Part of the Bay Area News Group

API links. Hayward story in the works

By Eric Kurhi
Thursday, September 1st, 2011 at 1:05 pm in Alameda County, Cherryland, Fairview, Hayward, Schools.

UPDATE, 9/6: Here’s the story that came out yesterday

We had an overview story about the API scores coming out, with emphasis on No Child Left Behind. Oakland education reporter Katy Murphy also blogged about it, asking readers what they think of NCLB and whether it should be revamped.

There was a full chart on all schools in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in today’s paper. You can find a link to the results in the above story, or find the state’s API report for Hayward here.

I spoke with the principal at Longwood for a while yesterday, will be talking with district regarding HUSD results for a Hayward-specific story slated to run over the weekend. Notables: Longwood, Burbank and Harder, which all underwent a transformation, made significant improvements, with Burbank being the biggest gainer at 79 points. Longwood rose by 75, Harder by 50. New to the Program Improvement list this year are Fairview and Strobridge Elementary and Ochoa Middle schools, although all made their API improvement goals, Strobridge and Ochoa for all subgroups. Ochoa, in fact, saw a gain of 46 API points. Compare that to the district as a whole, which rose by 8 (still making target). Faith Ringgold has the highest score in the district, while Leadership Public Schools – Hayward is tops for all schools within the city, including charters.

Dept. of Ed press release is after the jump, with more links to data. 

Torlakson: Record Share of Schools Meet State Academic Goals

Flawed Federal Standards Mislabel 913 Newly Identified Schools as ‘Failing’

  SACRAMENTO – State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson announced today that a record 49 percent of California schools met or exceeded the state’s Academic Performance Index (API) target, even as the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) formula threatened to label 913 newly identified campuses as failing. In all, 55 percent of elementary schools, 43 percent of middle schools and 28 percent of high schools met or surpassed the state API target of 800, with the proportion of schools making the target rising 3 percentage points from last year, from 46 percent to 49 percent. (See Table 1) “I applaud the hard work our students, teachers, parents, school employees and administrators are doing to improve—even in the face of severe cuts to school funding,” Torlakson said. “At school, after school, and among every significant ethnic group, California’s students are performing better than ever. The failure here is in our politics, not our public schools.” Torlakson’s release of California’s 2010-11 Accountability Progress Report, which provides results of both state and federal school accountability systems, came less than a week after his letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan requesting immediate relief from the flawed policies of NCLB. Both accountability systems are based upon results from the statewide Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, which showed nine consecutive years of rising scores among California students, and from the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). Each state defines what it considers to be a proficient level of performance for students in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics. California is widely recognized for having some of the most rigorous standards in the nation. The API is a numeric index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000. School and subgroup targets are set at 5 percent of the difference between the school or subgroup’s Base API score and the statewide target of 800, with a minimum target of 5 points. All numerically significant subgroups at a school must meet their growth targets for a school to meet its API growth target. API scores showed continued improvement across the board, with statewide growth of 11 points, propelled by a 14-point gain among English learners and Hispanic students and a 10-point gain among African American students. Asian and white students posted smaller gains of 8 and 7 points, respectively. (See Table 2) While the results indicate a slight narrowing of the gap between subgroups, a significant achievement gap remains. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the federal NCLB target for students scoring at or above proficiency, increased 11 percentage points this year. It is slated to continue rising until 100 percent of students will be expected to be proficient in 2013-14. Using this yardstick, 35 percent of elementary schools, 18 percent of middle schools and 41 percent of high schools met their AYP targets for 2011. The results represent a decline in the proportion of schools meeting AYP targets from the previous year of 5 percentage points, 8 percentage points, and 1 percentage point, respectively. (See Table 7) NCLB requires schools, school districts, and county offices of education that receive federal Title I funds and do not make AYP criteria for two consecutive years to be identified for Program Improvement (PI). For the 2011-12 school year, 913 newly identified schools were identified for PI. Eighty-five schools exited from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years, with a total of 3,892 schools in PI status. Schools in PI are subject to a five-year timeline of intervention activities. (See Table 8) States are also required to identify local educational agencies (LEAs), which include school districts, county offices of education, and statewide benefit charters for PI. For 2011-12, 95 new LEAs were identified for PI status, with 1 LEA exiting PI status, leaving a total of 445 LEAs in PI. (See Table 9) In Torlakson’s letter to Duncan, Torlakson proposed that California be allowed to freeze the imposition of sanctions and mandatory identifications for the coming school year at last year’s levels.

