Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Web Appendix C Additional Information about Student Demographics, School Resources and
Test Scores in San Diego and Other Districts
This appendix supplements the data on student demographics and school resources
presented in Chapter 2. In addition, the appendix adds to the analysis of test scores in Chapter 2.
There, we summarized patterns by taking simple averages of test scores across grades. The
tables presented in this appendix show grade-by-grade achievement in the five largest districts of
California as well as for the state as a whole.
Student Demographics
Table C.1 shows the ethnic mix of the five largest districts and the entire state in 1997-
1998 and 1999-2000. No district exactly matches the ethnic and racial mix of students in the
state as a whole. San Diego has significantly greater percentages of African American and
Filipino students than the state, a slightly smaller percentage of Latino students, and in 1999-
2000 roughly 9 percent fewer white students. Three of the other four largest districts have a
greater share of Hispanic students and a smaller percentage of African American students, and
all four have a smaller percentage of white students. In spite of these differences, the five largest
districts have one thing in common: a far smaller share of white students than is found in the
state as a whole.
Recent trends in ethnic mix also merit attention. In all districts but San Francisco
Unified, the percentage share of Hispanics increased more than that of any other group between
1997-1998 and 1999-2000. All districts experienced similar trends over the two-year span
shown in the table. Statewide and in each of the five districts, the share of whites has declined;
in two districts—Fresno and Long Beach Unified—the share of Asians has also declined
1
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
noticeably. Overall, trends in SDUSD seem to match state trends more closely than is the case in
the other districts.
Table C.2 examines another measure of diversity: the percentage of students by English
Learner (EL) status—formerly known as Limited English Proficient or LEP—in SDUSD and the
state as a whole. The table shows that in 1999-2000, SDUSD enrolled a larger share of EL
students than the state as a whole.
A related category of students, Fluent English Proficient (FEP), consists of students who
were formerly EL students but who have been redesignated by their district as fluent in English.
Table C.2 shows the percentage of students who are EL, the percentage who are FEP, and the
percentage of EL students who are redesignated as FEP each year for the five largest districts and
California as a whole. All of the five largest districts have significantly greater shares of
students who are EL and FEP than occur statewide. Among the districts, SDUSD’s share of
students who are EL matches the state average most closely.
Some analysts have used the proportion of EL students who are redesignated as FEP
students as a measure of the success of schools’ programs to teach English to English Learners.
In both years, SDUSD’s redesignation lags behind the state average and the rate in the other four
largest districts except Fresno. However, it would be a mistake to judge the districts narrowly on
this measure, given that districts vary in the conditions under which they allow students to be
redesignated Fluent English Proficient.1
Table C.2 also shows the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
This percentage is a widely used indicator of poverty in school populations. The figures show
1 For instance, a report released in spring 2002 summarizes the results of the state’s new California English Language Development Test (CELDT), now given to English Learners throughout the state. Results indicated that many students were fluent in English on the basis of CELDT results but were still designated EL by their districts, with some fairly sharp variations across districts. See Tully, Tapia, and Sacchetti (2002).
2
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
that in these districts a large percentage of students live in disadvantaged circumstances. With
the notable exception of San Francisco Unified, the districts have much higher proportions of
students eligible for assistance than occurs in the state as a whole.
School Resources
Our next set of tables illustrates variations in key school resources among the five largest
districts and the state as a whole. Table C.3 shows the pupil-teacher ratio. Between 1997-1998
and 1999-2000 all districts have matched patterns at the state level fairly closely. The main
exception is San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), which in both years had a
significantly lower pupil-teacher ratio than elsewhere. SFUSD is also the only district among the
five to buck the trend toward lower pupil-teacher ratios over the period. SDUSD mimics state
patterns quite closely but in both years has a slightly lower pupil-teacher ratio than observed
statewide.
The next few tables highlight various measures of teacher characteristics. Table C.4
reveals that the five districts differ considerably from each other and from the state as a whole in
the share of teachers holding a master’s degree or higher. SDUSD has a considerably higher
percentage of teachers holding a master’s degree than the state or the other four largest districts.
However, the large variations among districts may not be as large as meets the eye. As noted in
the table, some of the other districts have large proportions of teachers with some education
beyond a bachelor’s degree but less than a master’s degree. Many of these teachers may be just
a course or two away from completing their master’s degree. Using “more than a bachelor’s
degree” as the measure of whether a teacher is highly educated makes SDUSD’s ranking fall
from first to fourth. Overall, then, it seems that teachers in San Diego Unified have somewhat
3
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
but not markedly higher levels of education than seen in other districts and the state, with more
teachers holding master’s but fewer holding “at least some postgraduate education”.
Table C.5 shows various measures of teacher experience. Each of the largest five
districts employs teachers whose experience matches the state average reasonably closely.
SDUSD had the least experienced teachers among the five large districts. For instance in 1999-
2000, average years of teaching experience in SDUSD was 11.1, compared to 12.7 statewide.
Moreover, 25 percent of San Diego’s teachers were in their first or second years of teaching in
1999-2000, compared to only 16percent in California as a whole. Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) most closely resembles SDUSD in this regard, although even there only 20
percent of teachers were in their first or second year of teaching in 1999-2000.
Table C.6 shows the percentage of teachers holding a full credential. Comparisons across
districts based on this table should be viewed with caution: Our estimates of teacher credentials
for SDUSD come from our own compilations using district data because in the CBEDS data San
Diego is missing teacher credentials for a large number of teachers in 1997-1998. At any rate,
the overall patterns seem clear: SDUSD has a far larger percentage of teachers holding
credentials than is observed in the state as a whole. Fresno and San Francisco Unified School
Districts have roughly comparable percentages of credentialed teachers.
