1 Student/Community Profile 1
Chapter 1 Student/Community Profile Introduction Sonora High School was the seventh comprehensive high school in the Fullerton Joint Union High School District when it opened in 1966. At that time, the population of North Orange County was experiencing rapid growth, and schools were overcrowded with Sonora being designed to alleviate these conditions at especially two of the other schools, La Habra and Sunny Hills High Schools. Designed for approximately two thousand students, the school rapidly grew to about 1900, but in the late eighties the enrollment began to decline severely in the North County, resulting in the closure of one comprehensive high school, Lowell, and reducing the enrollment at Sonora to just over 1100. Since that time, enrollment has grown steadily to an average of 1950-2100 students. Last year, 2009-2010, the school reached its alltime peak for students being served with an enrollment of 2182. A number of factors have resulted in this relative enrollment boom, with the school having been privileged to essentially extend its attendance area to many more surrounding communities. This has occurred through the unique offerings of the Medical Careers Academy, the International Baccalaureate Program, the award-winning Agricultural Program, the Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, and the special programs designed to meet the needs of its English Learner population, among others. Most recently, the school has become one of two schools designated in the district to provide Community Based Instruction (CBI) services, and just last school year, being designated to educate autistic high school students. The ensuing description, accompanied when appropriate with supporting charts and graphs, will provide the context in which the unique learning environment that is Sonora High School serves the community. The Community While Sonora serves a number of communities, the school is located in the North Orange County city of La Habra. La Habra is situated primarily in a valley, with portions of the city in the hills on both sides. The pass through the northern hills, leading from the San Gabriel Valley to La Habra, is thought to have given the city its name. The name apparently is derived from a colloquial Spanish expression meaning “the opening”, or “the pass through the hills”. La Habra was a former citrus, walnut and avocado agricultural center, being the birthplace of the famed and nutritious Haas avocado. Experiencing its first big population boom in the early 1920’s, La Habra now occupies 7.3 square miles 298 feet above sea level with a population of approximately 59,155, a growth of 0.3% since 2000. As the northernmost city in Orange County, La Habra residents enjoy being just a relatively short drive from the beach, the local mountains and the desert.
2
The District Sonora High School is a part of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District (FJUHSD) that serves a fifty square mile area of northern Orange County and southeastern Los Angeles County. Feeder elementary districts include the Buena Park School District, the Fullerton School District, the La Habra City School District, and the Lowell Joint School District. At least some students from each of the latter three of these school districts are in the Sonora attendance area. The FJUHSD consists of six four-year comprehensive high schools: Buena Park, Fullerton Union, La Habra, Sonora, Sunny Hills and Troy. La Vista High School, a continuation high school, and La Sierra High School, an alternative high school, also serve FJUHSD students. Through its schools, the district also operates a large and quite comprehensive summer school program each year. However, due to the current funding problems across the state, most recently the summer school programs have focused upon those students most challenged in meeting success in English and mathematics, with other courses offered based upon student graduation needs. Nevertheless, it has still been possible for a few students to advance in their studies, by joining a class that was primarily intended for unit makeup/recovery purposes. The School Sonora High School was originally built on forty-two acres on the eastern side of La Habra and opened to ninth and tenth graders in 1966, becoming a full, four-year senior high school in 1968. The school was initially planned to provide educational services to the families of 2000 students, but, as of the 2010 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) report, the school was serving 2032 students. The school garnered a number of architectural design awards at its inception, with its nearly entirely indoor, but very open, classroom arrangement. This design, at the time, was considered the epitome of a learning environment that would meet the needs of students, staff and the community while maximizing opportunities for student learning. Ten wings, a gymnasium/locker room/pool complex, a food services area, a lecture hall/amphitheatre arrangement, and the school offices all surround three large indoor “commons” areas, in the middle of which is the library/media center. As times and educational philosophies changed, the school began adding doors to the various classrooms in the wings. Today, nearly all classrooms have doors, with the exception of the 420 Science Wing. Most staff feel that this has enhanced the ability of their students to concentrate on their learning, paving the way for higher achievement. Further, at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year, students and staff began learning in a state-of-the-art, two-story, fifteen classroom building devoted to the natural and social sciences. The school underwent a two year modernization program beginning in the 2006-2007 school year. Finally, during the 2009-2010 school year, the area of the lower commons behind the library was converted into an attractive, multi-purpose facility for students, staff and the community, sometimes referred to as the “Sonora Café”. This indoor environment overall has been most favorable from the point of view of safety and togetherness. With limited points of entry to the campus, it is much easier to keep track of both students and visitors. Also, the somewhat forced togetherness coupled with special programs such as IMPACT, a yearlong Freshman mentoring program, has led to the distinctive sense of community among the students, staff and parents at the school. This pervasive culture 3
has no doubt been a major factor in the recognition by the state as a California Distinguished School four times in the last sixteen years, in 1994, 1998, 2000, and 2006. The Staff The 2009-2010 school year ended with a new principal being named to Sonora High School. The new principal was selected through a rigorous and intensive process designed to attract the interest of leaders who were particularly suited to the challenges of meeting the critical needs of the students at Sonora, as identified in both our proposed WASC Action Plan and CDE Single School Plan. There are 137 staff members at Sonora High School, of which 99 are certificated and 38 are classified. The certificated staff, including teachers, counselors, specialists, and administrators is well educated, experienced, and committed to the education of every young person that walks through our doors. Most are involved in ongoing educational renewal, as demonstrated through the pursuit of advanced degrees and participation in workshops and inservice programs. Fifty-nine per cent of our teaching staff has an M.A./M.S. degree. Three staff members have either a PhD, EdD or Doctor of Chiropractic. Of the remaining, twenty-four per cent have thirty or more units past the B.A./B.S. degree. Thirty-seven per cent of the teaching staff is bilingual or multilingual. One hundred per cent of the staff is qualified to work with English Learners, having completed certification through one or more programs including SDAIE, CLAD and/or BCLAD, either in addition to or as a part of their credentialing programs. The classified staff of 38 is effective, skilled, and dedicated to serving the needs of students, parents, the community, and other staff members. Forty-seven percent of the classified staff have served ten years or more with twenty-four percent having served fifteen years or longer. Classified staff members update their knowledge and skills through attending campus, district, and area workshops and conferences. Together, both certificated and classified staff work toward creating a collegial community that focuses on ensuring highly successful and productive learning in young people. This has been especially important during the last two years, when the classified staff in particular has experienced significant personnel reductions and job reassignments. The Students Student Demographic Data The following data, continuing through page 57, presents a graphic view of the successes and challenges experienced by the Sonora community. While some of the data might have been relegated to the appendix, each of the focus and home groups participating in the study felt that this data presents not only a picture of the many successes enjoyed by Sonora today, but also dramatically illustrates the major challenges as identified in Chapters Two and Four, and addressed in the Action Plan in Chapter Five. Thus it was a nearly unanimous decision by all stakeholders to include all of the following items in this chapter, albeit appearing at times to be quite repetitive, particularly across subject matter test performance presentation. 4
Enrollment Data Sonora’s enrollment has been relatively stable during the past six years. Both the school and the district allow and encourage students to find special programs in which they are interested. Students can transfer to Sonora by way of the two-week district Open Enrollment period. Additionally, students may transfer to Sonora with approved interdistrict or intradistrict permits for special programs not available at their home school. This contributes to the year to year enrollment fluctuation shown below. Enrollment by Academic Grade and Total Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
# of Students
# of Students
# of Students
# of Students
613 682 724 648 596 483
434 515 516 478 538 560
511 402 442 567 570 485
470 381 383 433 478 504
Total 2028 1980 2065 2126 2182 2032
During the 2006-2007 school year, as a response to national, state and local needs for successfully educating every student, students were classified not only according to the calendar years they had attended high school, but also by the number of units they had completed relative to the requirements for eventual graduation. This was both in response to federal and state guidelines, as well as to the evident difficulty for new-comers to immediately adjust to their new language of instruction, academically and socially. This dual classification will lead to some anomalies in the subsequent data, particularly with reference to the 2007-2008 school year. These anomalies are the result of what is generally referred to as the “social grade� of certain students.
