2005
Analysis of 2014 iLEAP Results for the Recovery School District in New Orleans
Charles J. Hatfield, M.S.
Co-Founder of Research on Reforms
Email: cjhatfield@researchonreforms.org
10/1/2014
2014
This report focuses on the 2014 iLEAP results for the Recovery School District in New Orleans's (RSDNO) 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th graders. These iLEAP tests have been administered statewide to these grade
levels since the spring of 2006 as one of the major assessments of its accountability program.1 Until the
Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) and the RSD-NO demonstrate otherwise, it is logical for
Research on Research (ROR) to assume that the vast majority of the 2014, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th grade
students have attended RSD-NO schools since they were in first grade.2 Considering that the RSD-NO
has been in existence for at least 10 school years, and considering all the hype that has been printed
about the successes of this market-based reform movement3 by the LDOE, it is logical for ROR to expect
that these RSD-NO grade cohorts as a group would not perform at the bottom of the 2014 iLEAP score
distribution of Louisiana school districts. However, the results presented here do not confirm that
expectation. Although annual gains have occurred since 2006, the 2014 iLEAP results presented in this
report show that these grade levels are still performing in the bottom 25% of school districts, just as
they did in 2006.
The supporters of market-based reform movement have extolled the successes of the RSD-NO by
focusing on percent proficiency gains since 2006. However, simply reporting achievement gains in
percent proficiency scores is meaningless without establishing a framework for comparing these gains to
either absolute standards of expectation or to relative ranking to other school districts in the state.
The major student goals established by the LDOE under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program in
2002 were 100% proficiency in ELA and in mathematics by 2014.4 In addition, annual expected student
targets called Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs)5 were established by the LDOE to monitor the
annual progress of students towards achieving the 2014 goal. Yet, annual progress towards achieving
these AMOs was rarely, if ever, reported to the general public or the media by the LDOE or RSD-NO. See
Appendix A for a list of these expected AMOs by school years established by the LDOE in 2002.
When assessing the RSD-NO’s achievement progress, ROR believes that it is more informative for
parents and the public to report annual percent proficiency scores of the RSD-NO relative to the scores
of other school districts in Louisiana. The metric used to generate this comparison is called the
percentile rank.6 It enables one to compare where a school district's iLEAP proficiency score ranks in
comparison to scores of other school districts in Louisiana. This report analyzes the RSD-NO’s
disaggregated , 2014 iLEAP percentile ranks for English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, science and
social studies. The reader is referred to Appendix B for explanations of the statistical and assessment
terms used in this report.
1
Charts 1 through 4 present the 2014 RSD-NO percentile ranks for all iLEAP subjects tested at grades
3, 5, 6, and 7 relative to other Louisiana school districts. It can be easily observed that, with the
exception of 6th grade social studies, the percentile ranks at each grade level and iLEAP subject are less
than or equal to the 25th percentile rank. School district scores that fall at or below the 25th percentile
are in the bottom 25% of the achievement score distribution for Louisiana. A description of the
procedures used to calculate iLEAP percent proficiency scores and percentile ranks for each 2014 iLEAP
grade appears in Appendix C. Appendices D through G present the necessary support data for the results
presented in each chart.
Chart 1
3rd Grade
100
99
P
e
r
c
R
e
a
n
n
t
k
i
l
e
Comparison of RSD-NO's Percentile Ranks to Other La. School Districts
75
50
25
10
10
ELA
15
15
17
Math
Science
Social Studies
2
Chart 2
5th Grade
Comparison of RSD-NO's Percentile Ranks on iLEAP to Other La. School Districts
100
99
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
75
R
a
n
k
50
25
10
23
10
ELA
9
Math
Science
16
Social Studies
Chart 3
6th Grade
Comparison of RSD-NO's Percentile Ranks to Other La. School Districts
99
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
75
R
a
n
k
50
25
0
1
25
ELA
30
22
Math
17
Science
Social Studies
3
Chart 4
7th Grade
Comparison of RSD-NO's Percentile Ranks to Other La. School Districts
100
99
99
P
e
r
c R
e a
n n
t k
i
l
e
75
50
25
1
10
19
21
ELA
Math
25
15
Science
Social Studies
The relative achievement performance of the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th RSD-NO students on iLEAP is as
pathetic as the performance of their historical counterparts in schools that were eventually taken over
by the LDOE after Katrina. Similar conclusions for 4th and 8th grade students on the 2014 LEAP tests
were previously reported by Research on Reforms.