Test Scores
Beginning in spring 1998, California initiated a new state test, the Stanford 9, which has
been given annually to all students in grades 2 to 11 since 1998. The Stanford 9 is a standardized
test that has been normed using a national sample of students. This provides a national
performance yardstick against which California’s students can be compared. Throughout the
report we focus on math and reading scores on the Stanford 9. Our reason is simple: Although
4
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
the Stanford 9 includes additional subject areas in certain grades, the math and reading tests
stand out as representing the very core of educational achievement.
Table 2.1 showed that San Diego students’ scores have matched the scores of students
statewide quite closely. But this table did not disaggregate overall scores into the scores of EL
and non-EL students. Much of the gap in reading performance between SDUSD students and the
national norming sample reflects the fact that many students in the district are English Learners.
Tables C.7 and C.8 show the performance of the five largest districts and California as a whole
for English Learners and non-English Learners, respectively. Table C.7 shows that in all
districts, EL students lag considerably behind national norms (based on a national sample in
which only 2 percent of test-takers were EL). In both reading and math, SDUSD’s EL students’
initial performance in 1997-1998 closely reflected that of EL students statewide. Over the two-
year period, gains in performance of SDUSD’s EL students in reading slightly exceeded the
statewide gains, while gains in math slightly lagged the statewide gains. Gains relative to those
for EL students in the other districts were in the middle of the distribution.
Table C.8 shows corresponding data for students who were not English Learners. This
group includes both native English speakers as well as students whose native tongue is not
English but who have been identified by districts as Fluent English Proficient. Just as Betts,
Rueben, and Danenberg (2000) found statewide, when we examine this group, the performance
of California students approximates national norms. In San Diego, non-EL students
outperformed national norms in reading and math even in the inaugural year of the test. (That is,
more than 25, 50, and 75 percent of students met or exceeded the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles
of national norms in 1997-1998, respectively.) By 1999-2000, this better-than-the-national-norm
performance still held true in SDUSD and had also become true statewide, as well as in some but
5
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
not all of the other districts. Over the two-year period, gains in reading in SDUSD exceeded
those in the state and the other districts, while gains in math almost exactly matched those
statewide.
The analysis we have presented here and in Chapter 2 summarizes test scores by district
by taking an average of outcomes across grades 2 through 11 in each district. Some readers will
be interested in a more detailed analysis by individual grades. We provide analogues to Tables
2.1, C.7, and C.8 by grade level in Tables C.9 to C.14. Among the many interesting patterns
shown in these latter tables, SDUSD improvements in reading achievement have generally
outpaced statewide improvements, but have done so most noticeably in the lower grades. For
instance, Table C.9 shows that the percentage of SDUSD students in grade 2 scoring at or above
the 25th percentile rose from 64 to 78 percent between 1997-1998 and 1999-2000, compared to
an increase from 61 to 71 percent statewide. A second interesting finding from Tables C.9 and
C.12 is that by 1999-2000, SDUSD students in the lower grades performed the best against
national norms in reading, but for math it was the lower and higher grades where SDUSD
student performance appeared the strongest against national norms.
Conclusion: The Overall Degree of Similarity between SDUSD, Other Large Districts, and the State’s School System
Overall, this appendix has revealed both dissimilarities and similarities between the five
largest districts and between these districts and the state educational system as a whole.
SDUSD’s student population matches the statewide racial mix quite well but has more African
American and Filipino students and fewer white students. Similarly, SDUSD students are more
likely to be eligible for meal assistance and to be English Learners than the average student
statewide. We consider that these differences from state averages, if anything, enhance the
policy relevance of our research: Betts, Rueben, and Danenberg (2000) and others have
6
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
convincingly shown that in California, low student achievement is very much an issue of
language, poverty, and, to some extent, race. SDUSD provides an almost ideal setting in which
to explore the reasons why disadvantaged students and those who are English Learners lag
behind, and whether certain types of school resources are particularly conducive to increasing
achievement among such students.
Turning to school resources, SDUSD appears to have roughly the same mix of resources
seen in other districts statewide. Perhaps the most striking difference is that teachers in SDUSD
are much more likely to hold a master’s degree than teachers in the other four largest districts or
those in the state as a whole. On the other hand, other districts have far larger percentages than
SDUSD of teachers who hold some post-baccalaureate education, so it is important not to
overstate the gap. In a similar vein, SDUSD’s teachers are more likely to hold a full credential
than in the comparison districts. Finally, counterbalancing the relatively high numbers of
teachers with master’s and full credentials in SDUSD, SDUSD’s teachers have less teaching
experience than do teachers elsewhere. Overall, the pattern of teacher qualifications in the
district is reasonably close to state averages.
Finally, our comparisons of student achievement confirmed that on the whole SDUSD
provides a representative microcosm of California as a whole. Indeed, the distribution of test
scores in SDUSD matches the California distribution more closely than does that of any other of
the five largest districts. In all of the districts we examined, student performance initially lagged
behind student performance observed nationally but caught up partly or fully over the period of
study. Further, much of the achievement gap between students in SDUSD and the United States
reflects the disproportionate number of English Learners in SDUSD. This pattern mimics the
California/United States comparison very closely. As for gains in achievement over time,
7
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
SDUSD’s students appear to have gained in reading achievement somewhat more quickly than
students statewide, while math gains mirror statewide gains very closely.
Overall, San Diego appears to provide a district that is quite representative of patterns
and trends statewide. Perhaps the biggest difference between SDUSD and the state’s school
system is that SDUSD has relatively more students who are English Learners and more students
who are economically disadvantaged. As we have argued, this difference makes San Diego all
the more important to examine.
