Focusing just on proficiency can be a misleading sole indicator of academic excellence, especially considering many Oakland students enter the classroom far behind grade level. It’s important to analyze how well a school helps their students grow and/or “beat the odds
So I created a set of criteria using SBAC scores in different ways to sift out “hidden gems:” schools who might not have super-high absolute proficiency rates (yet) but are doing a great job particularly for the most vulnerable students.
Criteria for “knocking it out of the park” on growing their students and beating the odds:
- Blue level growth on average on CA Dashboard. This translates to 91+ growth percentile statewide, a comparison set that ranges from Piedmont to LA schools.
- CCSA SSM ranking of 7+. Students’ proficiency rates are above the 70th percentile compared to California schools with similar demographics. This analysis replicates the approach used by the state of CA several years ago.
- No huge inequities exist. Schools must be growing their different subgroups, particularly those historically underserved, at similar rates to be equitable. To receive an “None” for inequities rating, a school must be closing the proficiency gap for all numerically significant subgroups.
- Growth in both English Language Arts and Math. Schools must be growing students in both categories.
- Grades 3-8 only: It’s hard to gauge growth for high school students using SBAC because only 11th grade is tested, and comparing this year’s 11th graders to last year’s 11th graders doesn’t accurately reflect student growth.
- Subgroup data availability: To qualify as a publicly trackable subgroup at the school, there must be more than 10 students in the subgroup in order protect student privacy in public data. Most schools have some subgroups based on race and income level. Many schools also have subgroups for English Language Learners, Students with Special Needs, and Foster Children.