Greenville County Schools - South Carolina

Greenville County Schools - South Carolina

Greenville County Schools South Carolina The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education PAGE DATA 2 Background Information 3 Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency READING 4 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 5 Reading Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 6 Reading Proficiency Gaps 7 Standardized Residuals for Reading MATHEMATICS 8 Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 9 Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 10 Mathematics Proficiency Gaps 11 Standardized Residuals for Mathematics SCIENCE 12 Science Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level 13 Science Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level 14 Science Proficiency Gaps 15 Standardized Residuals for Science 16 High School Graduation Rates 17 College Readiness Data 18 Methodology and Technical Notes © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 2 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education 2008 2009 2010 2011 District characteristics Locale1 21 21 21 21 Number of schools 94 94 94 96 Student characteristics Enrollment 69,444 70,441 70,969 71,930 District size rank2 53 50 49 47 Percent low-income students3 39 42 46 46 Percent non-White students 39 39 39 37 Percent of students by race/ethnicity African American 27 26 26 24 Asian4 2 3 3 2 Hispanic 10 10 11 12 White 60 60 60 59 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander4 — 0 0 0 Two or more races5 — 0 0 3 Not reported 1 1 1 0 Percent English language learners 4 8 9 9 Percent students with disabilities 15 15 14 14 District expenditures Total current expenditures per pupil $8,174 $8,063 $7,875 — Instructional expenditures per pupil $4,640 $4,698 $4,530 — State expenditures Total current expenditures per pupil $9,268 $9,352 $9,173 — Instructional expenditures per pupil $5,258 $5,367 $5,252 — SOURCE: Analysis of data from the U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD) and from the U.S. Census Bureau.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. 1 As defined by CCD, locale code 11 represents a large city, code 12 represents a midsize city, and code 21 represents a suburb of a large urban area. 2 District size rank is based on enrollment in local school districts in the 50 states and DC, and does not include other district types or territories. 3 Low-income students are defined as eligible for Free or Reduced-Price School Lunch (FRSL). 4 Prior to 2011, some states combined Asian and Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander categories. 5 As of 2011, all states reported a“Two or more races”category; however, some states began reporting this category as early as 2009.

NOTES: CCD data for 2012 and 2011 expenditures data from the U.S. Census were not available at time of this analysis. Background Information Grades included in analysis Subject/level Most recent test included in analysis 2009 2010 2011 2012 Reading Elementary Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 Middle Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 High High School Assessment Program (HSAP) 10 10 10 10 Mathematics Elementary Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 Middle Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 High High School Assessment Program (HSAP) 10 10 10 10 Science Elementary Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 3, 4, 5 Middle Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 6, 7, 8 High End-of-Course Examination Program (EOCEP) 10 10 10 10 SOURCE: State education agency.

— Not available. NOTES: Italics indicate tests were not comparable to other years. 2011 and 2012 data at the high school level are based on end-of-course exam results which include some data for middle school students (less than 1 percent). In 2011, the state implemented new federal race/ethnicity data collection and reporting requirements; as a result, trends for racial/ethnic subgroups should be interpreted with caution. At the high school level in 2011, the state began a rolling imple- mentation of the Biology EOCEP for accountability purposes, replacing the Physical Science EOCEP. The transition was completed in 2012; 2011 and 2012 results are comparable neither to each other nor to prior years and, thus, were excluded from trend analysis.

Description of district: 2008–2011 State test information: 2009–2012

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 3 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Trends in Overall Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency Percentage of all students in the district and the state1 scoring at or above proficient in reading, mathematics, and science in elementary, middle, and high school: 2009–2012 Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data. 1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section.

NOTES: See tables on pages 4, 8 and 12 for details.