8
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.1
Student Demographics: Total Enrollment and Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity
District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change Between 1997-
1998 and 1999-2000
STATE TOTAL
Enrollment 5,727,303 5,951,612 224,309
African American not Hispanic 501,303 8.8% 509,637 8.6% 8,334 -0.2
American Indian or Alaska Native 49328 0.9% 50750 0.9% 1422 0.0
Asian 466,399 8.1% 479,073 8.0% 12,674 -0.1
Filipino 137,126 2.4% 141,045 2.4% 3,919 0.0
Hispanic or Latino 2,319,072 40.5% 2,513,453 42.2% 194,381 1.7
Pacific Islander 34,649 0.6% 37,995 0.6% 3,346 0.0
White not Hispanic 2,219,426 38.8% 2,195,706 36.9% -23,720 -1.9
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
Enrollment 136,283 140,743 4,460
African American not Hispanic 23,065 16.9% 23,300 16.6% 235 -0.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 880 0.6% 876 0.6% -4 0.0
Asian 12,937 9.5% 12,819 9.1% -118 -0.4
Filipino 11,036 8.1% 11,242 8.0% 206 -0.1
Hispanic or Latino 48,077 35.3% 52,361 37.2% 4,284 1.9
Pacific Islander 1,309 1.0% 1,422 1.0% 113 0.0
White not Hispanic 38,979 28.6% 38,723 27.5% -256 -1.1
FRESNO UNIFIED
Enrollment 78,166 78,766 600
African American not Hispanic 8,845 11.3% 8,910 11.3% 65 0.0
American Indian or Alaska Native 669 0.9% 659 0.8% -10 -0.1
Asian 15,361 19.7% 14,449 18.3% -912 -1.4
Filipino 367 0.5% 326 0.4% -41 -0.1
Hispanic or Latino 35,362 45.2% 37,741 47.9% 2,379 2.7
Pacific Islander 122 0.2% 128 0.2% 6 0.0
White not Hispanic 17,440 22.3% 16,553 21.0% -887 -1.3
LONG BEACH UNIFIED
Enrollment 85,908 91,465 5,557
African American not Hispanic 17,471 20.3% 18,214 19.9% 743 -0.4
American Indian or Alaska Native 343 0.4% 323 0.4% -20 0.0
Asian 12,170 14.2% 11,364 12.4% -806 -1.8
Filipino 2,707 3.2% 2,769 3.0% 62 -0.2
Hispanic or Latino 34,784 40.5% 40,104 43.8% 5,320 3.3
Pacific Islander 1,737 2.0% 1,944 2.1% 207 0.1
White not Hispanic 16,696 19.4% 16,747 18.3% 51 -1.1
9
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.1 (continued)
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
Enrollment 680,430 710,007 29,577
African American not Hispanic 93,867 13.8% 93,532 13.2% -335 -0.6
American Indian or Alaska Native 1850 0.3% 2039 0.3% 189 0.0
Asian 29,318 4.3% 29,764 4.2% 446 -0.1
Filipino 12,776 1.9% 13,228 1.9% 452 0.0
Hispanic or Latino 466,259 68.5% 496,505 69.9% 30,246 1.4
Pacific Islander 2,421 0.4% 2,535 0.4% 114 0.0
White not Hispanic 73,939 10.9% 72,404 10.2% -1,535 -0.7
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
Enrollment 61,007 60,896 -111
African American not Hispanic 9,879 16.2% 9,504 15.6% -375 -0.6
American Indian or Alaska Native 416 0.7% 405 0.7% -11 0.0
Asian 25,238 41.4% 26,046 42.8% 808 1.4
Filipino 4,534 7.4% 4,215 6.9% -319 -0.5
Hispanic or Latino 12,936 21.2% 13,090 21.5% 154 0.3
Pacific Islander 353 0.6% 394 0.6% 41 0.0
White not Hispanic 7,651 12.5% 7,242 11.9% -409 -0.6
10
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.2
Student Demographics: English Language Status and Meal Subsidy Status
District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change Between 1997-
1998 and 1999-2000 STATE TOTAL
Fluent-English-Proficient (FEP) Students 720,479 12.6% 791,283 13.3% 70,804 0.7
Students Redesignated FEP* 96,545 7.0% 112,214 7.8% 15,669 0.8
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 2,717,007 47.4% 2,809,186 47.3% 92,179 -0.1
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
English Learners 38,542 28.3% 39,491 28.1 % 949 -0.2
Fluent-English-Proficient Students 22,461 16.5% 24,091 17.1 % 1,630 0.6
Students Redesignated FEP* 1,379 3.7% 2,403 6.2 % 1,024 2.5
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 81,004 60.7% 88,101 63.2% 7,097 2.5
FRESNO UNIFIED
English Learners 25,530 32.7 % 24,806 31.5 % -724 -1.2
Fluent-English-Proficient Students 7,907 10.1 % 8,860 11.2 % 953 1.1
Students Redesignated FEP* 595 2.3 % 875 3.4 % 280 1.1
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 55,134 70.5% 47,596 60.5% -7,538 -10.0
LONG BEACH UNIFIED
English Learners 31,263 36.4 % 34,132 37.3 % 2,869 0.9
Fluent-English-Proficient Students 11,981 13.9 % 12,010 13.1 % 29 -0.8
Students Redesignated FEP* 2,427 8.0 % 2,145 6.5 % -282 -1.5
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 55,884 63.3% 63,111 68.2% 7,227 4.9
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
English Learners 312,471 45.9 % 311,958 43.9 % -513 -2.0
Fluent-English-Proficient Students 133,479 19.6 % 160,383 22.6 % 26,904 3.0
Students Redesignated FEP* 24,851 8.0 % 32,402 10.3 % 7,551 2.3
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 487,692 71.6% 520,343 74.0% 32,651 2.4
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
English Learners 18,878 30.9 % 18,626 30.6 % -252 -0.3
Fluent-English-Proficient Students 13,976 22.9 % 14,093 23.1 % 117 0.2
Students Redesignated FEP* 2,452 12.6 % 1,562 8.3 % -890 -4.3
Free or Reduced Price Meals** 38,015 46.3% 33,326 41.5% -4,689 -4.8
1,406,166 24.6% 1,480,527 24.9% 74,361 0.3 *
The percent of students who were redesignated FEP is calculated by dividing the number of redesignated students by the prior year's count of English Learners. The percents reported for English Learners and FEP Students use the current year's total enrollment as the denominator.