# # # #

 

The California Department of Education (CDE) is a state agency led by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson. For more information, please visit http://www.cde.ca.gov or by mobile device at http://m.cde.ca.gov/. You may also follow Superintendent Torlakson on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/TorlaksonSSPI and Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CAEducation.

2010–11 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) System: Summary of Results

  Background

  • Since 2005, the California Department of Education (CDE) has reported accountability results under the Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) system umbrella.
  • Through the APR Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp  schools are able to easily view their results under both the state and federal accountability systems.
  • The 2010–11 APR system includes the:

2010 Base Academic Performance Index (API); 2011 Growth API; 2011 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); 2011–12 Program Improvement (PI).

  • The 2010 Base API was released in April 2011.
  • The Base API represents a recalibration of the API system that occurs each spring. Also included with the 2010 Base API score are API growth targets for the school and for every numerically significant subgroup at the school, the school’s statewide rank, and its similar schools rank.
  • Data reported today are current as of August 31, 2011, and are subject to change as appeals of AYP determinations are processed and approved and as data corrections are made with the testing contractor and provided to the CDE. The API, AYP, and PI reports have regularly scheduled updates in September 2011, February 2012, and July 2012.

APR System Results

 

  • API and AYP results are reported for the school overall and for all student groups considered to be numerically significant. A numerically significant student group is 100 students or 50 students that make up at least 15 percent of the school’s population. Information is reported for all major race and ethnicity student groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged students (SED), English learners (ELs), and students with disabilities (SWDs).
  • API scores range between 200 and 1000 with a state target of 800 points. In addition to the API score for the school overall and for all numerically significant student groups, the 2011 Growth API report also tells whether the API targets were met for the school and for each numerically significant student group.
  • The federal AYP consists of four components: participation rate, percent proficient (also known as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs), the API, and the high school graduation rate.
  • The federal PI report includes the Title I funding status for all schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state as well as information on whether the school or LEA has been identified for PI. If the school or LEA is in PI, the year of interventions (Year 1-5 for schools and Year 1-3 for LEAs) is also noted.

 

    Key Differences Between the State and Federal Accountability Systems

 

  • The state accountability system is an index model that measures improvement in student achievement from one year to the next. Under the API system, schools are given credit for improving the overall performance of their students. School growth targets are set based upon the starting point of the school and are re-set each year depending on the level of growth each school site shows.
  • The federal AYP system is often referred to as a “status” model because it rewards schools for the percent of students the school has scoring at the proficient or above level on state assessments. No matter where a school began, all schools are expected to meet the same target at the same time.

Summary of 2011 Growth API Results

  • The API is a composite score that combines information across grade levels and content areas to yield a single accountability metric for a school site.
  • The API includes assessment results from the California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English-language arts (ELA), mathematics, history/social science and science, and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in grades ten through twelve. All SWDs who take the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) and SWDs who take the California Modified Assessment (CMA) in grades three through nine in ELA and grades three through eleven in mathematics are also included in the API calculation.
  • One key feature of the API system is that schools are rewarded more for moving students from scoring at the lowest performance levels. For example, a student who moves from the far below basic level to the below basic level contributes 300 points toward the school’s API score. A student who moves from the proficient level to the advanced level contributes 125 points toward the school’s API score.

Schools At or Above the State Target of 800

  • The State Board of Education has established an API score of 800 points as the state target that all schools and student subgroups should achieve.
  • The percentage of schools overall meeting or exceeding this state target has increased each year over the past nine years. In 2011, 49 percent of all schools attained this target.
  • Based on 2011 data, 55 percent of elementary schools, 43 percent of middle schools, and 28 percent of high schools are now at or above the state target of 800. See Table 1.

The Achievement Gap

  • Results from the 2011 Growth API show that Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino, students improved by 10 and 14 points respectively while white students improved by 7 points. See Table 2.
  • SED, EL, and SWD student groups also improved more than the state as a whole; 14 points, 14 points, and 15 points compared to 11 points.
  • However, white and Asian students continued to have significantly higher API scores.
  • Tables 3, 4, and 5 show improvement from 2010 to 2011 for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools respectively.

