Cleveland (2007-08)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Detailed Analysis of School Performance in Cleveland (2007-08) Graph I: Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools by State Designation (2006-07 & 2007-08) CMSD Students, 06-07 (N=51,708) 19% 24% 51% 5% 1% CMSD Students, 07-08 (N=48,611) 46% 27% 19% 5% 3% Charter Students, 06-07 (N=9,269) 32% 37% 17% 10% 3% Charter Students, 07-08 (N=10,354) 48% 28% 12% 7% 5% All Students, 06-07 (N=60,977) 21% 26% 46% 6% 1% All Students, 07-08 (N=58,965) 47% 27% 18% 5% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Academic Emergency Academic Watch Continuous Improvement Effective Excellent & Excellent w/ Distinction Source: Ohio Department of Education interactive Local Report Card Note: This chart does not include students in schools that are unrated and students attending charter e-schools. Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools (District and Charter) by State Designation. Graph I shows the percent of Cleveland students in district and charter schools by state designation for both the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years. In 2007-08, 47 percent of students (district and charter) were attending schools the state rated academic emergency while 27 percent were attending schools graded academic watch (for a total of 74 percent of students in “D” or “F” schools). In contrast, in 2006-07, 21 percent of students (district and charter) were attending schools the state rated academic emergency while 26 percent were attending schools graded academic watch (for a total of 47 percent of students in “D” or “F” schools). For Cleveland district schools alone in 2007-08, 46 percent of students attended a school rated academic emergency, while 48 percent of charter students where in schools rated academic emergency in 2007-08. In 2006-07, students in both sectors fared better with only 19 percent of district students attending a school rated academic emergency and 32 percent of charter students in “F” rated schools. Detailed Analysis of Public School Performance in Cleveland, 2007-08 1 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, August 26, 2008 Graph II: Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools by State Designation * versus the Big 8 Average CMSD Students 46% 27% 19% 5% 3% (N=48,611) Big 8 District Students 22% 24% 32% 15% 7% (N=218,516) Cleveland Charter 48% 28% 12% 7% 5% Students (N=10,354) Big 8 Charter Students 45% 27% 18% 8% 2% (N=42,148) All Cleveland Students 47% 27% 18% 5% 3% (N=58,965) All Big 8 Students 26% 25% 29% 14% 6% (N=260,664) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Academic Emergency Academic Watch Continuous Improvement Effective Excellent & Excellent w / Distinction Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools by State Designation versus the Big 8 Average. Graph II shows how Cleveland district and charter school students performed against the Big 8 averages for district and charter performance. This helps to put the performance of students in Cleveland into a larger context (e.g., how do they perform against other urban students in Ohio?) Cleveland students overall perform less well than their Big 8 peers (74 percent of Cleveland students are in a school rated academic emergency or academic watch while the Big 8 average is 51 percent). Overall, students in Cleveland schools, district and charter, are more likely to be in an academically troubled school than their peers in other Ohio urban districts. * The Big 8 districts are defined as Ohio’s largest urban districts: Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown. Detailed Analysis of Public School Performance in Cleveland, 2007-08 2 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, August 26, 2008 Graph III: Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools by Value-added Composite Score versus the Big 8 Average (2007-08) CMSD Students 59% 26% 15% (N=33,901) Big 8 District Students 52% 23% 25% (N=157,190) Cleveland Charter 52% 42% 6% Students (N=7,779) Big 8 Charter Students 49% 26% 25% (N=31,568) All Cleveland Students 58% 29% 13% (N=41,680) All Big 8 Students 51% 24% 25% (N=188,758) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Below (-) Met (√) Above (+) Percent of Cleveland Students in Public Schools by Value-added Composite Score versus the Big 8 Average. For the first time in 2007-08, Ohio’s local report cards include each school’s “value-added”—how much progress students made in reading and math over the course of one year compared to how much the state expected them to gain (for a detailed explanation go to: http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=735&id=130). Using this information Ohio determined if each school made “Above Expected Growth,” “Expected Growth,” or “Below Expected Growth.” In Cleveland, 58 percent of all students in public schools (district