Elementary Middle High Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 Elementary Middle High D I S T R I C T P R O F I C I E N C Y R AT E S TAT E 1 P R O F I C I E N C Y R AT E Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 Reading Mathematics Science

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 4 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Reading Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at or above proficient in reading: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 79 81 82 82 1 3 3 African American 65 67 68 67 1 5 4 Asian † Hispanic 65 71 72 72 2 4 2 White 86 87 89 89 1 3 3 Low income 67 71 72 71 2 4 3 Non-low income 89 90 91 92 1 3 3 State1 All 78 78 78 78 0 — — African American 66 67 67 65 0 — — Asian — Hispanic † 72 73 72 0 — — White 87 86 87 87 0 — — Low income 69 70 71 70 0 — — Non-low income 90 90 90 91 0 — — Middle District All 70 69 71 73 1 3 3 African American 53 50 51 53 0 6 5 Asian † Hispanic 58 61 63 65 2 6 3 White 79 78 80 82 1 3 3 Low income 55 55 57 60 2 5 3 Non-low income 81 82 83 86 1 3 4 State1 All 69 68 69 70 0 — — African American 55 54 53 55 0 — — Asian — Hispanic † 65 — White 80 79 79 81 0 — — Low income 58 57 57 60 1 — — Non-low income 83 83 83 84 1 — — High District All 56 61 69 65 3 1 4 African American 31 37 45 41 4 3 3 Asian † Hispanic 41 45 55 51 4 3 6 White 69 73 81 76 3 2 5 Low income 33 41 51 44 4 3 3 Non-low income 68 74 80 78 4 1 5 State1 All 49 54 60 57 3 — — African American 31 37 42 39 3 — — Asian — Hispanic — White 63 66 72 69 2 — — Low income 32 39 45 42 4 — — Non-low income 64 68 74 72 3 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 5 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 42 45 46 50 3 3 3 African American 21 25 24 28 2 4 4 Asian † Hispanic 26 30 33 35 3 4 3 White 52 55 57 61 3 2 3 Low income 25 29 31 34 3 4 3 Non-low income 56 61 61 67 4 3 3 State All 39 43 42 45 2 — — African American 23 26 25 26 1 — — Asian — Hispanic † 33 34 35 1 — — White 52 55 54 58 2 — — Low income 26 30 30 32 2 — — Non-low income 57 61 60 65 2 — — Middle District All 30 37 40 41 4 3 2 African American 14 18 17 19 2 5 6 Asian † Hispanic 18 23 26 28 3 6 3 White 39 46 50 52 4 3 2 Low income 15 20 23 25 3 4 2 Non-low income 42 51 54 56 5 4 3 State All 30 35 36 38 2 — — African American 15 18 19 20 1 — — Asian — Hispanic † 29 — White 41 47 49 50 3 — — Low income 18 22 23 25 2 — — Non-low income 45 52 54 56 3 — — High District All 26 31 39 32 2 1 3 African American 8 11 16 11 2 3 3 Asian † Hispanic 14 18 25 19 2 3 7 White 36 40 50 41 3 2 4 Low income 9 13 21 14 2 3 3 Non-low income 35 42 50 44 3 1 4 State All 21 25 30 24 2 — — African American 9 12 14 10 1 — — Asian — Hispanic — White 30 35 42 34 2 — — Low income 9 13 17 12 1 — — Non-low income 31 37 44 37 3 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. 2 “Advanced”includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state. Reading Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at the advanced2 level in reading: 2009–2012

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 6 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Reading Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in reading proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs. White -21 -21 -21 -22 0 7 5 Hispanic vs. White -21 -16 -16 -17 1 8 4 Low income vs. non-low income -22 -20 -19 -21 1 7 5 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White -1 -2 -1 0 0 — — Hispanic vs.

White † -2 -2 -2 0 — — Low income vs. non-low income -2 0 0 0 1 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -22 -20 -19 -20 1 — — Hispanic vs. White -22 -15 -14 -15 2 — — Low income vs. non-low income -23 -19 -18 -19 1 — — Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White -26 -28 -29 -29 -1 9 7 Hispanic vs. White -20 -17 -17 -17 1 6 4 Low income vs. non-low income -26 -27 -26 -26 0 9 5 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White -1 -2 -3 -3 -1 — — Hispanic vs. White - 1 — Low income vs. non-low income -1 -1 0 -1 0 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs.

state1 advantaged African American vs. White -27 -28 -28 -28 0 — — Hispanic vs. White -21 -18 -16 -16 2 — — Low income vs. non-low income -28 -28 -26 -25 1 — — High Internal district gap African American vs. White -39 -36 -36 -35 1 9 4 Hispanic vs. White -29 -28 -26 -25 1 7 6 Low income vs. non-low income -35 -33 -29 -34 1 9 5 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White -7 -6 -5 -5 1 — — Hispanic vs. White — Low income vs. non-low income -3 -4 0 -4 0 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -32 -30 -27 -28 2 — — Hispanic vs.

