(kanaka) profile hawaiian bilingual (k

Transcription

KULA AUPUNI NIIHAU A KAHELELANI ALOHA (KANAKA) PROFILE
HAWAIIAN BILINGUAL (K-12) PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
DEMOGRAPHICS
Niihau School of Kekaha (NSK) has existed
in its current form since May 1999. The
genesis of the school, however, occurred in
1993, when parents of the Niihau
community residing on Kauai initiated a
home school program for students whose
primary language is the Niihau dialect of
Hawaiian. The program implements a
bilingual education program to improve the
performance of these students by instructing
them in the language they are most adept in,
Hawaiian, and also to increase the students’ English language skills. The current program,
known as Kula Aupuni Niihau A Kahelelani Aloha (KANAKA) Public Charter School, uses
placed-based and projects-based learning to reinforce Hawaiian cultural values. Technology is
blended with traditional learning techniques to increase English, language arts, mathematics,
science, and social studies skills. The school provides focus on learning through communitybased multidisciplinary education with an emphasis on the acquisition of English (reading and
writing skills) while sustaining the Hawaiian language and culture.
KANAKA Public Charter School is a kindergarten
through grade 12 public charter school (PCS), and is
located in Kekaha, on the island of Kauai. KANAKA
School is a community-initiated, community implemented
school that provides culturally appropriate educational
opportunities for the children of Niihau and Kauai. By
employing a curriculum based on the content and
processes familiar to students, such as fishing, farming,
Hawaiian music, memorization and spiritual protocols,
staff is able to support students’ educational growth in
other areas as well.
KANAKA’s development was one of intense difficulty. Entire families of the Niihau community
of Kauai have joined together to become the sole driving force behind this Niihau bilingual
education program since its inception in May 1999. It was at this time parents and educators
came together to form a home school program. In the general populace, it is the desire of these
parents and teachers to provide a bilingual environment where Hawaiian would be respected and
used to help students develop understanding of English.
KANAKA Public Charter School Profile, April 2012
Page 1 of 27
KANAKA has evolved from the needs of the descendants of Niihau families, who either migrate
between and/or live on the islands of Niihau and Kauai, speaking the Niihau dialect of the
Hawaiian language. KANAKA provides a bilingual educational setting to the descendants of this
unique population in an environment that both respects and educates, in their language and
English. Students graduating from KANAKA shall be proficient in both languages.
The vision of KANAKA includes:

the preservation and promulgation of the Niihau dialect of Hawaiian, and Hawaiian
culture and ideologies;

for the students to live functional lives in a western dominated society with their
culture and language as the foundation for learning;