Ten years after the total destruction of a generally inept school system; 10 years after the arbitrary
firing pre-Katrina teachers; 10 years of unsuccessfully experimenting with a market-based reform,
system; 10 years of questionable funding of charters with Minimum Foundation Funds (MFP); 10 years
of displacing students from their closed or converted "failing" schools; 10 years of reporting
questionable results for achievement, graduation rates and dropouts, attendance, etc; and 10 years of
unsuccessfully experimenting with poor, minority , urban, students, how can the RSD-NO serve as a
model of a successful reform movement that should be exported nationwide? Admittedly, there have
been achievement gains made in the overall performances of the RSD-NO on iLEAP and LEAP. However,
other school districts have also made achievement gains over that time period. It is difficult to accept
the fact promulgated by the LDOE that the RSD-NO has had a significant and positive educational impact
on these grade levels when they are still performing at the bottom of the state's school districts.
4
In a strategic attempt to save the LDOE from the sanctions associated with failure to achieve the
unrealistic, NCLB proficiency goals by 2014, Louisiana Superintendent of Education, John White, applied
for and received a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) in 2012. This resulted in the
establishment of a new achievement goal of mastery by 2025. Considering the performance of the RSDNO in 2014, ROR believes that this new goal, while admirable and aspirational, is even more unrealistic
and unattainable than the one established in 2002 for 2014.
The new LDOE goal is predicated on the successful implementation of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and the associated new assessments, i.e., Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (PARCC). The LDOE’s public relations spiel for adopting the CCSS and PARCC was
that the existing standards were not rigorous enough and must be replaced by more rigorous ones in
order to better prepare students for college and careers. Yet, to this researcher’s knowledge, no
empirical evidence has ever been presented to indicate how and to what extent these new CCSS
standards are superior to the LDOE’s accountability standards that were established in 1998.
Is the LDOE really serious or is this just another example of the hyperboles that have been
promulgated by the LDOE, RSD-NO and their advocates to continue to delude the public about the
successes of this market-based reform movement? After ten years, the vast majority of the RSD-NO’s
students at each grade level has failed to come even close to achieving the 2014 NCLB achievement goal
of 100% proficiency under the old standards. Now, the LDOE expects that students will perform at the
higher mastery level in another 11 years under these rigorous standards.
By 2025, the LDOE will have been in “reform mode” for 25-plus years. What assurances do parents,
students, educators and the general public have that the essential educational, social, economic
resources and support will be adequately provided in order to achieve these more rigorous and
challenging standards to at least an acceptable level? It is important to emphasize that ROR is not
blaming the victims, here, but is challenging the LDOE and RSD-NO to ensure that over the next 11
years all children will have the opportunity to learn according to their learning styles.
The results presented here question the extent to which such adequate instructional resources,
adequate teaching training and support were systematically provided to RSD-NO students during the
previous 14 years of the LDOE’s accountability reform measures. If this new high aspirational goal of
mastery is not reached by the state in 2025, the LDOE will be able to fabricate new bait and switch
strategies. Consequently, the LDOE will be enabled to claim the need for new higher standards,
assessments and goals to placate the public, as they did in 2014. The cyclical educational pendulum will
then swing back again in 2025 as it did in 2014, 1998 and 1988,7 leaving the vast majority of its poor,
5
minority, urban students in education reform limbo again. Sadly, another generation of students will be
lost. Indeed, this is the tragedy of the market-based reform movement in New Orleans.
6
Endnotes
1
rd
th
th
th
Prior to 2006, the 3 , 5 , 6 , and 7 graders were tested with the norm-referenced IOWA Tests of Basic Skills
which is not comparable to the iLEAP.
2
th
th
th
To accurately determine how many of the 2014 3th, 5 , 6 and 7 grades in the RSD-NO have been in the system
st
since 1 grade, one would need to use student level data files to longitudinally tract these cohorts back to first
grade.
3
ROR uses the term “market-based reforms” to describe the major features of the turnaround strategies of the
RSD-NO after taking over the schools in Orleans Parish in 2005. Some of the more salient features of this
economic model involves closing or converting direct-run schools into independently run charters by independent
for-profit/non-profit organizations with little transparency or accountability to the public; privately appointed
boards that are not answerable to the public, firing teachers and principals of failed schools at will, dispersing
students of failed schools to other schools, offering public school “choice” to parents, establishing voucher
programs, etc. As of the beginning of the 2014-15 school year, all schools in the RSD-NO are now charter schools,
making the RSD-NO the only school district in the nation with all charter schools.
4
In 2001, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was established “…to ensure that all children
have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high‐quality education and reach, at a
minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments…” This act forced Louisiana to modify the original accountability system and goals to be
in compliance with NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107‐110, and Section 101).
