STAT E ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
2003 REPORT TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
REMAINING AND BECOMING
INDIAN
EDUCATION
Table of Contents
Foreword..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary
• Legislation and Purpose .................................................................................................. 5
• Strategic Priorities ........................................................................................................... 7
• Recommendations to the State Board of Education ........................................................ 8
Part I American Indian Youth: What’s Becoming of Us?
• A Story of Students Left Behind ................................................................................... 13
Part II Dropout Data: What’s Becoming of Our American Indian Students in North Carolina
• Overview ....................................................................................................................... 21
• Analysis of Dropout Data .............................................................................................. 23
• Tables and Graphs
• Percent of Each Race/Gender Group, Grades 1-12
• Why Students Drop Out, Grades 1-12
• Dropout Events by Ethnicity, Grades 1-12
• Ethnicity, Grades 1-12
• Statewide and American Indian Percentage of Dropouts, Grades 1-12
Part III Achievement of American Indian Students in North Carolina
• Overview ....................................................................................................................... 31
• Analysis of Achievement............................................................................................... 32
• Tables and Graphs
• State Summary Data
• End-of-Grade Multiple Choice Test Results, Grades 3-8, by Ethnicity
• End-of-Course Multiple Choice Test Results, Five Core Courses, by Ethnicity
• Title VII Grantees
• Achievement Profile: Title VII Grantees
• Analysis Other Outcome Measures ................................................................................ 71
• Tables and Graphs
• SAT Scores by Ethnicity
• SAT Scores by Family Income Level
• Number and Percentage of AP Test Takers by Ethnicity
• AP Test Takers Scoring 3 or Higher by Ethnicity
Appendices
• NCLB Key Provisions ................................................................................................... 77
• 2001-2002 North Carolina Testing Program ................................................................. 81
• North Carolina Tribes .................................................................................................... 89
• Tribal Organizations in North Carolina ......................................................................... 90
• Title VII Cohort ............................................................................................................. 92
• Members of the State Advisory Council on Indian Education ...................................... 93
References ...................................................................................................................................... 94
iii
Foreword
Established in 1988 to identify issues and concerns that affect academic achievement of American Indian
students, the State Advisory Council on Indian Education submits a yearly report to the State Board of
Education focused primarily on the topics of academic achievement and retention of American Indian
students. The work of the Council over the last fifteen years has established a foundation that has united our
members in a common cause—improved academic performance of American Indian students. Working
closely with the State Board of Education, the Department of Public Instruction and several other agencies
and partners, results of efforts undertaken by the Council have generated many positive outcomes. The fact
that state policymakers, public school administrators and teachers in local tribal communities are now more
aware and informed of historical facts and current demographics about North Carolina’s indigenous people
and the state’s eight recognized tribes is truly a positive step in the right direction.
This year’s 2003 Report focuses on the complex issues involved in the dropout problem of American
Indian youth. We interviewed five students, with ages that range from sixteen to twenty years old, who
decided to leave North Carolina high schools. These respondents represent three tribes in four communities,
and their perspectives reveal the predictable reasons that young people of all races choose to drop out of
school. However, one difference surfaces in these interviews. The overall achievement of American
Indian students is complicated by their diverse cultural context. These students expressed some tension in
maintaining their identity as American Indians and succeeding in achieving the goals of the mainstream
culture. Remaining and Becoming—learning to live in two worlds—may be the unexpressed challenge for
many of our young people.
American Indians have not had uniform success in school and, although this report shows signs of
improvement with the dropout problem, American Indians have the highest dropout rates than any other
ethnic group in our state. Should we attribute the dropout rate to socioeconomic factors alone? Or are
American Indian children somehow handicapped in school by the very heritage that they value? If so, what
should we do to help them to remain comfortable with their own cultural identity and to become contributing
members of a technologically complex, mainstream society? Remaining and Becoming are dual burdens that
our children bear. Understanding this duality and developing strategies to deal with it are the responsibilities
faced by parents, teachers and other school personnel.
This year we have taken a step toward validating the identity of American Indian school children. The
State Board and the Advisory Council have confronted the issue of school mascots—the use of demeaning
imagery to depict American Indians. We have resolved to encourage the elimination of American Indian
mascots, logos, symbols and other derogatory imagery. School systems throughout the state have been
directed to report to the State Board their plans as it relates to these insensitive portrayals of American
Indians in their schools. It is our responsibility and our goal to provide a safe, caring and sensitive school
environment for all children and to promote learning as fully as is possible. We hereby present the most
current statistical profile of American Indian students in our North Carolina public schools, and we make
recommendations that we believe will advance their academic achievement, if implemented.
Louise C. Maynor, Chair
State Advisory Council on Indian Education
*For a full discussion of this concept of cultural duality, see Alan Peshkin’s Places of Memory: Whiteman’s Schools and Native
American Communities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1997. Peshkin “thinks of Indian, Hispano, Mexican and Anglo studies
as explorations of the interactions between cultural remaining, as reflected in the students’ tradition of home and community and
cultural becoming, as encouraged by the students’ experiences in schools that historically have been established as agents of Anglo-
American society.” Howard L. Harrod uses the concepts of remaining and becoming in his book, Becoming and Remaining a
People: Native American Religions on the Northern Plains, 1995.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
State Advisory Council
on Indian Education
Annual Report
Remaining and Becoming
State Advisory Council on Indian Education
Indian Education Report
Executive Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________
Background
In 1988, the State Board of Education adopted an Indian education policy to provide a process for
identifying issues pertaining to the education of Indian students in grades K-12. In the same year, the
General Assembly passed House Bill 2560, which established a fifteen-member State Advisory Council
on Indian Education to serve as the mechanism for deliberating on and advocating for Indian students in
North Carolina.
While the Council has no governance responsibilities, it serves as a mechanism for advising the SBE
on issues pertaining to the education of Indian students in grades K-12. More specifically, House Bill
2560 charges the Council with the following duties:
• to advise the State Board of Education on effective educational practices for Indian students;
• to explore programs that raise academic achievement and reduce the dropout rate among Indian
students;
• to advise the State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction on ways to
improve coordination and communication for the benefit of Indian students affected by state and
federal programs administered at the state level;
• to prepare and present an annual report to the SBE, tribal organizations, and to conferees at the
annual North Carolina Indian Unity Conference; and
• to advise the SBE on any other aspect of Indian education when requested by the State Board,
educators, parents, students, business leaders, and other constituents.
_____________________________________________________________________
Council Membership
The composition of the Council ensures that multiple perspectives are raised and resolved in a
procedural manner. The Department of Public Instruction provides assistance to the Council in carrying
out its annual goals. A chairperson is elected to: 1) coordinate the annual meeting schedule, 2) ensure that
annual goals are achieved, and 3) communicate with Indian communities on critical issues affecting Indian
students in North Carolina public schools. The Council represents the following constituent groups:
5
• NC Legislature one member appointed by the Senate President and
another by the House Speaker
• UNC Board of Governors two members representing institutions
of higher education
• Local School Districts ten Indian parents of students in grades K-12
• NC Commission of Indian Affairs one representative from the Commission
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6
State Advisory Council on Indian Education
Strategic Pathway for Strengthening Indian Education in North Carolina
Mission Statement: The State Advisory Council on Indian Education will create a system that will involve parents and the community to
provide educational and cultural opportunities with high levels of expectations of accountability in areas of American Indian student
achievement.
Strategic Priority:
High Student Performance
Strategic Priority:
Safe, Orderly,
and Caring Schools
Strategic Priority:
Quality Teachers,
Administrators, and Staff
Strategic Priority:
Strong Family, Community,
and Business Support
Strategic Goals Strategic Goals Strategic Goals Strategic Goals
Goal 1: American Indian students will
have access to native language
and dialect opportunities.
Goal 2: American Indian students will
have access to early childhood
readiness opportunities that
provide social, physical,
spiritual, emotional, mental and
cultural foundations for school.
Goal 3: American Indian students will
master essential knowledge and
skills (reading, math and writing)
which are necessary for an
educated citizenry.
Goal 4: American Indian students will
graduate from high school and
pursue post secondary education.
Goal 1: American Indian students will
attend schools that provide a
healthy learning environment free
of alcohol and other drugs.
Goal 2: American Indian students will
attend safe school facilities in an
environment conducive to high
student performance.
Goal 3: American Indian students will
learn in environments that reflect
mutual respect of students, school
personnel, administrators, parents
and elders.
Goal 1: American Indian students will
benefit from quality professionals
and standards regarding effective
culturally sensitive instruction,
tribal cultural knowledge, and
academic content knowledge.
Goal 2: American Indian students will
benefit from quality instruction
conducive to diverse learning styles
of American Indian students.
Goal 3: American Indian students will
benefit from a system designed to
better recruit, retain, and
compensate effective American
Indian teachers, administrators, and
staff.
Goal 1: American Indian students,
parents, and tribal communi-ties
will be informed on
issues impacting students
and families.
Goal 2: American Indian students
will benefit from a quality
comprehensive and aligned
system of support for the
academic success and
general well-being of
American Indian children
that promotes:
• Meaningful parental and tribal
involvement in schools.
• Interagency collaboration on health,
social services, alcohol and other
drug services.
• Tribal, state and local partnerships.
Strategic Goals
Strategic Priority:
Technology for Learning and
Communication
Goal 1: American Indian students will have access to computer technology and
programs for computer literacy leading to career opportunities.
Goal 2: American Indian students will benefit from a system designed for sharing
information through technology to parents, the community and tribal
organizations.
NC Department of Public Instruction
6301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6301
11-15-00
Recommendations to the State Board of Education
8
“Schools that fail to acknowledge diversity …hurt all children by creating a lack
of understanding in the population at large” Ron Houston, Pima
With the adoption of the new K-8 history and social studies standard course of study and American
Indian Studies elective, there is an increased demand and need for textbooks and instructional resources
that ensure fair, accurate and balanced depictions of American Indians. Much too often American
Indian children are placed in the position of refuting negative and false stereotypes perpetuated by
biased and inaccurate depictions of themselves and their American Indian community. The overall
success of American Indian students is complicated by their diverse cultural context and their struggle
to maintain their identity in a mainstream culture. Therefore, the Council recommends:
• implementation of the American Indian Studies elective as an offering in high schools,
particularly in those districts serving a significant number of American Indian students.
• adoption of textbooks and other library and learning resources adopted by the State Board of
Education and the North Carolina Textbook Commission to provide contemporary and historical
information that reflects accuracy and a basic understanding of the history, culture, tribal
sovereignty and government structures of the American Indian tribes in North Carolina.
• involvement of state-level boards, committees or commissions and divisions within the Department
of Public Instruction in reviewing and/or developing education policy, standards, curriculum or
textbooks and including representation that will provide the perspective of American Indians.
• continuation of efforts that require all public school administrators and local boards of education
to review their policies and procedures toward the use of American Indian sports mascots, logos
and all demeaning imagery; and educate public school personnel of the educational, curricular,
and psychological effects of using American Indian sport mascots and logos.
• strengthening local, state and federal partnerships for American Indian education.
With the increasing reality that the teacher workforce is becoming less ethnic in background, it is
critical for the state to ensure that school personnel working with American Indian students are provided
opportunities to increase their knowledge and training about the culture, history and unique needs of
American Indian students and their families and communities, as well as to continue efforts to increase
the presence of American Indian professionals as role models in the public school classrooms. Therefore,
the Council recommends:
• adequate resources for a variety of professional development opportunities at both the state
and local school district levels that include training for teachers to educate themselves about
American Indian culture and better understand the students they are teaching.
• opportunities for professional development that provide teachers with methods of integrating
lessons of American Indian history into the existing subject areas, such as literature, science and
health as well as social studies and history.
• continued efforts that require teacher education programs to adhere to the standards related to
diverse populations and perspectives proposed by the North Carolina Professional Teaching
Standards Commission, with specific attention on the state’s American Indian population, which
is small in number (in essence, a minority group within the minority population).
• collaboration between the Center for Teacher Retention and Recruitment and teacher education
programs in the state with efforts to increase the number of American Indians entering the
teaching profession. These efforts should include seeking Title VII Discretionary Grants that
support training for qualified American Indian individuals.
It goes without saying that the dropout rate among high school students is a national tragedy, particu-larly
for American Indian students. In North Carolina, the numbers of American Indian students who
drop out of school continue to be an issue of concern with both male and females dominating in terms of
the percent of dropouts for each ethnic and gender group served in the state’s public schools. Therefore,
the Council recommends:
• a review of state and local policies and procedures related to graduation requirements, school
structure, attendance, schedules, suspension and expulsion and other related factors that are
often seen as barriers to students who choose to drop out of school.
• high school restructuring that focuses efforts and produces programs that provide flexibility and
are holistic and culturally responsive in meeting the needs of American Indian students.
9
Remaining and Becoming
PART I
American Indian Youth:
What’s Becoming of Us?
13
“Your solitude is your future reaching out to be borne.”
Berl Grey Owl, Ancient Echoes…(1983)
A Story of Students Left Behind: Their Perspective
I’m a 20-something year old who dropped out of school when I was almost 19. I wish I hadn’t, but I
did. And I’d tell any person anywhere anytime not to do it. You know, it’s funny but, if I think about it a
certain way, it’s seems almost normal. I mean out of my closest friends, four of them dropped out. And
they all had their reasons. Like one of them, Nakeshia, well, she just got too tired. I mean she had a baby
and all in middle school and still went to high school for a while before she just gave out. I think she
was 17 when she finally just decided she couldn’t take it any more. And she liked school and loved her
teachers. She even liked the guidance counselor. I mean she just thought school was about as good as
it could get. It was just all too much with the baby and everything. I remember her mama telling her,
“The best thing for you to do is graduate and make it right for your little boy. And when he grows up, he
won’t want to drop out like you.” She wanted so much to do it but just couldn’t.
And then there was Kayla. She was between Nakeshia and me when she dropped out. She was 18
and just decided one day that she wanted to get married. And she was even going to stay in school but
some family told her she needed to focus on her man and, well, she did. She surprised me too, ‘cause she
was like Nakeshia—I mean they both loved school. The teachers, and counselor, and everything, you
know. She and Nakeshia were tight too, so it kind of makes you wonder. I mean, what if one of them
had stayed? And on top of that, they both had family that left school—you know parents and brothers. I
think Kayla’s parents and brother did. So I remember her saying, “What can they say to me?” And then
Nakeshia’s brother and sister did. You know I think all of us had family who had dropped out, and maybe
that made a difference for some of us. But I know it didn’t affect me. No way. I’m my own person and
do my own thing my own way. Like I went by myself and got my GED. I mean nobody told me to do it,
just like nobody told me to quit. And only Mama tried to make me go back, but I make up my own mind.
