0% 66.7% ‐25.3%

2012 Non 2.1% 6.9% 76.8% 13.8% 90.6%

F/R 12.3% 24.4% 59.5% 3.6% 63.1% ‐27.6%

2013 Non 2.2% 5.5% 76.9% 15.2% 92.1%

F/R 12.1% 21.3% 61.1% 5.2% 66.3% ‐27.6%

2014 Non 2.7% 6.9% 74.8% 15.5% 90.3%

F/R 11.4% 19.4% 65.5% 3.0% 68.5% ‐21.8%

When disaggregating results by socioeconomic status as measured by students receiving lunch

benefits, and those who do not, there was a gap of 21.8% in 2014. This gap is not unique to

PSD, but is very typical statewide. The performance of PSD students who are eligible for free or

reduced lunch exceeds statewide peers by 11.5% in 2014 and ranges between 63.1% and 68.5%


over the past five years. Two things to note are that the gap between eligible and non‐eligible

students’ proficiency decreased by 5.8% in 2014, and the percent proficient and advanced for

students receiving lunch benefits is the highest from the last 5 years. Figure 1.6 and Table 1.3

provide similar views of third grade reading results broken down by ethnicity.

Figure 1.7. Performance gap by ethnicity

Table 1.3

3rd Grade Reading TCAP Performance by Ethnicity (Hispanic/White) 2010‐2014

Test Year Ethnicity U PP P A P or A P or A Gap

2010 White 4.0% 10.3% 74.2% 11.6% 85.8%

Hispanic 19.2% 24.3% 54.1% 2.1% 56.2% ‐29.6%

2011 White 2.9% 7.6% 76.9% 12.4% 89.3%

Hispanic 17.2% 24.9% 56.0% 1.6% 57.6% ‐31.7%

2012 White 3.0% 8.5% 76.1% 12.2% 88.2%

Hispanic 14.8% 25.5% 53.6% 4.3% 57.8% ‐30.4%

2013 White 2.9% 8.3% 75.3% 13.4% 88.7%

Hispanic 15.4% 20.7% 57.9% 5.5% 63.4% ‐25.3%

2014 White 3.6% 7.9% 75.1% 13.2% 88.2%

Hispanic 13.8% 21.3% 60.5% 4.2% 64.7% ‐23.6%

When disaggregating results by ethnicity, there is a proficiency gap of 23.6% in 2014. This is not

only a decrease from the prior year, but also the smallest gap in the last five years. The 4.2% of

Hispanic students that scored advanced on the test is more than double that of the statewide

average of 2.0%. When one compares the performance of both groups in PSD with students


statewide, we see a higher level of performance in PSD. Hispanic PSD students outperformed

their counterparts statewide by 8.7%, and White PSD students outperformed by 6.2%. Figure

1.8 and Table 1.4 provide 3rd grade reading data broken out by IEP status.

Figure 1.8. Performance gap by students with an IEP

Table 1.4

3rd Grade Reading CSAP Performance by IEP Status 2010‐2014

Test Year IEP Status U PP P A P or A P or A GAP

2010 IEP 42.1% 33.1% 24.1% 0.0% 24.1% ‐49.2%

No IEP 4.1% 10.8% 74.6% 10.5% 85.1%

2011 IEP 31.3% 29.1% 36.6% 0.0% 36.6% ‐61.1%

No IEP 3.3% 9.2% 76.1% 11.3% 87.4%

2012 IEP 39.3% 31.7% 25.5% 2.1% 27.6% ‐50.8%

No IEP 2.5% 10.7% 75.2% 11.4% 86.5%

2013 IEP 40.5% 23.7% 34.4% 1.5% 35.9% ‐58.9%

No IEP 3.0% 9.7% 74.6% 12.7% 87.3%

2014 IEP 42.3% 28.9% 25.4% 2.8% 28.2% ‐59.4%

No IEP 2.7% 9.4% 75.4% 12.2% 87.6%

Students with Disabilities as a subgroup have significant gaps on the 3rd grade reading TCAP at

the district and state level. The gap increased slightly from 58.9% in 2013 to 59.4% in 2014.


There is an increase for Students with Disabilities in the advanced category, from 1.5% to 2.8%.

Figure 1.9 and Table 1.5 provide 3rd grade reading data broken out by Language Proficiency.

Figure 1.9. Performance gap by language proficiency

Table 1.5

3rd Grade Reading CSAP Performance by ELL Status 2010‐2014

Test Year ELL Status U PP P A P or A P or A GAP

2010 ELL 28.8% 22.9% 48.3% 0.0% 48.3% ‐35.2%

Non ELL 4.9% 11.6% 73.0% 10.5% 83.5%

2011 ELL 22.5% 31.8% 45.7% 0.0% 45.7% ‐41.7%

Non ELL 3.5% 8.8% 76.1% 11.3% 87.4%

2012 ELL 18.4% 36.9% 43.3% 1.4% 44.7% ‐40.5%

Non ELL 4.2% 10.6% 74.0% 11.2% 85.2%

2013 ELL 20.2% 25.0% 50.0% 4.8% 54.8% ‐32.2%

Non ELL 3.9% 9.1% 74.2% 12.8% 87.0%

2014 ELL 18.7% 23.1% 56.0% 1.6% 57.7% ‐26.8%

Non ELL 4.1% 9.5% 72.1% 12.4% 84.5%

*Past years of the Monitor Report did not include NEP students for 3rd grade reading results.

ELL includes students who are designated Non‐English Proficient (NEP), Limited English

Proficient (LEP), or Fluent English Proficient (FEP). The percent of ELL students scoring proficient

or advanced increased by 2.9% representing the highest percent from the last 5 years.


Proficient scores went up 6 percentage points from 2013 to 2014. Another highlight is that PSD

had the smallest gap between ELL and non‐ELL students in five years, decreased from 32.2% to

26.8%. There is a gap between ELL and Non ELL and it hovers around 38% on average. This gap

narrowed significantly by 8.3% in 2013. Figure 1.10 and Table 1.6 provide information about the

gaps between the different subgroups.

