BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: October 9, 2015 · Board of Education Darrel Woo, President, Area 6...

José L. Banda, Superintendent

5735 – 47th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95824

(916) 643-9314

Board of Education

Darrel Woo, President, Area 6

Christina Pritchett, Vice President, Area 3

Jay Hansen, 2nd Vice President, Area 1 Ellen Cochrane, Area 2

Gustavo Arroyo, Area 4

Diana Rodriguez, Area 5 Jessie Ryan, Area 7

Elizabeth Barry, Student Board Member

BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: October 9, 2015

SUPERINTENDENT – JOSÉ L. BANDA

BC NO. FROM REGARDING

S-83 José Banda School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

S-84 José Banda Highlights of Calendar for the Week of October 12

CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER – GERARDO CASTILLO


CBO-47 Gerardo Castillo Inquiry from Board Member Regarding Article in Sacramento

Bee

CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER – GABE ROSS


CCO-226 Gabe Ross Lockdown

CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER – CATHY ALLEN


COO-18 Cathy Allen Bond Oversight Committee Update

CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER – AL ROGERS


CSO-12 Al Rogers SCUSD Graduation Rates and College Matriculation

Board of Trustees B. Teri Burns

Susan Heredia Lisa Kaplan

Bruce Roberts Jules Tran

Walt L. Hanline, Ed.D., Interim

Superintendent





Superintendent





Superintendent





Superintendent

Board Communication Form for 2015-16

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD COMMUNICATION

BC NO: S-83

CONFIDENTIAL ITEM - (Check a Box) No: ☒ Yes: ☐ Date: 10/9/2015

Approved by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

To the Members of the Board of Education

Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: School Services of California’s Sacramento Weekly Update

Attached is the weekly update from School Services of California for your review.

DATE: October 8, 2015

TO: Jose Banda

Superintendent

AT: Sacramento City Unified School District

FROM: Your SSC Legislative Team

RE: SSC’s Sacramento Weekly Update

Four More Days

Governor Jerry Brown is steadily chipping away at the stack of bills

remaining on his desk to be acted on before midnight on Sunday, October 11,

2015. As of Wednesday afternoon, October 7, 2015, 310 bills still needed his

signature or veto.

One significant bill already signed by Governor Brown is Senate Bill (SB)

172 (Chapter 572/2015). Effective on January 1, 2016, SB 172 suspends the

California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) through the 2017-18

school year as a high school graduation requirement. The bill also requires

school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special

schools to grant diplomas to students who did not successfully pass the

CAHSEE, but completed all coursework necessary for graduation in the

2003-04 school year and subsequent school years. Finally, the bill requires the

State Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene a work group to develop

recommendations for an alternative to the CAHSEE.

Another significant bill signed by Governor Brown is SB 359

(Chapter 508/2015), which would require, before the 2016-17 school year,

governing boards to adopt math placement policies that systematically

consider multiple objective academic measures—including but not limited to,

interim and summative assessments, placement tests, and classroom

assignments. The measure also requires placement policies to include at least

one placement checkpoint within the first month of the school year to ensure

that students are appropriately placed.

But the fates of many of this year’s significant education bills remain

unknown as of this writing, including Assembly Bill 47 (McCarty, D-

Sacramento), which would require, on or before June 30, 2018, all eligible

children, who would not otherwise be served by transitional kindergarten, to

have access to the state preschool program the year before they enter

kindergarten. The bill is contingent upon the appropriation of sufficient

funding in the annual Budget Act for this purpose, which is estimated in the

low hundreds of millions of dollars. Governor Brown has been reluctant to

make significant ongoing spending commitments outside of the Local Control

Funding Formula, but the contingency language—and the long

implementation timeline—could help Governor Brown find a route to

signature. Stay tuned.

School Services of California, Inc. October 8, 2015

Sacramento Update Page 2

Educator Effectiveness Funds

Finally, the California Department of Education released the apportionment levels for the Educator

Effectiveness funds provided in the 2015-16 State Budget. Funding entitlements, frequently asked

questions, and implementing trailer bill language can be found here.