Speaking of Nakeshia and Kayla, I found out not too long ago that both of them are going back to get
their GEDs too. They started the program before at home and all, but enough people didn’t show so they
cancelled classes. So now they have to drive to them, and it’s not that close either. But they’re going to
do it together, so they think they can handle it. They’ve got some pressure on them now to do too. You
see there was this woman who sort of took them under her wing so to speak. Ms. Sue I think her name
was. And she helped them get some jobs in daycare and then has stayed on them to finish their GEDs.
I mean they’re going to lose their jobs if they don’t. I guess that just goes to show you that you can’t do
much of anything without a high school diploma. It’s just too bad none of us figured that out any earlier.
I had a couple of guys friends that dropped out too. First there was Donnell. He was 17 I think
when he left high school. I think his older brother and several of his cousins dropped out too. And high
school just didn’t seem to be a fit for him either, you know? Especially his school after the state took it
over. I mean I remember Donnell telling me that he thought all the rules were ridiculous because they
were in all the wrong places. Like the uniform thing—he didn’t like that at all. I never quite got why
that bothered him so much, but it just did. It was like the school put all this energy into making sure
everybody dressed alike, and then they let them play around in class and just cut up like idiots or weren’t
even strict about going to class at all. I remember him wondering what was up with that. And I remem-ber
Kayla saying something similar about taking our licenses. She thought that made more people drop
out. But then Nakeshia thought it was a good thing. It’s like nobody can agree on this stuff.
14
Well, back to Donnell, it was like he just didn’t have a connection with anybody. I mean he couldn’t
even pick the guidance counselor out of line up. And I know he kind of felt like I did—classes were
boring a lot of the time and a lot of our teachers just didn’t seem to care all that much whether we
learned anything or not. And they sure didn’t try to make things fun. And if the teachers were any good
at all, they left. And you know, even though Donnell and I didn’t like high school and it looked like we
probably couldn’t care less, we thought education was important and we wanted to learn. We just didn’t
feel like we were being taught. So we left. But you know something, if everybody was real about it, and
life’s just too short to be anything but, they’d tell you that school left us long before we ever left it.
So anyway, Donnell went and did what I did—he got his GED. And he’s looking for a job as we
speak. But like I said before, it’s so hard without that diploma. I mean a GED’s okay and all, but let’s
just say we wasted a lot of time before we got serious about finishing something out. And you know,
when I look back, it makes me sick because I was so close. I mean before I dropped out. I had (or
thought I had) a year left. I mean I was taking 12th grade classes and then they went and changed the
rules on me. I mean the credit system switched over and they told me I’d need a full year and a semester
to graduate, and I just said “To heck with it.” I mean I really just got caught in the middle of (in the
counselor’s words) “a policy change.” And a lot of other people got caught too. And guess what—they
all dropped out like I did.
And then there was one other guy from high school that I just can’t forget—Christopher. He had it
tough. I mean a lot folks didn’t have it easy. I think only one of the friends I’ve mentioned lived with
both parents and that’s just not even normal anymore. But Christopher’s deal was worse. The last time I
spoke to him, he was living with his grandma, but before that he was all over the place. He was living
with one family member one week and another the next week and then another the next week. And they
weren’t even always close family. He dropped out earlier than the rest of us too. He left straight off
when he turned 16. To Christopher’s credit, he didn’t stay out that long though. This man that worked
for the schools, I think Christopher called him Mr. Obeda, stayed on him and somehow convinced him to
come back. I mean this guy even worked to get a good schedule and stuff and just really wanted him to
be in school. I remember when I left. I got one call and that was it. I mean I know it was my fault that I
left, but I’ve thought about it since I got a little older. And sometimes I think that if I had gotten more
than one call—maybe just one more—I might have gone back too. I mean this man seemed to really
care about him, you know? And when I left it was like okay, well, that’s one “needle out of the stack.”
So anyway, Christopher did go back and gave it his all—which was tough ‘cause he’d moved around
so much that it had really messed him up. I mean there was a lot he didn’t learn just from playing
musical schools. Like reading, he really struggled with that. And I remember him saying some things
like Donnell and I did. You know that school was boring, and teachers didn’t care, and things were
either too easy or too hard. Stuff like that. And you know what’s weird, they loved school when they
were in the elementary grades, Christopher and Donnell. I mean they really did love it. Shoot, Donnell
even liked middle school. It just seemed to all fall apart when they hit high school. Me, well, I always
had my issues with school ‘cause I just sort of liked rebellion. But I do really hope Christopher found a
way to stick with it and graduate. I’ve kind of lost touch. I mean I guess he could be in Florida. He
used to talk about that all the time. I don’t exactly know why. He was just in love with Florida. Didn’t
care what part either, as long as it was Florida. It was like a dream of his or something. Girls, sun, and
fun I guess. I could relate to wanting to go someplace else. I had always dreamed of seeing the world.
15
You know, when I sit and think about it, I start to wonder. I really do start to wonder. I mean all the
folks I’ve talked about (myself included) are American Indian. And we’re all dropouts. So is this a
native thing or what? I mean I ain’t going to lie and say Native Americans are perfect. I mean, I can
think of some Whites and some Blacks and some Hispanics that dropped out too. It just seems to happen
a whole, whole lot with us. Speaking of “us,” everybody who doesn’t know me thinks I’m Hispanic. I
mean they come up to me and start right off with “Hola. Que tal?” ‘cause you know a lot of folks don’t
know there are any natives still around. But that don���t bother me. I mean I wish more people knew and
if I get the chance I tell them, but it’s not their fault they’re ignorant. I mean people learn what they’re
taught. And if they’re not taught what they don’t know them most of them ain’t never going to learn it.
You know what I’m saying?
I was thinking about this the other day when this man at work was all interested in me and wanted to
know what race I was. And he of course, like everybody else, thought I must be Hispanic. But you
know something, I thought that was alright. I mean I don’t speak much Spanish but not because I don’t
want to. I want to learn everything I can learn about everything there is. I want to know everything
anybody will teach me about the Hispanic culture, the African American culture, the White culture, and
any other ones that anybody wants to talk to me about. And you know something, it really bothers me
when people don’t want to know about me. I mean ignorance is one thing. But when you have the
chance to learn something, well, then there’s no excuse. I mean I think we should have had classes in
high school like we had in middle school, you know, about all different cultures. I mean we even learned
about like Japanese and German. So I mean why couldn’t we have done that in high school?
I was thinking about this thing because this lady was asking me about my high school experience and
all. You know what was missing, what it didn’t do for me, that sort of thing. She asked me all sorts of
stuff. Like about changing the law so that kids couldn’t drop out at 16. And I just told her like it was. I
mean, I dropped out late so that wouldn’t have mattered to me I don’t think. And a lot of my friends did
the same. But I still told the lady that I thought it was a good idea. And I think most of the people I’m
tight with my own age would too, just because of the message it sends. You know, that education is
where it’s at and that you can’t get anywhere without that diploma. And you can’t always see that at 16.
You can’t always see it at 18 either, but at least you got more time to figure it out and you got people
telling you that you can’t do nothing else before your 18th birthday. And I also told this lady that I
thought it was a bad idea. I mean some stubborn kids are just going to say ‘I don’t care. I’ll stay right
here until I’m 18 and then drop out.’ And they’ll just keep sitting around and not learning. And that’s
not good either.
I have to tell you something though. If that law is the only thing people change, it ain’t going to help
keep kids in school. I mean even though it’s a good thing, it��s not enough unless you do something else
with it. It’s like what Donnell was saying about those ugly school uniforms. You don’t go and make
something new official and then disregard all the other stuff that’s been there and should be official. You
know like letting us cut the fool instead of learning but just be doing it in a uniform. That’s stupid. Just
like dropping out is stupid. I mean just pure stupid. And anybody who’s ever been there will probably
tell you the exact same thing. You know what schools ought to do? They ought to bring in people who
dropped out and then woke up and got it together. They’ll tell them how bad it is. And they ought to
bring in people who dropped out and never got it together—people working for minimum wage or
getting public assistance, people just barely getting by and who can’t afford one extra thing. They’ll tell
them how bad it is too. Then young people can decide where they want to end up.
16
And when I said what I did about changing that law but not stopping with that, that lady asked me
what else I’d do, other than bringing people in who’d been there. I told her that what I would do before I
did anything else is I would never ever disrespect anybody’s culture or let anybody else do it. ‘Cause I
had so much of that, and it just made me sick. And you know, the friends I mentioned didn’t think too
much about it, being a native I mean. It was like it was just understood and all. But I did and I do ‘cause
nothing is more important to me than my history, and I’ll take issue with anybody who disrespects that.
Like I remember when I was in high school and we celebrated Native American month. And kids would
laugh and make fun. And teachers wouldn’t say nothing to them. I mean some teachers would snicker
too. And I can’t even tell you what that did to me.
So you know what I did? I got even. I just couldn’t wait ‘til African American month so I could
make as much fun as I could of them. I mean that’s only fair, right? And you know the sad thing is I
wanted to know about their history. I mean I thought it was cool. But I couldn’t show that ‘cause they
disrespected mine. And I couldn’t let them think that was okay. I mean I had blows with people more
than once. And even though I know it was wrong, I can’t say I wouldn’t do it again. You know it was
kind of like when I dropped out and nobody came after me. It’s like they were glad I was gone. Nobody
stood up for me then like nobody stood up for me when people were making fun of my culture. Not one
teacher said, “That’s not okay.” I mean they were ignorant too. And they need to be taught and I could
have taught them. I know my history. I sit down and spend time with every old person I can from my
tribe who knows how things were and how they became how they are. I know that stuff and I would
have gladly talked about if only somebody had asked, somebody who really wanted to know.
So about the last thing that lady asked me was what I saw myself doing five or even ten years from
now. And I told her flat out that I would be a military officer who will have seen the world by then and
will have learned everything that anybody was willing to teach me. And I even said that when I retired
at 20 years, I might just be teacher ‘cause I got a lot to teach now and will have even more then. And
‘cause I want to see it done right. I want to see a classroom where anybody from any background can
talk about it any time of the year they want and not be laughed at and humiliated. I mean one month out
of the year just don’t cut it. Culture’s an every day thing and that’s what I would make it. And I would
talk to kids and spend time with them and ask them what was up. I mean I would get down on their level
and I’d treat with respect. And when they told me what their problems were, and they would ‘cause it
don’t take much to make people spill their guts, I would help them with those problems. But to help
them you got to find out where they’re at, and kids are not going to tell you if they ain’t comfortable. So
you got to do what it takes to make them feel comfortable. And I would do that. And of course I would
tell kids not be to stupid and drop out. ‘Cause I’ve been there and done that and it was stupid. Well, I
got to go and start getting ready for basic training. But it was nice to meet you and “spill my guts” a
little. We all need some of that. Know what I’m saying?
While the relationship among these students is largely fictional, the stories are all too real. Thus,
this is dedicated to five generous young people, each incredibly impressive in their own right, who took
the time to share themselves in the hope of helping other young people to make a decision that they did
not—to never drop out of high school.
The conclusions
The stories of these young people provide further support for the true complexity of the dropout
challenge. Liking school is obviously not enough to keep students in it. Wanting to learn is not enough
either. And just as one school level policy decision does not suffice, neither does one policy decision at
the state level. As is evident from the dropout experience of the individuals described, they all had
unique histories that impacted their relationship with school. Thus, each student had his or her own
17
reason/s for choosing to drop out and also would have had his or her own reasons for choosing to stay.
This reality supports educators’ responsibility to thoroughly and continually assess students’ needs and to
view dropout from a personalized, and not necessarily a prescriptive, perspective. Inherent within this
approach is students’ validation, as knowing what students have experienced and are experiencing means
knowing them. And they clearly need to be known.
While the stories of these young people were unique, there was one common thread weaving them
together—in one moment of time, it made more sense for each of them to leave school than it did for
them to stay in it. Thus, the very best that we can do for all students is to try to ensure that they never
arrive at that moment. They deserve no less from us. Further evident throughout the conversations that
occurred with these young people is the fact that most, if not all, of the answers to the questions we have
concerning dropout, and perhaps concerning education in general, lie with the constituents closet to the
challenge—the students. And with them the answers will remain, unless and until we consistently start
asking them the questions.
These students represent three tribes, and they attended high school in four different NC counties.
Two students are from the Haliwa-Saponi tribe, one is from the Lumbee tribe, and the remaining two
are from the Waccamaw Siouan tribe. Their counties include Columbus, Halifax, Robeson, and
Warren. And students’ ages varied. At the time they were interviewed, Alicia was 23, Nakeshia was
21, Kayla was 20, Donnell was 19 (almost 20), and Christopher was 16. Interviews with students
representing the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western North Carolina were also scheduled but were
canceled twice due to inclement weather. Thus, time constraints prohibited these interviews from
being conducted. These accounts from studentts are told as shared with the interviewer.
Christopher:
- “Sometimes I just don’t want to learn. And when I try to it makes
my head hurt. I can do it. Sometimes I just don’t want to.”
- “I started getting in trouble in middle school. I changed and the
teachers changed.”
- “I didn’t like my (high school) teachers and stuff. I just didn’t
feel like I had no connection with them.”
Kayla:
- “It’s (school) harder now than it was then. It’s just much
harder later.”
- “I was always the one saying that I was going to finish.”
- “I thought about it (dropping out) and thought about it.
I thought about it a long time.”
18
Nakeshia:
- “I had a good time at school. It was a good school. It
(dropping out) was more home stuff than school stuff.”
- “My heart and my mind thought ‘Drop out of school.’”
- “I think drop out students are more Native American.
There’s a lot of us down here who have dropped out of
school.”
Donnell: Not Pictured
- “The only thing I can blame them (the school) for is giving us too much freedom.”
- “I didn’t make my first “F” ‘til I got to high school.”
- “I have two younger brothers, so I think it’d be good for them (NC) to change the law
(dropout age from 16 to 18) like that. I think that’d be real good.”
Alicia: Not Pictured
- “It was like one month, okay one week, you did your thing, you showed your culture and we
learned about that. After that it was like okay let’s go back to what so and so did on this day
like in the history book. It would have made a big difference if the teachers would have known
a little more about Native American culture, Hispanic, and African American.”