Student Ethnicity Data Sonora has continued to experience a continued, yet gradual, change in the ethnic composition of the student body. The two most significant ethnic sub-groups continue to be the Hispanic and White populations. It will be noted, however, that the Asian population has consistently grown over the past five years at a much greater rate than the Asian population throughout the district.
5
Enrollment by Ethnicity Ethnicity Total American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Hispanic/ Latino African American White Other/ Unknown
Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
2005-06 2028 3 0.1 137 6.8 6 0.3 29 1.4 977 48.2 36 1.8 718 35.4 122 6.0
2006-07 1980 1 0.1 154 7.8 1 0.1 31 1.6 972 49.1 28 1.4 657 33.2 136 6.9
2007-08 2065 0 0.0 172 8.3 0 0.0 30 1.5 1085 52.5 34 1.6 623 30.2 121 5.9
2008-09 2126 1 0.0 197 9.3 1 0.0 33 1.6 1157 54.4 36 1.7 590 27.8 111 5.2
2009-10 2182 6 0.3 216 9.8 5 0.2 37 1.7 1246 57.1 44 2.0 619 28.4 9 .4
2010-2011 2032 8 0.4 213 10.5 2 0.0 36 1.8 1153 56.7 32 1.6 509 25.0 79 3.9
For comparison purposes, the District-wide ethnic distribution is presented below. FJUHSD Enrollment by Ethnicity Ethnicity Total American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Hispanic/ Latino African American White Other/ Unknown
Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
2005-06 16,299 36 0.2 2,816 17.3 54 0.3 383 2.3 7,500 46.0 387 2.4 4,234 26.0 889 5.5
2006-07 16,499 29 0.2 2,911 17.6 47 0.3 403 2.4 7,625 46.2 372 2.3 4,183 25.4 929 5.6
2007-08 16,321 26 0.2 2,995 18.4 48 0.3 418 2.6 7,697 47.2 359 2.2 3,927 24.1 851 5.2
6
2008-09 16,343 29 0.2 3,084 18.9 48 0.3 435 2.7 7,945 48.6 336 2.1 3,763 23 703 4.3
2009-10 15,095 63 0.4 2844 18.8 60 0.4 477 3.2 7227 47.9 376 2.5 3998 26.5 50 0.3
2010-11 14642 56 0.4 2819 19.3 30 0.2 488 3.3 7559 51.6 353 2.4 3273 22.4 59 0.4
Enrollment by Ethnicity, Orange County and the State of California 2009-10 Sonora was quite close to the county-wide ethnic distribution in 2009-2010, with the exception of the Asian population at the school, which is nearly fifty per cent less than that of the county. Comparisons with the state indicate substantially smaller populations, percentage-wise, of African American, Asian, and American Indian students at Sonora. The data table is found on the top of page 6. (Please note that the actual numbers of each category are presented in terms of thousands of students.) 20092010 County # % State # %
American Indian 2.5 0.4 44.9 0.7
Asian Pacific Islander 71.1 2.6 14.2 0.5 526.9 37.0 8.5 0.6
Filipino Hispanic/ Latino 9.1 235.7 1.8 46.9 156.4 3118.4 2.5 50.4
African American 8.2 1.6 424.3 6.9
White
Other Total
159.5 31.8 1673.3 27.0
13.3 2.6 209.2 3.4
502.2 100 6190.4 100
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Data Whereas in the past Sonora had struggled to convince the majority of apparently eligible families in the community to register for the Reimbursable Meals Program, and had met with very little success perhaps due to social stigma on the part of students and their families, the school’s recent numbers more accurately reflect the reality of our students’ economic situation. Perhaps due to the difficulties presented to families as a result of the recent and ongoing economic recession, this reporting has changed in the last few years. It may, however, have been a lack of awareness by the school community regarding the reimbursable meals program, as well as the previously stated reluctance to be so identified that long kept many eligible families from participating perhaps due to the economic recession. A strong push by the school to meet the needs of the families through the use of a program that intentionally avoided any social stigma allowed the school to significantly increase program participation. In the last few years, students who qualified for the reimbursable meals program also qualified for test fee reductions/ waivers, athletic transportation payment programs/fee waiver, ASB fee waiver for athletes, ROP fee reductions/waivers, and/or OCTA public bus passes. The following table shows the dramatic increase in just the last five years. Students in Reimbursable Meals Program Year 2005-2007 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
# 59 152 313 568 831 954
% 3.2 8.1 16.0 28.3 40.0 46.9 7
Parent Education Level It is well-documented that the level of education achieved by the parents in a family tends to be a strong indicator of that pursued by their children. The relative level of parent education at Sonora has not changed dramatically over the past six years for those who report their level. What is dramatic, however, is the near-doubling of those in the “Decline-to-State” category, from 10.5% in 2005-06 to 19.6% in 2009-10. There is a drop in every other category, except high school graduate which shows a modest 1.4% increase. Correspondingly, the “Not a High School Graduate” category had a 1.3% drop. Parent Education Level Year
200506 200607 200708 200809 200910 201011
Total
Not a High School Graduate
1866
# 264
% 14.1
High School Graduate # % 322 17.3
Some College
1883
266
14.1
320
17.0
410
21.8
400
21.2
254
13.5
233
12.4
1958
278
14.2
324
16.5
403
20.6
412
21.0
253
12.9
288
14.7
2009
294
14.6
361
18.0
398
19.8
407
20.3
246
12.2
303
15.1
2074
265
12.8
387
18.7
363
17.5
401
19.3
252
12.2
406
19.6
2032
265
13.0
379
18.7
369
18.2
396
19.5
261
12.8
362
17.8
# 420
College Graduate
Graduate School
% 22.5
# 389
% 20.8
# 275
% 14.7
# 196
% 10.5
8
Decline to State
English Learners English Learners’ Language Proficiency Status Year
Total
English Only
English Learner
Initially Fluent English Proficient
# % # % # % 2005-06 1866 1187 63.6 291 15.6 279* 15.0 2006-07 1883 1161 61.7 272 14.4 254* 13.5 2007-08 2065 934 45.2 353 17.1 299 14.5 2008-09 2126 819 38.5 361 17.0 401 18.9 2009-10 2074 1173 56.6 288 13.9 140 6.8 2010-11 2032 1119 55.1 340 16.7 136 6.7 *Denotes students that used to be identified as Fluent English Proficient.