White -22 -21 -18 -18 2 — — Low income vs. non-low income -31 -27 -23 -27 1 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. 1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed.

Average change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the defini- tion of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 2012 decile ranks appear in color when the 2012 gap is among the 30 percent (1–3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of average change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 7 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in reading, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 Standardized Residuals for Reading Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in reading, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level.

Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Residual -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.72 -0.38 -0.14 -0.15 -1.06 -0.90 -0.65 -0.43 -0.06 0.19 0.39 0.21 Elementary High Middle Decile ranks2 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary -0.72 -0.38 -0.14 -0.15 0.20 6.00 3.00 Middle -1.06 -0.90 -0.65 -0.43 0.22 8.00 3.00 High -0.06 0.19 0.39 0.21 0.10 5.00 4.00 Count of positive residuals in reading/total available 0/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 3/3 6.33 3.33 Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 0/9 2/9 1/9 3/9 8/9 6.56 4.00 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. 1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of“positive residuals”rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state appear in color.

Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 8 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at or above proficient in mathematics: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 76 76 79 81 2 3 5 African American 58 59 62 63 2 5 5 Asian † Hispanic 67 70 74 74 2 4 4 White 84 83 86 88 2 3 4 Low income 64 65 69 70 2 4 5 Non-low income 86 86 88 91 2 3 3 State1 All 72 72 75 75 1 — — African American 57 58 60 61 1 — — Asian — Hispanic 67 67 71 72 2 — — White 83 83 84 85 1 — — Low income 62 63 66 67 2 — — Non-low income 86 86 87 88 1 — — Middle District All 66 67 72 72 3 4 3 African American 46 46 53 51 2 8 5 Asian † Hispanic 58 59 68 66 3 8 4 White 75 76 80 81 2 5 3 Low income 50 52 60 59 3 7 3 Non-low income 78 80 82 85 3 5 4 State1 All 68 67 70 71 1 — — African American 52 52 56 56 2 — — Asian — Hispanic † 70 — White 79 78 80 81 1 — — Low income 56 56 60 61 2 — — Non-low income 81 81 84 85 1 — — High District All 53 54 57 57 2 3 4 African American 25 27 30 32 2 6 3 Asian † Hispanic 45 45 49 45 0 6 8 White 65 66 68 68 1 4 5 Low income 32 34 39 38 2 6 4 Non-low income 64 66 68 70 2 4 4 State1 All 50 51 51 54 1 — — African American 31 32 31 35 1 — — Asian — Hispanic — White 64 64 66 66 1 — — Low income 34 36 37 39 2 — — Non-low income 64 65 66 68 1 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 9 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Mathematics Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at the advanced2 level in mathematics: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 34 39 44 45 4 2 4 African American 14 19 21 21 2 4 6 Asian † Hispanic 22 28 31 33 4 4 4 White 43 48 53 55 4 3 4 Low income 18 24 28 29 4 4 4 Non-low income 47 54 59 61 5 2 4 State All 30 35 39 38 3 — — African American 14 18 21 20 2 — — Asian — Hispanic 22 27 33 32 3 — — White 41 47 51 51 3 — — Low income 18 23 27 26 3 — — Non-low income 46 52 57 57 4 — — Middle District All 24 27 31 33 3 4 2 African American 8 10 12 12 2 7 5 Asian † Hispanic 14 18 21 21 3 8 5 White 32 34 40 42 4 4 2 Low income 10 13 17 17 2 6 3 Non-low income 34 39 44 47 4 4 2 State All 26 27 30 31 2 — — African American 11 12 14 15 1 — — Asian — Hispanic † 27 — White 37 38 41 42 2 — — Low income 14 16 18 19 2 — — Non-low income 40 42 45 48 3 — — High District All 29 28 27 31 0 3 5 African American 7 9 8 10 1 6 4 Asian † Hispanic 19 16 16 19 0 6 6 White 39 37 36 40 0 3 6 Low income 12 11 12 14 1 4 4 Non-low income 39 38 37 42 1 4 6 State All 26 24 23 27 0 — — African American 10 9 8 11 0 — — Asian — Hispanic — White 37 35 33 37 0 — — Low income 12 12 11 14 0 — — Non-low income 38 36 35 40 1 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. 2 “Advanced”includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 10 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Mathematics Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in mathematics proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs.

