ACADEMIC KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

www.cgcs.orgREPORT2021

Academic Key Performance Indicators

By the

Council of the Great City Schools

Moses Palacios

Eric Vignola

Akisha Osei Sarfo

Ray Hart

October 2021

CONTENTS

Contents iii

Introduction 1

Methodology and Analysis 3

Elementary Achievement Indicators 5

Pre-K as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment 6

Secondary Achievement Indicators 23

Ninth-Grade Course Failures 24

Ninth Grade Students with B Average GPA or Better 40

Algebra I/Integrated Math I by Grade Nine 56

Advanced Placement Course Enrollment 72

Advanced Placement Exam Scores Three or Higher 88

Four-Year Graduation Rates 104

Attendance Indicators 121

Discipline Indicators 155

Out-of-School Suspensions 156

Number of Instructional Days Missed 172

Appendix A. Data Collection Instruments 188

Appendix B. Council of the Great City Schools 196

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the nation’s large urban school districts have consistently learned from the progress of

their peer districts across the country. Great City School districts that have embraced the challenge of

educating America’s urban children have recognized the value of benchmarking their performance and

growth against the progress of others.

In 2002, the board of directors of the Council of the Great City Schools (Council) authorized what became

known as the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to develop and implement key

performance indicators across the member school districts in operations, business services, finances,

human resources, and technology. These performance indicators in operations have evolved over the years

and are now reported annually by the Council in its Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools

series. However, one critical element was not included in these annual reports: academic performance.

In the same year, 2002, six member districts of the Council began participating voluntarily in the Trial

Urban District Assessment (TUDA) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The purpose of

this participation was to gauge performance across state lines, compare progress, and ascertain what

reforms seemed to be working. As of 2019, there will be 27 Council member districts participating in

TUDA. Of course, not all Council member districts are eligible for TUDA, and TUDA results do not

provide all the academic comparisons that member districts would like to make.

Because of that information gap, the board of directors took the next step in authorizing the development

of Academic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in October 2014. To put the board’s wishes into place,

teams of educators from Council member districts came together to begin drafting initial indicators in

general instruction, special education, English language learners, and a number of academic cost

indicators. A lengthy list of potential indicators developed by the teams was refined and narrowed to a

smaller set for piloting in 2015. Eight member districts participated in the pilot.

Based on the pilot, data-collection surveys and the indicators themselves were further refined, and all

Council member districts were asked to participate in a full-scale pilot of the Academic Key Performance

Indicators in 2016. A third pilot was conducted in 2017 and included the collection of data across three

school years. The 2021 report presents an updated set of data through school year 2019-20. This report

presents a number of different ways that member districts can analyze the data themselves by

disaggregating results, showing trends, and combining variables. This year, a companion online dashboard

was released that added the ability to conduct several comparisons and analysis beyond what is presented

in this report. To access this system, go to www.edwires.org.

This report focuses on the data collection and analysis of the following Academic KPIs:

• Pre-K enrollment relative to Kindergarten enrollment

• Algebra I completion rates for credit by grade 9

• Ninth grade course failure rates — at least one core course

• Ninth graders with B average (GPA) or better

• Absentee rates by grade level

• Suspension rates

• Instructional days missed per 100 students due to suspensions

• AP participation rates

• AP-equivalent participation rates

The Council of The Great City Schools 1 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

• AP exam pass rates

• Four-year graduation rate

The Council of The Great City Schools 2 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

A. Methodology

Developing the KPIs

This study sought to answer the following questions:

1. Is it feasible to develop Academic KPIs and collect data on them across member urban school

districts?

2. Are comparisons between districts on academic performance measures valid and reliable?

3. Do districts collect and maintain requested KPI data in a way that they can easily retrieve and

format them?

4. Are data collection tools clear and easy to use?

5. Do the results of data analysis provide valuable insights into district academic performance and

student achievement?

6. How should the indicators be refined going forward?

To answer these questions, Council staff organized a process to develop and collect KPIs in three phases.

The first phase involved the development of academic performance and cost KPIs. The second phase

involved a small pilot of performance and cost KPIs in eight districts. These districts included

Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles, Kansas City (MO), and Milwaukee. The

final phase assessed the viability of collecting comparable performance indicators across all Council

member districts.

During the first phase, three advisory groups were formed and convened to develop the academic and cost

indicators. These groups included administrators from Council member districts in the areas of curriculum

and instruction, English language learners, and special education. Representatives from each area formed

three homogeneous advisory groups. After several meetings, the groups submitted a list of potential KPIs

on academic indicators as well as financial expenditure indicators in each area. Finally, a literature review

was conducted to identify variables that predicted student outcomes and could be used to formulate KPIs,

and to identify past efforts by others to benchmark performance and costs.

The indicators and costs were then reviewed by a team of general education, special education, English

language learner, finance, and research department representatives to determine the feasibility of

collecting comparable data across districts. The review included the relative value of each indicator, the

data collection burden of the indicator, and the ability to disaggregate the data by student group (e.g., ELL,

students with disabilities, ethnicity, gender, etc.). The original list of KPIs was then narrowed from 200

key performance indicators to approximately 58 performance and cost measures.

During phase two of the process, the Council team piloted the data collection instruments and the KPI

definitions in 2015 with the eight member school districts listed above. Throughout the piloting process,

data-collection tools and definitions were continuously revised based on feedback from participating

districts and results from an initial data analysis effort.

Phase three of the pilot involved a full-scale data-collection effort to assess the viability of the indicators

across a larger number of Council member districts. After revising indicator definitions and the survey

instrument based on the pilot, the Council team developed two methodologies by which to collect the data.

The first methodology involved an on-line survey, and the second methodology involved Excel data sheets

that district staff could populate with their information. The purpose of this phase of the work was to test

the potential of collecting academic performance indicators across all districts. The cost indicators

The Council of The Great City Schools 3 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

developed in phase 1 and phase 2 were deferred to future data collection efforts, while the Council staff

devoted time to the development of the performance indicators.

The current phase of the work, which has resulted in this report, involved updating the indicators and

working with member districts on the accuracy of their data across multiple years.

This report illustrates the current use of the performance indicators as viable measures of student

achievement outcomes across all member districts. The data are based on results from about 47 member

districts. Not all member districts completed all KPIs, but the charts and tables summarize the data from

all respondents.

B. Analysis Organizing and Presenting the Data

The analysis presented here is divided into four sections: 1) elementary achievement indicators, 2)

secondary achievement indicators, 3) attendance indicators, and 4) disciplinary indicators. Not all data

were presented or analyzed, but the recently developed online system allows for extensive analysis.

Finally, data are reported here by district using codes. For each one, these codes correspond to the codes

used in the non-instructional KPIs. In the graphs, each bar represents a responding school district.

The Council of The Great City Schools 4 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Elementary Achievement Indicators

The current early childhood KPI divides the pre-K enrollment reported on the KPIdata survey by the kindergarten enrollment. This gives a preliminary proxymeasure of the size of districts’ pre-K program relative to kindergartenenrollment. Figures 1.1 to 1.24 show the relationship between Pre-K andKindergarten enrollments and how they have changed between 2016-17 and 2019-20. The data is also disaggregated by a number of demographic variables.

The Council of The Great City Schools 5 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.1 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students, 2019-20

16

11

5

56

48

10

44

14

8

13

15

55

53

97

9

32

77

47

54

57

79

52

12

4

46

19

27

67

51

26

34

25

23

68

43

2

96

71

40

41

30

60

76

29

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students

Median 65.9%

5.8%

6.4%

21.3%

24.8%

25.7%

27.1%

28.1%

33.3%

35.0%

35.1%

38.0%

38.0%

38.5%

41.0%

41.7%

42.8%

49.1%

50.1%

59.0%

60.0%

60.5%

61.7%

70.2%

72.1%

73.5%

74.0%

74.8%

80.2%

81.2%

83.5%

86.2%

86.6%

86.7%

86.7%

86.9%

87.8%

87.9%

89.7%

92.1%

107.8%

126.8%

126.9%

140.3%

144.1%

The Council of The Great City Schools 6 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.1: Total number of pre-K Studentsdivided by total number kindergarten Students,2019-20Figure 1.2: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 1.3: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

1.2 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students, 2016-17to 2019-20

19

53

68

34

27

8

56

16

25

47

11

44

48

30

14

13

76

51

46

57

67

5

12

54

97

4

32

40

41

26

71

9

60

96

KPIID

−20 0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.9

−15.2

−5.7

−5.4

−3.4

−1.6

−0.5

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.9

2.5

4.9

4.9

4.9

5.5

5.5

6.3

6.7

6.7

6.7

7.3

8.0

8.3

10.7

11.1

13.1

24.7

26.5

48.1

1.3 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

76.5%

31.0%

78.8%

28.4%

87.4%

30.1%

86.7%

38.0%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthMilwaukee

New YorkPittsburghRichmondSan AntonioTulsa

AustinBostonClark CountyDallasFort Worth

MiamiNew YorkTulsaWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 7 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.4 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black Male Students, 2019-20

11

16

14

56

48

15

10

49

44

97

9

55

8

5

53

13

67

57

4

54

32

47

79

12

46

51

19

26

27

68

96

52

43

34

40

77

41

2

25

30

23

60

71

29

76

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black Male Students

Median 72.3%

8.5%

10.4%

17.2%

29.5%

30.9%

35.5%

38.2%

38.4%

42.1%

43.7%

46.5%

46.9%

48.7%

51.0%

52.6%

56.4%

61.3%

61.5%

62.9%

63.4%

63.6%

68.4%

72.3%

75.3%

75.3%

77.7%

79.7%

87.9%

88.6%

89.6%

90.5%

95.7%

99.5%

101.1%

104.3%

122.0%

123.4%

125.8%

129.7%

133.4%

145.7%

155.2%

161.2%

161.6%

198.1%

The Council of The Great City Schools 8 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Black Male

StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.4: Total number of pre-K Black MaleStudents divided by total number kindergartenBlack Male Students, 2019-20Figure 1.5: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Black Male Students, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 1.6: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for BlackMale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.5 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

34

68

53

19

67

8

14

25

49

56

11

4

27

44

46

48

30

13

97

16

47

41

40

57

54

26

51

32

5

12

9

76

60

96

71

KPIID

−20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.4

−20.8

−16.6

−14.5

−14.0

−5.1

−4.8

−4.6

−0.3

1.0

1.5

1.6

2.5

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.0

4.1

4.6

6.0

8.6

8.8

10.4

14.2

14.4

14.9

21.8

27.1

27.8

32.7

49.7

52.5

60.7

1.6 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Black Male Students, 2016-17to 2019-20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

80.0%

37.9%

86.9%

39.2%

104.8%

39.3%

100.7%

47.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinCharlestonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthMilwaukee

New YorkNewarkRichmondSan AntonioSan Francisco

AustinClark CountyDes MoinesMiamiNew York

Oklahoma CityPortlandSan AntonioTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 9 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.7 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black Female Students, 2019-20

11

16

56

48

14

49

44

97

9

10

15

55

13

8

5

53

47

57

67

12

4

79

54

32

19

52

46

26

51

77

96

27

34

68

43

2

40

23

25

30

41

71

29

60

76

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black Female Students

Median 63.6%

3.4%

4.9%

26.1%

26.4%

30.6%

31.3%

33.5%

35.7%

37.6%

38.2%

38.7%

42.1%

43.9%

46.4%

47.1%

50.4%

54.8%

55.3%

58.3%

61.0%

61.2%

62.4%

63.6%

64.3%

71.1%

74.5%

75.7%

77.3%

84.0%

84.0%

85.8%

90.1%

95.7%

96.3%

103.5%

117.7%

121.2%

127.6%

132.0%

135.6%

135.6%

146.7%

148.4%

179.5%

184.7%

The Council of The Great City Schools 10 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Black Female

StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.7: Total number of pre-K Black FemaleStudents divided by total number kindergartenBlack Female Students, 2019-20Figure 1.8: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Black Female Students, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 1.9: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for BlackFemale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.8 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Black FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

76

53

34

25

67

12

44

68

27

16

11

49

57

13

47

48

56

8

4

97

51

30

46

26

54

32

41

5

14

71

40

9

96

60

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.2

−37.8

−21.9

−14.8

−14.2

−5.6

−4.7

−3.9

−2.8

−1.6

−0.6

−0.5

0.5

1.2

2.0

2.0

2.8

4.0

4.2

4.2

5.8

6.8

8.4

10.0

10.1

10.4

10.9

14.2

15.7

17.1

20.6

21.3

26.2

28.4

47.6

56.9

1.9 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Black Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

83.5%

30.1%

82.7%

30.8%

98.3%

33.6%

96.1%

42.5%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinCharlestonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthMilwaukee

New YorkNewarkPittsburghRichmondSan Antonio

AlbuquerqueAustinClark CountyDallasFort Worth

MiamiNew YorkPortlandTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 11 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.10 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Male Students, 2019-20

16

11

56

44

14

10

48

13

19

49

8

32

47

2

53

97

9

5

79

55

54

46

77

34

27

12

25

43

4

57

67

68

51

26

40

96

52

41

23

60

71

29

76

30

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Male Students

Median 61.1%

8.3%

9.7%

28.3%

29.1%

30.6%

34.3%

35.2%

35.6%

36.7%

36.7%

40.1%

40.2%

42.5%

43.1%

45.1%

46.4%

48.7%

49.8%

53.1%

56.3%

60.0%

60.8%

61.5%

62.8%

63.9%

64.9%

66.2%

72.2%

77.0%

77.7%

82.8%

84.4%

85.0%

88.3%

89.4%

92.8%

94.1%

106.7%

108.2%

112.7%

112.9%

124.5%

132.7%

133.6%

The Council of The Great City Schools 12 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Male

StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.10: Total number of pre-K Hispanic MaleStudents divided by total number kindergartenHispanic Male Students, 2019-20Figure 1.11: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Hispanic Male Students, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 1.12: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for HispanicMale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.11 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

68

27

14

46

47

53

56

49

76

16

25

8

40

51

11

48

34

13

44

54

32

4

12

67

41

71

97

26

30

5

60

9

57

96

KPIID

−100 −50 0 50

Percentage Point Change

Median 2.7

−123.3

−11.6

−10.0

−9.0

−6.5

−5.6

−4.9

−2.4

−2.3

−1.8

−0.2

−0.1

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.5

2.7

2.7

3.3

4.1

4.1

8.5

8.9

10.3

10.8

11.3

13.2

14.4

14.9

18.0

22.2

23.4

29.4

45.6

46.1

1.12 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Male Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

74.5%

32.1%

79.5%

34.5%

88.4%

35.0%

85.0%

40.2%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBostonCharlestonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort Worth

MilwaukeeMinneapolisNew YorkSan AntonioTulsa

AustinBostonClark CountyClevelandMilwaukee

New YorkPinellasPortlandTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 13 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.13 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Female Students, 2019-20

11

16

15

13

44

48

14

56

10

8

97

32

47

2

9

49

53

77

5

79

55

19

57

34

27

25

54

26

12

4

46

52

43

67

51

40

96

23

68

41

30

60

71

29

76

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Female Students

Median 58.5%

3.7%

3.7%

20.0%

20.8%

20.8%

26.4%

26.5%

26.8%

27.9%

29.9%

30.5%

36.7%

38.3%

40.3%

40.9%

41.3%

43.1%

46.3%

46.8%

51.6%

55.2%

56.3%

58.5%

59.4%

61.2%

62.0%

62.2%

65.6%

70.2%

72.4%

78.6%

79.7%

80.6%

85.6%

85.9%

94.9%

99.8%

105.3%

110.4%

113.5%

121.8%

122.2%

122.4%

124.1%

138.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 14 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic

Female StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.13: Total number of pre-K HispanicFemale Students divided by total numberkindergarten Hispanic Female Students, 2019-20Figure 1.14: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Hispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 1.15: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for HispanicFemale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.14 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

27

14

30

47

16

4

53

8

56

11

44

13

68

49

48

34

67

25

97

40

51

32

76

54

26

46

57

5

41

12

71

19

60

9

96

KPIID

−20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 5.3

−16.9

−5.5

−4.6

−1.6

−0.5

−0.3

−0.3

0.0

0.2

0.5

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.6

3.1

3.7

4.7

5.3

5.6

6.1

6.4

6.6

7.3

7.8

8.0

8.7

11.9

13.5

15.4

17.2

18.7

27.7

27.8

32.7

55.7

1.15 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Hispanic Female Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

76.1%

28.1%

80.6%

26.8%

93.4%

28.1%

84.3%

37.1%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinCharlestonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort Worth

MilwaukeeNew YorkOklahoma CitySan AntonioTulsa

AustinClark CountyClevelandDallasDayton

Des MoinesNew YorkPortlandTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 15 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.16 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students,2019-20

23

16

11

77

56

79

48

46

44

10

14

15

8

97

13

9

32

53

5

47

27

4

12

57

54

67

26

19

52

51

96

25

34

68

43

2

40

60

30

41

71

76

29

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students

Median 53.9%

0.0%

5.4%

6.8%

9.3%

13.8%

23.9%

25.8%

27.1%

33.2%

34.0%

36.9%

38.0%

38.2%

39.8%

43.0%

44.1%

46.7%

47.2%

48.1%

51.9%

52.4%

53.9%

59.2%

60.0%

60.0%

64.3%

71.0%

74.0%

79.8%

80.1%

80.8%

86.0%

86.2%

88.6%

94.8%

97.2%

97.2%

106.8%

124.6%

125.8%

140.1%

147.7%

164.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 16 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Free or

Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.16: Total number of pre-K Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students divided bytotal number kindergarten Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students, 2019-20Figure 1.17: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 1.18: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17to 2019-20

1.17 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

46

68

76

56

27

53

4

34

25

48

16

47

8

14

11

30

26

54

13

44

57

41

97

67

32

51

40

19

5

60

9

96

12

71

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.6

−34.7

−17.5

−14.2

−12.4

−8.1

−7.3

−7.0

−3.4

−0.9

−0.6

−0.1

0.7

1.9

1.9

2.1

2.7

2.8

4.4

4.5

5.2

5.5

6.0

8.1

10.2

11.1

11.8

12.2

14.0

16.3

28.3

29.1

41.7

45.1

64.5

1.18 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

70.8%

30.8%

76.9%

31.1%

93.0%

31.8%

86.0%

37.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthKansas City

MilwaukeeNew YorkPittsburghRichmondSan Antonio

AustinClark CountyDaytonDes MoinesFort Worth

New YorkOklahoma CityPortlandTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 17 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.19 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students with Disabilities, 2019-20

5

96

68

41

16

40

15

11

51

49

71

46

55

60

27

77

23

2

54

12

53

32

67

8

25

97

76

4

26

47

79

44

10

9

30

14

57

13

29

34

48

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students with Disabilities

Median 105.7%

0.0%

0.0%

26.3%

37.4%

37.9%

52.9%

54.1%

56.1%

56.9%

57.7%

58.9%

65.7%

68.0%

69.1%

71.2%

83.8%

86.5%

94.3%

94.7%

103.5%

105.7%

107.8%

107.9%

123.0%

123.3%

127.8%

128.6%

130.2%

132.2%

132.3%

134.2%

137.1%

139.5%

140.5%

141.9%

142.1%

143.3%

145.9%

149.8%

150.4%

167.1%

The Council of The Great City Schools 18 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Students with

DisabilitiesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.19: Total number of pre-K Students withDisabilities divided by total number kindergartenStudents with Disabilities, 2019-20Figure 1.20: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for Students with Disabilities, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 1.21: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Studentswith Disabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.20 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for Students withDisabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

34

57

16

68

14

27

40

53

41

5

96

8

13

11

71

54

51

97

9

67

46

25

44

49

26

60

32

47

76

12

30

48

4

KPIID

−50 0 50 100

Percentage Point Change

Median 6.0

−40.2

−28.1

−25.3

−22.3

−20.6

−19.9

−16.5

−5.4

−3.5

−2.8

−1.9

−1.6

0.7

0.8

2.4

5.6

6.0

6.1

7.1

7.4

7.7

11.2

11.4

15.9

16.7

17.3

21.2

23.8

27.7

28.5

31.2

38.0

130.2

1.21 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for Students with Disabilities,2016-17 to 2019-20

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

118.6%

57.3%

122.3%

53.4%

127.6%

55.2%

133.7%

60.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueBroward CountyClark CountyClevelandDistrict of Columbia

Duval CountyHillsborough CountyKansas CityMilwaukeeOrange County

BostonDes MoinesMiamiMilwaukeeNashville

New YorkOrange CountySan AntonioWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 19 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

1.22 Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for English Language Learners, 2019-20

11

16

19

44

56

47

67

52

13

10

97

51

32

4

96

54

30

46

40

26

41

29

68

23

71

76KP

IID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent of Kindergarten Enrollment for English Language Learners

Median 54.5%

0.0%

3.1%

4.2%

10.9%

20.3%

25.8%

26.1%

34.1%

42.3%

42.8%

51.4%

53.7%

54.1%

54.9%

56.8%

65.4%

66.3%

71.3%

86.9%

90.0%

108.9%

117.9%

124.2%

126.4%

132.6%

148.1%

The Council of The Great City Schools 20 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 1.22: Total number of pre-K EnglishLanguage Learners divided by total numberkindergarten English Language Learners, 2019-20Figure 1.23: Percentage Point Change in Pre-KEnrollment as a Percent of KindergartenEnrollment for English Language Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 1.24: Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for EnglishLanguage Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1.23 Percentage Point Change in Pre-K Enrollment as aPercent of Kindergarten Enrollment for English LanguageLearners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

56

4

54

40

68

47

76

46

11

67

44

51

32

97

13

71

26

41

96

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 2.5

−44.7

−18.6

−16.0

−6.5

−3.1

−3.0

−1.2

−1.1

−0.1

−0.1

5.1

6.6

7.5

9.1

10.8

11.5

14.2

14.7

15.0

29.4

1.24 Trends in Pre-K Enrollment as a Percent ofKindergarten Enrollment for English Language Learners,2016-17 to 2019-20

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

86.5%

27.0%

83.7%

32.9%

93.5%

21.0%

88.4%

28.8%

ArlingtonAustinBostonCharleston

DallasDistrict of ColumbiaSan Antonio

AustinBostonBroward County

DallasTulsa

The Council of The Great City Schools 21 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 22 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Secondary Achievement Indicators

Secondary achievement indicators included:

Ninth-Grade Course Failures and GPAs, by SubgroupAlgebra I/Integrated Math I (or equivalent) by Grade NineAdvanced Placement Course EnrollmentAP Exam ScoresFour-Year Graduation Rates

Figures 2.1 to 2.24 show the percentage of ninth grade students by district whohave failed one or more core (mathematics, science, English language arts, orsocial studies) courses during the ninth grade year. The indicator is based onresearch demonstrating the relationship between core course failures in the ninthgrade and eventual high school graduation.

Figures 2.25 to 2.48 show the percentage of ninth grade students with a B orbetter grade point average.

Figures 2.49 to 2.72 show the percentage of first time ninth grade studentssuccessfully completing Algebra I or equivalent by the end of grades seven, eight,or nine. The counts in each grade do not overlap or duplicate one another.Completion of this course has been shown to effectively predict graduation rates.

Figures 2.73 to 2.96 and 2.97 to 2.120 compare district performance on advancedplacement (AP) indicators, including the percent of secondary school studentswho took one or more AP courses and the percent of all AP exam scores bydistrict that were three or higher, meaning that they qualified for college credit.