Figure 1.10. Gaps between the different subgroups

Table 1.6

Subgroup 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Socioeconomic 24.1 25.3 27.6 27.6 21.8

Ethnicity 29.6 31.7 30.4 25.3 23.6

English Language Learners 35.2 41.7 40.5 32.2 26.8

Students with Disabilities 61.0 50.8 58.9 51.4 59.4

The diagram shows that the gaps between the subgroups and the comparison groups are not

significantly changing. This is a National and State issue that most districts are grappling with.

K‐3 Literacy: The Colorado Basic Literacy Act (CBLA)

CBLA required schools to assess the reading level of every student in the spring in grades K‐3.

Since the 2006‐2007 school year, PSD has been using the Developmental Reading Assessment,

2nd Edition (DRA 2) to determine whether students are reading at grade level by the end of each

primary year.


The revised School Board policy 1.0 adopted the following goal and target:

80% of students at each grade level (K‐2) meet or exceed the end‐of‐the‐year DRA2

grade level benchmarks.

Grade Level End‐of‐Year Benchmark

Kindergarten Level 3

1st Grade Level 16

2nd Grade Level 28

3rd Grade Level 38

Figure 1.11 and Table 1.7 display the percent of PSD students that meet or exceed DRA2 grade

level benchmarks by grade level. The PSD target line is included in Figure 1.11 to illustrate the

steady progress that PSD is making toward our goal of 80% meeting or exceeding the

benchmarks.

Figure 1.11. Percent of students who meet/exceed DRA2 grade level benchmarks

Table 1.7

Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding DRA2 Grade Level Benchmarks

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Kindergarten 78.9% 87.0% 88.0% 86.3% 89.3%

1st Grade 70.5% 74.2% 76.3% 74.8% 73.3%

2nd Grade 72.8% 74.3% 70.5% 77.7% 73.8%

3rd Grade 74.0% 74.2% 73.8% 76.6% 77.5%

Totals 74.1% 77.4% 77.1% 80.3% 78.3%


The percent of K‐3 students meeting DRA2 grade level benchmarks been remains close to the

80% goal over the last five years. Though kindergarteners exceeded the goal by 9%, the overall

percentage of K‐3 students meeting or exceeding the goal dropped by two percentage points

from 2013. All the grade levels except 1st grade saw an increase from the previous year. Both

3nd grade and kindergarten saw an increase from 2013, 3% and 0.9% respectively. Figure 1.12

and Table 1.8 breakdown the DRA2 data by the two predominant ethnicities of the PSD

community.

Figure 1.12. Combined DRA2 gap: ethnicity

Table 1.8

Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding DRA2 Grade Level Benchmarks by Ethnicity 2011 2012 2013 2014 Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic White

Kindergarten 70.5% 91.7% 72.6% 88.5% 74.5% 82.1% 69.9% 92.0%

1st Grade 52.5% 80.8% 60.7% 77.1% 56.6% 68.8% 48.3% 80.1%

2nd Grade 53.0% 79.3% 51.5% 75.9% 62.4% 71.6% 51.2% 79.2%

3rd Grade 48.7% 80.0% 54.9% 76.3% 53.3% 70.5% 61.5% 82.1%

Combined Average

56.1% 82.9% 59.9% 79.4% 61.7% 73.3% 57.1% 83.3%

It is important to look at trends in reading in the lower grade levels because it is indicative of future success on 3rd grade TCAP reading. The four year average in K‐3 Hispanic and White students meeting/exceeding the grade level benchmark increased last year after 4 years of narrowing. The percentage of Hispanic students that have been meeting the benchmarks decreased for the first time in last five consecutive years, while the percent of White students increased. The results also illustrate that each year a gap in literacy achievement exists at the end of kindergarten, and this gap persists through successive years. The 2014 results for White students represent a substantial increase in DRA2 outcomes; the highest percentage in the last five years.


Colorado READ Act

The Colorado Reading to Ensure Academic Development Act (Colorado READ Act) was passed by the Colorado Legislature during the 2012 legislative session. The READ Act repeals the Colorado Basic Literacy Act (CBLA), keeping many of the elements of CBLA such as a focus on K‐3 literacy, assessment, and individual plans for students reading below grade level. The READ Act differs from CBLA by focusing on students identified as having a significant reading deficiency, delineating requirements for parent communication, and providing funding to support intervention. The READ Act requires that teachers measure each student’s reading competency using interim reading assessments at least once during the spring of the 2012‐2013 school year, selecting from the list of approved assessments. Beginning in 2012‐2013, each LEA will annually report the state‐assigned student identifier for each student identified with a significant reading deficiency. Beginning in the 2013‐2014 school year, for students identified as having a significant reading deficiency, a teacher and other skilled school professionals shall create a READ plan in collaboration with the student’s parent, if possible. The READ plan shall be reviewed at least

annually and updated or revised as appropriate.

District Reporting Requirements:

The READ Act requires districts to report specific student, school and district level data to the

Colorado Department of Education about the number of students identified with significant

reading deficiencies and their progress.

Accountability and Improvement Planning: Districts and schools will be held accountable for student progress in the District/School Performance Frameworks and are expected to use this data to inform the development and implementation of their Unified Improvement Plans (UIPs)


Goal Two: Annual Growth The second learning goal expects students in grades 4‐10 to demonstrate at least a year’s academic growth in a year’s time. School Board Policy 1.0, as revised on March 6, 2012, specifies both the metric and the targets to be used in assessing the attainment of this learning goal.

1.0.2 Students in grades 4‐10 will demonstrate at least a year’s academic growth in a year’s time

• PSD will meet or exceed the statewide 85th percentile with a median growth

percentile of 55 relative to other districts with at least 500 students included in

the calculations. The long range target is for PSD to meet or exceed the 95th

percentile median of 58.

• Each PSD school will meet or exceed the 85th percentile relative to other schools at

the same level statewide with K‐8 median of 62 and 9‐12 median of 57. The long

range target is for PSD schools to obtain medians that meet or exceed the 95th

percentile statewide with K‐8 median of 69 and 9‐12 median of 63. PSD growth targets are to be monitored for the district as a whole and at the individual school level. Collective district targets have been set at a minimum median growth percentile of 55, or the 85th percentile relative to other districts with at least 500 students included in their respective medians. Median Growth Percentiles are derived from the Colorado Growth Model and hence the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP). District growth targets are monitored by subject (mathematics, reading, and writing) and by level (elementary, middle school, and high school) for PSD as an entire district.