to provide authentic life lessons,

and provide meaningful learning experiences.
Kekaha, the town in which KANAKA is located, is on the southern shore in Kauai County,
Hawaii. In 2011, the population was reported to be 3,546. The 2000 census showed racial
makeup of Kekaha was 43.6% Asian, 15.9% White, 12.4% Pacific Islander, 8.7% Hispanic,
0.5% Native American, 0.2% African American, 1.0% from other races, and 26.4% from two or
more races. Household median income in 2011 was $55,155—compared to $41,103 in 2000.
About 10.9% of families (11.2% of the population) were living below the poverty line.
Unemployment rate was 13.7%
Page 2 of 27
NOTE: VersiFit has
submitted enrollment data
that does not match this.
The Students
In 2010-11, KANAKA served 44 students (Figure 1). In 2008-09, 63 students were enrolled at
the school. A year later, in 2009-10, the significant decrease in student population was the direct
result of students returning to DOE schools. These students were unwilling to embrace the
Niihau cultural aspects of the program, in spite of improvements to the Niihau dialect language
component of the bilingual education program. KANAKA is continuing to improve the native
language component for all students, deepening the cultural components and adding
enhancements for college-bound students, in hope of widening the student base.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Increasing, steady, or decreasing enrollment.
Is there a need to expand or decrease district/school facilities, services,
and/or staff? Are enrollment changes congruent with population
changes?
Figure 1
100
KANAKA Public Charter School Student Enrollment
2008-09 to 2010-11
90
Number of Students
80
70
63
60
50
43
44
2009-10 (n=43)
2010-11 (n=44)
40
30
20
10
0
2008-09 (n=48)
The current KANAKA student population (shown in Figure 2) consists of 89.1% Pacific Islander
(n=41), 2.2% Caucasian (n=1), 6.5% Hispanic (n=3), and 2.2% Asian (n=1).
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Degree of diversity in the school population.
Are teachers prepared to meet the needs of students from all
backgrounds? Are instructional materials geared for all students? Is
there a need for diversity programs?
Page 3 of 27
Figure 2
KANAKA Public Charter School
Student Enrollment by Percent Ethnicity
2010-11 (N=44)
6.5%
2.2%
2.2%
Pacific Islander (n=41)
Caucasian (n=1)
Hispanic (n=3)
Asian (n=1)
89.1%
For the past two years, as shown below in Figure 3, the number of Pacific Islander students have
remained varied, and the Caucasian and Pacific Islander number of students are few.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Changes in diversity over time.
Is staff equipped to meet the needs of a changing population? Do
instructional materials meet the needs of all the students?
Figure 3
KANAKA Charter School
Number of Students Enrolled by Ethnicity
2008-09 to 2010-11
70
Number of Students
60
52
50
41
40
37
41
35
30
20
10
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
Pacific Islander
2007-08 (n=43)
Caucasian
2008-09 (n=54)
Hispanic
2009-10 (n=39)
2010-11 (n=40)
Asian
2011-12 (n=46)
Page 4 of 27
One can see the fluctuating population of this school attendance NOTE: VersiFit has
area reflected in the school enrollment by grade level over the submitted enrollment data
last three years (Figures 4-A and 4-B). Looking at the same
grade level over time is called grade level analysis. Reorganizing the data (Figure 5) to look at
the groups of students progressing through the grades together over time is called a cohort
analysis. If we were looking at the same students (as opposed to the groups of students), the
analysis would be called matched cohort analysis.
Look Fors:
Consistency of numbers within and across grade levels.
Planning
Implications:
Is there mobility within the school? Are enrollment fluctuations
indicators of satisfaction with the services provided?
Figure 4-A
Number of Students Enrolled by Grades K-6
2008-09 to 2010-11
Number of Students
20
15
10
8
7
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
2
5
4
2
2
2
Grade 4
Grade 5
1
0
Pre-K/
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
2008-09 (n=63)
2009-10 (n=43
Grade 6
2010-11 (n=44)
Figure 4-B