Figures 2.121 to 2.144 report the four year cohort graduation rates of each district

The Council of The Great City Schools 23 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.1 Percentage of Ninth Grade Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

76

2

1

55

15

48

52

13

32

97

54

77

53

5

56

23

8

9

20

71

40

27

43

29

51

44

25

12

96

60

41

19

68

16

47

79

4

50

30

26

34

46

57

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 23.6%

0.1%

6.2%

9.0%

9.9%

10.1%

13.3%

14.3%

14.3%

16.1%

16.5%

16.6%

16.7%

16.8%

16.9%

17.8%

17.9%

18.6%

18.8%

19.2%

19.5%

20.8%

22.0%

23.6%

25.5%

25.6%

25.7%

28.1%

28.7%

30.4%

30.4%

32.9%

33.0%

36.7%

37.5%

38.0%

39.3%

39.4%

39.4%

42.1%

42.3%

42.5%

44.6%

46.7%

52.6%

62.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 24 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students WhoFailed One or More Core CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.1: Total number of ninth grade Studentswith at least one core course failure divided by thetotal number of ninth grade Students, 2019-20Figure 2.2: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Students Who Failed One or More CoreCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.3: Trends in Ninth Grade Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.2 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

57

76

27

4

71

30

9

53

50

40

60

41

1

5

51

13

48

32

56

97

44

12

68

67

46

54

8

47

14

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −4.3

−21.4

−21.2

−20.9

−20.7

−17.0

−9.9

−9.3

−9.2

−8.6

−8.1

−7.5

−6.9

−6.6

−6.4

−4.7

−3.8

−3.7

−3.7

−2.5

−2.3

−0.8

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.7

1.6

3.6

4.4

15.6

29.1

2.3 Trends in Ninth Grade Students Who Failed One orMore Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

42.9%

20.6%

40.0%

19.9%

43.9%

22.3%

37.3%

16.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoJacksonMiamiMinneapolis

Orange CountyPinellasRichmondSan AntonioSeattle

AustinClevelandDaytonMilwaukee

NorfolkSan AntonioWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 25 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.4 Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Male Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

76

2

15

55

1

48

52

13

56

54

53

32

27

20

97

9

8

49

71

44

23

40

29

43

25

5

19

34

12

96

51

41

60

50

77

47

46

4

68

79

26

16

57

30

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Male Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 36.4%

0.0%

4.6%

13.8%

15.6%

16.5%

18.8%

21.0%

23.8%

24.6%

26.6%

26.8%

28.4%

28.8%

28.9%

29.0%

29.3%

30.2%

30.7%

31.4%

32.8%

33.4%

35.0%

35.6%

37.2%

37.6%

38.7%

38.8%

42.0%

42.6%

44.1%

44.3%

44.5%

45.0%

45.8%

47.7%

49.5%

50.2%

50.7%

50.9%

53.1%

54.6%

55.6%

56.0%

60.0%

71.0%

78.4%

The Council of The Great City Schools 26 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.4: Total number of ninth grade BlackMale Students with at least one core course failuredivided by the total number of ninth grade BlackMale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.5: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Black Male Students Who Failed One orMore Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.6: Trends in Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.5 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20

76

27

5

19

1

4

57

9

53

71

41

50

60

48

13

12

30

56

44

49

97

40

46

68

32

67

51

8

54

47

14

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −5.9

−33.6

−23.9

−22.9

−22.5

−22.3

−21.8

−17.7

−15.0

−12.8

−12.0

−9.8

−9.5

−8.2

−6.8

−6.0

−5.9

−4.9

−3.3

−3.2

−2.8

−1.8

−1.0

−0.4

0.3

1.4

3.4

4.5

7.3

11.8

17.6

25.6

2.6 Trends in Ninth Grade Black Male Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

54.8%

33.6%

53.8%

30.3%

58.7%

32.4%

46.8%

28.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoJacksonJeffersonLong Beach

MiamiMinneapolisOrange CountyRichmondSan AntonioSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDaytonNorfolk

PortlandSan AntonioSeattleWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 27 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.7 Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Female Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

76

2

15

55

13

48

54

8

56

53

49

1

32

20

27

97

23

52

96

29

9

51

40

44

19

71

25

43

41

60

12

50

68

5

79

47

26

4

46

77

57

34

30

16

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Female Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 23.6%

0.0%

2.0%

6.6%

9.7%

13.2%

13.4%

16.2%

16.9%

16.9%

17.1%

17.5%

17.6%

17.6%

18.9%

20.6%

20.9%

20.9%

21.9%

22.0%

22.8%

23.4%

23.4%

23.5%

23.8%

24.6%

25.8%

25.9%

29.5%

31.1%

32.7%

32.9%

33.9%

34.3%

36.1%

37.1%

37.1%

37.2%

38.0%

39.7%

42.7%

43.4%

43.4%

44.9%

50.7%

50.8%

66.3%

The Council of The Great City Schools 28 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black FemaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.7: Total number of ninth grade BlackFemale Students with at least one core coursefailure divided by the total number of ninth gradeBlack Female Students, 2019-20Figure 2.8: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Black Female Students Who Failed One orMore Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.9: Trends in Ninth Grade Black FemaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.8 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade BlackFemale Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

27

19

57

4

76

53

9

1

71

60

50

30

41

56

48

13

67

49

40

68

97

44

5

12

32

46

51

8

54

47

14

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −4.1

−24.5

−23.3

−20.9

−18.7

−17.4

−11.5

−10.0

−7.4

−7.1

−7.0

−6.7

−6.4

−5.7

−5.2

−4.5

−4.1

−4.0

−3.8

−3.7

−2.5

−2.3

−0.1

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.0

1.1

5.2

16.2

27.1

2.9 Trends in Ninth Grade Black Female Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

40.2%

22.3%

41.4%

19.3%

43.7%

22.5%

36.6%

17.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoGuilford CountyJacksonJefferson

Long BeachOrange CountyPalm BeachRichmondSan AntonioSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDaytonJefferson

NorfolkSan AntonioWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 29 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.10 Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

13

55

20

32

48

53

54

2

1

97

40

51

52

56

9

8

49

43

25

23

71

44

29

96

27

19

77

5

41

30

60

12

34

50

57

68

47

79

4

46

26

16

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 32.7%

17.3%

17.3%

18.5%

18.7%

19.5%

20.3%

20.5%

21.6%

21.8%

22.2%

23.1%

24.4%

25.6%

27.0%

27.6%

28.2%

29.3%

29.8%

30.0%

30.4%

31.2%

31.9%

33.6%

34.5%

34.7%

35.0%

36.7%

37.2%

39.6%

40.6%

40.6%

40.8%

41.7%

46.4%

46.9%

47.0%

47.2%

47.7%

51.3%

55.4%

57.3%

60.3%

61.3%

68.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 30 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic MaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.10: Total number of ninth grade HispanicMale Students with at least one core course failuredivided by the total number of ninth gradeHispanic Male Students, 2019-20Figure 2.11: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Hispanic Male Students Who Failed One orMore Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.12: Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic MaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.11 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade HispanicMale Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

19

57

4

27

1

51

40

30

71

50

9

60

41

44

53

5

49

48

32

13

67

97

68

56

12

54

8

46

47

14

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −5.0

−38.1

−30.0

−21.8

−18.6

−15.5

−13.3

−12.5

−12.2

−11.9

−11.2

−10.3

−8.0

−7.3

−5.4

−5.3

−4.8

−4.7

−4.6

−3.6

−3.0

−1.4

−1.4

−0.2

−0.2

0.1

3.2

6.1

10.4

14.5

28.4

2.12 Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

50.8%

29.8%

50.0%

28.5%

52.5%

31.4%

41.7%

24.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoCincinnatiFort WorthJefferson

MiamiOrange CountyPinellasRichmondSeattle

ClevelandDaytonFort WorthMilwaukee

NorfolkOklahoma CitySeattleWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 31 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.13 Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

55

13

53

32

20

48

54

97

49

52

2

40

51

29

8

56

9

1

25

27

44

23

71

41

5

96

12

77

30

43

19

50

60

68

79

47

4

57

46

34

16

26

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 23.5%

9.0%

10.1%

11.1%

11.4%

11.9%

12.0%

12.4%

13.0%

13.4%

13.7%

14.3%

16.7%

16.8%

17.4%

18.0%

18.1%

18.2%

18.5%

19.9%

21.5%

23.0%

23.3%

23.7%

25.4%

26.8%

26.8%

27.1%

27.2%

27.6%

27.6%

28.1%

29.0%

29.5%

32.8%

34.8%

34.9%

36.6%

36.7%

39.6%

43.3%

45.7%

48.9%

53.0%

63.8%

The Council of The Great City Schools 32 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic FemaleStudents Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.13: Total number of ninth grade HispanicFemale Students with at least one core coursefailure divided by the total number of ninth gradeHispanic Female Students, 2019-20Figure 2.14: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Hispanic Female Students Who Failed Oneor More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.15: Trends in Ninth Grade HispanicFemale Students Who Failed One or More CoreCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.14 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade HispanicFemale Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

19

27

57

4

30

50

5

51

9

60

71

40

41

1

53

56

49

13

48

32

97

68

12

44

54

67

46

8

47

14

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −4.8

−21.9

−19.5

−19.3

−16.7

−11.5

−10.6

−9.4

−9.2

−9.1

−8.8

−8.3

−6.5

−5.5

−5.4

−5.0

−4.5

−3.6

−3.5

−3.0

−2.9

−1.6

−1.4

−1.2

1.1

1.3

3.3

6.7

6.7

16.4

31.7

2.15 Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

39.3%

17.7%

36.4%

19.6%

38.2%

21.7%

29.5%

16.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoCincinnatiGuilford CountyJefferson

MiamiMinneapolisOrange CountyPinellasRichmond

ClevelandDaytonDetroitMilwaukee

NorfolkPortlandWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 33 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.16 Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2019-20

15

2

48

13

32

54

1

77

52

53

40

56

8

27

51

97

23

25

71

29

19

43

96

44

60

41

5

12

9

34

4

68

79

46

50

57

47

30

16

26

67

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 33.1%

10.1%

12.9%

17.1%

18.4%

18.8%

19.3%

19.4%

21.8%

22.0%

22.2%

22.7%

22.8%

24.8%

25.6%

26.0%

27.4%

27.9%

28.6%

30.6%

30.8%

33.0%

33.1%

33.6%

33.9%

34.0%

34.7%

35.0%

35.0%

38.8%

42.5%

42.8%

43.1%

43.6%

44.1%

44.9%

46.7%

48.2%

49.5%

50.1%

50.7%

55.2%

70.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 34 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Failed

One or More Core CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.16: Total number of ninth grade Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with atleast one core course failure divided by the totalnumber of ninth grade Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students, 2019-20Figure 2.17: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.18: Trends in Ninth Grade Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.17 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Failed One orMore Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

27

57

19

71

53

40

1

51

50

60

30

41

48

46

13

5

32

56

44

97

67

68

54

9

8

12

47

14

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −3.9

−23.3

−23.3

−21.2

−16.2

−13.1

−10.6

−9.1

−9.1

−7.1

−6.5

−6.2

−5.4

−5.3

−4.4

−3.9

−3.4

−3.0

−2.0

−1.2

−1.0

0.3

1.9

2.3

4.9

4.9

5.2

11.6

27.5

31.9

2.18 Trends in Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

49.3%

27.1%

47.1%

28.8%

49.2%

26.3%

43.0%

22.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoFort WorthJacksonJeffersonMiami

MinneapolisOrange CountyRichmondSan FranciscoSeattle

AustinClevelandDaytonFort Worth

JeffersonNorfolkWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 35 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.19 Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

2

51

55

52

32

1

15

48

54

20

13

44

40

97

53

56

71

43

9

77

27

25

8

23

5

19

41

29

49

96

34

47

50

79

4

60

12

26

57

68

46

16

67

30

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 28.8%

5.4%

8.5%

16.7%

16.9%

17.5%

17.6%

18.4%

18.6%

20.5%

21.1%

21.7%

21.7%

23.4%

23.7%

24.1%

24.4%

25.2%

26.5%

26.6%

27.0%

28.3%

28.4%

28.8%

29.0%

33.3%

34.2%

35.5%

35.5%

36.3%

39.8%

41.4%

42.2%

42.5%

42.6%

44.8%

45.9%

46.9%

52.8%

53.6%

54.6%

55.0%

55.1%

60.2%

63.3%

83.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 36 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students withDisabilities Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.19: Total number of ninth grade Studentswith Disabilities with at least one core coursefailure divided by the total number of ninth gradeStudents with Disabilities, 2019-20Figure 2.20: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Students with Disabilities Who Failed Oneor More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.21: Trends in Ninth Grade Students withDisabilities Who Failed One or More CoreCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.20 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Studentswith Disabilities Who Failed One or More Core Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

57

71

4

51

48

27

53

41

1

5

97

50

44

13

60

9

40

49

30

32

19

56

68

67

46

12

54

47

8

14

KPIID

−20 0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median −7.0

−21.7

−21.3

−21.1

−20.3

−13.0

−12.9

−12.3

−12.2

−12.1

−11.8

−10.1

−10.0

−9.5

−7.5

−7.5

−6.5

−5.9

−3.2

−1.8

−1.6

−1.1

−0.8

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.1

5.1

7.3

9.7

46.1

2.21 Trends in Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities WhoFailed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

52.5%

30.5%

52.9%

28.8%

53.8%

28.4%

42.5%

22.2%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoCincinnatiJacksonMiami

MinneapolisOklahoma CityOrange CountyRichmondSeattle

AustinClevelandDallasJefferson

NorfolkOklahoma CityOrange CountyWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 37 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.22 Percentage of Ninth Grade English Language Learners Who Failed One or More Core Courses, 2019-20

20

52

97

55

19

1

53

48

54

40

13

32

49

51

2

79

44

8

43

29

23

77

71

96

56

41

25

57

27

12

30

50

34

60

68

5

4

47

46

9

16

67

26

14

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of Ninth Grade English Language Learners Who Failed One or More Core Courses

Median 34.3%

12.7%

15.9%

16.0%

17.6%

18.6%

18.8%

19.1%

19.1%

21.0%

21.9%

22.7%

23.9%

24.0%

24.7%

25.3%

26.1%

29.5%

30.5%

30.9%

32.4%

32.8%

33.5%

35.0%

36.3%

36.3%

37.0%

37.8%

38.7%

39.3%

39.6%

40.4%

40.5%

41.7%

43.0%

45.2%

47.4%

50.3%

50.5%

53.1%

54.7%

66.5%

67.5%

67.6%

78.4%

The Council of The Great City Schools 38 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade English LanguageLearners Who Failed One or More Core

CoursesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 2.22: Total number of ninth grade EnglishLanguage Learners with at least one core coursefailure divided by the total number of ninth gradeEnglish Language Learners, 2019-20Figure 2.23: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade English Language Learners Who FailedOne or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.24: Trends in Ninth Grade EnglishLanguage Learners Who Failed One or More CoreCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.23 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade EnglishLanguage Learners Who Failed One or More CoreCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

27

19

71

56

97

51

5

30

68

1

41

50

13

12

60

4

44

49

53

48

32

8

67

54

9

46

47

40

14

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median −4.9

−35.0

−33.2

−15.1

−13.9

−12.8

−12.1

−11.3

−10.9

−10.1

−10.0

−9.5

−7.6

−6.6

−4.9

−4.9

−4.7

−3.3

−3.0

−2.7

−2.3

−1.8

−1.6

−1.5

2.4

13.8

14.1

14.7

21.9

31.4

2.24 Trends in Ninth Grade English Language LearnersWho Failed One or More Core Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

50.3%

28.9%

47.5%

27.5%

49.3%

29.0%

41.7%

23.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgChicagoCincinnatiDaytonFort Worth

JeffersonMinneapolisOrange CountyPinellasSeattle

AustinDaytonLong BeachMilwaukee

NorfolkOklahoma CityPinellasPortland

The Council of The Great City Schools 39 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.25 Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2019-20

19

30

46

20

27

57

50

25

79

34

29

14

60

47

4

55

11

44

12

48

53

43

96

13

51

56

26

97

9

8

54

10

40

52

23

16

71

68

76

41

77

32

5

15

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 46.2%

17.8%

19.2%

24.4%

24.5%

25.4%

25.5%

28.3%

28.5%

32.1%

32.9%

32.9%

33.0%

33.6%

34.0%

37.7%

38.8%

39.4%

39.9%

41.9%

42.5%

44.5%

45.4%

46.2%

46.5%

46.7%

48.2%

48.8%

49.2%

50.6%

50.8%

52.1%

52.6%

52.9%

53.7%

54.9%

56.1%

56.7%

58.4%

58.7%

60.8%

62.1%

62.2%

67.5%

73.3%

91.8%

The Council of The Great City Schools 40 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with BAverage GPA or Better in All Grade Nine

CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.25: Total number of all ninth gradeStudents with B average GPA or better divided bythe total number of ninth grade Students, 2019-20Figure 2.26: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Students with B Average GPA or Better inAll Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.27: Trends in Ninth Grade Students withB Average GPA or Better in All Grade NineCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.26 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Studentswith B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

48

57

71

68

20

12

40

4

14

19

5

76

41

32

44

56

8

97

30

60

13

11

53

47

50

27

46

51

54

1

KPIID

−10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.5

−8.3

−5.6

−5.3

−1.6

−0.2

0.5

0.9

1.0

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.7

3.0

3.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

4.4

4.6

4.7

5.1

5.4

5.5

5.8

6.4

7.2

10.0

11.6

21.0

29.6

2.27 Trends in Ninth Grade Students with B Average GPAor Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

50.0%

31.0%

51.0%

31.5%

51.4%

32.2%

53.5%

33.1%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinCharlestonDallasJacksonMiami

PortlandSan AntonioSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattle

Baltimore CityChicagoDetroitNashville

NorfolkOklahoma CitySeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 41 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.28 Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Male Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2019-20

30

20

19

60

27

25

57

46

47

50

29

79

14

97

55

12

23

77

53

34

48

43

4

13

56

11

44

52

51

71

5

26

8

9

54

96

10

16

40

32

68

76

49

41

15

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Male Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 23.3%

8.4%

9.6%

10.8%

11.4%

13.8%

14.4%

15.1%

16.0%

17.5%

18.3%

18.8%

18.9%

18.9%

19.4%

19.6%

20.0%

20.4%

20.6%

21.3%

21.3%

22.0%

22.7%

23.2%

23.4%

24.1%

24.2%

24.5%

25.2%

25.6%

25.7%

25.8%

26.2%

27.4%

29.5%

30.6%

32.8%

32.8%

34.6%

34.6%

38.5%

38.6%

43.7%

45.8%

46.7%

64.6%

83.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 42 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in All

Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.28: Total number of all ninth grade BlackMale Students with B average GPA or betterdivided by the total number of ninth grade BlackMale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.29: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Black Male Students with B Average GPAor Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 2.30: Trends in Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.29 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Black MaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade NineCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

71

57

48

14

5

68

20

60

32

19

4

12

56

13

53

30

97

40

47

8

11

44

50

76

51

27

41

46

49

54

1

KPIID

−20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.6

−13.8

−8.4

−5.7

−4.2

−3.0

−2.3

−0.1

1.5

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.9

4.4

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.9

7.5

7.8

8.2

9.1

17.0

17.9

60.1

2.30 Trends in Ninth Grade Black Male Students with BAverage GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

26.6%

14.1%

27.1%

14.0%

25.7%

15.1%

30.0%

18.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonChicagoDallasFort WorthGuilford CountyHillsborough County

JacksonMiamiSan AntonioSan DiegoSeattleTulsa

Baltimore CityChicagoDallasGuilford County

NorfolkOklahoma CitySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 43 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.31 Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Female Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2019-20

30

19

27

20

46

14

57

77

60

29

12

47

55

79

97

50

43

34

25

4

11

52

44

48

56

9

23

53

51

71

5

13

10

54

8

96

16

40

26

68

32

41

49

76

15

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black Female Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 41.2%

18.4%

18.9%

21.6%

23.1%

26.1%

27.2%

27.3%

28.2%

28.6%

29.8%

31.0%

31.1%

31.6%

32.5%

33.6%

34.2%

34.8%

35.7%

35.8%

37.7%

39.4%

39.6%

41.2%

41.2%

42.0%

42.4%

42.6%

43.0%

44.1%

44.2%

45.1%

47.3%

49.5%

49.5%

49.9%

50.6%

50.7%

52.1%

58.9%

60.9%

62.5%

63.1%

65.6%

67.3%

81.0%

89.2%

The Council of The Great City Schools 44 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Black FemaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in All

Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.31: Total number of all ninth grade BlackFemale Students with B average GPA or betterdivided by the total number of ninth grade BlackFemale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.32: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Black Female Students with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 2.33: Trends in Ninth Grade Black FemaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.32 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade BlackFemale Students with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

71

14

57

48

12

5

68

4

19

40

97

32

20

51

47

56

60

50

30

44

13

27

41

8

11

53

46

76

49

54

1

KPIID

0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.7

−14.8

−11.1

−7.9

−5.8

−3.9

−2.8

−1.6

−1.5

0.7

1.0

1.6

2.3

2.6

3.1

3.3

4.7

5.3

6.0

6.0

6.8

7.2

7.5

7.8

8.8

9.0

9.3

11.0

16.8

19.7

24.4

45.4

2.33 Trends in Ninth Grade Black Female Students with BAverage GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

43.3%

28.8%

46.4%

27.7%

43.9%

30.9%

49.7%

31.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonBostonDallasFort WorthGuilford CountyJackson

MiamiPalm BeachSan AntonioSan DiegoSeattleTulsa

Baltimore CityChicagoGuilford CountyJefferson

Los AngelesPalm BeachSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 45 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.34 Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2019-20

27

30

60

46

55

20

34

57

25

47

14

79

4

29

50

12

52

11

53

48

19

77

44

16

23

26

9

56

96

8

10

97

71

51

13

68

54

40

49

5

76

43

41

32

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 32.2%

14.0%

15.0%

17.3%

20.4%

20.4%

21.3%

22.3%

23.8%

23.9%

24.0%

24.6%

24.8%

25.4%

26.3%

27.2%

27.6%

27.9%

28.2%

28.5%

29.6%

30.0%

31.1%

32.2%

32.6%

33.0%

33.6%

34.7%

34.7%

35.1%

35.5%

37.3%

38.5%

39.1%

39.6%

39.7%

41.7%

43.9%

44.2%

46.9%

46.9%

50.9%

52.6%

53.0%

55.0%

87.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 46 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic MaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in All

Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.34: Total number of all ninth gradeHispanic Male Students with B average GPA orbetter divided by the total number of ninth gradeHispanic Male Students, 2019-20Figure 2.35: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Hispanic Male Students with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 2.36: Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic MaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.35 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade HispanicMale Students with B Average GPA or Better in All GradeNine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

48

68

71

53

20

40

46

8

57

41

76

60

32

27

56

13

11

14

12

50

44

30

4

47

5

97

51

49

54

1

KPIID

0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.0

−7.3

−4.8

−3.6

−3.0

−2.6

−1.0

1.5

2.1

2.2

2.7

2.7

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.9

4.0

4.4

4.7

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

6.1

6.6

9.4

10.0

10.4

12.4

19.3

56.3

2.36 Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic Male Students with BAverage GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

34.5%

22.4%

34.7%

21.3%

34.4%

21.7%

39.5%

24.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonBroward CountyChicagoDallasFort WorthGuilford County

MiamiPittsburghPortlandSan AntonioSeattle

ChicagoGuilford CountyNashvilleOklahoma City

PinellasPortlandSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 47 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.37 Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2019-20

30

34

27

20

60

55

79

46

14

47

25

4

57

77

29

23

11

50

44

48

56

19

12

16

71

9

53

26

97

96

52

8

10

13

5

51

40

68

54

76

41

49

32

43

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 47.0%

26.5%

26.8%

28.8%

29.6%

32.4%

32.7%

33.7%

35.2%

35.7%

36.3%

38.2%

40.4%

42.2%

42.3%

42.5%

43.4%

43.6%

44.1%

44.4%

44.6%

46.8%

46.9%

47.0%

47.5%

49.1%

50.4%

50.8%

51.3%

53.1%

53.1%

53.7%

53.8%

54.1%

56.6%

58.8%

61.1%

62.2%

62.4%

62.5%

67.8%

69.8%

71.6%

71.8%

72.4%

90.3%

The Council of The Great City Schools 48 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Hispanic FemaleStudents with B Average GPA or Better in All

Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.37: Total number of all ninth gradeHispanic Female Students with B average GPA orbetter divided by the total number of ninth gradeHispanic Female Students, 2019-20Figure 2.38: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Hispanic Female Students with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 2.39: Trends in Ninth Grade HispanicFemale Students with B Average GPA or Better inAll Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.38 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade HispanicFemale Students with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

