Detroit Community Schools (895) Annual Education Report For Detroit Community Elementary and Middle School (k-8) And Detroit Community High School (9-) Bart Eddy, Supertendent e-mail: eddyb@dchighschool.org
Detroit Community Schools School -9 District High School Elementary/Middle Graduation Rate 9% Attendance Rate 88% 86% 9 School Phase Phase (Identified for Improvement) Phase Professional Qualifications of Teachers with a B.A. or M.A. B.A: % M.A: 66% B.A: 5% M.A: 6% Not Highly Qualified % 6% Teacher Permits Core Academics Without Highly Qualified Teacher High Poverty/Low Poverty Not Applicable
Trend MME Results Subject Readg 9 Writg 9 Total ELA 9 Math 9 Science 9 S.Studies 9 Students Tested 7 7 7 7 7 Level Level Level Level Males ( & ) % 5% % % % 8% % 77% 89% 88% 59% 67% 7% % % 7% 8% 5% 5% 79% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5 6% % 8% % % 9% 6% 7% 8% % % % % 5% % 8% 9% 7% % % % 7% 55% 5% % Females ( & ) 8% % 5% 5% 6% % 7% % 5% 7% % % 7% % Key: Level - Advanced Level - Proficient Level - Partially Proficient Level - Not Proficient In School -9, Detroit Community High School did not meet AYP, receivg a Composite of D-Alert. However, we rema phase due to an appeal that was filed with the Michigan Department of Education that was granted our favor. Additionally, we were aga above the state s mimum graduation rate of 8 with a 9% graduation rate.
MEAP ANALYSIS The MEAP scores (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) have been analyzed by the School Improvement Team. The graphs below illustrate how students at Detroit Community Elementary performed on the MEAP Test over the past four years. Analysis of the Readg Data: Readg/s -8 5 6 7 8 NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P % 78% 6% 5% 56% % 59% % 59% % 5 5 5% 65% % 57% 58% % 9% 5% 7% 6% > > 6 % 69% 6 7% 9% % 56% > > > > 5 % 68% 67% % > > > > > > > > >=Not Applicable ( was not established) Percentage Proficient 8 6 Readg/s -8 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Level : Students scores creased by % from to. From 5 to scores have creased from % to %. : Students scores decreased by % from to. As a result of the scores, a Readg/Writg Coach has been hired. Students engage our Readg Level Program. This program allows students to read chapter books on their appropriate readg level and to practice readg comprehension strategies to answer questions and summarize formation. 5: Students scores creased by % from to and creased by % from 6 to. Analysis of the Writg Data: Writg/s -8 Writg 5 6 7 8 NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P 7% 6% 9 87% % 65% 5% 5% 9% % 57% 6 96% % 8% 8% 55% 5% 5% 8% > > 6% 8% 76% % 8% 7% 6 > > > > 6 5 6 8% 7% > > > > > > > > >=Not Applicable 6: Students scores decreased by from to and decreased by 5% from 6 to. As a result o the scores, a Readg/Writg Coach has been hired. Students engage our Readg Level Program. This program allows students to read chapter books on thei appropriate readg level and to practice readg comprehension strategies to answer questions and summarize formation. 7: Students scores creased by 5% from to. 8: There is no data available for comparison because this grade was a new addition to the school for /9 school year. Percent Proficient 8 6 Writg/s -8 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Levels : Students scores decreased % from to and decreased % from 5 to 6. As a result of this data, a Readg/Writg Coach has been hired and DCES has implemented the 6 + Writg Traits Initiative. This program allows students to focus on particular writg components. Students engage daily writg prompts to provide more opportunities to practice writg traits. : Students scores creased 6% from to and creased by 7% from 5 to 6. 5: Students scores decreased 5% from to. As a result of this data, a Readg/Writg Coach has been hired and DCES has implemented the 6 + Writg Traits Initiative. This program allows students to focus on particular writg components. Students engage daily writg prompts to provide more opportunities to practice writg traits. 6: Students scores decreased by from to. As a result of this data, a Readg/Writg Coach has been hired and DCES has implemented the 6 + Writg Traits Initiative. This program allows students to focus on particular writg components. Students engage daily writg prompts to provide more opportunities to practice writg traits. 7: Students scores creased % from to. 8: There is no data available for comparison because this grade was a new addition to the school for /9 school year.
