Louisiana

Louisiana
http://www.doe.state.la.us

School and Teacher Demographics
Per pupil expenditures
(CCD, 2000-01)

$6,037 66 20

Number of Districts
(CCD, 2001-02)

Number Schools

of

Charter

(CCD, 2001-02)

Number of Public Schools
(CCD)

Elementary Middle High Combined Total Number of FTE Teachers
(CCD)

1993-94 764 273 221 104 1,362

2001-02 801 284 249 150 1,484

Elementary Middle High Combined Total
(SASS)

1993-94 22,824 9,323 10,917 3,308 46,372

2001-02 23,885 9,569 11,820 3,397 48,671

Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades 7-12 1994 65% 63 57 67 2000 60% 58 45 60

English Math Science Social Studies

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Louisiana

Sources of Funding District Average
(CCD, 2000-01)

Student Demographics
Public school enrollment
(CCD)

Pre-K K-8 9-12 Total (K-12) Race/ethnicity
(CCD)

1993-94 12,857 546,168 202,283 748,451

2001-02 16,834 517,455 193,516 710,971

1993-94 American Indian/Alaskan Natives Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Other Students with disabilities
(OSEP)

2001-02 1% 1 48 2 49 2001-02 10% 2000-01 1%

1% 1 45 1 52 1993-94 9% 1993-94 1%

Students with limited English proficiency
(ED/NCBE)

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Louisiana

Migratory students
(OME)

1993-94 2001-02 1% 1% All schools by percent of students eligible to participate in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program† (CCD, 2001-02)

†11 schools did not report.

Statewide Accountability Information
(Collected from states, January 2002 for 2001-02 school year.)

Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Ten-year goal on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS): 55th percentile, Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP): All students at Basic.20-year goal on ITBS: 75th percentil, LEAP: All students at Proficient.

Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Steady growth toward 10 year goal, with growth evaluation every two years.

Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Schools
Same as statewide goal.

Title I 2001-02

(ED Consolidated Report, 2001-02)

Number of schools Schools meeting AYP Goal Schools identified for Improvement
Key

Schoolwide Programs 753 84% 734 83% 17 100%

Targeted Assistance 146 28% 146 17% 0%
n/a #

Total 899 100% 880 98% 17 2%

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Louisiana

Title I Allocation

$204,981,342

(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant Education, and Neglected and Delinquent, ED, 2000-2001)

NAEP State Results
Grade 4 Reading, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above Math, 2003 Proficient level and above Basic level and above 20% 49 Grade 8 22% 64

22% 68

17% 57

Louisiana
Student Achievement 2001-02 Assessment: Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP). State Definition of Proficient: A student at this level has demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter and is well prepared for the next level of schooling. Elementary School Grade 4 Eng. Lang. Arts Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Key * —

Unsatisfactor y

Approach Basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

14% 20

29% 36

38% 35

16% 8

3%

1

13
45

32
34

40
17

13
3

2 0

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Louisiana

Grade 4 Math Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Unsatisfactor y Approach Basic Basic Mastery

Advanced 2% 1

25% 33

25% 29

38% 32

10% 5

20
56

21
23

44
19

12
2

4 0

Middle School Grade 8 English Language Arts Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency
Key

Unsatisfactor y

Approach Basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

13% 18

38% 48

31% 26

15% 8

2%

0

24

41

22
n/a #

12

1

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Louisiana

Migratory students Students with Disabilities Grade 8 Math Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities

49

41

8

1

0

Unsatisfactor y

Approach Basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

30% 41

28% 32

37% 25

3% 1

1% 0

29 68

26 22

39 10

3 0

2 0

High School Grade 10 Eng. Lang. Arts Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities Grade 10 Mathematics
Key n/a # High Poverty Schools = Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

Unsatisfactor y

Approach Basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

24% 37

23% 28

38% 30

13% 6

1% 0

54 79

24 13

18 7

4 1

0 0

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

Louisiana

Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities High School Indicators High school dropout rate (CCD, event) Postsecondary enrollment

Unsatisfactor y

Approach Basic

Basic

Mastery

Advanced

38% 52

16% 18

30% 24

11% 5

6% 2

49 83

15 8

23 7

8 1

5 0

1993-94
5%

2000-01
8%

1994-95
53%
(NCES, High school grads enrolled in college)

2000-01
59%

Key

* —

= Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

n/a # High Poverty Schools

= Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies