DPS Board of Education

The Opportunity Quartile:

A Study of the Trends

December 4, 2014

Denver Plan Goals

• School readiness– By 2020, 80% of DPS third-graders will be at or above grade level in reading and writing.

• Ready for college & career– By 2020, the four-year graduation rate for students who start with DPS in ninth grade will increase

to 90%.

– By 2020, we will double the number of students per class who graduate college and career ready while raising the bar (adding Science and Social Studies in addition to English and Math).

• Support the whole child– By 2015, A task force, including DPS staff, community partners and city agencies focused on

providing services to DPS students, will recommend to the Board of Education a metric to measure this goal and track progress.

• Close the opportunity gap– By 2020, the graduation rate for African American and Latino students will increase by 30%.

– The proficiency in reading and writing for third-grade African American and Latino students will increase by 25%.

Overarching Goal:Great schools in every neighborhood

By 2020, 80% of students from every region within DPS will attend a high performingschool in their region, as measured by the district’s school performance framework.

2

Opportunity QuartileBackground

3

With the emphasis on the Opportunity Gap in the Denver Plan 2020, along with the latest TCAP results, the BoE and leadership team have prioritized understanding and addressing our opportunity gaps.

Opportunity Gap Research Questions

4

Potential Research Questions

Pro

file • What students are in the lowest quartile (demographics, achievement, behavior)?

• What schools do the lowest quartile attend?

Tre

nd

s

• Where were the lowest quartile of students when they came into DPS?

• When does the lowest quartile fall off-track?

• What schools are catching kids back up or preventing them from dropping into the Opportunity Quartile?

• What are the characteristics of the students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile?

Stra

tegi

es

• What outlier schools/classrooms should we quantitatively evaluate?

• What specific strategies from national research have been shown to support this lowest quartile of students?

• How have social/emotional supports been correlated with improvement with the lowest quartile of students?

• How have specific behavioral responses been seen to prevent or address behavioral issues that can lead to students falling off-track?

Addressed in the October presentation

Addressed in the current presentation

Will be addressed in the next presentation

Objectives

• Achieve a deeper understanding of the characteristics and trends associated with students in the Opportunity Quartile

• Understand factors that contribute to students moving out of the Opportunity Quartile

• Identify schools that have demonstrated consistent success in moving students out of the Opportunity Quartile

5

The Opportunity QuartileReview of Student Characteristics

The Opportunity Quartile represents the 25% of DPS students in grades

K-11 who are most in need of significant intervention from educators to

get them back on track, as evidenced by their most recent academic

scores in literacy.

6

Demographics:

Mostly:

• Minority

• Low income

• ELL students

• Males of color

over-represented

• Students with

Disabilities over-

represented

Schooling pattern:

• Lower attendance

rates

• Shorter

enrollment

• More disciplinary

incidents

School characteristics:

• Slightly lower parent

engagement &

satisfaction rates

*See the October Board presentation for detailed data on these characteristics

Methodology Used for Trends

In the previous Profiling analysis, we used the most

recent cohort of students. For this presentation, as

the emphasis is on trend, we go back and use our

2011 students as the baseline cohort and follow

them the next three years to trace their progress.

Students must have data in all four years and have

progressed from one grade level to the next each

year to be included in the trend analyses.

7

Methodology Used for Cut Scores

In order to track student movement, we use the baseline

year’s cut scores and apply them to the subsequent years

instead of sorting students into quartiles every year.

Therefore, it is possible to have no students in the

Opportunity Quartile if all students were able to score

above the cut score after the baseline year.

8

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

2011 2012 2013 2014

Cut scores held constant over the next three years

Methodology used for ELLs

• ELLs were excluded from the analysis if their scores were from a test in English AND they were on track* to become proficient in English, but were not yet re-designated (i.e., their reading scores were not an appropriate indicator of performance). On Track status was determined using the students’ CELA scores, as they were the measure of English proficiency in 2011.

• Students were included if their scores were from a test in English AND they were off-track*, as their lack of progress in acquiring English indicates that they needed additional support.