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient # % 109 5.8 196 10.4 479 23.2 545 25.6 473 22.8 437 21.5
Anomaly: Less attention used to be paid to the difference between Initially and Redesignated Fluent English Proficient students when the Fluent English Proficient tagging was still used. It is likely that the Redesignated numbers are artificially low prior to 2007-08 due to this fact and that some students that should have truly been reported as Redesignated ended up in the generic Fluent English Proficient category. Redesignation of English Learner Students per Year Number of Students Redesignated 53 17 38 43 27
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
CELDT Overall Scores Total 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910
205
CELDT 1 # % 7 3.4
CELDT 2 # % 17 8.3
CELDT 3 # % 42 20.5
CELDT 4 # % 90 43.9
CELDT 5 # % 49 23.9
276
21
7.6
33
12.0
90
32.6
114
41.3
18
6.5
339
32
9.4
44
13.0
132
38.9
105
31.0
26
7.7
366
31
8.5
59
16.1
147
40.2
115
31.4
14
3.8
342
36
10.5
43
12.6
135
39.5
105
30.7
23
6.7
9
*Beginning in 2006-07, CELDT results are reported with a different common scale than in previous years. As a result, 2005-06 results cannot be compared to those of later years. Home Language of English Learners The following table indicates a drop of nearly 3% among those who speak a language other than English at home, with the greatest change among the native Spanish speakers.
Year
Total School Populati on
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2028 1980 2065 2126 2182 2074
Spanish
# 319 298 313 328 338 266
% 15.7 15.1 15.1 15.4 15.5 12.8
Korean
# 9 14 19 16 15 12
% .4 .7 .9 .8 .7 .6
All Other
# 8 23 21 17 14 10
% .4 1.3 1.0 .8 .6 .5
Total ELs
# 291 272 353 361 288 340
% 15.6 14.4 17.1 17.0 13.9 16.7
Attendance Data Per Cent Actual Attendance This data is drawn from the P2 attendance report each year. 19992000 95.23
20002001 95.48
20012002 95.77
20022003 95.94
20032004 95.89
2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 20092005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 96.01 95.87 96.25 96.36 96.46 96.13
10
Student Dropout Data Student Dropout Data The traceable dropout number is almost negligible among all ethnic groups, and was the largest in the past six years among Hispanic/Latino students in their senior year during the 2005-2006 school year. We attribute our very low dropout rates to many intervention programs, such as Opportunity at La Sierra High School and to continuing and alternative programs that our district offers at La Vista and La Sierra High Schools.
Ethnicity Asian
Grades 9 10 11 12
2005-06 0 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0 0 0
2008-09 0 0 0 0
2009-10 0 0 0 0
Hispanic/Latino
9 10 11 12
0 0 1 13
2 0 2 3
2 0 2 3
1 0 3 2
0 0 0 2
African American
9 10 11 12
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
White
9 10 11 12
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1
0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Other
9 10 11 12
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
11
Suspension and Expulsion Data Number of Suspensions and Expulsions The data show that the number of suspensions during the 2008-2009 school year was much larger than any other year among this five year period, even though that year represented only the third largest enrollment of these years. Data for only the first five years are presented as we are currently in the sixth year. Suspensions
2005-06 152
2006-07 169
2007-08 142
2008-09 197
2009-10 144
Expulsions
7
3
2
2
4
Student Performance Data API Results API Test Results for Significant Subgroups This data is the first presentation of the source of the major challenges that must be addressed by the school: teaching and learning at Sonora appears to be the least effective for those students with disabilities, English Learners, who are socioeconomically disadvantaged students, or who are Hispanic/Latino. Of course, many of these categories may include the same students. 2006 Asian 881 Hispanic/Latino 716 White 824 SED 685 EL 633 Students with N/A Disabilities Schoolwide 776
2007 862 699 808 680 651 N/A
2008 870 700 831 673 637 541
2009 884 720 834 697 646 N/A
2010 906 731 858 733 680 574
756
762
776
798
12
CST Results The following examination results appear to clearly demonstrate not only the areas of high achievement by the students at Sonora, but also somewhat strikingly identify at least three areas of high need: English Learners, Special Education Students, and students from Socioeconomically Disadvantaged home environments, as indicated in the general data table immediately preceding. Each set of results, beginning with the English Language Arts examinations, are first presented by grade level data, followed by Trend Analysis Graphs that nearly inevitably show reasonable performance among all students, followed by clear deficiencies in the English Learner, Special Education and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged subgroups. As the data proceeds through the grade levels, the English Learner population tends to perform even less ably, while the Special Education and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students appear to perform somewhat better each year. In 2007-2008, the socioeconomically disadvantaged data appears to be unreliable. That year apparently corresponds with the Fullerton Joint Union High School District transition to the federally funded reimbursable meals program. During the change from the old program to the new, our economically challenged students were not properly tagged in our student data base. This anomaly will appear in all of the following CST subgroup analysis charts. CST ELA 9th Grade 2005-06 % of Students 23 28 28 13 8
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 98.9% Tested Students 603/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 23 29 27 14 6
2007-08 % of Students 27 28 25 16 3
2008-09 % of Students 26 27 27 13 6
2009-10 % of Students 32 35 22 7 4
99.4%
96.0%
98.1%
94.2%
647/651
651/678
530/540
537/570
13
Schoolwide
CST ELA 9th Grade English Learners
14
Scial Education
CST ELA 9th Grade
15
CST ELA 10th Grade 2005-06 % of Students 25 34 25 12 3
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 95.9% Tested Students 398/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 16 28 32 15 8
2007-08 % of Students 27 28 28 11 5
2008-09 % of Students 26 28 29 11 6
2009-10 % of Students 26 26 31 10 7
97.8%
97.2%
97.3%
97.5%
487/498
489/503
547/562
511/524
Schoolwide
16
English Learners
CST ELA 10th Grade Special Education
17
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
CST ELA 11th Grade 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 % of % of % of Students Students Students 22 27 21 26 27 27 25 27 32 15 11 13 13 8 6
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 98.0% Tested Students 432/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2008-09 % of Students 21 33 28 12 7
2009-10 % of Students 26 25 28 12 8
98.9%
97.8%
98.3%
96.9%
354/358
394/403
466/474
530/547
18
CST ELA 11th Grade Schoolwide
English Learners
19
CST ELA 11th Grade Special Education
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
20