** The data for this measure are based on an "unofficial" enrollment count that includes public and
nonpublic school data. For further information about the free/reduced meal data, see http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/gls_calworks.htm.
11
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.3
Pupil-Teacher Ratios
District 1997-1998 1999-2000
Change Between 1997-1998 and
1999-2000 STATE TOTAL 21.6 20.9 -0.7 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 20.5 19.1 -1.4 FRESNO UNIFIED 21.1 20.5 -0.6 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 23.9 22.3 -1.6 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 22.0 20.9 -1.1 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 17.2 18.4 1.2
12
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.4
Percentage Distribution of Teachers by Education Level and Total Number of Teachers
1997-1998 District Master's
Degree or Higher
Less than a Master's Degree
No Education Level Reported
Total Number of Teachers
STATE TOTAL 31.2 68.3 0.5 272,459 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 57.3 42.7 0.0 6,836 FRESNO UNIFIED 10.3 89.7 0.0 3,776 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 31.3 68.7 0.0 3,622 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 26.1 71.1 2.9 31,513 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 23.0 77.0 0.0 3,620 1999-2000 District Master's
Degree or Higher
Less than a Master's Degree
No Education Level Reported
Total Number of Teachers
STATE TOTAL 30.4 69.3 0.4 292,012 SAN DIEGO CITY UNIFIED 53.2 46.8 0.0 7,395 FRESNO UNIFIED 10.7 89.3 0.0 3,929 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 29.3 70.7 0.0 4,128 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 25.0 73.6 1.4 34,652 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 24.4 64.0 11.6 3,340 Continued on next page
13
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.4 (continued)
Difference District Master's
Degree or Higher
Less than a Master's Degree
No Education Level Reported
Total Number of Teachers
STATE TOTAL -0.8 0.9 -0.1 19,553 7.2% SAN DIEGO UNIFIED -4.1 4.1 0.0 559 8.2% FRESNO UNIFIED 0.4 -0.4 0.0 153 4.1% LONG BEACH UNIFIED -2.1 2.1 0.0 506 14.0% LOS ANGELES UNIFIED -1.1 2.5 -1.5 3,139 10.0% SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 1.5 -13.0 11.6 -280 -7.7% Note: The "Master's Degree or Higher" category was created by aggregating Doctorate, Master's Degree +30, and Master's Degree categories, while the "Less than a Master's Degree" category was created by aggregating Bachelor's Degree+30, Bachelor's Degree, and Less Than Bachelor's Degree categories. The aggregation categories reported here were chosen to minimize the problems of apparently inconsistent data reporting of education categories over time and across districts. For example, if a group of teachers were reported as Master's Degree +30 in 1997-1998 and then reported as Master's Degree in 1999-2000, these teachers appear in the same aggregate "Master's Degree or Higher" category in both years. It should be noted, however, that if the aggregation is done by separating into "Higher than Bachelor's" and "Bachelor's or Less" then the results are very different. If this alternate aggregation pattern were used, Fresno would have the highest percent of teachers in the higher education category for both years.
14
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.5
Teacher Experience
District 1997-1998 1999-2000 Change between 1997-1998 and 1999-2000
STATE TOTAL Average Years Teaching 13.2 12.7 -0.5 Average Years in the District 10.7 10.3 -0.4 % of Teachers in their First or Second Year
17.2% 15.7% -1.5
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 11.1 11.1 0.0 Average Years in the District 11.0 10.8 -0.2 % of Teachers in their First or
Second Year 20.1% 25.3% 5.2
FRESNO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 13.4 13.9 0.5 Average Years in the District 11.3 11.8 0.5 % of Teachers in their First or
Second Year 14.2% 9.6% -4.6
LONG BEACH UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 12.0 11.5 -0.5 Average Years in the District 9.7 9.2 -0.5 % of Teachers in their First or
Second Year 20.2% 18.7% -1.5
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 12.3 11.6 -0.7 Average Years in the District 11.0 10.5 -0.5 % of Teachers in their First or
Second Year 16.9% 20.4% 3.5
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED Average Years Teaching 14.8 12.0 -2.8 Average Years in the District 13.7 11.9 -1.8 % of Teachers in their First or
Second Year 2.5% 18.4% 15.9
15
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.6
Percent of Teachers with Full Credentials
District 1997-1998 1999-2000
Change Between 1997-1998 and
1999-2000 STATE TOTAL 87.3 86.1 -1.2 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 94.9 94.3 -0.6 FRESNO UNIFIED 89.9 93.9 4.0 LONG BEACH UNIFIED 78.0 72.5 -5.5 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 74.9 71.5 -3.4 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 94.0 82.6 -11.4
* Note: The 1997-1998 CBEDS data for San Diego is missing credential data for 28% of the sample of teachers. As a result, CBEDS reported that only 71.1% of San Diego teachers were fully credentialed that year. (For the other four districts reported here, as well as for the state total, CBEDS has valid data on credentials for at least 95% of teachers.) Using data from the San Diego Unified School District, we have calculated that 97.2% of teachers were fully credentialed in 1997-1998, and 96.6% were fully credentialed in 1999-2000. For 1999-2000 we report the CBEDS figure. For 1997-2000 we report a figure calculated from our own data, which has been normalized by subtracting the difference between our Figure and the CBEDS figure for 1999-2000.
