California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Results Citizens of the World Los Angeles

Similar documents
John F. Kennedy Middle School

Section V Reclassification of English Learners to Fluent English Proficient

Shelters Elementary School

Summary of Selected Data Charter Schools Authorized by Alameda County Board of Education

Coming in. Coming in. Coming in

Kansas Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Revised Guidance

Sunnyvale Middle School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education

Peer Influence on Academic Achievement: Mean, Variance, and Network Effects under School Choice

Psychometric Research Brief Office of Shared Accountability

The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2016

Wisconsin 4 th Grade Reading Results on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Cooper Upper Elementary School

2012 ACT RESULTS BACKGROUND

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Status of Women of Color in Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Raising All Boats: Identifying and Profiling High- Performing California School Districts

Demographic Survey for Focus and Discussion Groups

Iowa School District Profiles. Le Mars

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

Miami-Dade County Public Schools

George A. Buljan Middle School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

2012 New England Regional Forum Boston, Massachusetts Wednesday, February 1, More Than a Test: The SAT and SAT Subject Tests

Annual Report to the Public. Dr. Greg Murry, Superintendent

Status of Latino Education in Massachusetts: A Report

Practices Worthy of Attention Step Up to High School Chicago Public Schools Chicago, Illinois

Student Mobility Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools

The Achievement Gap in California: Context, Status, and Approaches for Improvement

Port Graham El/High. Report Card for

State of New Jersey

Institution-Set Standards: CTE Job Placement Resources. February 17, 2016 Danielle Pearson, Institutional Research

Arthur E. Wright Middle School 1

U VA THE CHANGING FACE OF UVA STUDENTS: SSESSMENT. About The Study

Charter School Performance Comparable to Other Public Schools; Stronger Accountability Needed

Enrollment Trends. Past, Present, and. Future. Presentation Topics. NCCC enrollment down from peak levels

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District

Statistical Peers for Benchmarking 2010 Supplement Grade 11 Including Charter Schools NMSBA Performance 2010

Data Diskette & CD ROM

Bellehaven Elementary

Annual Diversity Report

Dyer-Kelly Elementary 1

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for Online UIP Report

Aligning and Improving Systems for Special Education Services in St Paul Public Schools. Dr. Elizabeth Keenan Assistant Superintendent

Cuero Independent School District

El Toro Elementary School

Supply and Demand of Instructional School Personnel

Teach For America alumni 37,000+ Alumni working full-time in education or with low-income communities 86%

Kahului Elementary School

School Accountability Report Card Published During the School Year

Transportation Equity Analysis

SAT Results December, 2002 Authors: Chuck Dulaney and Roger Regan WCPSS SAT Scores Reach Historic High

The Demographic Wave: Rethinking Hispanic AP Trends

RtI: Changing the Role of the IAT

Segmentation Study of Tulsa Area Higher Education Needs Ages 36+ March Prepared for: Conducted by:

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability

Serving Country and Community: A Study of Service in AmeriCorps. A Profile of AmeriCorps Members at Baseline. June 2001

Dyer-Kelly Elementary School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

CSU East Bay EAP Breakfast. CSU Office of the Chancellor Student Academic Services Lourdes Kulju Academic Outreach and Early Assessment

John F. Kennedy Junior High School

Los Angeles City College Student Equity Plan. Signature Page

Standardized Assessment & Data Overview December 21, 2015

Frank Phillips College. Accountability Report

Moving the Needle: Creating Better Career Opportunities and Workforce Readiness. Austin ISD Progress Report

RAISING ACHIEVEMENT BY RAISING STANDARDS. Presenter: Erin Jones Assistant Superintendent for Student Achievement, OSPI

READY OR NOT? CALIFORNIA'S EARLY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AND THE TRANSITION TO COLLEGE

Orleans Central Supervisory Union

Financing Education In Minnesota

CDS Code

School Accountability Report Card Published During the School Year

5 Programmatic. The second component area of the equity audit is programmatic. Equity

Executive Summary. Lincoln Middle Academy of Excellence

Karla Brooks Baehr, Ed.D. Senior Advisor and Consultant The District Management Council

Getting Results Continuous Improvement Plan

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Basic Skills Initiative Project Proposal Date Submitted: March 14, Budget Control Number: (if project is continuing)

Like much of the country, Detroit suffered significant job losses during the Great Recession.