Accordingly, the 2014 goals of Louisiana were as follows:
•
•
School Performance Score Goal: Every public school will have an SPS of 120 by 2014.
Student Proficiency Goal (NCLB): Every public school student will score at the proficiency
level (Basic or above) on a five point scale on LEAP/iLEAP/GEE in ELA and
mathematics by 2014. The five point scale includes Advanced, Mastery, Basic,
Approaching Basic and Unsatisfactory.
5
Bulletin 111-The Louisiana School, District and State Accountability System, July 2014, page 10.
http://doa.louisiana.gov/osr/lac/28v83/28v83.doc
6
The percentile rank of a given achievement score in a distribution of achievement scores represents
the percent of scores that fall at or below a particular score. The percentile rank can also be stated as
the percent of scores that fall above a particular score in that distribution
7
2006-2007 Louisiana State Progress Report, Louisiana Department of Education, May, 2008
7
Appendix A
LDOE's 2002-2014 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
The numbers below represent the annual percent proficient expected in ELA and mathematics
AMOs
School Ye ar
ELA
Mathe matics
2002-2003
36.90%
30.10%
2003-2004
36.90%
30.10%
2004-2005
47.40%
41.80%
2005-2006
47.40%
41.80%
2006-2007
47.40%
41.80%
2007-2008
57.90%
53.50%
2008-2009
57.90%
53.50%
2009-2010
57.90%
53.50%
2010-2011
68.40%
65.20%
2011-2012
78.90%
76.90%
2012-2013
89.40%
88.60%
2013-2014
100.00%
100.00%
2001-2002
8
Appendix B
Definitions of Major Statistical and Assessment Terms Used in Report
Number Proficient/Mastery:
In LEAP and iLEAP, the proficient score represents the number of students scoring
at Basic or above, i.e., Basic, Mastery or Advanced. Number Mastery is the number of students scoring at Mastery or
above, i.e., Mastery or Advanced.
Percent Proficient/Mastery: In LEAP and iLEAP, the proficient score represents the number of students scoring
Basic or above, i.e., Basic, Mastery or Advanced, divided by the total number of students tested. Percent Mastery is the
number of students scoring at Mastery or above, i.e., Mastery or Advanced, divided by the number of students tested.
Percentile/Percentile Rank: A percentile rank indicates what percent of scores are the same or lower than a
given score in a distribution of scores. Percentile ranks and associated quartiles generally provide more information
about district test scores in terms of how they compare to each other, than raw scores such as scaled scores, percent
correct or percentages. It is important to emphasize that a percentile rank represents a type of measurement that
should not be added or subtracted from one another. One can only assess whether a rank is higher or lower than
another. Percentile rank definitions can vary. The definition of percentile rank used in this paper is that it represents
the percentage of district proficient scores that are the same or below a given score
Quartile: The quartile divides a distribution of test scores into four equal quarters. The first or bottom quartile is the
number at or below which 25 percent of the scores fall. The second quartile or the median (i.e. 50th percentile) divides
the test score distribution into two equal parts, i.e. 50% percent of the test scores are below it and 50% are above. The
third or upper quartile has 75 percent of the test scores at or below it. The top 25% of the test scores fall above it.
Mean/Median/Mode: Mean, median, and mode are three kinds of averages or measures of central tendency for a
distribution of test scores. The mean is the arithmetic average. The median is the middle value in a distribution of test
scores. The mode is the value(s) that occurs most often in the distribution of scores.
Frequency Distribution of Test Scores:
A list of test scores by school district and their frequency of occurrence
by each district. Appendices D, E, F and G present the frequency of 2014 proficient scores and associated percentile
rank in ELA, mathematics, science and social studies by school district
9
Appendix C
Procedures Used to Compute Percent Proficiencies and Percentile Ranks
The 2014 iLEAP data in this report were obtained from the LDOE's iLEAP State-District Achievement Level Summary
Report 2014 .
ROR computed percent proficient scores for each school district by adding the percent of students that scored at or
above basic in each district. When the data were suppressed by the LDOE in any of those achievement categories, the
percent proficient was computed by adding the percent of students scoring in Approaching Basic and Unsatisfactory and
then subtracting that sum from 100. Using these two scenarios, ROR was able to generate percent proficient scores for
all of the districts reported. The percentile rank associated with each proficient score was then generated using 2010
Microsoft Excel’s Percentrank.exc function. Percent proficient and percentile ranks were not computed for the
combined results of the RSD-NO and Orleans Parish (OPSB), RSD-EBR and East Baton Rouge Parish (EBR), and the RSDLouisiana.