16
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.7
SAT9 Test Score Distribution: EL Students
Reading Math Unweighted Average Across Grades Unweighted Average Across Grades
Change between Change between 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00
California % > 75th Percentile 1.5 2.2 0.7 5.5 8.8 3.3% > 50th Percentile 7.2 10.2 3.0 18.0 25.5 7.5% > 25th Percentile 24.2 31.2 7.0 41.7 52.1 10.4
San Diego Unified % > 75th Percentile 1.5 2.5 1.0 5.8 9.2 3.4 % > 50th Percentile 8.2 11.4 3.2 19.2 26.6 7.4 % > 25th Percentile 26.2 33.9 7.7 44.3 53.9 9.6Fresno Unified % > 75th Percentile 0.1 0.4 0.3 2.3 4.6 2.3 % > 50th Percentile 2.8 4.6 1.8 12.4 19.1 6.7 % > 25th Percentile 16.3 22.2 5.9 35.9 47.1 11.2Long Beach Unified % > 75th Percentile 1.0 2.1 1.1 3.4 9.0 5.6 % > 50th Percentile 5.8 10.0 4.2 14.7 26.0 11.3 % > 25th Percentile 21.3 30.8 9.5 40.1 54.2 14.1Los Angeles Unified % > 75th Percentile 0.6 0.8 0.2 3.2 5.1 1.9 % > 50th Percentile 4.5 6.2 1.7 12.4 16.3 3.9 % > 25th Percentile 17.8 22.3 4.5 34.6 41.2 6.6San Francisco Unified % > 75th Percentile 2.9 5.9 3.0 16.8 24.5 7.7 % > 50th Percentile 13.0 20.1 7.1 36.3 48.3 12.0 % > 25th Percentile 35.5 46.6 11.1 61.2 71.0 9.8
17
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.8
SAT9 Test Score Distribution: Non-EL Students
Reading Math Unweighted Average Across Grades Unweighted Average Across Grades Change between Change between 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00 1997-1998 1999-2000 97-98 and 99-00
California % > 75th Percentile 21.6 25.1 3.5 24.2 32.4 8.2% > 50th Percentile 46.4 51.8 5.4 47.9 58.0 10.1% > 25th Percentile 70.5 76.3 5.8 70.7 78.7 8.0
San Diego Unified % > 75th Percentile 25.3 29.7 4.4 27.4 36.3 8.9 % > 50th Percentile 51.3 58.7 7.4 53.0 63.5 10.5 % > 25th Percentile 75.1 82.6 7.5 75.1 82.8 7.7Fresno Unified % > 75th Percentile 14.9 16.5 1.6 17.0 21.4 4.4 % > 50th Percentile 35.0 38.1 3.1 37.6 44.5 6.9 % > 25th Percentile 59.9 64.3 4.4 61.2 68.3 7.1Long Beach Unified % > 75th Percentile 18.4 20.7 2.3 20.7 30.1 9.4 % > 50th Percentile 41.3 45.8 4.5 44.5 55.1 10.6 % > 25th Percentile 67.3 72.0 4.7 68.6 76.6 8.0Los Angeles Unified % > 75th Percentile 13.1 15.4 2.3 15.2 20.0 4.8 % > 50th Percentile 32.7 37.8 5.1 35.2 43.0 7.8 % > 25th Percentile 58.3 66.0 7.7 60.2 68.5 8.3San Francisco Unified % > 75th Percentile 24.9 27.5 2.6 35.9 40.3 4.4 % > 50th Percentile 49.5 54.5 5.0 58.3 63.2 4.9 % > 25th Percentile 73.1 78.2 5.1 75.8 80.8 5.0
18
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.9
SAT9 Reading: All Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 20 28 8 12 4 13 19 6 10 12 2 24 28 4 18 24 6
% > 50th Percentile 43 57 22 30 8 30 46 16 26 32 6 53 58 5 40 49 9 % > 25 Percentileth 64 14 41 54 13 52 73 21 46 55 9 74 80 6 61 71 10
3 % > 75 Percentile th 25 7 8 9 1 11 15 4 7 8 1 15 18 3 17 20 3 % > 50 Percentile 41 52 11 21 25 4 28 37 9 21 25 4 38 45 7 38 44 6 th 62 75 13 41 49 8 49 63 14 41 50 9 64 72 8 59 68 9% > 75 Percentileth 22 26 4 10 12 2 13 15 2 9 11 2 23 26 3 21 23 2
% > 50 Percentileth 41 48 7 22 27 5 28 32 4 21 26 5 44 50 6 40 45 % > 25 Percentileth 63 71 8 42 49 7 50 58 8 43 51 8 68 74 6 62 6
5 % > 75 Percentileth 22 22 0 10 11 1 14 14 0 10 11 1 23 21 -2
1999-
814
7818
th % > 25 Percentile
4 5
6820 21 1
% > 50 Percentile 44 44 0 24 25 1 30 32 2 26 3 45 46 1 41 44 3 % > 25 Percentileth 65 68 3 44 47 3 53 57 44 50 6 68 72 4 63 67 4
6 % > 75 Percentileth 22 25 3 13 14 1 14 0 9 10 1 21 23 2 21 23 2 % > 50 Percentileth 43 47 4 28 31 3 33 3 22 25 3 42 46 4 42 46 4 % > 25 Percentileth 66 70 4 51 56 5 59 4 44 51 7 66 71 5 66 70 4
7 % > 75 Percentileth 22 24 2 12 12 0 15 0 9 11 2 25 25 0 21 23 2 % > 50 Percentileth 44 48 4 29 29 34 34 0 24 27 3 47 50 3 44 46 2 % > 25 Percentileth 66 72 6 51 0 56 58 2 44 50 6 70 72 2 66 69 3
8 % > 75 Percentileth 19 23 4 13 1 14 15 1 9 10 1 22 24 2 19 21 2 % > 50 Percentileth 45 51 33 34 1 38 38 0 27 30 3 48 51 3 46 49 3 % > 25 Percentileth 69 5 58 60 2 62 63 1 51 57 6 73
th 234
14305515
051
126