- “It��s (my culture) close to me and I protect it. It’s like this is the only thing I know and
nobody can take it from me. I feel the same way about Caucasian, African American and
Hispanic. I would never disrespect nobody’s culture.”
- (In reference to a good high school) “When the kids get confident enough to say ‘I’m taking
the African American class and we heard about Booker T. Washington.’ And it’s a White kid
saying this.”
PART II
Remaining and Becoming
Dropout Data:
What’s Becoming
of Our American
Indian Students in
North Carolina
21
Overview
Percent of Each Race/Gender Group in Grades 1-12 Who Dropped Out
2001-02
The high numbers of American Indian youth deciding to leave school is perhaps the greatest
challenge facing American Indian communities. Simply too many American Indian students do not
complete high school. Relative to the number of American Indian students enrolled in North Carolina’s
schools, the dropout rate for this population is our state’s highest (see Graph 1). According to the state’s
2001-02 Dropout Data Report, students report many reasons for leaving school (see Table 1). Several of
the most-reported reasons for dropping out - - pregnancy, unstable home environment, and marriage - -
also emerged from the interviews with American Indian youth profiled in Part I of this report.
According to researchers (e.g. Wells), and also evident within Part I, there are numerous factors that
precede students’ decision to leave high school. Wells (1990) presents factors that help identify students
with the potential to drop out and groups those factors into the following four categories: school-related,
student-related, community-related, and family-related. Dropout is indeed a complex
phenomenon. Thus, just as some of the students interviewed indicated that they put much thought into
the decision to drop out, educators need to put much thought into what needs to be done to help
American Indian students make a different decision. According to researchers Cleary and Peacock
(1998), studies clearly support one action for schools to consider taking in order to address challenges
such as dropout - - to be responsible for making sure that American Indian students are grounded in their
cultures. The results of the student interviews conducted certainly provide support for this assertion.
The data that follow provide further support for the commonality of the American Indian youth profiled
and the subsequent dire need to address the issue of dropout. The challenge definitely remains, and
what becomes of American Indian students’ futures is undoubtedly in our hands.
When dropout rates were calculated by both race and gender, more recent data were available. Thus, the overall dropout
rate was slightly higher than that reflected in Table 3.
Percent of Membership in Grades
1-12 Who Dropped Out
Total 1-12 Dropouts = (25,155)
Total Student Population = (1,153,305)
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
1.7%
1.3%
2.27%
1.53%
2.86%
2.24%
2.01%
1.5%
0.91%
1.69%
American
Indian
Males
American
Indian
Females
Asian
Males
Asian
Females
Black
Males
Black
Females
Hispanic
Males
Hispanic
Females
White
Males
White
Females
Total
Dropouts*
3.0%
2.0%
2.14%
Graph 1
22
Table 1
Wells’ (1990) Four Categories of Factors
SCHOOL-RELATED
Conflict between home/school culture
Ineffective discipline system
Lack of adequate counseling
Negative school climate
Lack of relevant curriculum
Passive instructional strategies
Inappropriate use of technology
Disregard of student learning styles
Retentions/Suspensions
Low Expectations
Lack of language instruction
COMMUNITY RELATED
Lack of community support services or response
Lack of community support for schools
High incidences of criminal activities
Lack of school/community linkages
STUDENT RELATED
Poor school attitude
Low ability level
Attendance/truancy
Behavioral/discipline problems
Pregnancy
Drug Abuse
Poor peer relationships
Nonparticipation
Friends have dropped out
Illness/disability
Low self esteem/self-efficacy
FAMILY RELATED
Low SES
Dysfunctional homelife
No parent involvement
Low parental expectations
Non-English speaking homes
Ineffective parenting/abuse
High mobility
Virtually all factors within the categories of school-related and student-related emerged from the discus-sions
with the American Indian youth highlighted in Part I of the Report. Based upon the discussions
with American Indian youth, there appears to be a need to focus on the relationship between schools and
students.
Table 2
Why Students Drop Out, Grades 1-12
Reason Code Used Numbers Percent
Attendance (total includes attendance - work, family, 11797 54%
school and personal)
Moved, school status unknown 2796 13%
Academic problems 2135 10%
Enrollment in a community college 1423 7%
Choice of work over school 950 4%
Failure to return after a long-term suspension 749 3%
Discipline problems 540 2%
Pregnancy 274 1%
Incarcerated in adult facility 257 1%
Unstable home environment 224 1%
Runaway 179 1%
Permanent expulsion (not included in official count) 138 1%
Health problems 141 1%
Need to care for children 136 1%
Marriage 67 0%
Suspected substance abuse 64 0%
Employment necessary 38 0%
Uncoded 19 0%
TOTAL (excluding expulsions) 21789 100%
(NCDPI, 2002)
23
Table 3
Dropout Events by Ethnicity, Grades 1-12
Ethnicity # of # in Ethnic Dropout Events Dropout Event Ethnic Dropout
Events Membership2 as % of Ethnic as % of Event as % of All
Membership Average Student Dropout Events
Membership (n=21789)
(n=1,304,802)
American
Indians 478 19129 2.50% .04% 2.19%
Asian 300 24979 1.20% .02% 1.38%
Black 7696 407761 1.89% .59% 35.33%
Hispanic 1423 68053 2.09% .11% 6.53%
Multiracial 217 NA NA .02% 1.00%
White 11675 785209 1.49% .89% 53.58%
Total 21789 1305131 ~ 1.67% 100.01%
2Membership numbers from fall 2001, 2002/2003 Education Directory, page 295.
NA - data not available
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
A Dropout Analysis:
American Indian Students in North Carolina
This section of the 2003 Annual Report includes tables and graphs related to the dropout rates,
grades 1-12, of American Indian students in North Carolina. These data include American Indian
students enrolled in all public schools, including charter schools. Specific information concerning
dropout in grades 7-12 is also provided regarding those local education agencies that are grantees
for Title VII Indian Education Programs.
• Though American Indian students’ dropout rates have dropped between 2000-01 and 2001-02,
data still indicate that American Indian students continue to be the most over-represented North
Carolina group —having the highest dropout rates per their ethnic population (see Tables 3 and 4).
• The percentage of American Indian males and females who dropped out of school in 2002 remains
greater than all other ethnic and gender groups. American Indian males dropout at the highest
rate—2.86%. Of all female students, American Indian females dropout at the highest rate—2.14%
(see Graph 1, pg. 21).
• While American Indian students represent only 1. 47% of the total school membership in 2002,
they represent 2.19% of the total dropouts. (see Table 4)
24
Minority ethnic groups are over-represented in the state’s dropout events. Table 5 indicates this
disproportion with shaded cells and bolded text. American Indians have the highest dropout rates per
ethnic population, followed by Hispanics and Blacks. While American Indians make up nearly 1.5% of
the state’s average student membership, they account for more than 2 % of the state’s dropout events.
Blacks, who make up 31 % of the state’s membership, account for more than 35 % of the state’s dropout
events. Hispanics comprise 5 percent of the state’s total average membership, yet they account for more
than 6.5 % of the total dropout events statewide.
Table 5
Ethnicity, Grades 1-12
Ethnicity As % of Dropout As % of Average Membership, Grades 1-12
Events, Grades 1-12 Membership, Grades 1-12
American
Indians 2.19% 1.47%
Asian 1.38% 1.91%
Black 35.32% 31.25%
Hispanic 6.53% 5.22%
Multiracial 1.00% NA
White 53.58% 60.18%
100.00% 100.02%
NA - Data not available
25
North Carolina Public Schools Dropout Data for Grades 7-12
(Duplicated Count)
System American Indian System State
Columbus County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 183 181 177 184 3,379 3,370 3,316 3407 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 12 18 5 4 130 190 158 19,541 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 6.56 9.94 2.82 2.17 3.85 5.64 4.76 3.77 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Cumberland County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 387 424 421 430 21,840 22,238 22,570 23,853 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 30 38 28 26 994 803 737 674 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 7.75 8.96 6.65 6.05 4.55 3.61 3.27 2.83 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Graham County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 49 60 64 66 514 502 504 563 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 61 46 17 47 20 24 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 12.24 1.67 6.25 9.09 3.35 9.14 3.98 4.26 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Guilford County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 151 166 156 169 25,574 26,248 26,948 29,022 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 10 16 15 4 1,152 1,104 747 753 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 6.62 9.64 9.62 2.37 4.50 4.21 2.77 2.60 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Halifax County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 159 164 150 152 2,657 2,624 2,614 2,715 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 10 14 6 11 98 138 113 115 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 6.29 8,54 4.00 7.24 3.69 5.26 4.32 4.24 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Hertford County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 15 15 18 21 1,954 1,875 1,830 1,875 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 10 0 0 78 111 6787 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 6.67 0.00 0.00 1.74 5.92 3.66 3.77 4.64 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
26
System American Indian System State
Hoke County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 338 325 326 340 2,492 2,450 2,441 2,607 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 109 31 21 19 129 165 141 131 19,541 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 4.53 9.54 6.44 5.59 3.92 6.73 5.78 5.02 3.77 4.62 4.07 3.52
Jackson County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 131 138 138 136 1,640 1,635 1,639 1,705 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 10 8 11 8 75 68 64 56 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 7.63 5.80 7.97 5.88 4.57 4.16 3.90 3.28 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Person County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 11 11 13 12 2,420 2,457 2,509 2,649 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 00 081118 110 114 19,541 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.38 4.88 4.48 4.54 3.77 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Richmond County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 42 44 49 52 3,396 3,350 3,390 3,610 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 22 53 172 163 156 136 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 4.76 4.55 10.20 5.77 5.06 4.87 4.60 3.77 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Robeson County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 4,308 4,311 4,276 4,191 9,883 9,999 10,011 10,465 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 353 369 382 261 706 735 776 545 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 8.19 8.56 8.93 6.23 7.14 7.35 7.75 5.21 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Sampson County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 33 33 41 45 3,089 3,108 3,209 3,377 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 40 2 2 131 85 112 107 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 12.12 0.00 4.88 4.44 4.24 2.73 3.49 3.17 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
27
System American Indian System State
Clinton City 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 46 46 43 44 1,106 1,114 1,117 1,205 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 23 34 44 58 48 38 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 4.35 6.52 6.98 9.09 3.98 5.21 4.30 3.15 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Scotland County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 242 260 283 300 2,959 2,869 2,928 3,010 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 19 20 14 12 149 169 131 83 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 7.85 7.69 4.95 4.00 5.04 5.89 4.47 2.76 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Swain County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 166 163 163 165 757 766 802 827 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 19 11 9 5 44 33 38 20 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 11.45 6.75 5.52 3.03 5.81 4.31 4.74 2.42 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Wake County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 88 90 90 105 37,946 39,404 41,856 44,383 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 67 29 1,224 1,114 1,038 1,040 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 6.82 7.78 2.22 8.57 3.23 2.83 2.48 2.34 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
Warren County 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02 99 00 01 02
Total Number of Students 67 70 75 77 1,403 1,429 1,438 1,514 525,582 532,765 549,770 597,161
Total Number of Dropouts 32 43 72 116 89 71 25,555 24,596 22,365 21,046
Dropout Rate (per 100 students) 4.48 2.86 5.33 3.90 5.13 8.12 6.19 4.69 4.86 4.62 4.07 3.52
28
Remaining and Becoming
29
PART III
Achievement of
American Indian
Students in
North Carolina
Remaining and Becoming
30
31
Overview:
Accountability for Student Achievement
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), signed into federal law by President George W. Bush in 2002,
is having a tremendous impact on North Carolina’s public schools. The legislation represents the
largest ever expansion of involvement in K-12 education by the federal government. North Carolina
students have demonstrated significant and sustained achievement gains under the ABCs of Public
Education. The State Board of Education remains committed to the ABCs to drive the sustained
improvement that will be essential in meeting the NCLB goal of having all students proficient or
better in reading and mathematics (according to state standards) by the 2013-14 school year.
No Child Left Behind demands a continued emphasis on the basics and accelerating the
performance of all children while closing the achievement gaps between students of different
racial groups, income groups, students with special needs, and limited English proficient students.
The improvement of minority achievement and the closing of achievement gaps between minority
students and white students are already major priorities in North Carolina. In 2001, the General
Assembly mandated that beginning in the 2002-03 school year, the state include a “closing the
achievement gap” component in its measurement of educational growth in student performance
for each school. For the full text of NCLB Key Provisions see Appendix A.
32
An Analysis of Achievement:
American Indian Students in North Carolina
A primary purpose of this report is to provide state and system-level results for the end-of-grade (EOG)
and end-of-course (EOC) tests administered to American Indian students during the years 2000, 2001
and 2002. Each year EOG and EOC tests are administered to more than one million students in grades 3
through 12 in North Carolina. A general description of the testing program, the ABC’s of Public
Education, and statewide Student Accountability Standards used in North Carolina are located in the
appendices (Appendix B).
The numbers and percentages of students scoring as proficient in the following tables are based on the
numbers and percentages of American Indian students scoring at or above Achievement Level III on
the EOG and EOC tests as compared to all students in the state. An asterisk (---) appears when the
number of American Indian students tested is statistically insignificant. The following observations
are relative to statewide results:
• The performance of American Indian students in North Carolina as measured by the end-of-grade
tests in reading and mathematics continues to improve in grades 3-8 with 62.7 percent of
American Indian students scoring at or above Level III in 2002 (see Graph 2).
• American Indian students demonstrated growth between 2001 and 2002 in reading in grades 3-8
with the exception of one grade level—there was a slight drop in grade 5 reading (see Table 5).
• American Indian students demonstrated growth between 2001 and 2002 in mathematics in
grades 3-8 with the exception of one grade level—there was a slight drop in grade 3 mathematics
(see Table 6).
• While the performance of American Indian students in grades 3 through 8 is consistently
improving in the areas of reading and mathematics, the lowest rate of academic growth for
culturally diverse populations in 2002 was evident among American Indian students
(see Tables 5 and 6).
• The percent of American Indian high school students demonstrating proficiency on the five
core courses (Algebra I, Biology, ELP, English I and U.S. History) is 54.7 while 68.3 percent
of the state’s total high school students are proficient—a difference of 13.6 percentage points
(see Graph 3).
• American Indian high school students demonstrated growth between 2001 and 2002 in eight
of ten courses. There were slight drops in ELP and English I (see Table 7).
