Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools
96
Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama November 15, 2012
description
Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools. Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama November 15, 2012. Financial & Demographic Comparisons. ARMT Results. Math 3. Math 4. Math 5. Math 6. Math 7. Math 8. Reading 3. Reading 4. Reading 5. Reading 6. Reading 7. Reading 8. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools
Performance Comparisons for Dothan City Schools
Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama November 15, 2012
Financial & Demographic Comparisons
Free & School Core Core %Students Reduced Property Spending Instruction-
(ADM) Lunch Tax Rate Per Student Related
Statewide 734,852 58% ----- 7,363$ 84.3%Decatur City 8,392 62% 22.0 9,078 86.4%Hoover City 13,385 23% 46.1 9,015 84.1%Huntsville City 22,681 49% 27.5 8,499 80.6%Opelika City 4,128 65% 24.0 8,518 85.5%Tuscaloosa City 9,868 65% 21.0 8,109 83.6%Auburn City 6,990 28% 24.0 7,807 87.3%Gadsden City 5,371 74% 22.0 7,399 86.0%Alexander City 3,170 55% 15.0 7,310 85.2%Selma City 3,805 89% 23.3 7,128 81.5%Dothan City 9,314 64% 10.0 6,740 84.6%Enterprise City 6,578 40% 16.0 6,713 84.8%Phenix City 6,709 68% 28.5 6,452 85.1%Houston County 6,455 60% 10.0 6,302 86.9%
ARMT Results
PARCA Color-Coding of ARMT Test ResultsMore than 10 percentage points above state subgroup average at Level IV1 to 10 percentage points above state subgroup average at Level IVWithin +/- 1 percentage point of state subgroup average at Level IV1 to 10 percentage points below state subgroup average at Level IVMore than 10 percentage points below state subgroup average at Level IV
Gap is smaller than system / state average AND both subgroups are green.
YEAR Dark Green Green Gray Red Dark Red Gold2012 23 24 1 0 0 22011 20 23 2 3 0 52010 16 26 4 2 0 52009 6 26 2 12 2 22008 3 24 4 15 2 12007 2 19 6 21 0 22006 8 15 7 18 0 12005 2 13 8 24 1 0
DOTHAN CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM, ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 3-8
Math Reading0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2012 ARMT Results in Math and ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV, Grades 3-8
Dothan vs. State Averages
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
20
40
60
80
100
Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2012 ARMT Results in MathPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. State Averages
Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 80
20
40
60
80
100
Non-Pov State Non-Pov Dothan Pov State Pov Dothan
2012 ARMT Results in ReadingPercent of Students at Level IV
Dothan vs. State Averages
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for MathPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Results for ReadingPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Comparisons With Other Systems
Enterprise
Dothan
Auburn
Houston Co.
Decatur
Alexander City
Florence
Hoover
Huntsvil le
Tuscaloosa
Opelika
Selma
Phenix City
Gadsden
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
2012 ARMT Results for Selected School Systems
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 3-5, SPRING 2012 COMPARISON OF GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Florence 24 0 0 24 100% 9 75%Enterprise 24 0 0 24 100% 6 50%Dothan 23 1 0 24 96% 2 17%Houston Co. 21 1 2 24 88% 8 67%Decatur 20 1 3 24 83% 4 33%Auburn 19 2 3 24 79% 0 0%Alexander City 14 1 9 24 58% 2 17%Tuscaloosa 14 3 7 24 58% 0 0%Huntsville 14 3 7 24 58% 0 0%Selma 13 2 9 24 54% 4 33%Opelika 12 1 11 24 50% 0 0%Hoover 11 0 13 24 46% 0 0%Gadsden 4 4 16 24 17% 0 0%Phenix City 3 0 21 24 13% 1 8%
COMPARISON OF GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012 IMPROVEMENT IN GRADE 3-5 ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
School 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Systems % Green % Green % Green % Green % Green
Florence 67% 54% 92% 92% 100%Enterprise 83% 88% 75% 63% 100%Dothan 67% 88% 88% 92% 96%Houston Co. 8% 25% 46% 67% 88%Decatur 54% 42% 54% 58% 83%Auburn 83% 75% 71% 71% 79%Alexander City 71% 71% 67% 79% 58%Tuscaloosa 25% 38% 29% 42% 58%Huntsville 38% 42% 33% 38% 58%Selma 33% 38% 54% 67% 54%Opelika 63% 33% 29% 54% 50%Hoover 67% 58% 50% 67% 46%Gadsden 38% 25% 8% 17% 17%Phenix City 71% 38% 8% 4% 13%
SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS FOR GRADES 6-8, SPRING 2012 COMPARISON OF GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Enterprise 24 0 0 24 100% 7 58%Dothan 24 0 0 24 100% 0 0%Hoover 22 1 1 24 92% 0 0%Auburn 21 2 1 24 88% 2 17%Alexander City 20 3 1 24 83% 5 42%Decatur 16 3 5 24 67% 0 0%Houston Co. 15 3 6 24 63% 4 33%Huntsville 12 2 10 24 50% 0 0%Tuscaloosa 11 4 9 24 46% 0 0%Florence 9 3 12 24 38% 0 0%Opelika 8 2 14 24 33% 0 0%Phenix City 5 3 16 24 21% 0 0%Selma 2 2 14 18 11% 0 0%Gadsden 1 2 21 24 4% 0 0%
COMPARISON OF GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012 IMPROVEMENT IN GRADE 6-8 ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Systems % Green % Green % Green % Green % Green
