SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 46
Download to read offline
City Study
2022:
ST. LOUIS
Table of Contents
0 1 R E PORT OVE R VIE W
• About The City Studies Project
• Sectors of Schools
• Research Question and Analyses
• Measure of Academic Performance
Student Subgroup Analysis
Summary of Findings
0 3 APPE N DIX E S
• Acknowledgments
• Types of Charter Schools
• Methods
• Days of Learning
• Full Set of Findings
0 2 R E SE AR CH
F IN DIN G S
• Reading & Math
Overall St. Louis Results
Sector Analysis
• vs. state & comparison
within St. Louis
Charter Subsector Analysis
• Reading
• Math
School-Level Performance by Sector
Research Findings Cont’d.
Black Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
Hispanic Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
Students in Poverty
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
ELL Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
Special Ed Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
Male Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
Female Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within St. Louis
• Reading
• Math
REPORT OVERVIEW
01
About The City Studies Project
Cohort 1 Cohort 2
The City Studies project examines the performance of schools in select U.S. cities,
including St. Louis. We study the academic progress of students as the measure of school
performance.
O
O
C
C
C
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Public schools operated independently from the
traditional school district, with autonomy in adapting
school designs and held accountable for education
results.
Charter Management Organizations (CMOs)
Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the
operation of at least three charter schools.
Independent Charter Schools
Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the
operation of a single or two charter schools.
SELECTIVE MAGNET SCHOOLS
District-run schools with focused themes and
academically selective admission.
OTHER DISTRICT-RUN SCHOOLS
Public schools not belonging to any of above two types.
C
Sectors of Schools
COMMUNITIES MAY HAVE UP TO THREE SECTORS OF SCHOOLS
Research Question and Analyses
IN THIS REPORT WE EXAMINE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN ST.
LOUIS USING DATA FROM THE SCHOOL YEARS 2015-16
THROUGH 2018-19. THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS.
Overall performance in
St. Louis schools over two
years.
• The performance of St. Louis
students is benchmarked against the
state average performance,
accounting for student
characteristics.
• The performance of charter school
students and the performance of
magnet school students within St.
Louis are then compared to that of
similar traditional public school
(district school) students within St.
Louis.
Performance for St.
Louis charter schools,
St. Louis magnet
schools and the rest of
St. Louis Public schools
over two years.
Performance in the 2018-
2019 school year by
school type, race,
poverty status, English
language learner (ELL)
status, special
education status and
gender.
WE MAKE TWO SETS
OF COMPARISONS.
01 02 03
Achievement scores capture what a student knows at a point
in time. They are influenced by students’ prior conditions in
addition to schools’ contributions.
Growth scores indicate how much progress a student makes
from one year to the next. Growth scores allow us to zero in
on the contributions of schools separately from other factors
that affect point-in-time scores.
ACHIEVEMENT VS. GROWTH
We analyze student growth in standard deviation units so
that the results can be assessed for statistical differences.
The full set of findings appear in the Appendix.
In the following graphs of findings, we transform growth
from standard deviation units into days of learning based on
a typical 180-day school year.
IN THIS STUDY WE MEASURE
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS HOW
MUCH GROWTH STUDENTS MAKE FROM
ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT.
Measure of Academic Performance
SPECIAL HANDING OF ST. LOUIS
GROWTH SCORES FOR 2017-18
For the period ending in Spring 2018, we use student test
scores from the 2015-16 school year as starting scores to
calculate student growth because the Missouri test score
data for 2016-17 are incomplete.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
02
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Overall St. Louis Results
> Reading & Math
Average One-Year Learning Gains for All St. Louis
Students Compared to the State Average Learning
Gains, by Year and Subject
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains in Reading for Students in St. Louis
Charter Schools, St. Louis Magnet Schools, and St.
Louis District Schools Compared to the State Average
Learning Gains, by Year
significantly different at p< 0.05
charter magnet
Research Findings > Sector Analysis
> Reading
VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
charter magnet district
Reading
Charter vs. District
Magnet vs. District
Charter vs. Magnet
'17-'18 '18-'19
Tests of Differences
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains in Math for Students in St. Louis
Charter Schools, St. Louis Magnet Schools, and St.
Louis District Schools Compared to the State Average
Learning Gains, by Year
significantly different at p< 0.05
charter magnet district
Research Findings > Sector Analysis
> Math
VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Math
Charter vs. District
Magnet vs. District
Charter vs. Magnet
Tests of Differences
'17-'18 '18-'19
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
CMO Charter Schools Independent Charter Schools
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Relative Learning Gains for Students in St. Louis
CMO-Affiliated Charter Schools and Independent St.
Louis Charter Schools Compared to the Average
Learning Gains for All Student in the State, by
Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Charter Subsector Analysis
> vs. state & comparison within St. Louis
Reading
CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools
Math
CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools
sig
Tests of Differences
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Growth (in Days of Learning)
Charter
District
Magnet
Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector
> Reading
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Growth (in Days of Learning)
Charter
District
Magnet
Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector
>Math
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Black Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Black Students
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Black
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Black Students
ALL VS. STATE
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Charter
Black Students
St. Louis Magnet
Black Students
St. Louis District
Black Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Black Students in St. Louis Charter
Schools, Black Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools,
and Black Students in St. Louis District Schools
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Black
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Black Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Black vs. District Black
Magnet Black vs. District Black
Math
Charter Black vs. District Black
Magnet Black vs. District Black
Tests of Differences
sig
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Hispanic Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Hispanic Students
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Hispanic
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Hispanic Students
ALL VS. STATE
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Charter
Hispanic Students
St. Louis Magnet
Hispanic Students
St. Louis District
Hispanic Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Hispanic Students in St. Louis Charter
Schools, Hispanic Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools,
