Inglewoood-SARC-2009-2010

Transcription

Inglewood High School
School Accountability Report Card, 2009–2010
Inglewood Unified School District
annual report to the
» An
community about teaching,
learning, test results,
resources, and measures of
progress in our school.
Published by
SCHOOL WISE PRESS
This School Accountability Report Card
(SARC) provides information that can be
used to evaluate and compare schools. State
and federal laws require all schools to publish
a SARC each year.
The information in this report represents the
2009–2010 school year, not the current
school year. In most cases, this is the most
recent data available. We present our school’s
results next to those of the average high
school in the county and state to provide the
most meaningful and fair comparisons. To
find additional facts about our school online,
please use the DataQuest tool offered by the
California Department of Education.
If you are reading a printed version of this
report, note that words that appear in a
smaller, bold typeface are links in the online
version of this report to even more
information. You can find a master list of
those linked words, and the Web page
addresses they are connected to, at:
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/sarc/
links_2010_en.html
Reports about other schools are available on
the California Department of Education Web site.
Internet access is available in local libraries.
If you have any questions related to this
report, please contact the school office.
How to Contact Our School
231 South Grevillea Ave.
Inglewood, CA 90301
Principal: Debbie Tate
Phone: (310) 680-5200
How to Contact Our District
401 South Inglewood Ave.
Inglewood, CA 90301
Phone: (310) 419-2700
http://www.iusd.net
Published by
SCHOOL WISE PRESS
385 Ashton Ave., Ste. 200
San Francisco, CA 94112
Phone: (415) 337-7971
www.schoolwisepress.com
©2010 Publishing 20/20
» Contents
ONLINE USERS: CLICK ON A TITLE TO JUMP TO THAT SECTION
Principal’s Message
Measures of Progress
Student Achievement
Preparation for College and the Workforce
Students
Climate for Learning
Leadership, Teachers, and Staff
Resources
School Expenditures
Adequacy of Key Resources
Data Almanac
» Principal’s Message
Welcome to Inglewood High School. The faculty, students, and parents
visualize Inglewood High as a model California high school, which
provides learning in a positive, safe, healthy environment with community
participation. Students will be responsible, high-achieving, lifelong
learners in a multicultural society. The faculty challenges all students with
a vigorous, strong, and comprehensive curriculum that integrates
academic, vocational, and technological studies to provide successful
student experiences.
Grade range
and calendar
8–12
TRADITIONAL
Academic
Performance Index
594
We are proud that our staff was able to successfully improve our
instructional program, test scores, student academic performance, staff
performance, parental involvement, and community partnerships during
the 2009–2010 school year.
County Average: N/A
State Average: 728
We continue to implement our schoolwide action plan, which includes
our Expected Schoolwide Learning Results; School Site Plan for
Increasing Student Achievement; and Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) recommendations. As principal, I am confident that
student academic achievement will continue to show improvement in all
curriculum areas.
County Average: N/A
State Average: N/A
It is extremely important that all stakeholders (students, staff, parents, and
the community partnerships) work together in the best interest of all the
students attending Inglewood High School. It is our goal to reach and
exceed our Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and our Academic
Performance Index (API) targets each year.
Your continued support and suggestions are always welcome. We are
moving forward! Good, better, best will never rest until good is better,
and better is BEST!
Debbie Tate, PR INCIPAL
Student enrollment
1,627
Teachers
64
County Average: N/A
State Average: N/A
Students per teacher
25
County Average: N/A
State Average: N/A
PLEASE NOTE:
Comparative data
(county average and state
averages) in some
sections of this report are
unavailable due to
problems the
Department of
Education had with data
collection last year.
Inglewood High School School Accountability Report Card for 2009–2010
Page 2
Major Achievements
• Inglewood High School offers a variety of programs to all students including honors classes; Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), a program that encourages college attendance; and
Advanced Placement classes. The English Language Intensive Literacy Program is offered to our English
Learners. SHAPE, a UCLA tutorial program, and core curriculum afterschool programs are offered to all
students.
• Inglewood High School has received WASC accreditation certification through 2011. Inglewood High
School is an AVID Certification School and continues to be College Summit schoolwide, preparing and
assisting all students with postgraduation college preparations.
• Inglewood High School was acknowledged nationwide by the College Summit Program for our implementation. The number of students participating in extracurricular activities and athletics increased. The
total amount of scholarship funding given to the senior class of 2010 was $600,000. Ms. Gail Atley was
selected to serve on the State Science Curriculum Development Committee by the State Board of Education. Ms. Krystal Greene was selected as the California southern section College Summit Coordinator
of the Year. Many of our senior students received scholarships including the Dell Scholarship and the Bill
Gates Scholarship. Inglewood High School received first- and second-place honors in the district-wide
spelling bee competition.
• Three senior students received full athletic scholarships.
Focus for Improvement
• Inglewood High School continues to use rigorous standards-based instruction in the classrooms with
ongoing formative and end-of-unit assessments throughout the year, measuring students’ growth. We
met our API and our student test scores are increasing every year.
• We continue to implement university tutors in the classroom and provide afterschool tutoring services for
every child.
• We continue to analyze and use student data to drive our instruction.
• We continue to place a strong emphasis on our math program and its instructional practices.
• Teachers continue to implement professional learning communities to improve student achievement.
• We continue to embed student performance data in everyday instructional practices to improve student
academic performance.
• We continue to increase parent involvement and teacher-parent contact to improve student academic
performance.
• We continue to implement periodic assessments to provide feedback for teachers and students.
Page 3
M E A S U R ES O F P R O G R E S S
Academic Performance Index
The Academic Performance Index (API) is California’s way of comparing
schools based on student test scores. The index was created in 1999 to help
parents and educators recognize schools that show progress and identify schools
that need help. It is also used to compare schools in a statewide ranking system.
The California Department of Education (CDE) calculates a school’s API using
student test results from the California Standards Tests and, for high schools, the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). APIs range from 200 to 1000.
The CDE expects all schools to eventually obtain APIs of at least 800. Additional
information on the API can be found on the CDE Web site.
CALIFORNIA
API
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX
school year with a base API of 601. The state ranks all schools according to this
score on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highest). Compared with all high schools
in California, our school ranked 1 out of 10.
No
Met growth target
for prior school year
Yes
API score
594
Growth attained
from prior year
Inglewood’s API was 594 (out of 1000). This is a decline of 7 points compared
with last year’s API. About 98 percent of our students took the test. You can find
three years of detailed API results in the Data Almanac that accompanies this
report.
API RANKINGS: Based on our 2008–2009 test results, we started the 2009–2010
Met schoolwide
growth target
Met subgroup*
growth targets
-7
No
SOURCE: API based on spring 2010 test cycle.
Growth scores alone are displayed and are
current as of December 2010.
*Ethnic groups, English Learners, special ed
students, or socioeconomic groups of students
that make up 15 percent or more of a school’s
student body. These groups must meet AYP and
API goals.
R/P - Results pending due to challenge by
school.
N/A - Results not available.
SIMILAR SCHOOL RANKINGS: We also received a second ranking that compared us with the 100 schools with
the most similar students, teachers, and class sizes. Compared with these schools, our school ranked 6 out of 10.
The CDE recalculates this factor every year. To read more about the specific elements included in this
calculation, refer to the CDE Web site.
API GROWTH TARGETS: Each year the CDE sets specific API “growth targets” for every school. It assigns one
growth target for the entire school, and it sets additional targets for ethnic groups, English Learners, special
education students, or socioeconomic subgroups of students that make up a significant portion of the student
body. Schools are required to meet all of their growth targets. If they do, they may be eligible to apply for
awards through the California School Recognition Program and the Title I Achieving Schools Program.
We did not meet some or all of our assigned growth targets during the 2009–2010 school year. Just for
reference, 32 percent of high schools statewide met their growth targets.
API, Spring 2010
594
ALL STUDENTS IN THIS SCHOOL
728
STATE AVERAGE
STUDENT SUBGROUPS
555
African American
620
Hispanic/Latino
597
Low income
581
English Learners
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
SOURCE: API based on spring 2010 test cycle. State average represents high schools only.
NOTE: Only groups of students that represent at least 15 percent of total enrollment are calculated and displayed as student subgroups.
Page 4
Adequate Yearly Progress
In addition to California’s accountability system, which measures student
achievement using the API, schools must also meet requirements set by the
federal education law known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This law requires
all schools to meet a different goal: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
We met seven out of 22 criteria for yearly progress. Because we fell short in 15
areas, we did not make AYP. Our school is also on the federal watchlist known as
Program Improvement (PI). See the next page for background on this matter
and an explanation of the consequences.
To meet AYP, high schools must meet four criteria. First, a certain percentage of
students must score at or above Proficient levels on the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE): 55.6 percent on the English/language arts test and 54.8
percent on the math test. All significant ethnic, English Learners, special
education, and socioeconomic subgroups of students also must meet these goals.
Second, the schools must achieve an API of at least 650 or increase their API by
one point from the prior year. Third, 95 percent of tenth grade students must
take the CAHSEE. Fourth, the graduation rate for the class of 2009 must be at
least 90 percent (or satisfy alternate improvement criteria). This is higher than
was required by the CDE in prior years.
FEDERAL
AYP
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS
Met AYP
No
Met schoolwide
participation rate
No
Met schoolwide test
score goals
No
Met subgroup*
participation rate
No
Met subgroup* test
score goals
No
Met schoolwide API
for AYP
No
Met graduation rate
N /A
Program
Improvement
school in 2010
Yes
SOURCE: AYP is based on the Accountability
Progress Report of December 2010. A school can
be in Program Improvement based on students’
test results in the 2009–2010 school year or
earlier.
groups, English Learners, special ed
If even one subgroup of students fails to meet just one of the criteria, the school *Ethnic
students, or socioeconomic groups of students
that make up 15 percent or more of a school’s
student body. These groups must meet AYP and
fails to meet AYP. While all schools must report their progress toward meeting
API goals. R/P - Results pending due to
challenge by school. N/A - Results not available.
AYP, only schools that receive federal funding to help economically
disadvantaged students are actually penalized if they fail to meet AYP goals. Schools that do not make AYP for
two or more years in a row in the same subject enter Program Improvement (PI). They must offer students transfers
to other schools in the district and, in their second year in PI, tutoring services as well.
Adequate Yearly Progress, Detail by Subgroup
● MET GOAL ● DID NOT MEET GOAL – NOT ENOUGH STUDENTS
English/Language Arts
Math
DID 95%
OF STUDENTS
TAKE THE
CAHSEE?
DID 55.6%
ATTAIN
PROFICIENCY
ON THE
CAHSEE?
DID 95%
OF STUDENTS
TAKE THE
CAHSEE?
DID 54.8%
ATTAIN
PROFICIENCY
ON THE
CAHSEE?
●
●
●
●
Low income
●
●
●
●
Students learning English
●
●
●
●
African American
