2009-10 NYS Report Card - Guilderland Central School District

Guilderland Central School District
The New York State School
Report Card 2009-2010
2010
June 6, 2011
1

The New York State School Report Card
2009-2010
2010
SUCCESSES:
• All schools in the district remain as “Schools in Good
Standing”
• Cohort-to
to-cohort improvements in graduation rate
• Strong results and steady gains in ELA and Math
scores in grades 3-83
• 94% of high school graduates earned Regents
diplomas
• 63% of high school graduates earned Regents
diplomas with advanced designation
• 95% of GHS graduates entered 2 and 4 year colleges
2

About Guilderland 2009-2010
2010
Enrollment 5,274
Grade Range K-12
Teachers 447
Average Pupil Expenditure (08-09)
09) $16,548
Average NYS Pupil Expenditure (08-09)
09) $19,381
English Language Learners 2%
Eligible for Free Lunch 4%
Eligible for Reduced Lunch 2%
3

Changes in State and
National Accountability
• Graduation requirements, rates and targets
• Changes to cut scores for grades 3-83
8 ELA and Math
assessments
• Students With Disabilities (SWD) and Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP):
• Sunset of USED’s s 34 point flexibility
• Declassified students in subgroup for 2 additional years
• Pending amendment and reauthorization of NCLB
• Response to Intervention (RtI): K - 4 Reading
4

Amendment and Reauthorization of NCLB
“This law has created dozens of ways for schools to
fail and very few ways to help them succeed. We
should get out of the business of labeling schools as
failures and create a new law that is fair and
flexible, and focused on the schools and students
most at risk. It offers no way to win. There was, and
is, only the very real probability that no matter what
a school did, sooner or later it would fall into the
failed category. ”
Arne Duncan
U.S. Secretary of Education
5

Accountability in New York State
Elementary = Science
High School = Graduation Rate
All accountability groups must meet all participation and
performance standards.
6

Definition of Proficiency
Performance
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Proficiency
Basic
Grades 3-83
4
3
2
1
High School Cohort
85+ on Regents
Level 4 on NYSAA
65-84 on Regents
Level 3 on NYSAA
55-64 on Regents
Level 2 on NYSAA
Passing RCT
Below 55 on Regents
Failing Score on RCT
7

Regents 2009-2010
2010
Percentage of students scoring at or above Level 3
100
80
Percentage
60
40
20
0
English
Trigonometry Earth Science
Living
Environment
Chemistry
Number tested 493 380 369 481 406 163 508 483 464 388
Percent Level 4 65 24 59 57 25 48 48 78 42 29
Percent Level 3 30 46 35 37 64 42 35 16 54 61
Physics
Global
History
US History
Integrated
Algebra
Geometry
8

Regents 2009-2010
2010
Percentage of Students scoring at or above Level 3
*Regents exams for LOTE abolished by NYSBOR
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
French German Spanish Italian
Number Tested 72 26 217 26
Percent Level 4 75 100 75 69
Percent Level 3 24 0 23 31
9

Regents Cohort Report
Percentage of Students scoring at or above Level 3
100
80
60
40
20
0
English English Math Math
2005 cohort 2006 cohort 2005 cohort 2006 cohort
Number Tested 463 471 463 471
Level 4 66 64 54 52
Level 3 26 28 39 41
10

Class of 2010 Graduation Information
• Of the 447 students who graduated,
• 418 (94%) received a Regents diploma
• 272 (61%) received a Regents diploma with
Advanced Designation
• 65 Students With Disabilities
• 49 graduates
• 17 local diplomas
• 27 Regents diplomas
• 5 Regents diplomas with Advanced
Designation
• 16 IEP diplomas
11

Post-Graduate Plans for the Class of 2009
12
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentage
4 - Year College
2 - Year College
Military
Employment
Other Post Secondary
Adult Services

ELA 3-83
Assessments
District Performance
Percentage of Students scoring at or above Level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
ELA 3 ELA 4 ELA 5 ELA 6 ELA 7 ELA 8 All
2008 85 87 92 91 88 79 87
2009 92 88 94 90 98 80 90
2010 68 75 71 75 72 76 73
13

ELA 2009-2010
2010
Percentage of Students scoring at or above Level 3
P e r c e n t a g e
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 All Grades
Guilderland Central School District 68 75 71 75 72 76 73
Regional Comparison 70 74 66 72 72 70 71
Low Need To Resource Capacity 72 78 73 78 74 75 75
14

ELA 2009-2010 2010 Regional Comparison
Percentage of Students scoring at or above Level 3
District
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
All
Grades
Guilderland
68
75
71
75
72
76
73
Bethlehem
74
80
71
64
75
67
72
East Greenbush
74
79
64
69
71
64
70
Niskayuna
75
73
71
74
74
70
73
North Colonie
60
68
58
66
74
74
67
Saratoga
75
78
69
76
77
69
74
Shenendehowa
70
72
68
77
73
69
72
South Colonie
61
68
53
78
61
72
66
All Grades
70
74
66
72
72
70
71
15

