Data on 75 Broad Prize-Eligible Districts

Broad Prize District Data



This page provides access to comparative student achievement data on the 75 Broad Prize-eligible districts across a number of different categories evaluated by The Broad Prize Review Board and Selection Jury. 

Through the links to “District Data Reports” below, you can view a snapshot of recent student achievement data on any eligible district. Through the links to “Summary Tables” below, you can also compare any district’s progress on a number of indicators (e.g., achievement gap closures, graduation rates) both generally and by subgroup (e.g., low-income, African-American or Hispanic) to that of (1) other large urban districts, and, where possible, to that of (2) the average of the 75 largest urban districts and (3) the national average for school districts. 

School district leaders and other education leaders may find these tools useful in identifying how a particular district’s outcomes compare to other large urban districts. They also help reveal which districts are making the most progress in improving student achievement in a particular category (e.g., closing Hispanic achievement gaps). Those districts may serve as resources for other districts facing similar challenges. 

The Data Collection and Analysis Using the District Data Reports Simulation Tools Limitations of Reports

 

The Data: District Data Report



A school district data report for each of the 75 school districts eligible for The Broad Prize (and the three previous winners) may be accessed through the links below. Each report shows:

  • Student demographics and basic district information
  • Performance, advanced proficiency and improvement on state standard tests, including:
    • Proficiency trends, improvements and values
    • Achievement gap calculations
    • Comparisons of district and state performance
    • Standardized residuals
  • Performance and improvement in college readiness measures:
    • High school graduation rates
    • SAT/ACT scores and participation rates
    • Advanced Placement participation and passing rates

Access links to the district data reports, including more information on how to interpret district data reports and on Broad Prize data collection and analysis.
> 2011
> 2010
> 2009
> 2008
> 2007

The Data: Summary Tables



Data on the 75 school districts eligible for The Broad Prize (as well as the three previous winners) are presented in summary form to the Review Board each year. The Review Board examines these tables when selecting the four finalist districts.

These "summary tables" are categorized into nine sections:         


The summary tables in section 1 include demographic characteristics of eligible districts, information on state test comparability from 2007 to 2010, and state proficiency rates from 2007 to 2010, as well as improvement in these rates.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 1.1: Description of Districts Eligible for the 2011 Broad Prize
  • Table 1.2: State Test Changes and Grades Included in Analysis
  • Table 1.3: State Proficiency Rates

> View summary table section 1 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 2 include the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the state NAEP and the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), as well as results from an updated 2006 Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) study mapping state proficiency standards onto NWEA's Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) scales for reading and mathematics.
The tables in this section include:        
  • Table 2.1: State NAEP - percent of students scoring at or above proficient
  • Table 2.2: NAEP TUDA - percent of students scoring at or above proficient
  • Table 2.3: NWEA - average scale scores equivalent to state proficiency standards

> View summary table section 2 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 3 show standardized performance and improvement residuals for all eligible districts, where available. The residuals for each district are presented by education level (elementary, middle, high school) for reading and math for all students in the district. In addition, the average decile ranks of residuals for 2010 and for the average change in residuals from 2007 to 2010 are presented.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 3.1: Actual vs. Expected Performance—performance residuals for all students
  • Table 3.2: Actual vs. Expected Performance—average decile ranks of residuals for all students
  • Table 3.3: Actual vs. Expected Performance—average change in residuals for all students
  • Table 3.4: Actual vs. Expected Performance—decile rank of the average change in residuals for all students

> View summary table section 3 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 4 show each district’s average decile ranks of proficiency rates in 2010 and the improvement in proficiency rates from 2007 to 2010, relative to other districts in their state. Reading and math average decile ranks are shown for all students overall, and for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students separately.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 4.1: Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for all students
  • Table 4.2: Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for low-income students
  • Table 4.3: Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for African-American students
  • Table 4.4: Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for Hispanic students
  • Table 4.5: Advanced Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for all students
  • Table 4.6: Advanced Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for low-income students
  • Table 4.7: Advanced Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for African-American students
  • Table 4.8: Advanced Proficiency Deciles—average decile rank and count of best decile ranks (1–3) for Hispanic students

