Denver Public Schools 2011-2012 School Year 1 1. 2011 Assessment - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Denver Public Schools

2011-2012 School Year

1

• 1. 2011 Assessment Results (Slides 6-35)
• 2. 2010 Denver Plan Goals (36-49)
• 3. Four District Priorities for 2011-2012 (50)

2

3

We have increased by almost 500 graduates over the past 2 years!

DPS Graduates 2005-2011 * Estimated

4

AP Course Trend

Number of students taking AP courses has been increasing

1,475 1,325 1,773 2,095 2,767 3,063 3,329 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Number of Students Enrolled in AP Courses +1854 students in 7

years

5

Number of AP Tests with Scores of 3, 4, 5: 2005-2011

Note: Data for 2010-2011 is preliminary

870 954 1,061 1,071 1,175 1,462 1,577

• 200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

2011 Assessment Results

Overall CSAP Improvement

Colorado Growth Model

7

44 52 43 54 46 53 40 50 60 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Median Growth Percentile

Reading Math Writing

• Math median growth

percentile has increased 11 points.

• Reading median growth

percentile increased by 8 points.

• Writing median growth

percentile has increased by 7 points.

Average MGP for FRL v. Paid in state

8

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

F&RL (state) Paid (state

• Growth rates
• f F&RL and

Paid students have remained fairly stable

• ver time,

with a consistent 5% gap over the last 4 years.

Math MGP for 10 largest districts

9

40 45 50 55 60 65 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Math

Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020 Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180 Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480 Cherry Creek 5 - 0130 Colorado Springs 11 - 1010 Denver County 1 - 0880 Douglas County Re 1 - 0900 Jefferson County R-1 - 1420 Poudre R-1 - 1550 St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470

Reading MGP for 10 largest districts

10

40 45 50 55 60 65 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Reading

Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020 Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180 Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480 Cherry Creek 5 - 0130 Colorado Springs 11 - 1010 Denver County 1 - 0880 Douglas County Re 1 - 0900 Jefferson County R-1 - 1420 Poudre R-1 - 1550 St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470

Writing MGP for 10 largest districts

11

40 45 50 55 60 65 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Writing

Adams 12 Five Star Schools - 0020 Adams-Arapahoe 28j - 0180 Boulder Valley Re 2 - 0480 Cherry Creek 5 - 0130 Colorado Springs 11 - 1010 Denver County 1 - 0880 Douglas County Re 1 - 0900 Jefferson County R-1 - 1420 Poudre R-1 - 1550 St Vrain Valley Re 1j - 0470

Average MGP in 2010 and 2011

12

42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 51.00 52.00 53.00 54.00 55.00 Adams 12 Aurora Public Schools Boulder Valley Cherry Creek Colorado Springs 11 Denver Public Schools Douglas County Jefferson County Poudre Valley St Vrain 2010 2011

• DPS is the top

district in MGP in 2010 and 2011 among the 10 largest in Colorado.

Average MGP High-Poverty Districts in 2005

13

30 35 40 45 50 55

Pueblo City Greeley Denver Public Schools Harrison Aurora Public Schools Westminster Colorado Springs 11

Average MGP High-Poverty Districts in 2011

14

30 35 40 45 50 55

Pueblo City Westminster Colorado Springs 11 Greeley Harrison Aurora Public Schools Denver Public Schools

District Summary

15

Content Area % Proficient

• r Above

Change from 2010 Highlights DPS State DPS State Reading

49% 68%

• 1%

0%

• beat or met the state change on 5 of 8 tests

Lectura*

51% 60% 0% + 1%

• 3rd grade performance stabilized

Math

41% 56% + 2% + 1%

• up for the 8th consecutive year
• increase on 7 of 8 tests
• beat or met the state change on 7 or 8 tests

Writing

39% 55% + 4% + 2%

• beat or met the state change on 7 of 8 tests
• this year’s students out-performed last year’s

students on all 8 tests

Escritura*

51% 59% + 4% + 6%

• increase on both tests.

