Independent Citizens Action Network

 


 

 

LPS CSAP Archive2

 

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) has released the results of the 2009 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP).  The August 7, 2009 eight-page CDE news release [PDF 41KB] includes results from the CSAP and Colorado ACT assessments. 

LPS administration also has released the 2009 CSAP results.  The August 7, 2009 four-page LPS news release [PDF 164KB] comments on district results from the CSAP assessments.

Current CSAP practice is to test nearly all students for reading, writing, and math in grades 3-10, and science in grades 5, 8, and 10.  According to CDE, the amount of school-year time required to administer the CSAP is about 1% for grades 3-10.  CSAP results are reported in performance-level percentages for the portion of students in each category: at or above proficient (proficient plus advanced), advanced, proficient, partially proficient, and unsatisfactory.

ICAN has noted that LPS district averages have exceeded the state averages for every "at or above proficient" category for every grade tested on every subject in every year since the CSAP program began in 1997 (100% of the 234 comparisons).  Of course, there are other "high socioeconomic status" school districts in Colorado that have performed that well.  ICAN also has provided comments and tabulations of the 1997-2009 LPS CSAP results:

  • Reading: The 2009 overall district average (grades 3-10) was 82% proficient or advanced, which was a small gain from the 81% average in 2008.  The district average for the 17 elementary schools (grades 3-5) was 81% proficient or advanced (11 schools were at least 80%, and three of those schools were at least 90%).  The district average for the six middle schools (grades 6-8) was 81% proficient or advanced (four were at least 80%, and two of those were at least 90%).  The district average for the three high schools (grades 9-10) was 84% proficient or advanced (two were at least 80%, and none were at least 90%).

  • Writing: The 2009 overall district average (grades 3-10) was 71% proficient or advanced, which was a small gain from the 68% average in 2008.  The district average for the 17 elementary schools (grades 3-5) was 70% proficient or advanced (three schools were at least 80%, and none were at least 90%).  The district average for the six middle schools (grades 6-8) was 72% proficient or advanced (three were at least 80%, and none were at least 90%).  The district average for the three high schools (grades 9-10) was 69% proficient or advanced (none were at least 80%).

  • Math: The 2009 overall district average (grades 3-10) was 70% proficient or advanced, which was a small gain from the 67% average in 2008.  The district average for the 17 elementary schools (grades 3-5) was 81% proficient or advanced (nine schools were at least 80%, and four of those were at least 90%).  The district average for the six middle schools (grades 6-8) was 71% proficient or advanced (one was at least 80%, and that one was at least 90%).  The district average for the three high schools (grades 9-10) was 53% proficient or advanced (none were at least 80%).

  • Science: The 2009 overall district average (grades 5, 8, and 10) was 66% proficient or advanced, which was a small gain from the 63% average in 2008.
    • The district average for the 17 elementary schools (grade 5) was 59% proficient or advanced (two schools were at least 80%, and one of those was at least 90%).  The district average for the six middle schools (grade 8) was 69% proficient or advanced (one was at least 80%, and none were at least 90%).  The district average for the three high schools (grade 10) was 71% proficient or advanced (none were at least 80%).

The ICAN LPS CSAP Growth page provides some awareness for Colorado's Growth Model.  The CDE "2007 Colorado Growth Model District & School Reports" website page explains what the model measures and how to read the school achievement and growth charts.  The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 11KB] shows LPS 2007 CSAP growth for all 26 LPS schools.

At the September 14, 2006 workshop the LPS Board of Education had received and discussed an "Improving Student Achievement" presentation [PDF 452KB], which included this District Achievement Goal: "90% of all students will be on or above grade level in reading, math, writing, and science by 2011.  The achievement gap in student performance will be cut in half by 2009."  The 1% overall gain in LPS CSAP proficiency during the past two years (2006 was 70%, and 2007 and 2008 were only 71%) was quite small compared to expectations of the District Achievement Goal and stated targets in the 2006-2009 school improvement plans.

The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 12KB] of LPS CSAP district and schools proficiency (percent proficient plus advanced) and changes provides comparisons of 2008 and 2007 performance for each subject area (reading, writing, math, and science) and the total for each school and the district.  Only one school (Whitman ES) had total gains of at least 5.0%; three other schools (Peabody ES, Runyon ES, and Highland ES) had total losses of at least 5.0%; all other schools had smaller changes.  The institutional inertia maintains the status quo and continues to prevent significant increase in student academic achievement.  Those results are not encouraging.  More information is available on the ICAN LPS Accountability page.