●
●
●
●
Hispanic/Latino
●
●
●
●
SCHOOLWIDE RESULTS
SUBGROUPS OF STUDENTS
STUDENTS BY ETHNICITY
SOURCE: AYP release of October 2010, CDE.
The table at left shows our
success or failure in meeting
AYP goals in the 2009–2010
school year. The green dots
represent goals we met; red
dots indicate goals we missed.
Just one red dot means that
we failed to meet AYP.
Note: Dashes indicate that
too few students were in the
category to draw meaningful
conclusions. Federal law
requires valid test scores from
at least 50 students for
statistical significance.
Page 5
Program Improvement, a Federal Intervention Program
FEDERAL INTERVENTION PROGRAM
PI
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR SCHOOL’S PLACEMENT IN PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT: Inglewood has been in Program Improvement (PI) since
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
1998. In 2010, the school remained at stage 5. There are five stages in total. In
California, 140 high schools were in stage 5 of PI as of December 2010.
THE STAGES OF PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT: Program Improvement is a fivestage process for monitoring, improving, and, if necessary, reorganizing any
school that receives federal money under the Title I section of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). Schools in PI get extra attention from their district office to
help them improve.
In PI since
1998
Stage
of PI
5 of 5
Change
in 2010
No change
(did not make
AYP)
SOURCE: PI status is based on the Accountability
Progress Report of February 2010. A school can
be in Program Improvement based on students’
test results in the 2009–2010 school year or
earlier.
When a school misses even one of its goals for Adequate Yearly Progress, it is at
risk of entering PI. If a school misses the same AYP goals two years in a row, it enters stage 1 of PI. Each
subsequent year that a school misses any of its AYP goals, it goes one stage deeper into the process. Each stage
results in increasingly severe consequences. The first stage gives parents the right to choose another school. In
the second stage, students have the right to free tutoring in addition to the option to change schools. The last
three stages can result in a change of staff and leadership, the conversion of the school to charter status,
transferring the school to another district, or even the school’s closure.
AYP GOALS NOT MET ■
AYP GOALS MET ■
YEAR
PI
STAGE
2007
5
We met 18 of the 22 criteria for Adequate Yearly
Progress. Because we were already at stage 5 of
Program Improvement, the school remained at stage 5.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
2008
5
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
2009
5
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
2010
5
We met seven of the 22 criteria for Adequate Yearly
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SUMMARY OF EVENTS FOR THIS YEAR
SOURCE: PI status is based on the Accountability Progress Report of October 2010. A school can be in Program Improvement based on students’ test results in the 2009–2010 school
year or earlier. Some schools were in Program Improvement prior to the passage of No Child Left Behind, when the definition of PI was significantly modified.
CONSEQUENCES
PARENTS: Because Inglewood is in stage (year) 5 of PI, parents of students have two options. They can enroll
their children in different schools in the district. To see the list of these schools, parents can contact either the
principal or the district office staff. Their children are also entitled to free tutoring. Details about the district’s
list of approved tutoring providers are available from the district office. More information about both options is
available on the US Department of Education Web site.
SCHOOL: The district is likely to be recruiting a new staff and principal.
DISTRICT: The district is taking its most serious corrective steps. It is acting on its plan for a complete
reorganization of the school. That reorganization should include one or more of the following: replacing the
entire school staff; reopening the school as a charter school; contracting with an outside agency to run the
school; and changing the internal organizational structure of the school. The district is also notifying parents of
the school’s reorganization.
Page 6
S T U D E N T A CH I E V E M E N T
Here you’ll find a three-year summary of our students’ scores on the California Standards Tests (CST) in
selected subjects. We compare our students’ test scores with the results for students in the average high school in
California. On the following pages we provide more detail for each test, including the scores for different
subgroups of students. In addition, we provide links to the California Content Standards on which these tests
are based. If you’d like more information about the CST, please contact our principal or our teaching staff. To
find grade-level-specific scores, you can refer to the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Web site. Other
tests in the STAR program can be found on the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site.
California Standards Tests
BAR GRAPHS BELOW SHOW THESE PROFICIENCY GROUPS (LEFT TO RIGHT):
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
2009–2010
TESTED SUBJECT
LOW SCORES
ADVANCED
2008–2009
HIGH SCORES
LOW SCORES
2007–2008
HIGH SCORES
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS
Our school
Percent Proficient or higher
24%
22%
22%
49%
46%
44%
2%
3%
2%
24%
24%
21%
20%
22%
16%
48%
47%
40%
20%
12%
16%
47%
42%
43%
25%
16%
13%
47%
45%
41%
Average high school
GEOMETRY
Our school
Average high school
US HISTORY
Our school
Average high school
BIOLOGY
Our school
Average high school
LIFE SCIENCE (TENTH GRADE)
Our school
Average high school
SOURCE: The scores for the CST are from the spring 2010 test cycle. State average represents high schools only. Whenever a school reports fewer than 11 scores for a particular subgroup
at any grade level, the CDE suppresses the scores when it releases the data to the public. Missing data makes it impossible for us to compile complete schoolwide results. Therefore, the
results published in this report may vary from other published CDE test scores.
Page 7
Frequently Asked Questions About Standardized Tests
WHERE CAN I FIND GRADE-LEVEL REPORTS? Due to space constraints and concern for statistical reliability, we
have omitted grade-level detail from these test results. Instead we present results at the schoolwide level. You can
view the results of far more students than any one grade level would contain, which also improves their
statistical reliability. Grade-level results are online on the STAR Web site. More information about student test
scores is available in the Data Almanac that accompanies this report.
WHAT DO THE FIVE PROFICIENCY BANDS MEAN? Test experts assign students to one of these five proficiency
levels, based on the number of questions they answer correctly. Our immediate goal is to help students move up
one level. Our eventual goal is to enable all students to reach either of the top two bands, Advanced or
Proficient. Those who score in the middle band, Basic, have come close to attaining the required knowledge
and skills. Those who score in either of the bottom two bands, Below Basic or Far Below Basic, need more help
to reach the Proficient level.
HOW HARD ARE THE CALIFORNIA STANDARDS TESTS? Experts consider California’s standards to be among the
most clear and rigorous in the country. Just 55 percent of elementary school students scored Proficient or
Advanced on the English/language arts test; 61 percent scored Proficient or Advanced in math. You can review
the California Content Standards on the CDE Web site.
ARE ALL STUDENTS’ SCORES INCLUDED? No. Only students in grades two through eleven are required to take
the CST. When fewer than 11 students in one grade or subgroup take a test, state officials remove their scores
from the report. They omit them to protect students’ privacy, as called for by federal law.
CAN I REVIEW SAMPLE TEST QUESTIONS? Sample test questions for the CST are on the CDE’s Web site. These
are actual questions used in previous years.
WHERE CAN I FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? The CDE has a wealth of resources on its Web site. The
STAR Web site publishes detailed reports for schools and districts, and assistance packets for parents and
teachers. This site includes explanations of technical terms, scoring methods, and the subjects covered by the tests
for each grade. You’ll also find a guide to navigating the STAR Web site as well as help for understanding how
to compare test scores.
WHY ARE ONLY SOME OF THE TEST RESULTS PRESENT? California’s test program includes many tests not
mentioned in this report. For brevity’s sake, we’re reporting six CST tests usually taken by the largest number of
students. We select at least one test from each core subject. For science, we’ve selected biology (an elective) and
the tenth grade life science test. For math, we’ve selected two courses, both of them electives: Algebra I, which
students take if they haven’t studied and passed it in eighth grade; and Geometry. In social studies, we’ve
selected US History, which is taken by all juniors (eleventh graders). English/language arts summarizes the
results of students in grades nine through eleven.
Page 8
English/Language Arts (Reading and Writing)
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
24%
98%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
45%
96%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
49%
96%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE: About 25 percent fewer
students at our school scored Proficient or Advanced than
at the average high school in California.
Subgroup Test Scores
BAR GRAPHS BELOW SHOW TWO PROFICIENCY GROUPS (LEFT TO RIGHT):
FAR BELOW BASIC, BELOW BASIC, AND BASIC
GROUP
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
23%
674
Girls
25%
623
English proficient
29%
1,054
3%
241
Low income
25%
980
Not low income
22%
317
4%
99
Not learning disabled
26%
1,198
African American
20%
528
Hispanic/Latino
27%
719
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
English Learners
Learning disabled
COMMENTS
GENDER: About two percent more girls than boys at our
school scored Proficient or Advanced.
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY: English Learners scored lower on
the CST than students who are proficient in English.
Because we give this test in English, English Learners tend
to be at a disadvantage.
INCOME: About three percent more students from lowerincome families scored Proficient or Advanced than our
other students.
LEARNING DISABILITIES: Students classified as learning
disabled scored lower than students without learning
disabilities. The CST is not designed to test the progress
of students with moderate to severe learning differences.
ETHNICITY: Test scores are likely to vary among students
of different ethnic origins. The degree of variance will
differ from school to school. Measures of the achievement
gap are beyond the scope of this report.
SOURCE: The scores for the CST are from the spring 2010 test cycle. County and state averages represent high schools only. Whenever a school reports fewer than 11 scores for a
particular subgroup at any grade level, the CDE suppresses the scores when it releases the data to the public. Missing data makes it impossible for us to compile complete schoolwide
results. Therefore, the results published in this report may vary from other published CDE test scores.
N/A: Not applicable. Either no students took the test, or to safeguard student privacy the CDE withheld all results because very few students took the test in any grade.
N/S: Not statistically significant. While we have some data to report, we are suppressing it because the number of valid test scores is not large enough to be meaningful.
You can read the California standards for English/
on the CDE’s Web site.
language arts
Three-Year Trend:
English/Language Arts
100
80
60
40
Percentage of students
The graph to the right shows how our students’
scores have changed over the years. We present each
year’s results in a vertical bar, with students’ scores
arrayed across five proficiency bands. When viewing
schoolwide results over time, remember that progress
can take many forms. It can be more students scoring
in the top proficiency bands (blue); it can also be
fewer students scoring in the lower two proficiency
bands (brown and red).
20
who took the test:
2008: 98%
0
20
2009: 99%
2010: 98%
40
60
80
100
SOURCE: CDE STAR research file:
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 9
Algebra I
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
5%
41%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
18%
30%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
19%
30%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GROUP
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
4%
292
Girls
7%
247
English proficient
6%
406
English Learners
5%
132
Low income
6%
406
Not low income
2%
133
Learning disabled
0%
36
6%
503
African American
3%
208
Hispanic/Latino
7%
310
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GENDER: About three percent more girls than boys at our
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY: English Learners scored about