Science

28% 48% + 1% + 1%

• this year’s students out-performed last year’s

students on all 3 tests

• 5th grade scores increased for the 5th consecutive

year

2000-2005 Change in Proficiency- matched grade levels only

4% 6%

• 6%

7% 9% 5% 15% 8% Mathematics** Reading*** Science** Writing***

Change in CSAP % Proficient or Above from 1999/2000 to 2005

District 1999/2000-2005 State 1999/2000-2005

*DPS results excluded for state data **Math and Science: 2000 (Grade 8 only) through 2005 (Grade 8 only) ***Reading and Writing: 1999 (Grades 4 and 7 only) through 2005 (Grades 4 and 7 only)

6-Year Growth in Proficiency Outpaces State

17

* DPS excluded in state data

12% 9% 8% 9% 4% 1%

• 3%

0% Mathematics Reading Science Writing

Change in CSAP % Proficient or Above Since 2005

District 2005-2011 State* 2005-2011

Middle School CSAP Performance

18

37% 50% 32% 43% 23% 42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % Proficient and above Reading Writing Math

+11 pts +19 pts +13 pts

19

Schools with Cumulative MGPs >180 in All CSAP Content Areas 2011

School Name CSAP Reading MGP CSAP Writing MGP CSAP Math MGP Cumulative Sum MGP

West Denver Prep - Harvey Park Campus 71 79 94 244 DSST: HS 72 77 86 235 Steck Elementary 70.5 78 82.5 231 DSST: GVR 63 84 82 229 West Denver Prep - Federal Campus 72 78 77 227 West Denver Prep - Lake Campus 63.5 72.5 87 223 West Denver Prep - Highland Campus 58.5 66 96 220.5 DSST: MS 61 74.5 67 202.5 Beach Court Elementary 67 74 61 202 Cory Elementary 71 64.5 66 201.5 Carson Elementary 69 64 68 201 Lincoln Elementary 59 72.5 68 199.5 KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy 66.5 60 72 198.5 Polaris at Ebert 67.5 64 66 197.5 Garden Place Elementary 54 61.5 81 196.5 Slavens Elementary 63.5 66 65 194.5

20

School Name CSAP Reading MGP CSAP Writing MGP CSAP Math MGP Cumulative Sum MGP

Martin Luther King, Jr. Early College HS 74 60.5 60 194.5 Denver School of Arts HS 70 67 56 193 Ridgeview Academy 56 70 64.5 190.5 Bromwell Elementary 56 75 58 189 Valdez Elementary 59.5 57 72 188.5 Sandoval Elementary 58 64 66 188 Eagleton Elementary 62 72 53.5 187.5 Girls Athletic Leadership 63.5 71 53 187.5 University Park Elementary 55.5 66 65 186.5 Doull Elementary 59 67 58 184 Bradley Elementary 62 70 51 183 McMeen Elementary 57 61 65 183 Castro Elementary 58 59 65.5 182.5 William R. Roberts 61 56 65 182 Montclair Elementary 67 63 52 182 Hallett Fundamental Academy 61 61 59 181

Schools with Cumulative MGPs >180 in All CSAP Content Areas 2011

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Reading

21

52 57 43 51 46 52 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Charter: N 2011= 4,557 Innovation: N 2011= 757 Non-Charter: N 2011=27,144

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Reading

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Writing

22

57 59 46 55 49 52 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Charter: N 2011= 4,543 Innovation: N 2011= 759 Non-Charter: N 2011=27,143

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Writing

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Math

23

56 61 49 57 50 52 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Charter: N 2011= 4,548 Innovation: N 2011= 764 Non-Charter: N 2011=27,841

Median Growth Percentile CSAP Math

24

Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes)

Reading – all grades

• Gap increased across all

minority groups from 2010 to 2011.

– Black students experienced the greatest increase in gap.

• 7-year trend toward gap

reduction

– Trend slightly declined in 2011.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above American Indian/Alaskan Native (2011 n= 508) Asian/Pacific Islander (2011 n= 1749) Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 7115) Hispanic (2011 n= 23287) White (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 9659)

25

Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes)

Writing – all grades

• Slight increase in overall

gap from 2010 to 2011.

– Due to sharp increase in White students’ performance. – All other groups increased, but at a slower rate.