> View summary table section 4 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 5 provide information on each district’s achievement gaps over the period from 2007 to 2010. Two types of subgroup comparisons are calculated:         
  • Income Gaps: These compare the performance of low-income students with non-low-income students.
  • Racial/Ethnic Gaps: These compare the performance of African-American and Hispanic students with white students.
In addition, three different achievement gap measures are calculated:        
  • Internal District Gap: The gap in performance between the district’s disadvantaged and the district’s advantaged students
  • Internal District vs. Internal State Gap: The district’s internal gap minus the state’s internal gap
  • External Gap: The gap in performance between the district’s disadvantaged students and the state’s advantaged students
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 5.1: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps closing
  • Table 5.2: Achievement Gaps—number and percent of gaps closing between low-income and non-low-income students
  • Table 5.3: Achievement Gaps—number and percent of gaps closing between African-American and white students
  • Table 5.4: Achievement Gaps—number and percent of gaps closing between Hispanic and white students
  • Table 5.5: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps that are among the smallest in the state
  • Table 5.6: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps that are among the fastest closing in the state

> View summary table section 5 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 6 each present the 2008 graduation rate computed using one of the three methods: Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate, Urban Institute Method and Manhattan Institute Method. In addition, improvement in the graduation rate from 2005 to 2008 is shown for all three methods. Each table shows 2008 graduation rates and improvement for all students, African-American students, Hispanic students and white students.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 6.1: Graduation Rates—average of the three graduation rate methods
  • Table 6.2: Graduation Rates—district ranking of the average of the three graduation rate methods
  • Table 6.3: Graduation Rates—Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR)
  • Table 6.4: Graduation Rates—Urban Institute Method (UI)
  • Table 6.5: Graduation Rates—Manhattan Institute Method (MI)

> View summary table section 6 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 7 present 2010 college readiness measures based on the SAT, ACT and Advanced Placement (AP) examinations as well as improvement in these measures from 2007 to 2010. Data are presented for each district for the following student groups: all students, African-American students, Hispanic students and white students.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 7.1: College Readiness—SAT Reasoning Test mean score (reading)
  • Table 7.2: College Readiness—SAT Reasoning Test mean score (writing)
  • Table 7.3: College Readiness—SAT Reasoning Test mean score (mathematics)
  • Table 7.4: College Readiness—SAT Reasoning Test participation rates (reading, writing, and mathematics combined)
  • Table 7.5: College Readiness—ACT mean composite score (English, reading, mathematics, and science combined)
  • Table 7.6: College Readiness—ACT participation rates (English, reading, mathematics, and science combined)
  • Table 7.7: College Readiness—Advanced Placement (AP) percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above (all subjects)
  • Table 7.8: College Readiness—Advanced Placement (AP) participation rates (all subjects)

> View summary table section 7 (XLS)


Click here for a summary of the data collection and analysis procedures used in these summary tables: 

> Summary of Data and Analysis Procedures (PDF)

Collection and Analysis



The data were collected and analyzed as follows:

  • At the elementary, middle and high school levels
  • In reading and math
  • By year: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (except graduation rates)
  • By ethnicity: all students, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, white
  • By income: low-income, non-low-income

Using the District Data Reports and Summary Tables



These reports and tables may be useful, among other things, to compare:

  • A district’s performance relative to its historical performance
  • A district’s performance and improvement relative to its state average
  • A district's performance and improvement relative to other districts in the state
  • A district’s performance and improvement in comparison to other Broad Prize-eligible districts in their state
  • How a district performs on national benchmarks that allow for comparisons across states: SAT, ACT, Advanced Placement (AP), graduation rates

Understanding the Simulation Tool



Each district data report for 2007 and 2008 is accompanied by a "simulation tool." Due to the changes in methodology, simulation tools are not available after 2008. The simulation tool enables the user to change a district's performance data in the "what-if scenarios" portion of the spreadsheet to determine how those changes would have affected that district's performance residuals. Performance residuals reflect how far above or below average a district has performed. This is not a forecasting tool. In the future, proficiency rates in the state's other districts may change. As a result, in some cases, a district's proficiency rate may need to increase faster in order to improve that district's performance residual.

Although this tool was created using actual state and district data and cannot presume to predict the future performance of any district, it is meant to serve as a useful reference for discussions about the district's proficiency targets and achievement goals. 

> View a glossary of terms found in the simulation tool. (PDF) 

View links to the simulation tools: 

Due to changes in the methodology, simulation tools are not available after 2008.
> 2008
> 2007

Limitations of Reports



Please note that the school district data reports do not contain data comparing districts to one another or to a national average. However, data provided in the summary tables allow for some of these comparisons. In addition, standards-based state student achievement data are not comparable between districts situated in different states. This information only includes data provided by states and districts as of February 2011, and therefore may not include additional data collected and considered after that time. Finally, as states have different standards and assessments, these data cannot be used to rank order districts.