the same on this test as did students who are proficient in
English. Because we give this test in English, English
Learners tend to be at a disadvantage.
INCOME: About four percent more students from lowerincome families scored Proficient or Advanced than our
other students.
About 41 percent of our students took the algebra
CST, compared with 30 percent of all high school
students statewide. To read more about California’s
math standards, visit the CDE’s Web site.
Three-Year Trend: Algebra I
100
80
60
40
scores have changed over the years. Any student in
grades nine, ten, or eleven who took algebra is
included in this analysis. We present each year’s
results in a vertical bar, with students’ scores arrayed
across five proficiency bands. When viewing
20
who took the test:
2008: 42%
0
20
2009: 49%
2010: 41%
40
60
80
100
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 10
Geometry
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
2%
29%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
19%
26%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
24%
26%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GROUP
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
3%
186
Girls
2%
195
English proficient
3%
320
English Learners
0%
61
Low income
2%
292
2%
89
N/S
29
3%
352
African American
1%
159
Hispanic/Latino
3%
211
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
Not low income
Learning disabled
DATA STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE
COMMENTS
GENDER: About the same percentage of boys and girls at
our school scored Proficient or Advanced.
INCOME: The same percentage of students from lowerincome families scored Proficient or Advanced as our
other students.
LEARNING DISABILITIES: We cannot compare scores for
these two subgroups because the number of students
tested with learning disabilities was too small to be
statistically significant.
About 29 percent of our students took the geometry
students statewide. To read more about the math
standards for all grades, visit the CDE’s Web site.
Three-Year Trend:
Geometry
100
80
60
40
grades nine, ten, or eleven who took geometry is
20
who took the test:
2008: 32%
0
20
2009: 30%
2010: 29%
40
60
80
100
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 11
US History
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
20%
98%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
44%
95%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
48%
95%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GROUP
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
22%
225
Girls
17%
199
English proficient
22%
366
3%
58
Low income
20%
315
Not low income
19%
109
0%
35
22%
389
African American
16%
201
Hispanic/Latino
23%
207
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
English Learners
Learning disabled
COMMENTS
GENDER: About five percent more boys than girls at our
INCOME: About the same percentage of students from
lower-income families scored Proficient or Advanced as
our other students.
To read more about the eleventh grade US history
standards, visit the CDE’s Web site.
Three-Year Trend:
US History
100
80
60
40
The graph to the right shows how our eleventh
grade students’ scores have changed over the years.
We present each year’s results in a vertical bar, with
students’ scores arrayed across five proficiency bands.
When viewing schoolwide results over time,
remember that progress can take many forms. It can
be more students scoring in the top proficiency bands
(blue); it can also be fewer students scoring in the
lower two proficiency bands (brown and red).
20
who took the test:
2008: 96%
0
20
2009: 98%
2010: 98%
40
60
80
100
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 12
Biology
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
20%
33%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
42%
37%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
47%
36%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GROUP
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
22%
212
Girls
19%
220
English proficient
24%
355
4%
76
22%
323
16%
109
N/S
29
21%
403
African American
15%
171
Hispanic/Latino
24%
242
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
English Learners
Low income
Not low income
Learning disabled
DATA STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE
COMMENTS
GENDER: About three percent more boys than girls at our
INCOME: About six percent more students from lowerincome families scored Proficient or Advanced than our
other students.
LEARNING DISABILITIES: We cannot compare scores for
these two subgroups because the number of students
tested with learning disabilities was too small to be
statistically significant.
About 33 percent of our students took the biology
students statewide. To read more about the California
standards for science visit the CDE’s Web site.
Three-Year Trend:
Biology
100
80
60
40
grades nine, ten, or eleven who took biology is
20
who took the test:
2008: 37%
0
20
2009: 38%
2010: 33%
40
60
80
100
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 13
Life Science (Tenth Grade)
FAR BELOW BASIC
BELOW BASIC
BASIC
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
SCHOOLWIDE AVERAGE
25%
97%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN THE COUNTY
43%
95%
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL
IN CALIFORNIA
47%
95%
GROUP
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GROUP
PROFICIENT
OR
ADVANCED
STUDENTS
TESTED
Boys
26%
219
Girls
24%
221
English proficient
29%
363
8%
76
Low income
27%
336
Not low income
17%
104
Learning disabled
15%
34
26%
406
African American
17%
165
Hispanic/Latino
30%
255
English Learners
LOW SCORES
HIGH SCORES
COMMENTS
GENDER: About two percent more boys than girls at our
INCOME: About ten percent more students from lowerincome families scored Proficient or Advanced than our
other students.
You can read the science standards on the CDE’s Web
site. Please note that some students taking this test
may not have taken any science course in the ninth
or tenth grade. In high school, science courses are
electives.
Three-Year Trend: Life Science
100
80
60
40
The graph to the right shows how our tenth grade
students’ scores on the mandatory life science test
have changed over the years. We present each year’s
20
who took the test:
2008: 98%
0
20
2009: 99%
2010: 97%
40
60
80
100
2008, 2009, and 2010.
2008
2009
2010
Page 14
Other Measures of Student Achievement
In addition to standardized test results, we use informal classroom observations, portfolios, homework, class
work, quizzes, and end-of-unit tests to assess our students’ performance. Annual assessments include the
Inglewood Language Arts Performance Assignment, Inglewood Math Assignment, state Physical Fitness Exam,
California English Language Development Test (CELDT), UCLA Diagnostic Test (math), Holt Language Arts
Pre-Assessment and Quarterly Assessments, California Standards Tests (CST), California High School Exit
Exam, Advanced Placement tests, and math monthly assessments.
In all core subjects (math, language arts, science, and social science) teachers administer periodic assessments,
quarterly assessments, and set benchmarks to monitor student’s academic growth throughout the year. We send
the results for individual children home to parents and report the grade-level results on our district Web site.
Page 15
PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE AND THE WORKFORCE
Inglewood High School has the VCA-9 requirements embedded in our ninth through twelfth grade
curriculum. Inglewood High School has the National Organization College Summit embedded in our English
IV curriculum. College Summit is a national organization working to increase the college enrollment of
students, ensuring that every student who can make it in college, makes it to college. The goal of College
Summit is to ensure that students are well prepared and informed about their options when it comes to life after
high school, whether they choose college, work, military, apprenticeship, or something different. By the end of
their senior year, student will have produced their own Senior Portfolios, which they can use to apply to almost
any opportunity they pursue after high school. Each student has a four-year plan, which is reviewed with the
parents. Ongoing monitoring of student progress by counselors, teachers, administrators, and parents is what
makes the difference.
SAT College Entrance Exam
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
41%
43%
38%
Average score of juniors and seniors who took
the SAT verbal test
391
474
495
SAT math
the SAT math test
380
488
513
SAT writing
the SAT writing test
390
475
494
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
SAT participation rate
Percentage of seniors who took the test
SAT verbal
SOURCE: SAT test data provided by the College Board for the 2008–2009 school year. County and state averages represent high schools only.
In the 2008–2009 academic year, 41 percent of Inglewood students took the SAT, compared with 38 percent of
high school students in California.
Page 16
Inglewood students’ average score was 391 on the verbal portion of the SAT, compared with 495 for students
throughout the state. Inglewood students’ average score was 380 on the math portion of the SAT, compared
with 513 for students throughout the state. Inglewood students’ average score was 390 on the writing portion of
the SAT, compared with 494 for students throughout the state.
College Preparation and Attendance
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
96%
43%
37%
Percentage of graduates who actually attended
any campus of the UC system
4%
8%
7%
Students attending CSU
any campus of the CSU system
11%
13%
12%
Students attending
community colleges
any campus of the California community college
system
20%
32%
29%
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
2009 graduates meeting
UC or CSU course
requirements
Percentage of graduates passing all of the
courses required for admission to the UC or CSU
systems
Students attending UC
SOURCE: College attendance data is from the California Postsecondary Education Commission for the graduating class of 2009. Enrollment in UC/CSU qualifying courses comes from
the CBEDS census of October 2009. County and state averages represent high schools only.
In the 2008–2009 school year, 96 percent of Inglewood’s graduates passed courses required for admission to the
University of California (UC) or the California State University (CSU) system, compared with 37 percent of
students statewide. This number is, in part, an indicator of whether the school is offering the classes required for
admission to the UC or CSU systems. The courses that the California State University system requires applicants to
take in high school, which are referred to as the A-G course requirements, can be reviewed on the CSU’s
official Web site. The University of California has the same set of courses required.
Our college attendance data is limited to public colleges in California. Out of Inglewood’s 2009 graduating class,
about 35 percent went on to enroll in some part of the California public college system, compared with 49
percent of students throughout the state. Here’s the detail: four percent of the graduating class went to UC
campuses; 11 percent went to CSU campuses; and 20 percent went to two-year colleges in the community
college system.
Page 17
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses Offered
High school students can enroll in courses that are more challenging in their junior and senior years, including
Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Some schools also offer students the opportunity to participate in the
International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme. IB courses are offered in just 92 high schools in California.
The IB curriculum is modelled on educational systems from around the world. All IB students learn a second
language. Some IB programs also stress community service. Honors, IB, and AP courses are intended to be the
most rigorous and challenging courses available. Most colleges regard IB and AP courses as the equivalent of a
college course.
OUR
SCHOOL
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
Enrollment in AP courses
Percentage of AP course enrollments out of
total course enrollments
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
N/A
N/A
18%
SOURCE: This information provided by the school district.
The majority of comprehensive high schools offer AP courses, but the number of AP courses offered at any one
school varies considerably. Unlike honors courses, AP courses and tests are designed by a national organization,
the College Board, which charges fees to high schools for the rights to their material. The number of AP
courses offered is one indicator of a school’s commitment to prepare its students for college, but students’
participation in those courses and their test results are, in part, a measure of student initiative. Please keep both
of these considerations in mind as you review the facts below.
Students who take IB courses as
part of the IB program, or AP
courses and pass the AP exams with
scores of 3 or higher, may qualify
for college credit. Our high school
offers 12 different courses that
you’ll see listed in the table.
More information about the
Advanced Placement program is
available from the College Board.
AP AND IB COURSES
OFFERED
NUMBER OF
COURSES
NUMBER OF
