Web Appendix C Additional Information about Student ...

Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego

Web Appendix C Additional Information about Student Demographics, School Resources and

Test Scores in San Diego and Other Districts

This appendix supplements the data on student demographics and school resources

presented in Chapter 2. In addition, the appendix adds to the analysis of test scores in Chapter 2.

There, we summarized patterns by taking simple averages of test scores across grades. The

tables presented in this appendix show grade-by-grade achievement in the five largest districts of

California as well as for the state as a whole.

Student Demographics

Table C.1 shows the ethnic mix of the five largest districts and the entire state in 1997-

1998 and 1999-2000. No district exactly matches the ethnic and racial mix of students in the

state as a whole. San Diego has significantly greater percentages of African American and

Filipino students than the state, a slightly smaller percentage of Latino students, and in 1999-

2000 roughly 9 percent fewer white students. Three of the other four largest districts have a

greater share of Hispanic students and a smaller percentage of African American students, and

all four have a smaller percentage of white students. In spite of these differences, the five largest

districts have one thing in common: a far smaller share of white students than is found in the

state as a whole.

Recent trends in ethnic mix also merit attention. In all districts but San Francisco

Unified, the percentage share of Hispanics increased more than that of any other group between

1997-1998 and 1999-2000. All districts experienced similar trends over the two-year span

shown in the table. Statewide and in each of the five districts, the share of whites has declined;

in two districts—Fresno and Long Beach Unified—the share of Asians has also declined

1


noticeably. Overall, trends in SDUSD seem to match state trends more closely than is the case in

the other districts.

Table C.2 examines another measure of diversity: the percentage of students by English

Learner (EL) status—formerly known as Limited English Proficient or LEP—in SDUSD and the

state as a whole. The table shows that in 1999-2000, SDUSD enrolled a larger share of EL

students than the state as a whole.

A related category of students, Fluent English Proficient (FEP), consists of students who

were formerly EL students but who have been redesignated by their district as fluent in English.

Table C.2 shows the percentage of students who are EL, the percentage who are FEP, and the

percentage of EL students who are redesignated as FEP each year for the five largest districts and

California as a whole. All of the five largest districts have significantly greater shares of

students who are EL and FEP than occur statewide. Among the districts, SDUSD’s share of

students who are EL matches the state average most closely.

Some analysts have used the proportion of EL students who are redesignated as FEP

students as a measure of the success of schools’ programs to teach English to English Learners.

In both years, SDUSD’s redesignation lags behind the state average and the rate in the other four

largest districts except Fresno. However, it would be a mistake to judge the districts narrowly on

this measure, given that districts vary in the conditions under which they allow students to be

redesignated Fluent English Proficient.1

Table C.2 also shows the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

This percentage is a widely used indicator of poverty in school populations. The figures show

1 For instance, a report released in spring 2002 summarizes the results of the state’s new California English Language Development Test (CELDT), now given to English Learners throughout the state. Results indicated that many students were fluent in English on the basis of CELDT results but were still designated EL by their districts, with some fairly sharp variations across districts. See Tully, Tapia, and Sacchetti (2002).

2


that in these districts a large percentage of students live in disadvantaged circumstances. With

the notable exception of San Francisco Unified, the districts have much higher proportions of

students eligible for assistance than occurs in the state as a whole.

School Resources

Our next set of tables illustrates variations in key school resources among the five largest

districts and the state as a whole. Table C.3 shows the pupil-teacher ratio. Between 1997-1998

and 1999-2000 all districts have matched patterns at the state level fairly closely. The main

exception is San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), which in both years had a

significantly lower pupil-teacher ratio than elsewhere. SFUSD is also the only district among the

five to buck the trend toward lower pupil-teacher ratios over the period. SDUSD mimics state

patterns quite closely but in both years has a slightly lower pupil-teacher ratio than observed

statewide.