Summary of 2011 AYP Results

  • Every LEA, school, and subgroup in California is expected to achieve a 95 percent participation rate on ELA and mathematics state assessments used to calculate AYP each year.
  • In addition, all LEAs, schools, and subgroups are expected to meet state targets for the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level. These state targets will increase annually by about 11 percentage points until 2013–14 when 100 percent of students are expected to be performing at or above the proficient level on state assessments in both ELA and mathematics.
  • The participation rate and percent proficient calculations for elementary and middle schools are based on the CSTs, the CAPA, and the CMA, in ELA and mathematics. For high schools, the participation rate and percent proficient calculations are based on the CAHSEE and the CAPA for grade ten students in ELA and mathematics. The API is an additional AYP indicator for all schools.
  • The graduation rate is an additional indicator only applicable for schools with grade twelve data (i.e., enrollment, graduation, or dropout).
  • The percentage of schools making their AYP targets differs by school type with 35 percent elementary schools, 18 percent middle schools, and 41 percent high schools making their AYP targets in 2011. See Table 7.
  • Schools receiving Title I funds meet their AYP targets at a lower rate than schools that do not receive Title I funds. In 2011, 35 percent of all elementary schools made their AYP targets compared to 27 percent of Title I elementary schools. See Table 7.

 

Summary of 2011–12 PI Results

  • Schools that receive Title I funds are identified for PI if they miss AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) or for the same indicator (API or graduation rate) for two consecutive years. Once identified for PI, a school advances to the next year each time it misses AYP. More information about how schools are identified for PI can be found on the Title I PI Status Determinations Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidetermine.asp.
  • PI for schools is designed on a five-year timeline. Schools in Year 1 of PI must offer students an option to attend a non-PI school in the same LEA with paid transportation. Schools in Year 2 of PI must also offer supplemental education services (SES) to eligible students. Additional information about the intervention activities associated with each year of PI can be found on the Program Improvement Web page at Program Improvement – Title I, Part A-Accountability.
  • There were 6,157 schools with 2011 AYP data that received federal Title I funds in 2010–11.
  • Of those schools, 3,892 or 63 percent of those are in PI in the following years:

Year 1 – 1,053 Year 2 – 614 Year 3 – 518 Year 4 – 249 Year 5 – 1,458

  • Nine hundred and thirteen schools are being identified for PI for the first time in 2011–12 after missing AYP in 2010 and 2011. In addition, 254 schools advanced to Year 5 of PI. See Table 8 for a full summary.
  • Schools exit from PI after making AYP for two consecutive years. In 2011, 85 schools exited from PI after making AYP in 2010 and 2011.
  • An LEA (school district, county office of education, or statewide benefit charter) is identified for PI when, for each of two consecutive years, it misses AYP in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) LEA-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup, and does not meet AYP criteria in the same content area in each grade span (grades two-five, grades six-eight, and grade ten), or does not make AYP on the same indicator (API or graduation rate) LEA-wide.
  • PI for LEAs is on a three-year timeline. Information about the requirements of each PI year can be found on the CDE PI Web page.
  • In 2010–11, 931 LEAs received federal Title I funds.
  • Of those LEAs, 445 or 47.8 percent were identified for PI for the 2011–12 school year in the following years:

Year 1 – 100 Year 2 – 59 Year 3 – 286

  • A database of all 2010–11 Title I schools and LEAs along with their PI status (in PI/not in PI) and their PI Year (1 through 5 for schools and 1 through 3 for LEAs) can be found on the CDE Title I PI Status Data Files Web page at

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidatafiles.asp

  • In addition, a database of schools and LEAs at risk for being identified for PI in 2012–13 will be available soon on the CDE Title I PI Status Data Files Web page listed above. Schools and LEAs at risk for PI identification missed AYP in 2011.

 

 

Statewide Accountability

 

Academic Performance Index (API) 2011 Growth Results

Table 1 Percentage of Schools At or Above Target of 800 on Growth API Scores, 2002–11

School Type

2001 –02

2002 –03

2003 –04

2004 –05

2005 –06

2006 –07

2007 –08

2008 –09

2009 –10

2010

–11

Elementary

23%

26%

27%

32%

35%

36%

41%

48%

51%

55%

Middle

16%

14%

18%

21%

24%

25%

30%

36%

40%

43%

High

6%

7%

8%

12%

14%

15%

17%

21%

25%

28%

All Schools

20%

21%

23%

27%

30%

31%

36%

42%

46%

49%

Note: Table excludes schools in the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM), special education schools, and schools with fewer than 100 valid scores.