and Hispanic Students in St. Louis District Schools
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Hispanic
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Hispanic Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Hispanic vs. District Hispanic
Magnet Hispanic vs. District Hispanic
Math
Charter Hispanic vs. District Hispanic
Magnet Hispanic vs. District Hispanic
Tests of Differences
sig
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Students in Poverty
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Students in Poverty
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Students
in Poverty Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Students in Poverty
ALL VS. STATE
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Charter
Students in Poverty
St. Louis Magnet
Students in Poverty
St. Louis District
Students in Poverty
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for St. Louis Charter School Students
in Poverty, St. Louis Magnet School Students in
Poverty, and St. Louis District School Students in
Poverty Compared to the Average Learning Gains of
Students in Poverty Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Students in Poverty
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Poverty vs. District Poverty
Magnet Poverty vs. District Poverty
Math
Charter Poverty vs. District Poverty
Magnet Poverty vs. District Poverty
Tests of Differences
sig
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis ELL Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All ELL Students in St. Louis
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of ELL
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> ELL Students
ALL VS. STATE
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
St. Louis Charter
ELL Students
St. Louis Magnet
ELL Students
St. Louis District
ELL Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for ELL Students in St. Louis Charter
Schools, ELL Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools,
and ELL Students in St. Louis District Schools
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of ELL
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> ELL Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter ELL vs. District ELL
Magnet ELL vs. District ELL
Math
Charter ELL vs. District ELL
Magnet ELL vs. District ELL
Tests of Differences
sig
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
St. Louis Special Ed Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Students in Special
Education Compared to the Average Learning Gains of
Students in Special Education Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Special Ed Students
ALL VS. STATE
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
St. Louis Charter
Students in Special Ed.
St. Louis Magnet
Students in Special Ed.
St. Louis District
Students in Special Ed.
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for St. Louis Charter School Students
in Special Ed., St. Louis Magnet School Students in
Special Ed., and St. Louis District School Students in
Special Ed. Compared to the Average Learning Gains
of Students in Special Ed. Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Special Ed Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Sped vs. District Sped
Magnet Sped vs. District Sped
Math
Charter Sped vs. District Sped
Magnet Sped vs. District Sped
Tests of Differences
sig
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
St. Louis Male Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Male Students
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Male
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Male Students
ALL VS. STATE
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
St. Louis Charter
Male Students
St. Louis Magnet
Male Students
St. Louis District
Male Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Male Students in St. Louis Charter
Schools, Male Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools,
and Male Students in St. Louis District Schools
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Male
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Male Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Male vs. District Male
Magnet Male vs. District Male
Math
Charter Male vs. District Male
Magnet Male vs. District Male
Tests of Differences
sig
Reading
Charter Male vs. District Male
Magnet Male vs. District Male
Math
Charter Male vs. District Male
Magnet Male vs. District Male
Tests of Differences
sig
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
St. Louis Female Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All St. Louis Female Students
Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Female
Students Statewide, by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Female Students
ALL VS. STATE
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
St. Louis Charter
Female Students
St. Louis Magnet
Female Students
St. Louis District
Female Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Female Students in St. Louis Charter
Schools, Female Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and
Female Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to
the Average Learning Gains of Female Students Statewide,
by Subject
significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis
> Female Students
VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS
Reading
Charter Female vs. District Female
Magnet Female vs. District Female
Math
Charter Female vs. District Female
Magnet Female vs. District Female
Tests of Differences
sig
Summary of Findings
The summary of the findings from the analysis of St. Louis schools is presented here.
APPENDIXES
03
Acknowledgments
Student-level data were
provided by the
Missouri Department of
Elementary & Secondary
Education.
The opportunity trust assisted CREDO
with verifying the list of public schools
in St. Louis.
Types of Charter Schools
• With more schools and students than a single charter
school, CMOs have some operational advantages in their
ability to spread administrative fixed costs, thus
providing the possibility of greater efficiency. In
addition, CMOs may be able to support additional
programs and more robust staffing.
• Whether CMOs lead to better student outcomes is a
matter of interest across the country.
OUR ANALYSES OF ST. LOUIS CHARTER
SCHOOLS INCLUDE A BREAKOUT OF
CMOS AND INDEPENDENT CHARTERS.
There are two types
of charter schools.
CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CMOS)
Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the
operation of at least three charter schools.
INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOLS
Organization holding the charter and overseeing the
operation of a single charter school. It may run the school
directly or contract with an organization which provides
services to one or two charter schools.
Methods
The annual academic growth of students in St. Louis from
2015-16 to 2018-19, overall and by sector, is benchmarked to
the state average growth, accounting for student
characteristics.
We also explore how one-year growth of St. Louis students
for the period ending in Spring 2019 differs by school type,
race, poverty status, English language learner status, special
education status, and gender.
Days of Learning
While these tools create precise and reliable answers,
they are presented in technical terms that are not
user-friendly to a general audience. To translate the
technical results into terms that are accessible to non-
technical audiences, CREDO developed Days of
Learning.
CREDO USES ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY AND
SOPHISTICATED STATISTICAL
TOOLS TO MEASURE STUDENTS,
SCHOOLS AND THE EDUCATION
LANDSCAPE.
Think about the students in your state’s public schools. For many of their years
of schooling, they take achievement tests to measure what they know at the end of
the school year. We can identify the average score for each test each year.
Imagine a student who scores exactly at the average in one year, say 4th