Nancy LaCasse Robert Miyashiro

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/educatoreffectiveness.asp



Note: With SB 172 now signed, the CAHSEE becomes a footnote in California’s educational history.

California Poised to Grant High School Diplomas Retroactively

By Louis Freedberg

EdSource

October 6, 2015

Never mind.

That is what the state of California is poised to tell between 40,000 and 150,000 students who for nearly a

decade may have been denied a high school diploma because they failed to pass the California High School

Exit Exam, or CAHSEE.

Senate Bill 172, authored by State Sen. Carol Liu, D-Glendale, is awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature,

and he seems likely to sign it. It follows earlier legislation (SB 725) that addressed an immediate problem.

When the state abruptly stopped administering the exit exam last summer, some students from the class of

2015 found themselves stranded – admitted to a college, but without an opportunity to pass the test that

they needed to enroll this fall.

With surprising speed, the Legislature decided to grant all seniors a diploma who had been denied one last

year because of their failure on the exit exam. Liu’s bill in its original form would have suspended the exit

exam for the next three years so the state could consider alternatives to the current exam, including coming

up with one aligned with the Common Core state standards.

But her bill was revised in the final days of the legislative session — and expanded dramatically — to say

that any high school senior denied a diploma because of the exit exam since 2006 – not just since last year

– should now be awarded one.

It is hard to recall a major education reform like this being repealed – and then for lawmakers to try to undo

its impact retroactively. It highlights the unintended consequences of a well-meaning effort to raise

standards and, in the case of the exit exam, to make sure that a California high school diploma ensures a

minimum level of competency.

When it originally approved the high school exit exam, the state Legislature’s primary goal was to

“significantly improve pupil achievement in high school and to ensure that pupils who graduate from high

school can demonstrate grade level competency in reading, writing, and mathematics.”

Lawmakers were persuaded that it was reasonable to expect students with a high school diploma to be able

to read and do math at a basic level of proficiency. In fact, the content students were tested on in the exam

was set relatively low – between an 8th- and 10th-grade level.

Yet the exit exam is the ultimate “high stakes” test. Students unable to pass it were pushed out into the

workplace without a diploma – a circumstance that can have profound consequences for their economic

prospects throughout their lives, as well as their health. In fact, epidemiological data show that people

without a high school diploma on average live nine years less than someone with one.



It is impossible to know whether legislative action will be able to make up for doors closed or paths not

taken for students who did not graduate because of their inability to pass the exit exam.

It was not as if the exam was given an easy pass. For years, it was subject to a range of legal and legislative

challenges.

For each year the exam was administered, the state commissioned the Virginia-based Human Resources

Research Organization, referred to as HumRRO, to produce an annual evaluation on the success – or lack

thereof – of the program.

It did so each year from 2000 to 2014. But the reports typically were hundreds of pages long, were written

in dense policy jargon, and featured conclusions and observations described in a cascade of tables and

graphs that were often hard to follow.

Evaluators in general painted a favorable picture of the exit exam. Last year’s report, for example,

concluded that “CAHSEE test results show significant increases in students’ competency in targeted skills

since the implementation of the CAHSEE requirement.”

The report pointed out that the percentage of high school seniors who passed the exam increased from 91

percent in 2006 – the first year that it was made an actual requirement for getting a diploma – to 95.5

percent in 2014, the last year for which figures are available.

That meant last year “only” 4.5 percent of high school seniors left school without passing the exit exam.

But those figures were deceptively optimistic, as even the HumRRO report noted.

Firstly, the report stated that the percentages of those who passed the exam didn’t include all the students

who dropped out of high school before getting to their senior year. “We recognize that excluding students

who dropped out before grade twelve from the computation of passing rates may overstate student success

in meeting the CAHSEE requirement,” the report said.

Secondly, in a state the size of California, even 4.5 percent of seniors leaving school without a diploma is a

sizeable number.

The report estimated “that there is some evidence from our prior analyses that the CAHSEE requirement

has prevented or delayed between 1 and 4 percent of seniors from graduating.” Based on that estimate,

between 37,695 and 150,780 students would have been denied a high school diploma because of the exam

since it became a graduation requirement in 2006.