White -25 -25 -24 -25 0 8 6 Hispanic vs. White -16 -14 -13 -14 1 7 6 Low income vs. non-low income -23 -21 -19 -21 1 7 7 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White 0 0 0 -1 0 — — Hispanic vs. White -1 1 1 -1 0 — — Low income vs. non-low income 2 2 2 1 0 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -25 -24 -23 -22 1 — — Hispanic vs. White -16 -13 -11 -11 2 — — Low income vs. non-low income -22 -21 -18 -18 2 — — Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White -29 -29 -27 -30 0 9 7 Hispanic vs. White -17 -17 -11 -16 1 8 6 Low income vs.

non-low income -27 -27 -22 -26 1 9 5 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White -2 -3 -2 -5 -1 — — Hispanic vs. White - 4 — Low income vs. non-low income -2 -2 1 -3 0 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -33 -31 -27 -30 1 — — Hispanic vs. White -21 -19 -12 -15 2 — — Low income vs. non-low income -31 -29 -24 -26 2 — — High Internal district gap African American vs. White -40 -39 -38 -36 1 9 4 Hispanic vs. White -20 -21 -19 -23 -1 9 7 Low income vs. non-low income -32 -32 -28 -33 0 9 5 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs.

White -8 -6 -3 -5 1 — — Hispanic vs. White — Low income vs. non-low income -2 -3 1 -4 0 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -39 -37 -36 -34 2 — — Hispanic vs. White -19 -20 -17 -21 0 — — Low income vs. non-low income -32 -30 -27 -30 1 — — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. 1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed.

Average change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the defini- tion of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 2012 decile ranks appear in color when the 2012 gap is among the 30 percent (1–3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of average change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 11 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Standardized Residuals for Mathematics Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in mathematics, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in mathematics, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level.

Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Residual -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.37 -0.26 -0.12 0.06 -1.25 -0.95 -0.62 -0.65 -0.63 -0.40 -0.29 -0.67 Elementary High Middle Decile ranks2 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary -0.37 -0.26 -0.12 0.06 0.14 6.00 4.00 Middle -1.25 -0.95 -0.62 -0.65 0.21 8.00 3.00 High -0.63 -0.40 -0.29 -0.67 0.00 8.00 5.00 Count of positive residuals in mathematics/total available 0/3 0/3 0/3 1/3 2/3 7.33 4.00 Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 0/9 2/9 1/9 3/9 8/9 6.56 4.00 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. 1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of“positive residuals”rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state appear in color.

Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 12 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Science Performance and Improvement at the Proficient or Above Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at or above proficient in science: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 71 71 71 75 1 3 6 African American 52 50 50 55 1 5 6 Asian † Hispanic 59 59 60 64 2 5 4 White 81 81 81 84 1 3 6 Low income 58 57 58 63 2 4 5 Non-low income 83 84 84 87 1 3 5 State1 All 66 64 66 69 1 — — African American 49 46 47 52 1 — — Asian — Hispanic † 55 58 62 4 — — White 79 78 81 82 1 — — Low income 54 53 55 60 2 — — Non-low income 83 82 83 85 1 — — Middle District All 68 69 71 75 2 4 4 African American 51 50 50 55 1 6 8 Asian † Hispanic 59 60 62 67 3 6 6 White 76 79 80 83 2 4 3 Low income 54 56 58 62 3 6 5 Non-low income 79 81 82 87 2 4 3 State1 All 67 69 69 72 2 — — African American 50 53 53 57 2 — — Asian — Hispanic † 69 — White 79 80 81 83 1 — — Low income 54 57 58 62 3 — — Non-low income 82 83 84 86 1 — — High District All 26 33 44 51 ‡ 2 ‡ African American 7 15 19 25 ‡ 3 ‡ Asian ‡ Hispanic 16 21 28 32 ‡ 5 ‡ White 35 41 55 63 ‡ 3 ‡ Low income 11 19 24 31 ‡ 4 ‡ Non-low income 33 42 55 63 ‡ 2 ‡ State1 All 20 24 34 41 — African American 7 10 15 21 — Asian — Hispanic — White 30 34 47 54 — Low income 9 12 19 26 — Non-low income 31 35 48 56 — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state. A rolling implementation of a new science end-of-course exam affected the comparability of results at the high school level; data from 2011 and 2012 are considered comparable neither to each other nor to previous years.