9*based on the CELA trajectory outlined in the next slide

Methodology used for Students with Disabilities

• We excluded students with significant disabilities who take CoAlt from this analysis. Similarly, students with significant disabilities who should not have taken the DRA or the Colorado ACT are excluded as well.

• The majority of students with disabilities taking the DRA, TCAP or the Colorado ACT do not have cognitive disabilities and should be performing at a level similar to their peers.

• Among the sub-groups within DPS, the biggest gap with state-level performance is DPS’ students with disabilities and, unlike the other subgroups in DPS, they have not been closing the gap with the state.

10

How is Off Track to English proficiency defined?

• In 2011, progress towards English Language proficiency was measured by the CELA trajectory.

• Students were expected to increase English proficiency by increasing their CELA scores in this progression:

• For example, students who had a CELA score of 2 in 2010 were expected to score at level 3 in 2011. If they scored at level 2, they were considered off track.

11

THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE:

ADDITIONAL PROFILING DATA

12

77%

7%

12%4%

All students in the analysis (2011 K-11 students)

• In 2011, about 23% of the students across all four quartiles were ELLs; however, 45%

of the Opportunity Quartile were ELLs.

• Of the ELLs, ELA-E programs have higher percentage of OQ students than the ELA-S

or Parent Opt-Out Programs; this could be due to the exclusion of on-track students

from the analysis.

ELLs students are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile, especially in ESL programs.

13

ELA-E students are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile

This identifies where the Opportunity Quartile students currently are and does not speak to program effectiveness.

55%

11%

26%

8%

Opportunity Quartile students in the analysis (2011 K-11 students)

Not an ELL

ELA-S

ELA-E

Parent Opt-Out

In the Opportunity Quartile, there is a larger proportion of students who

are off-track by 2 or more levels (22% compared to 14% of all ELLs in

this analysis).

ELLs in the Opportunity Quartile are more severely off-track to English pr0ficiency than students in the other quartiles.

14

0%

36%

38%

19%

3%

4%

ELLs in the Opportunity Quartile

Two Levels aboveExpectation

One Level aboveExpectation

As Expected or NewStudents

One Level belowExpectation

Two Levels belowExpectation

Three Levels belowExpectation

No Score

0% 1%

40%

41%

13%

1%

4%

All ELLs in the Analysis

Students with unknown ECE enrollment are slightly more likely to be in the Opportunity Quartile in Kindergarten.

15

• Students with unknown ECE enrollment are about 18

percent more likely to be in the Opportunity Quartile in

Kindergarten.

• That is, for every 6 students with ECE experience who

are in the Opportunity Quartile, there are about 7

students with unknown ECE experience in the

Opportunity Quartile.

ECE

Unknown ECE

Students with disabilities are over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile

• In 2011, about 70% of the students with disabilities (with IEPs) were in the

Opportunity Quartile, which is 3 times the proportion of students without IEPs in

the Opportunity Quartile.

• Students with disabilities were over-represented in the Opportunity Quartile

(28% had IEPs) whereas the other quartiles had lower than district’s overall

proportion of students with disabilities (11%) .

16

23%

70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Students without IEPs Students with IEPs

% of Students in the Opportunity Quartile By IEP Status

28%

8%4% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

% of Students with IEPs by Quartile

THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE TRENDS

17

The Opportunity QuartileSummary of Trends

• Students tend to stay in the same quartile year after year.

• Generally, the younger the student, the more likely they are to move out of the

Opportunity Quartile within 3 years. However, DPS high schools have seen large

percentages of students moving out of the Opportunity Quartile.

• Students who move out of the Opportunity Quartile typically transition to the next

highest quartile and remain there over time.

• Third Graders in the Opportunity Quartile typically began there in Kindergarten.

• Although rare, there are schools that have had success in moving students out of the

Opportunity Quartile, even when controlling for student demographics.

• Factors that contribute to moving out of the Opportunity Quartile differ by ed level,

but the percentage of FRL, ELL, and students with disabilities, along with attendance

rates, tend to be strong predictors of a school’s ability to move students out of the

Opportunity Quartile within one year.