grade, and then in the following year, scores exactly at the average again on the 5th-
grade test. The amount of year-to-year learning for that student show us what the
average learning is for all the students who took both tests.
We do that calculation for every grade the state tests: 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th,
and so on.
CREDO uses those annual measures of average learning to represent a typical
year of learning, and equates that to a typical 180-day school year. We say that the
student in our example has gained 180 days of learning.
If a student makes more progress than the average student, we take the
amount of extra achievement and translate it into 180-days of learning plus “X” extra
days. We are creating a measure of student learning as if the student went to school
for 180 days plus X days. The size of “X” depends on how much more the student
learns than the average student — if it’s a lot more, then “X” will be a large number,
and if it’s a small amount more, “X” will be a small number.
The same is true for students who do not learn as much as the average
student. Instead of adding to the 180-days-of-learning average, we subtract from
that base to reflect the smaller-than-average advances that those students realize. In
these cases, the difference leads to numbers such a “165 days of learning” or “152
days of learning”. Against the average standard of 180 days, these smaller days show
that students learned as if they had only attended school for 180 days minus X days
during the school year.
01
02
03
04
05
06
3rd
Grade
4th
Grade
= 180
days
More than 180
days
Less than 180
days
Student
A
Student
A
Overall St. Louis Results
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t . L o u i s O v e r a l l 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 -0.03 -19 0.00 -2
S t . L o u i s O v e r a l l 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.02 9 0.00 -1
St. Louis School Sectors Compared
to State Average
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
C h a r t e r S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.02 10 0.03 16
C h a r t e r S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.07** 39** 0.09** 51**
M a g n e t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.22** 132** 0.26** 152**
M a g n e t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.30** 178** 0.29** 172**
O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 -0.14** -85** -0.09* -53*
O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 -0.07** -40** -0.11** -63**
Comparison of School Sectors within St. Louis
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
C h a r t e r S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.16** 94** 0.12* 69*
C h a r t e r S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.13** 79** 0.19** 114**
M a g n e t S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.37** 217** 0.35** 205**
M a g n e t S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.37** 218** 0.40** 234**
Charter Subsector Analysis
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t . L o u i s C M O s v s . S t a t e A v e r a g e 0.05 31 0.07 40
S t . L o u i s I n d e p e n d e n t C h a r t e r s v s . S t a t e A v e r a g e 0.09** 55** 0.12** 72**
S t . L o u i s C M O s v s . S t . L o u i s I n d e p e n d e n t C h a r t e r s -0.04 -25 -0.06 -33
Student Subgroup Analysis> Black Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Black Students
S t . L o u i s B l a c k S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.01 -4 -0.03 -18
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.08** 46** 0.10* 56*
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.25** 145** 0.26** 154**
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s -0.08** -45** -0.12** -72**
Compared with Black Students in Other District Schools in
St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.16** 91** 0.22** 128**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.32** 189** 0.38** 225**
Student Subgroup Analysis> Hispanic Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Hispanic Students
S t . L o u i s H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.03 15 0.04 24
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.08** 47** 0.07 43
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.11 66 0.17 102
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s -0.06 -34 -0.01 -8
Compared with Hispanic Students in Other District Schools
in St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.14** 81** 0.09 50
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.17 99 0.19 110
Student Subgroup Analysis> Students in Poverty
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Students in Poverty
S t . L o u i s S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y O v e r a l l 0.02 9 0.00 -1
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.08** 44** 0.10** 60**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.30** 178** 0.29** 172**
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y -0.07** -40** -0.11** -63**
Compared with Students in Poverty in Other District
Schools in St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.14** 84** 0.21** 122**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.37** 218** 0.40** 235**
Student Subgroup Analysis> ELL Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of ELL Students
S t . L o u i s E L L S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.01 -8 0.04 20
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.02 12 0.08 45
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.19 112 0.27 156
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s -0.04 -24 0.00 2
Compared with ELL Students in Other District Schools in
St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.06 35 0.07 43
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.23** 135** 0.26** 153**
Student Subgroup Analysis> Special Ed Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Special Ed Students
S t . L o u i s S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.05 28 0.03 17
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.07 41 0.16** 92**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.45** 266** 0.42** 244**
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.00 2 -0.06 -38
Compared with Special Ed Students in Other District
Schools in St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.07 39 0.22** 129**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.45** 263** 0.48** 282**
Student Subgroup Analysis> Male Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Male Students
S t . L o u i s M a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.03 14 -0.01 -4
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.07* 43* 0.07 42
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.36** 212** 0.34** 198**
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s -0.06** -35** -0.1** -61**
Compared with Male Students in Other District Schools in
St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.13** 78** 0.18** 103**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.42** 247** 0.44** 259**
Student Subgroup Analysis> Female Students
Significant at p < 0.05*
Significant at p < 0.01**
R E A D I N G M A T H
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
S t a n d a r d
D e v i a t i o n
D a y s o f
L e a r n i n g
Compared with Statewide Average of Female Students
S t . L o u i s F e m a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.01 3 0.01 2
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.06** 35** 0.10** 61**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.25** 146** 0.26** 150**
S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s -0.08** -45** -0.11** -65**
Compared with Female Students in Other District Schools
in St. Louis
S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.14** 80** 0.21** 125**
S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.32** 191** 0.36** 214**
THANK YOU