The following data reflect performance on the CST Algebra I examinations. There is less difference among the subgroups on this exam, at least partially due to most students taking Algebra I in middle school. Thus there are few at the 9th grade level and above who are taking it for the first time. Additionally, Sonora also offers a two-year Algebra I program entitled Algebra Foundations. Students in the first year of this program take the Algebra I CST, even though they have only been exposed to the first half of the Algebra I curriculum. Further, most takers were not successful previously, and this performance tends to perpetuate itself, as indicated in the following tables. Interestingly, the socioeconomically disadvantaged students tend to almost mirror the overall subpopulation of the school who are taking this test. With the exception of the socioeconomically disadvantaged population in 2007, this trend is fairly constant. CST Algebra I (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 1 14 25 41 18
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 75.9% Tested Students 463/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 1 13 30 41 15
2007-08 % of Students 0 19 49 25 7
2008-09 % of Students 3 13 22 48 15
2009-10 % of Students 7 19 24 38 12
75.3%
31.3%
70.2%
60.4%
490/651
212/678
379/540
344/570
CST Algebra I (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 1 14 41 38 7
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 35.7% Tested Students 148/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 0 8 34 43 14
2007-08 % of Students 0 14 36 40 11
2008-09 % of Students 0 7 28 47 18
2009-10 % of Students 0 11 36 42 10
40.8%
42.7%
46.3%
42.6%
203/498
215/503
260/562
223/524
21
CST Algebra I (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 9 31 43 16
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 29% Tested Students 128/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 0 4 28 54 14
2007-08 % of Students 0 6 29 42 23
2008-09 % of Students 0 8 26 45 20
2009-10 % of Students 1 6 36 44 13
15.9%
11.9%
23.2%
20.5%
57/358
48/403
110/474
112/547
Schoolwide
22
CST Algebra I English Learners
Special Education
23
CST Algebra I Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Following are the CST Geometry performances for the 9th, 10th and 11th grades. Interestingly, the performance of the subgroups that generally are the most challenged tend to appear more successful when compared to the general population on the geometry assessments. As would be expected, those students who enrolled in Geometry when beginning high school in the ninth grade performed better than those who began their Geometry studies as tenth or eleventh graders, which show progressive declines in performance with each successive year of high school.
CST Geometry (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 8 36 41 13 2
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 16.4% Tested Students 110/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 19 31 41 9 0
2007-08 % of Students 30 30 23 15 1
2008-09 % of Students 19 36 28 17 0
2009-10 % of Students 15 43 32 10 0
17.8%
20.2%
21.5%
24.6%
116/651
137/678
116/540
140/570
24
CST Geometry (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 1 21 48 27 4
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 29.9% Tested Students 124/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 2 8 40 41 9
2007-08 % of Students 2 17 37 39 5
2008-09 % of Students 2 21 38 36 3
2009-10 % of Students 1 21 52 24 3
29.1%
25.6%
23.1%
19.5%
145/498
129/503
130/562
102/524
CST Geometry (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 9 30 56 6
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 18.4% Tested Students 81/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 1 6 20 63 9
2007-08 % of Students 0 4 33 48 15
2008-09 % of Students 0 3 37 50 10
2009-10 % of Students 0 5 25 60 10
22.1%
23.3%
21.5%
23.0%
79/358
94/403
102/474
126/547
25
CST Geometry Schoolwide
English Learners
26
CST Geometry Special Education
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The CST Algebra II results follow, with the trend noted in the geometry comments again reflected in these performances. The major difference in achievement, however, occurs, as would be expected, between the 10th and 11th grades. Again, the 11th grade scores largely represent students who began their Algebra I course at the high school level instead of at the middle school.
27
CST Algebra II (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 9 24 42 21 3
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 5.4% Tested Students 33/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 19 58 19 4 0
2007-08 % of Students 8 50 42 0 0
2008-09 % of Students 24 52 18 6 0
2009-10 % of Students 28 52 16 4 0
4.0%
1.8%
6.1%
4.4%
26/651
12/678
33/540
25/570
CST Algebra II (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 5 26 45 21 3
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 26.0% Tested Students 108/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 4 24 45 26 1
2007-08 % of Students 10 43 28 16 4
2008-09 % of Students 11 40 40 9 0
2009-10 % of Students 17 40 29 12 2
24.7%
22.3%
24.9%
26.5%
123/498
112/503
140/562
139/524
28
CST Algebra II (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 1 12 38 36 13
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 37.0% Tested Students 163/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 2 10 35 45 8
2007-08 % of Students 2 21 41 27 8
2008-09 % of Students 1 21 43 31 4
2009-10 % of Students 2 19 45 28 7
43.0%
36.5%
32.9%
32%
154/358
147/403
156/474
175/547
Schoolwide
29
CST Algebra II English Learners
Special Education
30
CST Algebra II
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged The Summative High School Math scores, presented in the following two charts, also reflect higher achievement overall in the 10th grade as compared to the 11th. It may also be noted that fewer ELs take this examination, with resulting higher performance for those that do. CST Summative High School Math (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 22 39 39 0 0
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 4.3% Tested Students 18/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 31 38 31 0 0
2007-08 % of Students 24 33 29 14 0
2008-09 % of Students 27 36 36 0 0
2009-10 % of Students 30 60 10 0 0
2.6%
4.2%
2.0%
3.8%
13/498
21/503
11/562
20/524
31
CST Summative High School Math (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 14 47 25 14 0
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 13.4% Tested Students 59/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 12 37 30 20 2
2007-08 % of Students 10 41 39 10 0
2008-09 % of Students 24 46 25 4 0
2009-10 % of Students 21 49 23 6 0
16.8%
14.6%
15.0%
17.4%
60/358
59/403
71/474
95/547
Schoolwide
32
CST Summative High School Math English Learners
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
33
Performance on the CST World History examination has improved overall, and this improvement is shared by all sub-groups. The only exception is seen in those students taking the test in the 11th grade in the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. In general, students that take World History in their 11th grade year, have to do so because of an impacted schedule resulting from intervention and support classes. Thus, it is not surprising that these at-risk students continue to struggle.
