Broward County Public Schools Florida

Transcription

1 Broward County Public Schools Florida PAGE DATA 2 Background Information 3 Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency READING 4 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 5 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 6 Reading Proficiency Gaps 7 Standardized Residuals for Reading MATHEMATICS 8 Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 9 Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 0 Mathematics Proficiency Gaps Standardized Residuals for Mathematics SCIENCE 2 Science Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 3 Science Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 4 Science Proficiency Gaps 5 Standardized Residuals for Science 6 High School Graduation Rates 7 College Readiness Data THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

2 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Background Information Description of district: District characteristics Locale Number of schools Student characteristics Enrollment 258, ,35 256,37 256,472 District size rank Percent low-income students Percent non-white students Percent of students by race/ethnicity African American Asian Hispanic White American Indian/Alaska Native Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander Two or more races Not reported Percent English language learners Percent students with disabilities District expenditures Total current expenditures per pupil $9,34 $9,52 $9,583 Instructional expenditures per pupil $5,467 $5,636 $5,84 State expenditures Total current expenditures per pupil $9,56 $8,93 $8,925 Instructional expenditures per pupil $5,397 $5,277 $5,265 SOURCE: Analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD) and from the U.S. Census Bureau. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. As defined by CCD, locale code represents a large city, code 2 represents a midsize city, and code 2 represents a suburb of a large urban area. 2 District size rank is based on enrollment in local school districts in the 50 states and DC, and does not include other district types or territories. 3 Low-income students are defined as eligible for Free or Reduced-Price School Lunch (FRSL). 4 Prior to 20, some states combined Asian and Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander categories. 5 As of 20, all states reported a Two or more races category; however, some states began reporting this category as early as NOTES: CCD data for 202 and 20 expenditures data from the U.S. Census were not available at time of this analysis. State test information: Grades included in analysis Subject/level Most recent test included in analysis Reading Elementary FCAT 2.0 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 Middle FCAT 2.0 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 High FCAT 2.0 9, 0 9, 0 9, 0 9, 0 Mathematics Elementary FCAT 2.0 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 Middle FCAT 2.0 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 High End-of-Course Assessments (EOC): Algebra I 9, 0 9, 0 9, 0,, 2 9, 0,, 2 Science Elementary Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Middle Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) High Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) SOURCE: State education agency. Not available. NOTES: Reading and mathematics results from years prior to 20 were based on FCAT and were not comparable to subsequent years. Non-comparable years were excluded from trend analyses. 202 was the baseline year for the EOC in biology; the state did not publicly release results. In 20 the state implemented new federal race/ethnicity data collection and reporting requirements; as a result, science trends for racial/ethnic subgroups should be interpreted with caution THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

3 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency Percentage of all students in the district and the state scoring at or above proficient in reading, mathematics, and science in elementary, middle, and high school: DISTRICT PROFICIENCY RATE Elementary Percent STATE PROFICIENCY RATE Elementary Percent Reading Mathematics Science Middle Percent Middle Percent High Percent High Percent SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: See tables on pages 4, 8 and 2 for details. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 3

4 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at or above proficient in reading: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

5 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Reading Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at the advanced 2 level in reading: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. 2 Advanced includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 5

6 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Reading Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in reading proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income High Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White -2-2 Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed. change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the definition of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 202 decile ranks appear in color when the 202 gap is among the 30 percent ( 3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of average change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

7 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Standardized Residuals for Reading Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in reading, controlling for district poverty level: Elementary Middle High Residual SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in reading, controlling for district poverty level: Decile ranks 2 change 202 change Elementary Middle High Count of positive residuals in reading/total available 2/3 2/3 2/3 /3 0/ Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 6/9 6/9 5/9 4/8 / SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of positive residuals rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state appear in color. Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 7

8 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at or above proficient in mathematics: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

9 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at the advanced 2 level in mathematics: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American 2 Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. 2 Advanced includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 9

10 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Mathematics Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in mathematics proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income - 2 External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income 3 2 External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income High Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed. change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the definition of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 202 decile ranks appear in color when the 202 gap is among the 30 percent ( 3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of average change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure. Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. Exam changes affected the comparability of results; see the lower table on page 2 for details THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

