In 2022, CREDO at Stanford University completed an analysis of the performance of public schools in Fort Worth, Texas.1 This summary highlights the findings about students’ academic performance in public K-12 schools in Fort Worth. Performance is measured by one-year learning gains or growth students made from one school year to the next. We benchmark the growth of Fort Worth students against the state average academic and then compare the progress of charter school students with that of similar district school students within Fort Worth, accounting for student characteristics.
This summary highlights major findings about students’ academic performance in public K-12 schools in Houston, Texas. Performance is measured by one-year learning gains or growth students made from one school year to the next. Houston students’ progress is measured against the average growth of students throughout the state. The report examines the progress of students that attend charter and magnet schools in Houston, when compared to those who attend district schools with similar student demographics. This comparison takes into account the characteristics of all students.
In 2022, CREDO at Stanford University completed a second analysis of the performance of public schools in Austin, Texas.1 This summary highlights the findings about the academic performance of students in public K-12 schools in Austin. Performance is measured by one-year learning gains or growth students made from one school year to the next. We benchmark the growth of Austin students against the state average growth and then compare the progress of charter school students with that of similar district school students within Austin, accounting for student characteristics.
The document is a report that analyzes academic performance in Baton Rouge schools from 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. It finds that:
1) Baton Rouge charter school students outperformed similar traditional public school students in reading and math growth, while Baton Rouge magnet school students saw mixed results compared to traditional public school students.
2) Within the charter sector, students at CMO-affiliated charter schools generally saw greater gains compared to independent charter schools.
3) Performance varied among different student subgroups, with some groups like black students and students in poverty showing greater growth in charter schools compared to traditional public schools.
This document provides a summary of research findings from a study of academic performance in Austin, Texas schools from 2014-2015 through 2017-2018. The summary includes:
- Comparisons of reading and math growth for all Austin students versus state averages and by school sector (charter vs. district).
- Analysis of subgroups including Black, Hispanic, low-income, ELL, special education, male and female students' growth within Austin and versus state averages.
- Comparisons of charter management organization (CMO) affiliated charter schools versus independent charter schools' growth.
- The study measures academic performance through analyzing student growth in learning gains over time rather than point-in-time achievement scores.
This summary highlights major findings about students’ academic performance in public K-12 schools in Houston, Texas. Performance is measured by one-year learning gains or growth students made from one school year to the next. Houston students’ progress is measured against the average growth of students throughout the state. The report examines the progress of students that attend charter and magnet schools in Houston, when compared to those who attend district schools with similar student demographics. This comparison takes into account the characteristics of all students.
In 2022, CREDO at Stanford University completed a second analysis of the performance of public schools in Austin, Texas.1 This summary highlights the findings about the academic performance of students in public K-12 schools in Austin. Performance is measured by one-year learning gains or growth students made from one school year to the next. We benchmark the growth of Austin students against the state average growth and then compare the progress of charter school students with that of similar district school students within Austin, accounting for student characteristics.
The document is a report that analyzes academic performance in Baton Rouge schools from 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. It finds that:
1) Baton Rouge charter school students outperformed similar traditional public school students in reading and math growth, while Baton Rouge magnet school students saw mixed results compared to traditional public school students.
2) Within the charter sector, students at CMO-affiliated charter schools generally saw greater gains compared to independent charter schools.
3) Performance varied among different student subgroups, with some groups like black students and students in poverty showing greater growth in charter schools compared to traditional public schools.
This document provides a summary of research findings from a study of academic performance in Austin, Texas schools from 2014-2015 through 2017-2018. The summary includes:
- Comparisons of reading and math growth for all Austin students versus state averages and by school sector (charter vs. district).
- Analysis of subgroups including Black, Hispanic, low-income, ELL, special education, male and female students' growth within Austin and versus state averages.
- Comparisons of charter management organization (CMO) affiliated charter schools versus independent charter schools' growth.
- The study measures academic performance through analyzing student growth in learning gains over time rather than point-in-time achievement scores.
This summary highlights major findings about students’ academic performance in public K-12 schools in Newark, New Jersey. Performance is measured by one-year learning gain or growth students made from one school year to the next. We benchmark Newark students’ growth against the state average growth and then compare the progress of charter and magnet school students with that of similar non-magnet district school (abbreviated as district school) students within Newark, accounting for student characteristics.