Grade 3 – 8 Math Assessments
District Performance
100
Percentage
80
60
40
20
0
Math 3 Math 4 Math 5 Math 6 Math 7 Math 8
All
Grades
2007-08 95 94 94 95 91 91 93
2008-09 98 93 95 93 98 94 95
2009-10 70 84 81 80 80 86 80
16

Math 2009-2010
2010
Percentage of Students at or above Level 3
100
80
Percentage
60
40
Guilderland Central School
District
20
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
All
Grades
70 84 81 80 80 86 80
Regional Comparison 74 77 76 78 83 77 77
Low Need To Resource Capacity 77 83 83 81 83 77 81
17

2009-2010 2010 Grade 3 - 8
Math Regional Comparison
Percentage of All Tested Students at or above Level 3
District
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
All Grades
Guilderland
70
84
81
80
80
86
80
Bethlehem
73
83
80
80
84
75
79
Niskayuna
79
74
82
86
84
83
81
North Colonie
67
73
71
79
80
82
75
Saratoga
74
75
75
74
88
69
76
Shenendehowa
74
75
75
77
84
72
76
South Colonie
71
70
66
70
79
70
71
East Greenbush
82
84
77
77
87
77
81
All Grades
74
77
76
78
83
77
77
18

Science 2009-2010
2010
Percentage scoring at or above Level 3
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grade 4 Grade 8
Guilderland 99 92
New York State 88 74
Low Need To Resource
Capacity
97 91
19

Social Studies 2009-2010
2010
Percentage scoring at or above Level 3
*Social Studies exams abolished by NYSBOR
Guilderland
100
80
Grade 5 Grade 8
Guilderland 96 95
20

Second Language Proficiency – 2009-2010
2010
French / German / Spanish
*F.L. Proficiency exams abolished by NYSBOR
Second Language Proficiency 2010
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
French 100 97 100 100
German 100 97 100 100
Spanish 99 98 98 100
21

Altamont Elementary School 2009-10
Percentage of students scoring at or above level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
ELA
Math
Science
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
ELA 71 62 84
Math 71 79 98
Science n/a
100
n/a
22

Altamont Elementary
Successes:
• School In Good
Standing
• On average, nearly
1/3 of students score
at level 4*
• Overall met or
exceeded
achievement
compared to similar
schools and all
schools in NYS
Challenges:
• Decrease
achievement gap
between subgroups:
Economically
Disadvantaged and
Students with
disabilities
• Respond to increased
state cut scores with
a K-5 K 5 approach
23

Altamont Elementary
Learning Targets
• Refine scheduling, planning time, and
professional development to enhance co-
teaching initiative
• Expand Math Automaticity initiative to include
grades 2-52
• Initiate K-2 K 2 grade level data walls in reading to
monitor student growth and more quickly
respond to students that struggle/plateau
24

Pine Bush Elementary School 2009-10
Percentage of students scoring at or above level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
ELA 67 86 72
Math 74 89 90
Science n/a
100
n/a
ELA
Math
Science
25

Pine Bush Elementary
Successes:
• School In Good
Standing
• Co-teaching support
in math and writing
• Maintain balance
between best
instructional practices
and test preparation
Challenges:
• Meeting the needs of
individual students
who have not met
proficiency levels
• Schedule common
planning time for
grade level teachers
and support service
staff to collaborate
26

Pine Bush Learning Targets
• Continue data analysis for identification of gaps
in student learning (e.g. inferential thinking
questions)
• Develop activities to promote student
independence (e.g. read, listen to and follow
directions)
• Introduce and strengthen student understanding
of descriptors (e.g. most likely, best choice, etc.)
• Support our co-teaching model by providing
common planning time for collaboration with co-
teachers to meet diverse needs of all learners
27

Guilderland Elementary School 2009-10
Percentage of students scoring at or above level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
ELA
Math
Science
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
ELA 74 76 68
Math 77 87 81
Science n/a
100
n/a
28

Guilderland Elementary
Successes:
• School In Good Standing
• Mathematics
performance index was
at 197 out of a possible
200 in grades 3-53
• High percentage of
students scoring at level
3 or 4 on all state
assessments compared
with schools across the
state
Challenges:
• With the change in cut points the
percentage of students scoring a
level 3 or 4 decreased in Math
and ELA across the grade levels
• Students with disabilities,
continue to score at levels 1 and
2 at a higher rate than the
general population
• Increased enrollment from 506 in
2007-2008 2008 to 546 (current)
• Increased percentage of English
Language Learners (8%)
%)
29

Guilderland Elementary
Learning Targets
• Increase emphasis on student attendance
through more regular communication with
families
• Maximize the amount of time that is co-taught
with a special education and classroom teacher
in classrooms with special education students
through scheduling considerations
• Develop and implement effective reading
support program for English Language Learners
30