Number of Students Enrolled by Grades 7-12
2008-09 to 2010-11
Number of Students
20
15
10
5
9
8
7
6
4
5
5
6
4
5
5
6
8
5
4
2
0
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
2008-09 (n=63)
Grade 10
2009-10 (n=43
Grade 11
Grade 12
2010-11 (n=44)
Page 5 of 27
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Consistency in numbers within cohorts. The degree of mobility and
stability.
Are additional programs needed, including services to welcome
new students to the school system? Does the school understand
the mobility?
Figure 5
KANAKA Charter School Enrollment
Student Cohorts by Grade Level
Grades 1 to 10, 2008-09 to 2010-11
10
8
8
Number of Students
8
7
6
6
5
4
4
6 6
5 5
4
3
5
5 5
4 4 4
3
2
2 2
2
2 2
2
1
0 0
0 0
0
Cohort B
Grade One
Cohort C
Grade Two
Cohort D
Cohort E
Grade Three Grade Four
Cohort F
Grade Five
2008-09
Cohort G
Grade Six
2009-10
Cohort H
Cohort I
Grade Seven Grade Eight
Cohort J
Grade Nine
Cohort K
Grade Ten
2010-11
Page 6 of 27
By analyzing grade level and gender, one can also see the
fluctuations and the differences in the numbers and percentages of
males and females over time, within any grade level (Figure 6).
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
NOTE: VersiFit has
Consistencies in enrollment across grade levels and gender over time.
What are the enrollment fluctuations over time? Do instructional services
and programs meet the needs by gender?
Figure 6
KANAKA STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVEL AND GENDER
2008-09 TO 2010-11
Grade Level
Gender
2008-09 (n=63)
Number
Pre-K/Kindergarten
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Grade Four
Grade Five
Grade Six
Grade Seven
Grade Eight
Grade Nine
Grade Ten
Grade Eleven
Grade Twelve
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Percent
4
1
2
2
2
3
6.3%
1.6%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
4.8%
1
1
5
3
3
1
3
4
2
3
4
4
1
1
4
5
4
1.6%
1.6%
7.9%
4.8%
4.8%
1.6%
4.8%
6.3%
3.2%
4.8%
6.3%
6.3%
1.6%
1.6%
6.3%
7.9%
6.3%
2009-10 (n=43)
Number
Percent
2
2
4.7%
4.7%
1
1
2
2.3%
2.3%
4.7%
1
1
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
4
2
3
2.3%
2.3%
7.0%
4.7%
7.0%
2.3%
4.7%
7.0%
4.7%
9.3%
4.7%
7.0%
3
5
7.0%
11.6%
2010-11 (n=44)
Number
Percent
5
2
2
2
11.4%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
2
2
2
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
1
3
3
3
1
1
4
2
4
3
2
2.3%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
2.3%
2.3%
9.1%
4.5%
9.1%
6.8%
4.5%
2011-12
Number
Percent
Page 7 of 27
Attendance
KANAKA Charter School students have maintained an average of
about 92% yearly attendance rate during the last three years. The
average daily attendance for students in 2008-09 was 88%; in 200910, 93%; and in 2010-11, 94% (Figure 7).
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
NOTE: VersiFit has
High or low average student attendance. Decreasing or increasing
attendance rates over time.
Why is student attendance low or high? Why are students missing school?
When are students missing school? What can be done to improve
attendance?
Figure 7
Average Percentage Daily Attendance
2008-09 to 2010-11
100%
Percentage of Students
90%
88.0%
93.0%
94.0%
2009-10
2010-11
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008-09
Figure 8 shows the average number of days absent by grade level for students over the last three
years.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Consistency of attendance rates within and across grade levels and over
time.
Why is attendance lower in some grade levels? Why are students not
regularly attending school? Are the current attendance policies effective?
Are the policies being implemented consistently?
Page 8 of 27
Figure 8
Average Number of Days Absent
By Grade Level, 2008-09 to 2010-11
Average Number of Days Absent
100
90
82
80
70
60
51
50
45
42
30
19
18
16
36
12
12
14
14 12
13
6
21
16
14
9
53
32
23
21
20
56
44
27
20
10
45
36
40
52
50
14
11
0
Pre-K/K
Grade One
Grade Two Grade Three Grade Four Grade Five
2008-09
Grade Six Grade Seven Grade Eight Grade Nine
2009-10
Grade Ten
Grade
Eleven
2010-11
Mobility
Figure 9 shows the number of students who moved to or from the school zero, one, or two times
between ___________ and ___________. Approximately _____% of student enrollment was