CLASSES
ENROLLMENT
Fine and Performing Arts
1
N/A
N/A
Computer Science
0
N/A
N/A
English
2
N/A
N/A
Foreign Language
1
N/A
N/A
Mathematics
1
N/A
N/A
Science
3
N/A
N/A
Social Science
4
N/A
N/A
Total
12
N/A
N/A
AP Exam Results, 2008–2009
OUR
SCHOOL
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
Completion of AP
courses
Percentage of juniors and seniors who
completed AP courses and took the final exams
Number of AP exams
taken
Average number of AP exams each of these
students took in 2008–2009
AP test results
Percentage of AP exams with scores of 3 out of
5 or higher (college credit)
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
21%
30%
27%
1.4
1.8
1.8
12%
53%
58%
SOURCE: AP exam data provided by the College Board for the 2008–2009 school year.
Here at Inglewood, 21 percent of juniors and seniors took AP exams. In California, 27 percent of juniors and
seniors in the average high school took AP exams. On average, those students took 1.4 AP exams, compared
with 1.8 for students in the average high school in California.
Page 18
California High School Exit
Examination
Students first take the California High
School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in
the tenth grade. If they don’t pass either
the English/language arts or math
portion, they can retake the test in the
eleventh or twelfth grades. Here you’ll
see a three-year summary showing the
percentage of tenth graders who scored
Proficient or Advanced. (This should
not be confused with the passing rate,
which is set at a somewhat lower level.)
PERCENTAGE OF TENTH GRADE
STUDENTS SCORING PROFICIENT OR
ADVANCED ON THE CAHSEE
OUR
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
2009–2010
34%
37%
54%
2008–2009
32%
37%
52%
2007–2008
30%
33%
53%
27%
33%
53%
English/language arts
Math
2009–2010
Answers to frequently asked questions
2008–2009
29%
32%
53%
about the exit exam can be found on
the CDE Web site. Additional
2007–2008
23%
27%
51%
information about the exit exam results is
SOURCE: California Department of Education, SARC research file.
also available there. The table to the
right shows how specific groups of
tenth grade students scored on the exit exam in the 2009–2010 school year. The English/language arts portion
of the exam measures whether a student has mastered reading and writing skills at the ninth or tenth grade level,
including vocabulary, writing, writing conventions, informational reading, and reading literature. The math
portion of the exam includes arithmetic, statistics, data analysis, probability, number sense, measurement, and
geometry at sixth and seventh grade levels. It also tests whether a student has mastered algebra, a subject that
most students study in the eighth or ninth grade.
Sample questions and study guides for the exit exam are available for students on the CDE Web site.
Page 19
CAHSEE Results by Subgroup
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS
MATH
NOT
PROFICIENT
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
NOT
PROFICIENT
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
66%
20%
13%
73%
21%
6%
75%
16%
9%
83%
15%
2%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Asian
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Filipino
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
61%
23%
16%
67%
25%
9%
Pacific Islander
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
White (not Hispanic)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Male
71%
21%
8%
76%
18%
6%
Female
62%
19%
19%
70%
24%
6%
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
66%
21%
13%
72%
20%
7%
English Learners
63%
21%
16%
67%
25%
9%
Students with
disabilities
90%
5%
5%
88%
9%
3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tenth graders
African American
Hispanic or Latino
Students receiving
migrant education
services
SOURCE: California Department of Education, SARC research file. Scores are included only when 11 or more students are tested. When small numbers of students are tested, their
average results are not very reliable.
High School Completion
This table shows the percentage of seniors
in the graduating class of 2010 who met
our district’s graduation requirements and
also passed the California High School
Exit Examination (CAHSEE). We present
the results for students schoolwide
followed by the results for different groups
of students.
Students can retake all or part of the
CAHSEE twice in their junior year and up
to five times in their senior year. School
districts have been giving the CAHSEE
since the 2001–2002 school year.
However, 2005–2006 was the first year
that passing the test was required for
graduation.
More data about CAHSEE results , and
additional detail by gender, ethnicity, and
English language fluency, are available on
the CDE Web site.
PERCENTAGE OF SENIORS
GRADUATING
(CLASS OF 2010)
OUR
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
99%
94%
African American
97%
94%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
N/A
N/A
Asian
100%
100%
Filipino
100%
100%
Hispanic or Latino
100%
93%
Pacific Islander
100%
86%
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
100%
100%
N/A
N/A
GROUP
All Students
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
English Learners
Students with disabilities
SOURCE: This data comes from the school district office.
Page 20
Dropouts and Graduates
Dropout prevention is a high priority at
Inglewood High School. Counselors
monitor and mentor students’ progress
as they advance from ninth to twelfth
grade. Inglewood High School refers
students behind in credits to Hillcrest
Academy, which is our partner
alternative school. Students are able to
complete the necessary course work
and return on target to graduate.
Inglewood High School also refers
students to our Community Adult
School for course completion.
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
2008–2009
7%
5%
4%
2007–2008
8%
5%
4%
2006–2007
2%
5%
4%
2008–2009
81%
79%
83%
2007–2008
85%
82%
85%
2006–2007
91%
80%
85%
KEY FACTOR
Dropout rate (one year)
Graduation rate (four year)
DROPOUT RATE: Our dropout rate for
the prior three years appears in the
accompanying table. We define a dropout as any student who left school before completing the 2008–2009
school year or a student who hasn’t re-enrolled in our school for the 2009–2010 year by October 2009.
SOURCE: Dropout data comes from the CBEDS census of October 2009. County and state averages represent
high schools only.
Identifying dropouts has been difficult because students often do not let a school know why they are leaving or
where they are going. Districts have begun to use Statewide Student Identifiers (SSID), which will increase
their ability to find students who stop coming to school. This system also helps districts identify students who
were considered a dropout at a school they left but in fact were enrolled in a different district. The data also
allows the CDE to identify students reported by a school district as transferring to another California school
district but who cannot be found enrolled elsewhere. These students are now properly counted as dropouts
rather than transfers.
It will take a couple of years for the data to be completely accurate, because we need to track students from the
time they enter high school. Once this tracking system has been in place for four years, our information will be
much more accurate.
GRADUATION RATE: The graduation rate is an estimate of our school’s success at keeping students in school. It is
also used in the No Child Left Behind Act to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and is part of
California’s way of determining a high school’s Academic Performance Index (API). The formula provides only a
rough estimate of the completion rate because the calculation relies on dropout counts, which are imprecise.
The California Department of Education (CDE) cautions that this method is likely to produce an estimated
graduation rate that is too high.
Page 21
Workforce Preparation
Inglewood High School has a College and Career Center that is
available to students every day. Information is provided regarding
careers, colleges, and the workforce after high school. Students
have available for their review several books and resources. Our
workforce-preparation courses are taught by the SCROC. These
classes satisfy graduation elective requirements, and some are AG approved. Courses are offered on site and at the main campus
in Torrance (transportation is provided for our students).
Inglewood High School hosts many guest speakers who share
information with students about workforce opportunities as well
as an Annual Career Day with over 50 career/workforce
presenters, one to two per classroom. We also have the One Stop
Career to Work Program.
KEY FACTOR
OUR
SCHOOL
Number of students
participating in CTE courses
N/A
completing a CTE program and
earning a high school diploma
0%
Percentage of CTE courses
coordinated with colleges
0%
SOURCE: Information provided by the school district.
Our high school offers courses intended to help students prepare for the world of work. These career technical
education (CTE) courses, formerly known as vocational education, are open to all students. The accompanying
table shows the percentage of our students who enrolled in a CTE course at any time during the school year.
Inglewood High School offers several technology classes: Computer Operations, Introduction to Digital, and
Computer Applications. Inglewood High School is in partnership with SCROC, offering on site Business
Occupations and Web Page Design classes. Technology used by students and staff has increased, including
homework links, daily attendance, roll-book software, and more. You can find information about our school’s
CTE courses and advisors in the Data Almanac at the end of this School Accountability Report Card.
Information about career technical education policy is available on the CDE Web site.
Page 22
STUDENTS
Ethnicity
Most students at Inglewood identify
themselves as Hispanic/Latino. The
state of California allows citizens to
choose more than one ethnic identity,
or to select “multiethnic” or “decline
to state.” As a consequence, the sum of
all responses rarely equals 100 percent.
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
African American
42%
9%
7%
Asian American/
Pacific Islander
1%
11%
12%
Hispanic/Latino
56%
60%
47%
1%
19%
33%
ETHNICITY
White/European American/
Other
SOURCE: CBEDS census of October 2009. County and state averages represent high schools only.
Family Income
and Education
The free or reduced-price meal subsidy
goes to students whose families earned
less than $40,793 a year (based on a
family of four) in the 2009-2010 school
year. At Inglewood, 73 percent of the
students qualified for this program,
compared with 56 percent of students
in California.
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
Low-income indicator
73%
N/A
56%
Parents with some college
28%
48%
56%
Parents with college degree
11%
27%
32%
FAMILY FACTORS
SOURCE: The free and reduced-price lunch information is gathered by most districts in October. This data is
from the 2009–2010 school year. Parents’ education level is collected in the spring at the start of testing. Rarely
do all students answer these questions.
The parents of 28 percent of the students at Inglewood have attended college and 11 percent have a college
degree. This information can provide some clues to the level of literacy children bring to school. One
precaution is that the students themselves provide this data when they take the battery of standardized tests each
spring, so it may not be completely accurate. About 77 percent of our students provided this information.
Page 23
CLIMATE FOR LEARNING
Average Class Sizes
The table at the right shows average
class sizes for core courses. Our average
class size schoolwide is 28 students
AVERAGE CLASS SIZES
OF CORE COURSES
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
English
25
N/A
N/A
History
30
N/A
N/A
Safety
Math
34
N/A
N/A
We are a closed campus during the day
and have a campus that is fully fenced.
Science
26
N/A
N/A
Visitors must enter the school through
the main door (one entry) and sign in
at the office, where they receive a bright green badge to wear throughout their stay. All entries are on camera in
order to keep track of daily visitations. Visitors must be escorted at all times on campus by an administrator,
counselor, or facility personnel.
We have a student dress-code policy and a schoolwide discipline policy that provide our students and staff with a
safe campus.
We have seven campus supervisors on staff. We revise our School Safety Plan annually and have earthquake
supplies on site. We perform fire drill/emergency drills twice annually. A School Emergency Response Team in
place to assist and lead with emergency drills.
The school is connected to the parents and community through a telephone system called Connect Ed, which
allows the school to contact parents immediately.
Discipline
We abide by our district’s strict behavior code, which we send home to parents and review with our students in
a schoolwide assembly at the beginning of the year. Students who are disruptive or disrespectful may receive
detention. Students with chronic behavior problems work with our counselor, the assistant principal, and their
parents to make a behavior contract. Elements might include suspension from sports, dances, and