More Related Content

Similar to St_Louis_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf

Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing Series
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing SeriesLas Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing Series
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing SeriesLas Vegas Chamber of Commerce
 
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)National Charter Schools Institute
 
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance  Post...A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance  Post...
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...The Opportunity Trust
 
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis Region
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis RegionDownload the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis Region
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis RegionThe Opportunity Trust
 
Golden Triangle Plus 1
Golden Triangle Plus 1Golden Triangle Plus 1
Golden Triangle Plus 1Richard Voltz
 
Usnwr alums
Usnwr alumsUsnwr alums
Usnwr alumsgmku
 

Similar to St_Louis_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf (20)

2022 Houston Chart School City Study
2022 Houston Chart School City Study2022 Houston Chart School City Study
2022 Houston Chart School City Study
 
Kansas_City_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf
Kansas_City_slide_deck_FINAL.pdfKansas_City_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf
Kansas_City_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf
 
2022 Austin Chart School City Study
2022 Austin Chart School City Study2022 Austin Chart School City Study
2022 Austin Chart School City Study
 
2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study
2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study
2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study
 
Washington DC. City Study 2022
Washington DC. City Study 2022Washington DC. City Study 2022
Washington DC. City Study 2022
 
Newark, NJ 2021
Newark, NJ 2021Newark, NJ 2021
Newark, NJ 2021
 
DC_slide_deck_FINAL (1).pdf
DC_slide_deck_FINAL (1).pdfDC_slide_deck_FINAL (1).pdf
DC_slide_deck_FINAL (1).pdf
 
2022 Newark Chart School City Study
2022 Newark Chart School City Study2022 Newark Chart School City Study
2022 Newark Chart School City Study
 
memphis_slide_deck_FINAL_20220429.pdf
memphis_slide_deck_FINAL_20220429.pdfmemphis_slide_deck_FINAL_20220429.pdf
memphis_slide_deck_FINAL_20220429.pdf
 
St. Louis, MO 2019 - City Study
St. Louis, MO 2019 - City StudySt. Louis, MO 2019 - City Study
St. Louis, MO 2019 - City Study
 
Denver, CO 2022 - City Study
Denver, CO 2022 - City StudyDenver, CO 2022 - City Study
Denver, CO 2022 - City Study
 
Baton Rouge LA 2019 - City Study
Baton Rouge LA 2019 - City StudyBaton Rouge LA 2019 - City Study
Baton Rouge LA 2019 - City Study
 
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing Series
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing SeriesLas Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing Series
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Education Briefing Series
 
Kansas City, MO 2019 - City Study
Kansas City, MO 2019 - City StudyKansas City, MO 2019 - City Study
Kansas City, MO 2019 - City Study
 
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)
Academic Overview - Board Training (Lake Superior State University)
 
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance  Post...A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance  Post...
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...
 