stable in ____________, resulting in a mobility rate of less than ____%.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Consistency in mobility over time. Differences in mobility percentages
over time.
Does the school need additional support or special services for students
moving in and out? Does the school understand its mobility? Where do
the students go? Does the school need a common curriculum? Are there
effective transfer policies in place?
Figure 9
(Insert Graph of Student Mobility Over Time)
(See Figure 9, DemogCh4.xls)
Figure 10 shows these same students by grade level.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Consistency within grade levels.
Should certain grades expect more mobility? What should teachers do
when their students are mobile? Is there a clear curriculum?
Figure 10
(Insert Table of Student Mobility by Grade Level Over Time)
(See Figure 10, DemogCh4.doc)
Page 9 of 27
Grade
Twelve
Hawaiian Speakers
The number of Hawaiian Speakers (HS) by grade level has
decreased from 32 students in 2008-09 to 26 students in 2010-11,
as shown below in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the home language
spoken by KANAKA students by grade level.
Look Fors:
NOTE: VersiFit has
Changes in the numbers of English Learner populations.
Planning
Implications:
Are there additional materials/programs needed to meet the needs of
English Learners? Is there professional learning needed for teachers?
Can we anticipate enrollment fluctuations?
Figure 11
KANAKA Public Charter School
Hawaiian Speakers (HS) by Grade Level
2008-09 to 2010-11
10
9
Number of Students
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
2
2
2
2
2 2
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
Kindergarten
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Grade Four
Grade Five
Grade Six
2008-09 (n=32)
Grade Seven
Grade Eight
Grade Nine
2009-10 (n=24)
Grade Ten
Grade Eleven Grade Twelve
2010-11 (n=26)
Figure 12
Home Language by Grade Level
2008-09 to 2010-11
Number of Students
10
8
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
22
3
2
2 2
2
2
3
2
22
3
2
3
2
2 2
3 3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Hawaiian
(n=31)
English
(n=32)
Hawaiian
(n=19)
2008-09 (n=63)
Pre-K/K
Grade Seven
English
(n=24)
2009-10 (n=43)
Grade One
Grade Eight
Grade Two
Grade Nine
Grade Three
Grade Ten
Hawaiian
(n=25)
English
(n=19)
2010-11 (n=44)
Grade Four
Grade Eleven
Grade Five
Grade Twelve
Grade Six
Page 10 of 27
Free/Reduced Lunch Status
All of KANAKA’s students are currently receiving free/reduced lunch (Figure 13), which is an
indicator of the population’s socio-economic status.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Increases/decreases in the percentage of free/reduced lunch students.
Free/reduced lunch count is an indicator of poverty—or an indicator of
the degree to which the district is tracking paperwork to get all qualified
students signed up to take advantage of free/reduced lunch. Have all
students who qualify for free/reduced lunch returned their forms?
Figure 13
Free/Reduced Lunch
2007-08 to 2011-12
100.0%
100.0%
2010-11 (n=40)
2011-12 (n=46)
100%
Percentage of Students
90%
80%
70%
68.2%
67.3%
2007-08 (n=30)
2008-09 (n=37)
72.5%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2009-10 (n=29)
Retentions
One-hundred percent (100%) of KANAKA’s high school seniors (n=3) graduated in 2008-09,
and (n=8) in 2009-10.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Changes in numbers of retentions by grade level over time.
Who are the students that are retained and why? Is retaining
helpful/effective? When do we retain?
Page 11 of 27
Special Education
Figure 14 shows the number of students classified as needing
special education services in each of the last three years.
NOTE: VersiFit has
Note: Due to the small number of SPED students, further detail as to the actual grade level is not
provided to protect student confidentiality.
Look Fors:
Changes in the number of students qualifying for special education
services over time.
Planning
Implications:
Are the services provided meeting the needs of students with learning
disabilities? Do teachers have the professional learning required to work
