Stockton's test scores show that it has eight extremely low -
performing student subgroups — more deficient subgroups than any other district in the state.
Not exact matches
While states under ESSA need to identify for intervention only the lowest
performing 5 percent of schools, high schools with graduation rates under 67 percent, and some unspecified percentage of schools in which at - risk
subgroups are underperforming, the National Governors Association reports that «40 percent of all
students and 61 percent of
students who begin in community colleges enroll in a remedial education course at a cost to states of $ 1 billion a year.»
These
students are the fastest growing
subgroup in U.S. schools, but they remain among the lowest
performing on standardized assessments and lag far behind peers in high school graduation rates.
A study of how Hispanic 10th graders are
performing in mathematics and English language arts on Massachusetts» state exams compares the scores of various
subgroups of Hispanic
students.
We encourage states to focus on the lowest -
performing students, but the lowest -
performing students aren't always part of a particular racial or economic group, or even a particular curricular
subgroup.
Among a
subgroup of
students who entered school with below - average alphabet skills and ability to sound out words, those who participated in SFA for three years
performed significantly better than peers whose schools were not in the program on tests of phonics skills, word recognition, and reading fluency.
Identification of, and comprehensive, evidence - based intervention in, the lowest -
performing five percent of title I schools, all public high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent, and public schools in which one or more
subgroups of
students are
performing at a level similar to the performance of the lowest -
performing five percent of title I schools and have not improved after receiving targeted interventions for a State - determined number of years; and
Under the new proposal, states would also be required to intervene in the lowest
performing 5 percent of schools, have school - level interventions in schools in which
subgroups of
students perform poorly, and intervene in schools in which fewer than two - thirds of
students graduate.
The ESSA also requires that, if
students fall behind in meeting these standards, States and local educational agencies (LEAs) implement evidence - based interventions to help them and their schools improve, with a particular focus on the lowest -
performing schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and schools in which
subgroups of
students are underperforming.
Massachusetts is one example of a state that has used a proficiency index for the purposes of identifying low -
performing schools and gaps between
subgroup of
students (see: ESEA Flexibility Request: Massachusetts, page 32).
When Dashboard indicators identify
student subgroups as low
performing or low growth, districts are encouraged to engage in a process of continuous improvement to develop strategies and then monitor their effectiveness.
States need not identify schools for «additional targeted support» annually because these schools are identified for having a
subgroup performing similarly to
students in the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools; rather, states can identify these schools every three years, each time they identify their lowest -
performing 5 percent of schools.
The progress of the lowest -
performing students should be included as well, regardless of what «
subgroup» they're in, or the size of that
subgroup.
Overall, however, the scales
performed well along this dimension, both overall and for important
student subgroups such as English language learners and
students with disabilities.
The Education Trust, for example, is urging states to use caution in choosing «comparative» growth models, including growth percentiles and value - added measures, because they don't tell us whether
students are making enough progress to hit the college - ready target by the end of high school, or whether low -
performing subgroups are making fast enough gains to close achievement gaps.
The School and District Improvement (SDI) Collaborative supports states as they work to support struggling schools and districts, turn around the lowest -
performing schools, and close achievement gaps for all
students and for specific
subgroup populations.
Our
subgroups of exceptional learners — ESL
students, distinct demographic groups, and high poverty
students — in conjunction with our
students as a whole, are
performing at exemplary high levels.
The super
subgroups combined smaller
subgroups of low -
performing or disadvantaged
students, but Ed Week notes that «civil rights advocates argued they allowed states to mask the performance of some
student subgroups.»
Under the new law, states and districts are required to provide comprehensive support and improvement to: the lowest -
performing 5 percent of schools, high schools that fail to graduate one - third or more of their
students, and schools in which
subgroups perform at the same level as
students in the lowest -
performing schools despite local interventions.
For example, the underrepresented
students or certain
subgroups which would normally cause a school to miss AYP will not count against the school in the same fashion because the school as a whole would appear to
perform better than a school with a larger
subgroup population not making AYP.
Importantly, the legislation requires action in the lowest -
performing schools and those where
subgroups of
students are struggling.
Blanket level district decisions can be effective, but won't necessarily impact specific
subgroups or
students if the district doesn't have visibility into how they are
performing or undertake prescriptive measures.
In many subject / grade combinations
students in these
subgroups in charter schools
performed significantly better in 2011 than those in regular public schools.