18

Students in Q1 and Q4 tend to stay in the same quartile over time

56%

17%

3%

31%

40%

19%

3%

11%

31%

47%

18%

2%

12%

31%

79%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2011 Q1(N=7544)

2011 Q2(N=8834)

2011 Q3(N=6339)

2011 Q4(N=7694)

% of Students

Movement between Quartiles within 3 Years

2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4

19

79% of the top quartile students remained in the top quartile range

three years later.

56% of the Opportunity Quartile students remained in the

Opportunity Quartile range three years later.

• Even in Kindergarten, the reading achievement gap between students in the Opportunity Quartile and the top quartile is evident. Students in Q4 were reading at least 3 text levels higher than students in the Opportunity Quartile.

The achievement gaps are very large even in the early grades.

20

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

P A 01 02 03 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 28

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Text Level

Kindergarten Students' Spring 2011 DRA/EDL Performance

Opportunity Quartile Q2 Q3 Q4

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

K→3 (N=1914)

1→4 (N=851)

2→5 (N=817)

3→6 (N=759)

4→7 (N=750)

5→8 (N=672)

6→9 (N=745)

7→10 (N=602)

8→11 (N=434)

Grade Level Progression

% of Students Moving Out of OQ

• A kindergartner’s chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade is greater than the chance of staying in the quartile.

• In high school, the rates rise again, possibly due to the exclusion of students who repeated a grade or dropped out.

However, the younger the student, the more likely they are to move out of the Opportunity Quartile range within three years

21

Students’ FRL status, ethnicity, IEP status, gender are strongly related to their chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.

• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were in the Opportunity

Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what percentage moved

out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.

22

62%

77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FRL (N=1541) Non-FRL (N=291)

FRL Status

50%

85%

58% 61%

82% 79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Race/Ethnicity

71%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Female (N=892) Male (N=1033)

Gender

33%

74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IEP (N=454) No IEP (N=1471)

IEP Status

A smaller % of FRL students moved

out of Q1 compared to Non-

FRL students.

Students’ ELL status, native language, ECE enrollment, and attendance are weakly related to their chance of moving out of the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.

• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were in the Opportunity

Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what percentage moved

out of the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.

23

62% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

English (N=900) Spanish (N=896)

Native Language

64% 65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unknown ECE(N=1012)

ECE (N=913)

ECE Enrollment

93.2%94.5%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

Move Out of Q1(N=690)

Stayed in Q1 (N=1235)

Attendance RateBoth ELL and Non-ELL groups

have similar % of students moving

out of Q1.

63% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non ELL (N=774) ELL (N=1228)

ELL Status

A school’s ability to move students out of the Opportunity Quartile range is NOT strongly determined by student demographics.

Contribution of different factors on student movements

Factor Elem K-8 Middle High

Year 2.9%

Mobility Rate 2.5% 0.7%

SPED% 12.4% 2.8% 1.4%

FRL% 14.7% 17.4% 3.0%

ELL% 3.9% 9.7%

GenderBlack or Hispanic % 4.3% 2.7%

Attendance Rate 15.6% 34.9%Unknownfactors 64.7% 85.0% 67.0% 54.5%

24

• As shown in the previous slides,

demographics account for some of

district-wide student movement among

the quartiles. However, a school’s ability

to move students out of the Opportunity

Quartile is mostly explained by factors

that are not student demographics like

race or gender.

• Attendance rates of high school students

have a strong impact on students’

moving out of Q1 within a year,

accounting for 35% of the schools’ ability

to move students out of the Opportunity

Quartile.

• Unknown factors may include classroom

characteristics, educational programs,

instruction practices, or other

opportunities that DPS can provide.

Schools that beat the odds in moving students out of the Opportunity Quartile range for 2 out of 3 years

• Based on the predicting factors listed on the previous slide, schools

have a predicted percentage (e.g., the odds) of students moving out

of the Opportunity Quartile.

• Because of the lack of predictability based on demographics, it is

difficult to identify schools that consistently beat their odds in

moving the students out of the Opportunity Quartile.