CST World History (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 8 12 34 20 26
2007-08 % of Students 6 15 29 19 31
2008-09 % of Students 1 0 0 0 0
11.4%
12.7
.9%
74/651
86/678
5/540
2009-10 % of Students
CST World History (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 21 27 31 12 9
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 95.9 Tested Students 398/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 20 24 37 12 8
2007-08 % of Students 25 28 28 9 10
2008-09 % of Students 26 23 26 13 11
2009-10 % of Students 32 25 25 8 10
75.9%
74.4%
84.2%
87.6%
378/498
374/503
473/562
459/524
34
CST World History (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students
2006-07 % of Students
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
35
2007-08 % of Students 8 0 8 8 75
2008-09 % of Students 0 0 0 0 100
4.0%
3.6%
16/403
17/474
2009-10 % of Students
CST World History Schoolwide
English Learners
36
CST World History Special Education
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The performance of students on the U.S. History (11th Grade) examinations has demonstrated generally continual improvement for the previous five years, with 38% of those students taking the examination achieving in the advanced range for the 2009-2010. Both the Below Basic and Far Below Basic categories have declined from double digit to single digit percentages during this same time frame. The consistently improving performance of the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students tends to mirror the overall performance of the general population of All Students.
37
CST U.S. History (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 18 28 29 14 11
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 97.5% Tested Students 430/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 20 33 31 11 5
2007-08 % of Students 28 35 21 9 7
2008-09 % of Students 33 32 19 8 9
2009-10 % of Students 38 31 18 6 7
97.2%
97.3%
98.1%
96.3%
348/358
392/403
465/474
527/547
Schoolwide
38
CST U.S. History English Learners
Special Education
39
CST U.S. History Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The Department of Natural Sciences at Sonora has undergone a major curricular change over the past nine years, with the major changes having been finalized just at the beginning of the second half of this current accreditation cycle. The department had been entirely in an Integrated Science curriculum, combining Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics at both the standard and honors levels. Other science electives, however, were offered and continue to be available to all students. These include Astronomy, Marine Science, Organic/Biochemistry and Physiology. The transition back to the more traditional science curriculum model began with allowing new incoming students to select either Integrated Science I or Biology (Honors or Regular) for their freshman course. Their second course then would be either Biology or Chemistry. The school has maintained the Integrated Science I course for all students, should they choose to begin with such a survey course. A major result of this is a large current Physics offering, including Regular, Honors, and Honors/IB. The current school year is the third year of offering the traditional Physics course after approximately an eight-year absence during the Integrated Science period. During the entire time of both total Integrated Sciences and the transition, Higher Level International Baccalaureate Biology has been successfully maintained. Also during this transition time, the Agriculture program, in line with Agriculture programs across the state, began offering certain curricula with an Agriculture emphasis. On the Sonora campus, in terms of the sciences, this has included Biology with an Agriculture emphasis, and Earth Science. Following these courses, interested students generally transition into the standard science curricula for Chemistry, Physics, and/or the previously described science elective courses. Knowledge of the existence of two different methods of science education during this current accreditation cycle, the transition years between the two, and the interrelationship with the Agriculture Program may help the reader better understand the data tables presenting science achievement that follow.
40
The first set of examination results presented are those showing achievement on the statewide tenth grade examination of Life Science, in compliance with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation. The increased numbers across the years reflect the largely increasing overall school enrollment during the time period. CST Life Science (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 21 23 37 13 7
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 95.9% Tested Students 398/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 19 25 27 16 12
2007-08 % of Students 27 23 27 14 10
2008-09 % of Students 26 27 28 12 7
2009-10 % of Students 30 24 28 12 5
97.2%
97.0%
97.3%
95.2%
484/498
488/503
547/562
499/524
The following CST Biology/Life Science results are those of the regular CST Biology examination, separated by grade level, but combined along with the Earth Science results when represented with the bar graphs. It should be recalled that the years with “gray fill� are times when one or more courses were in transition. While overall successful performance has nearly doubled in the past four years with similar results seen in the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged data, there appears to be great need in EL and Special Education. CST Biology/Life Science (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 3 16 32 33 17
2007-08 % of Students 31 41 18 8 3
2008-09 % of Students 44 44 10 1 0
2009-10 % of Students 63 30 7 1 0
11.7%
30.2%
28.3%
26.7%
76/651
205/678
153/540
152/570
41
CST Biology/Life Science (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 20 55 20 5
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 4.8% Tested Students 20/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 18 26 40 10 6
2007-08 % of Students 22 35 32 7 4
2008-09 % of Students 5 24 51 13 7
2009-10 % of Students 6 29 47 11 6
80.5%
77.5%
62.1%
60.5%
401/498
390/503
349/562
317/524
CST Biology/Life Science (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 6 27 40 10 17
2007-08 % of Students 10 28 45 10 7
2008-09 % of Students 14 17 49 14 6
2009-10 % of Students 3 9 47 28 13
17.6%
7.2%
7.4%
5.9%
63/358
29/403
35/474
32/547
42
CST Biology/Life Science Schoolwide
English Learners
Special Education
43
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
CST Earth Science (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 6 31 27 36
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 10.5% Tested Students 64/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 1 12 30 28 28
2007-08 % of Students 1 17 48 24 11
2008-09 % of Students 2 16 42 25 14
2009-10 % of Students 1 23 48 15 13
14.1%
12.4%
15.7%
18.9%
92/651
84/678
85/540
108/570
44
CST Earth Science (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 7 53 20 20
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 3.6% Tested Students 15/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 0 8 15 38 38
2007-08 % of Students
2008-09 % of Students
2009-10 % of Students 6 6 12 18 59
2.6%
3.2%
13/498
17/524
CST Earth Science (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 3 6 44 36 11
2006-07 % of Students
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 21.3% Tested Students 94/306.9 Tested/Students Enrolled
45
2007-08 % of Students
2008-09 % of Students
2009-10 % of Students
CST Earth Science Schoolwide
English Learners
46
CST Earth Science Special Education
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The following data regarding CST Chemistry again indicated no discrete Chemistry course during the 2005-2006 school year, with few tenth graders in the program during the years 2006-2008. However, as the traditional program began to dominate in course offerings, the number of advanced and proficient students increased dramatically. It should be noted that tenth graders in Chemistry are usually honors-level students. The graphical representations of the data once again clearly confirm the school-wide need to strongly address especially the subpopulation of English Learners, Special Education students, and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students.