extracurricular activities; loss of the privilege of leaving campus at lunch; Saturday school; campus cleanup;
counseling; and participation in our anger management or substance abuse support groups.
We enforce a strict dress code. We expel students for major crimes such as assault or possession of narcotics or
weapons. We suspend students and report them to the police for using tobacco, drugs, or alcohol on campus.
Students are not allowed to have radios, tape players, and other electronic devices on campus. Cell phones must
not be visible and must remain turned off during the school day. Gang activity is not permitted and will result
in expulsion from school.
Homework
Homework is an essential component of the instructional program; the teachers at Inglewood High School are
required to give homework assignments. Teachers correct the assignments to ensure that students use the
information to review or reinforce concepts studied in class.
Students are to be assigned two to four hours of homework per day. Assignments may be given each day of each
week or in units of work for a specific period of time. Homework assignments should not be more than one
hour of work per night per subject for the average student. Some teachers provide the homework assignments
online. We encourage all parents to provide email addresses to teachers and continuously encourage their
children to complete daily homework.
Schedule
The school year begins the first week in September and ends the third week of June. Classes begin at 8 a.m. and
end at 2:49 p.m. We offer students a breakfast program before school. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
We are a traditional school with summers off.
We have a fully staffed athletic program and an Associated Student Body that governs all extracurricular
programs.
Page 24
Parent Involvement
We have many ways for parents to participate in the life of our school, and we depend on parents to keep our
programs running smoothly. Parents can join our School Site Council (SSC), which works with administration
to help make financial decisions, and the School Advisory Committee (SAC). Parent input is beneficial in the
creation of the School Plan. Parents of English Learners are vital to our English Language Advisory Committee
(ELAC) and to outreach efforts on behalf of new families.
Our community liaison organizes parent volunteers to help with special projects in the classroom and chaperone
on field trips. Teachers hold individual Parent Nights for parents to get involved in actual class activities with
their students. During Back-to-School Night, parents volunteer and assist with distributing student report cards.
We have a parent center where parent volunteers come daily to assist as needed. We offer parent workshops
throughout the year to all parents. Parents are involved through booster clubs as well. A community liaison is on
site daily. We send messages home to parents monthly in addition to a parent newsletter, which shares all of the
school’s activities and events.
To find out more about volunteering at Inglewood High, please call our community liaison, Monica
Hernandez, at (310) 680-5200.
Page 25
L E A D E R S H I P , T EA CH E R S , A ND S T A F F
Leadership
I have been principal of this school for eight years and have served 32 years in the field of education. Shared
decision making and team building happens continuously with all stakeholders. We were commended by the
WASC visiting team for our team collaboration and efforts.
Many groups help to make decisions that affect our school. Parent volunteers, the administration, and staff
compose the School Site Council (SSC), which makes many important budgetary decisions. Our English
Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) includes many parents of English Learners. The ELAC helps to shape
our program for English Learners. The individual department chairpersons always perform over and beyond the
call of duty. Our Leadership Team is made up of administrators, teachers, parents, support staff, counselors, and
students. It meets the second Monday of every month.
We have created teams to address specific needs of our school with strong teacher, student, staff, and parent
input.
Indicators of Teachers Who May Be Underprepared
OUR
SCHOOL
COUNTY
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
3%
N/A
0%
0%
N/A
N/A
Percentage of staff holding a full, clear
authorization to teach at the elementary or
secondary level
100%
N/A
N/A
Percentage of teachers without a full, clear
credential
0%
N/A
N/A
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
Core courses taught by a
teacher not meeting
NCLB standards
Percentage of core courses not taught by a
“highly qualified” teacher according to federal
standards in NCLB
Out-of-field teaching:
courses
Percentage of core courses taught by a teacher
who lacks the appropriate subject area
authorization for the course
Fully credentialed
teachers
Teachers lacking a full
credential
SOURCE: This information provided by the school district. Data on NCLB standards is from the California Department of Education, SARC research file.
PLEASE NOTE: Comparative data (county average and state averages) from some of the data reported in the
SARC is unavailable due to problems the California Department of Education had with data collection last
year.
“HIGHLY QUALIFIED” TEACHERS: The federal law known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires districts
to report the number of teachers considered to be “highly qualified.” These “highly qualified” teachers must have
a full credential, a bachelor’s degree, and, if they are teaching a core subject (such as reading, math, science, or
social studies), they must also demonstrate expertise in that field. The table above shows the percentage of core
courses taught by teachers who are considered to be less than “highly qualified.” There are exceptions, known
as the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) rules, that allow some veteran teachers to meet
the “highly qualified” test who wouldn’t otherwise do so.
TEACHING OUT OF FIELD: When a teacher lacks a subject area authorization for a course she is teaching, that
course is counted as an out-of-field section. For example, if an unexpected vacancy in a biology class occurs, and
a teacher who normally teaches English literature (and who lacks a subject area authorization in science) fills in
to teach for the rest of the year, that teacher would be teaching out of field.
CREDENTIAL STATUS OF TEACHERS: Teachers who lack full credentials are working under the terms of an
emergency permit, an internship credential, or a waiver. They should be working toward their credential, and
they are allowed to teach in the meantime only if the school board approves.
More facts about our teachers, called for by the Williams legislation of 2004, are available on our Accountability
Web page, which is accessible from our district Web site. You will find specific facts about misassigned teachers
and teacher vacancies in the 2010–2011 school year.
Page 26
Districtwide Distribution of Teachers Who Are Not “Highly Qualified”
Here, we report the percentage of core
courses in our district whose teachers are
considered to be less than “highly
qualified” by NCLB’s standards. We show
how these teachers are distributed among
DISTRICT FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
schools according to the percentage of
Percentage of core courses not
Districtwide
low-income students enrolled.
CORE
COURSES
NOT
TAUGHT BY
HQT IN
DISTRICT
2%
taught by “highly qualified”
teachers (HQT)
When more than 40 percent of the
students in a school are receiving
Schools whose core courses are
Schools with more
1%
subsidized lunches, that school is
than 40% of students
not taught by “highly
considered by the California Department
from lower-income
qualified” teachers
homes
of Education to be a school with higher
concentrations of low-income students.
Schools whose core courses are
Schools with less
0%
About 70 percent of the state’s schools are than 25% of students not taught by “highly
from lower-income
qualified” teachers
in this category. When less than 25
homes
percent of the students in a school are
receiving subsidized lunches, that school is SOURCE: Data is from the California Department of Education, SARC research file.
considered by the CDE to be a school
with lower concentrations of low-income students. About 19 percent of the state’s schools are in this category.
The average percentage of courses in our district not taught by a “highly qualified” teacher is two percent,
compared with one percent statewide. For schools with the highest percentage of low-income students, this
factor is one percent, compared with zero percent statewide. For schools with the lowest percentage of lowincome students, this factor is zero percent, compared with zero percent statewide.
Staff Development
Our teachers attend three days of staff development before
school begins. These days are devoted to aligning our
curriculum to state standards, learning how to analyze
standardized tests results, exploring techniques for creating
constructive classroom environments, and discussing the latest
research. Teachers and administrators look at test scores and
review the most pressing issues of the previous year to choose
specific topics. Ongoing staff development takes place on
Tuesdays throughout the school year.
YEAR
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT DAYS
2009-2010
3.0
2008–2009
3.0
2007–2008
3.0
SOURCE: This information is supplied by the school district.
Teachers work collaboratively in professional learning communities, which focus on standard-based academic
mastery for students.
Evaluating and Improving Teachers
Our principal and assistant principals evaluate teachers every year. Every fall we meet with the teachers to be
evaluated to agree on objectives. The administrators conduct one formal and several informal, spontaneous
observations during the year. The overall evaluation is in accordance with the teacher’s contract and the
guidelines of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. During the observation, the administrators
note the students’ level of engagement, the organization of the classroom, and the effectiveness of the lesson
under way. Administrators check the teacher’s lesson plans and student work as well. These factors, in addition
to test scores, determine whether a teacher needs help, such as training in a specific area or working with a
mentor.
Substitute Teachers
At times we do experience difficulty securing qualified substitutes. When possible, we hire substitutes whom
our teachers request specifically. If a teacher is absent on short notice, our principal or teachers who have
available prep periods take over the class. Teachers leave detailed lesson plans for our substitutes to follow, and
we experience a minimal loss of learning time.
Administrators visit classroom daily to supervise and assist the substitute teacher with instructional practices.
Page 27
Specialized Resource Staff
Our school may employ social workers, speech and hearing specialists,
school psychologists, nurses, and technology specialists. These
specialists often work part time at our school and some may work at
more than one school in our district. Their schedules will change as
our students’ needs change. For these reasons, the staffing counts you
see here may differ from the staffing provided today in this school. For
more details on statewide ratios of counselors, psychologists, or other pupil
services staff to students, see the California Department of Education
(CDE) Web site. Library facts and frequently asked questions are also
available there.
ACADEMIC GUIDANCE COUNSELORS: More information about
counseling and student support
is available on the CDE Web site.
STAFF POSITION
STAFF
(FTE)
Counselors
5.0
Librarians and media
staff
0.0
Psychologists
0.0
Social workers
0.0
Nurses
0.0
Speech/language/
hearing specialists
0.0
Resource specialists
0.0
Specialized Programs and Staff
SOURCE: Data provided by the school district.
Inglewood High School has a dynamic performing arts department,
which includes instrumental music, vocal (chorus), drama/theater, dance, and visual arts. Students have received
college scholarships in the arts as well as community recognition. We have a partnership with El Camino
College, Inglewood Adult School, and Southern California Regional Occupational Program (SCROC).
Teachers work collaboratively, making sure every ninth grader makes a smooth transition to high school, with a
focus on establishing a strong support system in language arts and math.
Enrichment programs include the GATE program, AVID program, Advanced Placement classes in eight subject
areas, honors classes in all core subjects, and the schoolwide College Summit program in the senior language
arts classes.
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)
The district’s GATE program begins in the third grade. Our GATE students learn subject matter at a faster pace
and in more depth than the regular curriculum provides. Students with high scores on standardized tests or
whose teachers have recommended them because of exceptional academic abilities join this program. Our
GATE students are scheduled in our honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses. All of our honors and AP