Figure 2.1 illustrates PSD and statewide 2014 growth outcomes by level and subject. Median growth percentiles for all Colorado districts with at least 500 student growth percentiles included in their respective medians are included in the data being displayed. These are the comparison districts that meet the PSD criteria for benchmarking of results. The green shaded region in the upper right corner of each illustration indicates the target region adopted by policy on March 6th, 2012. The yellow region in the lower left of each illustration represents the lowest 50% of growth outcomes statewide. The actual median growth percentiles realized as well as their corresponding statewide rank percentile equivalents, in parentheses located to the right of the median growth percentiles, are displayed in Table 2.1.

It is evident from Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 that PSD met our growth targets in math and reading at the elementary level and in writing at the middle school level. The other growth outcomes, not already mentioned, at the elementary and middle school levels are all above the typical statewide outcomes realized in 2013/14 among districts with at least 500 students being included in the calculation of their median growth percentiles. High school growth results were below those typically realized statewide relative to districts with at least 500 students being included in the calculation of their median growth percentiles. PSD high school growth outcomes did not fall within the PSD target range. We can gain further insight by examining data for a five year window (2009‐2013).


Figure 2.1


Academic Growth 2010‐2014 Figure 2.2 provides a longitudinal view of PSD’s median growth percentiles by level and subject. This figure displays trends over a five year period from 2009/10 through 2013/14. Table 2.1 provides the median growth percentile data being represented in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2

It is clear from Figure 2.2 that growth outcomes at the elementary level have been consistently above the state norm of 50. Over the past five years, middle school growth in mathematics has generally been higher than PSD’s reading and writing outcomes and typically exceeds outcomes for other districts statewide. The 2014 middle school math results are the lowest realized in the


past five years. Reading growth at the middle school level remains near the statewide average. Writing growth at the middle school level hit a five‐year high and is well above the state average. High school growth declined in writing and math. In all three subject areas, over the past five years, high school growth outcomes have varied between meeting or exceeding statewide norms and falling below statewide norms.

Table 2.1 includes the PSD median growth percentiles (MGP) and the corresponding statewide percentile ranks among districts with at least 500 student growth percentiles being used to calculate their respective medians. In 2014, there are 37 districts being included in the elementary rankings, 41 districts are included in the middle school rankings, and 34 districts are included in the high school rankings. These data are presented for each subject and level being monitored. Cells containing values that met or exceeded PSD targets (MGP≥55 or ≥85th percentile) are shaded. Recall that a percentile rank indicates the percentage of medians that the PSD median growth meets or exceeds statewide. Statewide percentile ranks are reported in parentheses to the right of the respective MGP.

Table 2.1

As can be seen in Table 2.1, PSD has a history of meeting or exceeding our growth targets at the elementary level. In 2014, the elementary level did meet our growth targets in reading and math, but not in writing. All elementary median growth percentiles are well above 50, the state


norm, and in fact are among the highest growth percentiles obtained statewide by districts with at least 500 students in all three subjects. Middle school writing growth did meet the PSD target range, while middle school reading and math, as well as high school outcomes did not meet PSD growth targets in 2014.

Benchmarking with Colorado Districts To provide further context for PSD’s 2014 district level growth results, Table 2.2 provides the ranking of PSD median growth percentiles relative to the nine comparison districts traditionally included in the DE 1.0 Monitor Report. The districts being used for this comparison are a subset of the districts included in table 2.1 and include: Academy 20, Boulder Valley, Cherry Creek, Colorado Springs 11, Douglas County, Falcon 49, Lewis‐Palmer, Littleton, and St. Vrain. In Table 2.2, the 2014 elementary math rank of 1st indicates that among the comparison group, which includes 10 schools when PSD is counted, no districts obtained a higher median growth percentile than PSD.

Table 2.2


Subgroup Growth Figures 2.3 through 2.7 and Tables 2.3 through 2.7 provide breakdowns of 2010‐2014 growth data by eligibility for free/reduced lunch, minority status, students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP), English Language Learners, and students scoring below proficient on TCAP. These groups include the sub‐groupings utilized in the District Performance Frameworks (DPF). In Tables 2.3 through 2.7 the cells containing median growth percentiles that meet or exceed the PSD target of 55 are shaded. We can see that over time PSD results are more variable than the State results. This variability in growth outcomes is primarily an artifact of differences in the sample sizes being used to generate aggregate statistics (i.e. Median Growth Percentiles). We will see this phenomenon illustrated in the remainder of State vs. PSD line graphs.

Historically, the PSD growth gaps have been larger than the State’s comparable gaps and these gaps have persisted over time. This finding is in alignment with the overall ratings PSD has received for the Academic Growth Gaps Key Performance Indicator on the District Performance Frameworks (DPF) for the past five years. As a district, PSD has remained at the Approaching level for Academic Growth Gaps on the 1‐year and the 3‐year District Performance Frameworks. Every year, PSD has had a rating of Meets for each of the other three Key Performance Indicators.

For the first time we are seeing some PSD growth gaps that are smaller than the associated state gaps. Notice that for reading and mathematics, the 2014 free/reduced growth gap is smaller for PSD overall, than we see in the statewide outcomes. The DPF overall outcomes indicate a similar change from past years in that the elementary level of PSD met the state expectation for the Growth Gaps Key Performance Indicator in all three academic subjects based on 2013 and again on 2014 growth outcomes. It is worth noting that the DPF Growth Gap ratings only reflect the growth of target subgroups, and are not exasperated by high growth for reference groups, as would be the case in a classic measure of “gap”.

Figure 2.3 reflects the data displayed in Table 2.3. These data are the past five years of median growth percentiles by free and reduced lunch status. The graphs include a visual comparison between the State’s growth gaps and PSD’s growth gaps for this subgroup. Each graph represents a separate academic subject.

Note that the 2013 and again in 2014, math growth of PSD students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs exceeded the math growth of their statewide counterparts. This is the second time this has occurred in the past five years and a similar result is not evident in either of the other two subject areas.