ICAN has tabulated the CSAP data through 2008 for each LPS school in alphabetical order by subject (reading, writing, math, and science), grade level, year administered, proficiency percentage level (Proficient plus Advanced, Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient, and Unsatisfactory), and number of students tested.  We also have added a "proficiency index" that is the weighted sum of 1.5*A, 1.0*P, 0.5*PP, and -0.5*U.  CSAP Reading Grade 3 results before 2001 are historical (not converted to later scale) and should not be used for comparison with later years.

The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 12KB] of LPS CSAP district (DPI) and school (SPI) proficiency indexes provides comparisons of 2008 and 2007 performance for subject areas and the total for each school and the district.  A 55-page, year-by-year, CSAP tabulation [PDF 308KB] of the district as a whole and each of the 24 LPS schools is grouped by total district, elementary schools, charter schools, middle schools, and high schools at each grade level tested during 1997-2008.  CSAP results for the total district [PDF 27KB] and individual schools also are available as separate files on the LPS CSAP Schools page.

ICAN has prepared scatterplots of LPS CSAP proficiency (percent proficient or advanced, 2006 vs. 2005 including a no-change reference line) for each school at each grade level on lower-level pages for CSAP reading, writing, math, and science.

ICAN also has prepared scatterplots of LPS CSAP proficiency changes (proficiency indexes, 2007 vs. 2006 including a no-change reference line) for each school within each grade-level group (elementary, middle, and high school) for each subject area (reading, writing, math, and science) and total tests. 

On December 5, 2007 CDE released on its official website the 2007 SAR OAPI scores and OAPI ratings for academic performance of each Colorado school:

  • The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 14KB] shows LPS SAR OAPI scores for the past six years (2002-2007) for all 26 LPS schools.
  • ICAN also has prepared an LPS SAR OAP scatterplot [PDF 186KB] of 2007 SAR score vs. 2006 SAR score with a no-change reference line.
  • Thirteen of the LPS scores for 2007 went up from 2006, and 13 went down:
    • Eight of 17 elementary schools went up, and nine went down.
    • Five of six middle schools went up, and one went down.
    • All three high schools went down.
    • The largest score gains were for Ames ES, Goddard MS, and Littleton Preparatory charter school.
    • The largest score losses were for Whitman ES, Hopkins ES, and Heritage HS.
  • Fourteen (54% of 26) of the LPS schools were in the top 20% of their school groups (elementary, middle, and high school).
  • Seven (27% of 26) of the LPS schools (Littleton Academy ES, Wilder ES, Lenski ES, Peabody ES, Franklin ES, Littleton Academy MS, and Arapahoe HS) were in the top 10% of their school groups.
  • The LPS group leaders did especially well compared to the other Colorado schools:
    • Littleton Academy charter school and Wilder ES were 21st highest elementary schools (top 2.1%).
    • Littleton Academy charter school was 4th highest middle school (top 0.8%).
    • Arapahoe HS was 17th highest high school (top 4.7%).

On December 9, 2008 CDE released on its official website the 2008 SAR OAPI scores and OAPI ratings for academic performance of each Colorado school:

  • The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 15KB] shows LPS SAR OAPI scores for the past six years (2003-2008) for all 26 LPS schools.
  • ICAN also has prepared an LPS SAR OAP scatterplot [PDF 172KB] of 2008 SAR score vs. 2007 SAR score with a no-change reference line.
  • Thirteen of the LPS scores for 2008 went up from 2007, and 13 went down:
    • Ten of 17 elementary schools went up, and seven went down.
    • Two of six middle schools went up, and four went down.
    • One of three high schools went up, and two went down.
    • The largest score gains were for Whitman ES and Lenski ES.
    • The largest score losses were for Runyon ES and Highland ES.
  • Twelve (46% of 26) of the LPS schools were in the top 20% of their school groups (elementary, middle, and high school).
  • Five (19% of 26) of the LPS schools (Lenski ES, Littleton Academy ES, Wilder ES, Littleton Academy MS, and Arapahoe HS) were in the top 10% of their school groups.
  • The LPS group leaders did especially well compared to the other Colorado schools:
    • Lenski ES was 19th highest elementary school (top 1.8%).
    • Littleton Academy charter school was 7th highest middle school (top 1.5%).
    • Arapahoe HS was 27th highest high school (top 7.5%).

SAR growth ratings for 2007 use a two-page defined methodology [DOC 29KB] for calculating the Academic Growth of Students and assigning the ratings (Significant Improvement, Improvement, Stable, Decline, and Significant Decline).  SAR growth ratings for 2008 use a five-page defined methodology [DOC 57KB] for calculating the Academic Growth of Students and assigning the ratings (High, Typical, and Low).

Refer to the ICAN LPS CSAP Archive page for more information.

 

Last modified: 08/20/2009

 

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2009 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.