instructional leaders (teachers) attend AP training during the summer and ongoing workshops during the year.
Special Education Program
We have three full-time Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teachers and four Special Day Class (SDC)
teachers. We have a speech therapist three days a week. The special education teacher team has common
planning time to meet and collaborate with each other to improve student academic performance. Our
administrator and teachers use the SEIS student system regularly to address IEPs and student data.
In the regular classroom students receive accommodations according to their Individualized Education Plan
(IEPs). All of our special education teachers have common planning periods for collaboration and completion
of IEP meetings. The special education teachers support special education student needs by providing
differentiated instruction as indicated in the IEP. Our special education students also receive guidance and
instruction concerning the California High School Exit Exam.
English Learner Program
The focus of our English language instructional program is to support our English Learners as they acquire the
English language. We have one English Language Development (ELD) instructor. We offer Specially Designed
Academic Instruction to English (SDAIE) in all core subjects. We place our English Learners in regular
classrooms as soon as they achieve a basic level of comprehension. The majority of our English Learners are at
the advanced level.
We encourage the parents of English Learners to join our English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC). We
depend on the ELAC to help improve and expand our ELD program as our English Learner population
continues to grow. In addition, we also provide afterschool tutorials for our English Learners.
Page 28
R E SO U R C E S
Buildings
Inglewood High School is over 100 years old. We have one plant manager, one night lead person, one gardener,
one skilled maintenance staff person, and seven custodians.
The facility is cleaned daily. We receive high commendations from daily visitors on the cleanliness of our
campus. Students are also held accountable for the condition of the campus. Maintenance repairs and upkeep
are the responsibility of the district maintenance department.
The Los Angeles County Office of Education has conducted Williams inspections for the last four years and our
rating is good. There is definitely room for growth and improvement with our facility. We look forward to
additional maintenance improvements due to the aging of the facility.
More facts about the condition of our school buildings are available in an online supplement to this report called for
by the Williams legislation of 2004. What you will find is an assessment of more than a dozen aspects of our
buildings: their structural integrity, electrical systems, heating and ventilation systems, and more. The important
purpose of this assessment is to determine if our buildings and grounds are safe and in good repair. If anything
needs to be repaired, this assessment identifies it and targets a date by which we commit to make those repairs.
The guidelines for this assessment were written by the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and were
brought about by the Williams legislation. You can look at the six-page Facilities Inspection Tool used for the
assessment on the Web site of the OPSC.
Library
We have a spacious and inviting library and a full-time librarian. The library is open before school, during
lunch, and after school. Our students visit the library regularly, sometimes having class sessions. Our RIF
distribution is held annually in the library and is a great experience. The librarian also schedules orientation
sessions for classes on how to use the library.
Books and resources are updated annually. Students also have computer access in the library.
Computers
We have 34 computers in our computer lab and a computer technician who maintains and instructs teachers on
how to use them. She also helps students who come to the lab at lunchtime. The language arts quarterly
assessment is taken in the computer lab.
All classrooms have Internet access with at least one computer. Computers are also available to students in the
library and four computer classes (Intro to Business, Computer Science, Business Office Technology, and Digital
Intro) with at least 34 computers in each, allowing for a computer for each student. Laptops are provided for
every teacher as well as LCD screens. We are looking into the SMART board device for classroom usage.
All teachers note daily school attendance and grades on computers.
We have 12 computers in the College and Career Center for students to use throughout the day. We also have
four traveling/portable laptop computer centers that are rotated from class to class.
Textbooks
We choose our textbooks from lists that have already been approved by state education officials. For a list of
some of the textbooks we use at our school, see the Data Almanac that accompanies this report.
We have also reported additional facts about our textbooks called for by the Williams legislation of 2004. This
online report shows whether we had a textbook for each student in each core course during the 2010–2011
school year and whether those textbooks covered the California Content Standards.
Curriculum
For more than six years, panels of scholars have decided what California students should learn and be able to do.
Their decisions are known as the California Content Standards, and they apply to all public schools in the state.
The textbooks we use and the tests we give are based on these content standards, and we expect our teachers to
be firmly focused on them. Policy experts, researchers, and educators consider our state’s standards to be among
the most rigorous and challenging in the nation.
You can find the content standards for each subject at each grade level on the Web site of the California
Department of Education (CDE).
Page 29
Science Labs
Facts about our science labs, called for by the Williams legislation, are available from the following link. What
you will find is whether we had sufficient lab equipment and materials for our science lab courses during the
2010–2011 school year.
Page 30
S C H O O L E X P EN D I T U R E S
We receive federal and state funding to enhance programs at our school. These funding sources are designated
for specific purposes, and the expenditures are monitored and approved by the School Site Council monthly. All
parents are welcome to attend School Site Council meetings. The principal provides a yearly workshop for all
School Site Council members on the school budget and what/how it is allocated. All parents are welcome, and
all stakeholders are represented in the expenditure of funding.
Because we are a Title I school, we receive supplemental services (free tutorials) for our students.
Spending per Student (2008–2009)
To make comparisons possible across schools and districts of varying sizes, we first report our overall spending
per student. We base our calculations on our average daily attendance (ADA), which was 1,534 students.
We’ve broken down expenditures by the type of funds used to pay for them. Unrestricted funds can be used for
any lawful purpose. Restricted funds, however, must be spent for specific purposes set out by legal requirements
or the donor. Examples include funding for instructional materials, economic impact aid, and teacher- and
principal-training funds.
TYPE OF FUNDS
Unrestricted funds ($/student)
Restricted funds ($/student)
TOTAL ($/student)
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
OUR SCHOOL
SCHOOL
VARIANCE
STATE
AVERAGE
SCHOOL
VARIANCE
$4,666
$4,514
3%
$5,653
-17%
$676
$1,029
-34%
$3,083
-78%
$5,342
$5,543
-4%
$8,736
-39%
Total Expenditures, by Category (2008–2009)
Here you can see how much we spent on different categories of expenses. We’re reporting the total dollars in
each category, not spending per student.
CATEGORY
Teacher salaries
Other staff salaries
Benefits
Books and supplies
Equipment replacement
Services and direct support
TOTAL
UNRESTRICTED
FUNDS
RESTRICTED
FUNDS
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL*
$4,425,002
$260,148
$4,685,149
57%
$813,272
$101,480
$914,752
11%
$1,867,219
$119,950
$1,987,168
24%
$36,836
$378,982
$415,818
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$14,991
$176,632
$191,624
2%
$7,157,319
$1,037,192
$8,194,511
* Totals may not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.
Page 31
Compensation per Staff with Teaching Credentials (2008–2009)
The total of what our certificated staff members earn appears below. A certificated staff person is a school
employee who is required by the state to hold teaching credentials, including full-time, part-time, substitute or
temporary teachers, and most administrators. You can see the portion of pay that goes to salary and three types
of benefits.
To make comparisons possible across schools and districts of varying sizes, we first report our compensation per
full-time equivalent (FTE) certificated staff member. A teacher/administrator/pupil services person who works
full time counts as 1.0 FTE. Those who work only half time count as 0.5 FTE. We had 59 FTE teachers
working in our school.
CATEGORY
Salaries
Retirement benefits
Health and medical benefits
Other benefits
TOTAL
OUR SCHOOL
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
SCHOOL
VARIANCE
STATE
AVERAGE
SCHOOL
VARIANCE
$64,294
$63,940
1%
$72,020
-11%
$5,924
$5,781
2%
$5,840
1%
$11,095
$10,375
7%
$9,324
19%
$4,486
$4,452
1%
$384
$85,800
$84,548
1%
$87,568
1068%
-2%
Total Certificated Staff Compensation (2008–2009)
Here you can see how much we spent on
different categories of compensation. We’re
CATEGORY
reporting the total dollars in each category,
Salaries
not compensation per staff member.
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL*
$3,793,343
75%
Retirement benefits
$349,536
7%
Health and medical benefits
$654,633
13%
Other benefits
$264,690
5%
TOTAL
$5,062,203
* Totals may not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.
TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA RECENCY: All data is the most current available as of December 2010. The CDE may release
additional or revised data for the 2009–2010 school year after the publication date of this report. We rely on the following
sources of information from the California Department of Education: California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) (October 2009 census); Language Census (March 2010); California Standards Tests (spring 2010 test cycle); Academic Performance
Index (November 2010 growth score release); Adequate Yearly Progress (October 2010).
DISCLAIMER: School Wise Press, the publisher of this accountability report, makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of this
information but offers no guarantee, express or implied. While we do our utmost to ensure the information is complete, we
must note that we are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the data. Nor are we responsible for any damages caused by
the use of the information this report contains. Before you make decisions based on this information, we strongly recommend
that you visit the school and ask the principal to provide the most up-to-date facts available.
rev20101105x_19-64634-1934231h/15923
» Adequacy of Key Resources
Here you’ll find key facts about our teachers, textbooks, and facilities
during the school year in progress, 2010–2011. Please note that these
facts are based on evaluations our staff conducted in accordance with the
Williams legislation.
Page 33
Page 34
School Accountability Report Card for 2009–2010
TEACHERS
Teacher Vacancies
The Williams legislation asked districts to disclose how frequently full-time teachers were not permanently
assigned to a classroom. There are two general circumstances that can lead to the unfortunate case of a
classroom without a full-time, permanently assigned teacher. Within the first 20 days of the start of school,
we can be surprised by too many students showing up for school, or too few teachers showing up to teach.
After school starts, however, teachers can also be surprised by sudden changes: family emergencies, injuries,
accidents, etc. When that occurs, it is our school’s and our district’s responsibility to fill that teacher’s
vacancy with a qualified, full-time and permanently assigned replacement. For that reason, we report
teacher vacancies in two parts: at the start of school, and after the start of school.
KEY FACTOR
2008–2009
2009–2010
2010–2011
325
290
305
10
5
0
Number of classes where the permanently assigned teacher left during
the year
0
10
5
Number of those classes where you replaced the absent teacher with a
single new teacher
0
0
0
TEACHER VACANCIES OCCURRING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR
Total number of classes at the start of the year
Number of classes which lacked a permanently assigned teacher within
the first 20 days of school
TEACHER VACANCIES OCCURRING DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR
NOTES: This report was completed on Wednesday, December 01, 2010.
Page 35
Teacher Misassignments
A “misassigned” teacher is one who lacks the appropriate subject-area authorization for a class she is
teaching.
Under the terms of the Williams settlement, schools must inform the public of the number of their