Enterprise 100% 92% 100% 87% 100%Dothan 46% 46% 88% 88% 100%Hoover 92% 96% 96% 92% 92%Auburn 79% 92% 92% 71% 88%Alexander City 100% 71% 83% 54% 83%Opelika 38% 58% 54% 83% 67%Houston Co. 42% 29% 29% 50% 63%Huntsville 50% 54% 54% 50% 50%Tuscaloosa 29% 33% 38% 42% 46%Florence 88% 83% 63% 67% 38%Decatur 50% 58% 50% 38% 33%Phenix City 17% 13% 8% 13% 21%Selma 6% 6% 0% 6% 11%Gadsden 46% 17% 17% 13% 4%
School Results
Elementary Schools
SCHOOL-LEVEL SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS, SPRING 2012 COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012Ranked by Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
Elementary Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSchools Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Heard 20 0 0 20 100% 8 100%Montana 24 0 0 24 100% 10 83%Hidden Lake 24 0 0 24 100% 8 67%Highlands 24 0 0 24 100% 8 67%Girard 15 2 3 20 75% 2 25%Slingluff 8 1 3 12 67% 0 0%Kelly Springs 15 2 7 24 63% 1 8%Cloverdale 7 2 5 14 50% 0 0%Grandview 4 1 7 12 33% 0 0%Selma Street 3 2 13 18 17% 0 0%J. L. Faine 2 0 10 12 17% 0 0%
Totals 146 10 48 204 72% 37 51%
COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012 IMPROVEMENT IN ARMT RESULTS FROM 2010 TO 2011Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
Elementary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Schools % Green % Green % Green % Green % Green
Heard 75% 63% 100% 100% 100%Montana 92% 100% 100% 100% 100%Hidden Lake 67% 42% 54% 96% 100%Highlands 13% 21% 60% 55% 100%Girard 42% 42% 23% 23% 75%Landmark/Slingluff 20% 55% 72% 64% 67%Kelly Springs 54% 88% 38% 88% 63%Cloverdale 82% 70% 35% 60% 50%Grandview 67% 29% 50% 58% 33%Selma Street 13% 35% 17% 39% 17%J. L. Faine 0% 33% 33% 8% 17%
Totals 49% 54% 55% 67% 72%
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Cloverdale P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Cloverdale ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Faine P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Faine ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Grandview P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Grandview ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heard N-P Heard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Heard ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hidden Lake N-P Hidden Lake P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Hidden Lake ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Highlands N-P Highlands P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Highlands N-P Highlands P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Highlands N-P
Highlands P
State N-P
State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Highlands N-P Highlands P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Highlands N-P Highlands P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Highlands N-P Highlands P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Highlands ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kelly Springs N-P Kelly Springs P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Kelly Springs ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Montana St. N-P Montana St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Montana St. ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Selma St. P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Selma Street ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Math 3 Math 4
Math 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Reading 3 Reading 4
Reading 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 3rd Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 4th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 201210
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slingluff P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Slingluff ElementaryPercent of 5th Graders at Level IV
Middle Schools
SCHOOL-LEVEL SUMMARY OF ARMT RESULTS, SPRING 2012 COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012Ranked by Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
Middle Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSchools Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Carver 24 0 0 24 100% 11 92%Beverlye 24 0 0 24 100% 10 83%Girard 12 0 12 24 50% 0 0%Honeysuckle 0 0 24 24 0% 0 0%
Totals 60 0 36 96 63% 21 44%
COMPARISON OF ARMT RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012 IMPROVEMENT IN ARMT RESULTS FROM 2008 TO 2009Percent of Results Above the Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green") Percent of Results Above the Prior Year
Middle 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Schools % Green % Green % Green % Green % Green
Carver 92% 83% 100% 96% 100%Beverlye 4% 8% 100% 100% 100%Girard 25% 21% 38% 42% 50%Honeysuckle 4% 8% 4% 0% 0%
Totals 31% 30% 60% 59% 63%
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Beverlye N-P Beverlye P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Beverlye MagnetPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Carver N-P Carver P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Carver MagnetPercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Girard N-P Girard P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Girard MiddlePercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Math 6 Math 7