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis Region
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis RegionDownload the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis Region
Download the 2023 MAP Data Analysis - St. Louis Region
 
Golden Triangle Plus 1
Golden Triangle Plus 1Golden Triangle Plus 1
Golden Triangle Plus 1
 
School Grades Webinar
School Grades Webinar School Grades Webinar
School Grades Webinar
 
Usnwr alums
Usnwr alumsUsnwr alums
Usnwr alums
 

More from Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) (9)

Charter School Performance in Rhode Island
Charter School Performance in Rhode IslandCharter School Performance in Rhode Island
Charter School Performance in Rhode Island
 
Charter survey final deck
Charter survey final deck Charter survey final deck
Charter survey final deck
 
Indianapolis, IN 2019 - City Study
Indianapolis, IN 2019 - City StudyIndianapolis, IN 2019 - City Study
Indianapolis, IN 2019 - City Study
 
Memphis, TN 2019 - City Study
Memphis, TN 2019 - City StudyMemphis, TN 2019 - City Study
Memphis, TN 2019 - City Study
 
New Orleans, LA 2019 - City Study
New Orleans, LA 2019 - City StudyNew Orleans, LA 2019 - City Study
New Orleans, LA 2019 - City Study
 
Washington DC 2019 - City Study
Washington DC 2019 - City StudyWashington DC 2019 - City Study
Washington DC 2019 - City Study
 
San Antonio, TX 2019 - City Study
San Antonio, TX 2019 - City StudySan Antonio, TX 2019 - City Study
San Antonio, TX 2019 - City Study
 
Buffalo NY 2019 - City Study
Buffalo NY 2019 - City StudyBuffalo NY 2019 - City Study
Buffalo NY 2019 - City Study
 
Camden NJ 2019 - City Study
Camden NJ 2019 - City StudyCamden NJ 2019 - City Study
Camden NJ 2019 - City Study
 

Recently uploaded

Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes GuàrdiaPersonalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes GuàrdiaEADTU
 
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesMajor project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesAmanpreetKaur157993
 
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxGraduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxneillewis46
 
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital ManagementMBA Assignment Experts
 
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code ExamplesSPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code ExamplesPeter Brusilovsky
 
Book Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint
Book Review of Run For Your Life PowerpointBook Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint
Book Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint23600690
 
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptxPSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptxMarlene Maheu
 
ANTI PARKISON DRUGS.pptx
ANTI         PARKISON          DRUGS.pptxANTI         PARKISON          DRUGS.pptx
ANTI PARKISON DRUGS.pptxPoojaSen20
 
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinh
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinhĐề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinh
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinhleson0603
 
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & SystemsOSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & SystemsSandeep D Chaudhary
 
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptxAnalyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptxLimon Prince
 
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxObserving-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxAdelaideRefugio
 
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17Celine George
 
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUMDEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUMELOISARIVERA8
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes GuàrdiaPersonalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
Personalisation of Education by AI and Big Data - Lourdes Guàrdia
 
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesMajor project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
 
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxGraduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
 
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management
8 Tips for Effective Working Capital Management
 
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
 
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code ExamplesSPLICE Working Group:Reusable Code Examples
SPLICE Working Group: Reusable Code Examples
 
Supporting Newcomer Multilingual Learners
Supporting Newcomer  Multilingual LearnersSupporting Newcomer  Multilingual Learners
Supporting Newcomer Multilingual Learners
 
Book Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint
Book Review of Run For Your Life PowerpointBook Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint
Book Review of Run For Your Life Powerpoint
 
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptxPSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx
PSYPACT- Practicing Over State Lines May 2024.pptx
 
ANTI PARKISON DRUGS.pptx
ANTI         PARKISON          DRUGS.pptxANTI         PARKISON          DRUGS.pptx
ANTI PARKISON DRUGS.pptx
 
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinh
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinhĐề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinh
Đề tieng anh thpt 2024 danh cho cac ban hoc sinh
 
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & SystemsOSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems
 
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
 
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptxAnalyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx
Analyzing and resolving a communication crisis in Dhaka textiles LTD.pptx
 
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxObserving-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
 
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
24 ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH SỞ GIÁO DỤC HẢI DƯ...
 
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17
How To Create Editable Tree View in Odoo 17
 
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
 
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUMDEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
DEMONSTRATION LESSON IN ENGLISH 4 MATATAG CURRICULUM
 
VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .
VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA!                    .VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA!                    .
VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .
 