Lynnwood Elementary School 2009-10
Percentage of students scoring at or above level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
ELA 61 77 66
Math 62 79 65
Science n/a
97
n/a
ELA
Math
Science
31

Lynnwood Elementary
Successes:
• School In Good
Standing
• 97% of students met
or exceeded proficiency
on the Grade 4 Science
Assessment
• 79% of students met
or exceeded proficiency
in mathematics
• 77% of students met
or exceeded proficiency
in ELA
Challenges:
• Students with
Disabilities did not
make AYP in 2009-
2010 in the area of
ELA
• Although 75% of
students met or
achieved proficiency
in grade 5 ELA only
9% scored at level 4
32

Lynnwood Elementary
Learning Targets
• Facilitated 6 days of school-wide Language Arts Staff
Development to review assessment information and plan
for instruction
• Two teams of teachers worked with a university to
investigate opportunities to develop additional
instructional strategies to meet instructional goals for all
students
• Lynnwood Building Cabinet worked to develop
opportunities for the staff to examine and assess
elements of our literacy program
33

Westmere Elementary School 2009-10
Percentage of students scoring at or above level 3
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
ELA 69 72 78
Math 69 87 82
Science n/a
98
n/a
ELA
Math
Science
34

Westmere Elementary
Successes:
• School In Good Standing
• Math performance index
was 196 out of possible 200
in grades 3-53
• In spite of the new cut
scores, there was an
increase in the number of
students earning a Level 4
on the ELA exams in grades
3-5
Challenges:
• Students with disabilities
subgroup continue to score at
levels 1 and 2 at a higher rate
than the general population
• Due to changes in state cut
points, percentage of students
achieving level 3 or 4 decreased
in math and ELA across the grade
levels
• ELL population has shown a slight
increase over the past three
years: 3% - 5%
35

Westmere Elementary
Learning Targets
• Maximize co-teaching support for identified
cluster classrooms with collaboration, strategic
placement and purposeful scheduling
• Increase emphasis on student attendance
through regular communication with families
• Respond to unique learning needs of English
Language Learners
36

Farnsworth Middle School
• Our demographics have remained virtually
the same over the past three years
• There has been a small increase in the
student population designated as
economically disadvantaged
• Our student population, while previously
showing a downward trend, has stabilized
since the 2008-2009 2009 school year
37

Farnsworth Middle School
Successes
• Farnsworth Middle School is a School In
Good Standing
• All subgroups have met AYP
• Grades 6, 7 & 8 scored above the state
average in ELA, Math, & 8 th grade Science
• 100% of our 8 th grade students passed
the Second Language Proficiency
38

Farnsworth Middle School
Challenges
• Mitigating the changes in the cut scores
• Our students with disabilities are close to
not meeting AYP
• Our student identified as economically
disadvantaged have shown a decrease in
their math scores
39

FMS Learning Targets
• Continue careful analysis of testing data to identify areas
of deficiency especially as it pertains to students with
disabilities and the economically disadvantaged
• Reading comprehension, inference, and context clues have
been targeted as areas for improvement
• Maintain focus on literacy across the curriculum
• Develop common formative assessments in ELA and Social
Studies (these already exist in Math)
• Develop strategies to meet the specific needs of those
students who fell below a 3 on the state mathematics
assessments
• Revise and align Math and ELA curricula to meet the new
Common Core Standards
40

Guilderland High School
Successes:
• School In Good Standing
• Notable improvement in
overall graduation rate
• 95% of students score at or
above level 3 in ELA and
Mathematics
• Strong performance on
Regents exams for
Languages Other Than
English
Challenges:
• Achievement gap for
Students with Disabilities
• Graduation rate
• Academic/test performance
• Curriculum/program
modifications and
alignment with new
learning standards
• Provision of early
interventions for
struggling students
41

GHS Learning Targets
• Graduation Rate (SWD)
• Strategic planning for diploma type
• Redefine role of ACT: early interventions for attendance, course
failures and academic struggles
• Development of procedures for verification of cohort accuracy
• Academic and Test Performance (SWD)
• Looping special education learning workshop support
• Collaborative teaching models
• Learning workshop literacy program (grades 11 & 12)
• Curriculum/Program Changes
• Restructure Algebra II and Trigonometry
• Train special education teachers for Integrated Algebra support
• ELA/Reading/Special education curriculum work for core level
students
• Intervention: focus on building foundational skills and prevention
42

District Learning Targets
• Continue to support Students With Disabilities
and English Language Learners
• Expand Response to Intervention model to
secondary level and for behavioral interventions
• Respond to new mandates and requirements
• Common Core Learning Standards
• APPR
• Reporting and Accountability
• Prioritize allocation of available resources to
address identified needs and learning targets
43