The next few tables highlight various measures of teacher characteristics. Table C.4

reveals that the five districts differ considerably from each other and from the state as a whole in

the share of teachers holding a master’s degree or higher. SDUSD has a considerably higher

percentage of teachers holding a master’s degree than the state or the other four largest districts.

However, the large variations among districts may not be as large as meets the eye. As noted in

the table, some of the other districts have large proportions of teachers with some education

beyond a bachelor’s degree but less than a master’s degree. Many of these teachers may be just

a course or two away from completing their master’s degree. Using “more than a bachelor’s

degree” as the measure of whether a teacher is highly educated makes SDUSD’s ranking fall

from first to fourth. Overall, then, it seems that teachers in San Diego Unified have somewhat

3


but not markedly higher levels of education than seen in other districts and the state, with more

teachers holding master’s but fewer holding “at least some postgraduate education”.

Table C.5 shows various measures of teacher experience. Each of the largest five

districts employs teachers whose experience matches the state average reasonably closely.

SDUSD had the least experienced teachers among the five large districts. For instance in 1999-

2000, average years of teaching experience in SDUSD was 11.1, compared to 12.7 statewide.

Moreover, 25 percent of San Diego’s teachers were in their first or second years of teaching in

1999-2000, compared to only 16percent in California as a whole. Los Angeles Unified School

District (LAUSD) most closely resembles SDUSD in this regard, although even there only 20

percent of teachers were in their first or second year of teaching in 1999-2000.

Table C.6 shows the percentage of teachers holding a full credential. Comparisons across

districts based on this table should be viewed with caution: Our estimates of teacher credentials

for SDUSD come from our own compilations using district data because in the CBEDS data San

Diego is missing teacher credentials for a large number of teachers in 1997-1998. At any rate,

the overall patterns seem clear: SDUSD has a far larger percentage of teachers holding

credentials than is observed in the state as a whole. Fresno and San Francisco Unified School

Districts have roughly comparable percentages of credentialed teachers.

Test Scores

Beginning in spring 1998, California initiated a new state test, the Stanford 9, which has

been given annually to all students in grades 2 to 11 since 1998. The Stanford 9 is a standardized

test that has been normed using a national sample of students. This provides a national

performance yardstick against which California’s students can be compared. Throughout the

report we focus on math and reading scores on the Stanford 9. Our reason is simple: Although

4


the Stanford 9 includes additional subject areas in certain grades, the math and reading tests

stand out as representing the very core of educational achievement.

Table 2.1 showed that San Diego students’ scores have matched the scores of students

statewide quite closely. But this table did not disaggregate overall scores into the scores of EL

and non-EL students. Much of the gap in reading performance between SDUSD students and the

national norming sample reflects the fact that many students in the district are English Learners.

Tables C.7 and C.8 show the performance of the five largest districts and California as a whole

for English Learners and non-English Learners, respectively. Table C.7 shows that in all

districts, EL students lag considerably behind national norms (based on a national sample in

which only 2 percent of test-takers were EL). In both reading and math, SDUSD’s EL students’

initial performance in 1997-1998 closely reflected that of EL students statewide. Over the two-

year period, gains in performance of SDUSD’s EL students in reading slightly exceeded the

statewide gains, while gains in math slightly lagged the statewide gains. Gains relative to those

for EL students in the other districts were in the middle of the distribution.

Table C.8 shows corresponding data for students who were not English Learners. This

group includes both native English speakers as well as students whose native tongue is not

English but who have been identified by districts as Fluent English Proficient. Just as Betts,

Rueben, and Danenberg (2000) found statewide, when we examine this group, the performance

of California students approximates national norms. In San Diego, non-EL students

outperformed national norms in reading and math even in the inaugural year of the test. (That is,

more than 25, 50, and 75 percent of students met or exceeded the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles

of national norms in 1997-1998, respectively.) By 1999-2000, this better-than-the-national-norm

performance still held true in SDUSD and had also become true statewide, as well as in some but

5


not all of the other districts. Over the two-year period, gains in reading in SDUSD exceeded

those in the state and the other districts, while gains in math almost exactly matched those

statewide.