11 Standardized Residuals for Mathematics The 203 Broad Prize for Urban Education Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in mathematics, controlling for district poverty level: Elementary Middle High Residual SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in mathematics, controlling for district poverty level: Decile ranks 2 change 202 change Elementary Middle High Count of positive residuals in mathematics/total available 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 0/ Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 6/9 6/9 5/9 4/8 / SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of positive residuals rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state appear in color. Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION

12 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Science Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at or above proficient in science: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. 202 was the baseline year for the high school end-of-course exam in biology; the state did not publicly release results THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

13 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Science Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state scoring at the advanced 2 level in science: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income Middle District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income High District All African American Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income State All African American 2 Asian Hispanic White Low income Non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. 2 Advanced includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district s 202 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state. 202 was the baseline year for the high school end-of-course exam in biology; the state did not publicly release results. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 3

14 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Science Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in science proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: Decile ranks change 202 change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income High Internal district gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income Internal district vs. internal state gap African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state advantaged African American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Low income vs. non-low income SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed. change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the definition of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 202 decile ranks appear in color when the 202 gap is among the 30 percent ( 3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of average change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure. 202 was the baseline year for the high school end-of-course exam in biology; the state did not publicly release results THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

15 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA Standardized Residuals for Science Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in science, controlling for district poverty level: Elementary Middle High Residual SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Standardized residuals for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in science, controlling for district poverty level: Decile ranks 2 change 202 change Elementary Middle High Count of positive residuals in science/total available /3 /3 0/3 0/2 / Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 6/9 6/9 5/9 4/8 / SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. Not available. Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of positive residuals rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent ( 3) of the state appear in color. Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 5

16 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA High School Graduation Rates Three estimated high school graduation rates: Percent d Freshman Graduation Rate Urban Institute Method Manhattan Institute Method All students African American Asian Hispanic White Estimated high school graduation rates for the classes of change of the three graduation rate measures All African American Asian Hispanic White d Freshman Graduation Rate All African American Asian Hispanic White Urban Institute method All African American Asian Hispanic White Manhattan Institute method All African American Asian Hispanic White SOURCE: Analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). Not available. Data were suppressed if a subgroup represented less than 5 percent of the population or due to unreliability; rules vary by method. See methodology section. The Urban Institute method is also known as Swanson s cumulative promotion index (SCPI) and the Manhattan Institute method is also known as Greene s graduation indicator (GGI). NOTES: Gaps in lines represent missing or suppressed data. of the three graduation rates is based on the average of any available values from the three individual methods. Positive change values appear in color. Details on the calculation of average change are found in the methodology section. Diploma counts for 200 or later were not released in time for this year s analysis. For districts that were eligible for The 202 Broad Prize, results are generally the same as those reported last year THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

17 Broward County Public Schools FLORIDA College Readiness Data Test scores and participation rates for college readiness examinations: change SAT Reasoning Test Mean total score (reading, mathematics, and writing) All,436,448,437,442 African American,290,303,29,298 Asian,558,600,574,577 3 Hispanic,446,464,45,45 0 White,552,550,548,563 3 Participation rate All African American Asian Hispanic White ACT Mean composite score (English, reading, mathematics, and science) All African American Asian Hispanic White Participation rate All African American Asian Hispanic White Advanced Placement (AP) (all subjects) 2 Percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above All African American Asian Hispanic White Participation rate All African American Asian Hispanic White SOURCE: Analysis of data from the Common Core of Data (CCD), ACT, and the College Board (copyright The College Board. Not available. Test scores were suppressed if fewer than 5 students took the test. Participation rates were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of district enrollment in the relevant grades. Results for subgroups were suppressed when less than 90 percent of all test takers racial/ethnic identity was reported. See methodology section. Describes the most recent test results for graduating seniors. 2 Describes test results for juniors and seniors taking any AP test in the given year. NOTES: Subgroup participation rates may not reflect the all students rate due to some test takers not reporting their race/ethnicity. Positive change values appear in color. Details on the calculation of average change are found in the methodology section. CCD data for 202 were not available at the time of this analysis; participation rates for 202 were estimated using 20 enrollment data. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 7