• While the performance of American Indian high school students in North Carolina has shown
improvement as measured by the ten end-of course tests, the percent of American Indian students
demonstrating proficiency continues to lag behind comparable students in the state in all areas
(see Table 7).
33
STATE (ALL STUDENTS) SUMMARY DATA
EOG/EOC Tests
Reading at or above Grade Level
2000 2001 2002
Grade AI State AI State AI State
3 62.6 74.4 69.4 76.4 71.6 79.8
4 61.2 72.1 61.6 74.6 67.6 77.1
5 65.1 79.1 71.5 82.7 70.7 84.5
6 53.0 69.5 58.8 70.6 62.1 74.1
7 61.5 76.4 62.2 75.3 65.8 76.6
8 73.8 82.5 74.4 83.3 75.5 85.2
EOG Tests
Mathematics at or Above Grade Level
2000 2001 2002
Grade AI State AI State AI State
3 63.3 71.8 68.8 73.6 68.0 77.3
4 80.5 84.4 78.9 86.8 83.8 88.9
5 71.9 82.9 77.8 86.7 78.7 88.4
6 70.2 81.0 75.2 82.9 79.3 86.4
7 72.7 80.7 73.3 81.2 76.9 83.3
8 74.7 80.6 72.5 79.5 76.0 82.3
EOC Tests
At or Above Achievement Level III
2000 2001 2002
Subject AI State AI State AI State
Alg. 1 52.1 68.9 67.6 76.0 69.5 78.9
Bio. 36.6 57.6 46.3 61.0 58.5 69.3
ELP 41.9 67.3 54.5 70.0 52.3 69.5
Eng. 1 48.3 68.4 50.8 68.3 50.5 69.6
US His. 27.4 46.9 34.7 50.5 38.0 50.1
Algebra II 37.3 62.7 55.6 73.0 69.8 76.9
Chemistry 37.6 62.0 44.6 65.5 60.1 70.6
Geometry 45.9 60.0 45.4 63.9 51.0 66.3
Physics 39.8 72.9 46.3 74.4 67.6 84.4
Phy. Science 32.4 57.1 40.5 59.9 51.4 61.5
TABLE 6
TABLE 5
TABLE 7
34
35
36
Title VII Grantees
1. Columbus
2. Cumberland
3. Graham
4. Guilford
5. Halifax
6. Hertford
7. Hoke
8. Jackson
9. Person
10. Richmond
11. Robeson
12. Sampson
13. Clinton City
14. Scotland
15. Swain
16. Wake
17. Warren
The numbers and percentages of students scoring as proficient in the following tables are based on the numbers and percentage of American
Indian students scoring at or above Achievement Level III on the EOG and EOC tests as compared to all students in the state.
37
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG COLUMBUS COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOG COLUMBUS COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOC COLUMBUS COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All Students)
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 48.9 56.7 45.5 81.6 71.4 46.6 54.1 63.9 73.5 68.7
N Tested 45 30 11 38 28 686 754 510 596 575
Biology % Grade Level 44.4 36.4 66.7 38.1 43.3 33.6 46.1 42.5 46.6 54.3
N Tested 27 11 21 21 30 131 401 492 489 484
ELP % Grade Level 68.4 61.3 65.0 62.5 57.1 64.1 62.8 63.2 64.2 65.9
N Tested 19 31 20 24 28 498 521 497 492 451
English I % Grade Level 47.2 51.9 41.7 43.3 58.8 56.3 56.1 58.5 60.5 63.8
N Tested 36 27 36 30 34 535 533 586 521 531
US History % Grade Level 52.0 33.3 48.3 52.6 25.0 40.0 37.2 43.5 47.4 43.0
N Tested 25 18 29 19 20 422 441 469 420 421
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 35.3 42.1 30.8 37.5 ––– 50.4 39.5 48.0 65.7
N Tested ––– 17 19 13 8 ––– 256 299 300 245
Physics % Grade Level ––– 66.7 100.0 25.0 100.0 ––– 79.4 58.1 57.1 81.0
N Tested ––– 3 1 4 1 ––– 34 31 49 42
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 20.0 22.2 28.6 66.7 ––– 36.4 47.7 44.7 59.5
N Tested ––– 5 9 14 3 ––– 165 216 206 205
Geometry % Grade Level ––��� 33.3 26.1 55.6 35.3 ––– 34.9 39.6 51.6 50.6
N Tested ––– 27 23 9 17 ––– 312 407 312 322
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 66.7 0 72.7 61.1 ––– 45.5 53.4 53.4 53.3
N Tested ––– 21 1 11 18 ––– 209 73 277 315
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 54.8 43.0 41.4 65.6 70.8 61.8 58.0 64.5 70.8 70.4
N Tested 31 32 29 32 24 539 565 538 534 520
4 % Grade Level 50.0 62.0 54.5 68.4 77.4 63.1 63.0 59.3 66.2 68.0
N Tested 28 32 33 19 31 526 503 535 520 512
5 % Grade Level 65.5 60.0 75.8 73.3 73.7 70.7 67.0 74.9 73.2 77.4
N Tested 29 30 33 30 19 523 521 491 519 501
6 % Grade Level 53.1 54.0 51.9 61.5 71.4 57.2 63.0 62.6 61.8 60.2
N Tested 32 31 27 39 35 563 541 546 524 550
7 % Grade Level 52.9 61.0 60.0 57.7 74.4 59.3 68.0 71.6 65.7 72.0
N Tested 34 31 35 26 39 580 554 545 533 521
8 % Grade Level 67.9 54.0 67.7 96.3 75.0 73.6 71.0 77.4 79.8 79.1
N Tested 28 33 31 27 24 588 553 539 505 516
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 62.5 56.0 62.1 78.1 75.0 61.5 61.0 68.8 68.7 68.5
N Tested 31 32 29 32 24 539 567 539 536 523
4 % Grade Level 64.2 75.0 78.8 60.9 90.3 76.7 80.0 80.2 85.1 85.9
N Tested 28 32 33 23 31 526 505 540 524 517
5 % Grade Level 65.5 66.0 66.7 80.0 73.9 74.6 80.0 79.1 80.5 88.0
N Tested 29 30 33 30 23 523 525 492 524 508
6 % Grade Level 68.8 67.0 55.6 66.7 68.6 70.5 75.0 76.1 80.2 78.3
N Tested 32 31 27 39 35 563 543 547 525 553
7 % Grade Level 47.1 68.0 80.0 76.9 80.0 68.8 75.0 80.4 76.1 78.9
N Tested 34 32 35 26 40 580 555 546 535 527
8 % Grade Level 71.4 66.0 87.1 93.1 62.5 72.8 73.0 77.3 78.7 78.0
N Tested 28 33 31 29 24 588 553 538 512 519
38
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Columbus County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Columbus County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grades 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Columbus County vs. NC
39
EOG CUMBERLAND COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG CUMBERLAND COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC CUMBERLAND COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 53.4 66.0 59.4 78.6 70.0 70.2 74.0 71.1 75.0 77.3
N Tested 73 60 69 56 60 4202 4219 4022 4100 4003
4 % Grade Level 51.6 61.0 61.4 60.9 73.7 72.6 70.0 70.1 72.4 75.8
N Tested 62 68 57 69 57 3988 4013 4037 3864 4007
5 % Grade Level 63.8 54.0 64.5 72.6 73.5 94.8 78.0 78.6 80.7 82.5
N Tested 58 64 76 62 68 3910 3882 3885 3968 3960
6 % Grade Level 58.1 69.0 47.1 56.3 60.0 70.6 73.0 71.0 69.4 73.4
N Tested 74 65 68 80 65 3986 3822 3884 3909 3904
7 % Grade Level 59.7 63.0 64.1 61.5 68.0 73.1 76.0 73.8 75.9 75.2
N Tested 72 82 64 65 75 3816 3915 3861 3878 3861
8 % Grade Level 80.0 66.0 71.4 76.8 73.5 80.2 77.0 81.4 82.5 84.4
N Tested 75 63 77 69 68 3638 3707 3885 3740 3879
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 56.1 65.0 63.8 78.6 70.0 68.1 69.0 67.3 72.4 73.5
N Tested 73 60 69 56 60 4202 4222 4022 4109 4005
4 % Grade Level 71.0 79.0 82.5 82.6 91.2 80.1 82.0 82.1 86.2 86.4
N Tested 62 68 57 69 57 3988 4019 4042 3879 4008
5 % Grade Level 69.0 68.0 77.6 75.8 82.6 77.2 83.0 83.0 85.6 87.0
N Tested 58 64 76 62 69 3910 3891 3893 3974 3967
6 % Grade Level 73.0 71.0 61.8 70.0 81.3 76.8 78.0 78.4 82.3 83.7
N Tested 74 64 68 80 64 3986 3827 3883 3908 3909
7 % Grade Level 65.3 72.0 67.2 69.2 72.0 73.0 80.0 75.6 77.3 78.5
N Tested 72 83 64 65 75 3816 3916 3863 3879 3859
8 % Grade Level 53.3 58.0 71.4 65.2 67.6 71.5 68.0 75.0 74.1 76.1
N Tested 75 63 77 69 68 3638 3716 3888 3748 3876
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 50.0 44.4 60.6 66.2 69.1 49.7 52.9 54.9 65.7 69.2
N Tested 46 63 66 65 68 3194 3437 3651 3629 4209
Biology % Grade Level 45.7 41.2 36.1 60.7 59.7 54.5 48.5 50.2 56.1 61.9
N Tested 46 68 61 56 72 3073 3227 3352 3438 3980
ELP % Grade Level 58.0 48.1 59.2 58.3 58.9 66.4 64.4 64.7 65.2 65.1
N Tested 81 77 76 72 56 4061 3872 3943 3892 3817
English I % Grade Level 48.7 47.6 50.7 61.7 55.4 61.3 64.1 66.4 65.3 66.9
N Tested 78 82 73 81 65 3744 3807 3978 4174 4173
US History % Grade Level 51.3 50.0 34.5 40.0 51.8 49.9 49.2 41.2 45.1 45.6
N Tested 39 46 55 60 56 2693 2859 3080 3146 3330
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 66.7 34.3 29.0 66.7 ––– 38.0 42.7 52.8 65.8
N Tested ––– 24 35 31 42 ––– 2220 2262 2267 2522
Physics % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 66.7 60.0 ––– 59.2 60.2 58.8 73.5
N Tested ––– 1 1 3 5 ––– 304 420 359 385
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 50.0 52.9 50.0 79.3 ––– 54.3 51.9 54.9 65.5
N Tested ––– 20 17 20 29 ––– 1518 1593 1587 1654
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 41.9 36.5 40.7 62.2 ––– 43.8 39.0 46.1 51.0
N Tested ––– 43 52 59 37 ––– 2679 2948 2694 3101
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 38.9 49.2 40.0 52.4 ––– 45.2 44.1 47.1 55.8
N Tested ––– 54 63 25 21 ––– 3103 3136 1344 1075
40
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethni city
Cumberland County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Cumberland County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
41
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG GRAHAM COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG GRAHAM COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC GRAHAM COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 88.2 66.0 75.0 60.0 58.3 75.8 71.0 76.1 71.1 77.7
N Tested 17 9 12 15 12 116 87 88 97 103
4 % Grade Level 85.7 77.0 60.0 58.3 85.7 76.1 74.0 67.0 71.9 80.2
N Tested 14 18 10 12 14 88 112 94 89 91
5 % Grade Level 88.9 60.0 72.2 80.0 88.9 77.3 70.0 76.1 82.2 83.1
N Tested 18 15 18 10 9 97 86 113 90 83
6 % Grade Level 61.5 81.0 30.8 80.0 90.0 75.0 81.0 71.6 78.6 81.3
N Tested 13 16 13 20 10 88 96 88 117 91
7 % Grade Level 60.0 60.0 88.2 84.6 0 75.9 86.0 79.6 82.6 85.0
N Tested 5 10 17 13 18 87 84 103 86 113
8 % Grade Level 90.9 100.0 90.9 93.3 91.7 89.9 92.0 94.3 88.7 95.2
N Tested 11 3 11 15 12 89 84 87 97 83
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 76.5 77.0 58.3 66.7 66.7 75.0 74.0 71.6 63.9 78.6
N Tested 17 9 12 15 12 116 86 88 97 103
4 % Grade Level 50.0 88.0 90.0 91.7 85.7 65.9 88.0 86.2 87.6 87.9
N Tested 14 18 10 12 14 88 112 94 89 91
5 % Grade Level 94.4 73.0 94.4 100.0 88.9 87.6 87.0 90.3 91.1 91.6
N Tested 18 15 18 10 9 97 86 113 90 83
6 % Grade Level 92.3 93.0 69.2 95.0 90.0 95.0 97.0 90.9 91.5 90.1
N Tested 13 16 13 20 10 5 96 88 117 91
7 % Grade Level 60.0 90.0 100.0 84.6 100.0 88.5 94.0 95.1 93.0 95.6
N Tested 5 10 17 13 18 87 84 103 86 113
8 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 90.9 93.3 75.0 91.0 92.0 94.3 88.7 95.2
N Tested 11 3 11 15 12 89 84 87 97 83
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 100.0 80.0 100.0 90.0 100.0 89.7 85.4 84.6 82.3 93.4
N Tested 10 10 2 10 14 78 82 78 79 76
Biology % Grade Level 77.8 87.5 37.5 50.0 88.9 73.7 78.3 63.9 78.3 84.0
N Tested 9 8 8 2 9 99 83 61 60 94
ELP % Grade Level 100.0 87.5 70.0 100.0 81.8 94.3 83.3 73.5 85.9 79.6
N Tested 5 8 10 4 11 35 72 68 64 93
English I % Grade Level 85.7 75.0 50.0 70.0 69.2 90.0 76.1 86.7 81.0 75.6
N Tested 7 12 4 10 13 60 92 90 79 90
US History % Grade Level ––– 50.0 55.6 44.4 0 63.2 57.0 66.2 58.8 64.3
N Tested 3 8 9 9 1 68 86 71 51 84
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 75.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 ––– 58.3 84.9 85.7 82.5
N Tested ––– 4 5 4 5 ––– 24 53 56 40
Physics % Grade Level ––– 100.0 ––– ––– ––– ––– 100.0 62.5 ––– 100.0
N Tested ––– 1 ––– ––– ––– ––– 3 8 ��–– 2
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 25.0 40.0 33.3 ––– ––– 8.6 54.5 54.5 85.7
N Tested ––– 4 5 3 ––– ––– 58 33 11 14
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 40.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 ––– 68.4 76.3 75.0 78.5
N Tested ––– 5 4 3 7 ––– 57 38 52 65
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 20.0 100.0 28.6 66.7 ––– 45.7 76.7 66.1 78.2
N Tested ––– 5 5 7 3 ––– 46 43 59 55
42
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Graham County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethni city
Graham County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
43