The analysis we have presented here and in Chapter 2 summarizes test scores by district

by taking an average of outcomes across grades 2 through 11 in each district. Some readers will

be interested in a more detailed analysis by individual grades. We provide analogues to Tables

2.1, C.7, and C.8 by grade level in Tables C.9 to C.14. Among the many interesting patterns

shown in these latter tables, SDUSD improvements in reading achievement have generally

outpaced statewide improvements, but have done so most noticeably in the lower grades. For

instance, Table C.9 shows that the percentage of SDUSD students in grade 2 scoring at or above

the 25th percentile rose from 64 to 78 percent between 1997-1998 and 1999-2000, compared to

an increase from 61 to 71 percent statewide. A second interesting finding from Tables C.9 and

C.12 is that by 1999-2000, SDUSD students in the lower grades performed the best against

national norms in reading, but for math it was the lower and higher grades where SDUSD

student performance appeared the strongest against national norms.

Conclusion: The Overall Degree of Similarity between SDUSD, Other Large Districts, and the State’s School System

Overall, this appendix has revealed both dissimilarities and similarities between the five

largest districts and between these districts and the state educational system as a whole.

SDUSD’s student population matches the statewide racial mix quite well but has more African

American and Filipino students and fewer white students. Similarly, SDUSD students are more

likely to be eligible for meal assistance and to be English Learners than the average student

statewide. We consider that these differences from state averages, if anything, enhance the

policy relevance of our research: Betts, Rueben, and Danenberg (2000) and others have

6


convincingly shown that in California, low student achievement is very much an issue of

language, poverty, and, to some extent, race. SDUSD provides an almost ideal setting in which

to explore the reasons why disadvantaged students and those who are English Learners lag

behind, and whether certain types of school resources are particularly conducive to increasing

achievement among such students.

Turning to school resources, SDUSD appears to have roughly the same mix of resources

seen in other districts statewide. Perhaps the most striking difference is that teachers in SDUSD

are much more likely to hold a master’s degree than teachers in the other four largest districts or

those in the state as a whole. On the other hand, other districts have far larger percentages than

SDUSD of teachers who hold some post-baccalaureate education, so it is important not to

overstate the gap. In a similar vein, SDUSD’s teachers are more likely to hold a full credential

than in the comparison districts. Finally, counterbalancing the relatively high numbers of

teachers with master’s and full credentials in SDUSD, SDUSD’s teachers have less teaching

experience than do teachers elsewhere. Overall, the pattern of teacher qualifications in the

district is reasonably close to state averages.

Finally, our comparisons of student achievement confirmed that on the whole SDUSD

provides a representative microcosm of California as a whole. Indeed, the distribution of test

scores in SDUSD matches the California distribution more closely than does that of any other of

the five largest districts. In all of the districts we examined, student performance initially lagged

behind student performance observed nationally but caught up partly or fully over the period of

study. Further, much of the achievement gap between students in SDUSD and the United States

reflects the disproportionate number of English Learners in SDUSD. This pattern mimics the

California/United States comparison very closely. As for gains in achievement over time,

7


SDUSD’s students appear to have gained in reading achievement somewhat more quickly than

students statewide, while math gains mirror statewide gains very closely.

Overall, San Diego appears to provide a district that is quite representative of patterns

and trends statewide. Perhaps the biggest difference between SDUSD and the state’s school

system is that SDUSD has relatively more students who are English Learners and more students

who are economically disadvantaged. As we have argued, this difference makes San Diego all

the more important to examine.