71

48

68

57

40

41

8

30

46

76

4

32

14

53

56

97

47

12

50

60

11

44

5

13

20

27

51

49

54

1

KPIID

0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.8

−11.7

−7.0

−2.7

−1.8

0.1

0.5

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.5

2.2

2.3

2.9

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.3

4.6

5.0

5.0

5.2

5.3

6.2

7.0

8.8

11.6

18.3

18.9

23.5

38.5

2.39 Trends in Ninth Grade Hispanic Female Students withB Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

52.1%

38.2%

52.4%

37.1%

52.6%

38.1%

56.0%

40.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonChicagoDallasFort WorthGuilford CountyMiami

Oklahoma CityPittsburghPortlandSan AntonioSeattle

Broward CountyChicagoCincinnatiGuilford County

NorfolkOklahoma CitySeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 49 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.40 Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2019-20

46

30

27

50

29

47

14

57

79

25

44

4

48

12

34

23

43

60

53

52

11

13

56

97

71

8

10

96

9

16

51

26

54

5

40

68

77

76

32

41

15

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 36.8%

11.1%

17.2%

19.2%

21.8%

22.0%

22.4%

23.4%

25.5%

26.9%

29.4%

29.6%

31.1%

32.4%

32.7%

32.9%

33.4%

34.0%

34.0%

35.3%

35.7%

36.3%

37.3%

37.5%

38.1%

38.7%

39.9%

41.7%

41.8%

41.9%

42.9%

44.3%

45.3%

46.7%

46.9%

49.7%

52.2%

54.7%

56.3%

57.0%

58.7%

73.3%

87.2%

The Council of The Great City Schools 50 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with B Average

GPA or Better in All Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.40: Total number of all ninth grade Freeor Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with Baverage GPA or better divided by the total numberof ninth grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students, 2019-20Figure 2.41: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.42: Trends in Ninth Grade Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with BAverage GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.41 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

71

48

57

40

4

68

56

41

14

32

76

50

44

8

5

13

53

46

97

30

11

51

60

47

27

12

54

1

KPIID

0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 2.6

−9.5

−7.2

−5.6

−2.6

−0.2

−0.2

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.7

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.5

2.6

3.4

3.8

4.2

4.3

5.8

6.3

8.1

8.3

8.3

9.1

9.1

20.8

45.1

2.42 Trends in Ninth Grade Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

25

30

35

40

45

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

40.8%

25.8%

42.3%

27.6%

40.9%

25.8%

44.8%

30.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonBostonChicagoDallasFort WorthJackson

MiamiPortlandSan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattle

ChicagoDes MoinesNashville

New YorkNorfolkSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 51 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.43 Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2019-20

4

30

46

27

55

20

29

50

19

12

57

47

25

53

13

52

11

26

43

79

68

23

48

96

97

51

16

8

56

15

44

9

54

49

71

10

77

40

76

5

60

41

32

14

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 29.2%

0.0%

4.6%

10.0%

10.1%

11.2%

11.2%

13.6%

14.2%

14.4%

14.6%

15.2%

16.0%

16.7%

24.7%

25.6%

25.7%

25.9%

26.8%

27.0%

27.2%

28.1%

29.0%

29.2%

30.0%

30.3%

33.3%

33.8%

34.0%

35.2%

35.9%

36.6%

36.7%

37.0%

37.3%

38.6%

38.6%

38.8%

40.7%

41.2%

42.5%

45.9%

48.6%

49.1%

50.8%

84.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 52 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade Students withDisabilities with B Average GPA or Better in

All Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.43: Total number of all ninth gradeStudents with Disabilities with B average GPA orbetter divided by the total number of ninth gradeStudents with Disabilities, 2019-20Figure 2.44: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade Students with Disabilities with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 2.45: Trends in Ninth Grade Students withDisabilities with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.44 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade Studentswith Disabilities with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

57

12

20

19

68

30

76

56

48

46

50

47

27

32

8

11

13

53

97

40

41

44

71

5

51

54

49

14

60

1

KPIID

−20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 5.9

−19.6

−11.0

−4.8

−2.9

−1.0

−0.7

1.5

2.1

2.5

2.6

3.3

4.0

4.8

4.9

5.4

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.1

7.0

7.0

8.7

9.5

10.7

10.9

11.3

18.9

20.5

35.5

38.1

50.9

2.45 Trends in Ninth Grade Students with Disabilities withB Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

27.8%

15.3%

30.2%

14.2%

29.7%

17.1%

37.2%

16.2%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueAustinDallasFort WorthHillsborough CountyMiami

New YorkPortlandSan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattle

AlbuquerqueChicagoGuilford CountyNew York

Oklahoma CityPortlandSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 53 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.46 Percentage of Ninth Grade English Language Learners with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2019-20

27

14

55

30

56

25

46

47

12

4

23

8

53

16

20

29

97

79

34

9

11

13

44

50

19

48

10

71

57

52

26

68

49

96

5

60

32

54

51

77

76

43

41

15

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Ninth Grade English Language Learners with B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses

Median 27.8%

11.4%

15.1%

16.2%

17.9%

18.3%

19.2%

19.8%

20.0%

23.8%

24.7%

24.8%

24.9%

24.9%

25.2%

25.5%

26.0%

26.0%

26.1%

26.4%

27.0%

27.2%

27.6%

27.8%

29.6%

29.7%

30.4%

32.1%

32.8%

33.4%

33.6%

34.3%

36.1%

38.9%

41.6%

42.7%

43.0%

43.4%

44.8%

45.0%

47.2%

52.4%

56.1%

56.2%

83.3%

86.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 54 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Ninth Grade English LanguageLearners with B Average GPA or Better in

All Grade Nine CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.46: Total number of all ninth gradeEnglish Language Learners with B average GPAor better divided by the total number of ninthgrade English Language Learners, 2019-20Figure 2.47: Percentage Point Change in NinthGrade English Language Learners with B AverageGPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17to 2019-20Figure 2.48: Trends in Ninth Grade EnglishLanguage Learners with B Average GPA or Betterin All Grade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.47 Percentage Point Change in Ninth Grade EnglishLanguage Learners with B Average GPA or Better in AllGrade Nine Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

53

46

4

68

5

56

8

12

14

27

47

50

71

48

11

13

32

76

97

20

30

41

44

49

51

19

54

60

1

KPIID

0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.9

−8.7

−8.3

−6.8

−6.8

−6.6

−4.7

−3.9

−3.8

−0.4

−0.2

0.2

0.4

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.0

4.3

5.8

6.6

12.3

15.0

18.5

22.5

30.3

48.4

2.48 Trends in Ninth Grade English Language Learnerswith B Average GPA or Better in All Grade Nine Courses,2016-17 to 2019-20

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

34.3%

21.2%

34.9%

20.2%

37.5%

20.8%

40.9%

24.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ChicagoDallasJacksonMiamiNew YorkOklahoma City

PittsburghPortlandSan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattle

ChicagoDaytonDuval CountyGuilford County

New YorkOklahoma CitySeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 55 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.49 Percentage of Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2019-20

43

26

79

4

57

19

55

12

29

30

9

27

48

51

5

67

14

8

46

13

16

47

60

56

34

54

68

76

23

96

71

41

40

97

1

49

53

52

25

11

50

2KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5.5%

17.1%

19.9%

8.4%

10.1%

5.8%

7.6%

4.8%

9.0%

14.7%

9.9%

6.8%

14.5%

15.5%

6.2%

25.4%

21.7%

19.1%

16.4%

21.6%

21.4%

15.0%

34.1%

16.4%

22.7%

29.7%

13.2%

25.3%

19.7%

9.6%

28.6%

45.9%

21.8%

12.5%

22.6%

30.4%

29.5%

20.9%

28.9%

20.3%

17.1%

36.1%

26.6%

29.4%

14.7%

28.0%

6.4%

12.1%

17.9%

17.3%

43.2%

30.7%

55.5%

43.9%

59.2%

53.8%

29.9%

39.8%

41.5%

61.0%

49.5%

29.5%

26.9%

52.4%

33.2%

55.7%

48.4%

34.5%

60.5%

39.4%

55.9%

65.0%

47.1%

32.4%

57.9%

66.8%

58.1%

52.0%

47.3%

60.3%

47.0%

63.8%

63.6%

40.9%

44.8%

49.0%

72.9%

55.8%

84.4%

77.7%

81.6%

79.9%

Percentage of Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 56 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of

Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.49: Total number of Students thatcompleted Algebra I or equivalent in seventh,eighth, or ninth grade respectively, divided by thetotal number of Students in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.50: Percentage Point Change in StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.51: Trends in Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of NinthGrade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.50 Percentage Point Change in Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

55

46

4

8

14

67

47

56

54

12

79

97

57

27

43

53

13

49

5

41

40

76

1

2

30

68

71

11

19

51

60

48

50

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 2.8

−16.6

−9.6

−6.9

−4.5

−4.4

−3.2

−2.3

−2.3

−2.1

−1.3

−0.7

−0.6

0.3

1.7

2.6

2.8

2.8

3.5

5.0

5.9

6.2

6.9

7.0

8.5

8.9

9.0

9.6

10.1

10.7

15.1

19.0

19.7

34.3

2.51 Trends in Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to2019-20

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

79.1%

63.6%

77.4%

63.8%

77.8%

66.2%

83.9%

68.0%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

DallasDetroitFort WorthGuilford CountyJeffersonLos Angeles

MinneapolisNewarkPinellasRichmondSeattle

ArlingtonAustinDaytonDetroitLos Angeles

MilwaukeeNew YorkOklahoma CityOrange County

The Council of The Great City Schools 57 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.52 Percentage of Black Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2019-20

26

12

5

4

43

79

9

19

55

67

14

57

48

29

8

23

30

27

51

13

56

16

60

47

46

71

96

54

34

97

76

41

68

40

25

49

1

52

53

11

50

2KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.0%

3.9%

8.8%

5.3%

4.6%

8.7%

8.6%

5.6%

5.9%

13.6%

5.4%

17.6%

13.5%

9.5%

19.5%

16.0%

9.1%

18.2%

22.1%

5.0%

16.2%

5.1%

8.7%

15.2%

4.4%

17.0%

16.0%

23.3%

12.1%

10.4%

6.6%

15.0%

16.9%

9.5%

5.0%

6.4%

15.9%

12.3%

30.8%

32.6%

38.9%

42.4%

45.9%

49.9%

45.1%

53.6%

38.4%

48.7%

38.0%

54.8%

31.9%

46.6%

33.4%

53.6%

57.2%

33.7%

50.4%

36.3%

40.5%

58.9%

52.3%

64.0%

64.6%

58.2%

69.5%

71.1%

57.6%

57.3%

52.6%

65.6%

66.7%

71.5%

79.4%

63.4%

62.8%

72.5%

76.9%

81.7%

77.2%

87.3%

Percentage of Black Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Black Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Black Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 58 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Male Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the

End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.52: Total number of Black Male Studentsthat completed Algebra I or equivalent in seventh,eighth, or ninth grade respectively, divided by thetotal number of Black Male Students in eachgrade, 2019-20Figure 2.53: Percentage Point Change in BlackMale Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.54: Trends in Black Male Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the Endof Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.53 Percentage Point Change in Black Male StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End ofNinth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

48

55

67

56

8

14

46

12

47

4

54

79

43

27

57

2

13

49

53

97

51

71

40

41

19

5

68

30

1

11

76

60

50

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.9

−20.2

−14.6

−10.9

−9.3

−8.1

−6.7

−5.6

−5.0

−4.7

−2.9

−0.8

−0.5

1.5

3.7

3.9

4.4

4.9

5.4

6.4

6.7

8.3

8.8

9.6

10.5

11.8

11.9

12.3

14.9

15.2

21.8

25.5

25.9

34.0

2.54 Trends in Black Male Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

72.1%

51.6%

67.9%

49.8%

67.1%

51.5%

76.8%

55.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonDallasDetroitFort WorthGuilford CountyJefferson

Los AngelesMinneapolisNewarkRichmondSeattle

ArlingtonDaytonDetroitLos AngelesMilwaukee

New YorkPortlandSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 59 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.55 Percentage of Black Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2019-20

26

4

12

57

79

5

43

55

9

29

48

23

19

30

16

51

8

27

13

56

34

67

60

71

47

46

97

41

68

54

76

96

40

52

1

49

53

14

11

25

2KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

17.9%

5.4%

9.7%

7.5%

4.7%

10.6%

8.0%

11.1%

3.4%

16.1%

18.8%

8.8%

14.7%

16.0%

4.9%

13.0%

27.0%

22.4%

25.3%

28.2%

14.0%

8.1%

24.1%

15.9%

5.8%

13.6%

19.8%

14.6%

15.1%

4.4%

28.0%

14.2%

11.0%

14.6%

16.5%

21.8%

6.7%

34.2%

10.4%

3.4%

20.8%

29.6%

41.3%

39.7%

54.1%

53.0%

41.3%

57.6%

38.6%

51.6%

46.9%

30.5%

62.4%

62.5%

65.1%

61.8%

53.6%

36.4%

37.0%

38.4%

43.4%

57.7%

65.4%

52.7%

62.7%

73.1%

66.6%

58.6%

65.4%

64.5%

77.1%

55.1%

71.1%

72.4%

71.6%

67.7%

61.4%

80.2%

54.4%

79.2%

94.6%

78.2%

Percentage of Black Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Black Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Black Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 60 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Female Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the

End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.55: Total number of Black FemaleStudents that completed Algebra I or equivalent inseventh, eighth, or ninth grade respectively,divided by the total number of Black FemaleStudents in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.56: Percentage Point Change in BlackFemale Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.57: Trends in Black Female StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.56 Percentage Point Change in Black Female StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End ofNinth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

55

48

79

46

12

57

56

8

47

97

54

27

2

49

53

67

13

43

71

41

19

68

5

40

30

51

1

11

14

60

76

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.8

−20.0

−18.7

−17.5

−11.0

−8.4

−7.9

−7.9

−6.2

−4.4

−1.2

−0.4

0.0

1.9

2.5

2.8

3.7

3.9

4.6

5.0

5.2

6.8

7.1

7.3

7.7

9.2

10.5

11.4

13.2

13.9

17.5

22.4

28.6

2.57 Trends in Black Female Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

79.7%

61.6%

77.1%

62.2%

76.1%

62.7%

82.9%

64.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueFort WorthGuilford CountyJeffersonLos Angeles

MinneapolisNewarkRichmondSeattleTulsa

AlbuquerqueFort WorthLos AngelesMilwaukee

New YorkOklahoma CitySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 61 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.58 Percentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2019-20

43

26

55

29

23

27

79

4

12

30

5

19

9

46

48

16

67

8

60

14

47

51

56

57

71

13

54

68

1

76

41

52

40

49

53

97

96

25

11

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.7%

12.7%

6.3%

3.5%

10.2%

6.0%

3.9%

4.9%

6.9%

5.9%

17.9%

13.2%

15.8%

13.5%

15.9%

20.3%

10.6%

8.9%

19.8%

9.8%

13.5%

22.4%

16.6%

19.5%

5.0%

14.5%

38.1%

20.1%

21.6%

10.6%

19.3%

14.7%

28.8%

18.0%

15.5%

15.8%

20.5%

7.4%

29.8%

24.6%

7.1%

8.8%

23.5%

42.2%

38.4%

27.2%

34.1%

47.7%

25.8%

54.4%

41.9%

41.4%

54.7%

38.4%

58.8%

47.9%

51.4%

30.4%

53.5%

51.1%

37.3%

49.9%

46.1%

62.3%

54.0%

34.6%

73.9%

50.9%

42.7%

67.8%

61.5%

60.7%

52.7%

65.3%

69.4%

65.2%

59.8%

76.3%

49.6%

62.8%

80.8%

81.7%

74.9%

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 62 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the

End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.58: Total number of Hispanic MaleStudents that completed Algebra I or equivalent inseventh, eighth, or ninth grade respectively,divided by the total number of Hispanic MaleStudents in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.59: Percentage Point Change in HispanicMale Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.60: Trends in Hispanic Male StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.59 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic Male StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End ofNinth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

55

46

48

14

8

67

4

54

56

97

53

47

27

13

12

41

30

40

5

49

79

43

71

11

68

1

57

51

76

60

50

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 5.7

−21.1

−16.1

−15.4

−7.8

−4.6

−3.4

−1.9

−1.9

−1.8

−0.9

0.2

0.3

1.7

2.2

2.9

5.7

6.6

6.8

8.4

8.9

10.6

11.2

11.3

12.7

14.3

14.5

15.4

16.4

18.1

23.3

35.0

2.60 Trends in Hispanic Male Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

76.4%

55.8%

75.5%

56.6%

73.2%

53.4%

81.5%

58.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

DallasDetroitFort WorthGuilford CountyJefferson

Los AngelesMinneapolisNewarkPinellasTulsa

ArlingtonClevelandDetroitLos Angeles

New YorkOklahoma CitySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 63 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.61 Percentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2019-20

43

23

26

79

5

55

29

30

46

4

27

12

48

9

16

19

8

57

51

67

60

14

47

1

13

71

56

54

68

76

96

34

97

41

40

49

52

11

53

25KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

16.1%

15.0%

5.9%

4.6%

8.2%

4.1%

4.2%

7.1%

10.1%

17.3%

21.8%

17.8%

6.6%

11.9%

25.4%

17.3%

20.5%

14.0%

9.3%

27.8%

27.6%

15.6%

13.7%

22.6%

20.7%

6.6%

17.6%

26.3%

24.6%

46.2%

12.6%

21.4%

33.0%

22.9%

25.2%

32.8%

22.3%

20.3%

26.9%

18.0%

11.4%

10.9%

7.3%

39.3%

45.8%

40.5%

52.2%

39.0%

33.8%

43.5%

58.8%

56.0%

51.3%

23.7%

49.0%

32.7%

54.8%

60.6%

44.4%

39.4%

72.9%

58.1%

60.5%

51.9%

53.8%

70.8%

57.4%

46.3%

53.8%

35.9%

69.8%

62.0%

51.6%

62.6%

60.5%

50.8%

65.6%

64.1%

55.7%

72.7%

79.6%

81.3%

88.0%

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 64 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the

End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.61: Total number of Hispanic FemaleStudents that completed Algebra I or equivalent inseventh, eighth, or ninth grade respectively,divided by the total number of Hispanic FemaleStudents in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.62: Percentage Point Change in HispanicFemale Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.63: Trends in Hispanic Female StudentsWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.62 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic FemaleStudents Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

55

46

48

4

43

8

54

67

14

97

30

47

56

49

12

53

13

5

79

40

41

11

27

57

1

68

71

51

76

19

60

KPIID

−20 −10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.9

−20.2

−16.5

−14.8

−12.1

−10.7

−6.7

−5.8

−4.7

−3.8

−3.8

−3.4

−2.9

0.2

0.4

0.8

0.9

2.5

2.6

3.0

3.4

4.7

5.9

6.7

7.4

7.5

9.6

10.1

12.1

12.9

16.7

22.1

2.63 Trends in Hispanic Female Students Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

83.1%

64.6%

82.0%

65.0%

77.9%

63.3%

84.6%

65.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

DallasFort WorthGuilford CountyJeffersonKansas City

Los AngelesMinneapolisNewarkPinellasTulsa

ArlingtonAustinClevelandDayton

New YorkOklahoma CitySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 65 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.64 Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2019-20

43

29

79

4

26

12

5

14

57

19

30

9

48

27

8

16

51

13

47

67

46

23

60

71

56

54

34

68

97

76

96

41

1

40

53

52

11

25KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14.7%

11.4%

5.3%

6.9%

3.9%

4.4%

3.4%

10.4%

10.2%

11.4%

15.1%

17.5%

10.1%

6.2%

11.9%

18.8%

20.5%

22.7%

10.7%

15.0%

22.5%

4.4%

13.3%

7.5%

15.8%

23.9%

18.6%

39.1%

8.3%

21.8%

17.8%

26.4%

28.9%

19.2%

16.8%

18.1%

15.0%

8.1%

13.6%

10.0%

5.8%

49.4%

41.5%

51.9%

44.6%

44.4%

40.8%

40.2%

48.8%

59.2%

53.8%

60.2%

49.1%

30.2%

32.7%

37.0%

58.0%

53.1%

40.1%

65.0%

56.9%

64.5%

54.9%

49.4%

53.4%

36.9%

70.7%

57.9%

63.3%

51.9%

53.9%

63.4%

66.6%

61.5%

67.5%

77.1%

71.6%

80.1%

86.3%

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 66 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students Who Completed Algebra

I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.64: Total number of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students that completedAlgebra I or equivalent in seventh, eighth, or ninthgrade respectively, divided by the total number ofFree or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students ineach grade, 2019-20Figure 2.65: Percentage Point Change in Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the Endof Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.66: Trends in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.65 Percentage Point Change in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to2019-20

48

14

46

4

8

67

47

79

54

97

57

13

43

53

41

56

27

12

40

5

11

30

71

1

68

51

19

76

60

KPIID

−20 −10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.6

−18.5

−13.5

−9.1

−8.2

−7.1

−4.1

−3.4

−3.0

−2.8

−1.9

0.3

2.9

3.0

3.5

4.6

5.1

5.5

6.2

6.6

8.3

9.6

10.8

11.2

12.4

12.6

13.4

14.0

17.3

19.1

2.66 Trends in Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

78.8%

59.1%

75.2%

60.6%

74.1%

61.6%

82.2%

60.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

DallasFort WorthJeffersonLos AngelesMinneapolis

NewarkPinellasSan AntonioSeattleTulsa

ArlingtonAustinDaytonMilwaukee

New YorkOklahoma CitySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 67 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.67 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2019-20

43

29

27

9

12

4

67

55

48

8

5

13

56

19

26

30

47

14

23

52

60

46

51

49

57

50

79

1

40

25

54

34

96

71

68

76

97

53

11

41KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

3.3%

4.2%

7.4%

8.5%

5.0%

7.1%

8.3%

3.1%

7.4%

8.5%

9.2%

6.4%

8.9%

8.2%

4.8%

4.7%

5.9%

7.6%

8.7%

26.2%

24.9%

23.6%

27.3%

27.1%

31.2%

31.6%

31.8%

25.2%

32.2%

39.8%

38.7%

38.4%

48.0%

48.7%

52.9%

53.2%

45.7%

45.3%

48.7%

51.5%

65.7%

65.3%

66.1%

68.6%

60.2%

69.9%

59.0%

71.7%

73.3%

72.8%

69.0%

69.5%

69.0%

75.4%

71.0%

69.8%

79.5%

81.0%

82.0%

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of Students with Disabilities Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of Students with Disabilities Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 68 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students with Disabilities WhoCompleted Algebra I/Integrated Math by the

End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.67: Total number of Students withDisabilities that completed Algebra I or equivalentin seventh, eighth, or ninth grade respectively,divided by the total number of Students withDisabilities in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.68: Percentage Point Change in Studentswith Disabilities Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.69: Trends in Students with DisabilitiesWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.68 Percentage Point Change in Students with DisabilitiesWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End ofNinth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

48

14

12

55

8

54

67

43

46

51

4

53

56

97

49

57

13

47

5

19

50

11

30

68

1

76

71

41

60

79

KPIID

−20 0 20 40 60

Percentage Point Change

Median 9.1

−19.4

−19.1

−18.9

−15.6

−8.6

−4.9

−1.9

−0.9

−0.2

0.0

0.3

1.1

5.3

7.8

9.0

9.3

10.2

11.2

11.9

12.1

13.7

15.3

16.2

21.5

22.6

23.9

24.3

27.6

34.6

51.0

2.69 Trends in Students with Disabilities Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

66.8%

36.5%

62.1%

32.5%

61.4%

37.2%

73.3%

44.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinChicagoDallasJefferson

Kansas CityLos AngelesPinellasSan AntonioTulsa

ArlingtonAustinDallasMilwaukee

New YorkSan AntonioSeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 69 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.70 Percentage of English Language Learners Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2019-20

27

55

29

12

8

43

26

4

13

5

9

60

23

16

56

48

79

67

30

46

47

14

71

51

54

57

1

96

68

19

34

25

41

52

40

11

53

49

76

97KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3.7%

5.0%

4.1%

4.2%

7.7%

7.5%

13.6%

7.8%

5.9%

4.8%

8.6%

4.2%

11.4%

10.4%

5.4%

4.2%

22.4%

13.6%

21.3%

29.5%

30.0%

39.2%

41.5%

44.3%

44.4%

40.2%

44.8%

42.8%

47.3%

46.7%

45.9%

49.3%

43.7%

44.2%

52.6%

53.5%

54.5%

57.3%

62.8%

49.3%

55.7%

60.5%

73.7%

75.1%

73.4%

73.5%

72.4%

82.7%

79.3%

83.6%

72.3%

73.7%

78.9%

84.3%

83.4%

82.7%

64.9%

78.1%

Percentage of English Language Learners Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Seventh GradePercentage of English Language Learners Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Eighth GradePercentage of English Language Learners Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade

The Council of The Great City Schools 70 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of English Language LearnersWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math

by the End of Ninth GradeNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.70: Total number of English LanguageLearners that completed Algebra I or equivalent inseventh, eighth, or ninth grade respectively,divided by the total number of English LanguageLearners in each grade, 2019-20Figure 2.71: Percentage Point Change in EnglishLanguage Learners Who Completed AlgebraI/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.72: Trends in English Language LearnersWho Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.71 Percentage Point Change in English LanguageLearners Who Completed Algebra I/Integrated Math by theEnd of Ninth Grade, 2016-17 to 2019-20

55

48

4

46

8

27

14

54

67

30

12

79

53

47

97

41

51

49

57

43

13

5

40

71

1

68

11

60

76

19

KPIID

−20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 6.0

−27.9

−22.0

−17.0

−11.7

−9.8

−9.7

−4.3

−3.7

−3.3

−1.9

2.3

2.6

2.9

3.0

4.5

7.5

8.2

8.3

11.3

11.4

12.7

14.0

16.3

17.7

18.4

20.1

21.5

25.2

29.0

29.9

2.72 Trends in English Language Learners Who CompletedAlgebra I/Integrated Math by the End of Ninth Grade,2016-17 to 2019-20

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

71.1%

50.9%

69.8%

42.1%

69.8%

42.1%

82.7%

48.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

DallasFort WorthGuilford CountyJeffersonKansas City

Los AngelesMinneapolisNewarkPinellasSan Antonio

ArlingtonAustinDaytonFort Worth

Los AngelesNew YorkSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 71 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.73 Percentage of Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

79

19

34

57

25

30

4

50

46

20

10

51

47

44

13

5

27

12

52

26

43

55

8

54

23

14

67

9

11

32

53

60

15

97

29

16

68

71

96

48

41

77

76

56

1

2

40

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 25.1%

5.6%

6.0%

7.9%

9.4%

9.9%

10.5%

11.9%

12.2%

14.8%

16.7%

17.1%

19.2%

19.4%

20.1%

20.1%

22.6%

22.8%

22.8%

23.2%

23.9%

24.0%

24.1%

24.9%

25.1%

25.3%

25.7%

25.9%

26.5%

26.6%

26.9%

27.0%

27.1%

27.8%

28.8%

29.6%

31.1%

32.5%

33.3%

33.5%

33.7%

34.3%

35.2%

36.1%

37.8%

38.3%

40.9%

42.8%

The Council of The Great City Schools 72 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.73: Total number of secondary Studentstaking at least one AP course divided by the totalnumber of secondary Students, 2019-20Figure 2.74: Percentage Point Change in StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 2.75: Trends in Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.74 Percentage Point Change in Students Who Took Oneor More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

11

56

50

40

13

51

30

12

20

44

19

48

14

53

4

67

68

9

32

47

27

8

5

57

71

97

41

46

1

76

54

60

KPIID

−10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.0

−17.3

−10.7

−9.9

−7.3

−5.1

−3.5

−3.1

−2.9

−1.9

−1.7

−1.4

−1.2

−0.9

−0.6

−0.2

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.7

2.2

2.3

2.8

3.6

3.8

5.9

6.0

7.3

7.3

7.9

9.0

2.75 Trends in Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

27.7%

18.1%

27.9%

17.1%

31.0%

17.0%

30.0%

19.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinDallasFort WorthLong BeachOrange County

RichmondSan AntonioSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattleTulsa

AustinBaltimore CityChicagoDallas

New YorkPinellasSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 73 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.76 Percentage of Black Male Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

19

4

79

23

34

20

5

10

57

77

30

25

32

44

13

8

46

43

50

53

67

9

51

55

54

52

27

12

47

71

49

11

26

40

97

48

16

29

60

56

68

96

14

76

41

1

15

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percentage of Black Male Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 11.2%

2.3%

3.3%

3.4%

5.0%

5.1%

5.7%

5.9%

6.0%

6.1%

6.2%

7.1%

7.3%

7.5%

7.9%

8.3%

8.5%

9.1%

9.1%

9.4%

10.3%

10.5%

10.5%

10.8%

11.2%

11.8%

12.2%

12.3%

12.8%

13.6%

13.7%

14.0%

14.5%

14.6%

14.8%

15.1%

15.4%

15.9%

17.8%

19.1%

19.5%

19.7%

20.3%

20.6%

21.8%

22.4%

23.4%

25.7%

The Council of The Great City Schools 74 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Male Students Who TookOne or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.76: Total number of secondary BlackMale Students taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary BlackMale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.77: Percentage Point Change in BlackMale Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.78: Trends in Black Male Students WhoTook One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.77 Percentage Point Change in Black Male StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

51

40

56

11

50

5

12

20

13

48

30

67

44

19

32

4

68

53

9

57

8

47

14

71

27

49

41

46

54

97

60

1

76

KPIID

−10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median −0.5

−9.3

−8.5

−7.6

−7.5

−5.0

−3.5

−3.4

−2.6

−2.2

−2.1

−1.6

−1.5

−1.0

−0.9

−0.7

−0.5

−0.5

0.0

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.5

3.0

3.2

4.2

4.5

4.6

5.9

8.9

9.1

18.5

2.78 Trends in Black Male Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

−2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

16.5%

7.3%

15.8%

7.7%

17.0%

8.0%

15.2%

7.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueArlingtonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaJacksonLong Beach

New YorkOrange CountySan AntonioSan DiegoSeattleTulsa

Baltimore CityChicagoDallasGuilford CountyNew York

NorfolkPinellasSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 75 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.79 Percentage of Black Female Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

79

19

4

34

23

5

10

20

25

57

30

52

44

32

50

13

8

12

43

77

67

46

53

55

54

27

51

47

97

9

49

71

26

48

60

11

1

29

40

16

15

41

96

76

68

56

14

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percentage of Black Female Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 18.5%

6.3%

7.0%

8.4%

8.8%

9.7%

10.1%

10.3%

11.4%

11.7%

12.8%

13.0%

13.1%

13.5%

13.5%

14.9%

15.0%

15.3%

15.9%

16.5%

16.9%

17.0%

17.8%

18.1%

18.5%

18.6%

18.8%

19.3%

19.7%

21.0%

21.4%

21.9%

23.3%

23.8%

25.3%

27.0%

27.1%

27.6%

27.9%

29.4%

29.6%

30.0%

32.0%

33.1%

33.6%

33.9%

34.2%

35.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 76 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Female Students WhoTook One or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.79: Total number of secondary BlackFemale Students taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary BlackFemale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.80: Percentage Point Change in BlackFemale Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.81: Trends in Black Female StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.80 Percentage Point Change in Black Female StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

56

11

50

40

67

51

12

5

13

48

20

44

19

30

32

53

4

47

8

27

71

9

41

57

68

49

97

54

46

1

76

14

60

KPIID

−10 −5 0 5 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.4

−13.9

−13.0

−11.2

−10.5

−8.4

−8.1

−6.2

−4.8

−4.6

−4.2

−3.2

−1.9

−1.2

−1.2

−1.2

−0.2

0.4

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.9

3.1

3.9

4.2

4.3

4.4

5.0

5.7

7.0

7.9

9.3

10.2

11.5

2.81 Trends in Black Female Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

25.8%

14.0%

24.0%

14.1%

25.8%

14.8%

27.0%

13.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueArlingtonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthJackson

Long BeachLos AngelesSan AntonioSan DiegoSeattleTulsa

AlbuquerqueArlingtonBaltimore CityChicagoGuilford County

New YorkPinellasSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 77 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.82 Percentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

20

79

57

4

34

25

50

30

46

10

52

26

47

55

44

51

27

23

5

77

43

8

53

49

60

12

11

16

13

67

9

14

71

97

54

2

32

68

56

29

48

96

1

15

41

76

40

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 17.8%

3.5%

4.0%

5.6%

5.8%

6.6%

7.1%

7.5%

7.5%

7.8%

10.3%

12.0%

12.4%

12.4%

13.1%

13.2%

14.1%

14.3%

14.4%

14.7%

16.2%

16.4%

16.8%

17.7%

17.8%

18.3%

18.5%

18.7%

18.9%

19.1%

19.5%

19.6%

19.8%

21.3%

21.4%

21.5%

22.1%

23.5%

24.6%

25.1%

26.8%

27.0%

27.1%

29.3%

29.5%

29.6%

31.0%

32.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 78 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students WhoTook One or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.82: Total number of secondary HispanicMale Students taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary HispanicMale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.83: Percentage Point Change in HispanicMale Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.84: Trends in Hispanic Male StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.83 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic Male StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

11

56

40

30

20

13

51

27

44

4

53

68

14

12

5

57

32

48

71

8

47

46

67

9

97

49

41

60

54

76

1

KPIID

−10 −5 0 5 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.6

−13.7

−11.1

−9.0

−6.8

−6.6

−6.0

−5.4

−3.8

−2.6

−2.1

−2.0

−1.6

−0.9

−0.6

−0.3

0.3

0.8

0.8

1.1

1.2

1.5

1.6

1.9

1.9

2.4

2.8

4.1

6.3

7.5

7.7

8.6

9.8

2.84 Trends in Hispanic Male Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

21.8%

12.6%

21.5%

12.1%

22.7%

12.0%

21.6%

12.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthJacksonLong Beach

MiamiOrange CountyRichmondSan AntonioSeattleTulsa

ChicagoClark CountyDallasGuilford County

New YorkPinellasSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 79 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.85 Percentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

20

79

34

19

30

57

25

46

4

10

52

47

50

55

27

44

23

5

26

77

53

51

2

8

49

13

12

60

16

14

43

67

9

11

54

97

71

15

1

68

96

32

48

29

56

41

76

40

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 25.3%

6.4%

7.0%

8.7%

9.8%

10.2%

11.5%

11.9%

14.1%

14.6%

14.7%

16.7%

17.3%

17.8%

18.1%

18.5%

19.8%

20.0%

20.3%

20.8%

22.7%

22.9%

24.2%

24.3%

25.1%

25.6%

25.7%

26.0%

26.2%

26.5%

28.6%

29.9%

29.9%

30.1%

30.2%

30.5%

31.5%

31.6%

33.3%

33.9%

34.2%

35.5%

35.6%

36.2%

36.8%

38.6%

39.0%

41.8%

47.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 80 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students WhoTook One or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.85: Total number of secondary HispanicFemale Students taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary HispanicFemale Students, 2019-20Figure 2.86: Percentage Point Change in HispanicFemale Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.87: Trends in Hispanic Female StudentsWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.86 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic FemaleStudents Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

11

50

56

40

30

13

27

20

44

19

53

12

51

5

67

14

4

48

47

9

32

68

8

97

71

49

46

57

41

1

60

54

76

KPIID

−20 −10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.4

−17.3

−17.2

−12.7

−8.4

−8.0

−7.2

−3.8

−3.2

−3.1

−3.0

−3.0

−1.4

−1.1

−1.0

−0.2

0.0

0.4

0.6

1.5

1.6

1.9

2.0

3.4

3.5

4.4

5.1

5.6

5.7

7.4

8.8

10.4

10.7

15.7

2.87 Trends in Hispanic Female Students Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

30.4%

17.6%

29.9%

19.2%

30.3%

17.8%

31.5%

17.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinDallasDistrict of ColumbiaFort WorthJackson

Long BeachMiamiOrange CountySan AntonioSeattleTulsa

AustinBaltimore CityChicagoClevelandDallas

Guilford CountyNew YorkSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 81 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.88 Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

79

34

4

46

57

14

10

44

25

23

50

30

47

52

13

27

5

8

43

51

53

12

26

54

71

97

29

9

67

16

11

60

1

32

48

15

68

96

77

41

56

76

40

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 18.1%

4.4%

7.9%

8.1%

8.2%

9.4%

9.5%

9.5%

10.0%

10.0%

10.5%

11.6%

11.8%

11.9%

12.0%

13.4%

15.2%

15.3%

15.5%

16.8%

17.0%

17.8%

18.1%

19.8%

20.9%

21.9%

22.0%

22.6%

23.5%

23.8%

24.2%

24.8%

25.0%

25.7%

26.9%

27.4%

27.8%

28.2%

28.7%

30.1%

31.4%

31.5%

33.1%

34.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 82 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students Who Took One or More AP

CoursesNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.88: Total number of secondary Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students taking atleast one AP course divided by the total number ofsecondary Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students, 2019-20Figure 2.89: Percentage Point Change in Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Who TookOne or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.90: Trends in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students Who Took One or MoreAP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.89 Percentage Point Change in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

11

14

50

56

40

51

13

44

5

12

4

48

30

53

67

71

68

8

27

9

57

32

47

46

41

97

1

54

60

76

KPIID

−10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 1.0

−14.4

−12.3

−10.4

−9.2

−9.1

−6.8

−4.6

−3.4

−3.0

−2.1

−1.7

−1.0

−0.6

−0.1

0.6

1.3

1.5

2.1

2.7

2.7

2.8

3.0

3.9

4.0

4.7

5.3

6.7

7.4

8.1

13.6

2.90 Trends in Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

23.8%

12.5%

25.0%

12.6%

25.7%

10.3%

25.1%

11.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonDallasFort WorthJacksonLong BeachMiami

Orange CountySan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattleTulsa

Baltimore CityChicagoDallasNashville

New YorkPinellasSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 83 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.91 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

79

19

57

20

25

12

53

67

46

49

10

55

43

50

30

44

11

40

27

5

9

54

13

51

68

97

14

8

47

26

32

23

16

48

56

71

29

52

76

60

41

77

96

2

15

1

KPIID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 4.1%

0.4%

0.7%

1.2%

1.3%

1.7%

1.9%

1.9%

2.0%

2.0%

2.3%

2.9%

3.0%

3.1%

3.2%

3.2%

3.3%

3.4%

3.4%

3.5%

3.6%

3.7%

3.8%

3.9%

4.3%

4.3%

4.6%

5.0%

5.0%

5.1%

5.1%

5.4%

5.6%

6.0%

6.0%

6.1%

6.4%

7.4%

7.6%

8.3%

9.3%

9.8%

10.2%

10.6%

13.3%

13.4%

14.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 84 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students with Disabilities WhoTook One or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.91: Total number of secondary Studentswith Disabilities taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary Studentswith Disabilities, 2019-20Figure 2.92: Percentage Point Change in Studentswith Disabilities Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.93: Trends in Students with DisabilitiesWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.92 Percentage Point Change in Students with DisabilitiesWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

56

11

20

51

44

50

5

67

13

48

19

53

12

9

32

8

30

57

47

46

68

49

97

14

54

27

71

1

60

76

41

KPIID

−4 −2 0 2 4 6

Percentage Point Change

Median 0.6

−3.7

−2.4

−1.9

−1.8

−0.8

−0.7

−0.5

−0.5

−0.4

−0.4

−0.2

−0.2

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.5

1.5

2.2

2.2

2.8

5.7

5.8

6.5

2.93 Trends in Students with Disabilities Who Took One orMore AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

−8

−6

−4

−2

0

2

4

6

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

4.3%

1.8%

4.9%

1.9%

6.1%

2.2%

6.0%

3.0%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinDallasDistrict of ColumbiaJacksonLong BeachMinneapolis

New YorkRichmondSan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattleTulsa

AustinChicagoDallasNew York

NorfolkSan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 85 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.94 Percentage of English Language Learners Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2019-20

27

46

20

47

44

10

4

34

53

25

55

23

5

26

56

49

57

8

11

30

2

13

67

16

12

54

43

60

51

9

52

97

96

32

40

50

77

14

1

71

68

48

29

41

76

15

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage of English Language Learners Who Took One or More AP Courses

Median 8.3%

2.5%

2.6%

2.8%

2.9%

3.3%

3.6%

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

4.3%

4.4%

5.5%

5.6%

5.6%

6.5%

6.6%

6.9%

7.0%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.7%

8.0%

8.6%

8.8%

9.0%

9.3%

9.4%

9.7%

10.2%

11.1%

12.4%

12.7%

13.1%

13.3%

13.4%

13.8%

14.5%

15.0%

18.3%

18.5%

24.1%

24.7%

25.0%

26.8%

42.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 86 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of English Language LearnersWho Took One or More AP Courses

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.94: Total number of secondary EnglishLanguage Learners taking at least one AP coursedivided by the total number of secondary EnglishLanguage Learners, 2019-20Figure 2.95: Percentage Point Change in EnglishLanguage Learners Who Took One or More APCourses, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.96: Trends in English Language LearnersWho Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.95 Percentage Point Change in English LanguageLearners Who Took One or More AP Courses, 2016-17 to2019-20

50

56

27

4

13

44

20

67

47

5

30

32

46

8

12

51

57

53

68

11

9

60

49

97

14

40

54

1

48

71

41

76

KPIID

−10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 1.7

−9.6

−2.9

−2.5

−2.5

−2.2

−1.4

−0.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.6

1.1

1.2

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.7

2.0

2.1

2.1

4.6

5.0

5.2

5.5

5.7

5.7

6.0

6.2

8.1

10.1

14.6

17.3

2.96 Trends in English Language Learners Who Took Oneor More AP Courses, 2016-17 to 2019-20

−6

−4

−2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

8.8%

4.1%

10.5%

3.6%

13.1%

5.3%

13.2%

5.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueArlingtonAustinDallasDetroitDistrict of Columbia

Fort WorthJacksonOrange CountySan AntonioSan FranciscoSeattle

AlbuquerqueAustinChicagoDallas

Fort WorthOrange CountySan AntonioSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 87 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.97 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Students, 2019-20

34

57

79

76

30

10

67

51

40

50

41

46

68

19

25

47

27

4

12

56

11

97

49

52

14

44

54

29

9

48

53

60

26

55

16

43

32

20

13

5

8

77

23

71

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Students

Median 51.2%

10.1%

18.5%

20.3%

26.8%

30.7%

31.1%

33.1%

33.8%

35.2%

35.6%

37.1%

37.5%

38.1%

38.4%

44.9%

45.2%

46.2%

46.2%

46.2%

46.8%

47.3%

51.0%

51.2%

51.4%

51.9%

54.5%

54.6%

55.7%

56.7%

57.0%

57.2%

58.2%

58.5%

59.1%

61.0%

62.3%

64.7%

65.2%

65.3%

65.7%

65.9%

69.1%

71.6%

72.0%

74.3%

The Council of The Great City Schools 88 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.97: Total number of AP exam scores thatwere three or higher by Students divided by thetotal number of AP exam scores, 2019-20Figure 2.98: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher byStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.99: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

2.98 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

55

27

47

1

49

46

5

20

68

97

56

10

8

67

19

60

57

41

9

11

44

71

13

14

53

54

40

30

32

51

79

48

76

43

4

50

KPIID

−10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 8.8

−6.0

−5.4

−1.5

−1.3

0.3

1.9

2.3

3.1

4.2

5.5

6.0

6.7

6.8

7.6

7.8

7.8

7.9

8.7

8.8

9.7

9.8

10.4

10.5

10.5

10.5

10.9

11.3

11.5

11.5

11.7

14.2

14.3

16.2

16.4

19.2

23.4

2.99 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

49.3%

26.1%

50.4%

31.5%

53.3%

31.9%

58.9%

37.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyCharlestonCincinnatiMiamiPalm Beach

PittsburghPortlandSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattle

DetroitMiamiMilwaukeeOklahoma CityOrange County

PittsburghSan AntonioToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 89 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.100 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Black Male Students, 2019-20

10

67

76

57

68

40

30

46

97

27

79

55

41

25

49

29

52

5

56

54

50

20

60

44

19

11

12

26

48

16

47

43

14

53

1

9

8

23

71

32

13

77

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Black Male Students

Median 30.7%

14.0%

14.1%

16.1%

16.2%

17.7%

18.4%

19.3%

21.6%

23.4%

25.7%

26.3%

27.8%

28.0%

28.0%

28.2%

28.7%

29.6%

30.0%

30.3%

30.3%

30.5%

30.8%

31.3%

31.5%

31.8%

32.0%

32.8%

33.0%

34.7%

36.3%

37.8%

38.1%

40.0%

40.0%

40.5%

41.6%

41.7%

41.8%

42.9%

42.9%

46.8%

50.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 90 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Black Male Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.100: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Black Male Studentsdivided by the total number of AP exam scores,2019-20Figure 2.101: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher by BlackMale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.102: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Black Male Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.101 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Black Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

27

67

46

56

20

9

55

49

97

68

10

57

1

11

8

60

47

30

44

54

32

41

5

50

48

13

40

43

71

53

19

79

KPIID

−10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Point Change

Median 7.7

−5.5

−4.6

−2.9

−2.5

−2.1

−2.0

−0.9

0.2

1.0

2.7

4.2

4.7

5.2

5.7

7.2

7.7

7.8

7.8

8.5

10.2

11.0

11.2

11.4

11.9

12.1

13.3

13.6

15.3

16.4

17.0

17.3

26.3

2.102 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Black Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

28.2%

14.9%

28.6%

15.6%

30.7%

13.6%

37.9%

27.1%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueAustinBroward CountyCharlestonClark CountyJefferson

MiamiPalm BeachPittsburghSan FranciscoSeattle

AustinBroward CountyDaytonFort Worth

JeffersonOrange CountyPittsburghToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 91 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.103 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Black Female Students, 2019-20

51

57

10

76

30

40

67

68

79

41

4

97

19

52

50

46

49

25

27

47

56

43

12

29

55

11

54

16

44

53

60

77

23

14

20

48

9

5

26

32

8

1

71

13

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Black Female Students

Median 32.8%

14.0%

14.3%

15.0%

17.0%

18.3%

20.7%

21.9%

22.1%

22.7%

23.3%

25.0%

26.5%

27.2%

27.3%

27.6%

27.9%

28.7%

28.8%

29.2%

31.0%

31.2%

31.8%

33.7%

34.2%

34.2%

34.3%

35.2%

35.3%

36.3%

37.3%

37.6%

38.1%

38.9%

38.9%

39.3%

39.4%

39.5%

39.5%

40.5%

42.5%

45.1%

45.5%

45.9%

46.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 92 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Black Female Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.103: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Black FemaleStudents divided by the total number of AP examscores, 2019-20Figure 2.104: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher by BlackFemale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.105: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Black Female Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.104 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Black Female Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

47

55

49

9

27

5

1

97

10

56

57

30

8

19

51

67

68

41

32

53

11

60

20

4

44

46

54

13

76

40

14

48

50

71

43

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 10.0

−0.5

−0.4

0.3

0.4

2.2

3.7

4.5

5.5

5.6

6.2

6.5

8.0

8.4

8.5

9.4

9.4

9.7

10.0

11.1

11.6

11.9

12.5

12.6

12.7

12.9

13.0

13.3

13.8

14.0

14.9

16.2

17.6

18.2

22.1

23.7

2.105 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Black Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

27.0%

12.5%

26.6%

15.3%

28.8%

15.5%

38.9%

26.5%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AlbuquerqueAustinBostonBroward CountyCincinnatiClark County

MiamiOrange CountyPalm BeachPortlandSeattle

AlbuquerqueAustinBroward CountyChicagoDetroit

Fort WorthOrange CountyPittsburghSan Antonio

The Council of The Great City Schools 93 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.106 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Male Students, 2019-20

79

57

76

40

10

51

41

68

12

4

67

30

43

52

46

11

56

49

53

97

60

54

16

55

20

14

27

9

26

5

44

48

29

50

25

47

23

71

77

8

32

13

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Male Students

Median 46.3%

0.0%

21.4%

22.7%

25.9%

27.4%

28.4%

30.7%

30.8%

31.2%

32.4%

33.4%

34.1%

38.5%

39.1%

41.3%

41.5%

41.9%

43.5%

44.1%

44.7%

45.6%

46.3%

47.5%

47.9%

48.0%

48.4%

48.4%

48.5%

50.4%

50.9%

50.9%

52.0%

52.5%

52.5%

53.5%

56.4%

57.3%

59.4%

59.9%

64.6%

65.1%

70.5%

72.7%

The Council of The Great City Schools 94 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Hispanic Male Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.106: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Hispanic MaleStudents divided by the total number of AP examscores, 2019-20Figure 2.107: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher byHispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.108: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Hispanic Male Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.107 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Male Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