74 77 4 70 73 3 9 % > 75th Percentile 15 15 0 8 7 -1 10 10 0 6 6 0 19 18 -1 12 13 1
% > 50 Percentileth 36 40 4 22 23 1 28 29 1 19 20 1 41 42 1 34 35 1 % > 25th Percentile 61 67 6 45 47 2 53 56 3 42 45 3 67 70 3 59 62 3
10 % > 75th Percentile 15 16 1 9 9 0 11 11 0 7 7 0 18 18 0 13 14 1 % > 50th Percentile 34 37 3 22 22 0 27 27 0 20 21 1 38 39 1 32 34 2 % > 25th Percentile 56 61 5 42 43 1 48 49 1 41 43 2 61 62 1 55 56 1
11 % > 75th Percentile 19 20 1 14 15 1 13 13 0 10 11 1 24 22 -2 17 17 0 % > 50th Percentile 37 40 3 30 30 0 29 29 0 25 26 1 43 43 0 36 36 0 % > 25th Percentile 63 68 5 55 55 0 55 56 1 51 54 3 67 68 1 62 62 0
19
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.10
SAT9 Reading: EL Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 4 8 4 1 3 2 4 10 6 3 4 1 12 28 16 4 7 3
% > 50th Percentile 17 29 12 7 13 6 16 35 19 12 19 7 43 64 21 15 25 10 % > 25th Percentile 37 57 20 24 37 13 35 65 30 30 44 14 77 88 11 33 50 17
3 % > 75th Percentile 3 4 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 1 1 0 3 6 3 2 3 1 % > 50th Percentile 12 22 10 4 6 2 10 21 11 7 11 4 21 29 8 9 15 6 % > 25th Percentile 33 52 19 19 28 9 29 50 21 25 36 11 54 63 9 28 41 13
4 % > 75th Percentile 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 5 10 5 2 3 1 % > 50th Percentile 14 16 2 3 4 1 7 14 7 6 9 3 20 33 13 9 13 4 % > 25th Percentile 34 42 8 16 23 7 25 42 17 24 32 8 49 64 15 29 38 9
5 % > 75th Percentile 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 4 5 1 2 2 0 % > 50th Percentile 11 12 1 2 4 2 6 11 5 5 6 1 13 19 6 8 10 2 % > 25th Percentile 30 36 6 16 20 4 23 35 12 21 24 3 39 52 13 26 32 6
6 % > 75th Percentile 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 % > 50th Percentile 9 11 2 4 6 2 3 5 2 3 4 1 8 12 4 7 10 3 % > 25th Percentile 31 35 4 23 29 6 20 26 6 16 20 4 32 44 12 28 34 6
7 % > 75th Percentile 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 % > 50th Percentile 6 6 0 2 4 2 4 4 0 3 3 0 7 13 6 7 9 2 % > 25th Percentile 26 28 2 16 21 5 19 22 3 14 15 1 31 42 11 24 30 6
8 % > 75th Percentile 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 % > 50th Percentile 7 9 2 3 5 2 5 5 0 3 4 1 8 12 4 7 9 2 % > 25th Percentile 30 32 2 23 28 5 23 27 4 17 20 3 30 41 11 29 34 5
9 % > 75th Percentile 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 % > 50th Percentile 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 4 7 3 3 4 1 % > 25th Percentile 15 22 7 10 14 4 14 15 1 10 10 0 19 30 11 16 19 3
10 % > 75th Percentile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 % > 50th Percentile 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 4 5 1 3 3 0 % > 25th Percentile 10 14 4 7 8 1 9 9 0 8 9 1 9 18 9 12 14 2
11 % > 75th Percentile 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 % > 50th Percentile 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 -2 2 2 0 2 7 5 4 4 0 % > 25th Percentile 16 21 5 9 14 5 16 17 1 13 13 0 15 24 9 17 20 3
20
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.11
SAT9 Reading: Non-EL Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 26 38 12 12 17 5 21 29 8 16 23 7 24 28 4 23 32 9
% > 50th Percentile 53 70 17 31 40 9 42 57 15 37 50 13 53 56 3 48 61 13 % > 25th Percentile 74 89 15 51 63 12 67 81 14 59 72 13 74 78 4 70 81 11
3 % > 75th Percentile 24 36 12 13 15 2 19 25 6 13 18 5 21 27 6 22 28 6 % > 50th Percentile 53 67 14 31 36 5 42 52 10 34 45 11 46 55 9 47 57 10 % > 25th Percentile 74 87 13 54 62 8 65 75 10 56 71 15 69 78 9 69 80 11
4 % > 75th Percentile 29 36 7 15 18 3 21 25 4 17 21 4 29 36 7 27 31 4 % > 50th Percentile 52 64 12 32 39 7 42 47 5 35 44 9 53 60 7 49 56 7 % > 25th Percentile 75 85 10 56 63 7 66 71 5 61 72 11 75 80 5 72 80 8
5 % > 75th Percentile 30 31 1 15 16 1 21 22 1 17 18 1 28 27 -1 25 27 2 % > 50th Percentile 57 59 2 36 36 0 42 47 5 37 42 5 54 55 1 50 55 5 % > 25th Percentile 79 82 3 59 61 2 69 71 2 62 70 8 76 79 3 73 78 5
6 % > 75th Percentile 30 33 3 19 21 2 20 20 0 14 15 1 25 30 5 26 29 3 % > 50th Percentile 56 61 5 39 43 4 42 47 5 33 37 4 49 56 7 50 55 5 % > 25th Percentile 79 83 4 64 70 6 71 75 4 60 67 7 73 79 6 75 80 5