St_Louis_slide_deck_FINAL.pdf

  • 2. Table of Contents 0 1 R E PORT OVE R VIE W • About The City Studies Project • Sectors of Schools • Research Question and Analyses • Measure of Academic Performance Student Subgroup Analysis Summary of Findings 0 3 APPE N DIX E S • Acknowledgments • Types of Charter Schools • Methods • Days of Learning • Full Set of Findings 0 2 R E SE AR CH F IN DIN G S • Reading & Math Overall St. Louis Results Sector Analysis • vs. state & comparison within St. Louis Charter Subsector Analysis • Reading • Math School-Level Performance by Sector Research Findings Cont’d. Black Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis Hispanic Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis Students in Poverty • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis ELL Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis Special Ed Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis Male Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis Female Students • all vs. state • vs. state by sector & comparison within St. Louis • Reading • Math
  • 4. About The City Studies Project Cohort 1 Cohort 2 The City Studies project examines the performance of schools in select U.S. cities, including St. Louis. We study the academic progress of students as the measure of school performance.
  • 5. O O C C C CHARTER SCHOOLS Public schools operated independently from the traditional school district, with autonomy in adapting school designs and held accountable for education results. Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the operation of at least three charter schools. Independent Charter Schools Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the operation of a single or two charter schools. SELECTIVE MAGNET SCHOOLS District-run schools with focused themes and academically selective admission. OTHER DISTRICT-RUN SCHOOLS Public schools not belonging to any of above two types. C Sectors of Schools COMMUNITIES MAY HAVE UP TO THREE SECTORS OF SCHOOLS
  • 6. Research Question and Analyses IN THIS REPORT WE EXAMINE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN ST. LOUIS USING DATA FROM THE SCHOOL YEARS 2015-16 THROUGH 2018-19. THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS. Overall performance in St. Louis schools over two years. • The performance of St. Louis students is benchmarked against the state average performance, accounting for student characteristics. • The performance of charter school students and the performance of magnet school students within St. Louis are then compared to that of similar traditional public school (district school) students within St. Louis. Performance for St. Louis charter schools, St. Louis magnet schools and the rest of St. Louis Public schools over two years. Performance in the 2018- 2019 school year by school type, race, poverty status, English language learner (ELL) status, special education status and gender. WE MAKE TWO SETS OF COMPARISONS. 01 02 03
  • 7. Achievement scores capture what a student knows at a point in time. They are influenced by students’ prior conditions in addition to schools’ contributions. Growth scores indicate how much progress a student makes from one year to the next. Growth scores allow us to zero in on the contributions of schools separately from other factors that affect point-in-time scores. ACHIEVEMENT VS. GROWTH We analyze student growth in standard deviation units so that the results can be assessed for statistical differences. The full set of findings appear in the Appendix. In the following graphs of findings, we transform growth from standard deviation units into days of learning based on a typical 180-day school year. IN THIS STUDY WE MEASURE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS HOW MUCH GROWTH STUDENTS MAKE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. Measure of Academic Performance SPECIAL HANDING OF ST. LOUIS GROWTH SCORES FOR 2017-18 For the period ending in Spring 2018, we use student test scores from the 2015-16 school year as starting scores to calculate student growth because the Missouri test score data for 2016-17 are incomplete.
  • 9. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019 Growth (in Days of Learning) significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Overall St. Louis Results > Reading & Math Average One-Year Learning Gains for All St. Louis Students Compared to the State Average Learning Gains, by Year and Subject
  • 10. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019 Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains in Reading for Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, St. Louis Magnet Schools, and St. Louis District Schools Compared to the State Average Learning Gains, by Year significantly different at p< 0.05 charter magnet Research Findings > Sector Analysis > Reading VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS charter magnet district Reading Charter vs. District Magnet vs. District Charter vs. Magnet '17-'18 '18-'19 Tests of Differences
  • 11. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019 Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains in Math for Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, St. Louis Magnet Schools, and St. Louis District Schools Compared to the State Average Learning Gains, by Year significantly different at p< 0.05 charter magnet district Research Findings > Sector Analysis > Math VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Math Charter vs. District Magnet vs. District Charter vs. Magnet Tests of Differences '17-'18 '18-'19
  • 12. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 CMO Charter Schools Independent Charter Schools Growth (in Days of Learning) Relative Learning Gains for Students in St. Louis CMO-Affiliated Charter Schools and Independent St. Louis Charter Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains for All Student in the State, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Charter Subsector Analysis > vs. state & comparison within St. Louis Reading CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools Math CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools sig Tests of Differences
  • 13. -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Growth (in Days of Learning) Charter District Magnet Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector > Reading
  • 14. -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Growth (in Days of Learning) Charter District Magnet Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector >Math
  • 15. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Black Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Black Students Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Black Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Black Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 16. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Charter Black Students St. Louis Magnet Black Students St. Louis District Black Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for Black Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, Black Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and Black Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Black Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Black Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Black vs. District Black Magnet Black vs. District Black Math Charter Black vs. District Black Magnet Black vs. District Black Tests of Differences sig
  • 17. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Hispanic Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Hispanic Students Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Hispanic Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Hispanic Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 18. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Charter Hispanic Students St. Louis Magnet Hispanic Students St. Louis District Hispanic Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for Hispanic Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, Hispanic Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and Hispanic Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Hispanic Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Hispanic Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Hispanic vs. District Hispanic Magnet Hispanic vs. District Hispanic Math Charter Hispanic vs. District Hispanic Magnet Hispanic vs. District Hispanic Tests of Differences sig