Figure 2.3

Table 2.3

PSD Median Growth Percentiles 2010‐2014 (By Lunch Program Status)

Math Reading Writing

Year → 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

FRL 43 46 44 50 48 44 47 45 46 48 44 47 44 46 47

Others 52 57 52 57 52 51 54 52 53 51 53 56 54 53 55

*FRL is Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible


Figure 2.4 and Table 2.4 provide a breakdown of median student growth percentiles for the past five years by minority status. The CDE defines minority as non‐white for purposes of District Performance Frameworks and the same convention is used in this report.

Minority growth gaps are shrinking. It is evident from Figure 2.4 that in 2014, and for the first time over the past five years, the PSD growth gaps are smaller than the State’s comparable gaps for minority students. In 2014, and for the first time over the past five years, the PSD subgroup growth results exceed the statewide results. Notice that in math, the PSD minority subgroup growth is higher than seen statewide for a second consecutive year.

Figure 2.4


Table 2.4

PSD Median Growth Percentiles 2010‐2014 (By Minority Status)


Year → 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

Minority 47 50 47 53 49 47 50 49 49 50 46 50 47 49 52

White 50 56 51 56 51 49 53 51 52 51 52 54 52 52 53

Figure 2.5 and Table 2.5 provide a breakdown of median student growth percentiles for the past five years for students with disabilities. The graphs include a visual comparison between the State’s growth gaps and PSD’s growth gaps for this subgroup.

Figure 2.5


Table 2.5

PSD Median Growth Percentiles 2010‐2014 (By IEP Status)


Year → 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

IEP 36 42 37 46 44 35 46 43 44 43 35 43 38 46 39

Others 51 55 51 56 51 50 52 51 52 51 52 54 52 52 53

*IEP is Individualized Education Program

It is evident from Figure 2.5 that the PSD growth gaps for students with an IEP are often larger than the State’s comparable gaps. PSD growth for students with disabilities are often below the state’s growth outcomes, although instances of higher PSD growth relative to the state are also evident across multiple years and in all three subjects. There is a slight upward growth trend over the past five years in all three subjects for PSD Integrated Services students. Math growth in particular seems to show a clear upward trend in PSD. Upward trends for students with disabilities is evident statewide as well, although the state’s math trend does not outstrip the state’s reading and writing trends. Figure 2.6 provides a breakdown of median student growth percentiles for the past five years for English Language Learners (ELL) and reflects the data displayed in Table 2.6. The graphs include a visual comparison between the State’s growth gaps and PSD’s growth gaps for this subgroup. Statewide ELL data reflects students that are classified as Not English Proficient (NEP) or Limited English Proficient (LEP).

The growth evident in 2014 for PSD ELL students does not meet or exceed statewide ELL counterparts. PSD ELL growth gaps have historically been reversed in comparison to the State’s. Note that for all three subjects and each of the five years displayed, statewide results show the combined ELL population growing at rates that meet (or more often) exceeds their non‐ELL counterparts (solid lines above dotted lines). PSD ELL growth rates are more often lagging their non‐ELL counterparts (dotted lines above solid lines). Table 2.6 provides an additional disaggregation, not provided in the District Performance Frameworks, by Language Proficiency (NEP, LEP, FEP). We can see from Table 2.6 that the students with a Language Proficiency rating of FEP tend to be associated with the higher growth ratings relative to students with Language Proficiency ratings of NEP and LEP.


Figure 2.6

Table 2.6

PSD Median Growth Percentiles 2010‐2014 (by Language Proficiency Status)


Year → 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

NEP 50 43 40 60 54 48 39 42 39 44 48 46 38 46 44

LEP 47 46 47 53 46 44 48 48 52 50 42 46 48 49 52

NEP & LEP (ELL) 49 50 48 54 47 48 51 50 54 50 47 50 49 54 52

FEP 52 55 50 55 53 51 53 53 57 56 50 54 53 51 55

Combined 49 50 48 54 51 48 51 50 54 53 47 50 49 49 54

None of above 50 55 50 55 51 49 52 50 51 50 51 54 52 51 52

*NEP is Not English Proficient, LEP is Limited English Proficient, FEP is Fluent English Proficient


Figure 2.7 provides a breakdown of median student growth percentiles for the past five years by prior‐year performance levels and reflects the data displayed in Table 2.7. The graphs do not include a visual comparison between the State’s growth gaps and PSD’s growth gaps for this subgroup. This is because statewide data of a comparable nature is not currently available. Each graph represents a separate academic subject. These data illustrate growth differences based on where students start the school year relative to their prior performance as measured by TCAP.

There is a very clear pattern in the data, displayed in Figure 2.7, indicating lower growth for students beginning the academic year below grade‐level expectations as measured by TCAP relative to those students beginning the year at or above grade level expectations. It is worth mention that in 2014 for each academic subject, students that began the year at or above Partially Proficient, based on prior‐TCAP scores, met or exceeded the state growth norm of 50. The same is not true for students that had a prior proficiency level of Unsatisfactory.


Figure 2.7

Table 2.7

PSD Median Growth Percentiles 2010‐2014 (by Prior Proficiency Level)