with these students? Are the numbers increasing or decreasing
reasonable?
Figure 14
Special Education Student Enrollment
2008-09 to 2010-11
Number of Students
10
8
6
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
Grades K-6
2008-09 (n=6)
Grades 7-8
2009-10 (n=2)
Grades 9-12
2010-11 (n=2)
Page 12 of 27
The Staff
The number of KANAKA staff (n=10) has remained steady for the past three years, as shown in
Figure 15.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Increases/decreases in number of teachers within and across grade levels
over time, commensurate with student population.
Are there enough teachers to keep all class sizes low?
Figure 15
Number of Staff by Gender and Ethnicity
2008-09 to 2010-11
20
Number of Staff
15
10
5
5
5
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
Male
Female
Male
2008-09 (n=10)
Female
Male
2009-10 (n=10)
Hawaiian
Female
2010-11 (n=10)
Caucasian
The same principal has worked at KANAKA Charter School during the past five years. In 201011, there were two full-time equivalent teachers, three part-time teachers, and one full-time
educational assistant. Two teachers have five or more years teaching at the school. Teachers
average years of experience is seven.
The student to full-time teaching staff ratio is as follows: Kindergarten to grade 6, 17:2; grades 7
to 8, 9:1; and grades 9 to 12, 16:1. A summary of the 2010-11 KANAKA staff is shown in the
table below (Figure 16). There is one teacher with an advanced degree (MA and above).
Page 13 of 27
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Number of years of teaching experience within and across grade levels.
Is a teacher mentoring program required within specific grade levels? Is
teaching expertise even across grade levels? Will there be retirements in
the near future?
Figure 16
KANAKA STAFF EXPERIENCE, 2010-11
Gender
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Ethnicity
Grade/Subject
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
White
White
Hawaiian
White
White
Kumu
Kumu
Kumu
AdminAssist
Poo Luna
Teacher
Teacher
Kumu
Teacher
Teacher
Qualifications
Associates
Kupuna
Kupuna
Kupuna
Bachelors
Bachelors
Masters
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Years
Experience
4
11
11
11
11
7
20
7
3
7
NOTE: VersiFit has
Page 14 of 27
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
NWEA data is used in student goal setting. Students provide input to goals and are held accountable for
improvements required to achieve goals set. Teachers have an instant source of assessment that describes
the students’ needs based upon their established skills. Administration uses HSA and NWEA test results
to assess teacher instructional strategies to insure alignment with HCPS III and common core standards.
KANAKA’s primary instructional goal is to provide Hawaiian and English proficiency. The students’
primary environment lacks English based skills that are the fundamental to economic growth for the
community served. The bilingual education program is designed with cultural sensitivity that provides
emphasis on skills required for higher education and preservation of the Niihau Dialect. The bilingual
educational program is maturing to provide a stronger Hawaiian language component for non-Niihau
Dialect speakers.
KANAKA utilizes common core standards for elementary, middle and high school with focus on college
preparatory benchmarks through curriculum mapping guided by Hawaii Content Performance Standards
(HCPS III), Common Core State Standards, formative assessment (NWEA) and differentiated instruction
techniques. KANAKA utilizes place-based project learning to reinforce cultural knowledge and values.
The Hawaiian Language component relies on Niihau conversational, cultural and hula standards to
balance the educational needs of the student population.
KANAKA continues to explore the use of Running Start, College Horizon and other such programs to
provide pre-graduation college experiences for our students with a large degree of success. The
community is involved with showing the benefits of higher education by modeling successes in higher
education. All of the instructional staff has achieved highly qualified teaching status for all core subject