Table 2

API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2010–11

Type

2010 State Base API

2011 State Growth API

2010–11 API Point Growth

Statewide

767

778

11

Black or African American

686

696

10

American Indian or Alaska Native

728

733

5

Asian

890

898

8

Filipino

851

859

8

Hispanic or Latino

715

729

14

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

753

763

10

White

838

845

7

Two or More Races

808

836

28

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

712

726

14

English Learners

692

706

14

Students with Disabilities

580

595

15

 

 

 

Table 3

Elementary School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2010–11

Type

2010 State Base API

2011 State Growth API

2010–11 API Point Growth

Statewide

800

808

8

Black or African American

732

738

6

American Indian or Alaska Native

753

763

10

Asian

911

918

7

Filipino

880

886

6

Hispanic or Latino

752

763

11

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

792

800

8

White

868

873

5

Two or More Races

862

871

9

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

748

758

10

English Learners

743

756

13

Students with Disabilities

648

662

14

 

Table 4

Middle School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2010–11

Type

2010 State Base API

2011 State Growth API

2010–11 API Point Growth

Statewide

765

778

13

Black or African American

677

692

15

American Indian or Alaska Native

719

730

11

Asian

905

913

8

Filipino

863

871

8

Hispanic or Latino

706

724

18

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

756

768

12

White

842

850

8

Two or More Races

814

837

23

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

702

719

17

English Learners

668

680

12

Students with Disabilities

544

566

22

 

 

 

Table 5

 High School API Growth by Student Group Statewide, 2010–11

Type

2010 State Base API

2011 State Growth API

2010–11 API Point Growth

Statewide

729

742

13

Black or African American

638

650

12

American Indian or Alaska Native

703

703

0

Asian

856

866

10

Filipino

812

824

12

Hispanic or Latino

672

688

16

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

706

720

14

White

801

810

9

Two or More Races

747

786

39

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

668

684

16

English Learners

627

640

13

Students with Disabilities

494

501

7

 

 

 

Federal Accountability: 2011 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Table 6

School Percent Proficient Targets for AYP, 2010 and 2011

School Type

2010

English-

Language

Arts

2011

English-

Language

Arts

2010

Mathematics

2011

Mathematics

Elementary and Middle Schools

56.8%

67.6%

58.0%

68.5%

High Schools

55.6%

66.7%

54.8%

66.1%

Table 7

Percentage of All Schools and of Title I Schools Making AYP, 2010 and 2011

School Type

2010

All Schools

 

2011

All Schools

 

2010

Title I-

Funded Schools Only

2011

Title I-

Funded Schools Only

Elementary Schools

40%

35%

31%

27%

Middle Schools

26%

18%

19%

12%

High Schools

42%

41%

36%

37%

Total Number of Schools

9,852

9,858

6,128

6,157

Note: The number of Title I schools statewide for 2011 was taken from the 2010–11 Consolidated Application, Part 2. The number of Title I schools statewide for 2010 was updated using the 2010–11 Consolidated Application, Part 1, that each LEA is responsible for completing annually.

 

Federal Accountability: 2011-12 Program Improvement (PI)

 

Table 8 2011-12 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of Schools

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

913*

140

1,053

29

Year 2

499

115

614

9

Year 3

473

45

518

9

Year 4

207

42

249

13

Year 5

254

1,204**

1,458

25

Total

2,346

1,546

3,892

85

* These schools were newly identified for PI in 2011-12. ** The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not allow for a school PI designation beyond Year 5. Of the 1,458 schools in Year 5 of PI, 1,204 schools have been identified for PI for at least six years.

Table 9 2011-12 Title I PI Status Statewide Summary of LEAs

Year

New

Remain

Total

Exit

Year 1

95*

5

100

0

Year 2

58

1

59

1

Year 3

55

231**

286

0

Total

208

237

445

1

*These LEAs were newly identified for PI in 2011-12. ** ESEA does not allow for an LEA PI designation beyond Year 3. Of the 286 LEAs in Year 3 of PI, 231 LEAs have been identified for PI for at least four years.

