the common core state standards. we have instructional guides in the hands of every teacher and classroom that addresses the standards which focuses on higher order thinking skills and application. this flattening means we have almost 60% proficient. if we want to get to 80% and 90% we're looking for, we must do more application, more development of concept and application of higher problems. we have that going at every turn. the district was awarded a $3 million grant to work with all educators in the district to come to know the common core standards well and use them in classrooms and align our curriculum. we're looking forward to that effort. >> thank you. not only do we have assessments that we are adopting this year in math, but also the common core standards, and we have

partnerships and professional development that we are doing in math to address this pattern for this trend. next is cst science. you will see a very positive increase, especially at the elementary science level, where we see 21% growth in this last six years in elementary science. most of the reason for that is the w.i.s.e. program that promotes a lot of analytical thinking. in science as well as a lot of project based learning. additional to all that, there has been times that has been set aside in the day to teach science. ok. now we look ouat cst in

comparison to the state. schools -- this is a federal indicator. when you look at sfusd's results as compared to the state come in early math and science, we do better than the state. however in grades eight, we are 1% below the state. -- in grade 8, where 1% below the state. the academic performance index, we have continued to grow. the state's target is 800 and we're at 796 today which is close. looking at the federal indicator, ayp, this has been set at a very advanced -- there are 22 districts today who meet of all the districts in california. this is one of the indicators

where the bar has been set pretty high. however the district mrs. it, the 67% was the rate you have to reach to meet the target. we're at 58.8%. the achievement gap is pretty obvious on this chart. if you look at african-american performance, it is at 31%. the gap is 27%. you look at latinos, there at 37. the gap is 21%. -- if you look at latinos, they are at 37%. we did not meet the target and the gap is even wider with african-american and latino students in math. we have addressed our strategies to close that gap. other than the focus on

curriculum, the district also has set up the superintendent's areas in the mission and the bay view where most of the districts that have concentrations of those populations are getting the superintendent's resources. moving on to cst growth by ethnicity and programs. as the performance gap exists, there is an accelerated group among some of our targeted students in english language arts and mouth. when you look at african- american, last time i, -- latino and samoan, you see this is higher. it is narrowing of the achievement gap. the same it -- was ... for math.

the el -- it was the same for math. for special ed students, it was before we look at the result, it was necessary we understand who gave the cst, the kappa, and how many took the modified assessment after cst. in 2007, we had 2996 students getting the cst and 455 took the kappa. we see more of the students who took the cst in 2007 are taking cme, a modified version of the cst. the number taking cakappa is

the same. the number taking cst has dropped to half. the no. now take the cme and the other take cst. the results of the ame is on the next page. kappa, 85%, an alternate performance assessment. cme is 33%. special ed students and the distribution for the mouth -- math test and results are presented on the next two slides. with that, we will move on to other measures.

in terms of other measures, the first thing we want to look at is algebra. enrollment in algebra and performance in algebra. algebra is considered in research as the gatekeeper to graduation. looking at this gatekeeper for graduation, you will find the district has increased the number of eighth graders taking algebra. so we have increased the access to courses in algebra. we still maintain our proficiency level as over half the students or 51.6% of the students had proficient -- were proficient. if you look at a five-year trend on kc, the passing grade has

been pretty constant at 77%. in math, and has been -- it has been at 81% throughout these five years. again, very constant passing grades for 10th grade which is the first time students have taken the kc. >> i want to ask this now. we have a dip in the algebra 1 or higher? >> we increased the number of students that had access to it. it almost doubled. from 2003, 85 students to now we have 3084 students taking algebra. >> we have more students -- thank you. also, do you have that broken

down by race? the proficiency level by race in algebra one? do you have it -- >> not in my brain. >> it would be interesting. traditionally, this district has had an algebra readiness test that many students had to participate in. what we saw at school sites was that many of these students were not actually taking algebra in eighth grade. now that we have increased it, it would be interesting to see by race with the proficiency levels are. all this information is good information, but if we are centered on a gap, we should have a by race. >> i am sorry. let's save our questions unless