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOC GUILFORD COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
EOG GUILFORD COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG GUILFORD COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 64.3 64.0 60.6 76.9 75.7 59.6 70.0 71.8 73.5 77.1
N Tested 42 25 33 26 37 5034 4991 5106 5027 4927
4 % Grade Level 85.7 64.0 64.3 71.9 73.0 71.1 68.0 70.4 71.8 74.0
N Tested 21 42 28 32 37 4654 4950 5021 4944 4944
5 % Grade Level 60.0 77.0 73.2 87.5 96.2 75.1 75.0 77.5 81.5 83.2
N Tested 25 27 41 24 26 4522 4672 4928 4913 4865
6 % Grade Level 70.4 60.0 69.6 62.2 63.3 72.3 72.0 70.0 69.7 72.1
N Tested 27 30 23 45 30 4503 4559 4780 4969 4970
7 % Grade Level 61.3 71.0 53.1 76.2 80.0 73.7 77.0 74.7 74.2 73.6
N Tested 31 28 32 21 35 4450 4556 4656 4803 4895
8 % Grade Level 52.2 66.0 87.1 73.3 77.8 80.4 80.0 83.3 81.5 84.7
N Tested 232 42 31 30 27 4147 4428 4546 4670 4722
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 61.9 56.0 54.5 65.4 78.9 66.0 66.0 68.2 69.9 74.8
N Tested 42 25 33 26 38 5034 5007 5114 5039 4941
4 % Grade Level 100.0 81.0 79.3 87.9 86.5 78.3 78.0 82.8 85.1 87.9
N Tested 21 42 29 33 37 4654 4961 5036 4975 4971
5 % Grade Level 44.0 85.0 80.5 83.3 100.0 76.5 80.0 79.9 87.1 87.8
N Tested 25 27 41 24 26 4522 4693 4941 4927 4892
6 % Grade Level 75.0 66.0 78.3 68.9 76.7 76.6 77.0 79.9 78.9 84.1
N Tested 27 30 23 45 30 4503 4558 4789 4968 4976
7 % Grade Level 70.0 78.0 65.6 81.0 83.3 74.6 80.0 75.9 77.8 79.9
N Tested 31 28 32 21 36 4450 4565 4662 4800 4896
8 % Grade Level 40.9 59.0 70.0 63.3 81.5 73.0 74.0 77.6 75.5 80.9
N Tested 23 39 30 30 27 4147 4430 4540 4659 4723
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 2001 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 53.8 42.1 48.5 60.7 64.3 56.9 56.5 64.3 66.5 69.3
N Tested 13 19 33 28 42 3953 4573 4877 4941 5798
Biology % Grade Level 41.7 57.1 58.8 52.0 55.0 62.4 58.1 65.2 62.5 68.8
N Tested 12 14 17 25 20 3518 3659 3864 5047 3922
ELP % Grade Level 50.0 45.0 73.7 66.7 73.9 73.0 73.3 72.8 70.7 69.1
N Tested 10 20 19 30 23 3345 3519 3922 4791 5047
English I % Grade Level 55.6 41.2 57.6 74.3 66.7 63.4 65.7 69.4 68.7 65.2
N Tested 9 17 33 35 30 3961 4232 4559 4748 4999
US History % Grade Level 35.7 23.5 23.1 61.5 57.9 59.9 57.9 50.3 55.1 50.2
N Tested 14 17 13 13 19 3068 3387 3366 3575 4096
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 40.0 62.5 71.4 72.2 ––– 60.1 63.7 70.1 72.2
N Tested ––– 5 8 7 18 ––– 2696 2774 3042 3935
Physics % Grade Level ––– 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ––– 71.8 75.7 75.1 87.2
N Tested ––– 4 2 1 3 ––– 653 638 539 603
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 40.0 66.7 75.0 58.3 ––��� 60.0 63.5 69.8 70.5
N Tested ––– 5 3 8 12 ––– 2200 2195 2504 2857
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 55.6 70.0 47.4 66.7 ––– 59.7 61.4 64.3 61.2
N Tested ––– 9 10 19 18 ––– 3059 3488 3667 3998
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 50.0 53.1 85.7 54.5 ––– 56.9 55.1 61.7 63.8
N Tested ––– 12 32 14 22 ––– 3706 3933 1699 2217
44
Percent of Students (%)
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Guilford County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Guilford County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
45
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOC HALIFAX COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
EOG HALIFAX COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG HALIFAX COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 52.6 58.6 54.1 60.0 50.0 32.3 43.4 32.1 47.2 47.5
N Tested 19 29 37 20 24 458 484 521 390 488
Biology % Grade Level 57.9 56.5 43.8 60.0 66.7 28.4 32.5 23.9 22.8 39.5
N Tested 19 23 16 20 18 348 418 380 429 304
ELP % Grade Level 60.0 90.9 52.6 54.8 58.8 26.9 48.9 44.7 38.2 38.9
N Tested 5 22 19 31 17 201 468 349 448 416
English I % Grade Level 27.0 29.6 54.2 54.5 42.3 28.3 28.9 33.5 39.7 39.7
N Tested 37 27 24 22 26 481 492 526 408 431
US History % Grade Level 5.6 9.5 12.5 13.3 31.6 15.5 15.7 6.4 12.8 14.1
N Tested 18 21 24 15 19 354 343 357 328 398
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 15.4 16.7 18.8 66.7 ––– 8.2 19.1 32.6 45.2
N Tested ––– 13 12 16 18 ––– 231 230 285 252
Physics % Grade Level ––– 0 0 0 0 ––– 8.6 33.3 24.4 26.7
N Tested ––– 2 3 2 3 ––– 35 27 41 30
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 10.0 7.1 0 50.0 ––– 8.3 12.0 17.2 28.4
N Tested ––– 10 14 8 12 ––– 206 175 163 204
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 7.1 14.3 31.8 13.3 ––– 5.8 7.6 16.8 17.7
N Tested ––– 14 21 22 15 ––– 293 380 315 254
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 19.0 26.7 58.3 55.6 ––– 13.1 15.7 35.3 41.5
N Tested ––– 21 30 12 18 ––– 381 491 255 337
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 68.3 95.0 77.8 93.8 84.0 66.0 75.0 67.6 63.5 71.9
N Tested 41 24 36 16 25 500 451 490 419 430
4 % Grade Level 76.9 69.0 79.2 77.4 88.9 66.5 68.0 68.8 62.7 75.0
N Tested 26 36 24 31 18 475 465 446 445 384
5 % Grade Level 73.5 72.0 77.4 68.8 85.7 70.2 79.0 75.5 78.2 77.0
N Tested 34 25 31 16 28 420 458 436 422 435
6 % Grade Level 63.0 71.0 81.0 70.0 70.6 53.1 69.0 58.7 58.9 63.5
N Tested 27 31 21 30 17 401 404 453 418 403
7 % Grade Level 63.0 67.0 66.7 75.0 75.9 46.6 59.0 61.2 60.9 62.0
N Tested 27 28 30 20 29 476 399 410 440 411
8 % Grade Level 40.0 68.0 83.3 75.0 90.0 54.2 55.0 61.4 66.4 74.6
N Tested 25 25 24 28 20 459 454 404 402 421
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 61.0 70.0 83.3 87.5 78.6 59.5 70.0 61.8 52.7 68.2
N Tested 41 24 36 16 28 500 459 497 427 450
4 % Grade Level 92.6 91.0 100.0 90.6 94.4 85.6 86.0 83.0 82.2 87.5
N Tested 26 36 24 32 18 475 479 459 465 393
5 % Grade Level 82.4 80.0 74.2 93.8 79.3 78.4 88.0 81.5 85.6 80.8
N Tested 34 26 31 16 29 410 467 453 430 449
6 % Grade Level 81.5 80.0 90.9 82.8 94.1 75.4 79.0 76.4 74.6 82.6
N Tested 27 31 22 29 17 401 412 461 426 414
7 % Grade Level 77.8 82.0 73.3 90.0 75.9 70.6 77.0 72.9 66.2 71.2
N Tested 27 28 30 20 29 476 404 410 450 420
8 % Grade Level 52.0 76.0 87.5 62.1 85.0 64.4 66.0 72.7 70.3 68.7
N Tested 25 25 24 29 20 459 455 406 401 434
46
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Halifax County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Halifax County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
47
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG HERTFORD COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG HERTFORD COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC HERTFORD COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 62.5 0 50.0 53.8 53.0 58.6 56.5 63.8
N Tested 2 2 8 1 4 301 307 331 306 279
4 % Grade Level 50.0 100.0 0 83.3 0 50.8 51.0 53.0 57.5 51.5
N Tested 2 2 1 6 1 303 285 300 320 262
5 % Grade Level 75.0 0 100.0 0 85.7 52.7 55.0 61.9 63.2 67.5
N Tested 4 1 1 1 7 294 288 291 299 317
6 % Grade Level 25.0 25.0 33.3 0 0 45.4 45.0 49.0 54.6 51.3
N Tested 4 4 3 2 1 313 290 298 273 277
7 % Grade Level 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0 46.6 55.0 54.3 58.3 55.9
N Tested 1 4 6 4 2 343 313 282 300 261
8 % Grade Level 0 100.0 83.3 57.1 75.0 63.5 66.0 68.7 67.3 66
N Tested 1 1 6 7 4 307 333 313 269 288
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 50.0 100.0 62.5 100.0 50.0 46.8 48.0 55.8 46.4 59.9
N Tested 2 2 8 1 4 301 307 335 306 287
4 % Grade Level 66.7 50.0 100.0 83.3 100.0 63.8 64.0 73.5 77.9 80.7
N Tested 2 2 1 6 1 303 285 302 321 264
5 % Grade Level 75.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 56.4 63.0 65.1 70.2 79.5
N Tested 4 2 1 1 7 294 291 292 299 317
6 % Grade Level 50.0 75.0 66.7 100.0 100.0 41.7 64.0 69.8 71.5 69.7
N Tested 4 4 3 2 1 313 291 298 274 277
7 % Grade Level 0 50.0 66.7 75.0 100.0 50.3 63.0 65.4 65.3 71.0
N Tested 1 4 6 4 2 343 313 283 300 259
8 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 66.7 57.1 80.0 46.6 61.0 62.5 69.9 65.7
N Tested 1 1 6 7 5 307 335 312 269 289
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 40.0 25.0 22.7 22.1 39.2 27.2 53.4
N Tested 2 1 3 5 4 309 321 347 445 223
Biology % Grade Level 33.3 ––– 0 0 100.0 15.9 31.3 26.6 22.4 35.6
N Tested 6 ––– 1 1 3 523 262 222 281 289
ELP % Grade Level ––– 100.0 33.3 100.0 40.0 65.4 58.6 59.4 64.9 50.5
N Tested 3 3 3 2 5 243 220 234 222 493
English I % Grade Level ––– 0 100.0 40.0 33.3 44.8 37.1 38.5 41.9 44.2
N Tested 0 1 1 5 6 279 369 379 327 310
US History % Grade Level ––– 33.3 ––– 0 0 14.4 18.3 21.9 17.0 18.8
N Tested 2 3 ––– 4 1 250 290 260 264 261
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 0 ––– 0 100.0 ––– 8.4 41.1 30.2 52.4
N Tested ––– 4 ––– 5 3 ––– 226 192 192 206
Physics % Grade Level ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 37.5 16.7 ––– 17.3
N Tested ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 8 6 ––– 139
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 0 ––– 0 ––– ––– 22.1 31.4 21.2 29.3
N Tested ––– 3 ––– 4 ––– ––– 181 159 104 229
Geometry % Grade Level ––– ––– 0 0 50.0 ––– 14.4 15.6 20.4 24.5
N Tested ––– ––– 1 3 4 ––– 229 250 250 322
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 25.0 0 66.7 28.6 ––– 27.2 24.9 20.5 –––
N Tested ––– 4 1 6 7 ––– 401 458 381 –––
48
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Hertford County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Hertford County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
49
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG HOKE COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG HOKE COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC HOKE COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 54.0 59.0 52.9 64.0 47.3 60.4 66.0 65.7 65.4 66.3
N Tested 63 83 51 86 55 5.2 543 487 520 480
4 % Grade Level 49.1 49.0 59.0 46.6 57.0 59.7 60.0 61.6 60.2 59.1
N Tested 55 57 78 58 86 439 489 528 490 506
5 % Grade Level 58.7 63.0 58.2 60.2 54.4 70.2 67.0 71.4 69.7 75.9
N Tested 46 57 55 83 57 420 435 476 531 498
6 % Grade Level 47.9 62.0 45.8 48.3 45.3 59.1 69.0 61.1 58.9 61.0
N Tested 71 53 59 58 86 425 444 442 472 533
7 % Grade Level 38.3 56.0 61.8 59.0 49.1 59.8 65.0 67.5 65.9 64.9
N Tested 47 74 55 61 55 433 436 452 449 456
8 % Grade Level 55.4 53.0 66.2 68.6 79.7 68.5 68.0 71.2 73.5 77.9
N Tested 56 41 68 51 59 422 399 413 434 429
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 54.7 66.0 51.9 50.6 49.1 59.0 64.0 63.8 59.1 62.4
N Tested 63 83 52 87 55 520 549 497 521 481
4 % Grade Level 53.6 70.0 80.0 72.9 79.1 64.6 77.0 80.4 77.2 77.4
N Tested 65 58 80 59 86 439 494 535 491 508
5 % Grade Level 61.7 72.0 62.5 66.3 64.9 78.7 76.0 76.0 76.0 79.9
N Tested 46 59 56 83 57 420 439 479 533 498
6 % Grade Level 67.1 75.0 70.7 60.3 69.8 69.7 80.0 77.4 77.1 77.3
N Tested 71 54 58 58 86 425 453 443 472 532
7 % Grade Level 52.1 66.0 67.9 66.1 66.1 65.6 66.0 74.3 72.4 72.3
N Tested 47 72 56 62 56 433 438 451 449 458
8 % Grade Level 53.6 68.0 66.2 58.0 78.0 61.3 73.0 70.9 69.4 75.3
N Tested 56 41 68 50 59 422 399 412 434 429
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 37.2 36.7 50.8 46.3 58.0 46.9 45.8 52.2 58.7 68.8
N Tested 43 49 59 54 69 392 498 513 395 455
Biology % Grade Level 23.5 22.6 28.1 34.7 40.0 44.0 37.4 35.9 40.4 51.2
N Tested 44 53 64 49 50 334 476 443 423 342
ELP % Grade Level 62.0 61.5 50.0 38.6 49.4 65.8 60.9 60.6 53.8 61.0
N Tested 5 26 30 57 85 263 256 254 613 597
