In another indication of the Palo Alto school district’s achievement gap, black, Latino, low-income and special-education students are graduating from high school less prepared for college than their peers.
While 90 percent and 94 percent of white and Asian students in the class of 2017, respectively, met the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems’ A-G admission requirements, only 67 percent of black students, 65 percent of Hispanic students, 68 percent of low-income students and 41 percent of special-needs students did, according to a district report.
Under the A-G requirements, high school graduates must complete a certain amount of coursework in different subjects in order to be admitted to a UC or CSU.
The school board will discuss the district’s A-G data at its meeting on Tuesday.
A-G eligibility rates among black and Hispanic students in the class of 2017 were higher than in previous years, except in 2015 when both groups jumped to just under 80 percent.
A staff presentation cites “academic struggle” and “academic planning” as reasons for why students don’t meet the A-G requirements.
These groups are also behind their peers in college- and career-readiness by another measure, the California Department of Education’s College/Career Indicator. The state education department considers high school graduates “prepared” when they have earned a diploma and met at least one additional criteria, which include meeting standards in English language arts and mathematics on the state’s standardized Smarter Balanced assessment, earning a passing score on two Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams or meeting the A-G standards, among others.
In Palo Alto Unified’s class of 2016, 22 percent of African-American students, 32 percent of Hispanic students and 18 percent of low-income and students with disabilities were considered “prepared” under the state’s definition.
These data underpin efforts underway to close the district’s achievement gap. The school board recently voiced support for a specific focus on improving outcomes for the district’s approximately 2,000 African-American and Hispanic students, proposed by new Equity Coordinator Keith Wheeler.
The school board is set to vote on an updated, districtwide equity plan from Wheeler later this month.
In other business Tuesday, the board will discuss updated enrollment projections that indicates some trends will start to shift in the next few years. The five-year report was prepared by forecaster DecisionInsite.
Elementary enrollment, which has been declining since 2014, is expected to increase by 6 percent, or 298 students, over the next five years.
At the middle schools, the exiting of large bubble classes means a significant enrollment decline is head. DecisionInsite projects an 11 percent drop over the next five years, with the largest decline projected in 2019.
High schools will see moderate growth, according to the projection: 4 percent, or 146 students, over the next five years. Enrollment is expected to peak at 4,250 students in 2020 before going back down.
The school board will also discuss Tuesday a proposal from board member Todd Collins to impose term limits on board members, an annual audit report and two administrative regulations. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the district office, 25 Churchill Ave. View the full agenda here.
Link of agenda takes you to Aug 2017 board meeting agenda…
One thing many people don’t realize is that if you get a “d” in a PAUSD class, you pass. UC and CSU schools require you to pass a class with a “C”. (I believe some colleges accept the “D”).
Will a PAonline article dedicated to this update on the achievement gap issue be coming? Perhaps each board member could start with unequivocally supporting student attendance at the Smarter Balance Assessment. It’s one of the only standardized metrics by which to check the achievement gap available to all, during school hours and free of charge.
Anyone who thinks Palo Alto enrollment is going down after 2020 is not aware of the new emphasis on building new housing. Stanford’s new housing alone is expected to add hundreds of students. Another article talks about our new mayor’s emphasis on new housing. I support more low-moderate income housing. Whether market rate or low-moderate income housing is built, more children can be expected. We can’t just build single room only housing. And we cannot legally exclude people with children moving to new housing – nor would i want to.
PAUSD needs to find someone to project student enrollment who is capable of estimating the impact of new housing.
I am also glad to see PAUSD making serious efforts to improve the achievement gap.
with regard to special ed students: “While 90 percent and 94 percent of white and Asian students in the class of 2017, respectively, met the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems’ A-G admission requirements, only 67 percent of black students, 65 percent of Hispanic students, 68 percent of low-income students and 41 percent of special-needs students did, according to a district report. “
41% of special education students! I’m not sure why the board is not ashamed to present these statistics- they are appalling. Special ed students are often quite bright but with learning challenges, like dyslexia, and clearly are not receiving adequate interventions. In our experience, this starts in the early elementary years. I suspect lack of identification and appropriate intervention is one of the most important reasons for later failure. Our family has met nothing but obstruction and incompetence in special ed in PAUSD. It’s an educational tragedy.
The schools love to obfuscate their failure, and the Board doesn’t really ask for the data to get to the bottom of the swamp.
Allow me to clarify: it’s English.
That’s right, plain and simple. The other departments are mostly successful. English is failing kids.
The English instructional leader Tokheim at Paly has failed for years to address her departments failure. Nor has she taken responsibility or stepped aside to allow someone competent take a shot at this.
Total. Abject. Failure.
The fact that English requires four years of passing grades means there is zero room for error. No recovery, no redemption. If you are struggling, and fail one final – you’re toast. No help, no do-overs. There are only four years, and you must pass all four, first time.
Given this strict no-room-for-error environment, you’d think the 20 or so struggling students would get help from day one. But you’d be wrong. We just run them through the motions and hope for something.
Worse than that, there are some terrible English teachers (one of our kids had one) – and Tokheim refused to make them do anything. Literally nothing helpful. They wouldn’t even write the assignments down. You’d swear they were illiterate. Didn’t matter, Tokheim would not lead. Nobody has tried to fix this problem for years, and it appears they won’t bother now.
@Clarity,
Yes. Absolutely. English. Usually issues start early. Not disconnected from the achievement gap.
Check the level of support young kids get in other districts which are doing better with undeserved kids.
Compare the daily support, qualifications of the supporters.
This is NOT rocket science.
Sincerely
Village f0000000000l
The dysfunction is so grand that it needs a strong new superintendent to make drastic changes and ACTUALLY implement not only the basics like ensuring kids can get answers to their questions from the teacher to an externally validated equity plan with SMART goals.
Teachers are not trained to work with the learning disabilities of the students in their classes and don’t take informed proactive actions for true inclusion so these students are marginalized and bullied.
Currently teachers can’t stay more than 15 minutes after school and kids need to schedule in advance time to talk to the teacher so if they have learning issues this is impossible to rely on. In class, teachers don’t do enough to check in with quiet students.
Kids line up to ask questions and you have to be aggressive or you’ll be in the back and the teacher won’t get to you today. Teachers aren’t require to respond to student questions, as basic as a clarification on the assignment (which isn’t necessary on-line as teacher’s aren’t required to put all assignments on-line) for 2 days, even if the assignment is due, etc…
While teacher’s may want to do the right thing for students the administration, union and resources prevents competent support for Special ed and I don’t see how this will be different for equity. A big problem is no local accountability leading to the child’s total failure, internalizing that they are a failure, social ostracizing, shame, family moving away,legal action or the child heading to the train tracks if they aren’t put on a psychiatric hold first (which I heard from my doctor is in the 100s of students a year for PAUSD and not declining because nothing is really changing).
What is a psychiatric hold?
Special is so diverse. Are all the kids in classes with support , or are some separated? How can there be data on their progress when there are so many different disabilities?