Thirdly, the 4.5 percent figure masks the large racial and ethnic disparities in passing rates.

The HumRRO evaluation noted “passing rates for economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and African

American students also continue to be significantly lower than passing rates for white and Asian students at

all grade levels.”

What also was not anticipated was the disproportionate impact the test would have on English learners,

who were expected to take the tests. They were supposed to get help, including being provided with

glossaries in their native languages, as well as translators should they need them. But HumRRO evaluators



observed that at times neither glossaries nor translators were available for students, concluding that the exit

exam “has been a significant barrier for students classified as English learners.”

These observations, buried in the mountain of data evaluators gathered, received little attention, as did the

fate of students who were unable to pass the test.

Now some of those students will likely emerge from the shadows to claim their diplomas, and tell their

stories.

Policymakers now face a tough choice about what to replace the exit exam with, or whether to do so at

all. However, no immediate decision will be needed. SB 172 which is awaiting Gov. Brown’s

signature will suspend the exit exam for another three years. It also instructs State Superintendent of

Public Instruction Tom Torlakson to convene a panel to advise on whether to continue the exit exam or to

come up with “alternative pathways” to meeting high school graduation requirements.

But if California imposes a new exit exam it would need to be aligned with the more rigorous Common

Core standards. In that case, it could push some students to do perform at a higher level academically. But

it could also result in even larger numbers of students failing the exam – who in turn will be at risk of being

pushed to the margins of our society.

What Senate Bill 172 Says:

SEC. 3. Section 60851.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:

60851.6. (a) Notwithstanding Section 60851 or any other law, the governing board or body of a local

educational agency, and the department on behalf of state special schools, shall grant a diploma of

graduation from high school to any pupil who completed grade 12 in the 2003–04 school year or a

subsequent school year and has met all applicable graduation requirements other than the passage of the

high school exit examination.

Note: The outcomes from this study are not favorable for early childhood education proponents, which

dispute the validity of the result.

Dan Walters: Does Early Education Truly Help?

By Dan Walters

The Sacramento Bee

October 6, 2015

The New America Foundation urges California in a new report to spend more on training and paying pre-

kindergarten teachers.

“Our bottom line is that California is not doing enough to educate early childhood educators so that kids

don’t fall way behind in school,” the report’s author, Sarah Jackson, told EdSource, an online educational

news site.

The operative phrase is “so that kids don’t fall way behind in school.”



It reflects a strong consensus among educators and politicians that early childhood intervention is needed to

close the oft-mentioned “achievement gap” separating poor and English-learner students – Latino and

black, mostly – from their more affluent white and Asian American classmates.

Half of the state’s million-plus pre-kindergarten age children are Latino or low-income and the state has

been slowly ramping up educational programs for them, including “transitional kindergarten.” Another

expansion bill is sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

It should be noted, too, that school unions are pushing politicians hard on the issue, because they anticipate

gaining members among child care workers and pre-K teachers.

So the die is cast, right? California will someday join a few other states in offering virtually universal early

childhood education and reap the benefits in a narrowing, or even closure, of the achievement gap.

The former may occur, but the latter may not, a disturbing new study out of Tennessee’s Vanderbilt

University indicates.

Tennessee has one of the nation’s more extensive early childhood education programs for low-income

children. And Vanderbilt’s Peabody Research Institute was given a federal grant to gauge its impacts.

The exhaustive study compared youngsters receiving early childhood attention to a control group that

didn’t. It found that initially, the kids included in the program had “significantly higher achievement scores

on all six of the subtests, with the largest effects on the two literacy outcomes.”

However, the study team’s report added, “By the end of kindergarten, the control children had caught up to

the (early education) children and there were no longer significant differences between them on any

achievement measures. The same result was obtained at the end of first grade using both composite

achievement measures.

“In second grade, however, the groups began to diverge with the (early childhood education) children

scoring lower than the control children on most of the measures. The differences were significant on both

achievement composite measures and on the math subtests.”

Tragically, in other words, the efforts devoted to raising the academic achievement of low-income children

went for naught. Other factors, such as poverty and familial and peer influences, prevailed.