• The only schools that succeeded in beating the odds by moving

more than an expected percentage of students out of the

Opportunity Quartile for two out of three years were

– Traylor Academy

– DSST: Green Valley Ranch HS

25

Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile had Reading MGPs quite a bit above 50, while students who stayed in the Opportunity Quartile had Reading MGPs at or below 50.

Note that it is extraordinarily unusual for a school to have MGPs above 65 consistently in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (only 1% of all Colorado schools).

High academic growth is needed to move out of the Opportunity Quartile range

26

0102030405060708090

100

2012

(4t

h G

r)

2013

(5t

h G

r)

2014

(6t

h G

r)

2012

(5t

h G

r)

2013

(6t

h G

r)

2014

(7t

h G

r)

2012

(6t

h G

r)

2013

(7t

h G

r)

2014

(8t

h G

r)

2012

(7t

h G

r)

2013

(8t

h G

r)

2014

(9t

h G

r)

2012

(8t

h G

r)

2013

(9t

h G

r)

201

4 (1

0th

Gr)

2011 3rdGraders

2011 4thGraders

2011 5thGraders

2011 6thGraders

2011 7thGraders

Students who Moved Out of the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth

Median Growth Percentile State median

0102030405060708090

100

201

2 (4

th G

r)

201

3 (5

th G

r)

201

4 (6

th G

r)

2012

(5t

h G

r)

201

3 (6

th G

r)

201

4 (7

th G

r)

201

2 (6

th G

r)

201

3 (7

th G

r)

201

4 (8

th G

r)

201

2 (7

th G

r)

201

3 (8

th G

r)

201

4 (9

th G

r)

201

2 (8

th G

r)

201

3 (9

th G

r)

2014

(10

th G

r)

2011 3rdGraders

2011 4thGraders

2011 5thGraders

2011 6thGraders

2011 7thGraders

Students who Stayed in the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth

Median Growth Percentile State median

• Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile range had MGPs that

were much closer to their Adequate Growth Percentiles than the students

who stayed in the quartile.

Students who moved out of the Opportunity Quartile range demonstrated growth that was more in line with their adequate growth percentiles.

27

0102030405060708090

100

2012

(4t

h G

r)

2013

(5t

h G

r)

2014

(6t

h G

r)

2012

(5t

h G

r)

2013

(6t

h G

r)

2014

(7t

h G

r)

2012

(6t

h G

r)

2013

(7t

h G

r)

2014

(8t

h G

r)

2012

(7t

h G

r)

2013

(8t

h G

r)

2014

(9t

h G

r)

2012

(8t

h G

r)

2013

(9t

h G

r)

2014

(10

th G

r)

2011 3rdGraders

2011 4thGraders

2011 5thGraders

2011 6thGraders

2011 7thGraders

Students who Stayed in the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth

Median Growth Percentile Median Adequate Growth Percentile

0102030405060708090

100

2012

(4t

h G

r)

2013

(5t

h G

r)

2014

(6t

h G

r)

2012

(5t

h G

r)

2013

(6t

h G

r)

2014

(7t

h G

r)

2012

(6t

h G

r)

2013

(7t

h G

r)

2014

(8t

h G

r)

2012

(7t

h G

r)

2013

(8t

h G

r)

2014

(9t

h G

r)

2012

(8t

h G

r)

2013

(9t

h G

r)

2014

(10

th G

r)

2011 3rdGraders

2011 4thGraders

2011 5thGraders

2011 6thGraders

2011 7thGraders

Students who Moved Out of the Opportunity Quartile--TCAP Reading Growth

Median Growth Percentile Median Adequate Growth Percentile

• About 70% of the students who

are in the Opportunity Quartile

in 3rd grade in 2014 started in

the Opportunity Quartile in

Kindergarten.

• About 30% of students started

in higher quartiles in

kindergarten and dropped to

the Opportunity Quartile by the

end of 2014.

Most students in the Opportunity Quartile in 2014 started in the Opportunity Quartile in 2011.