# # #

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • John Kyle

    Michael Moore.
    If you were familiar with the Hayward City website accessed at: HAYWARD-CA.GOV you would eventually find, as a matter of interest, that each property owned by an individual, or a married-unmarried couple can be identified using the names registered on the County records as a separate, taxed entity. The kicker is that this applies only to property within the city.
    If a property is not located in the city, it cannot be used to identify all those properties within the administrative boundaries of Hayward Unified School District. One must then go to County records, as kept at the Assessor’s offices to at least determine who is on the assessors roles or the more laborious route through grantor/grantee documentation files.

    As you do not live within the City, I would expect that, since you do not pay taxes based on the value of your home that you are wise enough to refrain from any publicly expressed criticism of that civic entity.
    The Hayward Unified school district provides schools to the entire City excepting only a portion of South Hayward known as ‘Fairway Park, a segment of which is in Union City’s school district. If you live in the unincorporated area upon the hillside known as Fairview or that area northerly of ‘ A’ Street, in the flatland area south of Willow Ave or, additionally, if your home is located in the unincorporated area generally seen east of Mission south of Rte I – 580 and generally following Grove way easterly as well as southerly to and inclusive of the sizable Fairview area…. Then you are involved only with HUSD. Thus, your ‘sniping’ ought be limited to HUSD.

    If you do, in reality, live within the HUSD area and pay taxes for the support of that area, then I do support your right to criticize the district but only to the extent that you bring balance to the discussions. An effective way to bring ‘balance’ to criticism is for you to engage in some form of direct involvement with the School administration and the Board of Trustees.
    I have yet to see your name associated with proactive thought and action.
    If you live in zip code area 94541, as I do, then let me alert you to the fact that we enjoy the presence of one of the very highest concentrations of parolees and probationers in the County of Alameda. While Pleasanton enjoys the presence of just five of that crowd 94541 Has a count exceeding 4,000 ( to the best of my memory).
    I have told the story of my experience endured at the graduation of a grandchild from a Pleasanton high School. The Superintendent went to the microphone and began to address the graduates and their families at the ceremony held in the Alameda County Fairground’s amphitheater. Raising his right arm straight out in a westerly direction he said ”are you not glad that your children did not have to attend school on the other side of those hills? What was worse was the resultant boorish behavior of those students and the 1,000 or more folks in the audience… which went on for about two minutes.
    Pleasanton has defied the Association of Bay Area Governments on the subject of ‘low income housing’! While Oakland and Hayward schools bear the brunt of the problems created at our schools as result of recidivism. It is hard to teach kids when the recidivism rate for the first year of supervised released felons is 40% AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE THIRD YEAR OF SUPERVISED RELEASE IS QUITE CLOSE TO 60%. A Large part of the truancy, transience and test score problem can be laid to the recidivism experience.
    A way can be found to correct that problem….if you care to help, I invite you to a hamburger experience at ‘In and Out’ at Lewelling and Hesperian intersection any time after September 13, 2011
    My phone number is in the book

  • Michael Moore

    Blaming the long term failure of the HUSD to educate successfully the majority of its charge on parolees, probationers, truants and drugs is diversionary at the least and divisive at best. The Leadership Model is the solution to the problem.

  • John Kyle

    Moore;

    You miss tyhe point entirely!

    husd SUFFERE GREATLY DUE TO THE NEGIGENCE OF THE PARENTS ON PAROLE.

    tHEY ARE NOT THE TYPES WHO LIVE A LIFE OF CELIBACY; THEY ARE INDIFFERENT, IN MOST CASES, TO THE HARM THEY DO THEIR CHILDREN….. THEIR CHILDREN ARE OF NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON husd BUDGETS DUE TO LOSS OF ADA MONETY BUT WORSE YET, THEIR TRANSIENCT FROM ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANOTHER HAS A TELLING AFFECT.

    OF COURSE, IF YOU ENJOY BEING MASOCHISTIC, THEN CONTINUE LIVING IN ZIP 94541 WHERE REAL PROPERTY VALUES CONTINUE IN DECLINE….IF THE KIDS ARE ENTITLED TO EDUCATION…JUST TRY TO REGISTER THEM FOR CLASSES IN PLEASANTON! AFTER ALL pLEASANTON DISTRICT IS NEAR THE TOP IN RANKING OF ALAMEDA COUNTY SCHOOLS ! WHY DENY THEM THE OPPORTUNITY ?