Before California spends billions on pre-kindergarten, perhaps the Capitol’s politicians should read the

Vanderbilt study and consider whether the money would be better used elsewhere.



Note: Governor Brown has been working to decrease the state’s Wall of Debt, which is at least part of his

reluctance to support a statewide facilities bond.

California Borrowing Ratio Down, Still Among Highest

By Jim Miller

The Sacramento Bee

October 5, 2015

California’s debt load equals an estimated 6.79 percent of the state’s general fund for the current budget

year, the lowest level since the depths of the recession, according to the latest debt-affordability report from

state Treasurer John Chiang.

The debt load, though, ranks among the highest as a share of personal income, population or gross

domestic product, according the report. Among the 10 largest states, only New York and Illinois have

higher debt loads under those measurements, according to the report.

“Too much debt may mean that a state, municipality or household is living beyond its means,” the report

said. “However, just as it did in California in 1960, high levels of debt may also indicate that a state or

community is making required investments that benefit all of its citizens.”

Referring to lower debt loads in other states, the report says, “When examining these ratios, it is important

to remember that not all of the states listed use their debt for the same purposes or at the same scale.”

California has outstanding general obligation debt totaling $76 billion, with another $30 billion in bonds

authorized but not sold. For 2015-16, the state will make an estimated $7.8 billion in debt service

payments.

California voters have authorized more than $135 billion in general fund borrowing since 1974. The state is

on track to sell about $3.3 billion in debt in the current fiscal year.

Here is the debt service ratio for the past several fiscal years:

Fiscal Year Debt service ratio to general fund revenue

2014-15 6.84%

2013-14 7.13%

2012-13 8.80%

2011-12 7.90%

2010-11 7.10%

2009-10 6.69%



BC NO: S-84




Prepared by: José L. Banda, Superintendent

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Highlights of Calendar for the Week of October 12

Monday, October 12

Extended Cabinet Meeting

Executive Cabinet Meeting

Meeting with Victoria Carr (CSUS Student)

Meeting with Member Arroyo

1:1 Meetings with Cabinet Members

Tuesday, October 13

CSUS Superintendents’ Breakfast/Meeting

1:1 Meetings with Cabinet Members

Meeting with Member Pritchett

Meeting with Mark Friedman

Project Green Kick-Off Meeting

Wednesday (10/14) thru Saturday (10/17)

Attending (ALAS) Conference in Albuquerque

Please note, I will not be present at October 15 Board of Education Meeting. Lisa Allen will take

my place at the Dais.



BC NO: CBO-47




Prepared by: Gerardo Castillo, Chief Business Officer

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Inquiry from Board Member Regarding Article in Sacramento Bee

In response to an inquiry from a Board member, we want to provide some additional information

and context regarding the article: “Growing Latino population nets millions of dollars for

Sacramento colleges” - http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article37738410.html

The district does not receive any of these funds directly. However, we work with our partners, so

our students receive the benefits.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article37738410.html



BC NO: CCO-226




Prepared by: Gabe Ross, Chief Communications Officer Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Lockdown

West Campus High School, Mark Twain Elementary and Ethel I. Baker Elementary were placed into

lockdown briefly late this afternoon as a precaution due to police activity in the area. There was no

threat to any student on campus.



BC NO: COO-18




Prepared by: Cathy Allen, Chief Operations Officer

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: Bond Oversight Committee Update

On March 19, 2015, three new members were appointed by the Board to the Bond Oversight

Committee.

Most recently, 2 members have decided to not renew for an additional two-year term. This has

created two vacancies on the BOC.

Current BOC Members are as follows:

Joseph Cruz – (Chair) Business Community and Parent of SCUSD Student – 2015 to Present

Rachel Minnick (Vice Chair) - Parent of SCUSD Student – 2013 to Present

Carol Davydova - Business Community – 2011 to Present (Past Chair)

Adolfo Mercado - Business Community – 2011 to Present (Past Vice Chair)

James Price – Board of Directors Member of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association – 2012

to Present

Maria Haro-Sullivan – Parent of SCUSD Student and DAC President – 2013 to Present

Alex Visaya, Jr. – Community Member and Senior Citizen Representative – 2011 to Present

Brad McDowell – Business Community and Parent of SCUSD Student – 2015 to Present

Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz – Community Member

We are in need of members that live in the district, have student(s) attending our schools and that are

active in the PTA and/or the SSC.