it is something that needs clarifying. the question piece is for later. thank you. >> continuing with kc, the finished california exit exam. we are moving on to suspension. as you can see, the suspensions in the district have gone down in these last five years from 6.7% to 5.2%. we give all the credit to our restorative practices within the district. and to the board adopting its as a solution. moving on to graduation and drop out spread when you look at the graduation and a drop out better, we compare san francisco unified to the state. you can see that we have a higher graduation rate than the

state. and a smaller drop out rate than the state. this is for the 2009-2010 graduating class. these results uc are for the 2009 and 2010 graduating class. the web site is listed below. satisfaction surveys. this is one of the few districts that continues to give satisfaction surveys to all the stakeholders. students, family, staff, and administrators. beginning with grade 5, student satisfaction. what do students see? the top three highest rated items on may 30-item survey. it is having friends in school, teachers tell me when i do not understand the lesson, and enjoying the sports library.

they have raided days as the top three. to the grade 8 satisfy -- satisfaction survey. the three highest that eighth graders see is i have somebody at home that compares -- cares about me and supports me. i know about after-school and other extracurricular activities offered at my school. i have supportive and caring relationships with other students at my school. that is what came out this year. the previous year was the principal treating me and all other students with respect. grade 11 student satisfaction survey. the topmost item, i have someone who cares about me and supports me. and they supportive and caring

relationship for two years in a row. again, detailed satisfaction surveys are available and have a comparison for last year's. family satisfaction surveys, over 10,000 families responded. and they said the child enjoys going to school was the no. 1 both years. the teacher deals with me in a fair way and the school motivates my child to learn. the staff satisfaction survey, the first two items were the same. the students have a caring relationship. the previous year, the teachers

rated that my school worked together to improve teachers' and instructional practice. this last year, they said the third highest item. we did hold a data conference with each and every school district. >> i wanted to know whether this third one that came out was on the survey or was that added. this is something you have not

been asked before. this seems to reflect the practice we were using. >> we did not change a single item. last is the data conference results from our schools and when we look at [unintelligible] as well as parents representing us, -- they shared with us their success story. there did as success stories. i would encourage all of you to go to schools and ask them about their data success stories. i am going to recap. i would love to list every single one of my schools. i knew i had a limitation of time. that is the reason i am listing only some schools. there are many more for each bullet we have. what did schools say contributed

to their success? what did they say led to their success or were part of their success story? using formative assessments to inform instruction. when they said formative assessment it was broad. there were diagnostic assessments that schools gave. they also listed the districts and formative assessment. this year we have got the cle, the common learning assessment. i wanted to look. it was 0.77, very high. on a scale of 0 to one for yearly. 0.7 billion mass districtwide.

every -- at every assessment we could have predicted the results. schools that used formative assessment to inform the start -- instruction and have great structures that can share with others are e.r. taylor. there are many schools that have a lot of grade level planning' and use instructions to guide their delivery. these are the examples we stated. schools that have made a commitment to a balanced literacy model with reading and writing focus against schools in the mission zone. the data for them is listed in parenthesis. the next page will tell you

about schools. the show's intentionally. schools that had a focus. thi-- this shows intentionality. schools showed their focus on achieving the gap. there was harvey milk. you can see the subgroup had higher percentage increase in proficiency than the school itself. the subgroup had higher proficiency increase than the school itself in both subject areas. the three schools you saw closing the achievement gap with their targeted students. the focus on -- schools said

improving on the quality of their delivery to changing the time that eld is given professional development to monitoring the classes. these were lower in poll review. some great tools they had. there were others like mission that targeted el students' improvement in efficiency rates. in focus student approach. these were schools that had very high percentages of students being proficient and advanced. there was a small number of students that were not at profession. these high performing schools then took an approach where they