  • John Kyle

    All;

    Transiency and truancy are a serioius problem in HUSD.

    20 years ago we hads the same problem and the Superintendent of the mmoment, Marlin Foxworth made formuilated a great question which was: “If you do not have the presence of a child beyong 2 or 3 years of residency in the district at the school by which they entered our district… then how do you expect them to learn?” To which I would add: .. ‘when teachers are unable to pass a student from,one class to the next, without any consultive advice to the next instructor, about the child’s particular needs.’

    So, what I see occurring in the exchange of ideas (?) here in this blog…. is just so much mental masturbation…. pleasurable to some but ineffective as to result or meaning!

    The real alternative? SB 1317! A day in the slammer or threat of violation of parol;e depending upon the type of parent who/which is at the core of the problem.

    “IT’S A COLD WORLD, KIDDIES!”

  • http://BoothmanSr@sbcglobal.net Kathi Booth

    You are correct Mr. Moore. Many factors affect test scores and successful academic achievement and to focus simply and completely on perceived truancy problems is just dodging the real issue; that being our highly paid HUSD staff, particularly the superintendents and upper adiministration have failed to provide anything that begins to serve the academic needs of children.

  • Michael Moore

    The solution, pure and simple is to adopt the Leadership High School model. The kids will thrive. Those parents that want their kids in a different school should move to the district that emulates what they want. They have lots of choices.

  • Michael Moore

    Walnut Creek has nice scores as does Castro Valley and Pleasanton. Perhaps the parochial schools will want to outreach and offer scholarships to those parents who have children that cannot hack the stress the Leadership, Faith Ringgold or Montessori bring.

  • teehee

    you talk a lot about the “Leadership High School” model. I ask you, whats their model? What do they do that is so different?

  • Michael Moore

    Qodrn’s response in 28 above is a good start.

    Teachers have long days. Not only limited to 7.5 hours.

    Students attend from 8:10 to 3:45. Long day.

    Students wear uniforms.

    Students have mandatory tutoring up to four times a week for any grade below B-.

    Kids serve detention for lots of stuff, including excessive absences.

    Every class begins with a launch or a quiz. If you are not taking the quiz by the time class begins, it is not good.

    Homework is assigned daily; at least two hours is expected. Usually more.

    All kids take college prep courses. Period.

    Parents have ability to check on kids grades at all times.

    Parents can look up the homework at at times.

    All students have a homeroom.

    School has a great resource program for those with learning issues.

    School is primarily minority, leaning to Hispanic majority.

    Any classes not passed (grade below C results in mandatory summer school.

    Parents and students work together to raise money for stuff where it is needed.

    Kids get kudos for identifying strangers on campus.

    Family meetings allow both teachers and students to call out both successes and failures (one week students got called out for being “complacent” and ordinary.

    The students have to learn the school chant.

  • Michael Moore
  • http://BoothmanSr@sbcglobal.net Kathi Booth

    Teachermama,
    As far as I know they have longer days; a more rigorous study day; consequences for infractions that are implemented; parent buy-in and student buy-in. They seem to definitely be more outcome based.

    Is that the only way to do it? I don’t think so. I truly believe the problems in HUSD stem from a lack of consistnecy due to the various grants that come in and out causing constant cirriculum changes; a lack of trust that teachers really do know what is best for student success; consant changes in administration and a goodly amount of disconnect; disinterest at the administrative level; and a BOE that does not trust its own instincts regarding what needs to be done. Currently the BOE has 3 members that have educational backgrounds and have been in the classroom..yet they don’t trust themselves, they capitulate to the “professionals” even when their guts tell them not to.

  • Michael Moore

    LPS has designed its curriculum to ensure that 100% of our graduating seniors meet the University of California/California State University entrance requirements and receive acceptances to college. Our curriculum is designed to support students of all levels in making strides as learners and leaders. LPS has worked with CSU professors to develop a curriculum that will ensure our students are ready for college courses.