28

34 students (1%) were in Q4 3 years ago

184 students (3%) were in Q3 3 years ago

1486 students (25%) were in Q2

3 years ago

4214students (71%) were in the

Opportunity Quartile

3 years ago

5918students in

the Opportunity Quartile in

2014

Kindergarten 2011

Third Grade 2014

Every grade level has slightly below 10% of students dropping down to the

Opportunity Quartile range. The 2011 7th grade cohort had a smaller

percentage, possibly due to the exclusion of repeaters and dropouts.

The students dropping into the Opportunity Quartile range are found in every grade level at similar rates

29

7% 7% 8% 7% 9% 9% 6% 4%11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

K→3 1→4 2→5 3→6 4→7 5→8 6→9 7→10 8→11

Grade

Percent of Students Dropping into the Opportunity Quartile within 3 years (By Grade)

Students’ FRL status, ethnicity, and IEP status are strongly related to their chance of dropping into the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade.

• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were not in the

Opportunity Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what

percentage dropped into the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.

30

10%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

FRL (N=1884) Non-FRL (N=1216)

FRL Status

0%

9%10%

1%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

NativeAmerican

(N=15)

Asian(N=83)

Black(N=320)

Hisapnic(N=1634)

White(N=993)

Hawaiian(N=3)

Two orMore

(N=98)

Race/Ethnicity

19%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

IEP (N=219) No IEP (N=2928)

IEP Status

10 % of FRL students dropped

down to Q1 compared to 1%

Non-FRL students.

Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4, and therefore they had a higher likelihood of dropping down to the Opportunity Quartile.

• Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in

much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4, and therefore they had a

higher likelihood of dropping down to the Opportunity Quartile.

Students with FRL, IEPs, and who are Black/Hispanic were represented in much higher proportion in Q2 than Q3 and Q4.

31

0%

50%

100%

Q2 Q3 Q4

% Students Receiving FRL in Each Quartile above Q1

0%

5%

10%

15%

Q2 Q3 Q4

% Students with IEPs in Each Quartile above Q1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Q2 Q3 Q4

Ethnicity Representation in each Quartile above Q1

NativeAmericanAsian

Black

Hispanic

White

PacificIslanderTwo or More

Other factors related to students dropping to the Opportunity Quartile range by 3rd grade include ELL status, gender, native language, ECE enrollment and attendance rates.

32

5%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Female(N=1658)

Male (N=1489)

Gender

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

English (N=1981) Spanish(N=1047)

Native Language

6%8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Unknown ECE(N=1464)

ECE (N-1683)

ECE Enrollment

95.4%94.0%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Dropped to Q1 Did not drop toQ1

Attendance Rate

• The following graphs identify the Kindergarten students who were not in the

Opportunity Quartile in 2011 and follow them through 3rd grade to see what

percentage dropped into the Opportunity Quartile by 3rd grade.

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Non ELL(N=1796)

ELL (N=1197)

ELL Status

Schools with large percent of FRL have more challenge with preventing students dropping into the Opportunity Quartile.

Contribution of different factors on student movements

Factor Elem K-8 Middle High

Year 2.62% 2.88%

Mobility Rate

SPED% 0.98% 0.44%

FRL% 48.10% 54.58% 13.62%

ELL% 7.69% 26.44% 0.28% 5.09%

Gender 1.33% 1.13% 1.61%

Black or Hispanic % 20.03% 1.85% 6.45%Attendance Rate 0.88% 2.92% 12.08% 28.27%Unknownfactors 38.40% 50.61% 25.65% 42.68%

33

• A school’s FRL percentage

strongly predicts its percentage

of students dropping down to

the Opportunity Quartile,

especially for elementary and

middle schools.

• In K-8 schools, ELL status and

race correlate strongly with the

drop.

• Again, low attendance rates of

high schools students have a

strong impact on their dropping

down to the Opportunity

Quartile within a year.

Noel Community Arts HS prevent students from dropping into the Opportunity Quartile for 3 consecutive years.

• Based on the predicting factors listed on the

previous slide, schools have a predicted

percentage (e.g., the odds) of students dropping

into the Opportunity Quartile.