It should be emphasized that after the 2010 spring testing, the LDOE revised its reporting methods for reporting
students scoring in each of the five LEAP achievement levels, i.e., Advanced, Mastery, Basic, Approaching Basic and
Unsatisfactory. It now reports only percent of students scoring in each of the achievement category along with
suppressed percentages and enrollment numbers. The LDOE suppresses percent and numbers by adding “≥” or “≤” in
from of them. This tactic severely limits the scope of researchers or general public from re-configuring or analyzing the
LDOE’s data to answer their own specific questions. The algorithms used to compute percent proficiency from the
LDOE's suppressed 2014 iLEAP data appears in the table below.
Procedures Used to Calculate Percent Proficiency in the Suppressed LDOE's 2012- 2014 District iLEAP and LEAP Tables
Logic Statement Used
A.
IF % in Achievement Category =
B.
IF % in Achievement Category =
% Advanced
(A)
% Mastery
(M)
% Basic
(B)
% Approaching
Basic
(AB)
% Unsatisfactory
(UNS)
≤1
≤1
≤1
36
64
THEN
=(100-(AB+UNS))
0
5
7
39
37
12
THEN
=(A+M+B)
51
Formula Used
% Proficiency
C.
IF % in Achievement Category =
≤1
16
38
40
7
THEN
=(100-(AB+UNS))
53
D.
IF % in Achievement Category =
≤1
26
68
5
≤1
THEN
=(100-(AB+UNS))
95
E.
IF % in Achievement Category =
≤1
≤1
60
40
≤1
THEN
=(B)
60
F.
IF % in Achievement Category =
≤1
33
≤1
67
≤1
THEN
=(M)
33
G.
IF % in Achievement Category =
≤1
19
64
18
≤1
THEN
Guesstimated
82
NOTE: The above table presents the most typical configuration of percent distribution in the 5 main achievement categories that appear in LDOE's suppressed reports for 2012-2014
iLEAP and LEAP Results.
Note: The LDOE reports whole rounded numbers for percent proficient. This may result in rounding errors when
computing percentile ranks. These rounded percent proficient scores are the best available data from the LDOE at this
time.
10
Appendix D (Chart 1)
2014 Computed 3rd Grade Percent Proficient and Equivalent Percentile Rank for iLEAP Subjects
Note: the ELA Percent Proficient scores are ranked from high to low
(No. Districts = 71)
RSD-NO scores are highlighted in green
District
3rd
ELA
Percent
Proficient
LOUISIANA STATEWIDE
ZACHARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
WEST FELICIANA PARISH
CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
PLAQUEMINES PARISH
OPSB
ST. CHARLES PARISH
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
LIVINGSTON PARISH
CAMERON PARISH
ASCENSION PARISH
VERNON PARISH
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH
CALDWELL PARISH
ALLEN PARISH
BOSSIER PARISH
VERMILION PARISH
OUACHITA PARISH
CALCASIEU PARISH
ACADIA PARISH
BEAUREGARD PARISH
LASALLE PARISH
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH
ST. BERNARD PARISH
DESOTO PARISH
ST. MARY PARISH
TERREBONNE PARISH
EVANGELINE PARISH
LAFOURCHE PARISH
IBERIA PARISH
GRANT PARISH
CATAHOULA PARISH
LAFAYETTE PARISH
RAPIDES PARISH
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH
JEFFERSON PARISH
ST. MARTIN PARISH
EAST FELICIANA PARISH
IBERVILLE PARISH
LINCOLN PARISH
BIENVILLE PARISH
ST. LANDRY PARISH
ASSUMPTION PARISH
POINTE COUPEE PARISH
WEBSTER PARISH
WINN PARISH
ST. JAMES PARISH
East Baton Rouge
CONCORDIA PARISH
CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT
SABINE PARISH
WASHINGTON PARISH
CADDO PARISH
CITY OF BOGALUSA SCHOOL DISTRICT
CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MADISON PARISH
WEST CARROLL PARISH
NATCHITOCHES PARISH
JACKSON PARISH
TANGIPAHOA PARISH
AVOYELLES PARISH
FRANKLIN PARISH
TENSAS PARISH
MOREHOUSE PARISH
RSD—NEW ORLEANS
CLAIBORNE PARISH
RED RIVER PARISH
UNION PARISH
RICHLAND PARISH
EAST CARROLL PARISH
RSD—BATON ROUGE
ST. HELENA PARISH
69
91
88
87
86
84
82
82
81
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
76
75
75
75
74
73
73
73
72
71
71
71
70
70
70
70
69
69
68
67
67
67
67
67
66
65
63
63
63
63
63
63
62
62
61
61
61
61
59
59
58
58
56
56
56
54
54
53
53
53
48
44
43
41
38
32
3rd
ELA
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
99
97
96
94
93
90
90
89
85
85
85
79
79
79
79
78
74
74
74
72
68
68
68
67
63
63
63
57
57
57
57
54
54
53
46
46
46
46
46
44
43
35
35
35
35
35
35
32
32
26
26
26
26
24
24
21
21
17
17
17
14
14
10
10
10
8
7
6
4
3
1
3rd
Math
Percent
Proficient
73
94
82
83
86
85
92
84
82
79
84
85
85
58
84
82
73
77
79
83
74
67
78
85
75
77
75
80
70
79
74
69
72
75
74
78
84
69
82
68
70
64
68
75
70
70
73
70
76
63
60
68
64
65
61
46
58
65
71
58
63
69
36
55
59
56
61
55
60
38
59
25
3rd
Math
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
99
76
82
96
90
97
85
76
71
85
90
90
11
85
76
51
65
71
82
54
32
68
90
58
65
58
75
42
71
54
38
50
58
54
68
85
38
76
33
42
26
33
58
42
42
51
42
64
24
18
33
26
29
21
6
11
29
49
11
24
38
3
7
15
10
21
7
18
4
15
1
3rd
Science
Percent
Proficient
64
83
80
82
78
78
78
80
81
70
74
80
73
71
76
74
69
71
70
69
76
71
63
75
72
67
66
71
68
61
69
63
61
64
59
63
64
63
64
57
61
56
63
61
57
57
57
56
65
52
59
54
59
39
58
40
68
52
54
54
51
59
29
49
48
40
45
38
39
28
16
22
3rd
3rd
3rd
Social Studies
Science
Social Studies
Percentile
Percentile
Percent
Proficient
Proficient Rank
Proficient
Rank
99
92
97
88
88
88
92
96
69
81
92
79
72
85
81
65
72
69
65
85
72
47
83
78
61
60
72
63
42
65
47
42
54
36
47
54
47
54
29
42
26
47
42
29
29
29
26
58
19
36
22
36
8
35
11
63
19
22
22
18
36
6
17
15
11
14
7
8
4
1
3
67
85
82
86
86
81
76
80
78
76
76
75
75
77
73
73
71
72
72
71
72
70
67
76
76
71
68
70
69
62
69
64
65
66
63
64
72
70
65
55
58
62
62
62
60
55
72
64
63
52
58
47
60
48
53
59
61
58
48
56
57
56
33
54
52
36
41
44
43
40
23
45
96
94
97
97
93
82
92
90
82
82
79
79
89
76
76
65
69
69
65
69
61
56
82
82
65
57
61
58
39
58
47
51
54
44
47
69
61
51
22
29
39
39
39
35
22
69
47
44
17
29
13
35
14
19
33
38
29
14
25
28
25
3
21
17
4
7
10
8
6
1
11
11
Appendix E (Chart 2)
2014 Computed 5th Grade Percent Proficient and Equivalent Percentile Rank for iLEAP Subjects
Note: the ELA Percent Proficient scores are ranked from high to low
(No. Districts = 69)
RSD-NO scores are highlighted in green
5th
ELA
Percent
Proficient
5th
ELA
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
5th
Math
Percent
Proficient
5th
Math
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
5th
Science
Percent
Proficient
5th
Science
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
5th
Social
Studies
Percent
Proficient
5th
Social
Studies
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
ST. CHARLES PARISH
LIVINGSTON PARISH
CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
OPSB
WEST FELICIANA PARISH
EAST CARROLL PARISH
ASCENSION PARISH
PLAQUEMINES PARISH
VERNON PARISH
WEST CARROLL PARISH
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH
BOSSIER PARISH
LASALLE PARISH
CAMERON PARISH
OUACHITA PARISH
CALCASIEU PARISH
