SCHOOL PROFICIENCY INDEXSummaryThe school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The school proficiency index is a function of the percent of 4th grade students proficient in reading (r) and math (m) on state test scores for up to three schools (i=1,2,3) within 1.5 miles of the block-group centroid. S denotes 4th grade school enrollment:Elementary schools are linked with block-groups based on a geographic mapping of attendance area zones from School Attendance Boundary Information System (SABINS), where available, or within-district proximity matches of up to the three-closest schools within 1.5 miles. In cases with multiple school matches, an enrollment-weighted score is calculated following the equation above. Please note that in this version of the data (AFFHT0004), there is no school proficiency data for jurisdictions in Kansas, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico because no data was reported for jurisdictions in these states in the Great Schools 2013-14 dataset. InterpretationValues are percentile ranked and range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. Data Source: Great Schools (proficiency data, 2015-16); Common Core of Data (4th grade school addresses and enrollment, 2015-16); Maponics (attendance boundaries, 2016).Related AFFH-T Local Government, PHA and State Tables/Maps: Table 12; Map 7.

To learn more about the School Proficiency Index visit: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh ; https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Date of Coverage: 07/2020

This dataset contains the school performance indices (SPIs) for 2009-10 (2010), 2010-11 (2011), and 2011-12 (2012) for all schools that administered the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). These data were published in the School Performance Reports released by the CT State Department of Education (CSDE) in December 2013 (see http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp) Note: Cells are left blank if there is no SPI, which happens when there are small N sizes for a particular subgroup or subject.

This dataset denotes values of the School Proficiency Index. The index illustrates school-level data to describe neighborhoods relative to nearby school performance. Specifically, the data is on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools.

The School Quality Reports share information about school performance, set expectations for schools, and promote school improvement. Due to size constraints only partial data is reflected, to view entire data open up the excel file that shown with data set name. These reports include information from multiple sources, including Quality Reviews, the NYC School Survey, and student performance. The School Quality Reports are organized around the Framework for Great Schools, which include six elements Rigorous Instruction, Collaborative Teachers, Supportive Environment, Effective School Leadership, Strong FamilyCommunity Ties, and Trust—that drive student achievement and school improvement.

This dataset contains the school performance indices (SPIs) for 2009-10 (2010), 2010-11 (2011), and 2011-12 (2012) for all schools that administered the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). These data were published in the School Performance Reports released by the CT State Department of Education (CSDE) in December 2013 (see http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp)

Note: Cells are left blank if there is no SPI, which happens when there are small N sizes for a particular subgroup or subject.

The School Quality Reports share information about school performance, set expectations for schools, and promote school improvement. Due to size constraints only partial data is reflected, to view entire data open up the excel file that shown with data set name. These reports include information from multiple sources, including Quality Reviews, the NYC School Survey, and student performance. The School Quality Reports are organized around the Framework for Great Schools, which includes six elements Rigorous Instruction, Collaborative Teachers, Supportive Environment, Effective School Leadership, Strong FamilyCommunity Ties, and Trust—that drive student achievement and school improvement.

The following dataset presents the students' performance in mathematics for level 6 students over three semesters. Each semester contains a number of assessment blocks

Performance of NYC High Schools

Existing studies from the United States, Latin America, and Asia provide scant evidence that private schools dramatically improve academic performance relative to public schools. Using data from Kenya—a poor country with weak public institutions—we find a large effect of private schooling on test scores, equivalent to one full standard deviation. This finding is robust to endogenous sorting of more able pupils into private schools. The magnitude of the effect dwarfs the impact of any rigorously tested intervention to raise performance within public schools. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of private schools operate at lower cost than the median government school.

The Iowa School Performance Profiles is an online tool showing how public schools performed on required measures. The website was developed to meet both federal and state requirements for publishing online school report cards: The federal Every Student Succeeds Act and House File 215, adopted by Iowa lawmakers in 2013.

The website includes:

• Scores on school accountability measures required under ESSA
• Ratings based on those scores: Exceptional, High Performing, Commendable, Acceptable, Needs Improvement, and Priority
• Identification of schools for support and improvement based on accountability scores (Comprehensive and Targeted schools)
• Additional education data that must be reported by law but do not figure into school accountability scores

Dataset including performance scores, quality metrics, zone information, and program details for NYC public elementary and middle schools, primarily sourced from New York City Department of Education InfoHub and Open Data NY.

Dataset

This dataset was created by jonathan david martin

Contents

College-bound seniors are those students that complete the SAT Questionnaire when they register for the SAT and identify that they will graduate from high school in a specific year. For example, the 2010 college-bound seniors are those students that self-reported they would graduate in 2010.

Students are not required to complete the SAT Questionnaire in order to register for the SAT. Students who do not indicate which year they will graduate from high school will not be included in any college-bound senior report.

Students are linked to schools by identifying which school they attend when registering for a College Board exam. A student is only included in a school’s report if he/she self-reports being enrolled at that school.

For data science, this dataset offers a rich source for exploratory data analysis, predictive modeling, and statistical testing. Researchers can explore correlations between SAT scores and other factors like school resources, student-teacher ratios, or geographic locations.

• Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA): Data scientists can use descriptive statistics and visualization techniques to understand the distribution of scores, check for outliers, and identify patterns or anomalies in the data.
• Predictive Modeling: Building models to predict SAT scores based on various predictors, such as school demographics or previous academic performance. This could include regression analysis or more complex machine learning algorithms.
• Time Series Analysis: If data across multiple years were available, analyzing trends over time would be possible, helping in understanding improvements or declines in performance. Comparative Analysis: Comparing scores across different schools or districts to evaluate disparities in educational achievement.
• Statistical Testing: Conducting hypothesis tests to see if the differences in performances across groups (e.g., by geographic region or school type) are statistically significant.

This dataset contains the school classifications, school performance indices (SPIs), and SPI target attainment status for 2012-13 for all schools that administered the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). It also includes school classifications assigned to high schools with non-tested grades. These data were published in the School Performance Reports released by the CT State Department of Education (CSDE) in December 2013 (see http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp) Note: Target attainment status will say “n/a” if there is no 2012-13 SPI target or if there is no 2012-13 SPI, which happens when there are small N sizes for a particular subgroup or subject.

This dataset contains the school classifications, school performance indices (SPIs), and SPI target attainment status for 2012-13 for all schools that administered the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). It also includes school classifications assigned to elementary/middle schools with non-tested grades. These data were published in the School Performance Reports released by the CT State Department of Education (CSDE) in December 2013 (see http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/performancereports/20122013reports.asp)

Note: Target attainment status says “n/a” if there is no 2012-13 SPI target or if there is no 2012-13 SPI, which happens when there are small N sizes for a particular subgroup or subject.