When beginning to look at the AEIS report, I noticed the differences between the past two years with regard to improvement first. With regard to grade 6 reading scores, the Hispanic population decreased from >99% to 96% passing rate from 2009-2010. The male, special education, and economically disadvantaged dropped as well from 96%-95%, 86%-73%, and 94%-91%, respectively. Every subpopulation on the 6th grade math test scored higher than in 2009, with the special education population increasing by 29 percentage points.
Grade 7 saw some large decreases from 2009 scores. However, in reading, the largest change came in the male and special education populations. The males decreased by one percentage point while the special education population decreased by 22 percentage points. The math saw decreases across the board with only the Hispanic and economically disadvantage increasing from 2009-2010. This could be a result of intervention strategies that were employed from the beginning of the school year. Writing saw all increases from 2009 with the exception of the economically disadvantaged which only lost about 2 percentage points.
The 8th grade reading increased across all content area tests with the special education population increasing by 23 percentage points. The only increase from 2009-2010 for math was the Asian/Pacific Islander and female subpopulations. The economically disadvantaged population decreased the most by 21%. The campus rating for science increased by 2% and all subpopulations increased as a result. The social studies campus score increased from 98-99% with the biggest increase being from the special education subpopulation from 81-92%. All other subpopulations increased as well.
When looking at the standard accountability indicator, the only decrease for reading was the special education population by 1%. All other subpopulations as well as the campus increased their percentage. The same is true for the math and writing except that both enjoyed all groups increasing their percentage from 2009-2010.
Under the TPM subheading, I began to look at the campus and district scores compared to that of the state. In all content areas for both years the campus as well as the district was ahead of the state percentage. When looking at the percentage from 2009-2010, the campus and district again were ahead of the state norm. All subpopulations increased as well except for the economically disadvantaged in writing. The special education population from 2009-2010 jumped from 47-83%, respectively.
The commended performance needed to be improved this year in order to gain an exemplary recognition without being able to use the TPM. Most of the commended performances increased with highlights to follow. The special education population increased in all areas with the greatest jump being on the mathematics test (5 in 2009 and 19% in 2010). The economically disadvantaged population increased in all areas as well. The greatest increase, strangely enough, was in writing. Previously, I discussed that writing had seen significant drops in performance overall between 2009 and 2010. The African American population increased its writing commended performance by 32 percentage points. There were, however, a lot of decreases in the commended performances. The White population decreased in all areas except reading and math. The African American population also decreased but in the science and social studies categories only. The male and female populations both decreased in the writing and science. One of the more important things to note, however, is that the campus scores on all tests, except math and writing, were higher than the district’s scores, and the campus performance on all tests was higher than the state’s performance.
The 2011 preview section discusses the summary of all grades tested and includes TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt. On each of these scores, the campus scored higher in 2010 than in 2009 and better than the district and the state. The special education population even jumped 18% on the science test compared to 2009.
When looking at the TAKS participation, I am reminded about the special education rulings. TAKS-M can only account for 2% of the population while TAKS-Alt can only account for 1% of the population. The district TAKS-M population is 2.3% while the campus is at 0.9%. The district TAKS-Alt is 0.7%, and the campus TAKS-Alt is 0.9%. This is important information for me as the special education department chair because I am responsible for keeping up with the numbers for both subpopulations. In 2009, the participation on TAKS was slightly different, but it was still under that state standard. The TAKS-m participation for the campus was 1.1%, and the TAKS-Alt was 0.1%. The LEP exempt decrease from 0.3% in 2009 to 0.2% in 2010.
The next section discusses the percent of failures that passed from 2009-2010. Each subpopulation increased its passing rate from last year to this year. In ELA, the difference was +44% for the campus. In math, it was +10%.
SSI: In each of the subpopulations including the campus, both content areas in 8th grade had more students receiving accelerated instruction post-1st administration in 2010. However, there were also a greater percentage passing the 2nd administration as compared to the first administration in 2010. The special education population in math was the only group to have a lower passing rate after accelerated instruction between 2009 and 2010.
Section II begins the discussion of student information. It lists the number of students in each grade level and compares it to the campus group, district, and state. It also shows the number of students in certain special populations such as ethnic group, economically disadvantaged, LEP, alternative placements, and at-risk.
The 2nd section describes retention rates by grade in comparison to the district and state. Grade 7 was the only grade in which the retention rate was higher than the district. All grade levels were below the state retention rate.
When looking at class size, all of the classes were larger on the campus as compared to the district; however, only the ELA and foreign language classes were bigger than the state averages.
The staff information gives a comparison between campus, district, and state. With regard to the professional staff, the campus percentage is 89% while the district and state are at 63.9 and 63.2 %, respectively. The minority staff is at a very large decrease compared to the district and state comparisons. The campus minority percent is 9.1% while the district is 29.8% and the state is 43.9%. These ethnicity groups are further broken down to subpopulations. The next group discussed is the years of experience that teachers on campus, in the district, and in the state possess. The highest campus percentage falls into the 1-6 year category followed by 11-20 and 6-10. The same is true for the district as well as the state.
Finally, there is the information about programming. It is broken down into Bilingual/ESL, CATE, Gifted and Talented, and Special education. Enrollment in each of these programs at the campus level is below the district and state except in the area of gifted and talented. The same is true for the teachers of the programs. The only program with more teachers than the state average is special education.
No comments:
Post a Comment