areas of the K-12 educational program. The Hawaiian cultural program is supported by an Oniki Kumu
Hula with a BA in Hawaiian Studies and native Niihau dialect Speakers.
Student scores are reported as performance levels. The four performance levels are Exceeds Proficiency
(exceeds state standards), Meets Proficiency (meets standards), Approaches Proficiency (approaching
standards), and Well Below Proficiency (below standards). Students scoring at the Exceeds Proficiency or
Meets Proficiency level have met state standards in that content area. Students are considered “proficient”
when they score in the Exceeds Proficiency or Meets Proficiency levels of each test.
The HSA graphed test results for Reading and Math are shown on the pages that follow.
Look Fors:
Planning
Implications:
Overall student achievement gains/losses. The student groups that have
the highest and lowest percentage scoring Proficient. The gaps.
Are there professional learning programs that all teachers need in order
to meet the needs of all students? What other services can be provided for
student groups that are not scoring Proficient or Advanced, or to move all
students to proficiency?
Page 15 of 27
2003-04 (n=8)
2007-08 (n=28)
2004-05 (n-9)
2008-09 (n=27)
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=16)
2009-10 (n=24)
3.7%
12.5%
20.0%
25.9%
33.3%
50.0%
33.3%
Approaches
Proficiency
3.6%
Well Below
Proficiency
11.1%
12.5%
37.5%
44.4%
62.5%
38.1%
35.7%
22.2%
25.0%
15.0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
62.5%
44.4%
25.0%
28.6%
60.7%
48.1%
29.2%
15.0%
Student Proficient Percentage
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)
Reading Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=21)
2010-11 (n=20)
Well Below
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=8)
2007-08 (n=28)
41.7%
Meets
Proficiency
Exceeds
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=16)
2009-10 (n=24)
2006-07 (n=21)
2010-11 (n=20)
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
3.6%
0.0%
50.0%
2004-05 (n-9)
2008-09 (n=27)
0.0%
0.0%
17.9%
14.8%
12.5%
15.0%
Approaches
Proficiency
9.5%
0.0%
18.5%
37.5%
45.0%
Math Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
43.8%
52.4%
25.0%
30.0%
8.3%
6.3%
77.8%
78.6%
66.7%
23.8%
75.0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
22.2%
NOTE: VersiFit has
submitted student learning
data that does not match this.
Page 16 of 27
22.2%
18.2%
8.3%
44.4%
33.3%
33.3%
27.3%
25.0%
33.3%
8.3%
10%
20.0%
20%
36.4%
66.7%
10.0%
30%
8.3%
40%
18.2%
33.3%
50%
33.3%
60%
33.3%
70%
50.0%
80%
50.0%
66.7%
90%
50.0%
100%
70.0%
Reading Scores by Gender—Female
2003-04 to 2010-11
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=12)
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=12)
2005-06 (n=10)
2009-10 (n=11)
2006-07 (n=9)
2010-11 (n=9)
Well Below
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=12)
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=12)
2005-06 (n=10)
2009-10 (n=11)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
27.3%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Meets
Proficiency
11.1%
54.5%
66.7%
Approaches
Proficiency
0.0%
0%
11.1%
9.1%
50.0%
55.6%
16.7%
25.0%
11.1%
8.3%
10%
9.1%
20%
22.2%
30%
10.0%
40%
33.3%
60%
40.0%
66.7%
70%
50%
Exceeds
Proficiency
Math Scores by Gender—Female
2003-04 to 2010-11
75.0%
80%
83.3%
90%
75.0%
100%
Meets
Proficiency
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=9)
2010-11 (n=9)
Page 17 of 27
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=16)
2004-05 (n-6)
2008-09 (n=15)
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=16)
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2006-07 (n=12)
2010-11 (n=11)
Approaches
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-6)
2008-09 (n=15)
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=6)
2009-10 (n=13)
9.1%
30.8%
0.0%
6.3%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
27.3%
16.7%
20.0%
46.2%
50.0%
18.2%
15.4%
20.0%
50.0%
83.3%
25.0%
Well Below
Proficiency
0.0%
0%
2005-06 (n=6)
2009-10 (n=13)
0.0%
10%
18.8%
20%
0.0%
30%
16.7%
40%
7.7%
25.0%
50%
Exceeds
Proficiency
Math Scores by Gender—Male
2003-04 to 2010-11
50.0%
60%
45.5%
75.0%
70%
60.0%
80%
75.0%
100%
90%
Meets
Proficiency
18.2%