Clark Lane Middle School

Bella Vista High School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

Local Educational Agency California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Student Data File Layout

AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress

Engage Educate Empower

Review of Student Assessment Data

The Effects of Statewide Private School Choice on College Enrollment and Graduation

Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. John White, Louisiana State Superintendent of Education

Updated: December Educational Attainment

Arlington Elementary All. *Administration observation of CCSS implementation in the classroom and NGSS in grades 4 & 5

Student Support Services Evaluation Readiness Report. By Mandalyn R. Swanson, Ph.D., Program Evaluation Specialist. and Evaluation

Race, Class, and the Selective College Experience

School Accountability Report Card Published During the School Year

A Lesson Study Project: Connecting Theory and Practice Through the Development of an Exemplar Video for Algebra I Teachers and Students

Dr. Russell Johnson Middle School

Minnesota s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Local Control and Accountability Plan and Annual Update Template

It s not me, it s you : An Analysis of Factors that Influence the Departure of First-Year Students of Color

Idaho Public Schools

TRANSFER APPLICATION: Sophomore Junior Senior

National Survey of Student Engagement Spring University of Kansas. Executive Summary

Short Term Action Plan (STAP)

Transcription:

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress 2017-2018 Results Citizens of the World Los Angeles CONTENTS: 1. Background and context 2. School-wide LA CAASPP results compared to Los Angeles (LAUSD) and California 3. School-wide LA CAASPP results compared to 2016-17 CAASPP results 4. Grade level LA CAASPP results compared to Los Angeles (LAUSD) and California 5. Subgroup performance compared to Los Angeles (LAUSD) and California 6. School-wide LA CAASPP results compared to 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 CAASPP results 7. Subgroup LA CAASPP results compared to 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 CAASPP results 1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT In early October, the California Department of Education published results of the 20 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), the fourth year that California state assessment results have been publicly available. These assessments have been designed to determine students progress toward college as delineated by Common Core State Standards a set of national standards that have been adopted across the country. CAASPP assesses skills based on adaptive multiple choice questions as well as performance tasks (such as writing). CAASPP results are published in multiple formats, including: Tiered achievement levels. CAASPP provides data in four (4) achievement levels: Level 1 (standard not met), Level 2 (standard nearly met), Level 3 (standard met) and Level 4 (standard exceeded). Generally, levels 3 and 4 are considered to be at or above grade level performance. Sub-group achievement level data. CAASPP provides data on the performance of groups of students with shared demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, free and reduced price lunch eligibility, and special education and English language learner designations. Additional data. There is data for content areas that provide additional information such as reading, writing, speaking and listening, and research and inquiry in ELA; and concepts and procedures, problem solving, modeling and data analysis, and communicating reasoning in math. This document displays the results of the three Los Angeles ( LA) schools: Hollywood (assessed in grades ), Silver Lake (assessed in grades 3-8), and Mar Vista (assessed in grades ), along with regional network-wide results. We compare our results to district and statewide scores to add further context and focus on analyzing the percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 of performance, since this is generally 1

considered to be at or above grade level. Throughout this document, we share results for grades (elementary school only), grades 6-8 (middle school only), as well as network-wide (grades 3-8) so that both comparisons can be made. It is also important to note that for many school-wide analyses in this report, LA staff has analyzed data using commonly understood methodologies. This data cannot be found on public data sources but the analysis was conducted as accurately as possible (data is rounded to the nearest tenth). Below is a summary of the number of test takers at each site, by subgroup. Throughout the report, you will see reference to student race/ethnicity and other subgroups. The terms used in this report align with state terms for the same groups. Table 1: Number of Test Takers Per Site, by Grade Level Hollywood Silver Lake Mar Vista Grade 3 77 34% 99 86 Grade 4 78 34% 103 21% 102 37% Grade 5 73 32% 99 50 18% Grade 6 n/a n/a 66 13% 37 13% Grade 7 n/a n/a 72 15% n/a n/a Grade 8 n/a n/a 53 11% n/a n/a Total 228 10 492 10 275 10 Table 2: Number of Test Takers Per Site, by Subgroup Hollywood Silver Lake Mar Vista African American 7* 3% 31 6% 31 11% Asian 41 18% 60 12% 15 5% Caucasian 115 5 175 36% 128 47% Hispanic or Latino 60 26% 179 36% 76 28% Two or More Races 1* 34 7% 16 6% Other 4* 2% 13 3% 9* 3% Total, race/ethnicity 228 10 492 10 275 10 Econ Disadvantaged 92 210 43% 80 29% English Learner 30 13% 59 12% 29 11% Student with Disability 28 12% 68 14% 34 12% *Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 2