8


Table C.1

Student Demographics: Total Enrollment and Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity

District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change Between 1997-

1998 and 1999-2000

STATE TOTAL

Enrollment 5,727,303 5,951,612 224,309

African American not Hispanic 501,303 8.8% 509,637 8.6% 8,334 -0.2

American Indian or Alaska Native 49328 0.9% 50750 0.9% 1422 0.0

Asian 466,399 8.1% 479,073 8.0% 12,674 -0.1

Filipino 137,126 2.4% 141,045 2.4% 3,919 0.0

Hispanic or Latino 2,319,072 40.5% 2,513,453 42.2% 194,381 1.7

Pacific Islander 34,649 0.6% 37,995 0.6% 3,346 0.0

White not Hispanic 2,219,426 38.8% 2,195,706 36.9% -23,720 -1.9

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED

Enrollment 136,283 140,743 4,460

African American not Hispanic 23,065 16.9% 23,300 16.6% 235 -0.3

American Indian or Alaska Native 880 0.6% 876 0.6% -4 0.0

Asian 12,937 9.5% 12,819 9.1% -118 -0.4

Filipino 11,036 8.1% 11,242 8.0% 206 -0.1

Hispanic or Latino 48,077 35.3% 52,361 37.2% 4,284 1.9

Pacific Islander 1,309 1.0% 1,422 1.0% 113 0.0

White not Hispanic 38,979 28.6% 38,723 27.5% -256 -1.1

FRESNO UNIFIED

Enrollment 78,166 78,766 600

African American not Hispanic 8,845 11.3% 8,910 11.3% 65 0.0

American Indian or Alaska Native 669 0.9% 659 0.8% -10 -0.1

Asian 15,361 19.7% 14,449 18.3% -912 -1.4

Filipino 367 0.5% 326 0.4% -41 -0.1


Pacific Islander 122 0.2% 128 0.2% 6 0.0


LONG BEACH UNIFIED

Enrollment 85,908 91,465 5,557

African American not Hispanic 17,471 20.3% 18,214 19.9% 743 -0.4


Asian 12,170 14.2% 11,364 12.4% -806 -1.8

Filipino 2,707 3.2% 2,769 3.0% 62 -0.2



White not Hispanic 16,696 19.4% 16,747 18.3% 51 -1.1

9


Table C.1 (continued)

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED

Enrollment 680,430 710,007 29,577

African American not Hispanic 93,867 13.8% 93,532 13.2% -335 -0.6

American Indian or Alaska Native 1850 0.3% 2039 0.3% 189 0.0

Asian 29,318 4.3% 29,764 4.2% 446 -0.1

Filipino 12,776 1.9% 13,228 1.9% 452 0.0



White not Hispanic 73,939 10.9% 72,404 10.2% -1,535 -0.7

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED

Enrollment 61,007 60,896 -111

African American not Hispanic 9,879 16.2% 9,504 15.6% -375 -0.6


Asian 25,238 41.4% 26,046 42.8% 808 1.4

Filipino 4,534 7.4% 4,215 6.9% -319 -0.5

Hispanic or Latino 12,936 21.2% 13,090 21.5% 154 0.3

Pacific Islander 353 0.6% 394 0.6% 41 0.0


10


Table C.2

Student Demographics: English Language Status and Meal Subsidy Status

District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change Between 1997-

