DeKalb Schools 2017 CCRPI Trends

Posted on November 3, 2017 by | 15 Comments
GaDOE

Ga DOE released the 2017 College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) scores. Scores are up across the state. DeKalb Schools is at the top of the performance increases in the Metro Atlanta area. DCSD’s score is 69.9, up from 66.6 last school year. Georgia’s CCRPI score is 75, a 1.4 point increase since 2016.
The score takes into account a number of different measures including student achievement, student progress, and a gap closure rating where the state compares how well we are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom performers. This score is a direct correlation to the levels of teaching and learning that permeate a school’s culture, and is indicative of teacher effectiveness.
DeKalb Schools administrators said that the district saw marked improvement on the state’s report card because of “intensive, intentional and strategic” efforts flooding struggling schools with resources. Superintendent Green ties significant academic growth at many of the district’s struggling schools to about $2 million in resources — including additional testing and instructional coaches and tutors funneled into those schoolhouses.

What is CCRPI?
The College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) is Georgia’s statewide accountability system, implemented in 2012 to replace the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measurement, after the U.S. Department of Education granted Georgia’s waiver from NCLB.

CCRPI Scores – Metro Atlanta School Districts

Metro Atlanta School Districts 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ’16 – ’17 Performance Increase
DeKalb County 65.1 62.4 62.8 67.7 66.6 69.9 3.3
Atlanta Public Schools 59.8 65.3 62.6 67 65.2 68.3 3.1
Fulton County 73.9 77.5 73.4 74.7 74.7 78 3.3
Cobb County 81.6 80.7 77.3 79.7 80.5 82.9 2.4
Gwinnett County 83.1 82.8 82.1 80.5 83 82.4 -0.6

Region 1 & 2 Elementary School CCRPI Scores

Elementary Schools Region I – CCRPI Scores
Cluster School 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Chamblee KITTREDGE MAGNET (ES) 97.3 96.1 91.6 106.4 106.4 108.7
Dunwoody VANDERLYN ES 94.2 95.2 93.6 91.2 93.4 98.5
Chamblee ASHFORD PARK ES 77.9 87.6 79.9 78.5 87.5 97.5
Dunwoody AUSTIN ES 95.1 96.5 95.5 98.9 97.1 94.4
Dunwoody DUNWOODY ES 85.4 93.7 85.6 93.6 91.6 89
Chamblee MONTGOMERY ES 88.6 89 87 84.4 87.3 85.2
Dunwoody KINGSLEY CHARTER ES 68.7 68.9 63.9 65.4 75.6 81.5
Dunwoody CHESNUT CHARTER ES 70.2 84.1 80.1 77.8 61 79.7
Chamblee HUNTLEY HILLS ES 77.4 79.9 77.3 79 72 76
No Cluster OAKCLIFF ES 71.4 70.8 67.1 71.3 70.2 72.5
Charter DEKALB PATH (ES) 83 83.2 81.1 81.8 80.9 70.9
Dunwoody HIGHTOWER ES 68.1 58.9 63.5 65.9 66.9 61
Cross Keys CARY REYNOLDS ES 69 63.8 56.1 66.9 66.5 59.2
Cross Keys WOODWARD ES 64.2 48 54.6 56.3 60.3 59.2
Cross Keys DRESDEN ES 53.4 69 58.8 54.9 48.8 57.1
Cross Keys MONTCLAIR ES 64.8 50.7 44.7 55 52 52.7
Elementary Schools Region II – CCRPI Scores
Cluster School 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Charter MUSEUM SCHOOL 93.9 89.2 92.1 89.9 88.4 93.2
Charter GLOBE N/A N/A 76.4 88.9 84.1 92.1
Druid Hills LAUREL RIDGE ES 81.8 72.1 84.2 87.6 89 89.9
Lakeside OAK GROVE ES 83.4 87 86.4 83.3 89.5 87.7
No Cluster DEKALB ES OF ARTS (ES) 76 78.9 74.3 88.5 79.8 83.9
No Cluster ROBERT SHAW ES 86.6 88 84.6 80.7 78.7 86.7
Tucker BROCKETT ES 82.4 81.7 72.7 79.3 80.2 82.7
Lakeside BRIARLAKE ES 77.9 82.3 78.9 80 78.5 81.6
Tucker MIDVALE ES 79 74.4 71.4 78.9 63.3 80.6
Tucker LIVSEY ES 77.7 72.7 84.4 78 75.8 79.3
Druid Hills FERNBANK ES 88.9 91.1 95.6 90.9 80.1 77.3
Charter INT COMMUNITY (ES) 66.3 63.5 63.5 63.6 62.9 76.9
Tucker IDLEWOOD ES 54 55.9 61.8 77.1 61.4 74.6
Lakeside HAWTHORNE ES 75.5 83 75.6 73.5 69.2 74.1
Lakeside PLEASANTDALE ES 68.8 57.4 79.7 68.2 61.3 70.9
Lakeside SAGAMORE HILLS ES 77.7 85.5 79.4 79.7 77.3 70.3
Druid Hills BRIAR VISTA ES 76.4 59.3 81.8 61.3 74.8 69.8
Lakeside HENDERSON MILL ES 78.5 74.1 76.7 76.7 78.6 69.7
Tucker SMOKE RISE ES 72.7 59.6 58.2 61.8 59.3 69.1
Lakeside EVANSDALE ES 77.6 73.8 66.8 80 72 65.9
Druid Hills MCLENDON ES 59.5 61.3 63.1 78.3 73.8 64.7
Druid Hills AVONDALE ES 52.8 64 65.4 58.5 56.1 59.2