Year → 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

Unsatisfactory 46 46 45 51 49 45 51 48 49 49 51 54 42 52 43

Partially

Proficient 47 52 48 54 50 48 52 49 48 52 48 52 49 52 52

Proficient 50 56 51 55 52 49 52 51 51 50 51 55 52 51 53

Advanced 52 55 50 57 51 51 53 49 53 51 56 54 53 51 53


Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Student academic growth is also calculated using reading and math MAP scores from the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) for fall to spring of a given academic year. PSD reviews NWEA data to validate the growth being reflected in TCAP scores, but PSD growth targets are set in terms of the state testing program (i.e. TCAP). Data are expressed as "Percent of students (district‐wide) meeting RIT growth targets" for each grade level. A RIT growth target is a term that refers to the typical growth a student’s grade level peers with similar prior scores have attained nationwide based on the research provided by NWEA. MAP tests for reading and math are widely taken in the fall and spring by grades 2 through 8. These are the grade levels reflected in the data displays provided below. It is reasonable that PSD has utilized the fall to spring tests to provide meaningful measures of academic growth of the same academic year. The analysis of fall to spring scores is more consistent with measuring academic gains attributable to classroom experiences since changes incurred during the summer months are not reflected. Furthermore, the growth of 2nd grade students can be included in the analysis of fall to spring scores since both a pre and post measure are available, which is not the case with fall‐to‐fall or spring‐to‐spring analyses. One down‐side to this approach is that the time span being measured is not consistent with the spring‐to‐spring approach being used in the generation of TCAP growth data. An additional concern is that the post‐test does not serve as the next gain measures pre‐test, hence systematic seasonal differences in the testing environments can be confounded with the measures of growth. The percentage of PSD students meeting the one‐year's RIT growth targets, as defined by NWEA, for the past five years are given in Table 2.8 below. Increases from prior year to current year are shaded. The growth data in Table 2.8 indicate consistent increases in the percent of PSD students making a year’s growth for the past five years in math. A sustained upward trend over multiple years is evident in math. The 2013/14 growth in reading reversed a downward trend and represents the second highest measure of reading growth over the past five years. The NWEA MAP data for math indicates an overall increase while the TCAP growth data indicates a steady math trajectory for elementary students and a decline for middle school. When broken down by level (elementary and middle school), NWEA math data does show greater growth at the elementary level (74.5%) when compared to the middle school level (69.4%). Table 2.8 (Grades 2‐8)

Percent of Students Meeting NWEA Target RIT Growth:

Academic Year Math Reading

2009‐2010 65.1% 62.1%

2010‐2011 66.0% 63.7%

2011‐2012 66.7% 61.1%

2012‐2013 67.0% 59.5%

2013‐2014 72.4% 63.4%


School Growth Targets General Ends Policy as revised in March of 2012, states that: “Each PSD school will meet or exceed the 85th percentile relative to other schools at the same level statewide with a K‐8 median of 62 and a 9‐12 median of 57.” PSD did not meet this target for all schools. Further work by the PSD Research and Evaluation unit has resulted in a more precise understanding of the relationship between median growth percentiles and corresponding statewide percentile ranks. For each level, once Alternative Education Campuses and Online Schools are excluded, the 85th percentile is reached when median growth percentiles meet or exceed 60, 61, and 63 for reading, writing, and math respectively. These figures are based on the MGP Rank Calculators being used throughout PSD by School Accountability Committees. PSD had 11 out of 44 schools with 2014 math MGPs of 63 or higher. This equates to 25% of PSD schools meeting the math growth targets. In reading, 12 out of 45 PSD schools have 2014 MGPs that meet or exceed the target of 60. This equates to 26.7% of schools that meet PSD’s school targets in reading. There are 10 out of 44 schools that met the writing target of 61. This equates to 22.7% of schools that meet PSD’s school targets in writing. The reason that all schools are not included in this calculation is driven by a lack of official data being reported for schools that do not meet minimum sample size requirements of 20 or more students with growth data. Charter schools are not included in these calculations. Results for the past five years are displayed below in Table 2.9. Table 2.9 (Schools Meeting or Exceeding 85th Percentile Statewide)

Percent of Schools w/ MGP in Target Area 2010‐2014


Year 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14

% 20.5 24.4 11.1 27.3 25.0 43.2 31.1 15.6 26.7 26.7 27.3 24.4 15.6 20.5 22.7

It is important to note that, by chance alone, we would expect approximately 15% of PSD schools to meet the school level growth targets in any given year. The basis for this statement is that approximately 15% of the schools around the state should be at the 85th percentile or higher. PSD, as a system, can reach our district goal of attaining growth outcomes that exceed 85% of all other large districts (N greater than or equal to 500) without 100% of our schools being at their respective 85th percentile outcomes. In fact it is exceedingly unlikely that we would see 100% of our schools at the 85th percentile or higher in a given year; from a probability stand point. Nonetheless, the percentage of schools in PSD that meet or exceed the 85th percentile goal is a useful metric to monitor. If we may observe a sustainable increase in the percentage of schools that reach this worthy target over the coming years, we would have reasonable evidence of true system improvements. A reasonable, but rigorous target for future consideration may be 30% as this would represent having twice as many schools at the 85th percentile as one would expect to find by chance alone.


Goal Three: Students Demonstrate Post‐Secondary Readiness The third learning goal sets an expectation for all students to demonstrate post‐secondary readiness. A key indicator for attainment of this goal is the completion of at least one post‐secondary course by graduation. Post‐Secondary Course Completion Post‐secondary courses include those offered through Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate programs (IB) as well as those available through concurrent enrollment in post‐secondary (PS) education options with Colorado State University (CSU), University of Colorado (CU), and Front Range Community College (FRCC) or other colleges and universities. Completion is defined as receiving credit for a course as evidenced by receiving a grade of D or higher. The School Board revised policy 1.0.3 addresses students demonstrating post‐secondary readiness.

92% of students graduating complete a post‐secondary, AP or IB course In the class of 2014, 87.7% of graduates had completed a post‐secondary class. PSD did not meet the target; 92% of students completing a post‐secondary, AP or IB course. The 2014 result was a 1.8 percentage point decrease relative to the 2013 result. Figure 3.1 (a, b) illustrates the percentage of PSD graduates who completed one or more post‐secondary option course types. This data are displayed for each of the past five graduating classes. The percentage of students completing a PS, AP or IB courses remains high as the district continues to work toward providing this experience for all students. Figure 3.1 (a)


Figure 3.1 (b)

Table 3.1 and figure 3.2 breaks out the percentage of PSD graduates who completed one or more post‐secondary option course types by ethnicity (Hispanic/White). The comparison by ethnicity shows that there have been a higher percentage of White students completing PS, AP, or IB courses than Hispanic students. This gap ranges between 7.6% and 19.4% over the last five years. The percent of Hispanic students completing postsecondary courses peaked in 2011. In terms of AP courses, the percent of Hispanic students completing one or more AP courses increased last year to an all‐time high of 42.3%. The comparison between males and females shows that the percentage of male and female graduates that have completed at least one AP, IB or post‐secondary course is almost identical. There does not appear to be a gender disparity and thus illustrations specific to this point are not provided in the 2014 Monitor Report. Figure 3.2


Table 3.1

Table 3.2

The 2014 percentage of students scoring a three or higher on AP exams, relative to the total number of 9‐12th graders who took the AP exam, is 82%. This is 4% higher than in 2013. In 2014, PSD had 110 more students scoring a three or higher on an AP exam. This is the fifth consecutive year that the number of students with a 3 or higher has been increasing. The data shows that PSD is not only increasing the number of students taking the test but we also increase the number of 3 or higher scores obtained on the test.