• It is very rare to consistently beat the odds in

preventing students from dropping into the

Opportunity Quartile

– Noel Community Arts HS has been dropping

less students than expected in the last 3 years.

34

THE OPPORTUNITY QUARTILE TREND:

DOCUMENTING PROGRESS

35

Tracking Our Progress

Because there will always be 4 quartiles, we will not sort students into quartiles each year.

We will use the new CMAS Literacy scores of 2015 to identify the score that defines the Opportunity Quartile in 2015 and measure our success in helping students perform above that cut score.

36

NEXT STEPS:

What strategies would you like to explore based on the profile and trend information shared today?

37

APPENDIX A

KINDERGARTEN ANALYSIS

What do we know about Kindergartners who started in the Fall school-ready but dropped below grade level by end of the year?

38

How many school-ready Kindergartens fell below grade level by the end of the year?

• Students are considered school-ready for Kindergarten if they scored “gaining or control” for 4 of the 7 Word Analysis tasks assessed in the Fall.

• In 2013-14, of the 2439 Kindergarten students who were school-ready in the Fall, only 5% (121 students) finished the year reading below grade level. Because all assessments have measurement errors*, it is possible that this small percentage overlaps with the measurement error and not completely reflect student performance.

Due to the small number of these students, the

following analyses are to be interpreted with caution.

*Measurement error=discrepancy between measured

performance and the actual performance.

39

2318, 95%

121, 5%

Stayed at grade level

Fell below grade level

What factors predict school-ready Kindergarteners falling below grade by end of the year?

40

• Student Ethnicity is the only

demographic that predicts which

students were school-ready in the

Fall but were below grade level by

end of Kindergarten. However, only

8% of the drop pattern is explained

by ethnicity differences. Using such

low prediction value to predict the

fall-below-grade percentage will

yield inaccurate data.

• Most of the time, students fall below

grade level due to factors that are

not explained by demographics.

Factors like instruction, program

effectiveness, and parental

involvement are not captured here.

2%

7%7% 8%

3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Percent of Kindergartners Falling Below Grade Level

Fell below grade level

• Because Ethnicity overlaps with FRL and attendance, these factors also are

closely related to the percentages of students falling below grade level.

What other factors are related to school-ready Kindergarteners falling below grade by end of the year?

41

91%

95%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Fell Below Grade Level Stayed at Grade Level

Attendance Rate during Kindergarten

3%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Non-FRL (N=1319) FRL (N=1120)

FRL Status

Fell Below Grade Level

• Having attended preschool or not does not have much impact on students falling

below grade level after being school-ready at the beginning of Kindergarten.

• Students who fell below grade level came from 41 different preschools. There were

no specific schools with substantially more students falling below grade.

Did the school-ready Kindergartners who fell below grade level attend preschool and where?

42

4%6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Unknown EC EC

Preschool Enrollment

% of School-Ready Kinders who Fell Below Grade Level

• Of the 64 elementary schools that had at least 15 school-ready Kindergarten students, 24 had more than 5% (district average) of

students fall below grade level. These, however, are usually a few students. The list below is based on the actual numbers and

not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds cannot be predicted accurately because demographics account for so little

of students’ pattern in falling below grade level.

In what elementary schools are more school-ready students falling below grade level in kindergarten?

43

School NameTotal School-Ready

Kindergarteners# Fell Below Grade Level

% Fell Below Grade Level

Hallett Fundamental Academy 15 5 33%

Creativity Challenge Community (C3) 33 6 18%

Valverde Elementary School 18 3 17%

Valdez Elementary School 19 3 16%

Farrell B. Howell ECE-8 School 20 3 15%

Downtown Denver Expeditionary School 20 3 15%

Force Elementary School 32 4 13%

Smith Renaissance School 16 2 13%

Omar D Blair Charter School 25 3 12%

Brown International Academy 42 5 12%

Schmitt Elementary School 19 2 11%

School Name

Total School-Ready

Kindergarteners# Fell Below Grade Level

% Fell Below Grade Level

Centennial School 29 3 10%

Marrama Elementary School 30 3 10%

Denison Montessori 30 3 10%

Florida Pitt-Waller 33 3 9%

Lincoln Elementary 36 3 8%

Stephen Knight Ctr for Early Education 76 6 8%

Monarch Montessori 26 2 8%

Steele Elementary 52 4 8%

Holm Elementary 27 2 7%

Bradley International 47 3 6%

Goldrick Elementary 16 1 6%

Samuels Elementary 33 2 6%

Stedman Elementary 18 1 6%

CONVERSELY…

What do we know about Kindergartners who started in the Fall not school-ready but were able to catch up to be at grade level by the end of the year?