All DeKalb Middle School CCRPI Scores

Middle Schools
Cluster School 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No Cluster KITTREDGE MAGNET (MS) 93.9 94.2 92.1 95.8 103.6 101.9
No Cluster WADSWORTH MAGNET (MS) 97.9 96.8 98.1 106 92.7 97
No Cluster DEKALB ES OF ARTS (MS) 81.5 83.9 78 79.6 92.8 95.2
Charter Museum School MS N/A 94.7 93.2 89.4 89.9
Charter DEKALB ACADEMY TECH. & ENVIR. (MS) 77.1 72.6 75.6 71 64.1 86.5
Charter DEKALB PATH (MS) 85.4 90.9 90.1 81.7 83 84.2
Chamblee CHAMBLEE MS 82.7 87.9 81.4 79.4 85.1 82.6
No Cluster THE CHAMPION MS 87.4 78.7 79.5 72.4 70.1 82.3
No Cluster DEKALB SCHOOL OF THE ARTS (MS) 90.6 90.6 95.9 90.3 88.6 81.9
Dunwoody Peachtree Middle School 81 72.8 80 79.5 78.8 77.8
Charter Leadership Preparatory Academy 72.6 71.4 70.2 80.7 86.1 76.4
Druid Hills DRUID HILLS MS 61.7 66 76.5 76.2 73.8 74.6
Lakeside HENDERSON MS 80 73.1 73.3 78.8 74.8 74.3
Tucker TUCKER MS 73.1 64.4 66.9 68 71.2 73
Charter DeKalb Preparatory Academy Charter 71.4 58.8 70.8
Stephenson STEPHENSON MS 69.5 60.2 76.2 66.4 63.8 70.2
SW DeKalb CHAPEL HILL MS 61.9 65.7 65.1 60.1 65.2 66.9
Clarkston FREEDOM MS 56.2 59.3 52.4 56.5 61.4 65
Cross Keys SEQUOYAH MS 80.3 63.3 56.8 65.4 64 64.4
Redan REDAN MS 60.8 60.2 63.7 64.7 63.9 63.3
Miller Grove MILLER GROVE MS 65 59.6 60 68.8 55.6 63.1
Towers MARY M. BETHUNE MS 51.1 61.4 54.3 55.2 54.9 61.7
Stone Mountain STONE MOUNTAIN MS 61.1 62.6 62.3 54.7 60 61.5
Cedar Grove CEDAR GROVE MS 58.2 47.6 55 55.2 51.7 60.5
Charter Tapestry 62.7 53.2 58.3
McNair MCNAIR MS 60.7 39.3 46.4 53.1 52 58.2
MLK SALEM MS 56.4 49.8 58.2 60.8 55.3 56.7
Lithonia LITHONIA MS 69.7 63.2 60.8 65.6 47.1 55.9
Columbia COLUMBIA MS 58.2 47.5 62.7 60.2 59.9 53.6
No Cluster INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CENTER 23.1 21.1 31.6 33.2 27 34