Math 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Honeysuck le N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Honeysuckle N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Honeysuckle N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Math Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
Reading 6 Reading 7
Reading 8
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Honeysuck le N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 6th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 Honeysuckle N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 7th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 Honeysuckle N-P Honeysuckle P State N-P State P
Trend in ARMT Reading Results, Honeysuckle MiddlePercent of 8th Graders at Level IV
High Schools
SUMMARY OF AHSGE RESULTS, SPRING 2012Ranked by Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
School Results for All Four Student SubgroupsSystems Green Gray Red Total % Green Gold % Gold
Auburn 24 0 0 24 100% 1 8%Florence 23 1 0 24 96% 0 0%Hoover 23 0 1 24 96% 1 8%Enterprise 18 5 1 24 75% 1 8%Huntsville 15 1 8 24 63% 0 0%Dothan 13 3 8 24 54% 0 0%Houston Co. 13 1 10 24 54% 4 33%Alexander City 13 3 8 24 54% 1 8%Decatur 10 4 10 24 42% 0 0%Gadsden 7 5 12 24 29% 0 0%Tuscaloosa 5 1 18 24 21% 0 0%Opelika 4 8 12 24 17% 0 0%Selma 0 3 15 18 0% 0 0%Phenix City 0 1 23 24 0% 0 0%
School 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Systems % Green % Green % Green % Green % Green
Auburn 62% 75% 83% 100% 100%Florence 54% 71% 88% 96% 96%Hoover 96% 92% 92% 92% 96%Enterprise 96% 88% 83% 58% 75%Huntsville 63% 63% 71% 58% 63%Dothan 8% 25% 33% 46% 54%Houston Co. 13% 29% 21% 46% 54%Alexander City 13% 25% 58% 33% 54%Decatur 58% 54% 17% 29% 42%Gadsden 8% 21% 13% 13% 29%Tuscaloosa 25% 33% 25% 29% 21%Opelika 46% 75% 33% 38% 17%Selma 6% 6% 6% 11% 0%Phenix City 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
COMPARISON OF AHSGE RESULTS FOR 2008 - 2012Percent of Results Above Statewide Subgroup Averages ("Green")
Math Reading Biology11 12 11 12 11 12
0
10
20
30
40
50State N-P Dothan N-P State P Dothan P
2012 AHSGE ResultsPercent of Students Scoring "Advanced"
Dothan vs. State
AHSGE Math
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for MathPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for MathPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
AHSGE Reading
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for ReadingPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for ReadingPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
AHSGE Science/Biology
Grade 11
Grade 12
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for Science/BiologyPercent of 11th Graders at Level IV
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40 Dothan N-P Dothan P State N-P State P
Trend in AHSGE Results for Science/BiologyPercent of 12th Graders at Level IV
High School Graduation and
Postsecondary Preparation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Decatur
Dothan
Tuscaloosa
Huntsville
Phenix City
Gadsden
State
Alexander City
Selma
Houston Co.
Enterprise
Opelika
Hoover
Auburn
Graduation Rate (2011)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Phenix City
Gadsden
Houston County
Dothan
Decatur
State
Enterprise
Opelika
Florence
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Selma
Auburn
Hoover
Alexander City
Percent of Graduates from 2011 Attending College(Fall 2011)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Phenix City
Tuscaloosa
Dothan
Opelika
Houston County
Selma
Alexander City
State
Gadsden
Florence
Decatur
Enterprise
Huntsville
Hoover
Auburn
Percent of Students Enrolled in Any Remedial Courses(Math, English, or Both)
(Fall 2011)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Tuscaloosa
Phenix City
Dothan
Selma
Houston County
Opelika
Decatur
Gadsden
Alexander City
State
Florence
Enterprise
Huntsville
Hoover
Auburn
Percent of Students Enrolled in College Taking Remedial Math (Fall 2011)
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Tuscaloosa
Selma
Phenix City
Alexander City
Opelika
Dothan
State
Huntsville
Enterprise
Houston County
Hoover
Florence
Decatur
Gadsden
Auburn
Percent of Students Enrolled in College Taking Remedial English(Fall 2011)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Tuscaloosa
Phenix City
Dothan
Opelika
Florence
Houston County
Gadsden
State
Decatur
Enterprise
Huntsville
Alexander City
Selma
Hoover
Auburn
Percent of Students Enrolled in Both Remedial Math & English(Fall 2011)
Suggested Focal Points:
1. Reduce the gap between non-poverty and poverty student subgroups.
2. Improve results in low-performing elementaries and middle schools.
3. Upgrade benchmarks to include stiffer competition for gauging success.
4. Improve graduation rates and reduce the need for remedial math at the postsecondary level.
http://parca.samford.edu
