group either matched or exceeded the district s five year trend which is what we would call narrowing the achievement gap, so can you see the group you can see the scores of every sub group. the next slide that we will show is how did the other subgroups do? you can see every single sub group. the chinese moved up from 64% in 2008 to 70% in english lang arts in 2012. similarly you will see the filipinos go from 49% to 62% and japanese from 76% to 85%. similar for koreans. other nonwhite from 60 to 66% and the whites go from 75% to 85%. in math again for the targeted sub groups which is african-american, latino, samoan and they had a higher growth rate over five years as compared to the district. okay. looking at every other sub group we see the same positive upward trend. looking at our various sub groups other sub groups we saw the same trends. okay. then we also disaggregated it by programs so this is looking at our special education students as well as our english langua
you see 55 for a school at 2012csd we see that the school accelerated at a much higher speed than district s similar students, so this school had a higher acceleration rate overall. looking at it by grade three, grade three had the same average. the yellow is average acceleration rate. grade four, again you can see dark green which is accelerating at a higher rate than the other students, similar students, and you also see the same pattern for the targeted groups, african-american and latinos and we do it also for english learners and special ed, so each school has their sample acceleration in of these and gives an index how they re moving their students compared to other students in the district. our second actually goal one. it s just presented as second is accessing equities. under accessing equity we will look at the same results but aggregating the data for the different subgroups of programs and definitely eighth grade algebra because that s a milestone in the distric
grade eight taking algebra. in 2008 we had 61% taking eighth grade algebra and today 95% of our eighth graders are enrolled in algebra. our proficiency rate at 49.5 percent. strategic plan goal three which is accountability. this is where we look at other measures other than the california standards test, so we look at all other measures that occurred during the year, and summarized here. the first one is attendance. attendance is percent instruction time. at every elementary, midland level there is slight increase in the instructional time showing more students are attending. suspension rates have been going down thanks to our efforts in restorative practices, and you can see it moved from 7.4 percent down to 7.2 percent. the designation rates with all of the efforts with the department in having students get redesignated when they are eligible for redesignation you see a rapid increase when the last two years we have actually doubled our rate. on the other federal measures
and language programs. and there are questions about seating patterns themselves. the general questions include, how will special education students be served? how would creating patterns accommodate the fact that different students have different needs? and therefore, how will you meet those different needs? what kind of learning environments will be provided in that case? we heard that parents want to be able to choose the school that works for their family. as the enrollment of middle school students increases, how much is built into this system? and what transportation if any will be provided? the specific examples right now are all of the elementary schools in the bayview. those are the practical questions we re hearing. and focused on language programs. we re hearing questions about the will immersion language programs. is it the whole proposal that seems to be driving it? what does it have to do with closing the achievement gap? given the larger gap in achievement in o
i actually think that the question that parents are raising since we sort of tentatively said that this is the way we re going to do it, the question, how responsive are we going to be? it is our intention to be responsive and include as much feedback as possible to modify the plan so that we respond to the communitiey s needs and what they want. i want to consider modifications to the timeline, so we can answer that question. can we absolutely change things? we know that we can because the implementation is not completed. i think we need to be more specific about how that might be done. we can answer that question that we want to respond. do you know when the next student committee is? the next student assignment committee is? president mendoza:. so comment on consent items, and we have quite a few speakers on this item and this is with regards to the notice to nonre-elect. page 51 of your agenda. if you d please come up. i m going to read your name and we re going to give