All DeKalb High Schools CCRPI Scores

High Schools
Cluster School 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No Cluster DEKALB EARLY COLLEGE 92.1 99.3 97.3 102.5 106.5 107.1
No Cluster DEKALB SCHOOL OF THE ARTS (HS) 89.4 95 95.1 102.1 103.1 95.5
No Cluster ARABIA MOUNTAIN HS 78.6 87.2 83.1 95.5 93.2 92.3
Dunwoody DUNWOODY HS 80.9 79.1 73.6 86.1 93.4 89.4
Chamblee CHAMBLEE HS 80.3 78.6 79.8 87.5 87.5 83.3
Lakeside LAKESIDE HS 71.2 65.5 72.4 77.6 80.3 82.9
Cedar Grove CEDAR GROVE HS 63.8 65.6 62.8 72.6 78.4 79.5
Tucker TUCKER HS 62.5 66.9 62.1 74.6 78.4 79.1
Cross Keys CROSS KEYS HS 63.6 72.8 67.4 74.4 81.9 78.3
SWDeKalb SOUTHWEST DEKALB HS 65.5 62.9 63.4 69.7 76.9 77.3
Druid Hills DRUID HILLS HS 69.1 68.3 64.5 77 80.6 77.0
Clarkston CLARKSTON HS 54.3 64.1 54.6 72.1 70.9 75.4
Miller Grove MILLER GROVE HS 67.3 61.7 60.4 68.8 71.8 74.6
Lithonia LITHONIA HS 63 52 59.1 60.9 61.9 71.6
Stephenson STEPHENSON HS 74.1 62.4 64.5 68.3 78.2 71.6
MLK M. L. KING HS 56.9 59.9 61 66 62.9 69.8
Stone Mountain STONE MOUNTAIN HS 71.1 56.8 51.2 58.7 69.4 69.1
Columbia COLUMBIA HS 52.9 58 57 67.8 64.7 68.0
Redan REDAN HS 61 55.9 60.5 64.1 72 67.0
McNair MCNAIR HS 64.6 44.2 44.9 64.4 58.2 64.5
Towers TOWERS HS 57.4 47.7 57 61.3 57.2 59.6
Charter DESTINY ACHIEVERS 36.6 49.5 38.2 52.7 48.4 54.8
No Cluster ELIZABETH ANDREWS HS 48 44.7 41.8 54.3 56.5 53.3
No Cluster DEKALB ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL (HS) 38.4 22.2 33.9 34 42.4 37.8
This entry was posted in CCRPI. Bookmark the permalink.

15 responses to “DeKalb Schools 2017 CCRPI Trends”

  1. DSW2Contributor | November 3, 2017 at 1:57 PM |

    Where are the Region 3, 4 and 5 elementary school scores?

  2. Stan Jester | November 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM |

    It takes a long time to put these tables together, I just did region 1 and 2. You can go to the GaDOE website I linked to for the other scores.

  3. big joe | November 3, 2017 at 7:08 PM |

    Stan can you post a link for the October and Nover Human Capital Report
    Thanks

  4. Joy | November 3, 2017 at 9:24 PM |

    Stan,
    Thank you for the information you shared. I posted a link to information from the AJC.
    Georgia persistently lowest-performing schools identified
    http://www.myajc.com/news/local-education/georgia-persistently-lowest-performing-schools-identified/SG9DpUDksuk14j92vpCVPL/

  5. Joy | November 3, 2017 at 9:38 PM |

    Stan & @bigJoe
    This is the HR Link. https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4054&AID=872250&MID=65557
    No staff no names. No school names.
    What happened to the regular report?
    Is this how the new reports are going to be?
    Does DeKalb have a hiring problem?
    This was in the AJC this week.
    http://www.myajc.com/news/local-education/does-dekalb-schools-have-hiring-problem/lnH2ltClitSMeIXviFpT2N/

  6. Anonymous | November 3, 2017 at 10:33 PM |

    I agree with Joy. The cute little summary HR report posted on eBoards is fine, but the detailed report with names and schools and reasons for resignations needs to continue to be made public.

  7. Anonymous2 | November 4, 2017 at 10:29 PM |

    I saw the full report of the CCRPI scores. I noticed that the scores for the schools where the principals were “reassigned” (better known as demoted) saw increases and in some cases by double digits! These principals were degraded, humiliated and shamed in the media over and over again. They were offered teaching contracts and had to apply and interview for assistant principal and other positions. They were basically blackballed, careers damaged and now it looks like without just cause. What plan does DeKalb have to restore the good names and credibility of these principals since they were “reassigned” due to lack of progress when the scores clearly indicate progress? Has anyone followed up on the progress of the schools where the principals were reassigned? The schools made progress but are starting over and it doesn’t even look like they were replaced with better or at least better qualified principals! Some of them were replaced with principals that other school districts replaced or brand new principals with no administrative experience. Does that sound like a recipe for successful and continuous progress or disaster? DeKalb would definitely not have reassigned those principals and replaced them with less qualified people in schools where there is a high level of parental involvement and a higher socioeconomic status. Gwinnett grooms their own principals and hires from within. When will DeKalb get on board and begin grooming quality principals. In the meantime, as a citizen of DeKalb, I want to see the good names and credibility of the principals that were replaced, RESTORED so that they can find suitable jobs elsewhere if necessary.