teachers who are misassigned. It is possible for a teacher who lacks the authorization for a subject to get
special permission—in the form of an emergency permit, waiver, or internship authorization—from the
school board or county office of education to teach the subject anyway. This permission prevents the
teacher from being counted as misassigned.
KEY FACTOR
DESCRIPTION
2008–2009
2009–2010
2010–2011
Teacher
Misassignments
Total number of classes taught by teachers
without a legally recognized certificate or
credential
10
15
5
Teacher
Misassignments in
Classes that Include
English Learners
Total number of classes that include English
learners and are taught by teachers without
CLAD/BCLAD authorization, ELD or SDAIE
training, or equivalent authorization from
the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing
20
15
10
Other Employee
Misassignments
Total number of service area placements of
employees without the required credentials
0
0
0
NOTES: This report was completed on Wednesday, December 01, 2010.
Page 36
TEXTBOOKS
The main fact about textbooks that the Williams legislation calls for described whether schools have
enough books in core classes for all students. The law also asks districts to reveal whether those books are
presenting what the California content standards calls for. This information is far more meaningful when
viewed along with the more detailed description of textbooks contained in our School Accountability
Report Card (SARC). There you’ll find the names of the textbooks used in our core classes, their dates of
publication, the names of the firms that published them, and more.
ARE THERE TEXTBOOKS OR INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS IN USE?
ARE THERE ENOUGH BOOKS FOR EACH
STUDENT?
SUBJECT
STANDARDS
ALIGNED?
OFFICIALLY
ADOPTED?
FOR USE IN CLASS?
PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS HAVING
BOOKS TO TAKE
HOME?
English
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Math
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Science
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Social Studies
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Foreign Languages
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Health Sciences
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
NOTES: This report was completed on Tuesday, December 14, 2010. This information was collected on Tuesday, December 14, 2010.
HEALTH IS COVERED THROUGH SCIENCE. All of our textbooks are the most recently approved by the State Board of Ed or our Local
Governing Agency.
Page 37
FACILITIES
To determine the condition of our facilities, our district sent experts from our facilities team to inspect
them. They used a survey, called the Facilities Inspection Tool, issued by the Office of Public School
Construction. Based on that survey, we’ve answered the questions you see on this report. Please note that
the information reflects the condition of our buildings as of the date of the report. Since that time, those
conditions may have changed.
AREA
OVERALL RATING
A. SYSTEMS
RATING
DESCRIPTION
Fair
Our school is not in good repair, according to the criteria
established by the Office of Public School Construction. Some of
our deficiencies are critical, or may be widespread. Maintenance
or minor repairs are required in several areas. We scored
between 75 and 90 percent on the 15 categories of our
evaluation.
Good
Gas Leaks
No apparent problems.
Mechanical Problems (Heating,
Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning)
Sewer System
B. INTERIOR
Interior Surfaces (Walls, Floors,
and Ceilings)
C. CLEANLINESS
Fair
Good
Overall Cleanliness
Pest or Vermin Infestation
D. ELECTRICAL
Electrical Systems and Lighting
E. RESTROOMS/FOUNTAINS
Fair
Light fixtures need to be replaced around the campus Light
covers in classrooms need to be replaced. Repairs are being
implemented. H-2 and teacher's cafeteria need new light
covers. Need more electrical outlets in several classrooms and
computer labs. Work orders have been submitted.
Good
Bathrooms
Drinking Fountains (Inside and
Out)
F. SAFETY
Good
Fire Safety (Sprinkler Systems,
Alarms, Extinguishers)
Hazardous Materials (Lead Paint,
Asbestos, Mold, Flammables,
etc.)
Page 38
AREA
G. STRUCTURAL
RATING
DESCRIPTION
Fair
Structural Damage (Cracks in
Walls and Foundations, Sloping
Ceilings, Posts or Beams Missing)
Cracks in grounds through-out campus three-roots causing
grounds - foundation damaged.
Roofs
The entire school roof needs to be replace: lots of rain damage
in several classrooms as well as library during rainy days.
H. EXTERNAL
Good
Playground/School Grounds
Windows, Doors, Gates, Fences
(Interior and Exterior)
OTHER DEFICIENCIES
N/A
INSPECTORS AND ADVISORS: This report was completed on Monday, December 13, 2010 by Stephanie Johnson (Maintenance Clerk).
There were no other inspectors used in the completion of this form.
Page 39
SCIENCE LABS
Many science courses require that students conduct experiments. This gives our students a chance to
practice the scientific method, in effect, learning science by doing science. Those courses are what we call
lab courses, and, of course, they require equipment and materials. The purpose of the Williams legislation is
to inform citizens if our schools have the proper equipment, and enough of it, for students to succeed. This
legislation only requires high schools to provide this information.
Please note that there is no state standard for equipping science labs. The next best authority we have to
rely upon is the policy of our own school board. So you’ll see in our report whether our school board has
voted to approve a standard for equipping our science labs. If you have further questions about the
condition of our science labs, we recommend you speak with your child’s science teacher directly.
DID THE DISTRICT ADOPT ANY
RESOLUTIONS TO DEFINE
“SUFFICIENCY”?
IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT TO
CONDUCT THE LABS?
Biology
Yes
N/A
AP Biology
Yes
N/A
Chemistry
Yes
N/A
AP Chemistry
Yes
N/A
Physics
Yes
N/A
AP Physics
Yes
N/A
Earth Science
Yes
N/A
COURSE TITLE
Notes
» Data Almanac
This Data Almanac provides more-detailed information than the School
Accountability Report Card as well as data that covers a period of more
than one year. It presents the facts and statistics in tables without narrative
text.
Page 41
Page 42
S T U D E N T S A ND T E A C H E R S
Student Enrollment by Ethnicity and
Other Characteristics
Student Enrollment
by Grade Level
The ethnicity of our students, estimates of their family
income and education level, their English fluency, and
their learning-related disabilities.
Number of students enrolled
in each grade level at our school.
GRADE LEVEL
GROUP
STUDENTS
ENROLLMENT
Number of students
1,627
Black/African American
42%
American Indian or Alaska Native
0%
Asian
0%
Filipino
0%
Hispanic or Latino
56%
Pacific Islander
0%
0%
Two or more races
0%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged
72%
English Learners
19%
8%
SOURCE: All but the last three lines are from the annual census, CBEDS, October
2009. Data about students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, English
Learners, or learning disabled come from the School Accountability Report Card
unit of the California Department of Education.
Kindergarten
0
Grade 1
0
Grade 2
0
Grade 3
0
Grade 4
0
Grade 5
0
Grade 6
0
Grade 7
0
Grade 8
3
Grade 9
404
Grade 10
456
Grade 11
441
Grade 12
323
SOURCE: CBEDS, October 2009.
Average Class Size by Core Course
The average class size by core courses.
SUBJECT
2007–2008
2008–2009
2009–2010
English
30
28
25
History
27
26
30
Math
28
28
34
Science
33
31
26
SOURCE: CBEDS, October 2009. Data for 2009–
2010 provided by the school district.
Average Class Size by Core Course, Detail
The number of classrooms that fall into each range of class sizes.
2007–2008
2008–2009
2009–2010
SUBJECT
1–22
23–32
33+
1–22
23–32
33+
1–22
23–32
33+
English
8
22
33
14
34
22
9
38
18
History
13
15
19
15
21
15
7
24
10
Math
11
30
23
13
27
21
26
8
7
Science
0
14
26
5
9
27
10
28
8
SOURCE: CBEDS, October 2009. Data for 2009–2010 provided by the school district.
Page 43
Physical Fitness
Students in grades five, seven, and nine
take the California Fitness Test each year.
This test measures students’ aerobic
capacity, body composition, muscular
strength, endurance, and flexibility using
six different tests. The table shows the
percentage of students at our school who
scored within the “healthy fitness zone” on
four, five, and all six tests. More
information about physical fitness testing
and standards is available on the CDE Web
site.
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
MEETING HEALTHY FITNESS ZONES
FOUR OF SIX
STANDARDS
FIVE OF SIX
STANDARDS
SIX OF SIX
STANDARDS
Grade 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Grade 7
N/A
N/A
N/A
Grade 9
21%
34%
29%
GRADE LEVEL
SOURCE: Physical fitness test data is produced annually as schools test their students on the six Fitnessgram
Standards. This information was the most recent available, for the 2008–2009 school year. Data is reported by
Educational Data Systems.
Suspensions and Expulsions
At times we find it necessary to suspend
students who break school rules. We report
only suspensions in which students are sent
home for a day or longer. We do not report
in-school suspensions, in which students are
removed from one or more classes during a
single school day. Expulsion is the most
serious consequence we can impose.
Expelled students are removed from the
school permanently and denied the
opportunity to continue learning here.
During the 2009–2010 school year, we had
636 suspension incidents. We had no
incidents of expulsion. To make it easy to
compare our suspensions and expulsions to
those of other schools, we represent these
events as a ratio (incidents per 100 students)
in this report. Please note that multiple
incidents may involve the same student.
OUR
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
2009–2010
39
31
16
2008–2009
17
17
16
2007–2008
18
21
17
2009–2010
0
0
1
2008–2009
0
0
1
2007–2008
0
0
1
KEY FACTOR
Suspensions per 100 students
Expulsions per 100 students
SOURCE: Data is from the California Department of Education, SARC research file. Data represents the number
of incidents reported, not the number of students involved. District and state averages represent high schools
only.
Page 44
Teacher Credentials
The number of teachers assigned to the school with a full credential and without a full credential,
for both our school and the district. We also present three years’ of data about the number of teachers who lacked the
appropriate subject-area authorization for one or more classes they taught.
SCHOOL
TEACHERS
DISTRICT
2007–2008
2008–2009
2009–2010
2009–2010
With Full Credential
56
54
83
568
Without Full Credential
16
12
0
0
Teaching out of field
27
4
N/A
N/A
Page 45
S T U D E N T P ER FO R M A N CE
California Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
The California Standards Tests (CST) show how well students are doing in learning what the state content standards require.
The CST include English/language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social science in grades nine through eleven.
Student scores are reported as performance levels. We also include results from the California Modified Assessment and
California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA).
STAR Test Results for All Students: Three-Year Comparison
The percentage of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level
(meeting or exceeding the state standards) for the most current three-year period.
SCHOOL
PERCENT PROFICIENT OR
ADVANCED
DISTRICT
ADVANCED
STATE
ADVANCED
SUBJECT
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
English/
language arts
22%
23%
24%
35%
37%
41%
46%
50%
52%
History/social
science
14%
20%
18%
17%
22%
27%
36%
41%
44%
Mathematics
3%
3%
4%
33%
34%
40%
43%
46%
48%
Science
13%
16%
25%
30%
32%
40%
46%
50%
54%
SOURCE: STAR results, spring 2010 test cycle, as interpreted and published by the CDE unit responsible for School Accountability Report Cards.
STAR Test Results by Student Subgroup: Most Recent Year
The percentage of students, by subgroup, achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level
(meeting or exceeding the state standards) for the most recent testing period.
STUDENTS SCORING PROFICIENT OR ADVANCED
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE
ARTS
2009–2010
HISTORY/
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
2009–2010
MATHEMATICS
2009–2010
SCIENCE
2009–2010
African American
20%
13%
2%
17%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Asian
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Filipino
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hispanic or Latino
27%
22%
6%
30%
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Two or more races
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boys
23%
20%
3%
26%
Girls
25%
15%
5%
24%
25%
18%
4%
27%
English Learners
3%
4%
3%
8%
4%
7%
0%
15%
Receives migrant education services
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STUDENT SUBGROUP
SOURCE: STAR results, spring 2010 test cycle, as interpreted and published by the CDE unit responsible for School Accountability Report Cards.
Page 46
A C C O U N T A B IL I T Y
California Academic Performance Index (API)
The Academic Performance Index (API) is an annual measure of the academic performance and