47
CST Chemistry (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 6 19 31 31 13
2007-08 % of Students 6 6 50 13 25
2008-09 % of Students 21 41 33 5 1
2009-10 % of Students 32 42 21 4 1
3.2%
3.2%
27.6%
29.8%
16/498
16/503
155/562
156/524
CST Chemistry (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 4 24 52 14 6
2007-08 % of Students 11 27 43 11 7
2008-09 % of Students 9 34 42 11 4
2009-10 % of Students 5 20 42 20 13
66.2%
65.0%
61.8%
47.7%
237/358
262/403
293/474
261/547
48
CST Chemistry Schoolwide
English Learners
49
CST Chemistry Special Education
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The final science course to complete the cycle in the Integrated to Classical Science pattern of instruction was Physics, as indicated in the CST Physics. In this first year of CST testing, 2009-2010, 68 students, or 53%, of those tested were Proficient or Advanced. It might be reasonable at this point to remind readers that students do not sit for CST exams as seniors, the grade level of many Physics students.
50
CST Physics (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students
2006-07 % of Students
2007-08 % of Students
2008-09 % of Students
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/Students Enrolled
2009-10 % of Students 18 50 29 2 2 23.6% 129/547
CST Integrated/Coordinated Science I (9th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 2 22 56 16 5
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 80.3% Tested Students 490/610 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 5 22 50 15 8
2007-08 % of Students 0 15 48 17 19
2008-09 % of Students 2 13 49 20 16
2009-10 % of Students 1 29 50 12 7
72.2%
50.3%
51.9%
49.3%
470/651
341/678
280/540
281/570
51
CST Integrated/Coordinated Science I (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 7 71 18 4
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 6.7 Tested Students 28/415 Tested/Students Enrolled
2006-07 % of Students 0 7 41 27 25
2007-08 % of Students 0 11 19 37 33
2008-09 % of Students 0 5 45 14 36
8.8%
5.4%
3.9%
44/498
27/503
22/562
CST Integrated/Coordinated Science I (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 0 0 47 47 7
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 3.4% Tested Students 15/441 Tested/Students Enrolled
52
2006-07 % of Students 0 7 55 21 17 11.7% 42/358
2009-10 % of Students
Schoolwide
CST Coordinated/Integrated Science English Learners
53
Special Education
CST Coordinated/Integrated Science Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
54
CST Integrated/ Coordinated Science II (9th Grade)
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/ Students Enrolled
2005-06 % of Students 0 2 29 45 24 6.9% 42/610
CST Integrated/ Coordinated Science II (10th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 3 19 50 20
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/ Students Enrolled
7 80.7% 335/415
55
CST Integrated/ Coordinated Science II (11th Grade)
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students Tested Students Tested/ Students Enrolled
2005-06 % of Students 0 11 54 24 11 14.3% 63/441
CST Integrated/Coordinated Science III (11th Grade) 2005-06 % of Students 6 34 49 8 3
Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Far Below Basic % of Students 56.5% Tested Students 249/441 Tested/Students Enrolled CAHSEE Results
Since Sonora recently became a Title I targeted school, it becomes important to begin tracking the number of students that are scoring proficient on the CAHSEE. Hence, proficiency rates are included beginning with the 2009-10 school year.
California High School Exit Exam Results for 10th Grade Students Math Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Proficient or Above
Total
Special Education
English Learners
401 370 469 405 471 405 462 395 415 371 253
18 11 19 9 17 4 16 4 19 9 4
50 37 (74.0%) 102 61 (59.8%) 73 38 (52.1%) 72 44 (61.1%) 50 27 (54.0%) 5 (21.1%)
(92.3%) (86.4%) (86.0%) (85.5%) (89.4%) (61.0%)
56
(61.1%) (47.4%) (23.5%) (25.0%) (47.4%) (21.1%)
Socio economically Disadvantaged 61 54 (88.5%) 87 66 (75.9%) 101 78 (77.2%) 142 106 (74.6%) 169 137 (81.1%) 74 (43.8%)
ELA Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Tested Passed Proficient or Above
Total
Special Education
English Learners
401 352 (87.8%) 469 403 (85.9%) 473 411 (86.9%) 463 396 (85.5%) 414 361 (87.2%) 257 (62.1%)
18 8 (44.4%) 22 5 (22.7%) 18 5 (27.8%) 17 4 (23.5%) 19 8 (42.1%) 1 (5.3%)
50 18 (36.0%) 103 54 (52.4%) 76 40 (52.6%) 73 33 (45.2%) 49 18 (36.7%) 2 (4.1%)
Socio economically Disadvantaged 61 45 (73.8%) 85 58 (68.2%) 102 78 (76.5%) 143 104 (72.7%) 169 129 (76.3%) 71 (42.0%)
AYP Results Schoolwide, Sonora has met its AYP every year since the last visit. However, there is still concern about the subgroups that have not been able to do so. AYP 2005-2006
57
AYP 2005-2006
AYP 2006-2007
58
AYP 2007-2008
AYP 2007-2008
AYP 2008-2009
59
AYP 2008-2009
Test Fee Reductions Increased monetary assistance for standardized tests has provided more accessibility to these tests than in previous years. Test Fee Reductions Test
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
AP IB PSAT
Fee % Reduction/ Total Tests 31/447 6.9 6/143 4.2 7/168 4.2
Fee % Reduction/ Total Tests 106/469 22.6 9/104 8.7 6/149 4.0
Fee % Reduction/ Total Tests 204/733 27.8 118/246 50.0 3/170 1.8
Fee Reduction/ Total Tests 107/222 22/179
%
48.3 12.3
ACT Results ACT Results Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Students 63 85 90 90 116 129
English
Math
Reading
21.9 22.4 21.8 21.2 21.2 22.1
22.0 23.3 22.4 21.7 22.1 23.2
23.2 22.8 22.7 22.0 21.6 22.6
60
Science Reasoning 21.8 21.8 21.6 20.8 21.4 22.1
Composite 22.3 22.7 22.3 21.5 21.7 22.6
SAT I Results SAT I Results Year
Number of Students Tested
Math Scores
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
219 207 191 193 186
523 514 517 501 528
Critical Reading Scores 516 504 507 486 514
Writing Scores 519 506 510 482 513
Advanced Placement Exam Results The data indicate strong performance in that while nearly increasing the total students taking the Advanced Placement Examinations by approximately 2.5 times, the passage rate, instead of stagnating or lowering, actually increased by 6 %. Total Advanced Placement Exams Year Number of Tests Taken Passage rate, %
2006 244
2007 220
2008 249
2009 286
2010 719
67
70
65
78
73
Advanced Placement Examination results for the years 2006-2010 may be found below, presented by year and by subject area tested within that year. Advanced Placement Exam Results (The data appears on the following page.)