18 Understanding the Data Report This data report contains all of the data collected and analyzed for this district for the purpose of selecting The Broad Prize finalists. Tables of summarized results for all the eligible districts and three former winners, which can be used for making comparisons of this district s performance and improvement with other eligible districts, are also publicly available on the Broad Prize web site at The Broad Prize finalists are determined by a panel of education experts from around the country, based on a review of the data and analyses for the 75 Broad Prize-eligible districts. Neither a strict formula nor set of weighting factors is applied to the various analyses calculated. Broad Prize Review Board members consider all of the data and analyses available and, based on each member s knowledge and expertise, select four finalists. The Review Board considers both performance as of the most recent year and improvement over the four most recent years on the various measures included in this report. The rest of this section discusses the data collection and analysis procedures used to produce the data report. First, it describes the criteria and data sources for identifying the eligible districts. Second, it reviews each of the quantitative achievement measures that the Review Board used in March 203 to identify the four finalists and the data on which the measures were based. Eligible Districts To be eligible for The Broad Prize, school districts must meet certain criteria set by The Broad Foundation that are related to district size, poverty, and urbanicity. Winners from the previous three years were ineligible. The criteria for eligibility in 203 were as follows: K 2 districts serving at least 42,500 students that have at least 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (FRSL), at least 40 percent of students from minority groups, and an urban designation (Locale Code, 2, or 2 in the CCD ) were identified. In states where more than 0 districts qualify under these criteria, only the 0 largest qualifying districts are eligible (70 districts met these criteria in 203). In states with no districts meeting the above criteria, the next largest districts in the nation with at least 40 percent FRSL, at least 40 percent minority, and an urban designation were identified, in order to bring the total number of eligible districts to 75. Only one district per state can qualify under these criteria (5 districts were included in 203 based on these criteria). 2 CCD locale code represents a large city; code 2 represents a mid-size city; and code 2 represents a large suburb. Sable, J. (2008). Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year Version a (NCES ). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 2 These include Indianapolis, Indiana; Des Moines, Iowa; Norfolk, Virginia; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Newark, New Jersey THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

19 For The 203 Broad Prize, data on school district demographics obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for 20 (the most recent year for which data were available) were used to determine the list of 75 eligible districts. The 75 eligible school districts were located in 3 states and the District of Columbia. 3 Data Used for Measures of Student Achievement Detailed data on various measures of student achievement were obtained for each district from federal and state records and other sources. Wherever possible, data were collected by grade level; race/ethnicity (African American, Asian, Hispanic, and White); and income status (low income and non-low income). The achievement data examined included performance on state achievement tests, estimated graduation rates based on federal counts of high school enrollments and completions, and college readiness data obtained from the College Board and ACT. Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency as Determined by State Tests Key indicators of student performance include scores on state-mandated achievement tests used for federal accountability and trends in these scores over time. Proficiency data in reading, mathematics, and science were collected from each state for 2009 through These data were used to calculate the percentage of students in each district scoring at or above proficient levels on state-mandated tests in reading, mathematics, and science in each of grades 3 through 2 where available. Weighted by the number of test takers at each grade level, these data on student achievement were aggregated across elementary grades (3 5), middle grades (6 8), and high school grades (9 2). These state assessment data were analyzed (using methods described later) to calculate actual versus expected performance, to directly compare district performance with other districts in the same state, and to measure gaps and changes in gaps between low- and non-low-income students as well as between White and African American students and White and Hispanic students. Important Note Regarding State Test Data Because states establish their own assessment and proficiency standards, districts performance on state tests cannot be directly compared across states. To provide context for these data, summary tables containing information about state or district performance on recent administrations of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), and a Northwestern Evaluation Association (NWEA) proficiency-standards mapping study (ongoing since 2006) were provided to the Review Board and are available online at but are not included in this data report. 3 States without eligible districts this year were Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Hawaii was ineligible because it has a statewide school system. 4 The data were provided directly by state agencies or downloaded from their websites. PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 9