2. SCHOOL-WIDE LA CAASPP RESULTS COMPARED TO LOS ANGELES (LAUSD) AND CALIFORNIA Below we present the overall percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each school and the region overall compared to performance in LAUSD and California. We also include the percentile ranking of schools and the region overall when compared to all LAUSD schools (including charter schools and magnet schools). English Language Arts 10 Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 75% 71% 66% 49% Mathematics 10 Hollywood 77% Silver Lake Overall Mar Vista Overall LA District Gr. 3-8 Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 State Gr. 3-8 62% 33% Hollywood Silver Lake Overall Mar Vista Overall LA District Gr. 3-8 State Gr. 3-8 3

Below we provide the percentile rankings for each school and the region overall compared to LAUSD elementary and middle schools (including charter schools and magnet schools). Table 3: Percentile Ranking of LA Compared to LAUSD Elementary and Middle Schools (including charter schools and magnet schools) Percentile (Actual Rank) Hollywood Silver Lake* Mar Vista* LA* ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Elementary Schools (# out of 606) Top 7% (#43) Top 3% (#18) Top 16% (#95) Top 12% (#71) Top 11% (#66) Top 1 (#56) Top 12% (#73) Top 8% (#47) Middle Schools (# out of 248) Top (#50) Top 24% (#60) Top 3% (#8) Top 16% (#40) Top 16% (#39) Top 22% (#55) Elementary & Middle (# out of 773) Top 17% (#125) Top 17% (#126) Top 9% (#67) Top 9% (#63) Top 12% (#91) Top 1 (#74) *For Silver Lake, Mar Vista and Los Angeles, the data that is included in the analysis includes grade levels for Elementary Schools, grade levels 6-8 for Middle Schools, and grade levels 3-8 for Elementary & Middle. Note: Elementary Schools include all elementary schools plus span schools that also serve grades TK-5. As a result, other grade levels (grades 6-12) are also included in this comparison group. Middle Schools include all middle schools plus span schools that also serve grades 6-8. As a result, other grade levels (grades TK-5 or 9-12) are also included in this comparison group. Elementary & Middle Schools include all elementary and middle schools that serve grades TK-8 plus span schools that also serve grades TK-8. As a result, other grade levels (grades 9-12) are also included in this comparison group. 4

3. SCHOOL-WIDE LA CAASPP RESULTS COMPARED TO 2016-17 CAASPP RESULTS Below we present the overall percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each LA school and the region overall compared to performance in LAUSD and California from last year, 2016-17. English Language Arts Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 from 2016-17 to 20 10 77% 75% 56% 61% 76% 71% 76% 76% 71% 72% 56% 57% 66% 49% 16-17 16-17 6-7 16-17 6-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 16-17 6 16-17 16-17 6-7 16-17 6-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics 10 Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 from 2016-17 to 20 75% 77% 61% 56% 55% 68% 68% 62% 67% 66% 39% 33% 39% 16-17 16-17 6-7 16-17 6-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 16-17 6 16-17 16-17 6-7 16-17 6-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 3-7 16-17 3-8 5

4. GRADE LEVEL LA CAASPP RESULTS COMPARED TO LOS ANGELES (LAUSD) AND CALIFORNIA Below we present the overall percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each grade level in each school and the region overall, compared to performance in LAUSD and California. English Language Arts 10 Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage By Grade Level Achieving Levels 3 and 4 79% 75% 74% 63% 55% 55% 54% 51% 78% 76% 66% 73% 73% 62% 62% 54% 51% 48% 49% 5 49% 42% 42% 49% 48% 42% 39% HW Silver SL Mar Vista MV Los LA District District State State Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Mathematics 10 88% Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage By Grade Level Achieving Levels 3 and 4 7 73% 62% 71% 66% 68% 71% 55% 43% 5 36% 43% 42% 36% 29% 3 28% 29% 49% 43% 37% 36% 37% 37% HW Silver SL Mar Vista MV Los LA District District State State 6

5. SUBGROUP PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO LOS ANGELES (LAUSD) AND CALIFORNIA Below we present the overall percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each sub-group published by the state. We start with comparing each sub-group s performance in each LA school to LAUSD and California. Secondly we present the gaps between the sub-groups, again comparing each LA school to LAUSD and California. We first show the gap between English language learners, special education and economically disadvantaged to the average for all students. Second, we show the gap between the racial/ethnic subgroups and the highest performing racial/ethnic subgroup. Please note that if there were 10 or fewer students in the particular subgroup, the state has not published the score and therefore we do not include this subgroup in the analysis below. 7

