Data on 100 Broad Prize-Eligible Districts

Broad Prize District Data



This page provides access to comparative student achievement data on the 100 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 100 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 100 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 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
  • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

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.
> 2009
> 2008
> 2007

The Data: Summary Tables



Data on the 100 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 five finalist districts.

These "summary tables" are categorized into eight sections:         


The summary tables in section 1 include demographic characteristics of eligible districts, information on state test comparability from 2005 to 2008, and state proficiency rates from 2005 to 2008, as well as improvement in these rates.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 1.1: Description of eligible districts: 2007
  • 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 a 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 in reading
  • Table 2.4: NWEA - average scale scores equivalent to state proficiency standards in mathematics

> View summary table section 2 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 3 compare district performance and improvement with averages for the rest of the state for four subgroups (all students, African-American, Hispanic and low-income students) at the proficient or above level and the highest achievement level on state tests.

> View summary table section 3 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 4 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 in 2007 and 2008 are presented.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 4.1: Performance residuals for all students
  • Table 4.2: Average decile ranks of residuals for all students
  • Table 4.3: Average change in residuals for all 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 2005 to 2008. 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

> View summary table section 5 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 6 each present the 2006 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 2003 to 2006 is shown for all three methods. Each table shows 2006 graduation rates and improvement for all students, African-American students, Hispanic students and white students.
The tables in this section include:         
  • Table 6.1: Average of the three graduation rate measures
  • Table 6.2: Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR)
  • Table 6.3: Urban Institute Method (UI)
  • Table 6.4: Manhattan Institute Method (MI)

> View summary table section 6 (XLS)


The summary tables in section 7 present 2008 college readiness measures based on the SAT, ACT and Advanced Placement (AP) examinations as well as improvement in these measures from 2005 to 2008. 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: SAT reasoning test mean total score (reading and mathematics)
  • Table 7.2: SAT reasoning test participation rates (reading and mathematics)
  • Table 7.3: ACT mean composite score (English, reading, mathematics and science)
  • Table 7.4: ACT participation rate (English, reading, mathematics and science)
  • Table 7.5: Advanced Placement (AP) percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above in all subjects
  • Table 7.6: Advanced Placement (AP) participation rate in all subjects
  • Table 7.7: Advanced Placement (AP) percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above in core subjects
  • Table 7.8: Advanced Placement (AP) average number of tests taken in core subjects per 100 students

> View summary table section 7 (XLS)


The summary table in Section 8 indicates the percentage of schools in each eligible district and the percentage of districts in the state that met federal AYP requirements in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, where the data were available. Also included is an indicator of whether the district met its AYP target. These data were collected from state websites and education agencies.

> View summary table section 8 (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 was collected and analyzed as follows:

  • At the elementary, middle and high school levels
  • In reading and math
  • By year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 (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 in comparison to other Broad Prize eligible districts in their state
  • How a district’s performance relative to its state average compares to that of districts in other states
  • How a district performs on national benchmarks that allow for comparisons across states: SAT, ACT, Advanced Placement (AP), Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), graduation rates
  • A district’s performance on meeting Adequate Yearly Progress targets relative to other Broad Prize eligible districts in their state

Understanding the Simulation Tool



Each district data report is accompanied by a "simulation tool." 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 2008, 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.