• 7-year trend shows

limited gap reduction.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above American Indian/Alaskan Native (2011 n= 510) Asian/Pacific Islander (2011 n= 1751) Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 7120) Hispanic (2011 n= 23271) White (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 9654)

26

Gap analysis – Ethnicity (old codes)

Math – all grades

• Slight increase in overall

gap from 2010 to 2011.

– Due to sharp increase in White students’ performance.

• No substantial 7-year

trend toward gap reduction.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above American Indian/Alaskan Native (2011 n= 511) Asian/Pacific Islander (2011 n= 1748) Black (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 7105) Hispanic (2011 n= 23884) White (Not Hispanic) (2011 n= 9670)

27

Gap Analysis – SES

Reading – all grades

• Small reduction in overall

gap from 2010 to 2011

due to decreased scores

for higher SES students.

• 7-year trend toward gap

increase.

27% 31% 30% 33% 34% 37% 36% 57% 67% 63% 67% 70% 77% 75% 43% 47% 47% 49% 50% 53% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Free (2011 n = 26593) Paid (2011 n = 12793) Reduced (2011 n = 2932)

Lunch Status

28

Gap Analysis – SES

Writing – all grades

• Virtually no change in

gap status from 2010 to 2011.

• 7-year trend toward gap

increase due to rapid improvement in students with higher SES.

19% 18% 20% 20% 24% 23% 26% 47% 53% 50% 54% 58% 62% 65% 31% 33% 34% 34% 38% 36% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Free (2011 n = 26588) Paid (2011 n = 12790) Reduced (2011 n = 2928)

Lunch Status

29

Gap Analysis – SES

Math – all grades

• Virtually no change in

gap status overall from 2010 to 2011.

• 7-year trend toward gap

increase due to rapid improvement in students with higher SES.

20% 22% 24% 25% 28% 29% 31% 41% 49% 49% 51% 54% 61% 63% 31% 34% 36% 36% 40% 41% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Free (2011 n = 27140) Paid (2011 n = 12815) Reduced (2011 n = 2963)

Lunch Status

30

Gap Analysis – SPED

Reading – all grades

• Small increase in gap

from 2010 to 2011.

– SPED students lost more ground than Non- SPED students.

• 7-trend toward gap

increase.

Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population. Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been implemented regarding SPED placement .

11% 13% 13% 14% 16% 13% 11% 44% 48% 47% 51% 52% 55% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above SPED (2011 n= 4805) NonSPED (2011 n= 37513)

31

Gap Analysis – SPED

Writing – all grades

• Substantial increase in

gap from 2010 to 2011.

• 7-year trend toward gap

increase.

Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population. Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been implemented regarding SPED placement .

6% 6% 7% 8% 9% 7% 7% 34% 34% 35% 37% 40% 39% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above SPED (2011 n= 4805) NonSPED (2011 n= 37501)

32

Gap Analysis – SPED

Math – all grades

• Moderate increase in

gap from 2010 to 2011.

• Strong 7-year trend

toward gap increase due to steady progress of non-SPED students.

Students taking CSAPA not included in SPED population. Results should be interpreted cautiously due to different policies that may have been implemented regarding SPED placement .

8% 9% 10% 11% 13% 11% 11% 31% 35% 37% 38% 41% 43% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above SPED (2011 n= 4844) NonSPED (2011 n= 38074)

33

Gap Analysis – ELL

Reading – all grades

• Moderate reduction in gap

between Non-ELL students and ELLs from 2010 to 2011.

– Gap reduction due to drop in Non-ELL student performance. – Gap increased for Parent opt-

• ut students.

– Exited ELLs out-performing Non- ELLs.

• No significant 7-year trend

toward gap reduction.

There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007. In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately. Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Not ELL (2011 n = 23916) Exited ELL (2011 n = 6295) Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2687) Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8566) Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 800)

34

Gap Analysis – ELL

Writing – all grades

• No significant change in gap
• verall from 2010 to 2011.

– Gap increased for parent opt-

• ut and for Non-exited

Bilingual ELLs. – Exited ELLs now out- performing Non-ELLs.

• No significant 7-year trend

toward gap reduction.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Not ELL (2011 n = 23921) Exited ELL (2011 n = 6295) Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2689) Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8566) Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 787)

There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007. In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately. Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.

35

Gap Analysis – ELL

Math – all grades

• No significant change in gap
• verall from 2010 to 2011.