The Committee meets quarterly. The next couple meetings are scheduled as follows:

December 9, 2015

March 16, 2016

Please distribute to any interested individuals. The deadline for applications is November 13, 2015.

Following is the link to the application: http://www.scusd.edu/sites/main/files/file-

attachments/writable_pdf-blank_boc_membership_application_1.pdf.



BC NO: CSO-12




Prepared by: Al Rogers, Chief Strategy Officer

Contact Email:

[email protected]

Subject: SCUSD Graduation Rates and College Matriculation

Recently a Board Member requested to know district graduation rates and college matriculation:

1. Graduation Rates for SCUSD: 2013-14: 85.1%

2. Trends are that around 63% enroll to college upon graduation.

More details attached...

Exhibit 1. Percent of Students Enrolled in College Following Fall

High School Graduation

0780.0215.128_BC_CollegeGoing Assessment, Research and Evaluation


SCUSD College Attendance

Classes 2012-2014

Assessment, Research and Evaluation

Grads Grads Grads

# # % # % # % # % # % # % # # % # % # % # % # % # % # # % # % # % # % # % # %

District 2570 1783 69% 201 8% 395 15% 1067 42% 31 1% 89 3% 2493 1801 72% 183 7% 385 15% 1098 44% 37 1% 98 4% 2563 1655 65% 175 7% 435 17% 923 36% 33 1% 89 3%

African American 348 219 63% 9 3% 30 9% 160 46% 3 1% 17 5% 328 243 74% 6 2% 30 9% 185 56% 1 0% 21 6% 340 207 61% 10 3% 33 10% 148 44% 2 1% 14 4%

American Indian 11 5 45% 0 0% 1 9% 4 36% 0 0% 0 0% 12 8 67% 0 0% 3 25% 5 42% 0 0% 0 0% 21 8 38% 0 0% 2 10% 6 29% 0 0% 0 0%

Asian 715 576 81% 117 16% 194 27% 247 35% 9 1% 9 1% 666 539 81% 96 14% 168 25% 246 37% 12 2% 17 3% 628 476 76% 87 14% 180 29% 187 30% 9 1% 13 2%

Hispanic 772 445 58% 23 3% 71 9% 327 42% 3 0% 21 3% 836 536 64% 31 4% 95 11% 388 46% 7 1% 15 2% 880 504 57% 24 3% 129 15% 332 38% 6 1% 13 1%

Pacific Islander 42 23 55% 5 12% 3 7% 15 36% 0 0% 0 0% 44 24 55% 0 0% 7 16% 16 36% 0 0% 1 2% 51 25 49% 1 2% 3 6% 19 37% 0 0% 2 4%

Two or More 220 168 76% 12 5% 37 17% 98 45% 6 3% 15 7% 132 92 70% 8 6% 19 14% 49 37% 4 3% 12 9% 173 126 73% 15 9% 24 14% 67 39% 4 2% 16 9%

White 452 342 76% 35 8% 59 13% 211 47% 10 2% 27 6% 472 358 76% 42 9% 63 13% 208 44% 13 3% 32 7% 469 309 66% 38 8% 64 14% 164 35% 12 3% 31 7%

Declined 10 5 50% 0 0% 0 0% 5 50% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

American Legion 98 41 42% 0 0% 0 0% 39 40% 0 0% 2 2% 113 59 52% 0 0% 1 1% 58 51% 0 0% 0 0% 109 28 26% 0 0% 0 0% 26 24% 0 0% 2 2%


American Indian 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian 11 4 36% 0 0% 0 0% 4 36% 0 0% 0 0% 19 10 53% 0 0% 0 0% 10 53% 0 0% 0 0% 14 4 29% 0 0% 0 0% 3 21% 0 0% 1 7%

Hispanic 46 13 28% 0 0% 0 0% 13 28% 0 0% 0 0% 54 26 48% 0 0% 1 2% 25 46% 0 0% 0 0% 46 7 15% 0 0% 0 0% 7 15% 0 0% 0 0%

Pacific Islander 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%

Two or More 4 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

White 8 4 50% 0 0% 0 0% 4 50% 0 0% 0 0% 7 3 43% 0 0% 0 0% 3 43% 0 0% 0 0% 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .

C K McClatchy 433 332 77% 47 11% 50 12% 193 45% 15 3% 27 6% 429 349 81% 52 12% 68 16% 179 42% 15 3% 35 8% 461 338 73% 50 11% 71 15% 177 38% 14 3% 26 6%


American Indian 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0%

Asian 101 90 89% 19 19% 18 18% 48 48% 4 4% 1 1% 124 115 93% 25 20% 32 26% 46 37% 6 5% 6 5% 98 87 89% 19 19% 29 30% 33 34% 3 3% 3 3%

Hispanic 131 87 66% 4 3% 11 8% 65 50% 0 0% 7 5% 124 86 69% 4 3% 11 9% 69 56% 2 2% 0 0% 168 105 63% 3 2% 18 11% 79 47% 3 2% 2 1%

Pacific Islander 7 4 57% 1 14% 0 0% 3 43% 0 0% 0 0% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 0 0%

Two or More 59 45 76% 8 14% 10 17% 17 29% 6 10% 4 7% 35 27 77% 4 11% 8 23% 8 23% 1 3% 6 17% 41 34 83% 6 15% 3 7% 15 37% 3 7% 7 17%

White 100 85 85% 15 15% 9 9% 43 43% 4 4% 14 14% 115 97 84% 19 17% 15 13% 37 32% 6 5% 20 17% 116 85 73% 19 16% 18 16% 31 27% 4 3% 13 11%

Declined 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Capital City School 126 58 46% 0 0% 0 0% 55 44% 0 0% 3 2% 127 61 48% 0 0% 1 1% 57 45% 0 0% 3 2% 133 47 35% 0 0% 1 1% 44 33% 0 0% 2 2%


American Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian 13 8 62% 0 0% 0 0% 8 62% 0 0% 0 0% 12 6 50% 0 0% 0 0% 6 50% 0 0% 0 0% 13 5 38% 0 0% 0 0% 5 38% 0 0% 0 0%

Hispanic 58 24 41% 0 0% 0 0% 23 40% 0 0% 1 2% 62 24 39% 0 0% 1 2% 22 35% 0 0% 1 2% 62 22 35% 0 0% 0 0% 20 32% 0 0% 2 3%

Pacific Islander 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two or More 4 3 75% 0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 0 0% 1 25% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 43% 0 0% 0 0% 3 43% 0 0% 0 0%

White 25 11 44% 0 0% 0 0% 11 44% 0 0% 0 0% 21 13 62% 0 0% 0 0% 12 57% 0 0% 1 5% 20 7 35% 0 0% 1 5% 6 30% 0 0% 0 0%

Declined 5 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . .

George W. Carver SAS 53 36 68% 4 8% 5 9% 25 47% 1 2% 1 2% 39 22 56% 0 0% 1 3% 20 51% 0 0% 1 3% 66 35 53% 4 6% 4 6% 23 35% 2 3% 2 3%

African American 3 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 5 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian 5 5 100% 1 20% 0 0% 4 80% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3 60% 1 20% 0 0% 1 20% 1 20% 0 0%

Hispanic 6 2 33% 1 17% 1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 5 63% 0 0% 0 0% 4 50% 0 0% 1 13% 18 10 56% 1 6% 2 11% 7 39% 0 0% 0 0%

Pacific Islander 1 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two or More 7 1 14% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%

White 31 25 81% 1 3% 3 10% 19 61% 1 3% 1 3% 23 14 61% 0 0% 1 4% 13 57% 0 0% 0 0% 40 21 53% 2 5% 2 5% 14 35% 1 3% 2 5%

Health Professions 55 43 78% 2 4% 7 13% 32 58% 1 2% 1 2% 49 43 88% 4 8% 9 18% 29 59% 0 0% 1 2% 70 43 61% 6 9% 16 23% 20 29% 0 0% 1 1%