9

20

27

55

43

46

49

97

41

5

40

44

56

67

57

8

60

54

68

10

11

13

30

53

32

51

4

76

48

14

71

47

1

50

KPIID

−20 0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 7.3

−26.0

−10.8

−8.6

−8.5

−7.0

−2.4

−0.5

1.0

3.7

4.8

5.0

5.7

5.8

6.2

6.5

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.4

7.5

7.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.7

9.6

11.6

12.1

12.8

14.6

16.5

20.1

21.5

40.0

2.108 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Hispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

45.3%

26.1%

49.8%

28.6%

45.8%

31.1%

52.1%

33.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyCharlestonDetroitDistrict of ColumbiaMiami

NashvilleNewarkPalm BeachSan FranciscoSeattle

AlbuquerqueAustinDetroitNashvilleOklahoma City

Orange CountySan AntonioSeattleWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 95 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.109 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Female Students, 2019-20

57

10

76

68

51

41

46

40

47

52

67

43

49

27

4

12

14

11

30

56

9

97

60

50

55

54

16

29

26

44

48

25

77

23

71

20

5

8

32

13

1

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Female Students

Median 43.1%

19.8%

26.9%

28.4%

28.6%

29.5%

30.6%

31.4%

31.4%

32.0%

35.1%

35.1%

37.0%

37.6%

37.9%

38.8%

39.5%

39.7%

40.8%

42.3%

42.7%

43.1%

44.0%

46.1%

46.6%

46.9%

47.2%

49.9%

50.1%

51.2%

53.5%

53.7%

54.2%

56.0%

57.5%

61.2%

62.5%

62.9%

64.9%

65.4%

68.6%

71.8%

The Council of The Great City Schools 96 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Hispanic Female Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.109: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Hispanic FemaleStudents divided by the total number of AP examscores, 2019-20Figure 2.110: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher byHispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.111: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Hispanic FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.110 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Hispanic Female Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

55

47

9

27

46

49

20

68

51

97

10

8

14

41

44

60

56

54

43

11

5

67

13

57

40

30

1

32

48

76

71

4

50

KPIID

−10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Point Change

Median 9.2

−11.3

−9.3

−8.9

−5.3

−2.0

0.2

0.4

2.4

3.9

4.9

6.0

7.0

8.5

8.7

9.1

9.1

9.2

9.2

9.5

9.7

10.1

10.2

11.3

11.4

12.0

12.4

12.5

12.9

16.6

17.3

22.8

24.5

29.9

2.111 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Hispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

41.7%

26.0%

42.3%

27.9%

42.1%

30.0%

53.7%

35.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyCharlestonCincinnatiMiami

NewarkPalm BeachPortlandSan FranciscoSeattle

AustinDetroitFort WorthMiamiMilwaukee

Orange CountySan AntonioSeattleWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 97 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.112 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students,2019-20

79

34

57

46

10

76

47

51

41

30

40

52

68

29

67

27

14

50

19

97

56

4

44

53

43

11

25

54

48

1

9

16

26

5

23

12

60

71

13

8

32

77

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students

Median 39.8%

17.6%

18.3%

18.5%

20.2%

22.3%

23.7%

24.9%

28.5%

28.7%

28.8%

29.0%

29.4%

29.4%

30.8%

31.0%

34.1%

35.4%

37.7%

38.4%

39.2%

39.4%

40.2%

40.9%

41.3%

41.7%

43.2%

44.0%

44.3%

47.7%

48.6%

48.8%

49.4%

50.3%

51.4%

51.5%

52.3%

53.0%

53.7%

57.0%

57.8%

60.6%

65.2%

The Council of The Great City Schools 98 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Free or Reduced-Price

Lunch (FRPL) StudentsNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.112: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students divided by the totalnumber of AP exam scores, 2019-20Figure 2.113: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Freeor Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.114: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.113 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

9

47

11

1

27

46

97

19

41

68

10

56

57

67

14

60

8

5

44

54

79

51

32

13

40

30

76

53

48

4

43

71

50

KPIID

−10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Point Change

Median 8.8

−12.5

−4.4

−2.3

−1.7

−0.8

3.4

4.9

5.6

6.1

6.5

6.6

7.1

7.9

8.3

8.6

8.7

8.8

9.7

10.1

10.2

10.9

11.3

11.3

11.5

11.9

12.0

13.7

13.8

16.9

21.8

22.4

25.3

26.2

2.114 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

34.6%

17.2%

38.1%

22.2%

41.5%

22.6%

49.1%

29.2%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBostonBroward CountyCharlestonDes MoinesMiami

New YorkPalm BeachPortlandSan DiegoSan Francisco

AustinDetroitFort WorthJeffersonMilwaukee

Orange CountyPittsburghSan AntonioWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 99 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.115 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Students with Disabilities, 2019-20

76

46

10

47

30

49

41

67

29

68

27

97

11

56

40

60

52

55

53

14

16

48

44

25

54

9

77

26

43

20

1

32

8

71

13

23

5

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by Students with Disabilities

Median 40.5%

7.9%

19.4%

20.8%

24.0%

24.2%

26.4%

28.0%

28.9%

31.3%

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

35.3%

36.4%

36.5%

36.6%

37.3%

37.5%

40.5%

42.0%

42.4%

43.5%

45.0%

45.5%

46.2%

50.9%

52.2%

54.7%

57.9%

61.5%

61.8%

62.0%

62.4%

62.6%

63.7%

72.4%

75.5%

The Council of The Great City Schools 100 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by Students with Disabilities

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.115: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by Students withDisabilities divided by the total number of APexam scores, 2019-20Figure 2.116: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher byStudents with Disabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.117: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by Students withDisabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.116 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by Students with Disabilities,2016-17 to 2019-20

47

9

49

27

55

53

67

14

97

40

1

10

56

76

8

30

11

60

41

48

54

44

71

43

32

13

20

5

KPIID

−20 0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 8.5

−29.7

−21.8

−17.8

−16.7

−11.0

−6.3

−2.6

−0.8

−0.4

2.7

4.7

6.2

6.4

7.9

9.0

9.7

11.5

11.7

12.3

12.3

12.6

12.8

13.5

17.9

21.1

26.1

27.4

48.7

2.117 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by Students with Disabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

46.2%

23.8%

39.7%

23.9%

43.3%

18.5%

54.1%

33.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyCharlestonCincinnatiMiami

Palm BeachPittsburghPortlandSeattle

AustinBroward CountyCincinnatiDuval County

MiamiPittsburghPortland

The Council of The Great City Schools 101 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.118 Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by English Language Learners, 2019-20

53

57

49

20

52

41

26

68

56

30

55

12

76

97

9

29

51

40

16

50

23

47

14

1

54

10

5

44

71

60

67

25

11

77

48

8

13

32

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That Were Three or Higher by English Language Learners

Median 38.0%

9.4%

18.7%

24.2%

25.0%

25.3%

28.4%

29.6%

31.1%

33.3%

34.7%

34.9%

35.0%

35.5%

35.5%

36.3%

36.5%

37.2%

37.3%

38.0%

38.1%

38.1%

38.6%

42.6%

43.6%

45.8%

54.2%

56.5%

57.8%

58.1%

60.5%

61.3%

62.2%

63.4%

65.0%

70.8%

78.3%

85.9%

86.4%

The Council of The Great City Schools 102 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of All AP Exam Scores That WereThree or Higher by English Language

LearnersNote: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.118: Total number of AP exam scoresthat were three or higher by English LanguageLearners divided by the total number of AP examscores, 2019-20Figure 2.119: Percentage Point Change in All APExam Scores That Were Three or Higher byEnglish Language Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.120: Trends in All AP Exam Scores ThatWere Three or Higher by English LanguageLearners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.119 Percentage Point Change in All AP Exam ScoresThat Were Three or Higher by English Language Learners,2016-17 to 2019-20

9

53

76

49

56

97

8

60

14

54

48

68

44

32

51

11

41

13

5

10

30

40

47

67

20

71

50

KPIID

−40 −20 0 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 1.8

−42.2

−22.6

−14.7

−13.3

−10.2

−6.7

−5.5

−5.3

−2.3

−2.2

0.1

0.2

0.7

1.8

2.7

2.9

7.6

9.7

10.7

11.2

12.4

13.4

19.3

22.9

25.0

26.2

27.2

2.120 Trends in All AP Exam Scores That Were Three orHigher by English Language Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

54.5%

23.9%

54.7%

25.4%

48.5%

32.9%

58.0%

34.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyFresnoLos AngelesMiami

New YorkNewarkOrange CountyPalm BeachSan Francisco

AustinCincinnatiDetroitFort Worth

FresnoMilwaukeeNashville

The Council of The Great City Schools 103 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.121 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Students, 2019-20

30

29

46

50

14

19

34

52

26

12

43

60

11

4

25

57

54

79

53

5

55

1

9

67

23

27

77

40

16

10

49

13

56

96

32

68

44

48

97

71

8

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Students

Median 85.5%

67.4%

68.7%

70.0%

72.5%

74.6%

74.9%

74.9%

75.3%

75.4%

76.6%

77.6%

78.8%

80.1%

80.5%

80.8%

80.9%

81.3%

82.3%

83.7%

83.7%

85.5%

85.7%

86.0%

86.5%

86.6%

87.0%

87.3%

87.8%

88.6%

88.8%

89.1%

89.4%

89.4%

89.6%

89.6%

90.2%

90.2%

90.4%

91.5%

93.4%

94.4%

The Council of The Great City Schools 104 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forStudents

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.121: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.122: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.123: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.122 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

12

50

55

43

54

49

46

27

40

71

9

53

8

60

30

19

68

56

48

5

10

57

4

1

14

32

13

97

44

79

KPIID

−5 0 5 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.7

−5.9

−5.7

−3.9

−3.2

−1.0

−0.7

−0.7

1.8

2.7

2.7

2.8

3.1

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.8

5.1

5.2

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.3

6.6

6.7

6.7

7.3

8.4

8.6

9.4

10.9

2.123 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

70

75

80

85

90

95

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

82.9%

76.8%

85.5%

75.7%

86.2%

75.9%

89.0%

77.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinBroward CountyDuval CountyLong Beach

MiamiOrange CountyPalm BeachPinellasTulsa

AlbuquerqueBroward CountyDuval CountyMiami

PinellasSeattleToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 105 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.124 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Black Male Students, 2019-20

30

14

29

50

46

52

12

26

60

34

9

43

4

19

5

23

25

77

11

1

79

10

53

57

40

32

97

55

67

48

16

13

49

27

56

44

68

71

96

8

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Black Male Students

Median 76.3%

57.5%

61.5%

62.5%

64.9%

65.6%

66.2%

66.4%

69.0%

69.4%

71.2%

71.3%

72.0%

72.2%

72.3%

72.3%

73.3%

73.5%

74.6%

74.7%

75.5%

77.1%

78.6%

78.9%

80.2%

80.3%

80.4%

80.6%

80.9%

81.1%

81.2%

81.2%

82.0%

82.7%

83.1%

83.2%

85.2%

86.6%

89.4%

90.1%

92.1%

The Council of The Great City Schools 106 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for BlackMale Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.124: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.125: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Black MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.126: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Black Male Students, 2016-17to 2019-20

2.125 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Black Male Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

12

55

50

40

49

43

48

46

9

27

71

19

56

60

53

30

4

5

57

1

68

8

10

32

44

13

79

97

KPIID

−10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 6.1

−9.5

−5.0

−4.4

−2.2

−1.5

−1.3

−0.4

0.1

1.4

3.6

4.2

5.0

5.3

6.0

6.1

6.6

6.9

7.0

7.1

7.3

7.8

7.9

8.6

12.2

13.1

14.3

15.2

19.1

2.126 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forBlack Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

60

65

70

75

80

85

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

75.9%

65.6%

78.2%

69.2%

76.8%

68.9%

81.2%

71.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinBroward CountyDuval CountyGuilford County

Long BeachNorfolkPalm BeachTulsa

Broward CountyDuval CountyHillsborough CountyMiami

Palm BeachPinellasToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 107 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.127 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Black Female Students, 2019-20

30

14

29

52

12

46

9

43

26

50

67

57

34

5

60

19

25

4

53

1

11

77

10

16

23

40

79

96

27

48

55

97

32

13

68

56

49

44

71

8

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Black Female Students

Median 85.0%

70.6%

71.5%

73.1%

75.5%

76.5%

77.8%

79.3%

79.7%

80.4%

80.5%

80.8%

81.1%

81.6%

81.6%

82.4%

83.1%

84.0%

84.1%

84.3%

84.5%

85.5%

86.3%

86.4%

86.4%

86.7%

87.1%

87.1%

87.9%

88.3%

88.7%

89.9%

90.0%

90.8%

90.9%

91.1%

91.6%

91.9%

92.0%

92.3%

96.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 108 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for BlackFemale Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.127: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.128: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Black FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.129: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Black Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.128 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Black Female Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

12

50

55

43

46

71

49

53

48

40

27

9

30

57

4

68

60

56

8

10

13

1

19

44

97

79

32

5

KPIID

−5 0 5 10 15

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.9

−6.9

−4.8

−3.4

−1.6

−0.3

0.2

0.5

0.7

0.9

2.0

3.0

3.2

3.7

3.7

4.2

4.9

5.7

6.5

7.4

7.7

8.9

9.2

9.3

10.7

12.2

12.7

12.9

17.7

2.129 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forBlack Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

687072747678808284868890929496

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

85.1%

76.3%

87.7%

79.4%

86.8%

80.9%

88.7%

80.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinBroward CountyCharlotte-MecklenburgDuval County

Guilford CountyLong BeachMiamiPalm BeachPinellas

DaytonDuval CountyMiamiPinellas

PortlandSeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 109 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.130 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic Male Students, 2019-20

43

46

29

19

52

50

30

34

26

1

14

12

55

60

27

77

53

11

4

23

5

25

16

49

9

67

79

40

57

10

68

56

32

48

13

44

8

97

96

71

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic Male Students

Median 76.2%

43.2%

43.9%

54.7%

58.8%

60.0%

60.7%

61.4%

62.0%

62.8%

65.7%

66.5%

66.5%

67.6%

68.4%

70.5%

70.7%

71.4%

74.2%

74.7%

75.3%

77.1%

79.0%

79.2%

79.9%

81.4%

82.2%

82.3%

84.0%

84.7%

85.4%

85.7%

85.9%

87.5%

87.6%

88.0%

88.2%

89.1%

90.0%

90.6%

91.9%

The Council of The Great City Schools 110 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forHispanic Male Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.130: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.131: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.132: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Hispanic Male Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.131 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Hispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

43

50

12

27

55

46

49

48

30

53

19

8

9

71

40

60

1

68

4

13

10

56

32

44

5

97

57

79

KPIID

−10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Point Change

Median 3.9

−11.0

−9.7

−9.4

−6.9

−5.6

−2.5

−0.8

−0.4

0.2

0.5

1.7

2.1

3.4

3.7

4.0

5.0

5.9

7.0

7.1

7.9

8.6

8.7

9.7

9.7

11.8

12.4

15.7

34.6

2.132 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forHispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

77.8%

62.8%

77.1%

60.4%

80.7%

64.8%

85.4%

66.5%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinBroward CountyDuval CountyLong Beach

MiamiOrange CountyPalm BeachPinellasTulsa

ClevelandDuval CountyLong BeachMiami

PinellasPortlandToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 111 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.133 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic Female Students, 2019-20

19

46

29

43

52

30

50

14

34

5

12

26

23

60

55

27

77

53

1

11

57

4

25

49

9

16

10

79

96

67

56

44

68

13

71

40

32

48

97

8

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic Female Students

Median 84.9%

64.3%

65.1%

65.2%

65.5%

69.6%

73.8%

74.1%

75.3%

76.0%

76.0%

76.3%

76.9%

80.0%

80.1%

80.9%

81.3%

82.1%

84.0%

84.5%

84.8%

85.1%

85.9%

86.1%

87.4%

88.2%

88.3%

90.5%

90.6%

90.7%

90.9%

91.0%

91.6%

92.0%

92.1%

92.8%

93.0%

93.1%

93.1%

95.0%

95.4%

The Council of The Great City Schools 112 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forHispanic Female Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.133: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.134: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Hispanic FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.135: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Hispanic Female Students,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.134 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Hispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

50

43

27

55

19

48

12

5

49

40

53

9

71

56

46

57

8

13

60

30

68

32

10

44

4

97

79

1

KPIID

−20 −10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 4.9

−15.5

−13.4

−7.3

−3.5

−2.4

−2.4

−2.0

−1.7

1.6

2.3

2.5

2.6

3.1

4.3

5.6

5.8

5.8

6.1

6.4

6.4

6.9

7.0

7.3

8.0

8.1

10.1

13.1

15.2

2.135 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forHispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

70

75

80

85

90

95

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

85.9%

76.0%

86.4%

76.9%

89.0%

78.2%

90.9%

76.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinBroward CountyDuval CountyFort Worth

Long BeachMiamiOrange CountyPalm BeachPinellas

Duval CountyHillsborough CountyMiamiPinellas

SeattleToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 113 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.136 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2019-20

46

30

14

52

50

12

26

43

19

34

1

60

23

5

11

79

57

25

53

4

9

10

16

44

67

77

97

13

40

56

68

32

48

96

71

8

27

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students

Median 81.8%

61.5%

65.0%

67.2%

68.5%

71.0%

72.2%

72.6%

73.4%

74.9%

74.9%

78.0%

78.5%

78.8%

79.9%

80.1%

80.2%

80.9%

81.2%

81.8%

82.6%

83.2%

84.5%

84.8%

85.7%

85.9%

86.2%

86.3%

86.8%

88.2%

88.3%

88.5%

89.0%

89.4%

89.8%

90.8%

92.5%

97.8%

The Council of The Great City Schools 114 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Freeor Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.136: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.137: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.138: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

2.137 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

43

12

50

46

40

53

71

9

60

8

68

19

30

5

14

57

56

48

10

13

32

1

79

44

97

27

KPIID

−10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median 5.1

−12.5

−7.1

−4.7

−1.5

−0.6

−0.1

2.9

3.0

3.2

3.6

4.8

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.6

6.3

6.7

8.0

8.8

10.2

10.2

11.4

11.6

12.2

12.8

12.8

2.138 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forFree or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

81.8%

73.2%

82.7%

72.3%

82.8%

73.8%

86.7%

75.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

ArlingtonAustinFort WorthLong BeachMiami

NorfolkOrange CountyPalm BeachTulsa

Broward CountyDuval CountyMiamiNorfolk

PinellasSeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 115 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.139 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities, 2019-20

50

30

29

46

52

60

26

12

34

19

16

67

11

1

43

14

25

40

23

56

9

53

49

77

5

57

4

55

79

68

54

71

48

10

97

13

32

44

96

8

27

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities

Median 69.7%

40.6%

44.6%

45.9%

49.0%

52.2%

52.8%

53.4%

57.0%

57.0%

62.0%

62.5%

63.4%

63.5%

64.1%

64.2%

64.9%

65.8%

66.0%

67.7%

69.1%

69.7%

69.7%

70.3%

70.9%

71.0%

71.4%

71.5%

72.2%

73.1%

78.1%

78.4%

78.5%

80.4%

80.6%

81.8%

83.8%

84.4%

87.1%

88.1%

92.1%

98.7%

The Council of The Great City Schools 116 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forStudents with Disabilities

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.139: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.140: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for Students withDisabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.141: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Students with Disabilities,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.140 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for Students with Disabilities, 2016-17 to2019-20

12

43

57

50

68

46

49

1

9

40

14

19

55

71

60

56

53

5

54

30

79

8

48

32

97

10

44

13

27

KPIID

−10 0 10 20

Percentage Point Change

Median 6.0

−11.6

−8.5

−8.3

−5.2

−2.8

−2.2

−1.7

−1.3

0.6

0.9

2.3

2.5

4.0

5.7

6.0

6.6

6.8

7.0

8.9

9.1

10.0

12.5

13.3

14.1

14.7

16.1

16.3

20.0

24.3

2.141 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forStudents with Disabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

71.4%

60.1%

72.0%

58.6%

71.9%

57.6%

78.3%

62.7%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyDuval CountyHillsborough CountyMiami

NorfolkOrange CountyPalm BeachPinellasTulsa

Broward CountyDuval CountyHillsborough CountyMiami

NorfolkOrange CountyPalm BeachPinellas

The Council of The Great City Schools 117 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

2.142 Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for English Language Learners, 2019-20

46

60

43

29

11

30

5

26

12

1

16

52

23

50

77

53

67

54

14

56

34

40

49

55

19

9

57

4

68

48

25

10

32

8

13

71

44

96

79

97

27

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate for English Language Learners

Median 75.2%

42.7%

45.7%

47.7%

53.4%

55.5%

64.9%

65.0%

65.2%

65.8%

66.3%

66.9%

69.0%

70.0%

70.2%

71.2%

71.4%

72.4%

73.0%

73.8%

73.8%

75.2%

75.6%

76.5%

76.9%

77.5%

78.3%

79.6%

81.8%

82.4%

82.8%

83.5%

84.7%

84.7%

85.2%

86.9%

87.8%

88.1%

88.6%

91.3%

92.0%

100.0%

The Council of The Great City Schools 118 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forEnglish Language Learners

Note: Higher values and larger increases are desired

Figure 2.142: Formulas for the calculation ofgraduation rates are based on the statemethodology required for federal reporting, 2019-20Figure 2.143: Percentage Point Change in FourYear Cohort Graduation Rate for EnglishLanguage Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 2.144: Trends in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for English Language Learners,2016-17 to 2019-20

2.143 Percentage Point Change in Four Year CohortGraduation Rate for English Language Learners, 2016-17to 2019-20

12

9

50

54

56

5

46

14

68

49

48

4

71

53

40

60

10

55

30

32

1

44

8

57

19

97

43

13

79

27

KPIID

0 20 40

Percentage Point Change

Median 12.0

−8.2

−5.2

−2.9

−2.5

0.1

1.6

1.7

4.4

6.3

6.4

7.7

8.5

10.6

10.6

10.9

13.1

16.4

17.0

17.4

18.4

18.9

19.5

21.7

23.2

27.5

28.3

29.8

31.9

36.8

50.0

2.144 Trends in Four Year Cohort Graduation Rate forEnglish Language Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile

71.5%

49.5%

74.1%

60.5%

74.7%

59.9%

83.3%

67.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

AustinBroward CountyDuval CountyHillsborough CountyMiami

NorfolkPalm BeachPinellasToledoTulsa

Broward CountyClevelandDaytonNorfolk

Palm BeachPinellasPittsburghToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 119 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 120 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Attendance Indicators

Attendance measures were collected on students in grades three, six, eight, andnine who were absent from school. Comparisons across districts are made forstudents who were absent cumulatively over the course of the school year for fiveto nine days, ten to nineteen days, and twenty or more days. The unit of analysishere is the number of students who missed school for the specified lengths oftime. Figures 3.1 through 3.32 illustrate how districts compare on their absencerates in the specified grades. The total number of days missed is divided by thetotal number of students enrolled in that grade during the school year at any point.