This document is a report on a study of academic performance in San Antonio schools from 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. It examines performance at three levels: overall in San Antonio, by sector (charter, innovation, district), and for various student subgroups. The report includes numerous data figures and statistical comparisons of student growth in reading and math between sectors and relative to state averages. It analyzes the performance of charter school subgroups relative to each other and differences in school-level performance by sector.
This document presents research findings from a study of schools in Denver, Colorado between 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. It analyzes academic growth in reading and math for all students and various student subgroups across three sectors - charter schools, innovation schools, and other district schools. Key findings are presented comparing performance between sectors and to state averages, as well as analysis at the school level. Subgroup analyses look at differences for Black, Hispanic, low-income, ELL, special education, male, and female students.
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...The Opportunity Trust
In partnership with Exponent Education, a highly regarded education data group, you are invited to a discussion on the recently released state education data – our first look at how children and schools are doing post-pandemic.
We share a new and novel analysis of state and regional trends with a focus on bright spots – where we are seeing progress that can help all schools and systems improve faster.
We hope this analysis is a resource for all of us working to increase access to educational opportunities for our most vulnerable children, and that it helps us individually and collectively allocate our time and resources to make the greatest impact possible.
Learning to Improve: A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in School Syst...The Opportunity Trust
The document provides an analysis of trends in student academic achievement in Missouri following the Covid-19 pandemic. Some key points:
- Statewide and in Missouri, average test scores declined significantly from 2019 to 2022, especially in math. Low-income students in Missouri experienced some of the largest declines nationally.
- While proficiency rates remained flat or continued declining in most areas, some schools ("outliers") saw significant improvements, especially in reducing the percentage of students scoring below basic. Fast-improving schools included both districts and charters serving mostly low-income students.
- If all schools could improve as quickly as the highest performing outliers, statewide proficiency among low-income students could increase dramatically by 2027.
This document analyzes charter school performance in Rhode Island. It finds that:
1) Students attending charter schools in Rhode Island experience significantly higher academic growth compared to similar students in traditional public schools, with 43% of charter schools outperforming local traditional public school options in reading and 57% outperforming in math.
2) Charter school attendance is associated with improved learning gains for disadvantaged student groups like those in poverty, English learners, and students with special needs relative to traditional public schools.
3) Charter school attendance is also linked to higher learning gains for Black and Hispanic students compared to traditional public schools.
However, the analysis still finds substantial learning inequalities that exist for disadvantaged student
Charter schools in California, New York, and Washington state show standing capacity to adapt. New research on charter schools’ reveals a larger story of how education policy at large can contribute in positive ways to strengthening outcomes for public school students.
More Related Content
Similar to 2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study
This summary highlights major findings about students’ academic performance in public K-12 schools in Newark, New Jersey. Performance is measured by one-year learning gain or growth students made from one school year to the next. We benchmark Newark students’ growth against the state average growth and then compare the progress of charter and magnet school students with that of similar non-magnet district school (abbreviated as district school) students within Newark, accounting for student characteristics.
This document is a report on a study of academic performance in San Antonio schools from 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. It examines performance at three levels: overall in San Antonio, by sector (charter, innovation, district), and for various student subgroups. The report includes numerous data figures and statistical comparisons of student growth in reading and math between sectors and relative to state averages. It analyzes the performance of charter school subgroups relative to each other and differences in school-level performance by sector.
This document presents research findings from a study of schools in Denver, Colorado between 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. It analyzes academic growth in reading and math for all students and various student subgroups across three sectors - charter schools, innovation schools, and other district schools. Key findings are presented comparing performance between sectors and to state averages, as well as analysis at the school level. Subgroup analyses look at differences for Black, Hispanic, low-income, ELL, special education, male, and female students.
A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in St. Louis School Performance Post...The Opportunity Trust
In partnership with Exponent Education, a highly regarded education data group, you are invited to a discussion on the recently released state education data – our first look at how children and schools are doing post-pandemic.
We share a new and novel analysis of state and regional trends with a focus on bright spots – where we are seeing progress that can help all schools and systems improve faster.
