Data on Broad Prize for Public Charter Schools Eligible CMOs

Broad Prize CMO Data



This page provides access to comparative student achievement data on the charter management organizations (CMOs) eligible for the 2014 Broad Prize for Public Charter Schools across a number of different categories evaluated by The Broad Prize Review Board. 

Through the links to “CMO Data Reports” below, you can view a snapshot of recent student achievement data on any eligible CMO for each state in which it operates schools. Through the links to “Summary Tables” below, you can also compare any CMO’s progress on a number of indicators (e.g., achievement gap closures) both generally and by subgroup (e.g., low-income, African-American or Hispanic) to that of (1) other Broad Prize-eligible CMOs and, where possible, to that of (2) the average of the Broad Prize-eligible CMOs.

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

The Data Collection and Analysis Using the CMO Data Reports Limitations of Reports


 

The Data: CMO Data Report



Access CMO data reports for each state in which a Broad Prize-eligible CMO operates.
Each report shows for that state:

  • Student demographics and basic CMO information
  • Performance and improvement on state standardized tests, including:
    • Numbers of students tested
    • Comparisons of CMO and state performance
    • Proficiency and advanced proficiency trends, improvements and values
    • Standardized residuals
    • Achievement gap calculations
  • Performance and improvement on college-readiness measures (where applicable):
    • High school graduation rates
    • SAT/ACT scores and participation rates
    • Advanced Placement participation and passing rates
  • Names of CMO-affiliated schools operated in the state

    Access links to the CMO data reports, including more information on how to interpret CMO data reports and on Broad Prize data collection and analysis.

    >Click here for the 2014 Broad Prize for Public Charter Schools data reports


    The Data: Summary Tables



    Data on the CMOs eligible for the 2014 Broad Prize are presented in summary form to the Review Board each year. The Review Board examines these tables when selecting the winning organization.

    These "summary tables" are categorized into seven sections:         

    +
    Section 1: Background

    The summary tables in section 1 include demographic characteristics of eligible CMOs, grade levels served by eligible CMOs, information on state test comparability from 2010 to 2013, and state proficiency rates from 2010 to 2013, as well as improvement in these rates.
    The tables in this section include:         
    • Table 1.1: Description of eligible CMOs, by state: 2012
    • Table 1.2: Grade levels served by eligible CMOs, by state: 2012

    > 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 results from Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) study mapping state proficiency standards onto NWEA's Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) scales for reading and mathematics, and a summary of states' graduation policies for the class of 2011.
    The tables in this section include:        
    • Table 2.1: State NAEP - percent of students scoring at or above proficient
    • Table 2.2: State NAEP - percent of low-income students scoring at or above proficient
    • Table 2.3: Average NWEA scale scores equivalent to state proficiency standards
    • Table 2.4: Test changes and grades included in analysis, by state: 2010-13
    • Table 2.5: State Proficiency Rates
    • Table 2.6: State Regression Results
    • Table 2.7: Graduation Rigor
    • Table 2.8: State Participation Rates on SAT and ACT

    > View summary table section 2 (XLS)



    The summary tables in section 3 show standardized performance and improvement residuals for all eligible CMOs, where available. The residuals for each CMO are presented by education level (elementary, middle, high school) for reading, math and science for all students in the CMO, by state. In addition, the average decile ranks of residuals for 2013 and for the average change in residuals from 2010 to 2013 are presented.
    The tables in this section include:         
    • Table 3.1: Actual vs. Expected Performance—performance residuals for all students: 2013
    • Table 3.2: Actual vs. Expected Performance—decile ranks of performance residuals for all students: 2013
    • Table 3.3: Actual vs. Expected Performance—average change in residuals for all students: 2010-2013
    • Table 3.4: Actual vs. Expected Performance—decile rank of the average change in residuals for all students: 2010-2013

    > View summary table section 3 (XLS)



    The summary tables in section 4 show each CMO's s average decile ranks of proficiency rates in 2013 and the improvement in proficiency rates from 2010 to 2013, by state, relative to school districts in that state. Reading, math and science average decile ranks are shown for all students overall, and for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students separately. Results at the advanced proficiency level are also presented.
    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 CMO’s achievement gaps over the period from 2010 to 2013. 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.
    An external achievement gap measure is calculated as the gap in performance between the CMO'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 at the proficient or above level, by subgroup
    • Table 5.2: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps closing at the proficient or above level, by education level
    • Table 5.3: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of closed achievement gaps at the proficient or above level, by subgroup
    • Table 5.4: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of closed achievement gaps at the proficient or above level, by education level
    • Table 5.5: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps closing at the advanced level, by subgroup
    • Table 5.6: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of achievement gaps closing at the advanced level, by education level
    • Table 5.7: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of closed achievement gaps at the advanced level, by subgroup
    • Table 5.8: Achievement Gaps—total number and percent of closed achievement gaps at the advanced level, by education level

    > View summary table section 5 (XLS)



    The summary tables in section 6 present the state-reported 2012 graduation rates of students from each CMO, and for the state overall, and the improvement in graduation rates from 2009 to 2012 for all students, low-income students, African-American students and Hispanic students. In addition, the tables present the percentage of comparisons in which the CMO subgroup outperformed its state counterpart.
    The tables in this section include:         
    • Table 6.1: Graduation Rates—comparison of CMO and state graduation rates, by subgroup: 2012
    • Table 6.2: Graduation Rates—comparison of CMO and state average change in graduation rates, by subgroup: 2009-2012

    > View summary table section 6 (XLS)



    The summary tables in section 7 present 2013 college readiness measures based on the SAT, ACT and Advanced Placement (AP) examinations as well as improvement in these measures from 2010 to 2013. Data are presented for each CMO that served high school grades as of 2013, 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 combined mean scores (reading, writing and mathematics)
    • Table 7.2: College Readiness—SAT participation rates
    • Table 7.3: College Readiness—ACT mean composite scores(English, reading, mathematics and science combined)
    • Table 7.4: College Readiness—ACT participation rates
    • Table 7.5: College Readiness—Advanced Placement (AP) percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above (all subjects)
    • Table 7.6: College Readiness—Advanced Placement (AP) participation rates

    > 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, where applicable for each CMO
    • In reading, math and science
    • By year: 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (except graduation rates)
    • By ethnicity: all students, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, white
    • By income: low-income, non-low-income

    Using the CMO Data Reports and Summary Tables



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

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

    Limitations of Reports



    Please note that the CMO data reports do not contain data comparing Broad Prize-eligible CMOs 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 directly comparable between CMOs situated in different states nor between schools operated by the same CMO in different states. This information only includes data provided by states and CMOs as of April 2014, 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 CMOs.