Gilroy
– Three-quarters of Gilroy public schools did not meet their
academic improvement scores set by the state this year, offering
another indication that gains in this district, and statewide, are
slowing.
Only three of 13 Gilroy schools improved their 2003-04 Academic
Performance Index (API) scores enough to meet or exceed their goals
set by the state Department of Education.
By Lori Stuenkel
Gilroy – Three-quarters of Gilroy public schools did not meet their academic improvement scores set by the state this year, offering another indication that gains in this district, and statewide, are slowing.
Only three of 13 Gilroy schools improved their 2003-04 Academic Performance Index (API) scores enough to meet or exceed their goals set by the state Department of Education. Nine schools did not improve enough to meet state expectations, although two of those improved over last year. The district’s newest middle school did not have a growth target.
The leveling off of API scores was not a huge surprise after standardized test scores and the federal school report card released in August showed similar results for Gilroy schools.
“Of course, I’m concerned we didn’t have the type of consistent growth we’ve had in the past, but I’m confident schools have already made attempts to analyze their student performance data and are putting programs in place to make the necessary changes so that all students improve,” said Edwin Diaz, superintendent of Gilroy Unified School District. “(The data) is very consistent, because it’s based on our (California Standards Test) results, which was very mixed by school, and it was also based on (Adequate Yearly Progress), which was a tentative indicator.”
The results released Thursday are a sharp contrast from one year ago, when all district schools met their targets, and many surpassed them three to four times over.
Of the three schools that did meet their targets, Antonio Del Buono and Rod Kelley elementary schools improved by 25 points and 18 points, respectively. Eliot Elementary School had the third-highest gain of seven points.
Last year, the district as a whole gained 40 points on the API system, beating out all but two Santa Clara County districts for a one-year improvement.
This year, it is unclear whether GUSD’s overall score went up or not. A state report given to the district last week shows a five-point improvement, while the Department of Education Web site Thursday showed that it stayed the same, at 683.
“Of course, five and remaining flat isn’t that much of a difference,” Diaz said.
The API is the crux of the state’s accountability system that tracks student performance on California standards-based tests.
The way API scores are calculated is intended to shed light on how well schools are making gains, with more points awarded when the lowest-performing students improve. Even schools that improve can fall short of goals.
Scores can range from 200 to 1000, with the state’s target goal being 800. School improvement, or “growth” – targeted to be 5 percent – is shown by subtracting a base score taken from 2003 test scores from the current API.
Statewide, only 48 percent of schools met targets, compared with 78 percent last year.
“Frankly, this is unacceptable,” Superintendent Jack O’Connell said when releasing the report Thursday. “And I know, and educators around this state know, that we can and must do better.”
To satisfy the state, subgroups must improve by at least 80 percent of the school’s target.
“It’s very inconsistent throughout the district, and I think if there’s one thing I’m pulling away from this is it’s really around the consistency that we need to achieve district-wide,” Diaz said. “We really need to ensure that every student, at every classroom, at every school, receives the type of instruction they need to improve.”
District-wide, two subgroups improved, two declined, and one – 3,504 socio-economically disadvantaged students – stayed the same. African American students, of which there are 118 in the district, dropped 26 points, and 1,797 white students dropped one point. On the other end, 200 Asian students improved 22 points and 4,478 Hispanic students gained three points.
Subgroups posted mixed results at individual GUSD schools. Brownell Academy Middle School didn’t meet its target, despite a 16-point gain, because low-income students gained three points, versus nine for Hispanic and eight for white. At Luigi Aprea, white students went up four points and Hispanic students went down 13. At Rucker, it was the opposite: Hispanic students improved five points, and white students fell 22 points, although it doesn’t count against the school because that group is well above 800.
Del Buono, which had the highest growth this year, offers an example of consistent improvement. The school’s three subgroups – Hispanic, white, and low-income – all went up about the same: 24, 26 and 23 points respectively.
“That’s really breaking the overall trend of performance, the trends that happen related to which kids achieve and which ones don’t, so I think we have some indicators throughout the district of where it can happen for all kids,” Diaz said.
Principal Tammy Gabel again credited collaboration between dedicated teachers and use of research-based strategies as two reasons for the school’s growth. The teachers pace together and provide differentiated instruction to challenge higher-performing students, support under-performers, and ensure average students are improving, she said.
“They don’t make excuses for why a kid can’t learn, or why they can’t accomplish anything – they just do it,” Gabel said. “Even though our scores are high, they’re not focusing on that, they’re always looking at, what can we do better?”
Eliot Elementary School, with a similar student population of two-thirds Hispanic students and a large low-income group, also posted gains for all subgroups. Hispanic students improved by six points, white students by nine and low-income by 13.
“Their student population is significantly changing, and they’re getting a higher percentage of (English language learners), and in spite of that, they’re still meeting their targets and still improving, so they’re adjusting very well to the change in their school and they’re not letting that impact their performance,” Diaz said.
South Valley Middle School’s API drop of 22 points, the biggest in the district this year, was another unsurprising result. After test scores fell in August, the school was placed on the federal Program Improvement list.
Principal Paul de Ayora, although not offering an excuse for the decrease, said the school also is dealing with a rapid shift in demographics, which was dramatic between 2003 and 2004. There was a 10 percent increase in English learners and low-income students, and a 10 percent decrease in white students.
“So when you throw that all together – and, again, it’s not an excuse – I think that’s one reason for the decrease in scores,” de Ayora said.
Although a tough pill for South Valley’s hard-working teachers to swallow, he said, the API result is motivating them to closely examine student subgroups and strategies for improving all students.
“It also helps that as a district as a whole, we’re focusing more on instruction that goes on in the classroom, so I’m just really optimistic, I think we’re in a good place to make the changes we need to,” he said.
Gilroy schools by the numbers
– 3 met their improvement targets
– 2 improved, but not enough
– 7 did not improve (one stayed the same)
School – 2004 API 03-04 – growth – growth target – target
Antonio Del Buono 752 25 4 Yes
El Roble 682 -3 6 No
Eliot 675 7 7 Yes
Glen View 651 -9 7 No
Las Animas 639 -9 8 No
Luigi Aprea* 829 -8 N/A No
Rod Kelley 704 18 6 Yes
Rucker 720 -11 3 No
Ascencion Solorsano** 703 N/A N/A N/A
Brownell Academy 703 16 6 No
South Valley 653 -21 6 No
Gilroy High 658 4 7 No
Mt. Madonna 467 N/A N/A N/A
El Portal 492 -9 15 No
* Schools with an API over 800 are still counted as meeting their target schoolwide.
**No API score from 2003