1998 and 1999-2000 STATE TOTAL

Fluent-English-Proficient (FEP) Students 720,479 12.6% 791,283 13.3% 70,804 0.7

Students Redesignated FEP* 96,545 7.0% 112,214 7.8% 15,669 0.8

Free or Reduced Price Meals** 2,717,007 47.4% 2,809,186 47.3% 92,179 -0.1

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED

English Learners 38,542 28.3% 39,491 28.1 % 949 -0.2

Fluent-English-Proficient Students 22,461 16.5% 24,091 17.1 % 1,630 0.6

Students Redesignated FEP* 1,379 3.7% 2,403 6.2 % 1,024 2.5

Free or Reduced Price Meals** 81,004 60.7% 88,101 63.2% 7,097 2.5

FRESNO UNIFIED

English Learners 25,530 32.7 % 24,806 31.5 % -724 -1.2

Fluent-English-Proficient Students 7,907 10.1 % 8,860 11.2 % 953 1.1

Students Redesignated FEP* 595 2.3 % 875 3.4 % 280 1.1

Free or Reduced Price Meals** 55,134 70.5% 47,596 60.5% -7,538 -10.0

LONG BEACH UNIFIED

English Learners 31,263 36.4 % 34,132 37.3 % 2,869 0.9

Fluent-English-Proficient Students 11,981 13.9 % 12,010 13.1 % 29 -0.8

Students Redesignated FEP* 2,427 8.0 % 2,145 6.5 % -282 -1.5


LOS ANGELES UNIFIED


Fluent-English-Proficient Students 133,479 19.6 % 160,383 22.6 % 26,904 3.0

Students Redesignated FEP* 24,851 8.0 % 32,402 10.3 % 7,551 2.3


SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED


Fluent-English-Proficient Students 13,976 22.9 % 14,093 23.1 % 117 0.2

Students Redesignated FEP* 2,452 12.6 % 1,562 8.3 % -890 -4.3

Free or Reduced Price Meals** 38,015 46.3% 33,326 41.5% -4,689 -4.8

1,406,166 24.6% 1,480,527 24.9% 74,361 0.3 *

The percent of students who were redesignated FEP is calculated by dividing the number of redesignated students by the prior year's count of English Learners. The percents reported for English Learners and FEP Students use the current year's total enrollment as the denominator.

** The data for this measure are based on an "unofficial" enrollment count that includes public and

nonpublic school data. For further information about the free/reduced meal data, see http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/gls_calworks.htm.

11


Table C.3

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

District 1997-1998 1999-2000

Change Between 1997-1998 and

1999-2000 STATE TOTAL 21.6 20.9 -0.7 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 20.5 19.1 -1.4 FRESNO UNIFIED 21.1 20.5 -0.6 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 23.9 22.3 -1.6 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 22.0 20.9 -1.1 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 17.2 18.4 1.2

12


Table C.4

Percentage Distribution of Teachers by Education Level and Total Number of Teachers

1997-1998 District Master's

Degree or Higher

Less than a Master's Degree

No Education Level Reported

Total Number of Teachers

STATE TOTAL 31.2 68.3 0.5 272,459 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 57.3 42.7 0.0 6,836 FRESNO UNIFIED 10.3 89.7 0.0 3,776 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 31.3 68.7 0.0 3,622 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 26.1 71.1 2.9 31,513 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 23.0 77.0 0.0 3,620 1999-2000 District Master's

Degree or Higher




STATE TOTAL 30.4 69.3 0.4 292,012 SAN DIEGO CITY UNIFIED 53.2 46.8 0.0 7,395 FRESNO UNIFIED 10.7 89.3 0.0 3,929 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 29.3 70.7 0.0 4,128 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 25.0 73.6 1.4 34,652 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 24.4 64.0 11.6 3,340 Continued on next page

13


Table C.4 (continued)

Difference District Master's

Degree or Higher




STATE TOTAL -0.8 0.9 -0.1 19,553 7.2% SAN DIEGO UNIFIED -4.1 4.1 0.0 559 8.2% FRESNO UNIFIED 0.4 -0.4 0.0 153 4.1% LONG BEACH UNIFIED -2.1 2.1 0.0 506 14.0% LOS ANGELES UNIFIED -1.1 2.5 -1.5 3,139 10.0% SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 1.5 -13.0 11.6 -280 -7.7% Note: The "Master's Degree or Higher" category was created by aggregating Doctorate, Master's Degree +30, and Master's Degree categories, while the "Less than a Master's Degree" category was created by aggregating Bachelor's Degree+30, Bachelor's Degree, and Less Than Bachelor's Degree categories. The aggregation categories reported here were chosen to minimize the problems of apparently inconsistent data reporting of education categories over time and across districts. For example, if a group of teachers were reported as Master's Degree +30 in 1997-1998 and then reported as Master's Degree in 1999-2000, these teachers appear in the same aggregate "Master's Degree or Higher" category in both years. It should be noted, however, that if the aggregation is done by separating into "Higher than Bachelor's" and "Bachelor's or Less" then the results are very different. If this alternate aggregation pattern were used, Fresno would have the highest percent of teachers in the higher education category for both years.

