Notes on the collection and use of the data reported by the ECF calculator In theory, virtually all states are reporting school performance data to the public. In fact, only a few report in a way that enables public users to confidently determine which schools are doing the most for their students. States differ greatly with regard to transparency. Many appear to be concerned only with communicating school performance data to educators, not the public or elected officials. Although data may be available online, considerable technical expertise is required to locate it, much less organize it in a way that permits the user to make meaningful comparisons among schools. Without user-friendly access, the notion that a state’s schools are transparent and accountable to taxpayers is misleading. Notes on data available in individual states The “advanced” and “proficient” levels are considered to be at or above grade-level and jointly referred to as “proficient.” The “basic” and “below-basic” levels are considered to be below grade-level and jointly referred to as “below-proficient.” The measured levels of student reading performance referenced by these terms differ from state to state, thus users should avoid comparisons across states. Here’s why. For level-playing-field comparisons among, visit the Nation’s Report Card: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2019R3 For states that distinguish a greater or fewer number of reading levels, the data used by the calculator has been adjusted on the basis of the percentages of students at each performance level reported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). States with adjusted adjusted performance data
Colorado 2022: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution.
Arizona 2021 :In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Florida 2021: Florida reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Georgia 2021: *Asterisks are reported next to school names in cases where the 2020-2021 tested population may not be representative of the total population based on prior achievement. Additional caution may be needed in interpretation and use in such cases. For more information on interpreting the 2020-2021 results of Georgia assessments, visit: https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia_2020-2021_Assessment_Results.aspx Maryland 2021: Because Maryland reported only three levels of proficiency (Approached, Met and Exceeded Expectations) , Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Approached Expectations percentage using the state's NAEP distribution. North Carolina 2021: North Carolina reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For a small number of schools, proficiency was reported as <5%, or >95%. These numbers were changed to whole numbers 5% or 95%. Tennessee 2021: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Virginia 2021: Because Virginia reports only three levels of proficiency, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Fail rate using the state's NAEP distribution.
Alaska 2019: In a small number of schools, only two levels of proficiency were reported. In these schools, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Arizona 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Connecticut 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Hawaii 2019: Because Hawaii reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Iowa 2019: Because Iowa reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP distribution. Louisiana 2019: Louisiana reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 (Unsatisfactory) percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 (Approaching Basic) and 3 (Basic) combined were used for Basic. Also, if proficiency was reported as <5, it was changed to whole number 5 for calculation purposes. Maine 2019:Because Maine reported only two levels of proficiency (At or Above State Expectations and Below or Well Below State Expectations), Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from Below or Well Below State Expectations using the state’s NAEP distribution. Maryland 2019: Maryland reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as <=5%, 5% was used for graphing purposes. Mississippi 2019: Mississippi reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Missouri 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Montana 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. New Jersey 2019: New Jersey reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. New Mexico 2019: Because New Mexico reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP distribution. Nebraska 2019: Because Nebraska reported only three levels of proficiency, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP distribution. North Carolina 2019: North Carolina reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For a small number of schools, proficiency was reported as <5%, or >95%. These numbers were changed to whole numbers 5% or 95%. Ohio 2019: Ohio reports five levels of proficiency. Limited proficiency was used for Below Basic and Basic proficiency was used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as >95%, 95% was used for calculation purposes. Also, in the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Oklahoma 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Tennessee 2019: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution.
Alaska 2018 :In a small number of schools, only two levels of proficiency were reported. In these schools, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Arizona 2018 :In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Colorado 2018: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Connecticut 2018: In the case of missing percentage, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Florida 2018: Florida reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Hawaii 2018: Because Hawaii reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Idaho 2018: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Indiana 2018: Because Indiana reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP distribution. Iowa 2018: Because Iowa reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the percentage that was not proficient using the state's NAEP distribution. Louisiana 2018: Louisiana reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. If a percent was reported as <=1% or <5, the whole numbers 1 and 5 were used for graphing purposes Tennessee 2018: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Maine 2018: Because Maine reported only two levels of proficiency (At or Above State Expectations and Below or Well Below State Expectations), Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from Below or Well Below State Expectations using the state's NAEP distribution. Maryland 2018: Maryland reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as <=5%, 5% was used for graphing purposes. Mississippi 2018: Mississippi reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Missouri 2018: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Montana 2018: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Nebraska 2018: Because Nebraska reported only three levels of proficiency, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. New Hampshire 2018: For schools whose proficiency showed >90% or <10%, these were changed to whole numbers of 90% and 10%. New Jersey 2018: New Jersey reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. New Mexico 2018: Because New Mexico reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP distribution. North Carolina 2018: North Carolina reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For a small number of schools, proficiency was reported as <5%, or >95%. These numbers were changed to whole numbers 5% or 95%. Also, the number of third grade students was taken from the revised Principles Monthly Report for attendance. North Dakota 2018: The percentage of students in the novice and partially proficient (below basic and basic) levels was reported as a range. The midpoint of each level was used for calculation purposes. Ohio 2018: Ohio reports five levels of proficiency. Limited proficiency was used for Below Basic and Basic proficiency was used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as >95%, 95% was used for calculation purposes. Also, in the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Oklahoma 2018: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Utah 2018: Because Utah reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP distribution. In a small number of schools, proficiency was reported as <=10%, <=20% or >=80%. These were changed to whole numbers for calculation purposes. If proficiency was reported as a range, the highest percentage in the range was used for calculation purposes. Vermont 2018: Because Vermont reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP distribution. Virginia 2018: Because Virginia reports only three levels of proficiency, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Fail percentage using the state's NAEP distribution.