The Council of The Great City Schools 121 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.1 Percentage of Grade 3 Students Absent, 2019-20

14

11

41

71

1

77

67

55

2

47

56

27

15

76

49

26

23

25

34

13

16

29

53

12

68

79

54

10

60

96

57

9

32

51

97

4

5

19

8

52

48

30

46

43

20

44

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

15.7%

26.1%

24.0%

26.3%

25.8%

25.2%

22.8%

28.1%

26.0%

27.9%

28.8%

28.8%

25.1%

27.3%

27.7%

27.5%

31.5%

27.3%

25.8%

28.5%

28.6%

28.7%

29.6%

29.0%

29.3%

22.9%

30.0%

28.3%

27.9%

28.3%

21.4%

30.3%

27.4%

28.3%

22.9%

32.4%

32.9%

28.8%

27.2%

26.2%

28.5%

26.5%

27.0%

28.2%

26.5%

25.4%

15.4%

5.6%

10.7%

12.1%

10.8%

12.0%

11.8%

14.0%

11.8%

14.0%

12.8%

12.9%

13.1%

15.5%

14.3%

14.3%

14.7%

13.0%

16.0%

16.9%

15.2%

15.0%

15.5%

15.5%

16.4%

16.4%

19.1%

17.0%

17.8%

18.7%

18.9%

19.9%

19.9%

18.9%

20.5%

20.7%

19.2%

19.4%

20.7%

18.4%

20.7%

23.2%

22.3%

23.2%

21.5%

23.4%

23.0%

26.7%

3.4%

3.8%

4.3%

4.3%

3.6%

3.5%

3.6%

3.8%

3.1%

3.7%

3.8%

3.3%

7.2%

3.7%

5.0%

6.0%

6.2%

12.7%

4.3%

8.2%

5.9%

12.0%

4.8%

4.4%

9.3%

14.0%

14.4%

10.0%

13.3%

12.3%

14.4%

14.7%

19.5%

43.3%

Percentage of Grade 3 Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 122 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.2 Percentage of Grade 6 Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

41

56

11

8

13

16

55

71

67

2

34

47

12

1

76

23

44

26

15

68

97

60

54

25

49

27

52

9

79

10

57

53

96

5

48

46

4

32

51

29

19

30

43

20

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

8.7%

16.8%

20.1%

21.6%

23.1%

22.5%

24.6%

23.4%

24.3%

24.2%

21.9%

22.9%

23.3%

25.9%

22.9%

24.5%

24.0%

26.7%

22.7%

26.3%

26.1%

28.2%

21.8%

24.2%

28.2%

27.2%

27.3%

26.2%

24.9%

26.3%

21.8%

27.1%

20.1%

27.1%

25.1%

31.3%

25.7%

23.9%

27.1%

27.1%

26.4%

29.7%

26.5%

23.9%

25.7%

27.1%

14.1%

8.3%

9.8%

10.0%

9.9%

11.3%

10.9%

11.4%

11.2%

12.0%

13.3%

12.7%

15.2%

13.1%

15.8%

14.7%

14.4%

13.8%

14.5%

15.0%

14.2%

14.8%

15.3%

16.2%

15.3%

16.0%

15.5%

17.3%

16.4%

17.5%

20.1%

18.1%

19.9%

18.3%

19.4%

17.7%

18.4%

19.4%

20.8%

19.8%

21.4%

20.1%

22.3%

22.9%

22.2%

23.1%

27.8%

3.1%

3.4%

4.1%

3.5%

3.2%

3.2%

5.2%

5.2%

3.8%

3.4%

4.9%

4.4%

5.5%

3.8%

7.6%

4.3%

5.4%

3.0%

9.4%

6.1%

3.4%

3.8%

4.8%

5.8%

9.0%

7.0%

9.6%

6.4%

12.2%

7.2%

8.7%

5.3%

10.5%

11.9%

8.7%

9.8%

10.5%

9.9%

11.3%

16.1%

15.2%

14.1%

44.8%

Percentage of Grade 6 Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 123 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.3 Percentage of Grade 8 Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

11

56

16

2

41

8

13

71

67

47

25

54

55

12

15

23

44

60

76

79

26

27

97

9

49

1

57

53

10

52

34

48

4

46

20

32

51

5

96

29

30

43

19

68

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10.3%

16.6%

22.1%

21.3%

21.6%

18.5%

21.5%

23.4%

25.2%

24.2%

21.8%

25.0%

25.8%

27.9%

26.3%

21.8%

26.5%

27.1%

22.2%

24.3%

24.7%

19.6%

25.6%

26.9%

22.6%

25.4%

26.6%

26.4%

20.7%

26.8%

27.7%

23.9%

23.6%

25.0%

27.6%

24.4%

22.7%

27.1%

25.5%

30.5%

24.8%

27.5%

22.9%

27.6%

27.0%

35.8%

13.8%

3.9%

9.1%

9.7%

11.6%

12.2%

13.3%

12.5%

13.2%

14.2%

13.6%

15.0%

15.3%

15.6%

14.5%

14.5%

17.0%

14.5%

15.5%

15.9%

16.9%

16.0%

19.2%

17.5%

16.9%

16.2%

18.0%

18.3%

18.9%

20.1%

19.3%

20.2%

19.4%

20.3%

19.7%

22.0%

20.6%

21.7%

22.1%

22.9%

22.8%

22.2%

19.3%

22.4%

25.1%

21.8%

26.1%

29.2%

4.3%

3.4%

4.6%

4.8%

8.4%

6.4%

5.7%

4.3%

6.1%

7.6%

4.1%

3.5%

4.3%

6.0%

8.2%

6.2%

5.0%

9.9%

7.6%

8.5%

11.4%

7.1%

6.6%

11.9%

9.0%

7.9%

8.1%

14.7%

9.4%

9.0%

13.6%

13.6%

13.3%

9.9%

15.0%

16.9%

12.3%

13.2%

9.7%

16.3%

17.6%

19.3%

16.6%

21.8%

10.5%

43.3%

Percentage of Grade 8 Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 124 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.4 Percentage of Grade 9 Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

8

56

11

12

55

16

57

71

67

97

49

60

25

1

13

2

10

41

79

9

26

53

23

4

5

27

76

52

44

34

54

48

96

51

32

20

68

46

15

30

19

29

43

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9.0%

15.0%

17.6%

20.3%

20.6%

17.1%

20.0%

20.8%

16.4%

18.7%

21.1%

18.6%

22.2%

18.3%

24.1%

22.9%

27.7%

20.6%

25.1%

20.5%

19.4%

23.9%

23.1%

23.2%

27.7%

18.3%

25.9%

22.6%

21.2%

19.9%

23.4%

21.4%

24.7%

23.9%

23.4%

21.2%

25.5%

20.0%

28.8%

16.7%

29.8%

15.2%

22.5%

18.7%

18.6%

11.9%

5.0%

8.4%

9.2%

9.6%

11.7%

12.7%

11.5%

12.9%

14.3%

13.6%

14.9%

14.0%

15.0%

13.8%

17.0%

17.1%

15.8%

14.7%

17.3%

15.7%

18.8%

17.0%

16.2%

18.0%

17.7%

19.5%

18.2%

16.8%

17.4%

19.6%

19.3%

17.0%

19.7%

20.8%

22.4%

23.0%

23.6%

23.7%

22.3%

17.1%

25.0%

17.2%

24.1%

20.1%

20.5%

23.7%

7.4%

5.5%

5.2%

6.4%

10.1%

9.1%

7.8%

10.9%

10.7%

7.8%

13.1%

10.6%

16.5%

8.4%

9.9%

6.5%

16.2%

9.3%

15.6%

14.3%

11.9%

14.7%

13.3%

9.7%

17.5%

11.4%

16.4%

17.3%

18.1%

15.1%

20.2%

14.3%

16.7%

17.0%

20.0%

15.2%

23.6%

16.3%

35.6%

15.2%

40.1%

29.2%

38.3%

40.8%

54.8%

Percentage of Grade 9 Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 125 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.5 Percentage of Grade 3 Black Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

55

71

13

15

26

27

1

49

16

47

76

12

41

53

34

79

25

68

11

56

57

23

2

54

67

97

10

29

5

48

9

96

77

4

60

32

19

51

8

46

52

20

30

43

44

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

16.0%

25.6%

23.6%

25.4%

24.5%

23.0%

27.4%

25.4%

26.6%

24.7%

26.5%

33.3%

27.6%

23.9%

28.9%

24.8%

21.6%

26.2%

27.9%

29.8%

28.6%

19.5%

34.3%

29.3%

29.2%

27.2%

13.4%

27.1%

28.3%

25.9%

22.7%

27.4%

27.6%

22.8%

31.0%

27.1%

24.6%

27.1%

29.9%

21.4%

26.9%

24.5%

25.7%

23.8%

30.9%

22.4%

13.2%

10.0%

14.5%

13.9%

14.8%

15.9%

17.1%

15.3%

16.3%

16.4%

15.7%

17.5%

14.5%

17.9%

17.5%

16.9%

20.3%

20.3%

21.0%

20.2%

16.3%

18.5%

21.0%

15.4%

20.6%

20.2%

18.6%

21.3%

20.2%

22.0%

24.1%

21.4%

22.4%

19.2%

24.8%

22.1%

23.0%

22.7%

22.9%

23.0%

19.8%

25.3%

23.2%

28.1%

27.8%

23.5%

25.1%

26.7%

6.3%

3.8%

4.2%

4.8%

4.4%

4.0%

6.7%

3.8%

7.2%

4.3%

9.3%

4.3%

3.4%

6.3%

5.6%

13.2%

4.0%

4.2%

5.0%

8.6%

20.0%

7.5%

6.7%

7.4%

13.7%

8.2%

11.3%

11.7%

6.9%

10.3%

14.5%

11.9%

9.9%

23.6%

14.8%

22.7%

18.5%

21.7%

19.7%

27.0%

50.3%

Percentage of Grade 3 Black Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Black Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Black Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 126 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.6 Percentage of Grade 6 Black Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

13

8

55

41

76

44

1

56

16

67

11

47

15

34

68

26

49

97

12

54

25

79

2

71

57

23

10

27

48

60

53

46

9

52

19

96

4

5

51

43

77

32

29

20

30

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14.7%

20.9%

20.3%

24.2%

21.4%

18.0%

21.5%

17.7%

28.0%

27.1%

24.5%

26.1%

25.2%

26.0%

20.3%

28.1%

25.8%

26.5%

18.0%

27.4%

29.5%

25.1%

22.5%

25.8%

28.5%

18.8%

27.8%

26.1%

24.6%

23.1%

25.4%

28.0%

22.6%

25.3%

22.3%

24.6%

25.4%

27.0%

25.0%

21.7%

22.9%

27.1%

24.2%

27.0%

25.8%

22.4%

11.9%

9.4%

9.4%

13.7%

15.3%

16.4%

14.6%

17.7%

13.0%

13.6%

15.1%

14.9%

16.4%

14.6%

20.6%

16.7%

17.7%

17.4%

20.1%

19.0%

17.7%

20.8%

20.5%

19.1%

18.4%

22.6%

19.3%

20.6%

20.6%

17.1%

21.8%

20.5%

21.1%

22.1%

19.9%

24.2%

24.5%

25.8%

24.4%

26.4%

24.9%

26.3%

25.3%

26.4%

26.8%

26.3%

25.4%

5.0%

4.4%

5.8%

8.6%

8.0%

8.7%

3.9%

6.0%

5.1%

5.0%

6.1%

6.2%

3.5%

5.1%

6.0%

12.3%

4.4%

4.7%

6.9%

10.1%

8.4%

6.8%

12.5%

7.0%

8.0%

9.8%

15.7%

9.7%

9.0%

14.9%

13.6%

18.9%

14.2%

13.3%

10.3%

14.4%

16.2%

19.1%

13.5%

18.1%

14.6%

17.6%

24.0%

53.0%

Percentage of Grade 6 Black Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Black Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Black Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 127 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.7 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

13

16

8

56

71

11

47

44

41

15

54

55

12

79

67

26

76

57

49

23

2

60

25

1

27

97

10

53

48

9

52

51

46

34

20

4

19

32

5

77

30

29

43

96

68

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

8.0%

20.2%

17.3%

19.5%

21.3%

23.2%

23.9%

24.5%

19.3%

22.4%

27.3%

27.4%

24.8%

20.4%

16.6%

26.0%

25.5%

25.2%

22.0%

24.5%

26.9%

23.5%

24.9%

29.5%

18.1%

26.8%

17.4%

26.1%

25.8%

20.5%

24.6%

22.1%

20.9%

23.8%

19.5%

20.1%

29.2%

26.7%

23.8%

26.8%

22.8%

19.8%

26.2%

24.9%

19.9%

37.3%

11.8%

5.0%

10.6%

11.6%

11.0%

13.1%

14.1%

16.2%

16.1%

14.8%

14.5%

13.2%

15.3%

16.2%

21.6%

19.9%

16.1%

17.8%

22.4%

17.1%

19.8%

18.6%

18.3%

19.1%

20.3%

23.5%

21.5%

17.7%

20.1%

21.5%

19.4%

21.9%

19.9%

22.7%

21.4%

21.1%

22.3%

24.3%

20.7%

26.4%

23.9%

26.0%

24.5%

20.5%

26.0%

28.8%

26.9%

28.0%

4.3%

7.4%

6.2%

8.5%

5.6%

5.5%

5.2%

12.1%

9.5%

7.1%

5.2%

8.8%

7.8%

13.7%

8.3%

7.8%

4.7%

13.8%

9.1%

8.1%

12.5%

10.6%

5.0%

14.5%

8.3%

22.4%

11.4%

10.7%

18.7%

12.3%

18.1%

17.9%

16.8%

22.6%

21.4%

10.4%

20.7%

18.6%

18.8%

21.1%

26.3%

23.9%

20.2%

22.8%

10.5%

50.1%

Percentage of Grade 8 Black Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Black Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Black Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 128 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.8 Percentage of Grade 9 Black Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

8

56

57

76

11

13

12

55

16

71

67

10

79

97

49

26

60

41

27

25

44

1

53

9

4

48

5

23

2

34

77

52

54

96

68

15

32

20

51

46

19

29

30

43

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.4%

13.9%

19.5%

14.6%

16.2%

21.7%

23.2%

19.9%

19.2%

21.4%

16.0%

21.9%

21.1%

18.7%

14.6%

21.0%

23.0%

18.2%

16.1%

20.1%

24.0%

22.4%

18.6%

22.1%

21.3%

19.9%

20.1%

21.0%

23.2%

22.2%

19.7%

20.7%

17.0%

22.6%

19.8%

25.7%

28.6%

21.3%

16.9%

21.9%

15.9%

20.8%

14.4%

13.4%

14.8%

11.1%

4.9%

10.6%

12.5%

13.2%

12.2%

15.1%

14.2%

13.1%

12.9%

15.5%

20.2%

19.1%

18.5%

16.8%

16.1%

18.1%

16.7%

15.3%

18.6%

17.7%

19.8%

19.2%

23.7%

18.2%

19.1%

19.3%

18.3%

19.1%

23.0%

16.2%

20.0%

18.3%

23.4%

23.3%

21.6%

21.0%

24.9%

24.2%

26.1%

19.3%

17.3%

24.8%

19.5%

16.2%

18.7%

20.7%

7.7%

8.8%

13.7%

16.2%

8.1%

7.5%

12.4%

13.4%

8.7%

14.4%

10.2%

12.1%

17.1%

22.3%

14.9%

16.3%

22.7%

22.5%

19.6%

13.9%

16.8%

16.6%

19.6%

19.5%

20.7%

23.3%

21.7%

15.8%

23.7%

23.1%

24.4%

25.9%

20.4%

25.1%

20.8%

15.6%

23.9%

27.7%

30.1%

38.8%

30.1%

47.2%

52.1%

52.4%

60.6%

Percentage of Grade 9 Black Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Black Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Black Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 129 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.9 Percentage of Grade 3 Black Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

76

13

55

27

49

16

15

26

23

56

71

41

67

53

1

2

68

79

47

11

97

54

34

9

10

12

57

48

51

29

25

19

60

4

5

8

96

32

77

52

46

30

20

43

44

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

20.7%

24.0%

24.2%

28.3%

30.0%

24.7%

27.1%

26.1%

26.8%

28.5%

26.8%

27.5%

23.4%

28.1%

28.3%

24.6%

27.8%

29.5%

23.1%

28.3%

27.0%

14.2%

29.3%

28.0%

25.2%

27.2%

26.5%

21.5%

23.6%

27.0%

29.8%

29.6%

26.4%

27.4%

32.6%

31.1%

24.8%

26.0%

24.2%

31.5%

20.9%

27.6%

25.7%

26.5%

25.4%

23.4%

15.0%

6.5%

16.3%

14.0%

12.2%

11.4%

15.1%

13.4%

15.0%

14.9%

15.9%

18.4%

15.1%

18.0%

15.3%

15.1%

17.5%

16.0%

15.9%

19.8%

17.2%

17.3%

22.4%

18.8%

21.3%

21.3%

19.1%

21.6%

18.5%

19.5%

23.0%

20.5%

21.1%

20.1%

21.8%

20.6%

18.2%

18.4%

26.0%

24.1%

17.3%

24.3%

25.1%

24.8%

24.6%

27.9%

24.4%

27.7%

3.5%

4.5%

4.6%

4.3%

4.0%

4.1%

5.6%

3.8%

4.0%

5.6%

3.9%

3.9%

6.4%

4.2%

5.5%

15.2%

4.8%

4.2%

7.2%

7.3%

5.6%

13.7%

11.6%

4.9%

5.0%

4.9%

9.7%

9.2%

5.5%

10.1%

18.7%

10.3%

14.3%

16.5%

20.5%

13.6%

16.0%

19.0%

18.2%

24.2%

45.9%

Percentage of Grade 3 Black Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Black Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Black Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 130 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.10 Percentage of Grade 6 Black Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

8

13

16

76

55

41

12

34

44

56

47

2

15

68

67

11

71

1

54

57

25

26

23

79

97

49

48

5

60

10

52

27

53

9

46

77

4

19

51

32

96

29

20

43

30

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

11.0%

17.1%

19.6%

20.1%

21.2%

22.2%

21.7%

20.3%

20.5%

21.4%

25.6%

23.7%

26.5%

26.3%

27.2%

23.5%

24.4%

23.0%

22.5%

28.0%

18.7%

24.5%

29.5%

26.2%

21.1%

17.3%

27.3%

22.5%

25.2%

25.8%

26.9%

25.2%

28.3%

28.0%

23.6%

25.7%

25.5%

25.1%

26.7%

24.6%

25.5%

30.4%

29.3%

26.5%

24.4%

23.8%

13.4%

5.0%

7.4%

8.5%

10.6%

15.2%

11.7%

13.3%

14.6%

17.0%

14.3%

12.8%

14.6%

12.8%

13.5%

14.0%

15.0%

16.6%

16.9%

16.2%

15.8%

17.3%

19.4%

15.2%

16.9%

17.8%

19.8%

15.7%

17.0%

17.0%

19.1%

19.2%

17.4%

20.3%

19.6%

22.1%

20.1%

13.3%

21.2%

23.3%

21.3%

22.1%

21.8%

23.3%

24.5%

23.2%

24.4%

28.9%

3.0%

4.0%

4.4%

4.2%

5.4%

3.6%

6.6%

4.5%

4.6%

4.7%

4.5%

3.4%

7.1%

4.7%

7.0%

8.6%

3.7%

11.7%

4.1%

3.3%

5.4%

9.9%

12.2%

6.2%

11.2%

8.8%

8.6%

7.5%

11.7%

5.8%

7.7%

10.3%

11.2%

18.4%

13.1%

9.8%

14.0%

14.2%

11.6%

13.0%

15.8%

19.4%

21.1%

46.7%

Percentage of Grade 6 Black Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Black Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Black Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 131 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.11 Percentage of Grade 8 Black Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

8

13

16

41

11

56

47

15

12

54

44

25

76

55

26

79

2

67

71

57

49

23

27

60

10

77

97

53

34

48

9

1

4

46

51

52

32

96

20

30

19

68

43

29

5

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

11.5%

15.8%

20.4%

18.1%

21.2%

26.2%

28.7%

25.3%

25.7%

19.3%

29.4%

21.7%

25.1%

21.9%

25.1%

25.7%

18.5%

20.5%

16.9%

25.0%

20.3%

24.5%

26.4%

29.0%

25.0%

25.0%

25.0%

21.4%

29.6%

27.9%

22.5%

23.8%

30.8%

27.7%

24.5%

28.3%

22.1%

25.7%

23.7%

23.0%

22.2%

28.6%

35.6%

26.3%

26.5%

33.8%

12.7%

8.6%

10.0%

13.9%

15.0%

13.6%

11.0%

15.2%

15.1%

18.2%

13.7%

15.2%

16.8%

16.2%

15.8%

17.6%

20.9%

17.9%

19.8%

16.3%

17.9%

18.5%

18.3%

16.2%

19.3%

19.5%

16.7%

18.0%

18.6%

16.4%

18.8%

20.9%

16.9%

21.6%

22.2%

21.0%

22.1%

24.7%

27.8%

24.8%

24.2%

21.1%

26.8%

27.2%

24.3%

25.6%

31.0%

4.6%

3.5%

5.5%

8.0%

4.3%

6.1%

5.4%

5.5%

9.1%

3.9%

10.1%

5.3%

9.5%

7.1%

4.8%

8.8%

10.5%

12.6%

8.2%

13.9%

9.3%

8.3%

8.3%

9.4%

9.9%

13.2%

15.8%

8.3%

12.4%

16.3%

13.2%

12.2%

10.7%

16.4%

16.1%

22.5%

16.8%

15.8%

22.2%

24.3%

21.1%

10.4%

19.9%

24.2%

15.6%

42.7%

Percentage of Grade 8 Black Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Black Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Black Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 132 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.12 Percentage of Grade 9 Black Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

8

16

57

55

56

12

13

11

49

71

26

67

25

97

10

79

60

41

44

48

2

53

4

23

34

1

27

76

9

68

77

52

32

54

15

46

51

5

20

96

19

30

29

43

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.5%

12.5%

23.0%

19.5%

19.9%

23.4%

16.7%

25.8%

24.9%

21.0%

17.6%

25.1%

22.7%

24.5%

17.4%

24.4%

20.5%

20.1%

19.7%

23.5%

20.7%

23.4%

24.3%

16.2%

28.0%

19.3%

20.7%

24.4%

24.5%

22.7%

27.6%

15.2%

15.2%

24.4%

25.7%

30.5%

17.3%

20.6%

20.3%

19.7%

27.5%

24.4%

13.7%

16.8%

16.3%

11.8%

6.3%

9.1%

12.3%

14.8%

14.1%

12.8%

16.4%

14.9%

14.8%

15.0%

15.1%

13.4%

21.3%

19.1%

14.8%

16.8%

20.9%

16.3%

18.6%

20.1%

18.8%

18.2%

20.4%

20.1%

18.0%

18.8%

23.0%

19.5%

24.5%

20.6%

23.6%

25.8%

26.5%

25.5%

23.7%

24.4%

17.8%

26.1%

26.1%

26.4%

25.6%

25.1%

19.2%

23.1%

20.6%

24.7%

6.3%

6.5%

7.4%

8.8%

9.9%

8.8%

13.0%

6.6%

8.4%

13.2%

17.2%

12.2%

7.2%

8.9%

20.6%

12.3%

12.4%

18.5%

18.0%

14.7%

19.4%

17.5%

14.5%

22.9%

13.4%

24.0%

19.0%

18.8%

13.9%

20.1%

15.2%

26.5%

26.1%

18.3%

19.2%

14.3%

35.7%

25.3%

26.8%

27.7%

21.8%

28.2%

45.8%

41.4%

47.8%

54.2%

Percentage of Grade 9 Black Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Black Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Black Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 133 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.13 Percentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

15

27

2

41

11

34

20

47

29

67

71

56

25

76

49

55

1

19

23

68

13

96

54

53

46

12

57

51

32

26

10

9

43

16

79

77

97

60

30

4

5

8

48

50

52

44KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

16.3%

29.2%

25.3%

26.0%

24.0%

26.0%

24.0%

20.1%

28.2%

28.3%

23.3%

27.3%

28.2%

28.0%

27.3%

30.5%

30.6%

28.7%

48.1%

30.7%

30.1%

30.8%

29.4%

30.0%

32.1%

27.6%

31.4%

21.4%

30.1%

27.7%

30.4%

28.9%

31.7%

33.3%

30.4%

25.7%

31.5%

24.6%

29.3%

27.6%

35.4%

32.0%

26.7%

29.1%

22.7%

26.8%

26.2%

5.6%

9.9%

8.8%

11.0%

10.6%

12.7%

20.1%

12.2%

11.0%

14.2%

12.2%

13.1%

13.5%

14.4%

13.1%

14.3%

13.6%

17.7%

15.3%

16.8%

16.7%

17.1%

16.4%

19.4%

17.7%

21.0%

18.7%

18.7%

18.5%

20.0%

19.7%

22.2%

19.7%

23.0%

19.8%

22.5%

23.0%

24.0%

20.7%

24.3%

20.8%

26.2%

30.8%

26.3%

25.0%

2.9%

4.8%

3.1%

4.1%

3.3%

5.4%

4.0%

3.8%

3.4%

4.9%

2.9%

10.3%

4.6%

7.1%

4.6%

5.6%

4.1%

5.9%

7.9%

5.9%

12.4%

7.3%

8.7%

4.4%

6.0%

17.9%

11.2%

13.1%

17.5%

21.1%

Percentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 134 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.14 Percentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