2011 and 2012 data at the high school level are based on end-of-course exam results which include some data for middle school students (less than 1 percent). Italicized values are not comparable to other years.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 13 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary District All 19 20 21 21 1 3 5 African American 6 7 6 7 0 4 5 Asian † Hispanic 9 9 9 11 1 4 5 White 25 27 28 28 1 4 7 Low income 8 9 10 10 1 4 5 Non-low income 28 31 32 32 1 4 6 State All 16 17 18 18 1 — — African American 5 6 6 6 0 — — Asian — Hispanic † 10 11 10 0 — — White 24 26 28 26 1 — — Low income 7 9 10 10 1 — — Non-low income 27 29 31 30 1 — — Middle District All 20 25 27 31 4 3 3 African American 7 9 9 12 1 6 7 Asian † Hispanic 12 15 17 20 3 7 6 White 26 33 35 40 4 4 3 Low income 10 13 15 18 3 5 4 Non-low income 28 36 37 44 5 4 3 State All 20 25 26 29 3 — — African American 8 10 10 13 2 — — Asian — Hispanic † 22 — White 29 35 37 40 3 — — Low income 10 14 15 18 2 — — Non-low income 32 39 41 45 4 — — High District All 13 20 28 35 ‡ 2 ‡ African American 2 8 9 11 ‡ 4 ‡ Asian ‡ Hispanic 7 12 16 18 ‡ 5 ‡ White 19 25 37 46 ‡ 2 ‡ Low income 5 9 13 17 ‡ 4 ‡ Non-low income 18 26 38 45 ‡ 2 ‡ State All 10 14 20 27 — African American 3 4 6 10 — Asian — Hispanic — White 16 21 29 37 — Low income 3 6 9 14 — Non-low income 17 22 30 39 — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test.

1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. 2 “Advanced”includes any levels above proficient. NOTES: Details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks are found in the methodology section. Positive change values appear in color. Decile ranks appear in color when the district’s 2012 performance or average change in proficiency is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state. A rolling implementation of a new science end-of-course exam affected the comparability of results at the high school level; data from 2011 and 2012 are considered comparable neither to each other nor to previous years.

2011 and 2012 data at the high school level are based on end-of-course exam results which include some data for middle school students (less than 1 percent). Italicized values are not comparable to other years.

Science Performance and Improvement at the Advanced Level Percentage of students in the district and the state1 scoring at the advanced2 level in science: 2009–2012

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 14 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Science Proficiency Gaps Percentage-point gaps in science proficiency rates between disadvantaged and advantaged groups: 2009–2012 Decile ranks 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary Internal district gap African American vs.

White -29 -31 -32 -30 0 7 6 Hispanic vs. White -22 -22 -22 -20 1 6 5 Low income vs. non-low income -25 -27 -26 -25 0 8 7 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White 2 1 2 1 0 — — Hispanic vs. White † 1 1 -1 -1 — — Low income vs. non-low income 3 3 2 1 -1 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -27 -29 -31 -27 0 — — Hispanic vs. White -20 -19 -21 -18 1 — — Low income vs. non-low income -25 -25 -25 -22 1 — — Middle Internal district gap African American vs. White -26 -29 -30 -29 -1 9 9 Hispanic vs. White -17 -18 -18 -16 0 6 7 Low income vs.