  • 19. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Students in Poverty Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Students in Poverty Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Students in Poverty Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Students in Poverty ALL VS. STATE
  • 20. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Charter Students in Poverty St. Louis Magnet Students in Poverty St. Louis District Students in Poverty Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for St. Louis Charter School Students in Poverty, St. Louis Magnet School Students in Poverty, and St. Louis District School Students in Poverty Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Students in Poverty Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Students in Poverty VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Poverty vs. District Poverty Magnet Poverty vs. District Poverty Math Charter Poverty vs. District Poverty Magnet Poverty vs. District Poverty Tests of Differences sig
  • 21. -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis ELL Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All ELL Students in St. Louis Compared to the Average Learning Gains of ELL Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > ELL Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 22. -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 St. Louis Charter ELL Students St. Louis Magnet ELL Students St. Louis District ELL Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for ELL Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, ELL Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and ELL Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains of ELL Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > ELL Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter ELL vs. District ELL Magnet ELL vs. District ELL Math Charter ELL vs. District ELL Magnet ELL vs. District ELL Tests of Differences sig
  • 23. -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 St. Louis Special Ed Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Students in Special Education Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Students in Special Education Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Special Ed Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 24. -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 St. Louis Charter Students in Special Ed. St. Louis Magnet Students in Special Ed. St. Louis District Students in Special Ed. Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for St. Louis Charter School Students in Special Ed., St. Louis Magnet School Students in Special Ed., and St. Louis District School Students in Special Ed. Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Students in Special Ed. Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Special Ed Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Sped vs. District Sped Magnet Sped vs. District Sped Math Charter Sped vs. District Sped Magnet Sped vs. District Sped Tests of Differences sig
  • 25. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 St. Louis Male Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Male Students Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Male Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Male Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 26. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 St. Louis Charter Male Students St. Louis Magnet Male Students St. Louis District Male Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for Male Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, Male Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and Male Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Male Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Male Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Male vs. District Male Magnet Male vs. District Male Math Charter Male vs. District Male Magnet Male vs. District Male Tests of Differences sig Reading Charter Male vs. District Male Magnet Male vs. District Male Math Charter Male vs. District Male Magnet Male vs. District Male Tests of Differences sig
  • 27. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 St. Louis Female Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for All St. Louis Female Students Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Female Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Female Students ALL VS. STATE
  • 28. -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 St. Louis Charter Female Students St. Louis Magnet Female Students St. Louis District Female Students Growth (in Days of Learning) Learning Gains for Female Students in St. Louis Charter Schools, Female Students in St. Louis Magnet Schools, and Female Students in St. Louis District Schools Compared to the Average Learning Gains of Female Students Statewide, by Subject significantly different at p< 0.05 reading math Research Findings > Student Subgroup Analysis > Female Students VS. STATE BY SECTOR & COMPARISON WITHIN ST. LOUIS Reading Charter Female vs. District Female Magnet Female vs. District Female Math Charter Female vs. District Female Magnet Female vs. District Female Tests of Differences sig
  • 29. Summary of Findings The summary of the findings from the analysis of St. Louis schools is presented here.
  • 31. Acknowledgments Student-level data were provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. The opportunity trust assisted CREDO with verifying the list of public schools in St. Louis.
  • 32. Types of Charter Schools • With more schools and students than a single charter school, CMOs have some operational advantages in their ability to spread administrative fixed costs, thus providing the possibility of greater efficiency. In addition, CMOs may be able to support additional programs and more robust staffing. • Whether CMOs lead to better student outcomes is a matter of interest across the country. OUR ANALYSES OF ST. LOUIS CHARTER SCHOOLS INCLUDE A BREAKOUT OF CMOS AND INDEPENDENT CHARTERS. There are two types of charter schools. CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CMOS) Organizations holding the charter and overseeing the operation of at least three charter schools. INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOLS Organization holding the charter and overseeing the operation of a single charter school. It may run the school directly or contract with an organization which provides services to one or two charter schools.
  • 33. Methods The annual academic growth of students in St. Louis from 2015-16 to 2018-19, overall and by sector, is benchmarked to the state average growth, accounting for student characteristics. We also explore how one-year growth of St. Louis students for the period ending in Spring 2019 differs by school type, race, poverty status, English language learner status, special education status, and gender.
  • 34. Days of Learning While these tools create precise and reliable answers, they are presented in technical terms that are not user-friendly to a general audience. To translate the technical results into terms that are accessible to non- technical audiences, CREDO developed Days of Learning. CREDO USES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SOPHISTICATED STATISTICAL TOOLS TO MEASURE STUDENTS, SCHOOLS AND THE EDUCATION LANDSCAPE. Think about the students in your state’s public schools. For many of their years of schooling, they take achievement tests to measure what they know at the end of the school year. We can identify the average score for each test each year. Imagine a student who scores exactly at the average in one year, say 4th grade, and then in the following year, scores exactly at the average again on the 5th- grade test. The amount of year-to-year learning for that student show us what the average learning is for all the students who took both tests. We do that calculation for every grade the state tests: 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and so on. CREDO uses those annual measures of average learning to represent a typical year of learning, and equates that to a typical 180-day school year. We say that the student in our example has gained 180 days of learning. If a student makes more progress than the average student, we take the amount of extra achievement and translate it into 180-days of learning plus “X” extra days. We are creating a measure of student learning as if the student went to school for 180 days plus X days. The size of “X” depends on how much more the student learns than the average student — if it’s a lot more, then “X” will be a large number, and if it’s a small amount more, “X” will be a small number. The same is true for students who do not learn as much as the average student. Instead of adding to the 180-days-of-learning average, we subtract from that base to reflect the smaller-than-average advances that those students realize. In these cases, the difference leads to numbers such a “165 days of learning” or “152 days of learning”. Against the average standard of 180 days, these smaller days show that students learned as if they had only attended school for 180 days minus X days during the school year. 01 02 03 04 05 06 3rd Grade 4th Grade = 180 days More than 180 days Less than 180 days Student A Student A
  • 35. Overall St. Louis Results Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t . L o u i s O v e r a l l 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 -0.03 -19 0.00 -2 S t . L o u i s O v e r a l l 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.02 9 0.00 -1
  • 36. St. Louis School Sectors Compared to State Average Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g C h a r t e r S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.02 10 0.03 16 C h a r t e r S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.07** 39** 0.09** 51** M a g n e t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.22** 132** 0.26** 152** M a g n e t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.30** 178** 0.29** 172** O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 -0.14** -85** -0.09* -53* O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 -0.07** -40** -0.11** -63**
  • 37. Comparison of School Sectors within St. Louis Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g C h a r t e r S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.16** 94** 0.12* 69* C h a r t e r S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.13** 79** 0.19** 114** M a g n e t S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 0.37** 217** 0.35** 205** M a g n e t S c h o o l s v s . O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l s 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 0.37** 218** 0.40** 234**
  • 38. Charter Subsector Analysis Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t . L o u i s C M O s v s . S t a t e A v e r a g e 0.05 31 0.07 40 S t . L o u i s I n d e p e n d e n t C h a r t e r s v s . S t a t e A v e r a g e 0.09** 55** 0.12** 72** S t . L o u i s C M O s v s . S t . L o u i s I n d e p e n d e n t C h a r t e r s -0.04 -25 -0.06 -33
  • 39. Student Subgroup Analysis> Black Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Black Students S t . L o u i s B l a c k S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.01 -4 -0.03 -18 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.08** 46** 0.10* 56* S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.25** 145** 0.26** 154** S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s -0.08** -45** -0.12** -72** Compared with Black Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.16** 91** 0.22** 128** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l B l a c k S t u d e n t s 0.32** 189** 0.38** 225**
  • 40. Student Subgroup Analysis> Hispanic Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Hispanic Students S t . L o u i s H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.03 15 0.04 24 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.08** 47** 0.07 43 S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.11 66 0.17 102 S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s -0.06 -34 -0.01 -8 Compared with Hispanic Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.14** 81** 0.09 50 S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l H i s p a n i c S t u d e n t s 0.17 99 0.19 110
  • 41. Student Subgroup Analysis> Students in Poverty Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Students in Poverty S t . L o u i s S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y O v e r a l l 0.02 9 0.00 -1 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.08** 44** 0.10** 60** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.30** 178** 0.29** 172** S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y -0.07** -40** -0.11** -63** Compared with Students in Poverty in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.14** 84** 0.21** 122** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y 0.37** 218** 0.40** 235**
  • 42. Student Subgroup Analysis> ELL Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of ELL Students S t . L o u i s E L L S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.01 -8 0.04 20 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.02 12 0.08 45 S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.19 112 0.27 156 S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s -0.04 -24 0.00 2 Compared with ELL Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.06 35 0.07 43 S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.23** 135** 0.26** 153**
  • 43. Student Subgroup Analysis> Special Ed Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Special Ed Students S t . L o u i s S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.05 28 0.03 17 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.07 41 0.16** 92** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.45** 266** 0.42** 244** S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.00 2 -0.06 -38 Compared with Special Ed Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.07 39 0.22** 129** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s 0.45** 263** 0.48** 282**
  • 44. Student Subgroup Analysis> Male Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Male Students S t . L o u i s M a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.03 14 -0.01 -4 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.07* 43* 0.07 42 S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.36** 212** 0.34** 198** S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s -0.06** -35** -0.1** -61** Compared with Male Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.13** 78** 0.18** 103** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l M a l e S t u d e n t s 0.42** 247** 0.44** 259**
  • 45. Student Subgroup Analysis> Female Students Significant at p < 0.05* Significant at p < 0.01** R E A D I N G M A T H S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n D a y s o f L e a r n i n g Compared with Statewide Average of Female Students S t . L o u i s F e m a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l 0.01 3 0.01 2 S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.06** 35** 0.10** 61** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.25** 146** 0.26** 150** S t . L o u i s O t h e r D i s t r i c t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s -0.08** -45** -0.11** -65** Compared with Female Students in Other District Schools in St. Louis S t . L o u i s C h a r t e r S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.14** 80** 0.21** 125** S t . L o u i s M a g n e t S c h o o l F e m a l e S t u d e n t s 0.32** 191** 0.36** 214**