    College-Linked Curriculum and Expectations
    •Senior exit expectations and assessments developed in conjunction with CSU professors to ensure readiness for college courses
    •A Writing assessment program linked to CSU freshmen placement tests with the objective of students passing the CSU Early Academic Placement tests prior to graduation from high school
    •9-12 grade curricula backwards mapped from exit / CSU entrance expectations
    •Efforts to enroll students in community college courses prior to high school graduation in order to expose them to college rigor and ease the transition to college

    Graduation Requirements
    •UC/CSU entrance requirements with a grade of C or better

    - 4 years of English

    - 3 years of Mathematics to include algebra, geometry and intermediate algebra

    - 2 years of History to include US History (3 years recommended)

    - 2 years of Laboratory Science to include Biology, Chemistry and Physics (3 recommended)

    - 2 years of Language other than English

    - 1 year Visual and Performing Arts

    - 1 year Elective courses selected from the above subjects
    •Participation in four years of Advisory and completion of Leadership projects

    •Application to a two or four-year college

  • Michael Moore

    Personalized Pathways to College Success
    LPS is committed to graduating students ready for success in college no matter the preparation with which they enter 9th grade. A key component of the support is personalized learning programs for both high achievers and students with gaps in their educational background.

    Individualized Schedules
    LPS leverages our small size and personalized learning environment to create individualized schedules for each student. These schedules are designed to provide any needed catch-up courses in reading, numeracy and English Language Development as well as the ongoing support that might be needed for success in rigorous, college-prep, high school courses. Students entering well prepared have opportunities for Advanced Placement and Community College coursework, earning college credits while still in high school. Student progress determines variations in the timing and support, but not the content, of core courses so that all students are successful

    Early College Opportunities
    LPS is one of a select group across the United States that is varying the length of high school by working closely with community colleges so students may begin college coursework before graduating and may extend high school coursework into a college bridge year in areas where more time is needed.

    Ongoing Progress Monitoring and Intervention
    LPS uses several assessment tools to monitor our students’ progress including:
    •Yearly diagnostic testing using the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) to target skill needs with spring re-testing to monitor growth.
    •Regular benchmark assessments backwards mapped from college entrance exams and co-designed with college professors
    •Placement in ongoing tutoring with regular monitoring using Intervention Data Rosters (attendance, grades, diagnostic tests, state STAR assessments, interim assessments, CAHSEE, and teacher recommendations).
    •Provision of individualized and small group socio-emotional supports with links to partner social service organizations.
    •Continued monitoring and support through a four-year advisory program that powerfully links teachers and a small cohort of students.

  • Michael Moore

    LPS-Hayward, the school, is only as strong as LPS-Hayward, the community. And within this community, you, the parents, play a very important role. Throughout the school year, there will be many opportunities for parents to actively contribute to the school. From monthly Parent/Guardian Association meetings, to back-to-school nights, to teacher appreciation week and even volunteering opportunities, we want LPS-Hayward parents to play a major role in our school. Keep an eye on our calendar as well as our monthly newsletters in order to stay up to date with everything that is going on at LPS-Hayward.

    These include:
    •Automatic calls home
    •Monthly parent newsletters
    •Monthly Parent / Guardian Association (PGA) meetings
    •Monthly Site Council meetings
    •Updates on this website

    Student Forms
    The following links include information about the student dress code, our school culture and conduct norms, weekly school schedules and important dates.

    LPS-Hayward Culture & Conduct Norms

  • http://BoothmanSr@sbcglobal.net Kathi Booth

    Lots of info Michael.

  • qodrn

    The info is from the school’s website at http://www.leadps.org.

  • Michael Moore

    Qodrn, thank you for re-posting what I posted in 60 above.

  • qodrn

    How did I miss that? LOL. I will blame it on my cold medicine.

  • Michael Moore

    Hope you feel better.

  • teachermama

    Tomorrow is the dreaded 15th day! Keeping my head high and my fingers crossed. LOL.

  • K Rocchio

    Teachermama,
    Good luck. Being year-round we already made it through. Hope for as little disruption as possible for you!

  • teachermama

    Awwww, thanks Kelly! Well, no such luck. Losing some kids, gaining some, becoming a combo once again. My 5th one w husd. Back to late nights and frozen dinners for my kid. Sigh.

  • qodrn

    Teachermama maybe you do to good a job with combos, so you always get one. I would like to see the school board eliminate combos. This is enough variation in a one grade classroom. Is there any way to find out the percentage of combos vs. other districts?

  • teachermama

    I agree w u Qodrn! The parents are getting really fed up with having their kids in combos year after year, especially with the bigger classes. There must be a way to get that data. Anecdotally, a teacher friend of mine said in her district they are trying to reduce the number of combos. The downside was that her school ended up having to redirect students to other schools.