61
Advanced Placement Exam Results
Statistics
Studio Art 2D
U.S. History 11 12 20
2 1 Tot
12 1 34
3 5 15
3 0 51
19 5 69
2 3 6
15 0 43
4 2 47
9 6 43
0 4 7
2 5 13
4 0 4
12 1 56
2007 5 4
Total # of Tests: 220 3 1 1 0 16 7 0 2
5 10
4 15
0 0
1 4
6 28
8 11
0 2
0 0
0 0
10 20
12 10 33
3
9
2
0
1
22
23
1
10
16
6
0
5
2
17
2 1 Tot
6 4 38
8 16 34
0 0 1
5 7 15
8 0 45
9 4 55
0 1 2
14 3 32
3 5 58
9 6 40
0 0 2
2 0 7
0 0 2
7 0 54
2008 5 4 3
Total # of Tests: 249 6 8 0 5 10 0 2 9 1
5 12 19
3 5 44
0 0 1
1 1 9
9 18 15
3 10 12
1 2 4
0 1 6
8 22 16
2 1 Tot
7 6 26
2 0 38
10 9 71
2 2 5
14 5 30
9 3 54
15 11 51
4 1 1 2
9 4 20
10 1 57
2009 5 4
Total # of Tests: 286 12 6 2 1 6 9 5 2
1 6
4 10
17 23
1 1
3 3
0 0
18 27
17 15
0 0
0 3
0 2
10 24
4 2 33
8 8 17
3
6
12
0
1
18
10
32
0
5
1
12
9
0
2
0
19
2 1 Tot
5 5 34
6 4 37
0 0 7
4 3 11
11 2 38
4 0 28
7 4 83
0 2 4
6 4 21
0 0 1
4 3 64
4 5 50
0 1 1
2 1 8
0 0 2
9 3 65
62
38 93 15 1 97 42 42 1
39 11 5 11 4 71 46 38 5
44 86 13 8 94 52 41 4
92 13 6 12 7 62 37 45
Percentage of Total
Spanish Literature
0 0 0
Total Grades Reported
Spanish Language
0 2 4
Human Geography
Psychology
Studio Art-Drawing
French Language
0 1 2
Physics B
European History
8 10 10
U.S. Government
English Lit/Comp
4 20 17
English Language
1 8 19
Econ Macro
1 0 0
Calculus BC
3 6 36
Calculus AB
5 17 26
Biology
Total # of Tests: 244 3 1 1 10 5 2 8 5 4
AP Exam Score 2006 5 4 3
9 22 36 23 10 100
10 30 30 18 12 100
11 21 33 23 13 100
20 30 28 14 8 100
4 2010 5
Total # of Tests: 719 4 4
6
1
7
0
4
0
28
21
3
1
1
0
22
22
4
5
4
7
14
24
0
1
0
31
15
5
1
0
1
31
38
3
12
17
24
29
38
2
19
1
14
11
6
6
0
0
13
35
2
3
9
15
15
9
0
20
0
8
9
1
1
0
1
12
21
1 Tot
4 28
15 49
0 52
3 62
11 89
2 4
5 49
3 4
5 86
4 60
1 1 6
2 11
0 1
0 2
1 79
11 127
(Advanced Placement Exam Results continued.)
International Baccalaureate Exam Results Sonora offers the International Baccalaureate program to all interested students. Whereas the school may not have as many full diploma graduates as other schools, students are strongly encouraged to do certificates in their subject areas of interest. Scores of four or higher are considered passing. International Baccalaureate Exam Results
0 0 5 4 5 3
0 1 8 5 5 1
0 2 0 0 0 0
1 0 4 5 9 0
Visual Arts SL
1 3 7 2 5 3 0 0 1 21
Visual Arts HL
63
Spanish B SL
1 0 0 0 0 0
Spanish B HL
0 2 7 12 0 0
0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
Spanish AB
0 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 2 9 2 3 0 0 2 16
Russian B SL
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 3 6 16 7 3 0 0 3 35
Psychology SL
0 12 23 6 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Physics SL
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Math Studies SL
0 9 16 5 2 0 0 0 2 32
Mandarin B SL
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Korean B SL
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Japanese B SL
1 10 30 8 0 0 0 0 0 49
Mandarin B HL
History of Europe HL Hebrew B SL
0 0 3 13 13 0
French B SL
2007 7 6 5 4 3 2
French B HL
0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 10
English A1 HL
Chemistry SL
0 1 3 9 18 5 0 0 0 36
Economics HL
Biology HL
IB Exam Score 2006 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P N Tot
0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4
0 0 1 2 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 2
12 4 17 6 22 8 12 4 67 71 9
17 24 32 17 9 100
1 P N Tot
0 0 0 29
0 0 0 41
0 0 0 1
2008 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P N Tot
0 1 6 5 8 0 0 0 1 20
1 8 24 4 0 0 0 0 1 37
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2009 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P N Tot
0 4 9 7 5 2 0 0 0 27
2 9 16 1 0 0 0 0 1 29
2010 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P N Tot
1 1 3 5 15 3 0 0 0 27
0 9 25 9 3 0 0 0 1 46
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 21
0 0 0 1
0 0 5 9 3 0 0 0 2 17
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 1 15
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 12
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 1 4 9 5 1 0 0 4 19
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
1 1 3 7 5 0 0 0 1 17
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 3 11
0 0 1 2 6 6 0 0 11 15
1 3 4 12 0 0 0 0 14 20
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
64
0 0 9 17
0 0 0 20
1 1 6 3 1 1 0 0 4 13
0 6 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 15
0 0 0 2
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 19
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 40
1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 9
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 9
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 7 7 10 3 0 0 0 2 27
3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 10
0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 3
International Baccalaureate Exam Results, continued Theory of Knowledge/Extended Essay 2006 ToK EE A (Excellent) B (Good) C (Satisfactory) D (Mediocre) E (Below Average)
2007 ToK EE
2008 ToK EE
2009 ToK EE
2010 ToK EE
3
1
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
3
16
6
6
5
2
1
4
2
0
2
6
10
11
12
2
3
5
5
5
5
0
7
5
2
0
0
0
1
7
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
International Baccalaureate Diplomas Earned International Baccalaureate Diplomas Earned Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Diploma Candidates 24 22 4 10 12
Number Receiving IB Diplomas
Per Cent Receiving IB Diplomas
17 16 3 10 9
70 73 75 100 75
Special Programs International Baccalaureate Classes Advance Placement Classes Integrated Science I Introduction of Mandarin as an additional World Language option Cross-curricular Humanities Program for college prep students in their Junior English and Social Science Classes AVID 65