41

2

56

11

13

47

46

67

77

34

71

8

55

27

16

54

19

76

23

25

68

96

12

97

44

53

49

26

9

29

52

43

79

1

60

32

57

10

4

30

5

51

48

20

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

9.5%

20.0%

22.7%

21.3%

23.5%

27.5%

30.5%

23.6%

22.2%

25.0%

28.0%

25.5%

24.8%

28.4%

32.1%

26.2%

27.6%

21.4%

25.1%

29.0%

29.4%

29.8%

25.0%

26.5%

22.7%

25.0%

30.0%

30.0%

29.5%

27.6%

30.9%

24.5%

19.5%

16.2%

25.7%

27.2%

27.9%

21.4%

28.2%

31.5%

25.3%

32.1%

29.6%

26.3%

33.4%

23.7%

3.3%

8.9%

9.2%

11.2%

10.4%

11.9%

11.0%

13.7%

15.4%

13.4%

14.0%

14.2%

14.6%

13.0%

13.4%

14.8%

15.2%

25.0%

15.2%

13.4%

14.1%

15.3%

19.2%

18.3%

15.4%

17.2%

17.5%

17.6%

16.6%

17.6%

16.9%

21.9%

19.5%

25.1%

20.4%

20.2%

19.8%

23.3%

21.4%

19.2%

20.8%

18.8%

19.7%

21.4%

20.0%

30.6%

3.3%

3.1%

3.1%

6.4%

6.1%

5.6%

4.4%

6.1%

4.0%

4.8%

3.5%

6.4%

4.6%

3.7%

3.4%

4.8%

4.5%

11.6%

8.3%

4.3%

4.5%

6.2%

7.2%

5.0%

6.4%

14.6%

12.6%

8.9%

7.9%

9.2%

12.4%

7.6%

7.0%

11.9%

8.0%

9.7%

12.5%

12.5%

21.2%

Percentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 135 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.15 Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

2

11

56

41

77

47

25

16

67

54

34

23

71

13

76

8

12

46

44

55

53

9

27

97

20

60

49

29

52

26

79

43

4

1

96

32

10

48

30

51

5

57

50

68

19KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.0%

19.1%

22.4%

20.1%

20.5%

20.2%

26.7%

25.7%

23.4%

22.2%

27.4%

16.6%

24.5%

24.3%

27.4%

24.6%

24.6%

23.5%

28.4%

21.4%

27.2%

28.9%

25.3%

24.3%

23.1%

24.0%

25.9%

29.7%

27.3%

23.7%

27.6%

18.2%

20.0%

27.1%

22.5%

26.1%

27.5%

27.0%

25.4%

25.0%

27.8%

28.1%

22.3%

17.5%

35.3%

35.0%

4.5%

12.6%

10.2%

12.7%

12.8%

16.9%

14.4%

15.8%

15.8%

15.5%

14.6%

23.8%

17.9%

15.4%

16.0%

15.1%

16.3%

20.4%

13.5%

18.8%

16.7%

18.3%

17.4%

21.7%

16.9%

21.1%

20.7%

19.3%

19.4%

21.2%

20.5%

26.3%

22.9%

23.3%

26.0%

20.2%

22.1%

23.9%

21.8%

22.0%

23.5%

23.8%

27.1%

31.3%

30.2%

30.0%

4.0%

3.7%

4.5%

6.4%

7.5%

3.6%

3.5%

6.2%

8.4%

4.3%

6.6%

4.7%

7.9%

4.5%

8.7%

8.5%

7.8%

10.0%

11.7%

8.1%

5.0%

10.1%

7.0%

14.5%

10.6%

9.4%

8.3%

11.0%

13.3%

10.2%

14.1%

17.1%

9.8%

12.6%

15.2%

12.2%

11.9%

16.2%

16.4%

12.5%

13.1%

16.1%

27.6%

11.8%

30.0%

Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 136 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.16 Percentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Male Students Absent, 2019-20

14

56

8

12

11

67

57

77

55

25

97

16

4

2

71

41

13

53

9

23

76

1

54

49

27

10

60

34

5

15

52

79

32

96

26

44

51

48

30

46

20

19

68

29

43

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

9.2%

20.8%

19.8%

14.7%

20.1%

20.9%

16.1%

21.6%

20.9%

23.5%

18.3%

23.0%

15.0%

21.5%

19.7%

20.9%

30.1%

23.6%

24.2%

19.7%

21.4%

19.9%

23.9%

26.7%

26.4%

26.4%

19.7%

23.3%

22.0%

33.3%

17.5%

17.5%

25.0%

21.9%

24.1%

24.9%

22.1%

23.8%

15.4%

17.0%

15.8%

17.8%

29.6%

18.8%

20.3%

14.6%

5.8%

10.0%

10.8%

12.4%

12.0%

14.3%

17.6%

13.0%

14.2%

18.4%

15.5%

16.6%

16.4%

14.2%

17.2%

15.3%

16.1%

19.8%

17.3%

22.5%

16.5%

20.8%

18.4%

16.0%

15.4%

19.8%

16.4%

17.6%

17.0%

29.2%

20.3%

25.4%

23.6%

23.4%

19.3%

19.9%

22.5%

24.1%

18.2%

15.4%

25.1%

24.4%

22.1%

18.0%

20.3%

26.4%

3.6%

6.9%

8.0%

12.1%

7.3%

8.7%

10.9%

12.8%

12.9%

6.4%

15.8%

10.5%

19.0%

15.1%

14.6%

16.4%

7.1%

11.7%

13.8%

13.1%

17.7%

15.1%

13.8%

14.0%

15.4%

11.5%

21.6%

17.2%

20.0%

24.7%

21.1%

15.5%

18.7%

21.1%

20.3%

20.7%

19.2%

33.6%

36.2%

27.8%

26.7%

21.1%

40.5%

46.9%

47.2%

Percentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Male Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Male Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Male Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 137 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.17 Percentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

15

2

41

34

11

29

47

67

25

71

20

56

27

76

55

49

96

23

68

43

54

13

46

1

53

51

12

32

19

9

10

26

79

16

97

57

77

30

60

4

5

50

8

48

52

44KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

18.8%

23.1%

24.6%

25.9%

26.4%

27.6%

28.2%

22.1%

26.7%

26.0%

27.8%

29.0%

27.7%

27.3%

30.0%

28.1%

27.8%

35.5%

29.1%

35.1%

30.5%

30.7%

24.5%

31.2%

35.4%

28.5%

32.5%

28.7%

28.6%

30.1%

29.7%

34.7%

27.4%

31.8%

21.2%

21.1%

33.1%

25.7%

29.7%

35.7%

27.8%

25.9%

29.2%

28.1%

25.5%

26.4%

7.2%

27.8%

8.9%

10.4%

12.2%

10.4%

10.3%

10.4%

15.1%

13.3%

14.0%

15.0%

12.5%

17.5%

14.4%

13.5%

14.2%

14.9%

12.3%

16.6%

13.5%

16.1%

16.2%

19.3%

14.6%

13.8%

20.0%

16.4%

17.3%

25.7%

21.0%

19.4%

16.6%

18.5%

19.2%

23.1%

21.5%

18.9%

22.2%

22.1%

19.8%

24.6%

20.9%

19.6%

26.5%

28.6%

28.1%

4.1%

3.6%

4.4%

4.6%

2.9%

3.1%

3.1%

7.6%

5.7%

3.6%

3.5%

6.6%

3.5%

5.5%

4.1%

9.7%

4.7%

12.0%

13.9%

5.8%

9.9%

6.8%

4.3%

7.9%

14.9%

14.6%

10.7%

15.5%

17.8%

Percentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Hispanic Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 138 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.18 Percentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

2

41

11

23

56

27

47

34

67

13

8

55

76

16

77

49

71

25

97

54

46

96

68

12

53

1

29

44

9

52

20

26

60

19

32

10

15

4

43

57

48

30

79

5

51

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

9.2%

20.6%

18.9%

22.0%

21.5%

21.9%

22.1%

28.0%

26.5%

21.5%

26.4%

22.2%

26.6%

23.3%

24.7%

23.0%

25.3%

25.3%

27.9%

21.8%

28.0%

23.1%

22.6%

29.2%

25.7%

26.6%

25.9%

32.3%

23.2%

25.6%

26.1%

36.3%

28.9%

26.6%

34.2%

27.7%

28.5%

54.2%

26.7%

23.7%

23.9%

27.5%

26.4%

26.1%

35.0%

31.0%

19.9%

2.9%

7.7%

8.0%

8.8%

11.0%

10.7%

13.9%

8.6%

8.8%

13.1%

11.3%

13.7%

11.9%

14.0%

13.1%

14.4%

13.5%

14.3%

13.3%

13.2%

14.3%

15.5%

16.9%

13.8%

15.4%

14.2%

16.9%

11.9%

16.6%

17.1%

14.3%

14.5%

18.1%

19.2%

18.4%

17.9%

18.8%

20.0%

15.8%

19.4%

19.9%

23.1%

24.4%

19.1%

22.2%

27.3%

2.8%

4.7%

4.4%

3.0%

4.4%

4.0%

4.3%

4.2%

3.5%

8.3%

2.9%

6.8%

6.1%

3.1%

5.2%

5.7%

5.5%

4.1%

8.5%

6.0%

8.3%

4.9%

6.5%

7.6%

6.4%

8.1%

15.8%

13.0%

10.0%

9.3%

8.4%

4.9%

7.6%

20.9%

Percentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Hispanic Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 139 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.19 Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

19

15

11

2

41

25

56

47

16

77

8

67

54

97

13

20

79

23

46

76

12

29

71

43

53

27

55

9

26

60

52

44

49

32

10

34

4

96

48

1

30

57

51

5

68

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

10.9%

23.3%

21.5%

20.9%

22.0%

22.9%

22.6%

25.8%

23.2%

24.9%

23.8%

22.1%

26.8%

21.9%

28.1%

18.6%

21.3%

28.9%

25.0%

25.1%

24.1%

26.3%

26.6%

28.6%

29.1%

27.0%

29.5%

26.1%

25.4%

26.1%

29.1%

26.5%

27.2%

28.2%

28.9%

27.5%

30.6%

25.6%

27.2%

24.0%

24.6%

19.5%

27.1%

30.0%

34.8%

20.8%

4.7%

26.3%

9.2%

8.2%

10.8%

13.4%

12.8%

13.6%

14.0%

13.3%

14.3%

16.0%

15.0%

15.1%

15.2%

29.6%

18.0%

15.1%

18.3%

16.8%

19.2%

17.5%

16.3%

23.8%

15.1%

18.0%

17.2%

19.1%

21.8%

19.7%

18.1%

18.1%

23.8%

20.7%

21.2%

23.4%

21.7%

21.6%

22.4%

22.8%

23.9%

28.2%

26.6%

20.8%

27.1%

27.4%

3.3%

4.9%

4.9%

4.6%

3.6%

6.0%

6.6%

7.2%

8.0%

4.5%

10.8%

4.5%

9.0%

4.6%

7.0%

8.6%

8.1%

7.8%

9.2%

8.2%

8.0%

6.6%

9.2%

7.4%

9.5%

8.4%

11.3%

7.2%

10.2%

9.8%

10.5%

9.0%

14.2%

12.8%

16.1%

14.5%

15.9%

11.4%

15.5%

11.4%

26.6%

Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 140 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.20 Percentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Female Students Absent, 2019-20

14

8

56

57

11

12

25

55

67

97

16

77

41

71

4

13

34

15

9

2

49

60

54

23

10

20

79

76

53

26

52

32

30

1

44

51

27

46

5

48

96

29

68

43

19

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10.4%

19.9%

20.7%

14.4%

21.3%

19.3%

23.2%

22.8%

21.8%

18.7%

23.8%

24.2%

22.1%

22.1%

15.2%

30.0%

21.3%

22.7%

23.4%

24.7%

24.0%

20.5%

25.7%

24.2%

26.7%

25.4%

22.5%

22.1%

29.6%

24.1%

18.8%

27.0%

18.2%

24.4%

22.6%

25.3%

22.4%

17.1%

23.4%

25.2%

28.9%

21.0%

30.0%

20.0%

20.0%

16.4%

5.1%

10.4%

11.1%

15.6%

11.8%

14.1%

14.3%

13.5%

16.5%

15.6%

15.8%

13.4%

15.0%

16.1%

20.2%

17.4%

13.3%

31.8%

19.0%

18.1%

20.1%

16.5%

19.3%

23.3%

21.5%

19.5%

18.6%

19.2%

18.2%

20.3%

21.0%

23.8%

16.7%

21.8%

23.0%

26.3%

24.6%

19.8%

22.4%

25.7%

23.9%

20.0%

23.8%

17.1%

34.3%

25.8%

5.6%

5.5%

7.7%

6.1%

11.0%

7.4%

9.8%

8.2%

12.6%

9.2%

11.9%

13.0%

14.3%

17.6%

5.6%

19.4%

12.3%

11.9%

10.9%

18.0%

11.6%

9.4%

10.0%

13.5%

17.6%

17.8%

11.4%

15.8%

22.8%

12.6%

28.6%

17.6%

18.3%

14.3%

19.1%

29.4%

20.7%

17.3%

15.5%

28.6%

16.7%

34.3%

25.7%

41.0%

Percentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Female Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Female Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Hispanic Female Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 141 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.21 Percentage of Grade 3 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent, 2019-20

14

11

67

2

71

15

77

41

34

56

76

25

13

1

27

26

12

23

47

68

54

29

16

96

53

57

60

51

10

9

19

32

4

30

97

48

8

5

43

52

46

79

44

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

18.7%

26.1%

22.9%

24.3%

26.1%

25.2%

24.5%

27.6%

25.8%

29.8%

27.7%

27.4%

27.3%

24.6%

30.4%

28.6%

29.5%

31.6%

29.5%

30.0%

29.7%

28.8%

29.0%

28.5%

30.9%

21.4%

27.2%

28.4%

28.4%

30.6%

28.8%

27.4%

33.6%

24.7%

20.1%

27.4%

25.7%

31.5%

27.2%

22.8%

26.3%

35.1%

23.8%

14.9%

7.2%

11.3%

14.7%

16.4%

14.5%

15.5%

15.4%

14.5%

16.9%

14.1%

15.1%

16.4%

16.8%

17.9%

15.9%

16.6%

18.1%

17.2%

18.3%

18.0%

18.4%

19.3%

19.2%

19.0%

18.8%

19.9%

20.9%

21.7%

21.1%

22.0%

20.7%

21.2%

21.5%

23.1%

25.2%

25.1%

21.1%

27.2%

23.4%

24.4%

27.5%

30.3%

27.4%

26.4%

4.6%

3.6%

3.8%

4.3%

5.7%

4.1%

3.8%

3.9%

3.1%

4.0%

6.5%

4.4%

3.4%

4.1%

4.1%

4.5%

5.1%

5.3%

6.2%

4.1%

12.7%

7.6%

6.4%

7.0%

5.1%

9.3%

10.2%

5.5%

14.7%

18.5%

12.5%

19.3%

9.5%

18.2%

23.5%

17.5%

11.6%

26.8%

45.9%

Percentage of Grade 3 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 142 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.22 Percentage of Grade 6 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

11

56

13

8

41

67

16

34

2

76

15

12

54

25

68

71

26

60

1

23

47

57

9

44

27

96

52

10

97

48

53

19

32

51

4

5

30

29

46

43

79

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10.2%

16.0%

22.9%

22.0%

23.5%

22.4%

24.5%

22.0%

23.7%

23.3%

22.5%

24.5%

26.1%

23.2%

27.8%

27.7%

28.1%

26.1%

27.0%

24.3%

20.9%

26.9%

27.4%

20.1%

25.5%

24.4%

27.8%

25.9%

23.5%

27.6%

22.1%

25.6%

28.9%

26.5%

27.2%

27.0%

28.4%

30.4%

22.9%

28.8%

23.6%

23.1%

35.0%

12.7%

3.7%

10.2%

10.5%

11.6%

11.8%

13.1%

12.3%

13.9%

13.8%

15.2%

14.0%

15.1%

14.2%

17.8%

16.2%

16.7%

16.2%

17.3%

16.8%

18.3%

19.5%

17.9%

17.9%

19.9%

18.8%

18.1%

20.6%

21.3%

20.2%

21.9%

19.9%

20.5%

21.9%

22.3%

22.5%

23.0%

23.7%

22.4%

23.4%

23.6%

24.1%

24.1%

32.7%

27.1%

4.8%

3.2%

5.3%

4.1%

5.6%

4.4%

3.8%

6.5%

5.8%

5.4%

5.8%

3.9%

3.7%

4.0%

5.0%

5.2%

7.5%

9.7%

5.9%

6.1%

12.2%

8.4%

11.1%

7.3%

9.6%

13.5%

8.9%

17.3%

13.5%

9.2%

11.3%

11.8%

11.8%

10.4%

10.8%

17.5%

12.5%

17.3%

18.8%

16.0%

48.7%

Percentage of Grade 6 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 143 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.23 Percentage of Grade 8 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

11

56

16

2

13

8

25

67

15

41

54

12

60

71

76

47

26

23

57

44

27

9

34

1

53

97

10

48

4

30

52

51

32

5

46

96

29

19

43

68

79

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

12.3%

16.3%

21.9%

21.6%

21.4%

17.6%

23.5%

22.2%

26.0%

21.7%

26.1%

24.6%

27.4%

21.2%

23.7%

25.2%

26.0%

26.4%

25.6%

27.1%

20.7%

22.6%

28.2%

25.8%

23.6%

20.1%

27.8%

23.3%

26.9%

24.4%

28.7%

21.1%

22.9%

26.5%

27.1%

26.0%

22.6%

24.9%

25.3%

27.0%

24.2%

34.5%

32.3%

13.1%

5.0%

10.6%

10.4%

13.6%

13.9%

15.5%

14.4%

14.1%

15.8%

15.6%

14.3%

14.9%

15.1%

19.8%

18.5%

18.3%

17.8%

19.9%

19.8%

20.1%

20.1%

18.8%

20.7%

20.2%

20.3%

23.5%

22.8%

20.0%

23.9%

22.4%

24.0%

22.4%

21.2%

24.5%

24.5%

25.0%

24.4%

24.8%

22.5%

21.8%

26.7%

29.4%

32.2%

28.3%

6.1%

3.8%

5.3%

6.3%

9.8%

5.3%

7.8%

3.7%

8.3%

6.1%

7.4%

4.8%

9.8%

9.1%

9.7%

9.4%

7.1%

8.9%

8.1%

14.7%

14.1%

8.3%

11.5%

13.6%

15.5%

12.4%

19.9%

12.6%

17.3%

11.4%

20.6%

20.4%

15.0%

14.7%

17.0%

21.2%

19.2%

22.0%

21.8%

20.5%

12.7%

19.3%

46.7%

Percentage of Grade 8 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 144 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.24 Percentage of Grade 9 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent, 2019-20

14

77

8

56

11

57

67

12

16

25

4

13

60

2

71

1

34

26

10

41

97

9

54

27

76

23

53

5

52

48

51

44

32

96

15

68

30

79

19

46

43

29

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.1%

14.4%

18.0%

21.0%

20.7%

16.4%

20.8%

18.6%

21.3%

24.4%

14.6%

27.0%

18.5%

19.3%

20.7%

20.1%

21.4%

22.7%

25.9%

24.6%

19.4%

25.1%

24.0%

23.2%

22.8%

26.0%

24.9%

21.3%

17.1%

23.1%

21.8%

23.7%

25.2%

24.2%

29.8%

28.1%

14.0%

26.1%

22.5%

14.1%

14.4%

16.1%

11.4%

6.6%

9.7%

11.7%

11.3%

12.2%

14.3%

15.8%

14.5%

15.5%

17.4%

18.6%

17.1%

15.2%

16.9%

19.2%

20.3%

17.0%

17.9%

21.4%

19.0%

19.1%

20.7%

21.4%

19.4%

20.1%

22.6%

21.6%

23.2%

22.5%

23.5%

24.2%

23.9%

26.0%

24.9%

25.0%

22.8%

16.7%

27.0%

24.1%

18.7%

19.3%

21.4%

20.2%

3.8%

9.4%

7.6%

6.6%

6.9%

10.9%

8.5%

12.1%

9.7%

8.0%

18.3%

8.3%

19.2%

19.1%

16.9%

18.1%

20.2%

18.0%

13.2%

17.1%

22.6%

16.5%

17.0%

20.0%

20.4%

14.8%

17.4%

21.2%

27.8%

21.3%

22.7%

21.3%

17.7%

20.6%

15.2%

19.6%

42.5%

21.4%

29.2%

46.7%

49.0%

46.3%

60.9%

Percentage of Grade 9 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 145 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.25 Percentage of Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Absent, 2019-20

14

47

71

15

1

67

11

49

76

77

41

55

2

56

13

12

23

26

57

29

27

79

68

16

53

9

96

10

54

5

97

25

34

51

4

60

32

19

43

8

46

30

52

48

20

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

17.3%

20.3%

25.3%

24.2%

27.2%

23.2%

29.7%

27.9%

26.5%

25.8%

27.5%

29.3%

29.9%

28.7%

31.1%

26.7%

32.9%

29.0%

19.7%

29.1%

33.9%

23.9%

29.7%

30.2%

30.5%

28.9%

29.0%

28.7%

29.9%

31.1%

18.9%

30.5%

32.0%

29.7%

29.5%

29.1%

27.3%

29.5%

27.3%

26.7%

25.5%

25.5%

21.9%

25.6%

24.9%

15.6%

6.7%

13.9%

16.2%

16.5%

14.5%

17.6%

15.1%

16.8%

18.2%

18.1%

17.4%

17.9%

16.2%

17.5%

18.6%

23.1%

20.0%

21.9%

22.1%

21.6%

18.2%

22.8%

24.1%

20.4%

21.1%

22.8%

23.5%

22.4%

22.7%

21.7%

23.1%

23.5%

22.4%

23.5%

23.9%

24.8%

24.5%

25.2%

23.8%

20.8%

26.1%

25.4%

24.1%

28.6%

29.3%

29.6%

3.5%

4.3%

5.2%

4.8%

5.8%

4.4%

5.2%

5.9%

6.9%

6.0%

4.0%

5.1%

5.4%

4.8%

6.0%

4.8%

14.9%

6.0%

4.7%

11.1%

4.4%

7.8%

7.0%

7.0%

6.4%

8.0%

6.8%

6.8%

18.0%

6.2%

6.8%

8.5%

8.5%

10.4%

13.0%

10.1%

14.8%

18.6%

16.0%

19.8%

24.8%

17.2%

17.6%

41.8%

Percentage of Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 Students with Disabilities Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 146 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.26 Percentage of Grade 6 Students with Disabilities Absent, 2019-20

14

77

47

41

13

8

11

67

97

56

55

16

15

23

71

57

49

1

2

54

76

12

34

44

68

79

27

26

10

9

60

25

4

46

96

52

5

19

53

43

48

29

51

32

20

30

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.2%

18.3%

21.4%

23.0%

26.3%

25.1%

26.2%

22.1%

17.7%

25.3%

25.2%

26.5%

21.0%

25.6%

25.9%

20.3%

26.5%

26.4%

24.4%

29.1%

27.2%

24.9%

24.7%

27.2%

31.4%

18.7%

25.3%

28.3%

25.8%

25.5%

26.4%

28.5%

25.1%

22.0%

25.4%

22.2%

32.9%

22.6%

27.3%

23.3%

24.6%

28.7%

25.2%

26.2%

23.6%

22.0%

14.1%

4.8%

13.9%

15.0%

15.2%

14.3%

13.9%

15.1%

17.1%

19.1%

16.3%

16.0%

15.5%

18.8%

20.5%

19.3%

21.5%

21.0%

19.5%

21.9%

20.3%

18.3%

22.8%

24.1%

19.7%

21.3%

26.5%

24.3%

21.8%

23.2%

21.4%

23.2%

24.4%

23.5%

22.9%

22.8%

23.2%

19.7%

26.7%

24.0%

22.6%

23.2%

21.1%

25.0%

24.4%

26.2%

29.7%

27.0%

6.3%

5.3%

6.5%

4.6%

6.7%

5.1%

7.9%

11.4%

6.7%

7.8%

7.3%

11.3%

5.5%

7.4%

13.0%

8.1%

9.8%

9.7%

6.8%

10.9%

9.0%

8.6%

11.1%

6.2%

14.1%

9.7%

9.5%

11.0%

13.2%

11.6%

8.6%

12.9%

17.2%

14.1%

18.1%

11.1%

15.4%

13.5%

19.1%

17.9%

16.4%

16.5%

16.9%

19.2%

24.9%

49.4%

Percentage of Grade 6 Students with Disabilities Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Students with Disabilities Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 Students with Disabilities Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 147 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.27 Percentage of Grade 8 Students with Disabilities Absent, 2019-20