ACT Benchmarks The School Board adopted the following goal regarding ACT:

Percentage of students meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks will meet or exceed 77.5% in English; 55% in Mathematics; 65% in Reading; and 47% in Science.

The ACT College Readiness Benchmarks by content area are as follows: English = 18, Math = 22, Reading = 21, and Science = 24. The data in Figure 3.3 indicates that PSD is progressing towards meeting these targets.

Figure 3.3. PSD & State 5‐Year Trends in Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks

The percent of students meeting College Readiness benchmarks increased in Science (10%) from the prior year. The Mathematics (51%) and English results (74%), remained the same as last year, continuing to miss the district goals by 4% and 3.5% respectively. Reading decreased by 8%, short of the PSD goal by 11%. PSD improved Science results (10%) and met the PSD goal for the first time in 5 years.


8th Grade Algebra I or Higher

The School Board adopted the following goal regarding f8th graders completing Algebra1 or higher:

61% of 8th grade students will complete Algebra 1 or higher PSD had 80.1% of their 8th grade students that completed Algebra I or higher this year. Figure 3.4 and Table 3.2 illustrate that PSD has made substantial progress in meeting the 8th grade Algebra I or higher target. PSD exceeded this target by 19.1% in 2014 and there is a clear trend of increasing percentages over the past five years.

Figure 3.4. PSD 8th grade Algebra I or higher Table 3.2

PSD decreased the percentage of Hispanic and White students completing Algebra 1 or higher in 2014. These percentages have decreased for both White students and Hispanic students for the first time over the last five years. Although the gap between the percentage of Hispanic and White students completing Algebra I or higher is the second lowest in the last five years, it widened from 2013 by 10%. Many school systems consider Algebra 1 completion by the 8th grade to be an important determiner of a student’s trajectory for post‐secondary success.


Goal Four: Successful Transitions

The fourth learning goal identifies the importance of all students successfully transitioning to another school or level of education. Students transition from elementary to middle school, middle school to high school, and from high school to post‐secondary and the world of work. By focusing on transitions, the district examines the results of different levels from the standpoint of completion and entry. The key evidence used to measure this goal includes attendance, drop‐out rates, graduation rates, and post‐secondary entry rates. The School Board revised policy 1.0.4 addresses students successfully transition each education level through graduation into postsecondary.

The average attendance rates for all school levels will be at least 95%

PSD dropout rate will be less than 0.7%

PSD graduation rate will be at least 85%

Fewer than 23% of PSD graduates will be assigned to remediation when entering Colorado Public Higher Education

Attendance rate The district monitors student attendance rate by level. PSD’s average attendance rate K‐12 is 93.9%, which is close to the 95% expected goal for school districts in Colorado. PSD elementary school students exceed this benchmark in 2014, as they have consistently over the last five years. Both middle and high school students have a slight decrease in their attendance rate in 2014. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 illustrate that PSD has the lowest attendance rate at the high school level and the highest attendance rate at the elementary level.

Figure 4.1. Attendance rates


Table 4.1

Statewide comparisons are not provided for attendance rates due to the following cautionary

message regarding truancy data. The following was retrieved from the Colorado Department of

Education (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/truancystatistics.htm) on 9‐15‐12.

“The (truancy) data is not comparable between districts because attendance and

excuses for absences are rooted in a local policy unique to the district. In some cases, it

may be unique to the schools within the district. For example, a school administrator in

one school may accept a particular excuse from a parent but another administrator in

another school within that same district may not accept the same reason for the excuse

by another parent. Some schools may take attendance more than once a day, which

increases the chance of discovering students who have left during the school day.

Others may not take attendance with the same frequency. A higher rate does indicate

more unexcused absences being recorded. However, it may not necessarily indicate a

higher number of truant students than another school with more lax procedures.”

Dropout Rate The dropout rate reflects the percentage of all students enrolled in grades 7‐12, who leave school during a single year without subsequently attending another school or education program. It is calculated by dividing the number of dropouts by a membership base that includes all students who were in membership any time during the year. In accordance with a 1993 legislative mandate, beginning with the 1993‐94 school year, the dropout rate calculation excludes expelled students. The revised School Board policy 1.0.4 adopted the following goal and target:

PSD dropout rate will be less than 0.7%

PSD’s overall 2013 dropout rate was 1.50%. PSD did not meet the target of 0.7%. Figure 4.2 illustrates that PSD has had a upward trend in dropout rate over the past four years. Table 4.2 breaks out 5‐year results by grade level and shows that the upper classmen consistently have a higher dropout rate than the middle school students. In 2013, PSD had a small decrease in the dropout rate for two out of six grade levels 8th and 9th with increases in all other grades. The 7th and 8th graders have met the PSD dropout target every year from 2008 through 2013.


Figure 4.2. PSD dropout rate

Table 4.2

Grade 2009 2010 2011 2012 20137 0.14% 0.00% 0.09% 0.05% 0.18%

8 0.14% 0.09% 0.15% 0.32% 0.19%

9 0.59% 0.70% 1.00% 1.99% 1.15%

10 2.57% 1.89% 1.31% 1.66% 1.79%

11 2.63% 2.02% 2.41% 1.89% 2.56%

12 3.77% 2.13% 2.94% 2.58% 3.20%

All 1.67% 1.16% 1.33% 1.44% 1.50%

Dropout Rate Per Grade

Figure 4.3 shows the difference between the percentage of students that dropped out in 2012/13 by ethnicity, and by gender within ethnicity. PSD has a higher percentage of Hispanic students who dropped out than White students and these rates increased as students moved from the 8th grade to the 11th grade. Within gender, the same pattern exists across the two ethnicities being displayed with the exception of White females, whose dropout rate decreased in 11th grade. For both Hispanic and White students, the dropout rates peaked in the 12th grade.