targeted an individual education plan for each of the students who had not yet reached proficiency. and achieved higher rates than they have ever had before. george peabody, sunset, and [unintelligible] where three schools that some successes. a vigorous and intense curriculum focus. the focus for the year was around reading. every child can read and can see the results with a 12.8% increase. new traditions focused their attention on math. you saw a double-digit increase, as was the same with algebra. there was balboa and lincoln that focused around algebra and

had successes. grade level collaboration and the practice of results -- that was cited by these five schools as having very good practices around results. monroe, tarkin, and chavez. six schools showed api games. at the district level, the w.i.s.e. program we mentioned earlier. the grant for science and the successes, the decrease in suspension and restorative practices, and last, but not least, the support of area teams. the data coaching for

elementary. you see how the results were supported. any questions? i am sure you have done. >> can i ask you real quick one? can you explain this again? i get the basic. is there wording that is missing here? is that this one? >> this was the academic performance index. it is the state's indicator. you saw that every single -- there was an increase in the district's api. last school year, the increase was plus five.

the api is now at 796 for the district. we missed 800 by four points. next year we will surely make the 800. i will send you the powerpoint so you can see it. it is just that one slide. commissioner maufas >> you saw from the first two bars are back. the base is what and the growth is what? >> every single year, the state calculates a base. it tells you, this is your base and how much you grew.

>> thank you. >> questions from the board. commissioner norton: i have two questions. the first one is one we discussed before, which is the increase in students taking the cma and the decrease in taking cst. i am personally concerned about that. i do not know about -- enough about what it does and does not measure. i can tell you there is a lot of suspicion out in the parent community that it does not measure what -- is not equal to the cst and does not measure the same level of proficiency. i am wondering if there is any guidelines the state gives you on who should take the cma, what

percentage of the caseload should be taking that, that is quite an alarming increase in the number of students taking that. >> john burke, there is eligibility requirements and there is some of that as related to accountability. a student has to -- it is only grades 3 through 11. second graders cannot take it because they have not had their base set yet. you have to be far below basic or below basic on the cst for any previous year. from second grade on up on the cst, we could have scored profession or advance for two years on capa. that would be the eligibility for the students in there.

>> that means -- i will add, there is a chicken and egg thing going here. when the federal government came up with the idea to have that level of test, it was referred to as the gap test for the 2% test which meant the kids who were not severely cognitively impaired and would not be taking the capa or alternate assessment, what ever state. we are not high enough to take the state level test. they were intending it to be a small percentage of kids with disabilities, but they were also assuming that most of those kids would be educated in the general curriculum. in fact they required the kids who take the cma are on a standards based iep. we have a ways to go to get those kids into the general curriculum.

a lot of them are in alternate curriculum in special ed settings. we need to move more of the kids into getting educated in the general curriculum and they will be successful, cmt. w -- on the cmt. >> i would like to see a reduction in the number of kids taking the cma. that seems too high and the increase is a light -- alarming. >> my second question is about the dropout rate. the drop out rate and graduation rate. the dropout number seems mushy and it seems there is a million ways of calculating it. is this the state's official measurement? this is what we would say, what

everybody all over california is using as the state's measurement? >> the state does calculate it in many different ways. this is a dropout rate for the group graduating in 2009-2010. for the group that graduated in 2009-2010, they went back and looked at how many were in -- enrolled in 2006-2007 in ninth grade and track them to see how many graduated, how many dropped out, and how many others, still continuing. >> maybe you do not have enough credits to graduate so you need to go further. got it. >> i want to follow-up on that.

>> do you have other questions? >> i want to follow-up on that. i want to know about where in the statistic, the ones to transfer -- in the statistics, where are the ones who transferred? we do not know where they went. even if they went to another school. some we know have gone somewhere else. where are they on this? >> to began with, we do need to talk about the fact that what has happened is drop out is to begin with a school reported variable. the school gives the code as to where the student is. if the school has given the code transferred to another district in california, and cde cannot find that students in the database, the student is