LAFOURCHE PARISH
ST. BERNARD PARISH
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH
TERREBONNE PARISH
JEFFERSON PARISH
ST. MARY PARISH
ALLEN PARISH
BEAUREGARD PARISH
VERMILION PARISH
LINCOLN PARISH
RAPIDES PARISH
DESOTO PARISH
LAFAYETTE PARISH
WASHINGTON PARISH
WEBSTER PARISH
ACADIA PARISH
EVANGELINE PARISH
85
82
82
82
81
81
80
80
80
78
78
78
78
76
75
75
75
74
74
74
73
73
73
72
72
70
70
70
69
69
69
69
69
68
99
94
94
94
91
91
87
87
87
81
81
81
81
80
76
76
76
71
71
71
67
67
67
64
64
60
60
60
53
53
53
53
53
49
90
79
87
82
78
78
80
82
85
81
72
78
76
63
64
77
75
70
80
67
74
79
77
60
74
59
66
69
61
70
77
71
75
68
99
86
97
93
81
81
89
93
96
91
64
81
76
34
39
77
70
57
89
44
66
86
77
29
66
23
43
53
33
57
77
61
70
50
83
82
84
78
77
80
82
80
85
80
76
84
77
80
81
76
75
76
77
61
71
68
62
73
75
73
64
70
73
66
68
65
69
72
94
91
96
83
79
84
91
84
99
84
74
96
79
84
90
74
71
74
79
36
63
57
41
67
71
67
44
61
67
50
57
46
60
64
83
82
81
80
81
76
90
87
81
85
84
80
79
81
81
77
75
77
76
71
72
70
64
79
75
74
72
72
73
69
66
66
65
72
93
91
84
81
84
73
99
97
84
96
94
81
79
84
84
76
70
76
73
57
59
56
36
79
70
69
59
59
66
54
44
44
39
59
ST. JAMES PARISH
IBERIA PARISH
CATAHOULA PARISH
IBERVILLE PARISH
SABINE PARISH
BIENVILLE PARISH
ST. LANDRY PARISH
CADDO PARISH
EAST BATON ROUGE
JACKSON PARISH
ASSUMPTION PARISH
TANGIPAHOA PARISH
GRANT PARISH
FRANKLIN PARISH
ST. MARTIN PARISH
CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT
CALDWELL PARISH
TENSAS PARISH
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH
AVOYELLES PARISH
EAST FELICIANA PARISH
NATCHITOCHES PARISH
POINTE COUPEE PARISH
WINN PARISH
CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT
RICHLAND PARISH
CONCORDIA PARISH
RSD—NEW ORLEANS
CLAIBORNE PARISH
MOREHOUSE PARISH
UNION PARISH
RED RIVER PARISH
CITY OF BOGALUSA SCHOOL DISTRICT
RSD—BATON ROUGE
MADISON PARISH
68
68
67
67
66
66
66
65
65
65
64
64
63
62
62
61
60
60
60
59
59
57
57
56
56
55
54
54
54
53
51
51
43
36
32
49
49
46
46
41
41
41
37
37
37
34
34
33
30
30
29
24
24
24
21
21
19
19
16
16
14
10
10
10
9
6
6
4
3
1
70
69
75
63
57
67
54
68
67
53
60
59
67
55
71
63
56
69
59
74
75
60
52
51
56
64
64
59
43
55
51
43
54
40
42
57
53
70
34
21
44
13
50
44
11
29
23
44
16
61
34
19
53
23
66
70
29
10
7
19
39
39
23
4
16
7
4
13
1
3
67
60
65
66
65
67
54
63
54
56
61
61
72
57
61
57
67
50
47
54
51
54
54
48
42
58
57
46
43
50
54
48
35
11
22
53
34
46
50
46
53
19
43
19
27
36
36
64
29
36
29
53
14
10
19
17
19
19
11
6
33
29
9
7
14
19
11
4
1
3
72
63
64
58
63
61
59
65
61
60
68
65
73
66
66
55
68
66
49
63
57
58
54
58
46
59
65
55
49
45
54
49
27
17
25
59
31
36
20
31
29
24
39
29
27
51
39
66
44
44
16
51
44
9
31
19
20
13
20
7
24
39
16
9
6
13
9
4
1
3
District
12
Appendix F(Chart 3)
2014 Computed 6th Grade Percent Proficient and Equivalent Percentile Rank for iLEAP Subjects
Note: the ELA Percent Proficient scores are ranked from high to low
(No. Districts = 70)
RSD-NO scores are highlighted in green
District Name
6th
ELA
Percent
Proficient
6th
ELA
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
6th
Math
Percent
Proficient
6th
Math
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
70
6th
Science
Percent
Proficient
6th
Science
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
6th
Social
Studies
Percent
Proficient
LOUISIANACOMMUNITY
STATEWIDESCHOOL
ZACHARY
DISTRICT
OPSB
ST. CHARLES PARISH
VERNON PARISH
PLAQUEMINES PARISH