5a. Subgroup Performance District and Statewide Comparison, Grades 3-8 Table 4: English Language Arts LA Compared to Los Angeles (LAUSD) and California Percentage by Race/Ethnicity and Other Subgroups Achieving Levels 3 and 4 HW SL Overall MV Overall LA District Gr. 3 8 State Gr. 3 8 All Students 75% 71% 66% 49% African American *** 26% 48% 39% 32% Asian 93% 67% 93% 79% 76% 76% Caucasian 85% 81% 82% 83% 68% Hispanic or Latino 43% 44% 35% Two or More Races *** 79% 81% 68% Econ Disadvantaged 44% 54% 5 35% 36% English Learner 27% 14% 24% 19% 4% 13% Reclassified FEP* 97% 86% 74% 43% 58% Student with Disability 29% 22% 5 3 1 15% Table 5: Mathematics LA Compared to Los Angeles (LAUSD) and California Percentage by Race/Ethnicity and Other Subgroups Achieving Levels 3 and 4 HW SL Overall MV Overall LA District Gr. 3 8 State Gr. 3 8 All Students 77% 62% 33% African American *** 13% 35% 28% 21% 21% Asian 98% 73% 73% 82% 72% 74% Caucasian 84% 7 74% 75% 59% 55% Hispanic or Latino 35% 42% 26% 28% Two or More Races *** 62% 81% 56% Econ Disadvantaged 48% 48% 26% 27% English Learner 43% 24% 27% 6% 13% Reclassified FEP* 97% 55% 77% 67% 33% 45% Student with Disability 36% 25% 34% 3 9% 13% *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores *RFEP: Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 8

5b. Subgroup Performance Versus Average Performance of All Students, Grades 3-8 English Language Arts 10 Subgroup Variance vs. All Students Percentage represents variance 48% 47% 36% 34% 15% 16% 18% 6% 12% 21% Hollywood Silver Lake Economically Mar Overall Vista District State Disadvantaged English Learner Student with Disability HW SL MV District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics 10 Subgroup Variance vs. All Students Percentage represents variance 34% 32% 27% 27% 26% 28% 24% 27% 8% 14% 14% 6% 13% Hollywood Silver Lake Economically Mar Overall Vista District State Disadvantaged English Learner Student with Disability 9

5c. Race/Ethnicity Subgroup Versus Highest Performing Subgroup (Caucasian), Grades 3-8 English Language Arts 10 Subgroup Variance vs. Caucasian Percentage Represents Difference 55% 34% 37% 33% 42% 29% 33% 26% 14% *** Hollywood Silver Lake Mar Overall Vista District State - African American -7% -11% -8% -12% Asian Hispanic or Latino HW SL MV District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics 10 Subgroup Variance vs. Caucasian Percentage Represents Difference 57% 39% 39% 35% 32% 35% 32% 35% 28% *** Hollywood Silver Lake Mar Overall Vista District State - -14% -11% -18% African Hispanic American Asian or Latino *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores -3% 1% 10

6. SCHOOL-WIDE LA CAASPP RESULTS COMPARED TO PRIOR-YEAR CAASPP RESULTS Below we present the overall percentage of students achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each LA school and the region overall compared to performance in LAUSD and California from 2014-15 through 20. English Language Arts 10 Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 from 2014-15 to 20 77% 74% 75% 51% 63% 47% 56% 76% 71% 68% 61% 62% 59% 76% 71% 61% 72% 68% 57% 56% 47% 65% 66% 37% 49% 15 16 17 18 15 6 6-7 6-8 3 3-4 6 '18 '18 6 6-7 6-8 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics 10 Schools and Region Compared to LAUSD and California Percentage of Students Achieving Level 3 and 4 from 2014-15 to 20 58% 7 77% 75% 61% 56% 55% 48% 68% 58% 68% 62% 66% 67% 61% 58% 39% 58% 3 26% 33% 39% 35% 15 16 17 18 15 6 6-7 6-8 3 3-4 6 '18 '18 6 6-7 6-8 11

7. SUBGROUP LA CAASPP RESULTS COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR CAASPP RESULTS Below we present the change in the percentage of students by subgroup achieving levels 3 and 4 on English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for each LA school and the region overall compared to the change in performance in LAUSD and California from 2014-15 through 20. Middle school grade levels are not included in this section. English Language Arts Economically Disadvantaged 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Economically Disadvantaged 49% 59% 56% 49% 47% 47% 43% 44% 63% 54% 5 45% 57% 49% 5 35% 25% 32% 28% 36% 33% 15 16 17 18 15 15 16 17 18 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Economically Disadvantaged 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Economically Disadvantaged 39% 55% 65% 44% 44% 47% 63% 48% 44% 39% 55% 48% 42% 25% 26% 24% 21% 27% 26% 25% 21% 15 16 17 18 15 15 16 17 18 12