non-low income -25 -25 -24 -25 0 8 7 Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs. White 3 -1 -2 -2 -2 — — Hispanic vs. White - 2 — Low income vs. non-low income 2 1 1 -1 -1 — — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -28 -30 -30 -29 0 — — Hispanic vs. White -20 -20 -19 -16 1 — — Low income vs. non-low income -28 -27 -26 -24 1 — — High Internal district gap African American vs. White -28 -27 -36 -39 ‡ 9 ‡ Hispanic vs. White -20 -20 -27 -31 ‡ 8 ‡ Low income vs. non-low income -22 -23 -32 -32 ‡ 9 ‡ Internal district vs. internal state1 gap African American vs.

White -6 -2 -3 -6 — Hispanic vs. White — Low income vs. non-low income 0 0 -3 -2 — External gap: district disadvantaged vs. state1 advantaged African American vs. White -23 -20 -29 -29 — Hispanic vs. White -14 -13 -19 -21 — Low income vs. non-low income -19 -17 -24 -25 — SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of test takers at a level. See methodology section. ‡ Calculation could not be performed due to a change in the state test. 1 Unless otherwise indicated in the NOTES section below, state values exclude the district’s results; see methodology section. NOTES: In the first four columns, negative numbers indicate an achievement gap, where the disadvantaged group performed lower than the advantaged group. (Positive numbers indicate the disadvantaged group performed higher than the advantaged group.) Negative average change values indicate the achievement gap widened; positive numbers indicate the achievement gap narrowed.

Average change values appear in color when the gap is closing; details on the defini- tion of a gap closure and average change are found in the methodology section. Details on the calculation of decile ranks are also found in the methodology section. 2012 decile ranks appear in color when the 2012 gap is among the 30 percent (1–3) of districts with the smallest gaps in the state. Decile ranks of aver- age change appear in color when the average change in gaps is in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state and meets the conditions for a gap closure. A rolling implementation of a new science end-of-course exam affected the comparability of results at the high school level; data from 2011 and 2012 are considered comparable neither to each other nor to previous years.

2011 and 2012 data at the high school level are based on end-of-course exam results which include some data for middle school students (less than 1 percent). Italicized values are not comparable to other years.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 15 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in science, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 Standardized Residuals for Science Standardized residuals1 for regressions of the percentage of students in the district scoring at or above proficient in science, controlling for district poverty level: 2009–2012 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level.

Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. NOTES: See below for details. Residual -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.24 -0.01 -0.26 -0.05 -0.88 -0.77 -0.76 -0.49 -0.28 0.29 -0.01 0.09 Elementary High Middle Decile ranks2 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change 2012 Average change Elementary -0.24 -0.01 -0.26 -0.05 0.03 6.00 5.00 Middle -0.88 -0.77 -0.76 -0.49 0.12 7.00 4.00 High -0.28 0.29 -0.01 0.09 0.08 5.00 5.00 Count of positive residuals in science/total available 0/3 1/3 0/3 1/3 3/3 6.00 4.67 Count of positive residuals in reading, mathematics, and science/total available 0/9 2/9 1/9 3/9 8/9 6.56 4.00 SOURCE: Analysis of state test data.

— Not available. † Data were suppressed due to unreliability. See methodology section. 1 Positive residuals indicate higher-than-expected performance, and negative residuals indicate lower-than-expected performance, given the district’s poverty level. Residuals are expressed in standard units. Regressions were weighted by district size. 2 For the count of“positive residuals”rows, the decile rank is the average rank for the three education levels. NOTES: For details on the calculation of average change and decile ranks, see methodology section. Positive average change values and decile ranks in the top 30 percent (1–3) of the state appear in color.