We hope this analysis is a resource for all of us working to increase access to educational opportunities for our most vulnerable children, and that it helps us individually and collectively allocate our time and resources to make the greatest impact possible.
Learning to Improve: A First Look at Trends and Bright Spots in School Syst...The Opportunity Trust
The document provides an analysis of trends in student academic achievement in Missouri following the Covid-19 pandemic. Some key points:
- Statewide and in Missouri, average test scores declined significantly from 2019 to 2022, especially in math. Low-income students in Missouri experienced some of the largest declines nationally.
- While proficiency rates remained flat or continued declining in most areas, some schools ("outliers") saw significant improvements, especially in reducing the percentage of students scoring below basic. Fast-improving schools included both districts and charters serving mostly low-income students.
- If all schools could improve as quickly as the highest performing outliers, statewide proficiency among low-income students could increase dramatically by 2027.
Similar to 2022 Fort Worth Charter School City Study (20)
This document analyzes charter school performance in Rhode Island. It finds that:
1) Students attending charter schools in Rhode Island experience significantly higher academic growth compared to similar students in traditional public schools, with 43% of charter schools outperforming local traditional public school options in reading and 57% outperforming in math.
2) Charter school attendance is associated with improved learning gains for disadvantaged student groups like those in poverty, English learners, and students with special needs relative to traditional public schools.
3) Charter school attendance is also linked to higher learning gains for Black and Hispanic students compared to traditional public schools.
However, the analysis still finds substantial learning inequalities that exist for disadvantaged student
Charter schools in California, New York, and Washington state show standing capacity to adapt. New research on charter schools’ reveals a larger story of how education policy at large can contribute in positive ways to strengthening outcomes for public school students.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
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 Fort Worth Results
Sector Analysis
• vs. state & comparison
within Fort Worth
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 Fort Worth
Hispanic Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
Students in Poverty
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
ELL Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
Special Ed Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
Male Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
Female Students
• all vs. state
• vs. state by sector &
comparison within Fort Worth
• 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 Fort Worth. 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.
There are no selective magnet schools in Fort Worth
during the span of this study.
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
FORT WORTH USING DATA FROM THE SCHOOL YEARS 2017-18
THROUGH 2018-19. THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS.
Overall performance in
Fort Worth schools over
one growth period.
• The performance of Fort Worth
students is benchmarked against the
state average performance,
accounting for student
characteristics.
• The performance of charter school
students within Fort Worth are then
compared to that of similar
traditional public school (district
school) students within Fort Worth.
Performance for Fort
Worth charter schools
and the other public
schools in Fort Worth
over one growth period.
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
9. significantly different at p< 0.05
reading math
Research Findings > Overall Fort Worth Results
> Reading & Math
Average One-Year Learning Gains for All Fort Worth
Students Compared to the State Average Learning
Gains, by Year and Subject
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
SY 2018-19
10. Learning Gains in Reading for Students in Fort Worth
Charter Schools and Fort Worth District Schools
Compared to the State Average Learning Gains, by
Year
significantly different at p< 0.05
charter
Research Findings > Sector Analysis
> Reading
VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN FORT WORTH
charter district
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
SY 2018-19
11. Learning Gains in Math for Students in Fort Worth
Charter Schools and Fort Worth District Schools
Compared to the State Average Learning Gains, by
Year
significantly different at p< 0.05
charter district
Research Findings > Sector Analysis
> Math
VS. STATE & COMPARISON WITHIN FORT WORTH
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
SY 2018-19
12. -70
-50
-30
-10
10
30
CMO Charter Schools Independent Charter Schools
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Relative Learning Gains for Students in Fort Worth
CMO-Affiliated Charter Schools and Independent Fort
Worth 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 Fort Worth
Reading
CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools
Math
CMOs vs Independent Charter Schools
sig
Tests of Differences
§ Redacted because of a very small number of independent charter schools
involved in the analysis.