English I % Grade Level 27.7 47.1 36.5 58.0 51.7 47.7 54.7 52.7 58.0 61.9
N Tested 65 68 52 69 60 480 475 442 445 478
US History % Grade Level 41.7 27.5 14.3 18.4 10.3 43.8 32.2 29.1 23.8 29
N Tested 24 40 35 38 29 265 332 316 319 303
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 25.0 42.9 42.3 59.3 ––– 37.0 45.6 44.7 51.7
N Tested ––– 24 21 26 27 ––– 230 250 275 269
Physics % Grade Level ––– 0 100.0 0 33.3 ––– 37.5 71.4 50.0 37.9
N Tested ––– 2 1 1 3 ––– 24 14 20 29
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 9.5 4.3 21.1 25.0 ––– 12.1 16.4 45.4 51.7
N Tested ––– 21 23 19 4 ––– 215 280 185 87
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 24.2 15.9 31.9 42.9 ––– 33.8 26.1 31.2 40.3
N Tested ––– 33 44 47 42 ––– 337 440 407 372
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 0 0 17.4 16.7 ––– 26.7 39.1 25.0 42.9
N Tested ––– 5 7 23 24 ––– 30 69 168 170
50
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Hoke County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Hoke County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
51
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG JACKSON COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG JACKSON COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC JACKSON COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 64.5 60.0 59.4 62.5 90.6 76.2 74.0 73.5 69.7 84.1
N Tested 31 25 32 32 32 261 290 294 264 251
4 % Grade Level 57.1 67.0 44.0 55.9 34.2 74.3 72.0 73.4 74.2 70.0
N Tested 14 28 25 34 38 237 262 304 279 270
5 % Grade Level 91.7 80.0 74.2 74.1 73.5 76.9 79.0 75.3 77.1 82.0
N Tested 24 15 31 27 34 277 235 291 292 289
6 % Grade Level 72.0 84.0 68.8 66.7 70.4 81.4 80.0 76.5 74.3 73.9
N Tested 25 26 16 27 27 258 275 247 272 303
7 % Grade Level 61.1 85.0 82.8 78.9 61.5 75.1 85.0 79.6 82.4 76.5
N Tested 18 27 29 19 26 257 280 294 250 281
8 % Grade Level 67.6 71.0 85.2 87.5 88.0 85.5 79.0 87.1 85.2 92.4
N Tested 34 21 27 32 25 282 278 286 298 249
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 74.2 72.0 84.4 78.1 78.1 73.2 74.0 77.2 78.8 80.7
N Tested 31 25 32 32 32 261 290 294 264 254
4 % Grade Level 78.6 78.0 72.0 77.1 71.1 82.3 89.0 90.2 86.2 84.5
N Tested 14 28 25 35 38 237 262 305 283 271
5 % Grade Level 87.5 86.0 80.6 63.0 80.0 75.9 85.0 84.9 80.7 83.4
N Tested 24 15 31 27 35 277 235 291 295 290
6 % Grade Level 88.0 96.0 81.3 82.1 66.7 89.5 85.0 91.5 87.9 86.0
N Tested 25 26 16 28 27 258 276 248 272 308
7 % Grade Level 77.8 88.0 89.7 95.0 74.1 83.3 91.0 85.8 86.1 86.3
N Tested 18 27 29 20 27 257 279 295 251 284
8 % Grade Level 100.0 71.0 81.5 87.5 80.8 80.7 80.0 89.1 85.2 87.3
N Tested 2 21 27 32 26 410 278 285 297 251
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 50.0 61.9 71.4 85.0 70.0 64.2 76.6 77.3 80.9 78.3
N Tested 16 21 14 20 30 243 274 273 272 290
Biology % Grade Level 33.3 50.0 39.1 57.9 55.6 58.4 66.0 65.7 77.7 78.1
N Tested 12 12 23 19 18 259 209 248 260 247
ELP % Grade Level 47.1 40.0 31.8 33.3 54.5 71.2 65.0 69.6 66.9 62.2
N Tested 17 30 22 27 33 347 329 299 302 323
English I % Grade Level 40.9 47.1 46.2 44.4 66.7 64.6 68.8 76.9 72.3 73.2
N Tested 22 34 26 27 33 305 295 294 285 299
US History % Grade Level 38.9 33.3 22.2 31.6 61.1 41.9 47.0 53.1 62.1 60.2
N Tested 18 9 9 19 18 191 217 241 232 244
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 22.2 0 70.0 40.0 ––– 58.9 52.8 66.0 78.4
N Tested ––– 9 5 10 5 ––– 185 161 191 162
Physics % Grade Level ––– ––– 100.0 0 ––– ––– 63.2 91.3 66.7 85.7
N Tested ––– ––– 1 1 ––– ––– 19 23 9 21
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 66.7 66.7 16.7 50.0 ––– 72.1 57.9 66.1 75.4
N Tested ––– 3 6 6 4 ––– 111 114 118 118
Geometry % Grade Level –��– 22.2 33.3 66.7 66.7 ––– 54.9 61.7 65.4 66.3
N Tested ––– 9 12 12 9 ––– 195 206 211 199
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 37.5 36.7 33.3 50.0 ––– 62.3 63.9 57.7 54.1
N Tested ––– 32 30 27 30 ––– 324 316 284 290
52
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Jackson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Jackson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
53
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG PERSON COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG PERSON COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC PERSON COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 50.0 66.0 ––– 100.0 0 68.9 74.0 ––– 77.6 85.5
N Tested 4 3 ––– 2 2 488 510 492 459 491
4 % Grade Level 100.0 0 50.0 100.0 0 70.9 74.0 75.6 73.2 78.8
N Tested 5 3 2 1 2 416 469 488 437 433
5 % Grade Level 66.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 ––– 75.7 84.0 85.6 86.5 87.9
N Tested 3 4 1 2 ––– 453 433 457 465 445
6 % Grade Level 100.0 66.0 100.0 100.0 66.7 70.4 68.0 68.8 73.2 75.8
N Tested 3 3 3 3 3 436 472 464 451 479
7 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 0 73.3 80.0 74.3 76.8 79.6
N Tested 1 3 3 3 1 405 427 471 462 476
8 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 81.0 85.0 81.3 87.4 87.3
N Tested 2 1 2 2 3 410 393 401 452 448
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 50.0 100.0 ––– 100.0 50.0 67.2 68.0 68.3 73.6 80.1
N Tested 4 3 ––– 2 2 488 512 492 458 493
4 % Grade Level 100.0 66.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.7 84.0 89.0 88.6 91.9
N Tested 4 3 2 1 2 416 471 489 438 434
5 % Grade Level 66.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 ––– 78.4 87.0 88.2 91.7 93.1
N Tested 3 4 2 2 ––– 453 434 459 468 447
6 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.0 81.0 82.6 88.7 91.1
N Tested 3 3 3 3 3 436 473 465 453 482
7 % Grade Level 10.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 50.0 78.0 80.0 77.9 81.8 85.4
N Tested 1 3 3 3 2 405 428 471 466 479
8 % Grade Level 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.7 82.0 86.1 85.3 85.1
N Tested 2 1 2 2 3 410 392 402 455 450
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 55.3 59.7 69.0 74.9 83.0
N Tested 0 3 1 2 4 450 501 426 450 453
Biology % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 0 0 60.3 61.5 56.4 66.2 73.7
N Tested 2 1 1 1 2 325 364 305 314 315
ELP % Grade Level ––– ––– 75.0 ––– 50.0 62.3 66.7 64.0 72.3 73.9
N Tested 1 ––– 4 ––– 2 443 21 392 368 364
English I % Grade Level ––– 50.0 ––– 50.0 100.0 54.6 70.4 79.6 76.1 67.5
N Tested 1 2 ––– 2 2 441 423 401 389 462
US History % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 75.0 ––– 42.3 39.9 34.9 41.4 47.1
N Tested 3 1 1 4 ––– 343 321 358 348 342
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 100.0 ––– 100.0 ––– ––– 54.5 63.4 73.2 80.8
N Tested ––– 1 ���–– 2 ––– ––– 200 227 246 240
Physics % Grade Level ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 100.0 57.5 42.6 37.5 45.8
N Tested ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 1 40 61 16 24
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 100.0 ––– 0 ––– ––– 61.8 64.9 57.6 75.8
N Tested ––– 1 ––– 1 ––– ––– 144 148 203 161
Geometry % Grade Level ––– ––– –��– ––– 50.0 66.7 57.5 65.6 60.4 68.3
N Tested ––– ––– ���–– ––– 2 3 299 311 326 287
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 50.0 ––– 50.0 0 ––– 63.2 61.9 65.6 46.3
N Tested ––– 2 ––– 2 1 ––– 250 344 250 328
54
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Person County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Person County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
55
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG RICHMOND COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG RICHMOND COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC RICHMOND COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 57.1 57.0 60.0 61.1 61.5 72.3 77.0 67.4 64.6 74.3
N Tested 7 7 15 18 13 669 648 654 697 646
4 % Grade Level 81.8 88.0 22.2 38.9 56.3 61.7 64.0 62.8 57.0 59.1
N Tested 11 9 9 18 16 601 659 646 670 658
5 % Grade Level 81.8 66.0 77.8 50.0 55.6 73.6 70.0 69.7 70.9 71.4
N Tested 11 12 9 10 18 557 591 644 645 678
6 % Grade Level 45.4 100.0 77.8 75.0 55.6 74.1 79.0 71.6 63.6 70.0
N Tested 11 9 9 8 9 564 555 592 693 647
7 % Grade Level 50.0 28.0 75.0 45.5 60.0 67.7 76.0 74.0 69.9 65.2
N Tested 4 7 12 11 10 643 578 600 607 702
8 % Grade Level 58.3 100.0 77.8 92.3 83.3 77.4 80.0 82.4 78.1 78.1
N Tested 12 2 9 13 12 552 606 535 599 608
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 57.1 42.0 53.3 50.0 84.6 69.5 71.0 65.0 58.3 74.1
N Tested 7 7 15 18 13 669 649 654 698 644
4 % Grade Level 63.6 66.0 40.0 66.7 75.0 78.3 78.0 79.7 73.3 75.8
N Tested 11 9 10 18 16 601 662 649 666 658
5 % Grade Level 90.0 83.0 66.7 40.0 72.2 78.3 80.0 73.8 78.3 76.3
N Tested 11 12 9 10 18 557 591 646 645 674
6 % Grade Level 72.7 100.0 77.8 87.5 55.6 83.9 87.0 82.6 77.0 83.1
N Tested 11 9 9 8 9 564 554 591 691 646
7 % Grade Level 50.0 100.0 83.3 63.6 80.0 73.9 84.0 80.4 74.6 73.8
N Tested 4 7 12 11 10 643 576 601 607 698
8 % Grade Level 66.7 100.0 66.7 69.2 75.0 73.5 80.0 80.4 72.7 75.7
N Tested 12 2 9 13 12 552 605 536 600 604
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 18.2 14.3 na 66.7 80.0 53.2 52.0 85.0 80.0 70.3
N Tested 11 7 na 3 10 510 523 160 530 636
Biology % Grade Level 57.1 28.6 42.9 33.3 80.0 47.0 44.2 40.3 58.0 57.6
N Tested 14 7 7 3 5 541 582 556 538 495
ELP % Grade Level 60.0 50.0 0 33.3 66.7 69.1 52.6 57.9 58.9 57.6
N Tested 5 12 1 6 9 601 576 610 518 564
English I % Grade Level ––– 45.5 0 33.3 66.7 62.8 60.3 68.2 70.3 70.2
N Tested 4 11 1 6 9 581 585 623 516 524
US History % Grade Level ––– 60.0 25.0 50.0 0 36.1 40.5 41.4 35.2 33.0
N Tested 4 10 4 ––– 3 393 412 428 389 528
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 40.0 0 ––– 50.0 ––– 33.5 44.6 70.7 81.9
N Tested ––– 5 2 ––– 2 ––– 269 285 304 309
Physics % Grade Level ––– 100.0 ––– ––– ––– ––– 97.5 97.1 77.4 72.7
N Tested ––– 1 ––– ––– ––– ––– 40 34 31 11
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 100.0 100.0 66.7 ––– ––– 75.4 82.2 62.9 78.0
N Tested ––– 3 1 3 ––– ––– 195 197 178 177
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 0 0 40.0 33.3 ––– 37.6 35.4 47.8 52.1
N Tested ––– 6 4 5 3 ––– 394 418 404 445
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 30.0 100.0 0 ––– ––– 53.2 57.0 38.8 64.6
N Tested ��–– ––– 1 2 ––– ––– 457 449 98 113
56
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Richmond County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Richmond County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
57
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG ROBESON COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG ROBESON COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC ROBESON COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 51.7 60.0 61.8 66.6 70.5 54.8 63.0 65.2 70.4 71.6
N Tested 750 804 844 815 792 1823 1849 1894 1877 1813
4 % Grade Level 44.8 55.0 57.9 58.2 67.2 51.5 56.0 61.2 61.5 66.6
N Tested 712 713 767 787 755 1713 1751 1768 1799 1794
5 % Grade Level 54.1 51.0 58.4 67.9 65.7 56.1 54.0 59.4 68.1 67.4
N Tested 798 715 700 747 794 1774 1741 1725 1734 1811
6 % Grade Level 51.8 52.0 47.0 54.8 59.2 54.8 55.0 51.5 54.5 59.8
N Tested 706 771 692 631 699 1656 1735 1708 1632 1653
7 % Grade Level 52.4 59.0 54.4 56.2 61.7 55.6 61.0 57.7 58.5 59.8
N Tested 710 670 776 678 629 1581 1608 1736 1595 1632
8 % Grade Level 629 64.0 71.3 71.4 71.0 66.1 64.0 69.1 70.0 74.8
N Tested 739 705 675 751 655 1709 1626 1611 1672 1566
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 51.4 60.0 61.2 67.2 66.5 52.6 63.0 63.1 68.9 66.9