54.5%
Approaches
Proficiency
0.0%
Well Below
Proficiency
0.0%
0.0%
10%
30.8%
20.0%
33.3%
27.3%
43.8%
50.0%
0.0%
20%
0%
23.1%
30%
33.3%
40%
33.3%
25.0%
50%
25.0%
60%
38.5%
56.3%
50.0%
70%
46.7%
80%
75.0%
90%
66.7%
100%
41.7%
Reading Scores by Gender—Male
2003-04 to 2010-11
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=12)
2010-11 (n=11)
Page 18 of 27
13.0%
3.7%
10%
20.0%
50.0%
34.8%
25.9%
36.8%
3.6%
22.2%
11.1%
26.1%
15.0%
35.7%
36.8%
44.4%
20%
22.2%
30%
26.1%
22.2%
40%
26.3%
50%
28.6%
60%
15.0%
60.7%
70%
48.1%
80%
71.4%
90%
44.4%
100%
55.6%
Reading Scores by Disadvantaged Students
2003-04 to 2010-11
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
Math Scores by Disadvantaged Students
2003-04 to 2010-11
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Meets
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-9)
2008-09 (n=23)
2005-06 (n=9)
2009-10 (n=20)
10.0%
39.1%
15.8%
3.6%
18.5%
39.1%
2003-04 (n=7)
2007-08 (n=27)
45.0%
66.7%
15.0%
13.0%
17.9%
14.3%
30.0%
Approaches
Proficiency
10.5%
10%
0.0%
20%
8.7%
26.3%
30%
33.3%
50%
14.8%
60%
40%
2006-07 (n=28)
2010-11 (n=9)
47.4%
70%
Exceeds
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=9)
2009-10 (n=20)
77.8%
80%
2004-05 (n-9)
2008-09 (n=23)
66.7%
78.6%
90%
22.2%
100%
85.7%
2003-04 (n=7)
2007-08 (n=27)
Meets
Proficiency
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=28)
2010-11 (n=9)
Page 19 of 27
Reading Scores by ELL Students
2005-06 to 2010-11
7.1%
5.6%
21.4%
35.7%
28.6%
4.8%
10%
27.8%
22.2%
21.4%
33.3%
7.7%
20%
14.3%
30%
21.4%
40%
33.3%
50%
33.3%
60%
44.4%
50.0%
70%
28.6%
80%
61.5%
66.7%
90%
30.8%
100%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=13)
2008-09 (n=14)
2007-08 (n=21)
2010-11 (n=14)
11.1%
4.8%
38.9%
50.0%
38.9%
11.1%
21.4%
46.2%
7.1%
10%
11.1%
20%
16.7%
40%
11.1%
28.6%
50%
7.1%
60%
14.3%
46.2%
70%
61.1%
80%
30%
2006-07 (n=18)
2009-10 (n=18)
Exceeds
Proficiency
Math Scores by ELL Students
2005-06 to 2010-11
85.7%
81.0%
90%
7.7%
100%
Meets
Proficiency
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=13)
2008-09 (n=14)
Meets
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=18)
2009-10 (n=18)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=21)
2010-11 (n=14)
Page 20 of 27
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
90%
80%
50.0%
70%
60%
40%
30%
25.0%
50%
25.0%
100%
Migrant Reading Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
20%
10%
0%
Approaches
Proficiency
100.0%
100.0%
2004-05 (n-2)
2008-09
2005-06 (n=4)
2009-10
Migrant Math Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=1)
2010-11 (n=1)
90%
70%
60%
50%
50.0%
80%
50.0%
100%
100.0%
2003-04 (n=1)
2007-08
Meets
Proficiency
100.0%
Well Below
Proficiency
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=1)
2007-08
Approaches
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-2)
2008-09
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=4)
2009-10
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=1)
2010-11 (n=1)
Page 21 of 27
Well Below
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=3)
2007-08 (n=1)
2004-05 (n-2)
2008-09 (n=3)
50.0%
100.0%
33.3%
50.0%
100.0%
33.3%
Approaches
Proficiency
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
33.3%
50.0%
33.3%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
66.7%
Grade Three Reading Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
Meets
Proficiency
Exceeds
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=1)
2009-10 (n=2)
2006-07 (n=4)
2010-11 (n=1)
2003-04 (n=3)
2007-08 (n=1)
100.0%
100.0%
33.3%
25.0%
Well Below
Proficiency
100.0%
100.0%
75.0%
50.0%
66.7%
100.0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50.0%
Grade Three Math Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
Approaches
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-2)
2008-09 (n=3)
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=1)
2009-10 (n=2)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=4)
2010-11 (n=1)
Page 22 of 27
Grade Four Reading Scores
2005-06 to 2010-11
66.7%
50.0%
66.7%
66.7%
50.0%
33.3%
40%
50.0%
50%
33.3%
60%
33.3%
70%
50.0%
80%
66.7%
90%
33.3%
100%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=6)
2010-11 (n=3)
Approaches
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=2)