Some states, including Indiana, award «bonus points» for academic growth of
students in the super
subgroup, as well as for growth among a school's top -
performing students, testified Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, an organization dedicated to closing the achievement gap.
With waivers so far, if a
subgroup of
students in a waiver state
performed poorly, schools weren't forced to intervene.
Yearly testing will allow states to make sure that all
student subgroups are demonstrating academic success and will make it easier to identify low
performing schools and schools that demonstrate measurable growth from year to year.
The researchers also found that participation in integrated math reduced or eliminated the achievement gap between white and minority
students, meaning that integrated math is beneficial for both higher
performing and lower
performing subgroups of
students.
ELL
students and
students with disabilities tend to score lower on standardized tests, therefore charter schools look higher
performing when they do not have either
subgroup.
As standardized testing approaches, find low -
performing students in
subgroups at risk of failing.
The AMOs represent the minimum percentage of
students within each
subgroup in the lowest -
performing schools that must pass Standards of Learning (SOL) tests in reading and mathematics in order to reduce sufficiently proficiency gaps in reading and mathematics within six years.
With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, we codified the expectation that every child should
perform on grade level by requiring proficiency rates of 100 percent by 2013 - 14 and mandating that
student achievement data be reported for each
student subgroup.
The AMOs represent the percentage of
students within each
subgroup in the lowest -
performing schools that must pass Standards of Learning (SOL) tests in reading and mathematics in order to reduce — by half — the gaps separating these
students from their peers in the highest -
performing schools within six years.
An amendment offered this week by five Democratic senators would have required states to take action if a school is persistently low -
performing or if any
subgroup of
students misses state - set goals for consecutive years.
This proposal would generate approximately $ 388 million in additional supplemental grant funds to support
students in the lowest
performing subgroup not already receiving and LCFF supplement.
AB 2635 will fix a fundamental flaw in the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) by creating a new supplemental grant for California's lowest
performing subgroup of
students not currently receiving funding, which are African American
students.
In exchange, states implemented systems of differentiated accountability in which they identified and intervened in their lowest -
performing schools («Priority» schools) and schools with the largest achievement gaps between
subgroups of
students («Focus» schools).
The panelists — including Arkansas's Fort Smith Public Schools Superintendent Benny Goodman and the National Center for Learning Disabilities's Laura Kaloi — also advocated for using multiple assessment measures to judge school quality, adding more flexibility for improving low -
performing schools, maintaining a focus on holding schools accountable for the performance of
student subgroups, tracking
student growth, and ensuring states set high standards.
Targeted support and improvement schools have
subgroups of
students that are
performing as low as all
students in the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools.
The School and District Improvement (SDI) collaborative supports members as they work with schools and districts to support the lowest -
performing schools, close achievement gaps for all
students and increase support for specific
subgroup populations.
Yet states still must, like under NCLB, administer annual standardized tests to
students in grades three through eight, intervene in the lowest -
performing schools, report progress for historically under - served
subgroups, and submit accountability plans to the U.S. Department of Education.
While the law aimed to close these gaps, they persist despite incremental progress.20 Even after making statistical adjustments to proficiency rates under NCLB, by 2005 — four years after the law passed — the rates of schools making «adequate yearly progress» started to decline.21 Any school missing a single target for any
subgroup for two years in a row initiated particular actions, such as offering free tutoring or the option for
students to transfer to a higher -
performing school.
States and districts must also identify schools where
student subgroups are persistently low -
performing.
As noted, the state's ultimate goal is to implement systemic changes that boost the academic achievement of its 690,000 special education
students, still the lowest -
performing subgroup in California.
Board of Education President David M. Foster said that persistent differences in the performance of
student subgroups underscore the importance of the SOL program in detecting achievement gaps and in identifying low -
performing schools in need of state interventions and resources.
These high - needs
students are broken into four
subgroups: the lowest
performing racial / ethnic
subgroup, English learners,
students with disabilities and socio - economically disadvantaged
students.
* I DO NOT believe that it is fair to identify a district or school as a «Low
Performing School» based only on a «
students with disabilities»
subgroup that varies by having different disability clusters of
students, at different ages, at different levels of severity and need, and in schools with different levels of resources.
The Fifth Indicator must be measurable to the extent that it can be disaggregated by
student subgroups, tiered so states can identify differences between high and low
performing schools, and linked somehow to
student achievement.