7 % > 75th Percentile 29 31 2 17 17 0 21 21 0 13 15 2 29 31 2 25 28 3 % > 50th Percentile 57 60 3 40 40 0 46 47 1 34 37 3 54 60 6 52 55 3 % > 25th Percentile 80 85 5 65 65 0 71 73 2 58 65 7 77 80 3 75 79 4
8 % > 75th Percentile 25 29 4 17 18 1 19 20 1 13 14 1 25 28 3 22 25 3 % > 50th Percentile 56 64 8 45 47 2 50 51 1 37 40 3 54 60 6 53 58 5 % > 25th Percentile 81 87 6 72 74 2 76 77 1 65 71 6 80 85 5 78 82 4
9 % > 75th Percentile 19 19 0 11 10 -1 13 14 1 8 8 0 21 21 0 14 15 1 % > 50th Percentile 44 50 6 30 31 1 36 39 3 24 26 2 45 48 3 39 41 2 % > 25th Percentile 72 79 7 58 60 2 65 69 4 52 57 5 72 77 5 65 70 5
10 % > 75th Percentile 18 20 2 12 13 1 14 14 0 9 9 0 19 21 2 15 17 2 % > 50th Percentile 41 45 4 29 30 1 34 34 0 25 26 1 41 45 4 36 39 3 % > 25th Percentile 66 72 6 54 56 2 59 61 2 50 52 2 65 69 4 61 64 3
11 % > 75th Percentile 22 24 2 18 20 2 16 17 1 12 13 1 26 26 0 19 19 0 % > 50th Percentile 43 47 4 37 39 2 36 37 1 30 31 1 46 50 4 40 41 1 % > 25th Percentile 71 77 6 67 69 2 65 67 2 60 63 3 71 77 6 67 69 2
21
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.12
SAT9 Math: All Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 27 39 12 12 19 7 19 35 16 13 19 6 32 40 8 21 33 12
% > 50th Percentile 50 63 13 28 39 11 39 57 18 31 41 10 56 64 8 43 57 14 % > 25th Percentile 71 82 11 51 63 12 62 77 15 55 65 10 77 82 5 65 77 12
3 % > 75th Percentile 23 37 14 10 16 6 16 31 15 11 17 6 27 35 8 19 31 12 % > 50th Percentile 46 64 18 25 37 12 36 55 19 28 39 11 50 61 11 40 56 16 % > 25th Percentile 70 84 14 48 62 14 60 76 16 52 65 13 72 81 9 64 77 13
4 % > 75th Percentile 22 32 10 10 14 4 14 23 9 11 16 5 29 34 5 20 29 9 % > 50th Percentile 42 56 14 24 32 8 30 45 15 25 34 9 50 56 6 39 51 12 % > 25th Percentile 65 77 12 45 56 11 53 67 14 47 58 11 71 77 6 62 73 11
5 % > 75th Percentile 23 28 5 11 14 3 14 20 6 10 14 4 31 32 1 20 27 7 % > 50th Percentile 45 50 5 26 32 6 32 42 10 26 33 7 54 58 4 41 50 9 % > 25th Percentile 65 71 6 45 53 8 54 65 11 46 55 9 71 77 6 61 70 9
6 % > 75th Percentile 26 30 4 16 22 6 15 24 9 12 15 3 35 39 4 25 32 7 % > 50th Percentile 47 53 6 34 41 7 33 46 13 26 32 6 53 58 5 46 55 9 % > 25th Percentile 67 74 7 58 64 6 58 68 10 47 55 8 69 75 6 67 74 7
7 % > 75th Percentile 21 24 3 12 15 3 13 19 6 9 11 2 33 35 2 21 25 4 % > 50th Percentile 42 46 4 29 33 4 31 38 7 24 28 4 54 57 3 42 48 6 % > 25th Percentile 64 69 5 55 57 2 54 62 8 46 53 7 72 75 3 65 71 6
8 % > 75th Percentile 18 21 3 11 15 4 12 16 4 9 11 2 32 37 5 20 24 4 % > 50th Percentile 40 45 5 29 35 6 34 38 4 24 27 3 53 59 6 42 48 6 % > 25th Percentile 63 69 6 53 60 7 57 63 6 45 51 6 71 76 5 64 71 7
9 % > 75th Percentile 22 27 5 13 15 2 19 23 4 11 12 1 38 41 3 22 25 3 % > 50th Percentile 48 55 7 33 39 6 45 51 6 30 33 3 63 67 4 47 51 4 % > 25th Percentile 72 79 7 58 67 9 72 78 6 59 63 4 82 85 3 71 75 4
10 % > 75th Percentile 16 25 9 12 11 -1 12 18 6 9 10 1 30 33 3 17 20 3 % > 50th Percentile 42 52 10 32 34 2 37 45 8 28 31 3 55 60 5 41 46 5 % > 25th Percentile 69 75 6 60 64 4 67 72 5 59 62 3 76 80 4 68 71 3
11 % > 75th Percentile 22 29 7 19 20 1 18 22 4 14 17 3 42 43 1 22 25 3 % > 50th Percentile 45 56 11 40 43 3 37 44 7 32 36 4 62 64 2 43 47 4 % > 25th Percentile 69 75 6 63 69 6 62 68 6 59 64 5 77 82 5 66 69 3
22
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
Table C.13
SAT9 Math: EL Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 12 23 11 6 12 6 12 28 16 8 14 6 41 55 14 9 18 9
% > 50th Percentile 31 49 18 18 30 12 31 52 21 25 34 9 69 80 11 26 40 14 % > 25th Percentile 56 73 17 42 56 14 57 74 17 49 60 11 86 93 7 50 65 15
3 % > 75th Percentile 11 21 10 3 7 4 6 23 17 6 11 5 22 30 8 7 14 7 % > 50th Percentile 28 48 20 13 25 12 23 48 25 19 30 11 48 59 11 21 37 16 % > 25th Percentile 54 75 21 35 53 18 50 71 21 44 58 14 75 81 6 45 64 19
4 % > 75th Percentile 8 12 4 2 4 2 4 12 8 4 6 2 17 27 10 5 10 5 % > 50th Percentile 22 32 10 9 17 8 14 34 20 14 20 6 39 51 12 17 27 10 % > 25th Percentile 45 61 16 29 43 14 36 61 25 36 46 10 67 73 6 39 54 15