English Language Arts English Learner 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: English Learners 12% 21% 27% 24% 16% 24% 14% 42% 24% 3 25% 37% 23% 19% 15% 13% 13% 13% 15 16 17 18 15 3-7 3-8 *** *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 3-8 4% 5% 4% 4% HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics English Learner 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: English Learners 21% 16% 44% 43% 28% 29% 26% 15 16 17 18 15 26% 22% *** *** 24% 32% 27% 32% 15 16 17 18 35% 27% 23% 14% 13% 13% 14% 5% 6% 6% 6% *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 13

English Language Arts Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 10 66% 77% 97% 91% Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 82% 74% 72% 83% 75% 86% 7 86% 82% 78% 79% 74% 74% 58% 61% 58% 58% 45% 42% 43% *** 15 16 17 18 15 3-7 3-8 *** *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 3-8 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 10 97% 89% 62% Math Grades 3-8 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 47% 67% 58% 55% 83% 77% 63% 81% 78% 66% 74% 67% 34% 34% 33% 33% 47% 45% *** 15 16 17 18 15 *** *** 15 16 17 18 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 14

English Language Arts Student with Disability 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Student with Disability 67% 36% 45% 54% 29% 15% 45% 15 16 17 18 15 35% 22% 35% 35% 22% *** *** 5 29% 15 16 17 18 43% 32% 47% 39% 3 14% 15% 7% 8% 8% 1 13% 14% HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Student with Disability 10 Math Grades 3-8 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Student with Disability 45% 36% 36% 15 16 17 18 15 35% 33% 34% 29% 25% 23% *** *** 48% 34% 15 16 17 18 39% 37% 37% 33% 36% 3 13% 13% 7% 8% 7% 9% 12% 13% 3-7 '17 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 15

English Language Arts African American 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: African American 65% 8% 43% 26% 48% 47% 45% 37% 54% 43% 39% 28% 27% 22% 32% 28% 29% 25% *** *** *** *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 15 *** *** 15 16 17 18 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics African American 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: African American 47% 8% 26% 14% 13% 5 35% 36% 42% 28% 18% 21% 19% 16% 21% 18% *** *** *** *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 15 **** *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 '17 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 16

English Language Arts Asian 10 78% 93% 89% 87% 79% 73% 7 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Asian 93% 83% 81% 81% 78% 65% 67% 79% 76% 75% 72% 72% 76% 66% 73% 76% 73% 15 16 17 18 15 *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Asian 10 79% 75% 98% 97% 79% 67% Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Asian 76% 76% 61% 78% 73% 73% 76% 75% 87% 86% 71% 85% 82% 71% 72% 71% 66% 72% 73% 74% 15 16 17 18 15 15 16 17 18 3-7 '17 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 17

English Language Arts Caucasian 10 73% 83% 85% 85% 77% 73% Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Caucasian 85% 74% 71% 81% 82% 71% 83% 82% 84% 81% 77% 73% 83% 76% 68% 67% 66% 62% 62% 63% 58% 15 16 17 18 15 15 16 17 18 3-7 '17 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Caucasian 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Caucasian 85% 84% 83% 77% 7 67% 79% 7 67% 63% 82% 79% 73% 74% 76% 72% 75% 71% 74% 75% 73% 59% 55% 55% 55% 51% 55% 15 16 17 18 15 3-7 3-8 15 16 17 18 3-7 3-8 3-7 '17 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 18

English Language Arts Hispanic or Latino 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Hispanic or Latino 43% 48% 45% 59% 49% 47% 44% 47% 44% 35% 3 24% 34% 29% 35% 15 16 17 18 15 *** 15 16 17 18 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Hispanic or Latino 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Hispanic or Latino 56% 43% 39% 34% 37% 33% 29% 32% 36% 33% 35% 42% 44% 36% 34% 36% 23% 26% 25% 26% 28% 22% 27% 15 16 17 18 15 3-7 3-8 *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 3-8 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 19

English Language Arts Two or More Races 10 88% 76% 77% Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Two or More Races 88% 67% 79% 74% 83% 81% 85% 85% 79% 77% 68% 65% 58% 63% 62% 57% *** *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 15 *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 '17 HW SL MV LA District 3 8 State 3-8 Mathematics Two or More Races 10 Percentage Achieving Level 3 and 4: Two or More Races 7 65% 62% 75% 55% 62% 81% 78% 78% 63% 63% 58% 57% 56% 54% 55% *** *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 15 3-7 3-8 *** *** *** 15 16 17 18 3-7 3-8 3-7 '17 *** Consistent with state protocols, no score is published because 10 or fewer students had test scores 20