  8. Concern | November 5, 2017 at 6:52 AM |

    I agree with Anonymous 2, why is it that the DeKalb Board of Education approve putting over 2 million dollars in struggling schools and clearly did not trust the process to improve the schools? School reform is a process and takes more then 1 year to clearly see if the the strategies are working and will sustain. In many of the schools that the resources were given the majority of the transforming team no longer works at the school; therefore, the school may see regression. This does not seem to be a remedy for improvement. Why were the principals removed? Did the powers that be not trust the process they put in place or did they already have plans to remove the principals? Stan please provide a follow up on what will happen to these principals that were moved for poor performance, when increase in scores tell another story.

  9. Concerned citizen | November 5, 2017 at 9:56 AM |

    Principals that were fired due to lack of progress needs to be vindicated and given principal level jobs again. Ethan Suber from Panola Way made a 17 point increase and Rodney Mallory principal at Oak View made an 8 point gain. Both out pacing the state and DeKalb County. Both men need an apology and a reinstatement or their jobs.

  10. Anonymous2 | November 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM |

    I’m still wondering why no one from the district has commented on the increased scores at all the schools where the principals were removed due to lack of progress nor have they said anything about how they plan on vindicating their reputations! I’m also still waiting on someone to post the scores for those regions. They had a lot to say when the principals were removed but it’s like total silence now that those schools have made progress. Are they silent because they want to keep things hush, hush and hide? Dresden(8.3); Flat Rock(2.9);Oakview(7.8); Panola Way(17.1); Rock Chapel(3.7); Snapfinger(4.9); and Stoneview(9.9)saw these point gains. Where is all the fanfare now?

  11. Anonymous | November 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM |

    For the record, Stan reported the specific rationale used by the District to remove principals this year. I copied the list below from Stan’s post back in May 2017:
    The principal evaluation process rates the leaders of all DCSD schools using five indicators. All principals meeting these requirements have officially been reassigned and have the ability to apply for other non-principal positions within the district.
    – The principal has served more than three years (before July 1, 2013).
    – The school’s College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) score was less than 60 in 2016.
    – The school’s average CCRPI score for 2014-2016 is less than the 2014 score (the school has lower test scores than the first measurement year).
    – The school did not outperform the “Beating the Odds” designation.
    – The school did not exit the state’s “focus” or “primary” designation from 2014 to 2016.
    If what Anonymous2 says is correct, then the 2017 data show that after at least 3 years of the principal’s tenure these 7 schools made progress. That’s good.
    But let’s be honest. Dresden, Oakview, Panola Way, Snapfinger, and Stoneview are on the list of the WORST 100 SCHOOLS IN GEORGIA (http://www.myajc.com/news/local-education/georgia-persistently-lowest-performing-schools-identified/SG9DpUDksuk14j92vpCVPL/). This means there is a very, very long way to go before these schools provide a quality education for our students.
    Since the District added tremendous resources at these schools in 2016-17, then no wonder there was improvement.
    Now the District can claim credit for the progress without having to share that credit with a principal.

  12. Joy | November 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM |

    Stan,
    What has happened to the regular HCM report that is posted each month?

  13. Stan Jester | November 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM |

    I have hard copies of it in front of me. I don’t know why they are not posted. I’ll make sure they get posted.

  14. Joy | November 6, 2017 at 4:00 PM |

    Thank you. Last week the news had articles concerning DeKalb and its hiring issues. In terms of putting the public at ease, this was the worst week for the regular report not to be published. It makes it look like DeKalb has something to hide. In one of the articles, it was reported that parents notified the district of information that they had found on the Internet about a teacher hired. This could come across as trying to keep the names of people being hired and leaving as private.

  15. Anonymous2 | November 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM |

    Anonymous..
    I read all of that when it first came out but Thank You for reposting the link. I could say so much more that could add some contradiction to all theory from first hand, day to day experience and not just he/she say or from the prespective of an innocent bystander. Has anyone ever ridden through to observe the neighborhoods that feed into those schools? Has anyone stopped to ask the employees at those schools how many of the kids come to school? Theories or test do not indicate the barriers that so many of kids that feed into those schools face everyday before ever getting to school or barriers that the teachers and staff members have to face before they can even teach one lesson. These principals understood their respective communities worked diligently to overcome many of the barriers so that the kids could have a safe environment to learn. Many of these kids come to school hungry, angry, sleepy, dirty, hot, cold, tired, abused and scared from their home environment/community. Employees at these schools have meet the needs of these kids first and often times, daily, before they can educate them. Those principals cared about those kids and worked to make them feel safe so that they could be taught. Resources…What resources is what I ask myself as I reflect back and if you stopped by just one of those schools, you’d ask yourself the same.