Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Massachusetts March 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
South Dakota Accountability System – Year 2 School Performance Index Guyla Ness September 10, 2013.
Advertisements

FY05 School Year Academic Support Preliminary Data Results (FY05 Fall & Winter Sessions) FY05 School Year Academic Support Preliminary Data Results (FY05.
NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores Leonie Haimson & Elli Marcus Class Size Matters January.
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in MISSOURI March 2015.
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in OHIO March 2015.
KIPP: Effectiveness and Innovation in Publicly-Funded, Privately-Operated Schools October 4, 2012 Presentation to the APPAM/INVALSI Improving Education.
Latino Students in the Worcester Public Schools March 30, 2010 Miren Uriarte Mauricio Gaston Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy.
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in TEXAS March 2015.
1 Graduation and Other Results: Students Who Began 9 th Grade in 2000 and 2001.
Vouchers in Milwaukee: What Have We Learned From the Nation’s Oldest and Largest Program? Deven Carlson University of Oklahoma.
9/6/2015 Choices for Studying Choice Dev Davis Macke Raymond.
NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores Class Size Matters August
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Texas March 2015.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
July 18, 2011 Oakland Boys and Men of Color Project Data Profile of Latino Males in Oakland Unified School District Prepared by: Urban Strategies Council.
Keys to Closing the Gap in Florida: Accountability, Technical Assistance, and Targeted Resources Presentation to the National Governors’ Association John.
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Wisconsin March 2015.
Florida Department of Education Jeanine Blomberg, Commissioner External Factors Review: GRADE 3 FCAT READING 2005, 2006, 2007 Jay Pfeiffer, Deputy Commissioner.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-4:00.
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts English Language Arts Grades 3, 4, and 5 Total Public.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in GEORGIA March 2015.
N ATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS BPS 2015 NAEP RESULTS Office of Data and Accountability OCTOBER 26, 2015.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
N ATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS BPS 2015 NAEP RESULTS Nicole Wagner Lam, Office of Data and Accountability Presentation to Boston School Committee.
MCC MCA Data Discoveries. What does Minnesota think is important? What do we want kids to do?  Pass important tests “Be Proficient”  Grow.
Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Findings and Recommendations Dr. Thomas Hehir Silvana and Christopher Pascucci Professor.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Arizona March 2015.
California State University, Sacramento Nancy Shulock Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy Presentation to Conference: Policy Challenges.
1 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009 Grade-by-grade testing began in The tests and data.
TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS- RESEACH AND EVALUATION Webinar for Tacoma Principals May 7, 2014 (Thank you to the State Board of Education for some of the slides.
2009 Grade 3-8 Math Additional Slides 1. Math Percentage of Students Statewide Scoring at Levels 3 and 4, Grades The percentage of students.
 Educator Effectiveness System  Comparative Measures  Resource for Professional Development.
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Ohio March Notice This presentation contains interactive graphics which should be viewed in the context of a powerpoint.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Determining AYP What’s New Step-by-Step Guide September 29, 2004.
Florida Charter Schools:
The Excellence Gap.
PBMA 2016 Learning Gains.
Urban Charter Schools in California March 2015
2017 TUDA NAEP Results for Miami-Dade
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Minnesota March 2015
What’s Driving Chicago’s Educational Progress?
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Florida March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in ILLINOIS March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Colorado March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New York March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Impact in Washington DC March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Michigan March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in NEW JERSEY March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in PENNSYLVANIA March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Georgia March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Pennsylvania March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in DC March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in NEW MEXICO March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in Wisconsin March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Missouri March 2015
Student Mobility and Achievement Growth In State Assessment Mohamed Dirir Connecticut Department of Education Paper presented at National Conference.
Texas State Accountability
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New Mexico March 2015
Bloomington Public Schools Districtwide Achievement Report
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in MINNESOTA March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Demographics in LOUISIANA March 2015
Central City Elementary School
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
Education Briefings for Candidates for Office In 2008
Chapter 4 Science, Mathematics, and Computer Science Courses
Presentation transcript:

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Massachusetts March 2015

Notice This presentation contains interactive graphics which should be viewed in the context of a powerpoint presentation. Viewing presentation as static slides will cause some data to be hidden from the viewer and may cause labels to appear with the wrong graph. 2

Impact Research Questions This impact study answers the following questions: How does the academic progress of charter school students compare to their traditional public school (TPS) counterparts in Massachusetts? We examine: Total average academic growth for all charter students relative to TPS Average academic growth for charter school students for separate time periods Charter school student growth by elementary / middle / high school grade levels Charter school student growth by prior year academic achievement Charter school student growth by the major student subgroups Charter school student growth by the number of years student continuously attended charter schools For the group of charter schools in Boston, how do they perform compared to their peer schools in the same community? 3

A Quick Word About Methods Charter school students may be different than a typical student in TPS, so care is needed in testing their learning gains. We use a “Virtual Twin” approach to match each charter school’s students to TPS students who look just like them drawn from the TPS schools that have lost students to the charter school. A Technical Appendix provides a full explanation of our research methodology.Technical Appendix 4

A Quick Word About Methods Unlike other recent CREDO studies, this study does not include a conversion of effect sizes to days of learning. As the days of learning computation is based on the national NAEP scores, it would not be appropriate to apply it to the limited regional samples which almost certainly DO NOT progress at the same rate as the national population. 5

6 Understanding the Slides A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN U RBAN R EGION – Average TPS Growth There are two growth values for reading. The left is for TPS students and the right for Charter students There are also two growth values for math. As before, the left is for TPS students and the right for Charter students This graph looks at the difference between the charter and TPS growth values – – These are the marginal effects of charter enrollment. The left is for reading and the right for math. To compute the difference, we take the Charter growth value minus the TPS growth value for each subject.

BOSTON Results 7

8 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS Average TPS Growth Region Average TPS Growth

Student-Level Results 9 A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS BY G ROWTH P ERIOD Average TPS Growth

Student-Level Results 10 A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS BY G RADESPAN Average Elementary TPS Growth

Student-Level Results 11 A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS BY Y EARS OF C HARTER S CHOOL E NROLLMENT Average TPS Growth This analysis includes only students who entered a charter school after

12 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL WHITE STUDENTS Average White TPS Growth

13 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL ASIAN STUDENTS Average Asian TPS Growth Average White TPS Growth

14 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL NATIVE AMERICAN STUDENTS Average White TPS Growth Average Native American TPS Growth ‡ There were not enough Boston Native American students in Reading or Math to compute an effect size.

15 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL BLACK STUDENTS Average Black TPS Growth Average White TPS Growth

16 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL HISPANIC STUDENTS Average Hispanic TPS Growth Average White TPS Growth

17 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE / REDUCED PRICE LUNCH Average TPS in Poverty Growth Average Non-Poverty TPS Growth

Student-Level Results 18 A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL BLACK STUDENTS IN POVERTY Average White, Non- Poverty TPS Growth

Student-Level Results 19 A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL HISPANIC STUDENTS IN POVERTY Average White Non- Poverty TPS Growth

20 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Average ELL TPS Growth Average Non-ELL TPS Growth

21 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS Average SPED TPS Growth Average Non-SPED TPS Growth

22 Student-Level Results A VERAGE A CADEMIC G ROWTH FOR C HARTER S CHOOL STUDENTS RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE OF V IRTUAL T WINS IN T RADITIONAL P UBLIC S CHOOLS IN B OSTON – ALL STUDENTS WHO WERE RETAINED IN PRIOR YEAR Average Retained TPS Growth Average Non- Retained TPS Growth