14


Table C.5

Teacher Experience

District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change between 1997-1998 and 1999-2000

STATE TOTAL Average Years Teaching 13.2 12.7 -0.5 Average Years in the District 10.7 10.3 -0.4 % of Teachers in their First or Second Year

17.2% 15.7% -1.5

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 11.1 11.1 0.0 Average Years in the District 11.0 10.8 -0.2 % of Teachers in their First or

Second Year 20.1% 25.3% 5.2

FRESNO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 13.4 13.9 0.5 Average Years in the District 11.3 11.8 0.5 % of Teachers in their First or

Second Year 14.2% 9.6% -4.6

LONG BEACH UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 12.0 11.5 -0.5 Average Years in the District 9.7 9.2 -0.5 % of Teachers in their First or

Second Year 20.2% 18.7% -1.5

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 12.3 11.6 -0.7 Average Years in the District 11.0 10.5 -0.5 % of Teachers in their First or

Second Year 16.9% 20.4% 3.5

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 14.8 12.0 -2.8 Average Years in the District 13.7 11.9 -1.8 % of Teachers in their First or

Second Year 2.5% 18.4% 15.9

15


Table C.6

Percent of Teachers with Full Credentials

District 1997-1998 1999-2000

Change Between 1997-1998 and

1999-2000 STATE TOTAL 87.3 86.1 -1.2 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 94.9 94.3 -0.6 FRESNO UNIFIED 89.9 93.9 4.0 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 78.0 72.5 -5.5 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 74.9 71.5 -3.4 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 94.0 82.6 -11.4

* Note: The 1997-1998 CBEDS data for San Diego is missing credential data for 28% of the sample of teachers. As a result, CBEDS reported that only 71.1% of San Diego teachers were fully credentialed that year. (For the other four districts reported here, as well as for the state total, CBEDS has valid data on credentials for at least 95% of teachers.) Using data from the San Diego Unified School District, we have calculated that 97.2% of teachers were fully credentialed in 1997-1998, and 96.6% were fully credentialed in 1999-2000. For 1999-2000 we report the CBEDS figure. For 1997-2000 we report a figure calculated from our own data, which has been normalized by subtracting the difference between our Figure and the CBEDS figure for 1999-2000.

16


Table C.7

SAT9 Test Score Distribution: EL Students

Reading Math Unweighted Average Across Grades Unweighted Average Across Grades

Change between Change between 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00

California % > 75th Percentile 1.5 2.2 0.7 5.5 8.8 3.3% > 50th Percentile 7.2 10.2 3.0 18.0 25.5 7.5% > 25th Percentile 24.2 31.2 7.0 41.7 52.1 10.4

San Diego Unified % > 75th Percentile 1.5 2.5 1.0 5.8 9.2 3.4 % > 50th Percentile 8.2 11.4 3.2 19.2 26.6 7.4 % > 25th Percentile 26.2 33.9 7.7 44.3 53.9 9.6Fresno Unified % > 75th Percentile 0.1 0.4 0.3 2.3 4.6 2.3 % > 50th Percentile 2.8 4.6 1.8 12.4 19.1 6.7 % > 25th Percentile 16.3 22.2 5.9 35.9 47.1 11.2Long Beach Unified % > 75th Percentile 1.0 2.1 1.1 3.4 9.0 5.6 % > 50th Percentile 5.8 10.0 4.2 14.7 26.0 11.3 % > 25th Percentile 21.3 30.8 9.5 40.1 54.2 14.1Los Angeles Unified % > 75th Percentile 0.6 0.8 0.2 3.2 5.1 1.9 % > 50th Percentile 4.5 6.2 1.7 12.4 16.3 3.9 % > 25th Percentile 17.8 22.3 4.5 34.6 41.2 6.6San Francisco Unified % > 75th Percentile 2.9 5.9 3.0 16.8 24.5 7.7 % > 50th Percentile 13.0 20.1 7.1 36.3 48.3 12.0 % > 25th Percentile 35.5 46.6 11.1 61.2 71.0 9.8