Figure 4.3. PSD 2013 dropout rates by ethnicity, gender, and grade In order to provide perspective on PSD’s performance in dropout rate, the next graph shows overall state rates and PSD’s ranking among the 10 largest Colorado districts. Although the 10 largest districts vary in their demographic makeup, their overall size and a standardized reporting process create a strong comparison group for measuring progress in these areas. Within this group PSD obtained the 4th lowest dropout rate in 2012/13.

Figure 4.4. Dropout rate for top ten districts


When comparing PSD’s overall dropout rates to other districts, PSD maintained its rank order in all but two categories. We moved from 4th to 7th place in the Hispanic female dropout rate and 3rd to 6th in the White male dropout rate. Table 4.3

DistrictTotal

Dropout

Rate

Hispanic

Dropout

Rate

White

Dropout

Rate

Female

Total

Dropout

Rate

Hispanic

Female

Dropout

Rate

White

Female

Dropout

Rate

Male Total

Dropout

Rate

Hispanic

Male

Dropout

Rate

White

Male

Dropout

Rate

BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.4 1 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.3

DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 0.9 2.1 0.06 0.8 1.9 0.6 1 2.3 0.6

CHERRY CREEK 5 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.8 1.7 2.2 1.2

POUDRE R-1 1.5 2.8 1.2 1.3 3.3 0.8 1.7 2.4 1.6

ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J 1.7 3 1.2 1.5 2.6 1.1 1.8 3.5 1.2

JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 1.7 2.9 1.2 1.3 2.5 0.9 2 3.3 1.5

COLORADO SPRINGS 11 2.8 4.1 2 2.5 4 1.6 3.1 4.1 2.3

ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.6

ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J 4.8 5.9 2.4 4.7 5.8 2.3 4.9 6.1 2.6

DENVER COUNTY 1 5 5.6 3.5 4.4 4.9 2.9 5.5 6.3 4.1

Ranking 4th 4th 3rd 4th 7th 3rd 3rd 4th 6th Graduation Rate Starting with 2009‐2010, the method Colorado used to calculate the graduation rate changed. In the past, early and late graduates were folded into the current graduating class. In the new rate, a student is assigned a 4 year graduating class. These graduates are reflected in 4‐year, 5‐year, 6‐year, and 7‐year graduation rates based on their assigned anticipated year of graduation. Therefore, the major change involves a shift to a four‐year “on‐time” graduation rate and all data sets are reflective of the 4 year rate.

The revised School Board policy 1.0.4 adopted the following goal and target:

By 2012 PSD graduation rate will be at least 85% The PSD 2013 graduation rate is 84.0%. The district consistently has a higher percentage of

students graduating than the state average. Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5 display the graduation rate

data for the past four years. Figure 4.6 displays PSD and the State’s graduation rate data by

ethnicity and by gender within ethnicity for the same period of time.

Table 4.4

Graduation Rate

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013PSD 83.1% 82.4% 84.0% 86.0% 84.0%State 74.6% 72.5% 73.9% 75.4% 76.9%Target 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0%


Figure 4.5. PSD & State 5‐year trends in graduation rate

Figure 4.6. Graduation rate by ethnicity and gender The graduation rate of Hispanic students in PSD increased to an all‐time high of 74.3% in a 5 year period and it is also higher than the average of Hispanic students statewide. The graduation rate of the White students in PSD decreased slightly from 88.8% to 86.5%. The percentage of PSD White students graduating is higher than the average Hispanic graduation rate statewide. The graduation rate of PSD’s Hispanic female students hit an all‐time high in 2013 at 81.6% continuing a generally upward trend. The graduation rate of the White female students in PSD decreased 1.5 units to 88.4% and the graduation rate of the White male students in PSD


decreased 3.1 units to 84.5%. Every one of these graduation rates is higher than the associated statewide averages. In order to provide perspective on PSD’s performance in graduation rate, the next graph shows overall state rates and PSD’s ranking among the 10 largest Colorado districts. Although the 10 largest districts vary in their demographic makeup, their overall size and a standardized reporting process create a strong comparison group for measuring progress in these areas. Within this group PSD obtained the 3rd highest graduation rate in 2013, two places above the 2012 ranking.

Figure 4.7. Top ten districts’ 2013 graduation rates The graduation data for the 10 comparison districts is also disaggregated by ethnicity and gender for comparative purposes. These data can be seen in Table 4.5. The district’s rankings by gender and ethnicity improved in several categories including Hispanic, White, female, White female, and Hispanic male; all rising from 5th to 4th place. Ranking for Hispanic female graduation rate also improved from 5th to 3rd place. The only two categories that did not improve were male graduation that went from 3rd to 4th and White male graduation rate that fell from 2nd to 3rd. There is still a gap between the graduation rate of White students and Hispanic students within PSD. This gap decreased by 3.5% in 2012/13, which is the smallest gap over the last five years.


Table 4.5

DistrictAll

Students

Graduatio

n Rate

Hispanic

Graduatio

n Rate

White

Graduatio

n Rate

Female

Graduatio

n Rate

Hispanic

Female

Graduatio

n Rate

White

Female

Graduatio

n Rate

Male

Graduatio

n Rate

Hispanic

Male

Graduatio

n Rate

White

Male

Graduatio

n Rate

STATE TOTAL 76.9% 65.4% 82.8% 80.9% 70.2% 86.2% 73.2% 60.9% 79.6%BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 90.9% 78.0% 93.3% 94.3% 85.7% 96.2% 87.8% 71.9% 90.6%DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 88.8% 76.6% 90.9% 92.0% 80.2% 93.8% 85.8% 73.1% 88.3%CHERRY CREEK 5 87.4% 82.1% 88.5% 92.3% 87.3% 93.4% 82.8% 77.5% 83.7%POUDRE R-1 84.0% 74.3% 86.5% 87.2% 81.6% 88.4% 81.0% 67.8% 84.5%ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J 82.9% 73.5% 85.8% 86.7% 80.6% 88.3% 79.1% 66.8% 83.3%JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 81.5% 70.6% 84.6% 85.9% 77.5% 88.3% 77.3% 64.5% 81.0%ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS 73.7% 70.0% 74.6% 76.0% 72.6% 76.8% 71.4% 67.5% 72.3%COLORADO SPRINGS 11 66.0% 58.5% 69.3% 71.0% 63.3% 72.8% 61.2% 54.3% 65.8%DENVER COUNTY 1 61.3% 55.4% 71.1% 67.2% 61.0% 77.7% 55.7% 50.4% 65.2%ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J 52.6% 46.8% 62.1% 57.2% 50.6% 68.7% 48.2% 43.0% 55.9%