WEST FELICIANA PARISH
LIVINGSTON PARISH
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
ALLEN PARISH
CENTRAL
COMMUNITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
VERMILION PARISH
GRANT PARISH
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH
ST. BERNARD PARISH
ASCENSION PARISH
ST. JAMES PARISH
TERREBONNE PARISH
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH
DESOTO PARISH
LASALLE PARISH
OUACHITA PARISH
LAFOURCHE PARISH
CALCASIEU PARISH
BOSSIER PARISH
LINCOLN PARISH
WEST CARROLL PARISH
BEAUREGARD PARISH
SABINE PARISH
EVANGELINE PARISH
RAPIDES PARISH
ST. MARY PARISH
IBERIA PARISH
ASSUMPTION PARISH
CAMERON PARISH
70
90
90
88
86
86
85
84
84
83
81
80
79
79
78
78
77
77
76
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
71
71
71
71
70
97
97
96
93
93
92
89
89
87
86
85
82
82
79
79
76
76
75
69
69
69
69
65
65
65
59
59
59
59
54
54
54
54
48
91
93
87
90
85
87
84
85
78
88
78
76
73
84
82
75
77
68
77
71
75
73
75
73
77
76
75
73
74
70
71
74
76
70
97
99
92
96
89
92
86
89
80
94
80
72
55
86
83
65
76
42
76
52
65
55
65
55
76
72
65
55
62
48
52
62
72
48
66
90
85
85
84
85
88
84
80
86
79
80
74
75
75
78
70
68
68
71
79
74
72
71
71
67
71
71
66
70
68
62
67
65
74
99
92
92
89
92
97
89
86
96
83
86
73
79
79
82
62
56
56
65
83
73
72
65
65
54
65
65
52
62
56
41
54
49
73
68
96
87
85
88
83
96
85
82
87
84
79
74
72
85
82
73
64
72
84
81
76
72
77
76
72
77
76
71
65
70
68
65
58
68
POINTE COUPEE PARISH
IBERVILLE PARISH
ST. LANDRY PARISH
LAFAYETTE PARISH
JACKSON PARISH
TANGIPAHOA PARISH
WASHINGTON PARISH
CALDWELL PARISH
WINN PARISH
EAST FELICIANA PARISH
JEFFERSON PARISH
BIENVILLE PARISH
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH
CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT
CADDO PARISH
WEBSTER PARISH
RSD — NEW ORLEANS
ST. MARTIN PARISH
CATAHOULA PARISH
EAST BATON ROUGE
ACADIA PARISH
NATCHITOCHES PARISH
RICHLAND PARISH
UNION PARISH
TENSAS PARISH
CONCORDIA PARISH
AVOYELLES PARISH
CLAIBORNE PARISH
FRANKLIN PARISH
RED RIVER PARISH
EAST CARROLL PARISH
MOREHOUSE PARISH
CITY OF BOGALUSA SCHOOL DISTRICT
RSD — EAST BATON ROUGE
CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT
MADISON PARISH
70
70
70
69
68
67
66
66
66
66
65
65
65
65
64
63
62
62
62
61
61
61
60
60
60
58
58
58
58
53
48
47
45
42
36
35
48
48
48
46
45
44
38
38
38
38
32
32
32
32
31
30
25
25
25
21
21
21
17
17
17
11
11
11
11
10
8
7
6
4
3
1
65
64
61
73
60
64
66
56
69
66
64
69
75
62
60
65
63
69
67
66
65
58
70
56
64
65
60
58
66
55
82
52
38
42
29
40
30
24
20
55
15
24
35
10
44
35
24
44
65
21
15
30
23
44
41
35
30
13
48
10
24
30
15
13
35
8
83
7
3
6
1
4
54
60
55
64
68
62
63
74
62
57
60
63
56
54
56
58
53
56
54
58
61
50
61
52
46
65
53
54
45
35
28
42
29
35
27
43
20
35
25
48
56
41
45
73
41
31
35
45
27
20
27
32
17
27
20
32
38
14
38
15
13
49
17
20
11
6
3
8
4
6
1
10
59
56
53
67
68
65
72
69
62
51
61
60
55
52
60
67
60
59
55
65
63
56
65
45
34
62
57
55
53
61
70
39
30
39
22
38
13
Appendix G (Chart 4)
2014 Computed 7th Grade Percent Proficient and Equivalent Percentile Rank for iLEAP Subjects
Note: the ELA Percent Proficient scores are ranked from high to low
(No. Districts = 71)
RSD-NO scores are highlighted in green
District
LOUISIANA STATEWIDE
ZACHARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ST. CHARLES PARISH
LIVINGSTON PARISH
OPSB
ALLEN PARISH
PLAQUEMINES PARISH
VERNON PARISH
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