17


Table C.8

SAT9 Test Score Distribution: Non-EL Students

Reading Math Unweighted Average Across Grades Unweighted Average Across Grades Change between Change between 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00

California % > 75th Percentile 21.6 25.1 3.5 24.2 32.4 8.2% > 50th Percentile 46.4 51.8 5.4 47.9 58.0 10.1% > 25th Percentile 70.5 76.3 5.8 70.7 78.7 8.0

San Diego Unified % > 75th Percentile 25.3 29.7 4.4 27.4 36.3 8.9 % > 50th Percentile 51.3 58.7 7.4 53.0 63.5 10.5 % > 25th Percentile 75.1 82.6 7.5 75.1 82.8 7.7Fresno Unified % > 75th Percentile 14.9 16.5 1.6 17.0 21.4 4.4 % > 50th Percentile 35.0 38.1 3.1 37.6 44.5 6.9 % > 25th Percentile 59.9 64.3 4.4 61.2 68.3 7.1Long Beach Unified % > 75th Percentile 18.4 20.7 2.3 20.7 30.1 9.4 % > 50th Percentile 41.3 45.8 4.5 44.5 55.1 10.6 % > 25th Percentile 67.3 72.0 4.7 68.6 76.6 8.0Los Angeles Unified % > 75th Percentile 13.1 15.4 2.3 15.2 20.0 4.8 % > 50th Percentile 32.7 37.8 5.1 35.2 43.0 7.8 % > 25th Percentile 58.3 66.0 7.7 60.2 68.5 8.3San Francisco Unified % > 75th Percentile 24.9 27.5 2.6 35.9 40.3 4.4 % > 50th Percentile 49.5 54.5 5.0 58.3 63.2 4.9 % > 25th Percentile 73.1 78.2 5.1 75.8 80.8 5.0

18


Table C.9

SAT9 Reading: All Students

District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California

1997- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 20 28 8 12 4 13 19 6 10 12 2 24 28 4 18 24 6

% > 50th Percentile 43 57 22 30 8 30 46 16 26 32 6 53 58 5 40 49 9 % > 25 Percentileth 64 14 41 54 13 52 73 21 46 55 9 74 80 6 61 71 10

3 % > 75 Percentile th 25 7 8 9 1 11 15 4 7 8 1 15 18 3 17 20 3 % > 50 Percentile 41 52 11 21 25 4 28 37 9 21 25 4 38 45 7 38 44 6 th 62 75 13 41 49 8 49 63 14 41 50 9 64 72 8 59 68 9% > 75 Percentileth 22 26 4 10 12 2 13 15 2 9 11 2 23 26 3 21 23 2

% > 50 Percentileth 41 48 7 22 27 5 28 32 4 21 26 5 44 50 6 40 45 % > 25 Percentileth 63 71 8 42 49 7 50 58 8 43 51 8 68 74 6 62 6

5 % > 75 Percentileth 22 22 0 10 11 1 14 14 0 10 11 1 23 21 -2

1999-

814

7818

th % > 25 Percentile

4 5

6820 21 1

% > 50 Percentile 44 44 0 24 25 1 30 32 2 26 3 45 46 1 41 44 3 % > 25 Percentileth 65 68 3 44 47 3 53 57 44 50 6 68 72 4 63 67 4