– Gap increased for Parent opt-

• ut students.

– Exited ELLs now out- performing Non-ELLs.

• No significant 7-year trend

toward gap reduction.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent proficient or above Not ELL (2011 n = 23901) Exited ELL (2011 n = 6293) Parent Opt-Out (2011 n = 2685) Non-exited ESL ELL (2011 n = 8720) Non-exited Biling ELL (2011 n = 1277)

There were differences in the way state ELL status was assigned 2005 – 2007. In 2005 and 2006 there was not an option for reporting Parent Opt-Outs separately. Changes in ELL exit criteria in 2009 made it more difficult for students to exit.

2010 Denver Plan Goals

36

2010 Denver Plan

We’re UP to the Challenge!

2010 Denver Plan Goals

Student Enrollment Goals

• DPS total enrollment will grow 500 students a year to a total exceeding 77,000 in 2012, from

ECE-12, including charter school students.

• By 2013, 84% of children in DPS will re-enroll in district schools the following year, excluding

students graduating out of the district. School Readiness Goal

• By 2013, full-day Kindergarten will be available to 100% of parents who choose to enroll their

student in a full-day program.

• An additional 3.5% of 3rd Grade students will become proficient on CSAP in reading or Lectura

each year for the next five years. School Success Goal

• The number of schools scoring above 50% of possible points on SPF will grow by 3.5%

annually. Student Growth Goal

• The percentage of students scoring above the state median growth percentile on CSAP will

grow by 2.0% each year.

• The performance gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American and

Hispanic students scoring Proficient & above on CSAP will decrease by 3.5% annually, closing the achievement gap.

38

2010 Denver Plan Goals

Student Performance Goals

• On average, the proficiency rate for grade level cohorts will increase 3.5% in reading, writing,

and math over each year.

• On average, the percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory will decrease by 3.5% in

reading, writing, and math each year.

• 3.5% of grade level English language learners will become proficient or better on the CELA

Overall rating each year. Postsecondary Readiness Goals

• The number of DPS students taking AP classes each year will grow by 3.5% and the number of

students who take the test and who receive 3, 4 or 5 will increase by 3.5% per year.

• The number of DPS students concurrently enrolled in college classes will grow by 3.5% per

year.

• The number of students scoring 20 or better on the ACT will grow by 3.5% students per year

by 2013.

• The graduation rate for DPS students will increase by 5% per year (base of 52% for 06-07).
• The dropout rate for DPS students will decrease by 1.0% per year.
• College enrollment rates will grow by 3.5% each year.

39

Schedule for Reporting on Denver Plan Goals

40

Month Measures Yrs Reported August

• Full-day Kindergarten availability
• 3rd Grade students’ reading proficiency
• Percentage of students above state median for growth
• Achievement Gap
• Proficiency rate for cohorts
• Percent scoring unsatisfactory
• ACT scores
• 1112
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011

September -School success measured by SPF

• English language learners’ performance on CELA
• AP enrollment
• AP test results
• Concurrent enrollment in college classes
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011
• 1011

November

• DPS enrollment
• Re-enrollment
• 1112
• 1112

December

• College enrollment rates
• 1011

January

• Graduation rate
• Dropout rate
• 1011
• 1011

Participation in Full-day Kindergarten

Goal: Available to 100%

41

• By 2013, Full-day

Kindergarten will be available to 100% of parents who choose to enroll their students in full- day programs.

• 2011-12 Status:

MET GOAL

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Half-Day Kindergarten 2534 2279 1864 800 425 275 275 Full-Day Kindergarten 3473 3796 4661 5722 6300 6360 6628 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Axis Title 6007 6075 6525 6522 6725 6635 6903 Total # of Students

3rd Grade Reading Proficiency

Goal: At least an additional 3.5% per year

42

• An additional 3.5%
• f 3rd Graders will

be proficient on CSAP Reading or Lectura each year.