Counts of residuals also appear in color when all available residuals are positive.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA 16 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education High School Graduation Rates Three estimated high school graduation rates: 2006–2009 Estimated high school graduation rates for the classes of 2006–2009 Percent 20 40 60 80 100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate Manhattan Institute Method Urban Institute Method All students African American Asian Hispanic White 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average change Average of the three graduation rate measures All — 57 — 66 4 African American — 42 — 52 5 Asian † Hispanic — 48 — 63 8 White — 65 — 74 4 Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate All — 61 — 69 4 African American — 46 — 55 5 Asian † Hispanic — 45 — 74 14 White — 69 — 74 3 Urban Institute method1 All — 55 — 62 3 African American — 40 — 47 3 Asian † Hispanic — 50 — 53 1 White — 61 — 70 5 Manhattan Institute method1 All — 56 — 68 6 African American — 41 — 55 7 Asian † Hispanic † White — 66 — 76 5 SOURCE: Analysis of data from the U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). — Not available. † Data were suppressed if a subgroup represented less than 5 percent of the population or due to unreliability; rules vary by method. See methodology section.

1 The Urban Institute method is also known as Swanson’s cumulative promotion index (SCPI) and the Manhattan Institute method is also known as Greene’s graduation indicator (GGI). NOTES: Gaps in lines represent missing or suppressed data. Average of the three graduation rates is based on the average of any available values from the three individual methods. Positive change values appear in color. Details on the calculation of average change are found in the methodology section. Diploma counts for 2010 or later were not released in time for this year’s analysis. For districts that were eligible for The 2012 Broad Prize, results are generally the same as those reported last year.

Diploma counts in 2006 and 2008 were unavailable for this district.

Greenville County Schools SOUTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 17 The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education College Readiness Data Test scores and participation rates for college readiness examinations: 2009–2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average change SAT Reasoning Test1 Mean total score (reading, mathematics, and writing) All 1,472 1,458 1,448 1,448 -8 African American 1,204 1,231 1,198 1,208 -2 Asian 1,577 1,612 1,617 1,594 6 Hispanic 1,348 1,352 1,395 1,363 9 White 1,561 1,534 1,527 1,530 -10 Participation rate All 53 57 60 60 2 African American 42 49 51 50 3 Asian † Hispanic 41 46 48 52 3 White 56 59 62 61 2 ACT1 Mean composite score (English, reading, mathematics, and science) All 21.4 21.4 21.3 21.5 0.0 African American 16.7 17.0 16.8 17.4 0.2 Asian 23.0 24.6 25.7 23.5 0.3 Hispanic 19.6 19.6 20.2 19.6 0.1 White 22.7 22.8 22.7 22.8 0.0 Participation rate All 34 37 38 41 2 African American 24 32 33 31 2 Asian † Hispanic 20 25 32 34 5 White 37 38 38 41 1 Advanced Placement (AP) (all subjects)2 Percent of tests taken with scores of 3 or above All 61 59 57 56 -2 African American 32 36 31 33 0 Asian 72 72 66 63 -3 Hispanic 47 49 51 50 1 White 63 61 59 58 -2 Participation rate All 21 22 23 25 1 African American 7 7 6 8 0 Asian † Hispanic 12 15 15 19 2 White 26 27 29 30 1 SOURCE: Analysis of data from the Common Core of Data (CCD), ACT, and the College Board (copyright © 2009–2012 The College Board.

www.collegeboard.com). — Not available.

† Test scores were suppressed if fewer than 15 students took the test. Participation rates were suppressed due to unreliability or if the subgroup represented less than 5 percent of district enrollment in the relevant grades. Results for subgroups were suppressed when less than 90 percent of all test takers’racial/ethnic iden- tity was reported. See methodology section. 1 Describes the most recent test results for graduating seniors. 2 Describes test results for juniors and seniors taking any AP test in the given year. NOTES: Subgroup participation rates may not reflect the“all students”rate due to some test takers not reporting their race/ethnicity.

Positive change values appear in color. Details on the calculation of average change are found in the methodology section. CCD data for 2012 were not available at the time of this analysis; participation rates for 2012 were estimated using 2011 enrollment data.

18 © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL Methodology and Technical Notes The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education Understanding the Data Report This data report contains all of the data collected and analyzed for this district for the purpose of selecting The Broad Prize finalists. Tables of summarized results for all the eligible districts and three former winners, which can be used for making comparisons of this district’s performance and improvement with other eligible districts, are also publicly available on the Broad Prize web site at www.broadprize.org/resources/75_districts.html.