6 % > 75 Percentileth 22 25 3 13 14 1 14 0 9 10 1 21 23 2 21 23 2 % > 50 Percentileth 43 47 4 28 31 3 33 3 22 25 3 42 46 4 42 46 4 % > 25 Percentileth 66 70 4 51 56 5 59 4 44 51 7 66 71 5 66 70 4

7 % > 75 Percentileth 22 24 2 12 12 0 15 0 9 11 2 25 25 0 21 23 2 % > 50 Percentileth 44 48 4 29 29 34 34 0 24 27 3 47 50 3 44 46 2 % > 25 Percentileth 66 72 6 51 0 56 58 2 44 50 6 70 72 2 66 69 3

8 % > 75 Percentileth 19 23 4 13 1 14 15 1 9 10 1 22 24 2 19 21 2 % > 50 Percentileth 45 51 33 34 1 38 38 0 27 30 3 48 51 3 46 49 3 % > 25 Percentileth 69 5 58 60 2 62 63 1 51 57 6 73

th 234

14305515

051

126

74 77 4 70 73 3 9 % > 75th Percentile 15 15 0 8 7 -1 10 10 0 6 6 0 19 18 -1 12 13 1

% > 50 Percentileth 36 40 4 22 23 1 28 29 1 19 20 1 41 42 1 34 35 1 % > 25th Percentile 61 67 6 45 47 2 53 56 3 42 45 3 67 70 3 59 62 3

10 % > 75th Percentile 15 16 1 9 9 0 11 11 0 7 7 0 18 18 0 13 14 1 % > 50th Percentile 34 37 3 22 22 0 27 27 0 20 21 1 38 39 1 32 34 2 % > 25th Percentile 56 61 5 42 43 1 48 49 1 41 43 2 61 62 1 55 56 1

11 % > 75th Percentile 19 20 1 14 15 1 13 13 0 10 11 1 24 22 -2 17 17 0 % > 50th Percentile 37 40 3 30 30 0 29 29 0 25 26 1 43 43 0 36 36 0 % > 25th Percentile 63 68 5 55 55 0 55 56 1 51 54 3 67 68 1 62 62 0

19


Table C.10

SAT9 Reading: EL Students


1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 4 8 4 1 3 2 4 10 6 3 4 1 12 28 16 4 7 3

% > 50th Percentile 17 29 12 7 13 6 16 35 19 12 19 7 43 64 21 15 25 10 % > 25th Percentile 37 57 20 24 37 13 35 65 30 30 44 14 77 88 11 33 50 17









11 % > 75th Percentile 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 % > 50th Percentile 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 -2 2 2 0 2 7 5 4 4 0 % > 25th Percentile 16 21 5 9 14 5 16 17 1 13 13 0 15 24 9 17 20 3

20


Table C.11

SAT9 Reading: Non-EL Students






5 % > 75th Percentile 30 31 1 15 16 1 21 22 1 17 18 1 28 27 -1 25 27 2 % > 50th Percentile 57 59 2 36 36 0 42 47 5 37 42 5 54 55 1 50 55 5 % > 25th Percentile 79 82 3 59 61 2 69 71 2 62 70 8 76 79 3 73 78 5




9 % > 75th Percentile 19 19 0 11 10 -1 13 14 1 8 8 0 21 21 0 14 15 1 % > 50th Percentile 44 50 6 30 31 1 36 39 3 24 26 2 45 48 3 39 41 2 % > 25th Percentile 72 79 7 58 60 2 65 69 4 52 57 5 72 77 5 65 70 5



21


Table C.12

SAT9 Math: All Students













22


Table C.13

SAT9 Math: EL Students









8 % > 75th Percentile 3 2 -1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 9 16 7 4 5 1 % > 50th Percentile 11 12 1 9 15 6 8 11 3 6 7 1 19 39 20 13 17 4 % > 25th Percentile 32 37 5 29 43 14 28 37 9 21 26 5 42 61 19 34 42 8




23


24

Table C.14

SAT9 Math: Non-EL Students













Date post:	25-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Web Appendix C Additional Information about Student ...

Documents