• 2010-11 Goal:

54.3% in Reading; 54.8% in Lectura

• 2010-11 Status:

MET GOAL in Reading; DID NOT MEET GOAL in Lectura

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Percentage of 3rd Graders Proficient in Reading 51.6% 50.6% 50.4% 50.7% 51.4% 50.8% 56% Percentage of 3rd Graders Proficient in Lectura 59.3% 57.0% 53.6% 52.5% 59.5% 51.3% 51% 44.0% 46.0% 48.0% 50.0% 52.0% 54.0% 56.0% 58.0% 60.0% 62.0%

Student Growth

Goal: At least an additional 2.0% or 54% of students will exceed the state’s 50th Percentile for Growth

43

• Growing at or

above the 50th percentile of the state on CSAP indicates above- average growth.

• 2010-11 Goal:

54%

• 20010-11 Status:

DID NOT MEET GOAL

48.4% 51.8% 51.3% 53.4% 53.0% 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% 48.0% 49.0% 50.0% 51.0% 52.0% 53.0% 54.0% 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Percentage of Students Testing over State Median

Student Proficiency

Goal: Grade Level Cohorts will increase by at least 3.5% in reading, writing, and math

44

• 2010-11 Goal:

53.2%; Status - Reading: DID NOT MEET GOAL

• 2010-11 Goal:

38.9%; Status – Writing: MET GOAL

• 2010-11 Goal:

40.7%; Status – Math: DID NOT MEET GOAL

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percentage of Students in Grade-Level Cohorts Proficient & Above in Reading 38.35% 42.50% 41.36% 45.40% 45.80% 49.70% 48.07% Percentage of Students in Grade-Level Cohorts Proficient & Above in Writing 30.05% 30.70% 31.30% 32.95% 35.98% 35.44% 39.10% Percentage of Students in Grade-Level Cohorts Proficient & Above in Math 25.91% 29.25% 31.36% 32.75% 35.09% 37.21% 39.73% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Axis Title

Closing the Achievement Gap

Goal: The gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American and Hispanic students will decrease by 3.5% each year.

45

• Stronger

performance by white students in 2010-11 increased the achievement gap.

• 2010-11 Status:

DID NOT MEET GOAL

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Gap between Asian / Caucasian and African-American 33.6% 34.4% 35.2% 35.0% 34.6% 31.3% 31.0% Gap between Asian / Caucasian and Hispanic 38.7% 39.3% 38.4% 37.7% 35.5% 33.1% 35.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Scoring Unsatisfactory

Goal: Percentage Scoring Unsatisfactory will decrease by at least 3.5%

46

• Having fewer

students scoring unsatisfactory on CSAP indicates

• ur models are

effective with our students.

• 2010-11 Goal:

17.1%

• 2010-11 Status:

DID NOT MEET GOAL

25.6% 24.3% 23.4% 21.8% 20.6% 19.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Percentage of Students Scoring Unsatisfactory on CSAP

Colorado ACT Performance

Goal: Increase percentage scoring 20+ by at least 3.5% per year

47

22.7% 24.8% 25.1% 26.2% 28.9% 28.8% 29.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Percentage of Students Scoring 20+ on ACT

• An ACT score of

20 is required for admission to most state colleges & universities.

• 2010-11 Goal:

32.3%

• 2010-11 Status:

DID NOT MEET GOAL

2010 Denver Plan Goals

Denver Plan Goals 2010 2011

Full-day Kindergarten access Met goal Met goal 3rd Grade CSAP proficiency Did not meet Partially met Students scoring above state median for growth Met goal Did not meet Achievement gap Did not meet Did not meet Cohort proficiency rates on CSAP Partially met Partially met Percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory on CSAP Did not meet Did not meet Students scoring 20+ on ACT Did not meet Did not meet English language learners’ performance on CELA Met goal Met goal AP Enrollment Met goal Met goal AP Tests Taken Met goal Met goal AP Tests Passed Met goal Met goal School success measured by SPF Did not meet Not Available Concurrent enrollment in College Courses Met goal Not Available DPS Enrollment Met goal Not Available DPS Re-enrollment Met goal Not Available College Enrollment Did not meet Not Available Graduation Rate Met goal Not Available Dropout Rate Met goal Not Available

48

2010 Denver Plan

We’re UP to the Challenge!

• 1. Educator Effectiveness
• 2. English Language

Learners

• 3. Common Core and State

Academic Standards and Assessments

• 4. Supporting and

Improving Our Highest Need Schools

50