American Indian 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Asian 3 2 67% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 4 100% 1 25% 1 25% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 8 6 75% 1 13% 2 25% 3 38% 0 0% 0 0%

Hispanic 30 25 83% 1 3% 1 3% 22 73% 0 0% 1 3% 18 16 89% 2 11% 2 11% 12 67% 0 0% 0 0% 36 19 53% 2 6% 7 19% 10 28% 0 0% 0 0%

Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3 60% 1 20% 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0%

White 5 4 80% 1 20% 2 40% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 14 10 71% 1 7% 2 14% 7 50% 0 0% 0 0% 13 9 69% 1 8% 5 38% 3 23% 0 0% 0 0%

Hiram W Johnson 280 173 62% 13 5% 45 16% 109 39% 0 0% 6 2% 289 178 62% 2 1% 32 11% 140 48% 0 0% 4 1% 291 156 54% 7 2% 41 14% 105 36% 0 0% 3 1%


American Indian 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Asian 112 86 77% 13 12% 29 26% 44 39% 0 0% 0 0% 94 76 81% 1 1% 20 21% 55 59% 0 0% 0 0% 111 74 67% 4 4% 28 25% 41 37% 0 0% 1 1%

Hispanic 94 46 49% 0 0% 9 10% 35 37% 0 0% 2 2% 123 61 50% 1 1% 8 7% 50 41% 0 0% 2 2% 120 54 45% 2 2% 11 9% 40 33% 0 0% 1 1%

Pacific Islander 4 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2 100% 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0%

Two or More 22 15 68% 0 0% 4 18% 10 45% 0 0% 1 5% 12 6 50% 0 0% 0 0% 6 50% 0 0% 0 0% 7 4 57% 0 0% 1 14% 3 43% 0 0% 0 0%

White 18 8 44% 0 0% 3 17% 5 28% 0 0% 0 0% 26 11 42% 0 0% 0 0% 11 42% 0 0% 0 0% 18 12 67% 1 6% 1 6% 10 56% 0 0% 0 0%

Declined 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Class of 2012

All College UC CSU CC 4-Year

CA Private

Class of 2014


CA Private

4-Year

Out-of-State

Class of 2013


CA Private

4-Year

Out-of-State

4-Year

Out-of-State


Sacramento City Unified School District

Graduates, Dropouts, and A-G Completion

2011/12 - 2013/14

780.032015.162 Assessment, Research and Evaluation

Grad % Drop % A-G % Grad % Drop % A-G % Grad % Drop % A-G % Grad % Drop % A-G % Grad % Drop % A-G %

SCUSD 79.9% 11.5% 45.30% 85.3% 6.1% 43.9% 85.1% 5.2% 44.6% 5.4% -5.4% 1.4% -0.2% -0.9% 0.7%

American Legion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Arthur A. Benjamin 80.9% 14.7% 40.00% 96.1% 0.0% 51.0% 92.0% 8.0% 32.4% 15.2% -14.7% 11.0% -4.1% 8.0% -18.6%

C.K. McClatchy 87.1% 9.3% 45.00% 88.3% 7.6% 47.9% 90.2% 4.6% 53.9% 1.2% -1.7% 2.9% 1.9% -3.0% 6.0%

Capitol City -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

District Office 100.0% 0.0% 0.00% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

G.W. Carver 89.8% 8.5% 54.50% 90.7% 4.7% 28.2% 100.0% 0.0% 30.3% 0.9% -3.8% -26.3% 9.3% -4.7% 2.1%

Hiram Johnson 70.2% 20.2% 33.30% 77.9% 11.2% 24.4% 86.0% 3.6% 20.1% 7.7% -9.0% -8.9% 8.1% -7.6% -4.3%

John F. Kennedy 87.0% 7.8% 45.50% 89.5% 6.2% 40.6% 92.6% 3.2% 48.4% 2.5% -1.6% -4.9% 3.1% -3.0% 7.8%

Luther Burbank 89.5% 7.1% 51.60% 88.1% 4.1% 44.1% 87.8% 3.9% 50.7% -1.4% -3.0% -7.5% -0.3% -0.2% 6.6%