progress of schools in California. APIs range from 200 to 1000, with a statewide target of 800.
Detailed information about the API can be found on the CDE Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/.
API Ranks: Three-Year Comparison
The state assigns statewide and similar-schools API ranks for all schools. The API ranks range from 1 to 10.
A statewide rank of 1 means that the school has an API in the lowest 10 percent of all high schools
in the state, while a statewide rank of 10 means that the school has an API in the highest 10 percent
of all high schools in the state. The similar-schools API rank reflects how a school compares with
100 statistically matched schools that have similar teachers and students.
API RANK
2007–2008
2008–2009
2009–2010
Statewide rank
1
1
1
Similar-schools rank
4
6
6
SOURCE: The API Base Report from December 2010.
API Changes by Subgroup: Three-Year Comparison
API changes for all students and student subgroups: the actual API changes in points added or lost for the past three years,
and the most recent API. Note: “N/A” means that the student group is not numerically significant.
ACTUAL API CHANGE
SUBGROUP
API
2007–2008
2008–2009
2009–2010
2009–2010
All students at the school
+24
+13
-7
594
+13
+22
-18
555
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Asian
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Filipino
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hispanic or Latino
+32
+9
-1
620
Pacific Islander
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
White (non Hispanic)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Two or more races
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
+34
+0
-3
597
English Learners
+35
+7
-33
581
N/A
+29
N/A
N/A
SOURCE: The API Growth Report as released in the Accountability Progress Report in December 2010.
Page 47
API Scores by Subgroup
This table includes Academic Performance Index results for our school, our district, and the state.
SUBGROUP
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
STATE
All students
594
711
767
555
697
686
N/A
N/A
728
Asian
N/A
N/A
890
Filipino
N/A
N/A
851
Hispanic or Latino
620
720
715
Pacific Islander
N/A
N/A
753
White (non Hispanic)
N/A
N/A
838
597
712
712
English Learners
581
692
692
N/A
584
580
Two or more races
N/A
N/A
807
SOURCE: The API Growth Report as released in the Accountability Progress Report in December 2010.
Page 48
Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Intervention Programs
The federal law known as No Child Left Behind requires that all schools and districts meet
all four of the following criteria in order to attain Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
(a) a 95-percent participation rate on the state’s tests
(b) a CDE-mandated percentage of students scoring Proficient or higher on the English/language arts and mathematics tests
(c) an API of at least 680 or growth of at least one point
(d) the graduation rate for the graduating class must be higher than 83.2 percent (or satisfy alternate improvement criteria).
AYP for the District
Whether the district met the federal requirement for AYP overall,
and whether the district met each of the AYP criteria.
AYP CRITERIA
DISTRICT
Overall
No
Graduation rate
No
Participation rate in English/language arts
Yes
Participation rate in mathematics
Yes
Percent Proficient in English/language arts
No
Percent Proficient in mathematics
No
Met Academic Performance Index (API)
Yes
SOURCE: The AYP Report as released in the Accountability Progress Report in December 2010.
Intervention Program: District Program Improvement (PI)
Districts receiving federal Title I funding enter Program Improvement (PI) if they do not
make AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area (English/language arts or mathematics)
and for each grade span or on the same indicator (API or graduation rate). After entering PI,
districts advance to the next level of intervention with each additional year that they do not make AYP.
INDICATOR
DISTRICT
PI stage
3 of 3
The year the district entered PI
2007
Number of schools currently in PI
Percentage of schools currently in PI
10
42%
SOURCE: The Program Improvement Report as released in the Accountability Progress Report in
December 2010.
Page 49
D I S T R I CT E X P E N D I T U R E S
According to the CDE’s SARC Data Definitions, “State certification/release dates for fiscal data occur in middle to late spring,
precluding the inclusion of 2009–10 data in most cases. Therefore, 2008–09 data are used for report cards prepared during
2010–11.”
Total expenses include only the costs related to direct educational services to students. This figure does not include food
services, land acquisition, new construction, and other expenditures unrelated to core educational purposes. The expensesper-student figure is calculated by dividing total expenses by the district’s average daily attendance (ADA). More
information is available on the CDE’s Web site.
CATEGORY OF EXPENSE
OUR DISTRICT
SIMILAR DISTRICTS
ALL DISTRICTS
FISCAL YEAR 2008–2009
Total expenses
$118,497,921
N/A
N/A
$8,725
$8,823
$8,736
$121,927,583
N/A
N/A
$8,544
$8,680
$8,594
Expenses per student
FISCAL YEAR 2007–2008
Total expenses
Expenses per student
SOURCE: Fiscal Services Division, California Department of Education.
District Salaries, 2008–2009
This table reports the salaries of teachers and administrators in our district for the 2008–2009 school year. This table
compares our average salaries with those in districts like ours, based on both enrollment and the grade level of our students.
In addition, we report the percentage of our district’s total budget dedicated to teachers’ and administrators’ salaries. The
costs of health insurance, pensions, and other indirect compensation are not included.
DISTRICT
AVERAGE
STATE
AVERAGE
Beginning teacher’s
salary
N/A
$41,155
Midrange teacher’s salary
N/A
$65,379
Highest-paid teacher’s
salary
N/A
$85,049
Average principal’s salary
(high school)
N/A
$121,513
Superintendent’s salary
N/A
$194,802
Percentage of budget for
teachers’ salaries
33%
40%
Percentage of budget for
administrators’ salaries
4%
5%
SALARY INFORMATION
SOURCE: School Accountability Report Card unit of the California Department of Education.
Page 50
S C H O O L C O M P L E T IO N A ND P R E P A R A T I O N F O R C O L L E G E
Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate
The dropout rate is an estimate of the percentage of all students who drop out before the end of the school year
(one-year rate). Graduation rate is an estimate of the four-year completion rate for all students.
KEY FACTOR
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
STATE
2008–2009
7%
8%
4%
2007–2008
8%
7%
4%
2006–2007
2%
3%
4%
2008–2009
81%
81%
83%
2007–2008
85%
87%
85%
2006–2007
91%
93%
85%
Dropout rate (one-year)
Graduation rate (four-year)
SOURCE: CBEDS October 2007–2009. District and state averages represent high schools only.
Courses Required for Admission to the University of California
or California State University Systems
Number and percentage of students enrolled in the A-G courses required for admission
to the University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU).
KEY FACTOR
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
STATE
Percentage of students enrolled in courses required
for UC/CSU admission
N/A
N/A
N/A
Percentage of graduates from class of 2009 who
completed all courses required for UC/CSU admission
96%
96%
37%
SOURCE: CBEDS, October 2009, for the class of 2009. District and state averages represent high schools only.
College Entrance Exam Reasoning Test (SAT)
The percentage of twelfth grade students (seniors) who voluntarily take the SAT Reasoning Test
to apply to college, and the average verbal, math, and writing scores of those students.
KEY FACTOR
2006–2007
2007–2008
2008–2009
Percentage of seniors taking the SAT
34%
42%
41%
Average critical reading score
398
378
391
Average math score
391
368
380
Average writing score
401
385
390
SOURCE: Original data from the College Board, for the class of 2009, and republished by the California Department of
Education. To protect student privacy, scores are not shown when the number of students tested is fewer than 11. The College
Board first introduced the writing test in 2005–2006.
rev20110211_19-64634-1934231h/15923
Page 51
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Programs and Courses
Our district offers courses intended to help students prepare for the world of work.
These career technical education courses (CTE, formerly known as vocational education) are open to all students.
PROGRAM
COURSE
AGENCY
OFFERING
COURSE
OFFERED
THROUGH
ROC?
SATISFIES
GRADUATION
REQUIREMENTS?
PART OF
A-G
CURRICULUM?
Business/Finance
Intro to Computers
IUSD
No
Yes
No
Business/Finance
Marketing
IUSD
No
Yes
No
Business/Finance
Accounting
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Business/Finance
Entrepreneurs
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Business/Finance
Desk Top Publishing
IUSD
No
Yes
No
Business/Finance
Web Page Design
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Food Science
Culinary Arts
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Fashion Design
Intro to Fashion
IUSD
No
Yes
No
Fashion Design
Clothing I & II
IIUSD
No
Yes
No
SCROC
Yes
Yes
Fashion Design
Fashion Design
Maintenance
No
Arts, Media,
Entertainment
Music/Dance
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Arts, Media,
Entertainment
Graphic Arts
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Building Trades
Residential
Construction
IUSD
No
Yes
No
Health/Science
Intro to Health
Careers
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Health/Science
Medical Assisting:
IUSD
Yes
Yes
No
Page 52
Advisors
If you’d like more information about the programs our schools offer in career technical education,
please speak with our staff. More information about career technical education policy
is available on the CDE Web site.
FIELD OR INDUSTRY
Inglewood High
Morningside
High
ADVISOR
Debra Tate, Principal
PHONE
(310) 680-5201
EMAIL
[email protected]
Dr. Reginald Sirls,
Principal
(310) 680-5230
District
Sherryl Carter, Dir.
Adult Ed. & CTE
(310) 419-2723
[email protected]
Construction
Academy:
Dr. Reginald Sirls
(310) 680-4825
[email protected]
CTE Coordinator
[email protected]
Page 53
TEXTBOOKS
Textbook Adoption List
DATE OF
PUBLICATION
ADOPTION
DATE
ELD
2010
2009
Holt Literature and Language Arts, Fifth Course (11)
Language Arts
2010
2009
Holt Literature and Language Arts, Fourth Course (10)
Language Arts
2010
2009
Holt Literature and Language Arts, Sixth Course (12)
Language Arts
2010
2009
Holt Literature and Language Arts, Third Course (9)
Language Arts
2010
2009
Holt CA Algebra 1
Mathematics
2008
2008
Holt California Geometry
Mathematics
2008
2008
Holt California Algebra 2
Mathematics
2008
2008
McDougal Littell Precalulus w/Limits
Mathematics
2008
2008
McDougal Littell Calculus w/Analytic Geometry
Mathematics
2008
2008
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life
Science
2006
2007
College Physics
Science
2006
2007
Glencoe 2007 Chemistry
Science
2007
2007
Holt Biology
Science
2007
2007
Holt Chemistry
Science
2007
2007
Holt Earth Science
Science
2007
2007
Holt Modern Biology
Science
2007
2007
Holt Physics
Science
2007
2007
Human Anatomy & Physiology
Science
2007
2007
America Past & Present
Social Science
2005
2006
Economics: Principles in Action
Social Science
2007
2006
Foundations of Economics
Social Science
2007
2006
Government in America
Social Science
2006
2006
Magruders's American Government
Social Science
2006
2006
Racial and Ethnic Groups
Social Science
2006
2006
Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach
Social Science
2007
2006
Understanding Psychology
Social Science
2006
2006
United States History: Modern America
Social Science
2008
2006
World Civilizations: The Global Experience
Social Science
2006
2006
TITLE
SUBJECT
Holt ELD Interactive Reader Workbook (9)
Page 54
Textbook Adoption List (continued)
DATE OF
PUBLICATION
ADOPTION
DATE
Social Science
2005
2006
World History: The Modern World
Social Science
2007
2006
Discovering French Nouveau! Premiere Partie Lv. 1A
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Discovering French Nouveau! Deuxieme Partie Lv. 1B
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Discovering French Nouveau! Bleu (Lv. 1)
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Discovering Fench Nouveau! Blanc (Lv. 2)
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Discovering French Nouveau! Rouge (Lv. 3)
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Realidades, Lv. A - B
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Realidades, Lv. 1
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Realidades, Lv. 2
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Realidades, Lv. 3
Foreign Language
2004
2004
Understanding Statistics
Mathematics
2009
2008
Holt Physical Science (Spectrum)
Science
2007
2007
TITLE
SUBJECT
World Geography

Inglewoood-SARC-2009-2010

Transcription

Similar documents

Inglewood Hosts 20th Annual King Day Celebration

MarriageMarriage Retreat - Faithful Central Bible Church

TKC Application 13_TKC Application

Inglewood-Round-5-1 - Inglewood United Soccer Club

(SCE) and the Battle of the Bands

SignEx - Aludecor

,QJOHZRRG (FKR

FCBC PAM - Faithful Central Bible Church

the new downtown inglewood zoning

02 - Descriptive Statistics