N Tested 750 815 858 823 814 1823 1866 1912 1896 1857
4 % Grade Level 63.2 75.0 78.7 77.5 82.8 65.5 75.0 79.0 79.6 81.5
N Tested 712 722 775 821 774 1713 1773 1787 1848 1840
5 % Grade Level 62.3 65.0 66.5 76.4 75.9 61.8 67.0 65.7 76.0 75.5
N Tested 798 719 704 766 816 1774 1750 1737 1775 1854
6 % Grade Level 71.7 72.0 68.1 75.7 79.9 71.3 71.0 69.6 73.7 78.9
N Tested 706 778 698 646 716 1656 1757 1722 1673 1688
7 % Grade Level 71.1 77.0 70.5 70.3 75.9 71.6 76.0 69.4 72.0 74.2
N Tested 710 671 784 683 643 1581 1615 1759 1607 1661
8 % Grade Level 69.9 68.0 72.6 74.3 75.2 70.8 67.0 70.9 73.2 75.2
N Tested 739 709 676 755 657 1709 1636 1616 1677 1571
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 46.8 50.6 43.8 63.4 71.4 51.8 56.2 47.5 62.5 67.8
N Tested 530 563 696 629 643 1322 1316 1591 1500 1582
Biology % Grade Level 46.8 41.8 29.5 39.1 55.6 51.8 43.7 35.7 43.1 53.1
N Tested 530 462 613 507 487 1322 1108 1437 1280 1232
ELP % Grade Level 37.3 38.4 31.0 49.5 43.4 42.2 48.4 36.5 50.2 48.2
N Tested 550 581 710 566 742 1250 1406 1643 1482 1722
English I % Grade Level 41.1 42.1 43.1 41.7 44.3 47.1 46.5 45.5 43.9 48.9
N Tested 628 788 785 741 817 1476 1814 1785 1766 1817
US History % Grade Level 31.3 20.9 19.8 28.2 29.7 39.5 25.9 23.5 34.8 38.8
N Tested 754 98 479 483 434 1660 1183 1151 1215 1091
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 25.0 28.2 53.8 70.0 ––– 25.5 29.7 53.7 69.1
N Tested ––– 324 287 318 283 ––– 813 824 750 727
Physics % Grade Level ––– 15.7 16.7 41.9 64.5 ––– 31.4 35.9 43.1 66.3
N Tested ––– 51 24 43 31 ––– 140 117 123 83
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 32.8 37.3 38.6 55.4 ––– 35.3 38.8 42.1 63.2
N Tested ––– 290 201 241 195 ––– 688 613 608 465
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 21.9 29.5 43.6 40.7 ––– 28.1 31.9 42.2 43.0
N Tested ––– 375 386 383 381 ––– 971 928 944 928
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 26.9 22.6 27.1 53.5 ––– 35.8 24.5 34.7 56.9
N Tested ––– 547 704 133 243 ––– 1304 1731 251 378
58
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Robeson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Robeson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
59
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG SAMPSON COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG SAMPSON COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC SAMPSON COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 75 81 66.7 66.7 57.1 67.4 72 76.7 77.2 77.2
N Tested 8 11 12 6 7 589 590 584 631 628
4 % Grade Level 83.3 60 66.7 72.7 71.4 72.1 67 68 73.8 79.4
N Tested 6 10 12 11 7 567 592 581 602 603
5 % Grade Level 75 66 100 76.9 90.9 70.7 78 81.7 84 86.4
N Tested 8 9 7 13 11 526 586 590 570 589
6 % Grade Level 42.9 75 60 62.5 80 67.1 69 67.7 66.8 71.5
N Tested 7 8 10 8 10 532 527 606 591 579
7 % Grade Level 88.9 37 62.5 66.7 66.7 69.8 72 71 72.3 72.8
N Tested 9 8 8 9 9 524 550 520 620 614
8 % Grade Level 50 77 88.9 0 80 73 77 77.4 82.5 86.2
N Tested 6 9 9 7 10 463 530 561 510 587
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 87.5 81.0 91.7 50.0 57.1 69.3 68.0 75.8 73.7 75.2
N Tested 8 11 12 6 7 589 598 590 636 633
4 % Grade Level 50.0 70.0 75.0 90.9 100.0 82.7 82.0 85.4 85.6 90.8
N Tested 6 10 12 11 7 567 594 588 606 606
5 % Grade Level 87.5 66.0 85.7 76.9 90.9 69.8 85.0 84.6 87.7 89.3
N Tested 8 9 7 13 11 526 588 596 575 591
6 % Grade Level 71.4 87.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 82.4 79.0 82.7 80.2 85.1
N Tested 7 8 10 8 10 532 529 608 592 582
7 % Grade Level 66.7 62.0 87.5 77.8 66.7 74.2 82.0 76.2 78.4 84.3
N Tested 9 8 8 9 9 524 552 521 620 618
8 % Grade Level 50.0 88.0 88.9 85.7 80.0 71.8 81.0 76.6 76.0 82.2
N Tested 6 9 9 7 10 463 531 563 512 589
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 0 100.0 80.0 75.0 85.7 38.9 59.4 68.4 80.9 84.1
N Tested 7 2 5 8 7 471 480 554 502 503
Biology % Grade Level 12.5 0 50.0 71.4 80.0 38.2 44.4 44.5 53.6 60.0
N Tested 8 2 4 7 5 479 471 434 487 482
ELP % Grade Level ––– 66.7 20.0 40.0 60.0 51.2 63.8 61.6 56.9 66.9
N Tested 3 3 5 5 5 588 450 424 267 487
English I % Grade Level ––– 75.0 71.4 70.0 80.0 45.1 62.2 65.7 63.4 60.2
N Tested 3 4 7 10 5 592 468 543 569 576
US History % Grade Level ––– 75.0 0 16.7 25.0 36.2 55.8 46.3 41.7 39.6
N Tested 3 4 2 6 8 434 400 447 405 449
Algebra Il % Grade Level –���– 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 ––– 46.7 58.8 66.1 73.3
N Tested ––– 2 4 1 2 ––– 319 279 298 285
Physics % Grade Level ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 64.3 70.6 95.5 –––
N Tested ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– 42 34 22 –––
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 66.7 0 100.0 ––– ––– 58.3 62.2 68.3 77.1
N Tested ���–– 3 1 1 ––– ––– 247 230 208 175
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 20.0 100.0 60.0 16.7 ––– 53.4 58.2 53.3 62.8
N Tested ––– 5 3 5 6 ––– 341 335 345 347
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 66.7 ––– ––– 44.4 ––– 52.2 25.0 76.6 53.2
N Tested ––– 3 ––– ––– 9 ––– 469 4 145 391
60
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Sampson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Sampson County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
61
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG CLINTON CITY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG CLINTON CITY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC CLINTON CITY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 77.8 50.0 71.4 83.3 66.7 80.0 78.0 80.3 76.4 79.4
N Tested 9 4 7 12 6 200 203 213 225 204
4 % Grade Level 71.4 75.0 40.0 83.3 58.3 67.2 73.0 74.9 82.0 70.5
N Tested 7 8 5 6 12 177 199 207 211 220
5 % Grade Level 85.7 50.0 80.0 80.0 85.7 72.4 77.0 77.8 80.6 86.2
N Tested 7 4 10 5 7 174 189 198 211 217
6 % Grade Level 58.3 57.0 40.0 63.6 60.0 76.1 68.0 65.5 61.0 68.6
N Tested 12 7 5 11 5 184 170 200 213 207
7 % Grade Level 25.0 80.0 71.4 0 58.3 74.4 85.0 75.9 79.0 73.3
N Tested 4 10 7 3 12 176 184 170 205 221
8 % Grade Level 88.8 25.0 81.8 62.5 0 81.5 77.0 88.8 84.8 81.5
N Tested 9 4 11 8 3 184 171 179 171 195
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 55.6 50.0 71.4 91.7 66.7 71.0 75.0 71.8 70.2 72.1
N Tested 9 4 7 12 6 200 203 213 225 204
4 % Grade Level 85.7 87.0 60.0 83.3 75.0 84.7 82.0 88.4 88.6 90.9
N Tested 7 8 5 6 12 177 199 207 211 220
5 % Grade Level 71.4 75.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 77.0 84.0 83.8 87.7 89.4
N Tested 7 4 10 5 7 174 189 198 211 217
6 % Grade Level 83.3 85.0 80.0 81.8 60.0 87.0 79.0 80.5 74.6 84.5
N Tested 12 7 5 11 5 184 170 200 213 207
7 % Grade Level 50.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 91.7 81.3 90.0 79.4 77.6 77.4
N Tested 4 10 7 3 12 176 185 170 205 221
8 % Grade Level 77.8 50.0 81.8 87.5 100.0 71.7 81.0 90.5 84.2 84.1
N Tested 9 4 11 8 3 184 171 179 171 195
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 36.4 40.0 100.0 72.7 87.5 56.2 59.1 73.1 77.1 84.1
N Tested 11 5 4 11 8 174 98 156 188 189
Biology % Grade Level 28.6 28.6 25.0 25.0 77.8 50.9 54.7 39.1 48.3 67.4
N Tested 7 7 8 4 9 171 159 184 172 175
ELP % Grade Level 55.6 50.0 33.3 35.7 75.0 63.2 56.5 59.6 62.3 64.8
N Tested 9 10 6 14 8 182 209 193 212 179
English I % Grade Level 37.5 50.0 33.3 53.8 55.6 55.5 60.0 65.6 66.4 71.1
N Tested 8 10 6 13 9 173 195 186 211 180
US History % Grade Level 20.0 20.0 28.6 57.1 25.0 41.0 50.0 47.2 49.7 54.4
N Tested 10 10 7 7 4 178 176 159 183 171
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 20.0 33.3 66.7 33.3 ––– 35.2 49.6 62.2 67.6
N Tested ––– 5 6 3 6 ––– 142 137 127 148
Physics % Grade Level ––– ––– ––– ––– 100.0 ––– 66.7 100.0 84.6 –––
N Tested –���– ––– ––– ––– 2 ––– 6 12 13 –––
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 40.0 100.0 40.0 100.0 ––– 50.7 66.7 59.4 88.9
N Tested ––– 5 3 5 2 ––– 134 87 96 27
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 42.9 25.0 50.0 75.0 ––– 53.5 51.0 64.1 81.8
N Tested ––– 7 4 4 8 ––– 144 145 142 110
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 44.4 0 ––– –��– ––– 56.7 56.6 ––– 59.9
N Tested ––– 9 4 ––– ––– ––– 187 175 ––– 147
62
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Clinton City vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Clinton City vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
63
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG SCOTLAND COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG SCOTLAND COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC SCOTLAND COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 51.6 67.0 53.6 60.9 62.3 56.5 66.0 61.6 69.1 69.4
N Tested 62 58 69 69 77 529 554 583 554 523
4 % Grade Level 53.3 64.0 65.3 57.6 59.4 63.0 57.0 64.2 64.9 68.0
N Tested 60 54 49 66 64 521 511 514 536 543
5 % Grade Level 62.2 67.0 70.5 75.0 72.6 70.3 66.0 69.3 79.3 78.7
N Tested 45 64 61 52 62 461 510 512 498 507
6 % Grade Level 60.0 54.0 50.8 49.2 73.5 64.6 68.0 61.4 58.8 67.6
N Tested 50 44 63 63 49 505 473 508 488 478
7 % Grade Level 65.8 75.0 57.4 67.7 67.2 66.5 76.0 70.7 72.0 72.1
N Tested 38 49 54 62 64 486 509 488 511 480
8 % Grade Level 40.6 79.0 72.7 73.1 81.0 68.4 75.0 77.7 78.1 82.4
N Tested 32 43 55 52 58 532 484 498 475 467
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 52.3 62.0 62.3 60.0 57.7 58.0 64.0 64.6 65.9 61.7
N Tested 62 59 69 70 78 529 559 587 560 528
4 % Grade Level 69.4 71.0 88.0 75.0 76.2 69.4 79.0 80.1 82.8 83.2
N Tested 60 60 50 64 63 521 519 518 540 548
5 % Grade Level 68.9 73.0 79.7 81.5 85.5 74.9 75.0 79.2 85.3 88.5
N Tested 45 65 64 54 62 461 513 515 503 513
6 % Grade Level 68.0 70.0 63.5 66.7 91.7 71.9 75.0 74.4 76.5 83.0
N Tested 50 44 63 63 48 505 476 507 490 476
7 % Grade Level 86.8 83.0 74.1 80.6 82.8 79.2 84.0 83.9 79.3 83.2
N Tested 38 49 54 62 64 486 510 490 508 481
8 % Grade Level 43.8 90.0 81.5 69.2 74.1 68.6 77.0 81.9 77.9 79.8
N Tested 32 43 54 52 58 532 483 498 475 466
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 69.2 80.0 87.5 95.0 97.3 58.5 70.8 82.0 88.1 91.3
N Tested 26 30 40 40 37 417 483 434 471 458
Biology % Grade Level 45.0 44.7 38.5 47.7 57.1 45.2 53.6 51.1 55.2 56.2
N Tested 40 38 26 44 42 487 502 364 502 402
ELP % Grade Level 64.4 71.4 74.1 75.9 65.9 64.2 79.3 66.2 70.6 67.1
N Tested 45 7 27 29 44 531 193 396 442 419
English I % Grade Level 46.0 35.3 50.0 62.7 44.4 52.6 55.0 59.9 61.2 61.6
N Tested 50 34 46 59 45 500 553 499 520 495
US History % Grade Level 35.7 12.0 53.8 36.8 41.2 35.0 36.3 42.0 55.8 45.8
N Tested 28 25 26 19 34 417 366 348 371 358
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 31.6 58.8 78.6 100.0 ––– 52.7 66.1 75.4 93.1
N Tested ––– 19 17 14 12 ––– 277 230 236 204
Physics % Grade Level ––– 100.0 ––– ––– ––– ––– 62.1 56.8 82.4 90.5
N Tested ––– 1 ––– ––– ––– ––– 58 37 34 42
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 50.0 75.0 90.0 62.5 ––– 60.7 74.6 72.4 82.5
N Tested ––– 6 4 10 8 ––��� 140 173 170 120
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 56.3 88.9 76.5 85.7 ––– 60.9 72.6 73.2 76.4
N Tested ––– 16 18 17 21 ––– 248 288 269 276
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 35.7 60.0 51.5 64.9 ––– 53.1 48.3 57.3 68.9
N Tested ––– 14 45 33 37 ––– 271 414 410 357
64
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Scotland County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Scotland County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