44

How many non-ready Kindergarten were at grade level by end of the year?

• Of the 4147 students who were not school-

ready for Kindergarten (having less than 4

of the 7 Word Analysis tasks in the Fall),

56% were able to catch up and read at

grade level by end of Kindergarten.

45

2343, 56%

1804, 44% Caught Up to Grade Level

Stayed Below Grade Level

What factors predict the non-ready Kindergarteners’ catching up to grade level?

46

• Attendance rate is the only factor

that predicts a school’s percentage

of student who were not school-

ready in the Fall but were on grade

level by end of Kindergarten.

However, only 12% of the catch-up

pattern is explained by differences in

attendance rates. Using such low

prediction value to predict the catch

up percentages will yield inaccurate

data.

• Most of the time, students fall below

grade level due to factors that are

not explained by demographics.

Factors like instruction and program

effectiveness, for example, are not

captured here.

*Attendance accounts for .12 of the R2 in the regression model.

91.4%

93.7%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Stayed Below GradeLevel

Caught Up to GradeLevel

Attendance Rate during Kindergarten

• Because Attendance overlaps with FRL and ethnicity, these

factors also are closely related to the percentages of these

students.

What other factors are related to the non-ready Kindergarteners’ catching up to grade level?

47

41%52% 51% 55%

70%61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

NA/AI(N=17)

Asian(N=161)

Black(N=546)

Hispanic(N=2762)

White(N=547)

HI/PI(N=14)

Two+(N=98)

Ethnicity

% Caught Up to Grade Level

55%67%

0%

50%

100%

FRL (N=3465) Non-FRL (N-672)

FRL Status

Caught Up to Grade Level

• Having attended preschool or not has some impact on students catching up to grade

level after starting not school-ready at the beginning of Kindergarten.

• Students who caught up to grade level came from 82 different preschools.

Did the non-ready Kindergartners who caught up attend preschool and where?

48

53%61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Unknown EC (N=2263) EC (N=1885)

% of School-Ready Kinders who stayed below grade Level

• Of the 93 elementary schools that had at least 15 Kindergarten students who were not school-ready, the

following 23 were able to catch up at least 70% of the students to be at grade level by the end of the year. .

The list below is based on the actual numbers and not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds

cannot be predicted accurately because demographics account for so little of students’ pattern in catching

up.

What elementary schools are accelerating the students who were not school-ready?

49

School

Number of Not-Ready Students

# Caught Up to Grade

Level

%Caught Up to Grade

Level

Ellis Elementary School 43 38 88%

The Odyssey School 17 15 88%

Trevista 25 22 88%

Slavens K-8 School 16 14 88%

Escalante-Biggs Academy 117 101 86%

Swigert 27 23 85%

McMeen Elementary 56 47 84%

McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School 16 13 81%

Whittier Elementary School 34 27 79%

University Park Elementary School 34 27 79%

Stephen Knight Ctr for Early Education 23 18 78%

Park Hill School 36 28 78%

School

Number of Not-Ready Students

# Caught Up to Grade Level

%Caught Up to Grade Level

Steck Elementary School 22 17 77%

Montclair Elementary 44 34 77%

Carson Elementary School 21 16 76%

Edison Elementary School 42 31 74%

Cheltenham Elementary School 53 39 74%

Green Valley Elementary School 68 49 72%

Newlon Elementary School 57 41 72%

William (Bill) Roberts K-8 School 21 15 71%

Ashley Elementary School 37 26 70%

Doull Elementary School 80 56 70%

Traylor Academy 43 30 70%

APPENDIX B

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

50

Who are our ECE students?

• Almost half of DPS Kindergarten students

came from a DPS EC program.

• Most of our current EC students come

from low income families and

Black/Hispanic ethnic groups (about the

same percentages as district-wide

numbers).

This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.

Preschool Student Enrollment and FRL data

This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.

*Families in community agencies supported with funds through DPS Early Education Department

Preschool Students Ethnicity Data

This slide is provided by the DPS ECE Department.

APPENDIX C

FIRST GRADE ANALYSIS

What do we know about students who were at grade level by the end of Kindergarten but fell below grade level at the end of 1st grade?

54

How many at-grade-level Kindergarten students fell below grade by end of 1st grade?

• Of the 4313 who were reading at grade

level* at the end of Kindergarten in 2013,

16% (672) fell below grade level at the end

of 1st grade in 2014.

55

84%

16%

Stayed at Grade Level

Fell Below Grade Level

*DRA or EDL text level 4

What factors predict at-grade-level Kindergarten students falling below grade by end of 1st grade?

56

• Student FRL status is the only factor

that predicts a school’s percentage

of students who were at grade level

at the end of Kindergarten but below

grade level at the end of 1st grade.

However, only 12% of the drop

pattern is explained by differences in

FRL status. Using such low prediction

value to predict the falling-below-

grade percentages will yield

inaccurate data.

• Most of the time, students fall below

grade level due to factors that are

not explained by demographics.

Factors like instruction and program

effectiveness, for example, are not

captured here.

9%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Non-FRL (N=1597) FRL (N=2695)

FRL Status

Fell Below Grade Level

• Because FRL overlaps with ethnicity and attendance, these

factors also are closely related to the percentages of these

students.

What other factors are related to at-grade-level Kindergarten students falling below grade by end of 1st grade

57

94.23% 95.30%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Fell Below Grade Level Stayed on Grade Level

Attendance Rate during 1st Grade

18%22%

18%15%

11%9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Asian(N=136)

Black(N=524)

HI/PI(N=12)

Hispanic(N=2089)

NA/AI(N=20)

Two +(N=178)

White(N=1354)

Race/Ethnicity

Fell Below Grade Level

• Of the 100 schools that had at least 15 at-grade-level Kindergarten students, 28 had more than 20% of students fall below

grade level. The list below is based on the actual numbers and not based on schools beating the odds, as the odds cannot be

predicted accurately because demographics account for so little of students’ pattern in falling below grade level.

In what elementary schools are more at-grade K students falling below grade level in 1st grade?

58

School NameTotal At Grade Kindergarteners

# Fell Below Grade Level

% Fell Below Grade Level

College View Elementary School 28 21 75%

Denver Language School 35 18 51%

Place Bridge Academy 44 22 50%

Castro Elementary School 40 18 45%

Montclair Elementary School 38 15 39%

Pioneer Charter School 27 10 37%

Schmitt Elementary School 30 11 37%

Greenlee Elementary School 27 9 33%

Valverde Elementary School 21 7 33%

Trevista ECE-8 at Horace Mann 48 15 31%

Harrington Elementary School 36 11 31%

Bradley International School 63 19 30%

Monarch Montessori 47 14 30%

SOAR at Oakland 31 9 29%

School NameTotal At Grade Kindergarteners

# Fell Below Grade Level

% Fell Below Grade Level

Rocky Mountain Prep 59 17 29%

Beach Court Elementary School 32 9 28%

Wyatt Academy 18 5 28%

Cheltenham Elementary School 37 10 27%

Barnum Elementary School 41 11 27%

Omar D Blair Charter School 51 13 25%

Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy ES 24 6 25%

Kaiser Elementary 20 5 25%

Green Valley Elementary School 86 21 24%

Force Elementary School 40 9 23%

Cesar Chavez Academy Denver 27 6 22%

Maxwell Elementary School 41 9 22%

Bryant Webster Dual Language ECE-8 32 7 22%

Dora Moore ECE-8 28 6 21%