WEST FELICIANA PARISH
ASCENSION PARISH
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH
ST. BERNARD PARISH
OUACHITA PARISH
WEST CARROLL PARISH
BOSSIER PARISH
CAMERON PARISH
DESOTO PARISH
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH
CALCASIEU PARISH
CATAHOULA PARISH
LINCOLN PARISH
SABINE PARISH
TERREBONNE PARISH
LASALLE PARISH
ST. MARY PARISH
EVANGELINE PARISH
LAFAYETTE PARISH
VERMILION PARISH
BEAUREGARD PARISH
LAFOURCHE PARISH
WINN PARISH
POINTE COUPEE PARISH
GRANT PARISH
WASHINGTON PARISH
CALDWELL PARISH
RAPIDES PARISH
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH
ST. LANDRY PARISH
TANGIPAHOA PARISH
BIENVILLE PARISH
IBERVILLE PARISH
ACADIA PARISH
ASSUMPTION PARISH
IBERIA PARISH
JEFFERSON PARISH
NATCHITOCHES PARISH
EAST BATON ROUGE
FRANKLIN PARISH
CONCORDIA PARISH
RICHLAND PARISH
ST. MARTIN PARISH
WEBSTER PARISH
CADDO PARISH
EAST FELICIANA PARISH
JACKSON PARISH
ST. JAMES PARISH
RSD—NEW ORLEANS
CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT
RSD—BATON ROUGE
MOREHOUSE PARISH
MADISON PARISH
UNION PARISH
TENSAS PARISH
RED RIVER PARISH
CLAIBORNE PARISH
AVOYELLES PARISH
CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT
CITY OF BOGALUSA SCHOOL DISTRICT
EAST CARROLL PARISH
SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
7th
ELA
Percent
Proficient
70
89
88
85
84
84
83
82
82
81
81
80
78
78
77
77
76
76
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
73
73
72
72
72
71
71
71
70
69
69
68
68
68
68
68
67
67
66
66
66
66
66
64
64
63
63
62
62
61
60
60
60
58
56
55
54
51
51
48
46
45
44
42
40
37
17
7th
ELA
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
99
97
96
93
93
92
89
89
86
86
85
82
82
79
79
76
76
74
74
67
67
67
67
67
64
64
60
60
60
56
56
56
54
51
51
44
44
44
44
44
42
42
35
35
35
35
35
32
32
29
29
26
26
25
21
21
21
19
18
17
15
13
13
11
10
8
7
6
4
3
1
7th
Math
Percent
Proficient
73
88
90
89
86
84
77
78
88
84
85
84
79
82
82
74
78
76
78
76
75
74
69
82
74
76
79
77
80
74
73
75
80
66
72
77
68
70
73
63
67
79
69
68
76
69
67
68
66
69
67
70
71
65
62
65
60
63
64
64
56
58
39
58
66
61
52
53
40
41
80
10
7th
Math
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
94
99
97
93
88
67
71
94
88
92
88
75
83
83
53
71
61
71
61
58
53
39
83
53
61
75
67
79
53
50
58
79
26
49
67
35
44
50
18
31
75
39
35
61
39
31
35
26
39
31
44
47
24
17
24
14
18
21
21
10
11
3
11
26
15
7
8
4
6
79
1
7th
Science
Percent
Proficient
67
85
83
84
83
81
80
84
80
80
85
78
74
77
76
75
75
81
75
67
70
67
67
74
69
73
73
64
71
72
68
70
70
69
67
71
61
66
60
57
65
63
57
64
63
60
64
57
57
62
67
59
57
54
56
65
61
56
52
59
49
49
39
52
35
52
45
41
30
33
22
0
7th
Science
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
97
92
94
92
89
85
94
85
85
97
83
74
82
81
76
76
89
76
51
63
51
51
74
60
71
71
43
67
69
58
63
63
60
51
67
36
50
33
24
47
40
24
43
40
33
43
24
24
39
51
31
24
19
21
47
36
21
15
31
13
13
8
15
7
15
11
10
4
6
3
1
7th
Social Studies
Percent
Proficient
69
92
84
84
85
80
81
85
84
80
84
83
75
77
73
73
79
62
75
72
75
70
69
74
64
70
70
65
70
76
68
69
71
69
71
71
69
65
59
57
71
65
58
63
72
64
64
63
63
63
76
62
55
61
59
59
59
56
62
64
62
50
57
65
47
70
56
45
42
32
66
9
7th
Social Studies
Percentile
Proficient
Rank
99
90
90
96
85
88
96
90
85
90
89
75
82
71
71
83
25
75
68
75
56
50
74
36
56
56
42
56
79
49
50
63
50
63
63
50
42
18
14
63
42
17
31
68
36
36
31
31
31
79
25
10
24
18
18
18
11
25
36
25
8
14
42
7
56
11
6
4
3
47
1
14