Analysis of the ELA Data: Total ELA/s -8 ELA/s -8 Total 5 6 7 8 ELA NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P 7 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 8% 5% 7% 8% 5% 9% 5% 59% % 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% > > 8% 6% 67% % 59% % 66% % > > > > 6 5 7% 5% 7% 8% > > > > > > > > >=Not Applicable Percent Proficient 8 6 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Levels : Students scores creased by 9% from to and creased by 9% from 5 to 6. : Students scores decreased by 5% from to. As a result of the data, an ELA Coach has been hired to assist students with dividual assistance as well as work small groups to improve ELA comprehension. Also, Paraprofessionals provide dividual and small group assistance. 5: Students scores decreased % from to. Students scores decreased by 5% from to. As a result of the data, an ELA Coach has been hired to assist students with dividual assistance as well as work small groups to improve ELA comprehension. Also, Paraprofessionals provide dividual and small group assistance. 6: Students scores decreased by 8% from to Students scores decreased by 5% from to As a result of the data, an ELA Coach has been hired assist students with dividual assistance as well as w small groups to improve ELA comprehension. Also Paraprofessionals provide dividual and small group assistance. 7: Students scores creased by 9% from to 8: There is no data available for comparison becau this grade was a new addition to the school for /9 school year. Analysis of the Total Mathematics Data: Total Mathematics/s -8 Mathematics/s -8 Total 5 6 7 8 ELA NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P % 78% 8% 6% 7 65% 5% 6% 7% 66% % 5% 65% % 57% 9 7% 8% 69% % > > % 69% 6% 8% 86% % 88% % > > > > 6 5 % 68% 78% % < < > > > > > > >=Not Applicable Percent Proficient 8 6 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Levels 5 6 : Students scores creased by % from to and creased by % from 5 to 6. : Students scores creased by 5% from to and by 6% from 5 to 6. 5: Students scores creased by. 6: Students scores creased by 7% from to and decreased by 6% from 6 to. 7: Students scores creased by 6% from to. 8: There is no data available for comparison because the eighth grade was a new addition to the school for /9 school year.
Analysis of the Science Data: Science Science/s 5 and 8 5 6 7 8 NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P 6 5 s Not Tested=Shaded >=Not Applicable 67% % 6% 8% 8 > > 68% % > > > > > > Percent Proficient 8 6 Science/s 5 and 8 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Level 5 6 5: Students scores creased by % from to and decreased by % from 6 to. DCES is workg to hire a Science Coach to mata the crease scores. 8: There is no data available for comparison because this grade was a new addition to the school for /9 school year. Analysis of the Social Studies Data: Social Studies Social Studies/ 6 5 6 7 8 NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P 6 5 s Not Tested=Shaded >=Not Applicable 8% 9% 85% 5% 7% 6% > > Percent Proficient 8 6 Social Studies/ 6 rd th 5th 6th 7th 8th Level 5 6 6: Students scores creased % from to and decreased by % from 6 to. The DCES Textbook Committee is workg to purchase a new Social Studies series to mata the crease scores. D. MEAP Subgroup Analysis Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math 6 5 6 Male 65% 7 56% 75% 5% % 5% 5% 5 67% 8% 6% 5 56% 6% 76% 5 6 5 6
Female 7% < 7 8% 57% < 8% 7% 57% < 59% 8% 7% < 8% 7% Asian/Pacific Islander Black, Not of 7 7% 65% 78% % 6% 5% 67% 5% 7 6 6% 7% 75% Orig White, Not of Orig Social Economic Status 69% 67% 7% 8% % 6% 5% 6% 5 77% 75% Not 68% 69% 6% < 8% 8% < 5% 6% 6% < 6 5% 69% < English Proficient 68% 69% 65% 78% 8% 6% 5% 6% 5% 7 6 5% 7% 75% English Language Students with < < < < < < < < Students without 68% 77% % 7% 5% 7% 78% 7% <=No summary scores provided if < students : Total ELA: In, females scored % higher than males; In females scored 9% higher than males Mathematics In, females scored 8% higher than males; In, Males scored % higher than females. (ED)/Non-economically (NED): Total ELA: In, ED scored 7% higher than NED; In there were less than of NED attendance Mathematics In, ED scored 8% higher than NED; In there were less than of NED attendance Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math 6 5 6 Male < 9% 6% 5 < 5% < % 8% % < 8% 6% 67% Female 6% < 5% 57% % < 8% 9% 8% < % 8% % < 5% 57% Asian/Pacific Islander < < < < Black, Not of % 8% 5 56% 7% 7% 5% % 8% 8% 5% 6% % % 5% 58% Orig White, Not of Orig Social Economic Status < 6% 66% 58% < 6% % < 8% 5 6% < 7% 66% 7% Not 9% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% % % 5% 8% 5% 6% 8% English Proficient % 57% 5% 7% % % 8% % % 6% % 8% 57% 6% English Language Students with < < < < < < < < < < < < Students without % 56% 57% 5% % % % 8% 9% 58% 65% <=No summary scores provided if < students : Total ELA In, females scored 6% higher than males; In, Females scored 6% higher than males. Mathematics In, females scored 8% higher than males; In, Males scored % higher than females. (ED)/Non-economically (NED): Total ELA In, ED scored 9% higher than NED; In ED scored % higher than NED. Mathematics In, ED scored 8% higher than NED; In ED scored 5% higher than NED. 5 6 5 6
