South Dakota

South Dakota
http://doe.sd.gov/

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

$6,191 176 0

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)

1993-94 373 190 181 744

2001-02 373 177 176 12 738

Elementary Middle High Combined Total
(SASS)

1993-94 4,627 2,067 2,768 9,462

2001-02 4,441 1,947 2,768 75 9,231

Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades 7-12 1994 73% 67 72 61 2000 74% 76 72 68

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

South Dakota

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)

1993-94 612 100,054 39,971 140,025

2001-02 1,171 85,589 40,479 126,068

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

2001-02 10% 1 1 1 86 2001-02 10% 2000-01 5%

13% 1 1 1 85 1993-94 9% 1993-94 3%

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

South Dakota

Migratory students
(OME)

1993-94 1%

2001-02 2%

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

†71 schools did not report.

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

Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
School accreditation.

Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None.

Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Schools
Five percent gain from Below Basic to Basic or from Basic to Proficient.

Title I 2001-02

(ED Consolidated Report, 2001-02)

Number of schools Schools meeting AYP Goal Schools identified for Improvement

Schoolwide Programs 107 30% 29 20% 8 62%

Targeted Assistance 254 28% 117 80% 5 38%

Total 361 100% 146 40% 13 4%

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

South Dakota

Title I Allocation

$23,961,449

(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 33% 68 Grade 8 39% 82

34% 82

35% 78

South Dakota
Student Achievement 2001-02 Assessment: Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9. State Definition of Proficient: Demonstrated solid academic performance. Elementary School Grade 4 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

11% 12 18

27% 28 36

44% 43 36

18% 17 10

38
17 28

39
46 38

20 29 27

3 8 7

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

South Dakota

Grade 4 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

8% 9 14

27% 29 36

43% 44 36

21% 19 13

32
12 23

42
48 37

24 33 30

2 8 10

Student Achievement Trend Reading 4th grade Meets or Exceeds Proficient

Middle School Grade 8 Reading Students in:
Key

Below Basic

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

* —

= 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

South Dakota

All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities

7% 10 13

25% 30 39

48% 44 41

20% 15 11

26
14 34

47
35 60

20 38 20

7 14 2

Grade 8 Mathematics Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

24% 39

43% 42

29% 23 18

4% 3 1

65 43 67

29 35 28

6 22 5

0 0 0

Student Achievement Trend Mathematics 8th grade Meets or Exceeds Proficient

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

South Dakota

High School Grade 11 Reading Students in: All schools Title I schools Economically Disadvantaged Students Students with limited English proficiency Migratory students Students with Disabilities
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

12% 30 33

48% 47 47

27% 21 18

3% 2 2

56 50 71

32 25 24

13 17 4

0 8 *

Grade 11 Mathematics 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)
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

29% 36 42

51% 48 46

17% 14 11

2% 1 1

61 50 83

26 33 13

13 17 4

0 0 *

1993-94
5%

2000-01
4%

1994-95
Key * — = Less than 0.5 percent = Not applicable

2000-01
n/a # High Poverty Schools = Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = 75-100% students qualify for lunch subsidies

South Dakota

Postsecondary enrollment
(NCES, High school grads enrolled in college)

50%

64%

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