§
§
13. -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Growth (in Days of Learning)
Charter
District
Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector
> Reading
14. -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Growth (in Days of Learning)
Charter
District
Research Findings > School-Level Performance by Sector
>Math
15. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Black Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Black Students
Fort Worth District
Black Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Black Students in Fort Worth Charter
Schools and Black Students in Fort Worth 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 FORT WORTH
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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Hispanic Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Hispanic Students
Fort Worth District
Hispanic Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Hispanic Students in Fort Worth Charter
Schools and Hispanic Students in Fort Worth 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 FORT WORTH
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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Students in Poverty
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Students in Poverty
Fort Worth District
Students in Poverty
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Fort Worth Charter School
Students in Poverty and Fort Worth 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 FORT WORTH
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
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth ELL Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All ELL Students in Fort Worth
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
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
ELL Students
Fort Worth District
ELL Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for ELL Students in Fort Worth
Charter Schools and ELL Students in Fort Worth
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 FORT WORTH
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
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Special Ed Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Students in Special Ed.
Fort Worth District
Students in Special Ed.
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Fort Worth Charter School
Students in Special Ed. and Fort Worth 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 FORT WORTH
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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Male Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Male Students
Fort Worth District
Male Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Male Students in Fort Worth
Charter Schools and Male Students in Fort Worth
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 FORT WORTH
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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Female Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for All Fort Worth 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. -50
-30
-10
10
30
50
Fort Worth Charter
Female Students
Fort Worth District
Female Students
Growth
(in
Days
of
Learning)
Learning Gains for Female Students in Fort Worth Charter
Schools and Female Students in Fort Worth 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 FORT WORTH
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 Fort Worth schools is presented here.
31. Acknowledgments
Texas Education Agency,
Texas Schools Project, and
Texas Higher Education
Advisory Board provided
supports in the acquisition of
student-level data.
Fort Worth Education Partnership
assisted CREDO with verifying the list
of public schools in Fort Worth.
Disclaimer: The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official position of the Texas
Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Workforce Commission or the State of
Texas.
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 FORT WORTH
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 Fort Worth from
2017-18 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 Fort Worth 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 Fort Worth 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
F o r t W o r t h O v e r a l l 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 -0.03** -21** -0.02 -10
36. Fort Worth 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 8 - 1 9 0.03 16 0.03 15
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 -0.04** -23** -0.02 -12
37. Comparison of School Sectors within Fort Worth
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 8 - 1 9 0.07** 38** 0.05 26
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
F o r t W o r t h C M O s v s . S t a t e A v e r a g e 0.04 21 0.04 21
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.11** -67** -0.10 -57
F o r t W o r t h C M O s v s . F o r t W o r t h I n d e p e n d e n t C h a r t e r s 0.15** 88** 0.13 77
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
F o r t W o r t h B l a c k S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.05** -31** -0.03 -17
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 8 0.02 10
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.06** -35** -0.03 -20
Compared with Black Students in Other District Schools in
Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 8 0.02 10
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
F o r t W o r t h 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** -17** -0.02 -10
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.04 23 0.05 31
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.03** -19** -0.02 -13
Compared with Hispanic Students in Other District Schools
in Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.04** 23** 0.05 31
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
F o r t W o r t h S t u d e n t s i n P o v e r t y O v e r a l l -0.04** -21** -0.02 -11
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.05 27 0.06 35
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.04** -24** -0.02 -13
Compared with Students in Poverty in Other District
Schools in Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.05** 27** 0.06 35
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
F o r t W o r t h E L L S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.01 -8 0.00 1
F o r t W o r t h C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.05* 31* 0.09 50
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.02 -11 0.00 -2
Compared with ELL Students in Other District Schools in
Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h C h a r t e r S c h o o l E L L S t u d e n t s 0.05** 31** 0.09 50
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
F o r t W o r t h S p e c i a l E d S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.02 -13 0.01 7
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 8 -0.03 -19
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.02 -14 0.01 8
Compared with Special Ed Students in Other District
Schools in Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 8 -0.03 -19
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
F o r t W o r t h M a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.03** -19** -0.01 -8
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.05 27 0.06 34
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.04** -22** -0.02 -11
Compared with Male Students in Other District Schools in
Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.05** 27** 0.06 34
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
F o r t W o r t h F e m a l e S t u d e n t s O v e r a l l -0.04** -22** -0.02 -12
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 7 0.00 -2
F o r t W o r t h 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 -0.04** -24** -0.02 -12
Compared with Female Students in Other District Schools
in Fort Worth
F o r t W o r t h 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 0.01 7 0.00 -2