2008-09 (n=3)
Meets
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=3)
2009-10 (n=2)
33.3%
66.7%
50.0%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
66.7%
Well Below
Proficiency
50.0%
100.0%
2006-07 (n=3)
2009-10 (n=2)
Exceeds
Proficiency
Grade Four Math Scores
2005-06 to 2010-11
33.3%
33.3%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
83.3%
2005-06 (n=2)
2008-09 (n=3)
Meets
Proficiency
Exceeds
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=6)
2010-11 (n=3)
Page 23 of 27
100.0%
50.0%
40.0%
40%
33.3%
50%
33.3%
60%
66.7%
70%
50.0%
60.0%
80%
66.7%
90%
30%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=5)
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=3)
2009-10 (n=1)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0%
0.0%
10%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
100%
100.0%
100.0%
Grade Five Reading Scores
2004-05 to 2010-11
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=3)
2010-11 (n=2)
2007-08 (n=2)
Well Below
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=5)
2005-06 (n=3)
2009-10 (n=1)
Meets
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=3)
2010-11 (n=2)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
33.3%
50.0%
Approaches
Proficiency
0.0%
0%
0.0%
10%
0.0%
0.0%
20%
0.0%
30%
0.0%
20.0%
33.3%
40%
33.3%
50%
33.3%
60%
66.7%
70%
50.0%
60.0%
80%
66.7%
90%
33.3%
100%
100.0%
100.0%
Grade Five Math Scores
2004-05 to 2010-11
Exceeds
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=2)
Page 24 of 27
Grade 6 Reading Scores
2005-06 to 2010-11
100%
25.0%
30%
25.0%
33.3%
25.0%
40%
50.0%
50%
50.0%
60%
50.0%
70%
50.0%
66.7%
75.0%
80%
50.0%
90%
20%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=2)
Approaches
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=3)
Meets
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=6)
2008-09 (n=4)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2009-10 (n=4)
2010-11
30%
33.3%
40%
25.0%
50%
33.3%
60%
25.0%
70%
33.3%
80%
50.0%
66.7%
90%
33.3%
100%
100.0%
100.0%
Grade 6 Math Scores
2005-06 to 2010-11
20%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=2)
Approaches
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=3)
2007-08 (n=6)
Meets
Proficiency
2008-09 (n=4)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2009-10 (n=4)
2010-11
Page 25 of 27
80%
100.0%
75.0%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=3)
2008-09 (n=8)
40.0%
2010-11 (n=5)
80.0%
20.0%
60.0%
12.5%
20%
20.0%
30%
25.0%
20.0%
40%
33.3%
66.7%
62.5%
50.0%
50%
50.0%
80%
60%
Exceeds
Proficiency
2009-10 (n=5)
90%
70%
12.5%
Meets
Proficiency
Grade 7 Math Scores
2006-07 to 2010-11
100%
40.0%
40.0%
0.0%
20%
20.0%
30%
12.5%
20.0%
40%
37.5%
50%
25.0%
60%
40.0%
70%
37.5%
100%
90%
2006-07 to 2010-11
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
2006-07 (n=4)
Approaches
Proficiency
2007-08 (n=3)
Meets
Proficiency
2008-09 (n=8)
2009-10 (n=5)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2010-11 (n=5)
Page 26 of 27
20.0%
60.0%
50.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
Approaches
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=4)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=5)
2009-10 (n=5)
2006-07
2010-11 (n=4)
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Grade 8 Math Scores
2003-04 to 2010-11
25.0%
50%
60.0%
60%
40%
30%
0.0%
20%
40.0%
50.0%
70%
25.0%
80%
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=4)
50.0%
90%
Meets
Proficiency
75.0%
100%
75.0%
50.0%
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
50%
40%
50.0%
70%
60%
75.0%
90%
80%
50.0%
100.0%
100%
2003-04 to 2010-11
10%
0%
Well Below
Proficiency
2003-04 (n=4)
2007-08 (n=4)
Approaches
Proficiency
2004-05 (n-3)
2008-09 (n=4)
Meets
Proficiency
2005-06 (n=5)
2009-10 (n=5)
Exceeds
Proficiency
2006-07
2010-11 (n=4)
Page 27 of 27

(kanaka) profile hawaiian bilingual (k

Transcription

Similar documents

the ESL/Bilingual newsletter.

Arispe Presentation IATLC Fall 2014.key

Private Jet Charter Fact Sheet

Janmor Pegaz 737 - {ModelName} Charter Brochure

Diagnostic assessment in Language Teaching and Learning

2. Ottawa Charter - Health and Human Development

Changes In Latitudes BVI Getaway!

Wedding Favors - Joy Kawai Consulting

View Online