2015 State Report Card

The DE released the 2015 State Report Card for No Child Left Behind earlier this week. The report includes a list showing the status of every district and every school in the state. The designations are based on whether schools met or did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) proficiency targets in math and reading.

  • Met–school met AYP
  • SINA-X–school failed to meet AYP two years in a row, the value of X indicates how many years the school has had a SINA designation
  • Delay–school met AYP for one year, will be removed from SINA status if meets AYP again in the current year
  • Watch–school failed to meet AYP for one year, will be designated SINA status if fails to meet AYP again in the current year.
  • Removed–indicates that the school was removed from watch status after making AYP for one year, or removed from SINA status after making AYP for two years

Here, for what it is worth, is how ICCSD schools fared (school name followed by status for math, then status for reading):

  • City High School  SINA-6, SINA-6
  • West High School  SINA-2, SINA-9
  • Tate High School  SINA-9, SINA-9
  • NCJH  SINA-3, SINA-4
  • NWJH  SINA-9, SINA-11
  • SEJH  SINA-11, SINA-12
  • Borlaug  Removed-Watch, Removed-Watch
  • Coralville Central  SINA-5, SINA-4
  • Garner  SINA-3, Delay-2
  • Hills  SINA-3, Delay-2
  • Hoover  Delay-1, Delay-2
  • Horn  SINA-1, SINA-1
  • Kirkwood  SINA-7, SINA-7
  • Lemme  SINA-4, SINA-4
  • Lincoln  Watch, Met
  • Longfellow  Watch, Removed-SINA
  • Lucas  SINA-7, SINA-6
  • Mann  SINA-2, Delay-1
  • Penn  SINA-5, SINA-6
  • Shimek  Watch, SINA-1
  • Twain  SINA-7, SINA-8
  • Van Allen  Met, Delay-3
  • Weber  SINA-1, SINA-1
  • Wickham  Watch, Watch
  • Wood  SINA-7, SINA-7

The full list of districts starts here (with ICCSD here) and the full list of schools (by district) starts here (with the list of ICCSD schools starting here).

The Gazette has coverage here. The Press-Citizen has coverage here and a guest opinion piece from Mike Petrelli and Robert Pondisco (about Common Core test results generally), with which there is so much wrong, I’m not even going to get started commenting on it.

For a preview of what is coming to Iowa, as the State Board of Education moves ahead with adopting the Smarter Balanced Assessments, keep an eye on California, where, the LA Times reports in an article titled New California tests present sobering picture of student achievement, students “performed close to expectations based on a field test given in 21 states two years ago.”

So I’ll leave you with a few charts I made last fall on predicted SBAC performance based on information released when cut scores were announced last year and a question: how will labeling even more Iowa students not proficient help Iowa students and their schools?

Possible changes in Iowa proficiency rates based on predicted SBAC performance compared to Iowa Assessments results for 2011-2013:

Math 2

Reading 2