5 % > 75th Percentile 6 10 4 2 4 2 3 8 5 2 3 1 12 20 8 4 7 3 % > 50th Percentile 21 26 5 10 16 6 14 26 12 12 15 3 35 47 12 16 24 8 % > 25th Percentile 42 52 10 29 39 10 35 53 18 29 36 7 58 71 13 35 48 13
6 % > 75th Percentile 6 8 2 3 7 4 1 5 4 2 3 1 11 19 8 5 9 4 % > 50th Percentile 20 24 4 17 23 6 10 21 11 9 11 2 25 39 14 18 26 8 % > 25th Percentile 42 49 7 43 48 5 33 48 15 27 31 4 48 61 13 40 51 11
7 % > 75th Percentile 3 3 0 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 10 14 4 4 6 2 % > 50th Percentile 12 14 2 12 15 3 8 14 6 6 8 2 26 34 8 14 19 5 % > 25th Percentile 37 39 2 38 40 2 29 39 10 23 28 5 49 59 10 37 45 8
8 % > 75th Percentile 3 2 -1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 9 16 7 4 5 1 % > 50th Percentile 11 12 1 9 15 6 8 11 3 6 7 1 19 39 20 13 17 4 % > 25th Percentile 32 37 5 29 43 14 28 37 9 21 26 5 42 61 19 34 42 8
9 % > 75th Percentile 3 4 1 2 2 0 2 4 2 2 2 0 14 20 6 5 5 0 % > 50th Percentile 16 19 3 14 19 5 16 21 5 11 11 0 34 44 10 19 21 2 % > 25th Percentile 45 54 9 41 52 11 51 59 8 41 42 1 66 72 6 48 53 5
10 % > 75th Percentile 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 15 17 2 5 6 1 % > 50th Percentile 14 20 6 12 14 2 11 17 6 10 12 2 33 43 10 17 21 4 % > 25th Percentile 46 50 4 39 47 8 42 52 10 38 42 4 61 69 8 46 50 4
11 % > 75th Percentile 4 5 1 2 3 1 3 3 0 4 5 1 17 27 10 7 8 1 % > 50th Percentile 17 22 5 10 17 7 12 16 4 12 15 3 35 47 12 19 23 4 % > 25th Percentile 44 49 5 34 50 16 40 48 8 38 43 5 60 70 10 43 49 6
23
Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego
24
Table C.14
SAT9 Math: Non-EL Students
District San Diego Unified Fresno Unified Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified California
1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- Change 1997- 1999- ChangeGrade 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000 2 % > 75th Percentile 33 47 14 16 23 7 25 42 17 18 28 10 32 34 2 25 40 15
% > 50th Percentile 58 71 13 34 45 11 46 63 17 37 51 14 56 58 2 49 65 16 % > 25th Percentile 77 87 10 57 68 11 67 80 13 61 72 11 77 78 1 70 83 13
3 % > 75th Percentile 28 45 17 14 22 8 24 39 15 16 27 11 29 39 10 23 38 15 % > 50th Percentile 54 72 18 32 44 12 46 62 16 37 52 15 51 62 11 46 65 19 % > 25th Percentile 77 89 12 56 68 12 68 80 12 60 74 14 71 81 10 70 83 13
4 % > 75th Percentile 28 41 13 14 20 6 21 31 10 18 26 8 33 38 5 25 36 11 % > 50th Percentile 50 67 17 32 41 9 41 53 12 36 48 12 54 59 5 46 60 14 % > 25th Percentile 73 85 12 54 63 9 64 73 9 58 71 13 72 79 7 69 80 11
5 % > 75th Percentile 30 36 6 16 19 3 20 28 8 16 21 5 36 37 1 25 33 8 % > 50th Percentile 55 62 7 35 41 6 42 52 10 37 46 9 59 62 3 48 59 11 % > 25th Percentile 75 80 5 54 61 7 64 73 9 59 69 10 75 79 4 68 78 10
6 % > 75th Percentile 34 39 5 22 29 7 22 33 11 18 21 3 40 45 5 30 39 9 % > 50th Percentile 58 64 6 42 50 8 44 58 14 36 43 7 59 64 5 53 63 10 % > 25th Percentile 77 83 6 65 72 7 70 78 8 59 67 8 73 79 6 73 81 8
7 % > 75th Percentile 27 30 3 16 20 4 18 25 7 13 16 3 37 41 4 25 30 5 % > 50th Percentile 53 56 3 36 41 5 41 49 8 33 37 4 59 63 4 48 55 7 % > 25th Percentile 74 78 4 62 64 2 65 72 7 57 64 7 76 80 4 71 77 6
8 % > 75th Percentile 23 27 4 15 20 5 16 22 6 12 14 2 36 42 6 23 28 5 % > 50th Percentile 49 55 6 37 43 6 44 49 5 32 35 3 58 63 5 48 55 7 % > 25th Percentile 73 79 6 63 68 5 68 74 6 55 61 6 76 79 3 70 77 7
9 % > 75th Percentile 27 34 7 17 20 3 24 30 6 14 15 1 40 45 5 25 29 4 % > 50th Percentile 56 65 9 40 47 7 54 61 7 36 41 5 66 71 5 51 57 6 % > 25th Percentile 79 86 7 65 73 8 79 84 5 65 71 6 84 87 3 75 80 5
10 % > 75th Percentile 19 30 11 16 15 -1 15 23 8 11 12 1 31 36 5 19 23 4 % > 50th Percentile 48 60 12 39 41 2 44 53 9 33 36 3 57 63 6 44 50 6 % > 25th Percentile 74 81 7 67 71 4 74 78 4 65 68 3 77 82 5 71 75 4
11 % > 75th Percentile 25 34 9 23 26 3 22 28 6 16 20 4 44 46 2 24 28 4 % > 50th Percentile 50 63 13 48 52 4 43 51 8 37 41 4 64 67 3 46 51 5 % > 25th Percentile 73 80 7 71 75 4 68 74 6 64 68 4 78 84 6 69 73 4