and charter) made less than a year’s worth of expected growth in 2007-08. This contrasts with the Big 8 urban district average where 51 percent of all students made less than a year’s worth of expected growth in 2007-08. Charter students in Cleveland made more growth than their district peers with 48 percent of charter students meeting or exceeding growth targets. In contrast, only 41 percent of Cleveland Metropolitan School District students met of exceeded the state’s growth targets. What this means in practice is that a slightly larger percentage of students in Cleveland’s charters learned more in 2007-08 than did their peers in district schools. The same holds for the Big 8 charters, where charter students showed more gains in 2007-08 (51 percent were at or above expected growth) than Big 8 district students (only 48 percent were at or above expected growth). Detailed Analysis of Public School Performance in Cleveland, 2007-08 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, August 26, 2008 Table I: Cleveland Public Schools (District and Charter) Ranked by Performance Index Score The following pages list Cleveland’s public charter and district schools ranked by Performance Index (PI) score† for the 2007-08 school year. Numerous other performance indicators are also included, but the Performance Index score was selected for ranking the schools because it provides an overall indication of how well students perform on all tested subjects in grades 3 through 8 and the Ohio Graduation Test. We strongly encourage readers to look closely at the number of standards met and the number of standards possible. A school with a large number of possible standards and possible standards met has gotten a large percentage of students to the state proficiency goals. We also encourage readers to consider schools’ value-added results. Where the Performance Index reflects student achievement at one point in time, value-added tells us how a school is doing at helping its students make progress from year to year. For more on value-added, see Fordham’s value-added primer on our website: http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=735&id=130. † The Performance Index score is calculated by multiplying the percentage of students that are untested, below basic/limited, basic, proficient, accelerated, or advanced by weights ranging from 0 for untested to 1.2 for advanced students. The totals are then summed up to obtain the school or district’s PI score. PI scores range from 0 to 120, and the state has set the goal for all schools to achieve a PI score of 100 or better. For a complete description of how the Ohio Department of Education calculates the PI score see their website here: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=29878. Detailed Analysis of Public School Performance in Cleveland, 2007-08 4 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, August 26, 2008 Table I: Cleveland Public Schools (District and Charter) Ranked by Performance Index Score # of Value- PI PI # of standards added Score Score Overall standards possible Composite Grade Rank Building Name Type 07-08 06-07 Designation 07-08 AYP 07-08 met 07-08 07-08 07-08 Enrollment Span CMSD 1 Early Childhood Development Choice 104 70 Excellent Met 3 3 -- 146 K-3,P 2 Horizon Science Acad Cleveland Charter 102.1 94.5 Excellent Met 12 12 -- 420 6-12 CMSD 3 Garrett Morgan Schl Of Science School Choice 101.4 91.5 Excellent Not Met 12 15 -- 227 9-12 CMSD 4 John Hay Campus High School Choice 100.5 106.2 Excellent Met 6 6 -- 576 9-12 5 Riverside School District 98.1 95.6 Excellent Not Met 14 19 Above 517 K-8 CMSD 6 Whitney Young School Choice 97.7 95 Effective Met 18 21 Met 415 6-12 7 Intergenerational School, The Charter 97.5 96.4 Effective Met 8 10 Below 116 K-8 CMSD 8 Cleveland School Of The Arts High School Choice 97.1 93.5 Effective Met 15 19 Above 558 7-12 9 Puritas Community School Charter 95.6 90.3 Effective Met 5 6 Below 150 K-8 10 Louisa May Alcott Elementary School District 94.6 102.5 Effective Met 8 10 Met 212 K-5 CMSD 11 Newton D Baker School Choice 93.3 88.3 Effective Met 13 19 Above 631 P,K-8 12 Madison Community School Charter 91.7 86.6 Excellent Met 7 12 Above 112 K-8 *13 Citizens Academy Charter 91.4 89.2 Effective Met 6 10 Met 311 K-8 *13 Cleveland Entrepreneurship Preparatory School Charter 91.4 87.4 Effective Met 4 6 Met 188 6-12 Continuous 15 Sunbeam District 89.2 87.1 Improvement Not Met 7 19 Met 224 P,K-8 Continuous 16 Louis Agassiz School District 88.9 89.6 Improvement Not Met 9 19 Met 322 K-8 CMSD Continuous 17 Ginn Academy Choice 87.8 0 Improvement Not Met 2 6 -- 143 9-10 Continuous 18 Carl F Shuler District 87.6 84.4 Improvement Not Met 4 11 -- 351 9-12 Continuous 19 Westpark Community-Cleveland Charter 87.3 90.4 Improvement Not Met 3 6 Below 197 K-4 Continuous 20 James Ford Rhodes High School District 86.9 87.7 Improvement Not