The Broad Prize finalists are determined by a panel of education experts from around the country, based on a re- view of the data and analyses for the 75 Broad Prize-eligible districts. Neither a strict formula nor set of weighting factors is applied to the various analyses calculated. Broad Prize Review Board members consider all of the data and analyses available and, based on each member’s knowledge and expertise, select four finalists. The Review Board considers both performance as of the most recent year and improvement over the four most recent years on the various measures included in this report.

The rest of this section discusses the data collection and analysis procedures used to produce the data report. First, it describes the criteria and data sources for identifying the eligible districts. Second, it reviews each of the quantitative achievement measures that the Review Board used in March 2013 to identify the four finalists and the data on which the measures were based. Eligible Districts To be eligible for The Broad Prize, school districts must meet certain criteria set by The Broad Foundation that are related to district size, poverty, and urbanicity. Winners from the previous three years were ineligible.

The criteria for eligibility in 2013 were as follows: • K–12 districts serving at least 42,500 students that have at least 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (FRSL), at least 40 percent of students from minority groups, and an urban designa- tion (Locale Code 11, 12, or 21 in the CCD1 ) were identified. In states where more than 10 districts qualify under these criteria, only the 10 largest qualifying districts are eligible (70 districts met these criteria in 2013). • In states with no districts meeting the above criteria, the next largest districts in the nation with at least 40 percent FRSL, at least 40 percent minority, and an urban designation were identified, in order to bring the total number of eligible districts to 75.

Only one district per state can qualify under these criteria (5 districts were included in 2013 based on these criteria).2 1 CCD locale code 11 represents a large city; code 12 represents a mid-size city; and code 21 represents a large suburb. Sable, J. (2008). Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2006–07 Version 1a (NCES 2009‑301). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 2 These include Indianapolis, Indiana; Des Moines, Iowa; Norfolk, Virginia; St.

Paul, Minnesota; and Newark, New Jersey.

PREPARED BY RTI INTERNATIONAL © 2013 THE ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD FOUNDATION 19 Methodology and Technical Notes The 2013 Broad Prize for Urban Education For The 2013 Broad Prize, data on school district demographics obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2011 (the most recent year for which data were available) were used to determine the list of 75 eligible districts. The 75 eligible school districts were located in 31 states and the District of Columbia.3 Data Used for Measures of Student Achievement Detailed data on various measures of student achievement were obtained for each district from federal and state records and other sources.

Wherever possible, data were collected by grade level; race/ethnicity (African Ameri- can, Asian, Hispanic, and White); and income status (low income and non-low income). The achievement data ex- amined included performance on state achievement tests, estimated graduation rates based on federal counts of high school enrollments and completions, and college readiness data obtained from the College Board and ACT. Reading, Mathematics, and Science Proficiency as Determined by State Tests Key indicators of student performance include scores on state-mandated achievement tests used for federal accountability and trends in these scores over time.

Proficiency data in reading, mathematics, and science were collected from each state for 2009 through 2012.4 These data were used to calculate the percentage of students in each district scoring at or above proficient levels on state-mandated tests in reading, mathematics, and science in each of grades 3 through 12 where available. Weighted by the number of test takers at each grade level, these data on student achievement were aggregated across elementary grades (3–5), middle grades (6–8), and high school grades (9–12). These state assessment data were analyzed (using methods described later) to calculate actual versus expected performance, to directly compare district performance with other districts in the same state, and to measure gaps and changes in gaps between low- and non-low-income students as well as between White and African American students and White and Hispanic students.

Important Note Regarding State Test Data Because states establish their own assessment and proficiency standards, districts’performance on state tests cannot be directly compared across states. To provide context for these data, summary tables containing infor- mation about state or district performance on recent administrations of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), and a Northwestern Evaluation Association (NWEA) proficiency-standards mapping study (ongoing since 2006) were provided to the Review Board and are available online at www.broadprize.org/resources/75_districts.html but are not included in this data report.

3 States without eligible districts this year were Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Hawaii was ineligible because it has a statewide school system.

4 The data were provided directly by state agencies or downloaded from their websites.

You can also read