1

STUDENT PROGRESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

REPORT 2013

September 10, 2013

HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Components of the 2013 Standardized Testing and Reporting

Program (STAR)

• California Standards Test (CST)– English/Language Arts, Grades 2 - 8– Writing, Grades 4 and 7– Mathematics, Grades 2 - 7– General Mathematics, Grade 8– Algebra, Grades 7 and 8– Geometry, Grade 8– Science, Grades 5 and 8 – History/Social Science, Grade 8

• California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)• California Modified Assessment (CMA)• Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS)

2

3

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST (CST) ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS

2013 Percentages of Students Meeting Proficiency

81% Average for

HBCSD

4

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST (CST) MATHEMATICS

2013 Percentages of Students Meeting Proficiency

80% Average for HBCSD

Grades 2 - 8

5

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST (CST) ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS

2009-2013 Subgroup Results

State Results: 33% Students with Disability 45% Economically Disadvantaged 22% English Learners

6

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST (CST) MATHEMATICS

2009-2013 Subgroup Results

State Results: 48% Students with Disabilities 53% Economically Disadvantaged 40% English Learners

7

CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TEST (CST) 8th GRADE HISTORY-SOCIAL SCIENCE AND

5th and 8th GRADE SCIENCE RESULTS

8

STAR WRITING ASSESSMENT 4th and 7th Graders Meeting Proficiency

* The State suspended the writing assessment for 4th Grade in 2010

Additional State and Federal Accountability Components

• Physical Fitness Test (PFT)

9

10

Physical Fitness Testing (PFT) Percentages of Students Meeting Standards 2009 - 2013

2006/07: 6 out of 6 = Meets Fitness Standards

2008/09 – 2012/13: 5 out of 6 AND 6 out of 6 = Meets Fitness Standards.

= 40% were at 6 out of 6 in 5th grade and 53% were 6 out of 6 in 7th grade

Additional State and Federal Accountability Components

• California English Language Development (CELDT)

• Title III Accountability for English Learners(EL)

Data is not available from the California Department of Education at this time and will

be presented at a future meeting. 11

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Federal accountability reporting system Looks at the percentage of students meeting proficiency STAR CST, CMA, and CAPA tests used to determine whether a district/school has met their AYP Criteria for meeting AYP

• Participation rate of 95%• Percent proficient• Additional API Indicator (800 or more)• Criteria must be met for students districtwide/schoolwide as well as significant subgroups

13.6%24.4%

35.2%46.0%

56.8%67.6%

78.4%89.2%

100.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

13

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS

Proficient and Advanced

59%59%

60%60%54%54% HB HB DistrictwideDistrictwide

65%65%

69%69%

71%71%

70%70%

75%75%

77%77%

79%79%

81%81%

80%80%

n

14

2001/02–2003/04 AMO = 13.6%

2008/09 AMO = 46.0%

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS

2009-2013 Subgroup Results

2010/11 AMO = 67.6%

2011/12 AMO = 78.4%

2009/10 AMO = 56.8% 2012/13 AMO = 89.2%

15

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)ELA Achievement Gap – Subgroups Compared to AYP Targets and All Students

16

16.0%26.5%

37.0%47.5%

58.0%68.5%

79.0%89.5%

100.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)MATH

Proficient and Advanced

53%53% HB DistrictwideHB Districtwide

59% 59%

64%64%

65%65%

69%69%

70%70%

70%70%

75%75%

75%75%

75%75%

76%76%

79%79%

17

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) MATH

2009-2013 Subgroup Results

2001/02-2003/04 AMO = 16.0%

2008/09 AMO = 47.5%

2009/10 AMO = 58.0%

2010/11 AMO = 68.5%

2011/12 /AMO = 79.0%

2012/13 /AMO = 89.5%

18

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)Math Achievement Gap – Subgroups Compared to AYP Targets and All Students

Huntington Beach City School District2013 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Summary

19

Site Number of Criteria

AYP Outcomes

Subgroups Not Meeting ELA

Subgroups Not Meeting Math

PI Status

District 33 Met 26 of 33 LEAWide, Hispanic, White, Two/More Races, SED, EL,

SWD

Year 2

Dwyer 29 Met 19 of 29 Schoolwide, Asian, Hispanic, SED, EL, SWD

White, SED, EL, SWD Year 2

Sowers 25 Met 18 of 25 Schoolwide, Hispanic, White, SED, SWD

Hispanic, SWD

Eader 13 Met 11 of 13 Schoolwide, White

Hawes 13 Met 12 of 13 Schoolwide

H. Seacliff 13 Met 13 of 13

Moffett 15 Met 8 of 15 Schoolwide, White, SED, SWD

Schoolwide, SED, SWD

Perry 25 Met 18 of 25 Schoolwide, Hispanic, White, SED, EL, SWD

SWD Year 2

Peterson 17 Met 16 of 17 Schoolwide Year 1

Smith 17 Met 14 of 17 Schoolwide, White SED

State accountability reporting system

Looks at growth in district/school’s performance

Star CST, CMA, and CAPA tests used in API calculation

Academic Performance Index (API)

Huntington Beach City School District Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Eader Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Hawes Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Huntington Seacliff Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Moffett Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Perry Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Peterson Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Smith Elementary School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Dwyer Middle School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

Sowers Middle School Growth Academic Performance Index Results

31

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API)Multi-Year Growth Trend

1999/00 2012/13 OverallSchool Site Baseline Results GrowthDwyer 732 895 163Eader 781 932 151Hawes 846 940 94Huntington Seacliff 844* 968 124Moffett 793 921 128Perry 621 812 191Peterson 757 937 180Smith 794 910 116Sowers 807 892 85

*2000 Baseline

32

HBCSD POINTS OF PRIDEAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP)•One (1) school met all AYP criteria •One (1) Title I school met goals through Safe Harbor•Twenty-Seven (27) groups made Safe Harbor goals•HBCSD students continue to outperform when compared to county and state data

Academic Performance Index (API)• All schools at or above the State Target of 800• Seven (7) schools made growth•Six (6) schools over 900•Positive multi-year growth trend for schools ranging from 85-191 points

33

Program Improvement (PI)HBCSD Responsibilities

Program Improvement (PI)• Year 1 designation for Peterson• Year 2 designation for District, Dwyer, and Perry•Continued data analysis and implementation of addendum to Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan•Set aside Title I funding for professional development, choice transfers, and supplemental educational services (Year 2 sites only)

Huntington Beach City School District

Next Steps for Success:• Continue to conduct data analysis on 2012/13 STAR and

Multiple Measures assessment data • Identify and support student achievement needs based

on data analysis• Develop and implement targeted academic interventions

for students at each school site• Continue to align Single Plans for Student Achievement

to reflect identified needs and goals in English-language arts and Mathematics

 

34

Huntington Beach City School District

Next Steps for Success (continued):• Support the continuation of the Benchmark Assessment

System to inform instruction and monitor student achievement in English-language arts and Mathematics

• Provide Common Core professional development for staff to support instructional goals for student achievement

• Take steps to prepare for rigorous assessments in Spring of 2014

• Emphasis during instruction on 21st Century skills 

35