Medical Careers Academy JROTC Agriculture ROP Community Based Instruction (CBI) AB 1802 Counseling meetings Student Activities, Co-Curricular and Extra-Curricular Sonora students enjoy the opportunity to participate in a wide range of activities, including: Academic Clubs: Academic Decathlon, Art Club, AP/IB Club, Book Club, Choir Club, French Club, Math Club, Science Club, Spanish Club, Speech and Debate Special Interest Clubs: Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Future Farmers of America (FFA), Girls’ Athletic Association, Girls’ League, Home Economics Club, Journalism Club Service Clubs and Organizations: Best Buds, Conflict Management, Friday Night Live, Holiday Food Drive, Key Club, Leos, MEChA, PALS, Honorary Organizations: California Scholarship Federation (CSF), National Honor Society (NHS) Student Government (ASB) Freshman Mentoring Impact Program Performing Organizations: Choir, Concert Band, Dance, Dance Production, Drama, Drum Line, Jazz Band, Madrigals, Marching Band, Pep Squads, Raiderette Drill Team, and Tall Flags Publications: School Paper, Yearbook Dances: Welcome Back, Homecoming, Winter Formal, Sadie Hawkins, Spring Fiesta, Prom, as well as others from time to time, including Valentine’s, and Hula Hawkins
66
Special Nights: Dancing with the Staff, Lip Sync, Talent Show, Mr. Sonora, Raiderette Show, Dance Show, Fall and Spring Plays, Spring Musical Special Weeks: Spirit Week, Holiday Food Drive, March Olympics Special Events: Academic Awards, Cross the Line, Freshman Awards, Senior Breakfast, Senior Luau, Senior Awards Athletics: Two-four levels (Freshman, Sophomore, Frosh-Soph, Junior Varsity and Varsity) of many CIF team sports, including Fall: Football, Men’s Water Polo, Men and Women’s Cross Country, Women’s Tennis, Women’s Volleyball, Winter: Men and Women’s Basketball, Women’s Water Polo, Men and Women’s Soccer, Wrestling, Spring: Baseball, Softball, Golf, Men’s Tennis, Men and Women’s Swimming and Diving, Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Class Size Report Class size has gradually increased over the last six-year period. The increase in the English class sizes can be attributed at least in part to the loss of 20:1 district-wide. Class Size Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
English 25.4 20.6 22.1 19.5 18.5 24.9
Subject Area Math Social Science 29.6 29.4 26.1 29.7 28.3 31.4 26.7 28.3 22.6 22.3 25.8 23.4
Science 28.6 26.1 28.0 27.0 24.8 25.7
Certificated Staff Per-Pupil Report Certificated Staff Per-Pupil as reported through CBEDS Explanation of Service Categorization Administrators include principals, assistant principals, program directors and/or coordinators, and other certificated staff not providing direct services to students.
67
Pupil Services personnel include certificated employees who provide direct services to students but are not teachers, including counselors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, librarians, speech specialists, and other medical personnel.
Administrators Pupil Services
2005-06 4 7
2006-07 4 6
2007-08 4 8
2008-09 4 9
2009-10 4 8
Teacher Credential Report Teacher Credential Report # of Teachers
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Full Credential
# 77 77 80 80 94 89
81 80 83 83 94 89
University Intern
% 95.1 96.2 96.4 96.4 100.0 100.0
# 2 2 2 2 0 0
District Intern
% 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0
# 0 0 1 1 0 0
Emergency
% 0 0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
# 2 1 1 1 0 0
% 2.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
Waiver
# 1 1 1 1 0 0
% 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
Teacher Education Level Report # of Teachers
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
81 80 83 83 81
Doctorate
Master’s +30
Master’s
Bachelor’s +30
Bachelor’s
Less than Bachelor’s
# 2 2 2 2 2
# 17 17 24 26 25
# 19 21 22 20 22
# 24 27 23 29 24
# 18 12 12 8 8
# 1 1 0 0 0
% 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5
% 21 21.2 28.9 30.6 30.9
68
% 23.5 26.2 26.5 23.5 27.2
% 29.6 33.8 27.7 34.1 29.6
% 22.2 15.0 14.5 9.4 9.9
% 1.2 1.2 0 0 0
Teachers by Ethnicity Report Teachers by Ethnicity Reported by Per Cent
Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Pacific Islander
Filipino
Hispanic Or Latino
African American (not Hispanic)
White (not Hispanic)
Multiple Or no Response
Total
0 0 0 0
7 7 5 5
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
10 12 12 13
0 0 0 0
64 61 66 67
0 0 0 0
81 80 83 85
0
6
0
0
13
0
62
0
81
2009-10
Classified Staff Classified Staff
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Paraprofessional # % 10 27.8 8 23.5 16 36.4 16 37.2 16 36.4
Office/Clerical # % 12 33.3 13 38.2 14 31.8 14 32.6 12 27.2
Other # % 14 38.9 13 38.2 14 31.8 13 30.2 16 36.4
Total # 36 34 44 43 44
Opportunities for Parent and Community Participation Activity Booster Clubs, Athletic Booster Clubs, Grad Night, Parent Institute, PTSA and Academic Boosters, ROP Course Offerings, School Site Council, ELAC, DELAC Technology Computers purchased since the last visit 32 (Library) 40 (Intervention Courses such as Read 180 & Accelerated Math) 30 laptops (Agriculture) Computer Software/Instructional Programs Purchased since the last visit Read 180 69
Accelerated Math Rosetta Stone Modernization New LCD projectors in all the classrooms Additional electrical outlets in all the classrooms Additional data jacks throughout the campus Internet Sites Aeries Browser Interface (ABI) has attendance, student information, and gradebook available on-line for teachers, parents, and students New school website Projected Improvements for 2010-11 4th T1 line will improve internet access school wide Fiber Optic line which will allow for the use of streaming video in instruction VoIP telephone system in the entire school Student Feedback Clickers for Medical Careers
Critical Academic Needs of Sonora High School Based on all the data gathered during the self study process, Sonora High School will: 1. Improve academic achievement of all students in all content areas as measured by the CSTs and the CAHSEE by providing all teachers with the training, tools and materials to conduct effective instruction and assessment and by providing students with the necessary supports and courses to promote their academic success. 2. Support our English Learners and Special Education subgroups to close the achievement gaps. 3. Develop and implement a system to support students to learn and achieve grade-level standards in English Language Arts, mathematics, science, and social science.
70