5 Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math Science 6 5 6 Male < 9% 5% 8% < 7% % 5% < % % 9% < % % 7% < % % Female < 8% 5 < % % < % % < 8% % < 8% Asian/Pacific < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Islander Black, Not of Orig < % % < 8% % < 6% % < < % 9% < < White, Not of Orig Social Economic Status 5 6 5 6 5 6 Not < % 6% < % % < 6% % < 8% 8% < 8% 5% < 7% 6% < 8% < % 6% < % 6% < 6% 55% English Proficient < 9% % % < 7% 8% % < % 7% 6% < % < % % English Language Students with Students without <=No summary scores provided if < students 6 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < 5% 7% < % % < 6% % < % % < % : Total ELA: In, females scored higher than males; In females scored % higher than males. Mathematics In, males scored 5% higher than females; In, females scored 6% higher than males. (ED)/Non-economically (NED): Total ELA: In, NED scored % higher than ED; In NED scored 5% higher than ED. Mathematics In, NED scored % higher than ED; In NED scored 8% higher than ED. Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math Social Studies 6 5 6 5 Male 56% % 5% % % % % % 8% % 6% % 5% Female 65% 7% 65% 5 65% 7% 8% 9% 7% % Asian/Pacific < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Islander Black, Not of 6% 5% % 9% % 5% % 6% 8% % 9% 7% % % Orig White, Not of Hispan Orig Social Economic Status 58% % % 5% % % 5% % 8% % 9% % 9% % Not 5% 57% 9% % 6% 9% % 8% 9% % 8% 9% 8% % % English Proficient 56% 5% % 5% 5% % 6% 8% % 8% 5% 6% 5% 9% English Language Students with < < < < < < < < < < 6 5 6 5 6
Students without 58% 6% 5% 5% % % % 7% <=No summary scores provided if < students : Total ELA: In, females scored % higher than males; In females scored 7% higher than males. Mathematics In, females scored higher than males; In, females scored 7% higher than males. (ED)/Non-economically (NED): Total ELA: In, NED scored % higher than ED; In, NED scored % higher than ED. Mathematics In, ED scored % higher than NED; In, NED scored 5% higher than ED. 7 Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math 6 5 6 Male % 7% % 8% % % 6% % Female 56% 6% 6 % 6% 7% % Asian/Pacific Islander < < < < < < Black, Not of 9% % 8% 9% 7% % 7% Orig White, Not of Orig Social Economic Status 6% % % 6% % 9% % Not 6% 5% 58% 7% % 6% 7% 55% English Proficient 6% % 8% 9% 8% 7% % 7% English Language Students with < < < < < < < < Students without 7% 5% 5% 55% 9% 5% % % <=No summary scores provided if < students : Total ELA: In, females scored higher than males; In females scored % higher than males. Mathematics In, females scored % higher than males; In, Males scored higher than females. (ED)/Non-economically (NED):Total ELA: In, NED scored 6% higher than ED; In, NED scored % higher than ED Mathematics In, NED scored 8% higher than ED; In, NED scored % higher than ED. 8 Group 5 *Percentage of the Sub-Group meetg State Proficiency Standards Readg Writg Total ELA Math Science 6 5 6 5 Male 7% % 7% % Female 6% 69% 66% 8% % Asian/Pacific < < < < < Islander Black, Not of 8% 57% 5% % 9% Orig White, Not of Orig Social Economic Status 5% 6% 55% % % Not % % % % 5% 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
English Proficient 5 57% 5% % English Language Students < < < < with Students 5% 6 56% 7% without <=No summary scores provided if < students : Total ELA: In, eighth grade was not established; In females scored 9% higher than males. Mathematics In, eighth grade was not established; In, females 8% higher than males. (ED)/Non-economically (NED): Total ELA: In, eighth grade was not established; In, ED scored % higher than NED Mathematics In, eighth grade was not established; In, ED scored % higher than NED. E. ly Assessment Data: Appendix B Mathematics Comparative Report (/9) Level (9/8) (/8) Decrease (/8) (/9) Decrease (/9) * (6/9) K 7 88% 8% 88% 89% % 89% NA st 55% 78% % 78% 87% 9% 87% NA nd % % % 6 6% 6 NA rd 7% 5% 5% 5% 6% % 6% NA th % % 9% % 6% % 6% NA 5 th % 6% % 6% % % % NA 6 th 5% 5% 9% % 9% NA 7 th % 7% 5% 5% 5% NA 8 th 8% 7% 9% 7% 5% % 5% NA *Test Date is June 9 All scores across grade levels creased from the month of September to December. From December to March, fifth grade decreased by %; sixth grade scores decreased by %; seventh grade scores decreased by 5%; eighth grade scores decreased by %. English Language Arts Middle School Comparative Report (/9) Level (9/8) (/8) Decrease (/8) (/9) Decrease (/9) * (6/9) 6 th 9% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% NA 7 th 5% 5% % 5% % 8% % NA 8 th 9% 56% 7% 56% 58% % 58% NA (See the DRA assessment for grades K-5 ELA scores) *Test Date is June 9 All scores middle school ELA creased from the month of September to December. From December to March, sixth grade and seventh grade scores decreased by and 8%. eight scores ELA creased by % from December to March. Dec S Decreas Durg the -9 school year, Detroit Community Elementary/Middle School did not make AYP due to the fact that the school reported an 87% attendance rate when No Child Left Behd requires us to achieve a 9 attendance for elementary/middle. The attendance rate is derived from the - school year. Academically, we achieved the required goals under NCLB that would have allowed us to make AYP. The school received a grade of C and is Phase of NCLB compliance.