Ranking 4th 4th 4th 4th 3rd 4th 4th 4th 3rd

Remediation Rate The revised School Board policy 1.0.4 adopted the following goal and target:

Fewer than 23% of PSD graduates will be assigned to remediation when entering Colorado Public Higher Education

The remediation rate for PSD students entering Colorado Public Higher Education institutions ranged between 22.4% and 25% for the last five years (2007 to 2011). Then in 2012 the percentage jumped to 30.3%. Why? The Department of Higher Education’s 2012 Legislative Report on Remedial Education includes a significant change in how remedial rates are calculated. The Department of Higher Education has indicated that the new methods produce numbers that are not comparable to those in previous reports. (http://highered.colorado.gov/Academics/remedial/default.html ) The Colorado Department of Higher Education provides some guidance on understanding remedial rate changes in their 2012 Legislative Report on Remedial Education published April 16, 2013. While the changes result in what appears to be an increase in remedial needs statewide, in reality, the increases reflect a shift in the calculation methods. The new method starts with the graduating Class of 2011 and tracks them forward to college, and the new method incorporates both students assessed as needing remediation and those enrolled in remedial courses.


Figure 4.8 displays the PSD remediation rate data for the past six years. These rates include two

and four year Colorado Public Higher Education institutions. To provide some context for the

overall 2012 PSD remediation rate of 30.3%, it may be helpful to know that the statewide

remediation rate for the same time period is 40.0% (or 39.2%, depending on the official source

selected). Nonetheless, PSD did not meet the target of 23% or less for the overall remediation

rate.

Figure 4.8. PSD remediation rate


PSD target setting may need to be adjusted to account for the new calculation methods. In 2010 PSD’s retention rate under the new method would have been 30.7% (8.5 units below the state’s 2010 rate of 39.2%). In 2011 PSD’s retention rate under the new method would have been 30.3% (11.1 units below the state’s 2011 rate of 41.4%). In 2013, PSD’s rate of 27.8 is 9.2 units below the state’s 2013 rate of 37%.

Figure 4.9 shows us that the 2012/13 remediation rate in mathematics is the highest of the three content areas, but at 22.66%, this rate is still lower than the 23% goal. Note that the combined remediation rate of 27.8% is greater than the rate for any one subject and less than the sum of the three subject‐specific rates. This is because some students require remediation in more than one subject area, so there are some students included in more than one subject‐specific remediation rate.

Figure 4.9. Remediation rate by subject


Goal Five: Health and Wellness School environments support the integration of comprehensive health and wellness in student learning by increasing opportunities for physical activity, providing high quality nutrition, and ensuring adequate student access to mental health services. The revised School Board policy 1.0.5 adopted the following goal and target:

By 2014, PSD will establish an assessment tool to measure annual growth of student

fitness levels

By 2014, PSD will establish strategic targets for improving nutritional quality of PSD

Child Nutrition Services Breakfast/Lunch Program

Provide stable support for student mental health services to meet district wide needs;

and by the start of the 2013‐2014 school year, 90% of district secondary staff will be

trained in a suicide prevention training program.


District Ends Conclusion

In summary, the district has developed five goals that interpret DE 1.0. The interpretations are

intended to encompass the P‐20 aims of Poudre School District. This monitoring report provides

information for the Board to examine how the district’s performance compares with the targets

set. Some of the indicators showed progress in a one year time frame, others showed an

improving trend.

Increases in the percentage of Hispanic students and English Language Learners that are

reaching proficiency in reading have not only hit 5 year highs, but also show evidence of an

increasing trend. We see evidence of increasing academic growth for minority students. This

growth is apparent as a closing of the historical growth gaps between non‐minority and

minority students within PSD and being driven by higher levels of minority students and a PSD

growth gap that is smaller than the State’s respective growth gap for this same subgroup. The

percentage of PSD students hitting or exceeding the Science ACT College Readiness Benchmark

has hit a high in 2013/14 of 51% and this meets the PSD target for the first time since this target

was adopted. The steep increase realized in the number of students taking Algebra 1 or higher

in the 8th grade remains at a level that far exceeds the historical norm that existed prior to

2012/13.

PSD has set challenging targets that require continuing efforts across grade levels to achieve

sustained results over multiple years. A breakdown of outcomes by subgroups provides a

deeper understanding of our district’s performance and allows leadership to better understand

important trends and to reduce gaps between different groups of students over time. The value

of this type of data is probably best illustrated in Figure 4.3 where we see there is a difference

not only the rate of dropping out between different ethnicities, but also an important

difference between ethnicities in the timing of the drop‐out patterns. This type of pattern may

signal the need for differentiated drop‐out prevention strategies.

Overall, Poudre School District has many outcomes to be proud of. There is evidence

throughout the 2014 Monitor Report that PSD remains a statewide leader in student outcomes.

There are also areas that can be improved upon and the data presented in this report help

inform our district regarding these areas of opportunity. This Monitor Report helps inform our

district’s improvement processes and these processes are documented in the Unified

Improvement Plan. While the Monitor Report documents the district ends by reporting on the

operationalized learning goals, the Unified Improvement Plan documents the means being

utilized to improve future outcomes. In this way the two documents complement one another

and are inextricably linked in an ongoing continuous improvement process that is designed to

promote optimal outcomes for all students.

Documents

DE 1.0 Monitoring Report - Poudre School District 1_0 2014 (1… · graduation rate, and the remediation rate for students entering Colorado Public Higher Education. The 2014 attendance