65
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG SWAIN COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG SWAIN COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC SWAIN COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 73.9 85.0 50.0 84.8 61.5 78.6 81.0 75.6 87.5 75.7
N Tested 23 21 20 33 26 117 124 119 136 107
4 % Grade Level 54.3 65.0 68.2 81.3 78.8 75.0 79.0 75.0 84.0 80.9
N Tested 35 26 22 16 33 132 123 132 119 141
5 % Grade Level 72.7 62.0 73.1 85.0 88.9 80.2 79.0 82.1 90.1 92.0
N Tested 22 37 26 20 18 11 145 134 131 125
6 % Grade Level 66.7 80.0 54.5 81.5 77.8 84.0 84.0 72.6 79.8 77.5
N Tested 18 25 33 27 27 119 119 146 129 138
7 % Grade Level 87.0 66.0 73.9 61.8 65.5 87.4 83.0 78.0 78.6 81.2
N Tested 23 27 23 34 29 111 128 123 140 138
8 % Grade Level 84.6 85.0 72.0 88.0 77.8 86.3 89.0 87.5 90.2 86.0
N Tested 26 27 25 25 27 139 119 128 122 136
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 78.3 85.0 60.0 85.3 57.7 88.0 89.0 79.8 84.1 69.4
N Tested 23 21 20 34 26 117 124 119 138 108
4 % Grade Level 94.3 76.0 90.9 87.5 82.4 94.7 91.0 91.7 91.8 88.8
N Tested 35 26 22 16 34 132 123 132 122 143
5 % Grade Level 86.4 78.0 92.3 85.0 88.9 89.2 86.0 91.8 88.6 88.1
N Tested 22 37 26 20 18 111 145 134 132 126
6 % Grade Level 66.7 92.0 72.7 96.3 92.6 89.9 95.0 84.9 89.3 89.1
N Tested 18 25 33 27 27 118 119 146 131 138
7 % Grade Level 78.3 77.0 82.6 67.6 72.4 82.0 89.0 86.2 77.1 75.7
N Tested 23 27 23 34 29 111 128 123 140 140
8 % Grade Level 65.4 77.0 76.0 84.0 81.5 79.1 87.0 88.3 84.4 83.1
N Tested 26 27 25 25 27 139 119 128 122 136
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 84.6 64.0 59.4 75.0 67.6 61.3 66.1 69.0 82.3 83.8
N Tested 13 25 32 20 34 97 124 145 96 154
Biology % Grade Level 84.6 51.6 43.5 56.7 76.2 80.4 74.8 57.5 59.1 79.1
N Tested 13 31 23 30 21 97 143 106 110 110
ELP % Grade Level 93.8 86.4 93.8 95.0 88.9 92.0 89.0 93.3 96.0 93.1
N Tested 16 22 16 20 18 75 73 90 101 102
English I % Grade Level 48.6 73.3 80.8 66.7 65.5 72.6 73.7 81.7 81.4 73.7
N Tested 35 30 26 24 29 146 137 120 118 137
US History % Grade Level 51.9 55.0 42.9 66.7 57.1 62.4 64.8 64.2 73.5 63.9
N Tested 27 20 28 24 21 101 105 120 117 97
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 68.8 66.7 61.5 71.4 ––– 73.7 71.0 75.5 75.5
N Tested ––– 16 9 13 7 ––– 57 69 53 49
Physics % Grade Level ––– 80.0 ––– ––– 50.0 ––– 71.4 100.0 100.0 81.8
N Tested ––– 5 ––– ––– 2 ––– 21 4 9 11
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 25.0 35.0 66.7 100.0 35.8 54.6 68.1 91.3 66.7
N Tested ––– 12 20 6 2 ––– 67 97 47 23
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 30.8 58.8 30.8 90.9 ––– 67.5 66.7 47.0 78.9
N Tested ––– 13 17 13 11 ––– 83 87 66 57
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 70.8 50.0 47.4 41.2 ––– 76.0 53.8 69.7 73.3
N Tested ––– 24 4 19 17 ––– 125 13 89 86
66
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Swain County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Swain County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
67
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG WAKE COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG WAKE COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC WAKE COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 88.2 87.0 78.9 85.0 90.9 79.3 80.0 82.8 85.3 87.6
N Tested 17 24 19 20 22 7448 7610 7918 7780 7881
4 % Grade Level 72.2 85.0 68.0 90.5 77.8 80.3 80.0 81.3 85.9 87.4
N Tested 18 21 25 21 18 71.8 7406 7725 7680 7700
5 % Grade Level 88.2 88.0 84.6 77.8 86.4 84.3 84.0 87.7 90.8 92.2
N Tested 17 17 26 27 22 69.87 7244 7674 7572 7759
6 % Grade Level 53.3 84.0 83.3 0 68.0 78.9 80.0 77.9 80.7 82.8
N Tested 15 19 18 24 25 6776 7034 7646 7645 7948
7 % Grade Level 83.3 88.0 87.5 87.5 95.7 80.5 84.0 84.3 85.1 86.7
N Tested 12 9 24 16 23 6669 6768 7316 7446 7769
8 % Grade Level 83.3 100.0 80.0 94.7 94.4 86.5 87.0 88.7 90.6 91.4
N Tested 12 14 15 19 18 6326 6587 6958 7085 7414
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 70.6 87.0 73.7 85.0 86.4 75.3 77.0 79.5 84.0 87.1
N Tested 17 24 19 20 22 7448 7635 7960 7801 7909
4 % Grade Level 66.7 85.0 84.0 95.5 100.0 84.1 88.0 88.9 92.7 94.7
N Tested 18 21 25 22 18 7180 7425 7758 7707 7719
5 % Grade Level 83.3 82.0 84.6 89.3 90.9 84.0 87.0 88.7 92.1 93.8
N Tested 17 17 26 28 22 6987 7273 7709 7611 7792
6 % Grade Level 53.3 80.0 94.4 95.8 96.0 82.7 84.0 85.2 88.1 90.2
N Tested 15 20 18 24 25 6776 7028 7642 7643 7955
7 % Grade Level 83.3 77.0 75.0 100.0 91.3 83.7 87.0 86.6 87.6 90.3
N Tested 12 9 24 16 23 6669 6760 7309 7452 7774
8 % Grade Level 75.0 92.0 73.3 84.2 94.4 83.2 83.0 85.6 86.9 88.3
N Tested 12 14 15 19 18 6326 6600 6966 7081 7408
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 62.5 69.2 81.8 100.0 100.0 77.0 78.4 81.4 88.2 88.2
N Tested 16 13 11 16 9 6210 6615 6868 7012 7759
Biology % Grade Level 63.6 72.7 58.3 73.3 82.4 74.3 68.4 70.7 71.0 80.6
N Tested 22 11 12 15 17 6127 5939 6340 6775 6457
ELP % Grade Level 76.9 56.5 76.9 68.8 72.2 75.7 73.7 78.3 78.2 79.2
N Tested 13 23 13 16 18 5994 6984 6784 7383 7448
English I % Grade Level 73.7 81.8 93.3 71.4 65.0 72.4 74.2 78.7 79.0 81.1
N Tested 19 11 15 14 20 6248 6446 6946 7261 7392
US History % Grade Level 33.3 68.8 41.7 46.2 35.7 67.0 66.7 60.1 64.1 62.5
N Tested 6 16 12 13 14 4872 5119 5526 5906 6151
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––�� 46.2 70.0 71.4 81.3 ––– 77.3 75.8 82.7 86.5
N Tested ––– 13 10 7 16 ––– 4206 4621 4878 4968
Physics % Grade Level ––– 75.0 80.0 0 66.7 ––– 81.9 79.3 81.9 90.7
N Tested ––– 4 5 1 3 ––– 1707 1785 1706 1924
Chemistry % Grade Level ––– 84.6 70.0 62.5 66.7 ––– 77.7 74.6 78.4 83.7
N Tested ––– 13 10 8 6 ––– 3773 4020 4148 3810
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 56.3 87.5 72.7 75.0 ––– 74.1 75.0 80.3 80.0
N Tested ––– 16 8 11 16 ––– 4850 5109 4972 5749
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 46.2 100.0 25.0 66.7 ––– 59.2 62.4 65.5 65.3
N Tested ––– 13 4 4 3 ––– 3727 3283 2487 2127
68
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Wake County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Wake County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
69
Public Schools of North Carolina
American Indian Students At or Above Grade Level:
Percent and Number Tested
EOG WARREN COUNTY Reading
American Indian System (All students)
EOG WARREN COUNTY Math
American Indian System (All students)
EOC WARREN COUNTY High School Subjects
American Indian System (All students)
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 61.5 91.0 54.5 60.0 0 59.5 66.0 60.5 59.8 63.2
N Tested 13 12 11 10 10 262 273 253 249 253
4 % Grade Level 42.9 75.0 70.0 85.7 80.0 61.2 58.0 58.7 60.0 59.8
N Tested 14 12 10 7 10 273 255 259 240 246
5 % Grade Level 58.3 88.0 71.4 0 85.7 727 68.0 65.9 71.9 77.4
N Tested 12 9 14 7 7 220 255 252 270 239
6 % Grade Level 48.8 46.0 54.5 66.7 81.8 55.2 62.0 52.5 52.7 52.1
N Tested 15 13 11 15 11 250 234 259 264 282
7 % Grade Level 66.7 64.0 50.0 66.7 76.9 53.2 58.0 59.5 62.2 56.3
N Tested 12 14 16 9 13 284 250 257 251 268
8 % Grade Level 100.0 61.0 92.3 58.8 75.0 67.9 70.0 71.2 64.7 72.0
N Tested 7 13 13 17 8 234 281 258 243
Grade Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
3 % Grade Level 69.2 75.0 81.8 70.0 100.0 53.5 64.0 62.5 55.2 60.2
N Tested 13 12 11 10 10 262 276 259 250 254
4 % Grade Level 57.1 75.0 80.0 100.0 80.0 71.8 70.0 74.5 72.3 75.8
N Tested 14 12 10 7 10 273 268 267 242 248
5 % Grade Level 58.3 88.0 78.6 100.0 100.0 75.1 81.0 71.2 78.6 84.2
N Tested 12 9 14 7 7 220 261 260 271 241
6 % Grade Level 45.8 76.0 72.7 73.3 90.9 57.1 72.0 64.4 68.3 71.4
N Tested 15 13 11 15 11 250 237 261 265 283
7 % Grade Level 69.2 85.0 68.8 77.8 76.9 57.2 65.0 65.2 66.5 67.2
N Tested 12 14 16 9 13 284 250 256 251 268
8 % Grade Level 85.7 76.0 100.0 47.1 75.0 59.8 70.0 70.9 63.6 72.5
N Tested 7 13 13 17 8 234 281 234 258 244
Course Participation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Algebra I % Grade Level 57.1 45.5 50.0 84.2 47.4 44.22 38.8 30.6 56.4 66.6
N Tested 14 11 12 19 19 217 240 245 303 335
Biology % Grade Level 0 46.2 50.0 58.3 55.6 30.1 35.2 31.9 31.5 43.2
N Tested 7 13 8 12 9 216 213 204 222 155
ELP % Grade Level 40.0 46.2 26.7 70.0 42.1 47.1 40.4 33.4 39.2 41.0
N Tested 10 13 15 20 19 263 280 296 288 293
English I % Grade Level 30.8 62.5 42.9 86.7 50.0 47.3 49.6 50.0 50.2 50.2
N Tested 13 8 14 15 18 256 228 282 253 285
US History % Grade Level 33.3 14.3 33.3 62.5 66.7 33.5 29.1 34.3 33.5 41.1
N Tested 12 7 9 8 9 197 179 216 179 219
Algebra Il % Grade Level ––– 0 50.0 100.0 77.8 ––– 23.9 35.0 56.2 59.1
N Tested ––– 4 10 4 9 ––– 92 103 105 127
Physics % Grade Level ���–– 33.3 0 66.7 100.0 ––– 69.8 72.9 63.4 79.1
N Tested ––– 3 1 3 2 ––– 43 48 71 43
Chemistry % Grade Level –���– 33.3 50.0 100.0 42.9 ––– 52.4 40.5 69.7 58.8
N Tested ––– 3 4 4 7 ––– 82 84 66 102
Geometry % Grade Level ––– 58.3 16.7 55.6 42.9 ––– 56.3 42.3 40.6 54.7
N Tested ––– 12 6 9 7 ––– 103 137 143 148
Phys.Science % Grade Level ––– 30.0 26.7 46.7 30.0 ––– 27.6 27.4 32.5 32.6
N Tested ––– 10 15 15 20 ––– 293 288 305 279
70
Trend of EOG Reading Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Warren County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
Trend of EOG Math Performance: 1993 to 2002
Percent of Grade 3 to 8 Students at/above Grade Level by Ethnicity
Warren County vs. NC
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Percent of Students (%)
NC State
NC American
Indian
LEA
LEA American
Indian
71
Analysis: Other Outcome Measures
As further evidence of the state’s American Indian high school students’ performance, information is
presented on other outcome measures—which includes advanced placement and SAT test-takers.
• SAT data for 2001-2002 for American Indian high school students reflects an increase of
23 points from the previous year; however, they remain the second lowest-scoring ethnic group
in the state. Further, their average score on the SAT is 106 points below the national average
(see Graph 4).
• Advanced Placement (AP) test data for 2001-2002 reveals that American Indian students
scoring 3 or higher on AP tests continue to rank next to last in both the state and nation
(see Table 9).
• The percentage of all AP test-takers who score 3 or higher is 17 more percentage points
across the nation and 11.8 more percentage points across the state than the percentage of
American Indian students who score 3 or higher (see Table 9).
72
73
74
75
APPENDICES
Remaining and Becoming
76
Appendix A
77
NCLB Key Provisions
For more information, please access: www.ncpublicschools.org
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Department of Public Instruction 02/07/03
Local School Accountability - Student Achievement
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), signed into federal
law by President George W. Bush in 2002, is
having a tremendous impact on North Carolina’s
public schools. The legislation represents the
largest ever expansion of involvement in K-12
education by the federal government. North
Carolina students have demonstrated significant
and sustained achievement gains under the ABCs
of Public Education. The State Board of Education
remains committed to the ABCs to drive the
sustained improvement that will be ess