20 High School Graduation Rates Another key measure of a district s performance is the graduation rate. While using longitudinal student data generates the most accurate graduation rate, such data are not currently available from most states. In the absence of longitudinal data, cross-sectional data can be used to generate estimates of rates of on-time high school graduation. There are several methods generally considered to be reliable estimators of graduation rates, three of which are used in this report and are described in the next section on methods of analysis. To generate estimates that are comparable across the 75 Broad Prize-eligible districts, RTI obtains diploma counts and enrollment data for the districts from the federal CCD. The data used to create graduation rate estimates include total and subgroup enrollments and completion counts for each district for the high school classes of 2006 through 2009 (the most recent years that were available at time of analysis). The different methods vary in terms of the specific years of enrollment data used in the calculations. It should be noted that district diploma counts for 200 were not released in time for The 203 Broad Prize analysis. Therefore, the same range of years reported for the 202 Broad Prize (2006 to 2009) was included for the Review Board s review in 203. College Readiness Measures Measures of students college readiness include participation rates and scores for SAT and ACT as well as Advanced Placement (AP) participation and passing rates. These tests are designed to assess readiness for college-level work. Scale scores for each SAT subject (reading, writing, and mathematics) range from 200 to 800. Scale scores for the composite ACT test (covering English, mathematics, reading, and science) range from to 36. With schools permission, the College Board (which administers SAT) and ACT provided mean test scores for each district for 2009 through 202, along with the number of seniors who had taken the test (regardless of when they took the test during high school). 5 Another measure of college readiness is the extent to which students take and pass AP examinations. These examinations provide a standardized measure of student performance in college-level courses taken while in high school. AP grades are reported on a five-point scale: 5 = Extremely well qualified 4 = Well qualified 3 = Qualified (equivalent to passing) 2 = Possibly qualified = No recommendation Again, with permission from each district, the College Board provided data for the district for 2009 through 202 on the number of AP examinations taken by juniors and seniors and the number of passing scores (3 or above). Exam passing rates were calculated using these data, with the number of exams taken used as the denominator. 5 When students had taken the test more than once, the most recent score was reported THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

21 The College Board also provided the number of juniors and seniors who took the test. RTI staff used these numbers to calculate percentages of AP examinations with scores of 3 or above (equivalent to pass rates) for each district. The College Board and ACT do not calculate test participation rates. RTI staff calculated participation rates using enrollment data obtained from the federal CCD for th- and 2th-graders as appropriate, in combination with the number of students taking the tests from the relevant year as the numerator. Because the most recent year of enrollment data available from the CCD was 20, participation rates for 202 were estimated using enrollment counts for 20. Data Analysis Methods The Broad Prize data report presents data collected on district characteristics and background information on state tests. In addition, RTI staff analyzed the data described above on student achievement to develop measures of the following: district proficiency rates (at both the proficient or above level and the advanced level) compared with other districts in the state; achievement gaps; standardized residuals; graduation rates; and college readiness. Trend data are presented where available, as are performance and improvement measures. Each data report section is explained here, and the relevant report page numbers are indicated in parentheses. Additional explanatory notes are included as footnotes in the data report itself. Each data report section is explained in further detail below, and the relevant report page numbers are indicated in parentheses. Additional explanatory notes are included as footnotes in the data report itself. General approaches applied to the analyses are explained directly below. Calculating Performance and Improvement Trend data are presented where available, as are performance and improvement measures. Performance indicators reflect the most recent year reported for any given measure. If the most recent year s data for a performance measure were not available or were suppressed for a district, no performance indicator was reported. Improvement indicators generally reflect average change over the four most recent years of available data for each measure. change was calculated as the slope of the best fit line among available data points, generally determined by regressing the relevant outcome measure on year. 6 If only one data point was available, or if data were missing for both of the two most recent years, average change was not calculated. Standardized residuals were used in average change calculations, regardless of any changes in state tests from 2009 to 202, as long as a test change was implemented statewide. This practice was followed because of the relative nature of the measure. Standardized residuals indicate a district s performance relative to that of districts in the state in a given year regardless of the particular test administered that year. Trends in student achievement rates, however, can be affected by year-to-year changes in state tests. Therefore proficiency rates, advanced proficiency rates, or achievement gap measures in a given year were excluded from trend analyses when there were changes in state testing standards or policies. 6 When only two data points were available, the slope was equal to (X 2 X )/(Year 2 Year ). PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL 203 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 2