Arizona 2017: In the case of missing percentages in a small number of schools in Arizona, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Colorado 2017: Colorado reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Connecticut 2017: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Washington, D.C. 2017: DC reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Florida 2017: Florida reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Hawaii 2017: Because Hawaii reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Illinois 2017: Illinois reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Indiana 2017: Because Indiana reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Maine 2017: Because Maine reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Maryland 2017: Maryland reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as <=5%, 5% was used for graphing purposes. Michigan 2017: For a small number of schools, proficiency was reported as <=5%, <=10%, >=90% or >=95%. These numbers were changed to whole numbers 5%, 10%, 90% or 95%. Mississippi 2017: Mississippi reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Montana 2017: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Nebraska 2017: Because Nebraska reported only three levels of proficiency, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. New Jersey 2017: New Jersey reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. New Mexico 2017: Because New Mexico reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. North Dakota 2017: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency or if proficiency data was reported as a range, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Ohio 2017: Ohio reports five levels of proficiency. The bottom two levels were used for the calculator. Limited Proficiency was used for Below Basic data, and Basic Proficiency was used for Basic data. Oklahoma 2017: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Rhode Island 2017: Rhode Island reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Vermont 2017: Because Vermont reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP distribution.
Arizona 2016: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. If there was no data for a school or district, ECF substituted the proficiency percentages of that state. Connecticut 2016: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. If there was no data for a school or district, ECF substituted the proficiency percentages of that state. Florida 2016: Florida reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Hawaii 2016: Because Hawaii reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Illinois 2016: Illinois reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Indiana 2016: Because Indiana reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Louisiana 2016: Louisiana reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. If a percent was reported as <=1%, the whole number 1 was used for graphing purposes. If enrollment numbers were not reported, the school enrollment was divided by the number of grades in the school. Maine 2016: Because Maine reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state's NAEP percentages. Maryland 2016: :Maryland reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. For schools where a percentage was reported as <=5%, 5% was used for graphing purposes. Mississippi 2016: Mississippi reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Missouri 2016: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Nebraska 2016: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. New Mexico 2016: New Mexico reports only proficient data. Not proficient data was calculated, and then ECF estimated Basic and Below Basic percentages in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. New Jersey 2016: New Jersey reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Ohio 2016: Ohio reports five levels of proficiency. The bottom two levels were used for the calculator. Limited Proficiency was used for Below Basic data, and Basic Proficiency was used for Basic data. Oklahoma 2016: In the case of missing percentages for proficiency, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. Rhode Island 2016: Rhode Island reports five levels of proficiency. Level 1 percentages were used for Below Basic and Levels 2 and 3 combined were used for Basic. Vermont 2016: Because Vermont reported only proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP distribution. Virginia 2016: Because Virginia only reported a fail percentage, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated using the state's NAEP percentages.
Georgia 2013: Because Georgia only has three levels of proficiency (Does Not Meet, Meets and Exceeds). Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Does Not Meet data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Illinois 2013: Student counts were calculated by dividing the total school enrollment by the number of grades in that school. For the district numbers, the school student counts for that district were added together. Indiana 2013: Because Indiana had only proficient and not proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Iowa 2013: Because Iowa had only proficient and not proficient data, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the not proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Kansas 2013: Because Kansas school level data only had two levels of proficiency (Below standard and at/above standard) the percentages for Basic and Below Basic were calculated using the district level Warning and Approaching Standards percentages. Maryland 2013: Because Maryland only has three levels of proficiency (Advanced, Proficient, and Basic), Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Basic values using the state’s NAEP percentages. Michigan 2013: Michigan tests in the fall; data is for students in the fourth grade as of fall 2012. This data shows 4th graders that were tested on 3rd grade standards. Nebraska 2013: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. If there was no data for a school or district, ECF substituted the proficiency percentages of that state. New Hampshire 2013: New Hampshire tests in the fall; data is for students in the fourth grade as of fall 2012. This data shows 4th graders that were tested on 3rd grade standards. New Jersey 2013: Because New Jersey only has three levels of proficiency (Partially Proficient, Proficient and Advanced), Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the partially proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Oklahoma 2013: In the case of missing percentages, ECF estimated the missing numbers in the proportions suggested by the state NAEP distribution. If there was no data for a school or district, ECF substituted the proficiency percentages of the state. Oregon 2013: Because Oregon only provides a percentage for Meets & Exceeds, Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Basic data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Rhode Island 2013: Rhode Island data was retrieved manually from the state report card. Proficiency data that was missing was calculated from the state’s NAEP percentages. Third grade enrollment data was calculated by dividing the total enrollment for the school by the number of grades in the school. South Carolina 2013: Because South Carolina only has three levels of proficiency (Not Met, Met and Exemplary) Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Not Met data using the state’s NAEP percentages. South Dakota 2013: When no data was listed for a school or district, NAEP percentages were used. Texas 2013: Because Texas only has three levels of proficiency (Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory and Advanced) Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Unsatisfactory data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Utah 2013: Because Utah only had proficient data, ECF figured out the percentage that was not proficient. Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Not Proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Also, because the district data was not available for the year 2013, the data for the districts was figured by taking an average of the schools within each district. Vermont 2013: Many schools were excluded due to lack of data. Please contact ECF if you do not see your school listed. Virginia 2013: Because Virginia only has three levels of proficiency (Fail, Pass Proficient, Pass Advanced) Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Fail data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Washington, D.C. 2013: 2011 is the most recent data available. West Virginia 2013: Because West Virginia only had two levels of proficiency (Proficient and Not Proficient) Below Basic and Basic percentages were calculated from the Not Proficient data using the state’s NAEP percentages. Wisconsin 2013: Alternative assessment data is included in the data for the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin tests in the fall; data is for students in the fourth grade as of fall 2013. This data shows 4th graders that were tested on 3rd grade standards. Wyoming 2013: Alternative assessment data is included in the data for the state of Wyoming. |