New Technology 87.7% 12.3% 27.30% 92.7% 2.9% 98.4% 91.1% 6.7% 68.3% 5.0% -9.4% 71.1% -1.6% 3.8% -30.1%

Non Public 13.0% 26.1% 16.70% 58.3% 8.3% 0.0% 21.7% 8.7% 0.0% 45.3% -17.8% -16.7% -36.6% 0.4% 0.0%

Rosemont 85.0% 9.8% 38.90% 91.7% 4.8% 42.4% 90.2% 4.1% 27.0% 6.7% -5.0% 3.5% -1.5% -0.7% -15.4%

Science and Engineering 86.4% 13.6% 42.10% 98.0% 0.0% 49.0% 94.7% 2.6% 33.3% 11.6% -13.6% 6.9% -3.3% 2.6% -15.7%

The MET 81.0% 13.8% 49.10% 93.4% 1.6% 36.7% 89.8% 0.0% 24.1% 12.4% -12.2% -12.4% -3.6% -1.6% -12.6%

West Campus 98.5% 1.0% 76.70% 100.0% 0.0% 76.1% 99.6% 0.0% 85.6% 1.5% -1.0% -0.6% -0.4% 0.0% 9.5%

Schools

African American 70.4% 16.0% 37.4% 76.2% 8.9% 37.8% 73.3% 7.4% 38.1% 5.8% -7.1% 0.4% -2.9% -1.5% 0.3%

American Indian 52.6% 31.6% 9.1% 75.0% 12.5% 38.5% 66.7% 0.0% 19.0% 22.4% -19.1% 29.4% -8.3% -12.5% -19.5%

Asian 89.3% 6.4% 65.6% 90.3% 6.5% 60.2% 90.8% 4.0% 64.1% 1.0% 0.1% -5.4% 0.5% -2.5% 3.9%

Filipino 90.6% 6.3% 43.8% 97.1% 0.0% 58.8% 95.4% 0.0% 56.0% 6.5% -6.3% 15.0% -1.7% 0.0% -2.8%

Hispanic 75.2% 13.9% 32.4% 83.1% 5.1% 31.4% 82.1% 6.8% 35.7% 7.9% -8.8% -1.0% -1.0% 1.7% 4.3%

Pacific Islander 75.4% 15.8% 31.8% 75.0% 7.1% 37.0% 82.7% 9.6% 23.1% -0.4% -8.7% 5.2% 7.7% 2.5% -13.9%

White 79.3% 12.6% 46.8% 89.1% 4.9% 47.8% 90.8% 3.1% 43.5% 9.8% -7.7% 1.0% 1.7% -1.8% -4.3%

Two or More 90.2% 5.5% 48.6% 90.3% 6.1% 52.7% 92.3% 2.6% 52.7% 0.1% 0.6% 4.1% 2.0% -3.5% 0.0%

EL 75.4% 14.9% 36.5% 78.3% 9.4% 23.1% 77.7% 9.5% 23.3% 2.9% -5.5% -13.4% -0.6% 0.1% 0.2%

Econ Disadvantaged 80.5% 10.2% 44.0% 83.7% 6.1% 39.0% 83.0% 6.1% 40.1% 3.2% -4.1% -5.0% -0.7% 0.0% 1.1%

Students w/Disabilities 63.4% 14.8% 70.0% 6.2% 66.5% 7.6% 6.6% -8.6% -3.5% 1.4% 0.0%

Note: CBEDS information day is the first wednesday in October. Grad % is the number of 12th grade students who received a high school diploma divided by the 12th grade enrollment on CBEDS. Drop % is

the number of students in grades 9 through 12 who dropped out in the specified year divided by the enrollment in grades 9 through 12 for the entire academic year. A-G% is the number of 12th grade

students who received a high school diploma and completed all A-G requirements divided by 12th grade enrollment on CBEDS. These numbers are intended to be used exclusively for year to year

comparisons only.

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Difference 2011/12 - 2012/13 Difference 2012/13 - 2013/14

BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: October 9, 2015 · Board of Education Darrel Woo, President, Area 6...

Documents

Transcript of BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Date: October 9, 2015 · Board of Education Darrel Woo, President, Area 6...