14

47

77

11

8

56

41

13

16

2

76

15

27

54

71

55

67

23

57

12

44

97

25

9

49

10

1

60

79

51

20

26

34

48

43

53

52

5

32

4

46

29

19

96

30

68

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14.4%

17.1%

19.6%

25.3%

21.4%

24.9%

22.5%

25.2%

21.8%

21.7%

23.4%

25.7%

25.2%

27.7%

22.2%

25.4%

23.1%

28.9%

19.5%

23.2%

24.2%

18.7%

25.6%

26.0%

26.9%

25.4%

21.7%

25.0%

20.8%

23.2%

17.3%

27.3%

17.8%

23.2%

22.6%

26.1%

22.9%

24.8%

24.3%

28.4%

23.0%

23.8%

26.8%

20.3%

19.5%

29.3%

13.7%

7.1%

15.2%

13.9%

15.8%

17.1%

15.9%

16.9%

18.1%

17.1%

14.3%

16.0%

15.8%

19.5%

19.5%

20.5%

19.6%

22.3%

19.8%

21.9%

22.6%

21.1%

19.1%

27.8%

20.8%

20.6%

23.5%

23.1%

23.8%

24.1%

23.9%

24.4%

22.6%

24.7%

21.5%

22.6%

24.0%

21.3%

25.0%

25.5%

28.2%

24.6%

22.3%

19.5%

28.8%

27.4%

30.5%

28.3%

6.4%

10.3%

6.8%

10.3%

9.1%

10.4%

7.4%

12.0%

17.8%

15.0%

13.2%

9.9%

8.2%

13.2%

11.3%

11.3%

8.3%

17.7%

14.3%

15.2%

23.3%

7.7%

14.6%

14.8%

13.6%

18.3%

14.4%

18.6%

18.0%

24.4%

16.3%

24.0%

21.8%

21.7%

17.3%

23.7%

19.2%

19.8%

13.2%

22.4%

25.3%

26.3%

23.7%

29.7%

18.3%

48.5%

Percentage of Grade 8 Students with Disabilities Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Students with Disabilities Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 Students with Disabilities Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 148 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.28 Percentage of Grade 9 Students with Disabilities Absent, 2019-20

14

8

51

57

77

56

55

11

97

16

67

12

41

71

13

79

25

2

4

1

9

10

27

49

23

60

52

15

54

76

53

20

5

26

48

44

32

96

34

29

68

19

46

43

30

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.1%

19.6%

12.8%

15.3%

19.3%

24.9%

20.7%

22.6%

15.0%

20.4%

22.7%

20.3%

18.4%

19.1%

28.9%

21.0%

24.2%

19.5%

19.9%

20.8%

23.2%

26.5%

20.1%

23.7%

25.3%

19.1%

16.0%

23.1%

21.1%

21.1%

22.2%

15.3%

22.3%

21.9%

20.2%

22.8%

22.8%

19.3%

20.5%

10.3%

22.0%

16.2%

13.9%

15.9%

11.0%

10.2%

8.5%

12.7%

14.3%

16.6%

13.6%

13.5%

12.7%

16.4%

16.0%

19.6%

18.1%

17.4%

17.1%

21.7%

19.8%

15.9%

20.0%

18.4%

20.1%

21.0%

20.2%

21.5%

17.8%

19.5%

24.7%

17.9%

19.9%

22.6%

23.1%

21.7%

23.3%

21.6%

24.5%

19.8%

22.9%

23.0%

26.7%

23.4%

22.4%

14.5%

30.8%

22.9%

16.4%

18.4%

17.0%

16.8%

5.3%

9.7%

16.9%

13.4%

13.9%

10.0%

16.0%

11.2%

22.1%

14.3%

14.7%

18.9%

21.8%

17.9%

10.2%

22.2%

15.6%

22.0%

21.7%

19.8%

18.7%

14.3%

24.4%

19.2%

14.1%

28.3%

29.6%

19.8%

22.1%

23.6%

21.9%

30.7%

20.9%

26.5%

25.9%

23.6%

20.9%

29.3%

31.0%

50.9%

24.7%

39.5%

49.1%

45.3%

56.7%

64.8%

Percentage of Grade 9 Students with Disabilities Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Students with Disabilities Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 Students with Disabilities Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 149 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.29 Percentage of Grade 3 English Language Learners Absent, 2019-20

14

25

67

76

41

2

34

11

29

71

27

49

47

12

77

19

68

1

55

26

56

53

20

43

54

97

79

13

96

23

51

46

16

60

15

30

10

9

57

5

4

32

52

48

50

8

44KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

18.7%

22.8%

20.3%

24.2%

22.9%

25.1%

22.1%

24.5%

25.2%

25.3%

25.0%

26.3%

28.5%

24.8%

24.1%

30.0%

26.2%

24.4%

28.4%

26.4%

28.3%

31.3%

21.4%

29.2%

28.1%

16.7%

25.6%

27.3%

29.1%

32.8%

28.8%

26.8%

26.4%

27.1%

28.9%

26.8%

29.0%

32.2%

19.4%

28.9%

33.1%

26.9%

24.0%

26.3%

22.8%

24.2%

24.3%

5.7%

8.1%

10.7%

8.6%

9.3%

8.9%

11.3%

9.7%

10.2%

10.6%

12.1%

10.5%

9.5%

12.6%

12.7%

10.0%

12.7%

12.8%

12.6%

14.0%

13.4%

11.2%

16.5%

15.8%

14.3%

17.2%

20.5%

16.4%

14.7%

14.8%

17.6%

16.9%

18.4%

18.4%

22.2%

19.9%

18.7%

19.8%

22.7%

21.4%

19.8%

20.2%

23.5%

24.4%

24.9%

22.5%

27.3%

3.2%

4.1%

2.7%

6.2%

2.7%

11.9%

3.1%

3.1%

3.3%

6.1%

5.5%

5.3%

5.3%

5.7%

3.6%

13.8%

5.7%

3.9%

9.8%

12.9%

12.5%

15.6%

22.3%

23.7%

Percentage of Grade 3 English Language Learners Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 English Language Learners Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 3 English Language Learners Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 150 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.30 Percentage of Grade 6 English Language Learners Absent, 2019-20

14

41

77

16

13

2

34

79

19

12

67

76

15

97

11

25

56

71

43

23

26

68

47

27

8

55

1

54

46

44

49

60

29

96

53

9

5

57

10

30

52

4

32

48

20

51

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

10.3%

18.7%

17.6%

17.7%

21.3%

22.3%

22.3%

25.0%

18.1%

21.4%

23.1%

37.1%

18.4%

23.4%

28.0%

22.2%

25.2%

29.2%

22.6%

24.4%

27.0%

29.4%

28.4%

23.4%

26.6%

22.2%

26.8%

25.8%

21.4%

27.4%

25.0%

28.8%

23.6%

29.3%

25.5%

29.7%

22.9%

24.0%

27.7%

27.3%

29.5%

25.6%

24.8%

31.1%

28.7%

22.4%

3.8%

7.8%

9.1%

9.4%

8.6%

8.2%

9.6%

34.6%

10.0%

13.9%

10.5%

11.0%

11.1%

11.1%

10.8%

13.3%

12.6%

11.3%

13.2%

13.5%

13.0%

10.9%

14.7%

14.1%

12.9%

16.3%

14.9%

13.7%

16.9%

15.7%

16.8%

14.1%

19.4%

17.2%

18.0%

16.0%

22.5%

22.1%

20.2%

19.9%

20.0%

21.0%

21.9%

19.1%

22.5%

28.9%

3.6%

4.1%

3.2%

3.5%

7.9%

3.2%

3.9%

4.9%

4.0%

6.0%

4.2%

6.1%

3.4%

6.8%

8.3%

4.8%

6.6%

5.7%

5.9%

4.3%

8.5%

6.8%

8.1%

7.4%

5.9%

6.9%

8.9%

12.1%

13.0%

10.2%

9.7%

20.8%

Percentage of Grade 6 English Language Learners Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 English Language Learners Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 6 English Language Learners Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 151 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.31 Percentage of Grade 8 English Language Learners Absent, 2019-20

14

25

77

79

41

13

16

11

15

76

8

67

2

47

56

12

54

97

49

71

26

23

44

46

1

60

27

53

29

55

34

43

19

20

52

9

30

10

4

48

32

5

57

96

51

68

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

12.7%

23.6%

17.7%

20.8%

20.5%

15.7%

23.1%

18.5%

24.3%

20.0%

19.8%

26.3%

25.8%

20.8%

21.6%

25.5%

20.2%

23.1%

24.8%

23.9%

25.7%

20.0%

23.7%

21.3%

24.8%

19.5%

30.3%

24.0%

26.5%

23.6%

25.9%

30.8%

29.5%

26.5%

25.5%

26.4%

26.0%

28.0%

24.0%

24.4%

31.2%

20.2%

22.3%

27.1%

34.2%

19.6%

5.2%

8.5%

12.1%

36.8%

11.0%

12.6%

14.8%

11.4%

22.2%

11.1%

14.5%

15.9%

10.5%

14.2%

16.3%

17.3%

16.1%

15.5%

17.3%

16.6%

17.6%

17.6%

18.2%

17.4%

20.4%

18.4%

26.8%

15.8%

16.6%

17.6%

21.5%

22.2%

6.6%

19.0%

18.0%

20.2%

20.2%

21.4%

23.4%

21.5%

21.4%

17.9%

27.4%

23.2%

26.4%

27.7%

29.7%

6.7%

5.2%

4.1%

8.1%

4.9%

5.8%

7.9%

6.8%

7.0%

4.2%

7.7%

6.8%

5.6%

11.5%

7.4%

7.3%

8.2%

6.5%

11.8%

10.0%

9.5%

8.9%

6.1%

6.5%

12.9%

9.4%

9.3%

7.4%

19.8%

9.2%

13.3%

12.1%

12.2%

11.9%

8.4%

14.7%

15.4%

12.8%

15.1%

20.1%

12.5%

12.8%

29.8%

Percentage of Grade 8 English Language Learners Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 English Language Learners Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 8 English Language Learners Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 152 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

3.32 Percentage of Grade 9 English Language Learners Absent, 2019-20

4

14

79

12

57

77

11

8

97

67

49

25

16

56

13

55

41

2

1

71

60

53

10

26

54

9

23

5

76

34

32

30

15

27

52

20

19

51

48

44

46

68

96

29

43

50KP

IID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

6.1%

11.1%

14.8%

17.4%

19.8%

20.0%

17.6%

16.0%

21.0%

20.7%

24.6%

17.1%

23.6%

24.8%

18.2%

21.6%

23.2%

18.4%

20.5%

18.9%

25.5%

26.0%

22.4%

24.0%

22.9%

23.2%

19.0%

27.3%

24.9%

23.0%

18.7%

30.3%

21.0%

19.2%

21.7%

28.9%

22.9%

21.7%

19.6%

17.7%

29.6%

23.0%

18.4%

11.0%

17.3%

5.4%

7.5%

33.3%

11.4%

15.8%

11.2%

13.6%

14.1%

13.8%

15.2%

15.2%

16.8%

18.2%

14.5%

15.9%

15.7%

14.8%

16.7%

19.2%

18.9%

15.7%

18.3%

20.3%

17.6%

19.5%

19.6%

22.9%

20.7%

18.9%

15.8%

21.5%

16.8%

33.3%

20.5%

22.4%

22.9%

22.3%

23.8%

26.2%

24.5%

16.6%

22.6%

28.4%

18.6%

14.9%

27.2%

9.9%

4.7%

10.2%

8.2%

10.7%

9.4%

11.8%

13.8%

9.0%

10.9%

5.4%

12.3%

11.0%

8.5%

15.6%

15.8%

13.8%

16.3%

15.6%

20.9%

12.2%

11.0%

17.7%

14.4%

17.1%

13.5%

20.3%

14.5%

20.2%

17.3%

27.7%

22.3%

22.2%

20.9%

14.9%

20.1%

19.5%

24.5%

37.0%

20.5%

23.3%

38.9%

51.3%

43.1%

Percentage of Grade 9 English Language Learners Absent 5-9 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 English Language Learners Absent 10-19 DaysPercentage of Grade 9 English Language Learners Absent 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 153 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 154 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Discipline Indicators

The discipline indicators in this section focus on out-of-school suspensions. Thetwo KPIs for discipline include the percentage of students suspended for 1 to 5days, 6 to 10 days, 11 to 19 days, or 20 or more days in the school year, and thetotal number of instructional days missed due to suspension for the year. Figures4.1 to 4.24 show the percentage of students who were suspended out-of-school for1 to 5 days, 6 to 10 days, 11 to 19 days, and more than 20 days cumulatively overthe course of the school year. The unit of analysis is students. Figures 4.25 to 4.48show the number of instructional days missed per 100 students in each district.These data allow districts to compare numbers of lost instructional daysindependent of overall district enrollment. The unit of analysis is number of dayssuspended per 100 students.

The Council of The Great City Schools 155 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.1 Percentage of Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

60

32

25

9

1

54

13

77

16

26

56

71

5

48

41

97

29

68

76

46

49

55

67

8

14

12

44

10

40

47

4

52

19

23

53

50

43

57

51

30

34

27

2

15

79KP

IID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

1.2%

1.3%

1.3%

1.8%

1.9%

2.0%

1.9%

2.1%

1.9%

2.7%

2.9%

2.9%

3.3%

3.2%

3.2%

3.1%

3.2%

3.8%

3.5%

4.1%

4.2%

4.1%

5.0%

4.3%

4.8%

4.5%

5.0%

2.7%

5.8%

6.2%

6.1%

7.5%

7.1%

6.6%

6.9%

6.4%

7.2%

6.6%

11.3%

7.7%

0.8%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.8%

0.8%

0.5%

0.8%

0.5%

0.5%

0.7%

0.5%

0.7%

0.8%

0.7%

1.7%

1.0%

1.0%

1.8%

1.2%

1.5%

2.1%

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.8%

2.6%

1.0%

0.6%

0.8%

0.7%

0.9%

1.2%

0.7%

1.3%

1.1%

0.6%

1.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.8%

Percentage of Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 156 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.1: Total number of Students suspendedfor specified lengths of time divided by the totalnumber of Students, 2019-20Figure 4.2: Percentage Point Change in Studentswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 4.3: Trends in Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.2 Percentage Point Change in Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

50

4

76

41

79

40

9

27

12

47

53

67

57

30

54

68

71

1

49

46

97

56

13

11

44

8

48

5

14

51

KPIID

−5 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −1.5

−9.0

−5.1

−4.7

−2.8

−2.6

−2.5

−2.2

−2.1

−2.0

−2.0

−1.9

−1.8

−1.7

−1.7

−1.5

−1.5

−1.5

−1.4

−1.3

−1.2

−1.0

−0.9

−0.9

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

−0.1

0.0

0.0

1.1

2.3

4.3 Trends in Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

9.1%

3.6%

8.0%

3.3%

9.3%

3.5%

7.4%

2.2%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong BeachLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattle

Clark CountyDallasDaytonDetroit

Fort WorthSan AntonioToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 157 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.4 Percentage of Black Male Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

32

11

60

25

54

13

9

26

1

46

29

16

56

71

48

41

68

14

77

5

49

76

97

55

12

44

19

47

8

50

52

4

57

40

10

15

67

53

43

34

27

30

2

23

79

51KP

IID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

1.0%

2.2%

2.3%

2.8%

2.7%

3.2%

3.0%

4.3%

5.0%

5.8%

6.2%

6.0%

4.7%

6.1%

6.4%

6.5%

7.1%

7.6%

6.2%

7.4%

8.9%

7.0%

9.3%

8.9%

4.6%

9.4%

8.8%

8.8%

10.6%

10.3%

9.8%

11.2%

13.8%

14.7%

12.2%

12.2%

13.2%

9.5%

11.9%

11.3%

10.9%

14.3%

12.5%

14.6%

0.9%

0.8%

1.7%

1.2%

0.9%

1.2%

1.3%

1.0%

1.7%

1.5%

1.0%

1.8%

1.0%

1.7%

3.0%

1.7%

2.2%

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

2.4%

1.8%

1.2%

2.4%

2.4%

1.9%

3.5%

3.2%

3.6%

3.2%

3.1%

4.3%

4.9%

0.9%

1.1%

1.5%

1.0%

0.9%

1.2%

0.9%

2.4%

1.4%

1.7%

2.4%

0.9%

1.9%

2.1%

2.1%

1.6%

1.0%

1.6%

1.6%

Percentage of Black Male Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Black Male Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Black Male Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Black Male Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 158 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Male Students with Out-of-School Suspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.4: Total number of Black Male Studentssuspended for specified lengths of time divided bythe total number of Black Male Students, 2019-20Figure 4.5: Percentage Point Change in BlackMale Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.6: Trends in Black Male Students withOut-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.5 Percentage Point Change in Black Male Students withOut-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

4

76

41

50

12

79

1

9

40

47

53

68

71

27

54

67

56

49

30

97

57

46

14

11

13

8

48

44

5

51

KPIID

−10 −5 0 5

Percentage Point Change

Median −3.3

−13.2

−10.3

−7.6

−7.5

−6.7

−6.3

−6.2

−5.4

−4.9

−4.8

−4.5

−4.4

−4.2

−4.1

−4.1

−3.3

−3.2

−2.9

−2.6

−2.4

−1.9

−1.6

−1.6

−1.3

−1.0

−0.9

−0.6

−0.3

−0.1

0.5

5.8

4.6 Trends in Black Male Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

17.9%

9.5%

17.4%

9.4%

19.6%

9.8%

15.0%

6.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Baltimore CityBostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyDistrict of Columbia

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSan DiegoSeattle

DallasDaytonDes MoinesDetroit

San AntonioSeattleToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 159 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.7 Percentage of Black Female Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

32

11

60

25

13

54

9

1

26

16

56

46

29

76

48

5

68

71

14

77

49

41

8

19

55

44

97

67

50

47

12

4

10

40

15

57

34

52

53

27

23

2

43

79

30

51KP

IID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1.4%

1.7%

1.7%

1.5%

2.0%

2.4%

2.6%

3.1%

2.9%

3.5%

3.7%

2.7%

3.8%

4.2%

3.9%

4.5%

4.5%

3.5%

4.3%

3.9%

1.9%

4.0%

5.0%

5.9%

5.8%

5.2%

6.5%

6.5%

6.3%

7.7%

6.9%

8.6%

6.6%

6.6%

9.0%

8.6%

7.7%

9.0%

7.6%

9.0%

7.9%

9.2%

9.6%

0.5%

1.1%

0.7%

1.0%

0.7%

1.3%

1.4%

1.3%

1.0%

0.7%

1.6%

1.0%

0.9%

1.5%

0.7%

0.9%

1.4%

1.8%

1.3%

1.5%

2.2%

1.6%

2.2%

2.0%

3.0%

2.7%

3.3%

0.9%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.6%

0.9%

0.6%

1.4%

0.7%

1.3%

1.1%

1.2%

1.8%

0.7%

0.6%

0.7%

0.6%

0.8%

Percentage of Black Female Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Black Female Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Black Female Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Black Female Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 160 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Black Female Students withOut-of-School Suspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.7: Total number of Black FemaleStudents suspended for specified lengths of timedivided by the total number of Black FemaleStudents, 2019-20Figure 4.8: Percentage Point Change in BlackFemale Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.9: Trends in Black Female Students withOut-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.8 Percentage Point Change in Black Female Studentswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

19

76

4

41

9

50

40

79

67

54

53

47

57

71

1

68

97

56

12

49

30

8

27

11

46

13

48

44

5

14

51

KPIID

−5 0 5

Percentage Point Change

Median −1.9

−8.5

−6.3

−5.2

−3.8

−3.7

−3.6

−3.4

−2.9

−2.8

−2.3

−2.1

−2.1

−2.1

−2.0

−2.0

−1.9

−1.8

−1.6

−1.5

−1.4

−1.1

−0.9

−0.9

−0.8

−0.8

−0.6

−0.3

−0.2

0.0

0.4

4.3

4.9 Trends in Black Female Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

10.8%

5.3%

10.2%

5.1%

12.4%

5.4%

8.8%

3.9%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Baltimore CityBostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSan DiegoSeattle

Clark CountyDallasDaytonDetroit

Fort WorthSan AntonioToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 161 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.10 Percentage of Hispanic Male Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

60

32

25

13

54

9

43

29

1

56

97

46

77

26

41

71

44

48

16

5

50

52

68

12

55

49

76

8

47

40

4

53

67

10

2

15

27

23

30

14

34

57

51

79KP

IID

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

1.1%

1.1%

1.9%

1.7%

1.8%

2.4%

2.5%

2.4%

2.4%

2.5%

2.5%

2.8%

2.9%

2.2%

3.0%

3.1%

3.0%

3.6%

3.7%

3.9%

3.3%

3.5%

3.6%

3.8%

4.5%

3.9%

4.3%

4.6%

4.7%

5.4%

4.3%

6.1%

4.7%

5.6%

4.8%

5.7%

4.6%

6.0%

6.0%

7.4%

0.9%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.6%

0.6%

0.5%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.8%

0.6%

0.7%

0.4%

0.9%

0.8%

0.6%

1.0%

0.6%

1.3%

0.9%

2.0%

2.0%

0.4%

0.5%

0.7%

0.7%

0.5%

0.9%

0.6%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Male Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Male Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Male Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 162 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Male Students withOut-of-School Suspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.10: Total number of Hispanic MaleStudents suspended for specified lengths of timedivided by the total number of Hispanic MaleStudents, 2019-20Figure 4.11: Percentage Point Change in HispanicMale Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.12: Trends in Hispanic Male Studentswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.11 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic Male Studentswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

76

50

57

67

1

40

9

79

41

12

71

30

53

27

97

68

56

54

47

49

11

44

5

13

48

46

8

14

51

KPIID

−6 −4 −2 0 2

Percentage Point Change

Median −1.3

−5.8

−3.5

−3.5

−2.9

−2.5

−2.4

−2.4

−2.3

−2.2

−2.2

−2.0

−1.8

−1.6

−1.5

−1.4

−1.3

−1.3

−1.0

−1.0

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.3

1.3

2.0

4.12 Trends in Hispanic Male Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

7.4%

3.7%

7.1%

4.1%

7.5%

3.7%

5.6%

2.6%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoClark CountyDistrict of ColumbiaLong BeachLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkPittsburghSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDetroitFort Worth

FresnoSan AntonioSeattleWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 163 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.13 Percentage of Hispanic Female Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

60

32

25

13

54

9

29

77

5

56

26

1

46

48

41

16

44

97

43

15

49

50

8

55

52

68

71

23

40

53

67

47

76

12

2

10

4

30

27

14

51

57

34

79KP

IID

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0.2%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

0.8%

1.1%

1.2%

1.2%

1.3%

1.2%

1.4%

0.9%

1.3%

1.4%

1.4%

1.5%

1.8%

1.9%

1.5%

1.6%

1.6%

1.7%

2.1%

1.9%

1.9%

2.4%

2.1%

2.2%

2.3%

2.6%

2.4%

2.7%

2.1%

2.9%

2.5%

2.8%

3.1%

3.6%

3.0%

4.2%

3.7%

4.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%

0.4%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

0.4%

0.9%

0.7%

1.1%

1.5%

0.5%

0.3%

0.6%

0.7%

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Female Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Female Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Hispanic Female Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 164 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Hispanic Female Students withOut-of-School Suspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.13: Total number of Hispanic FemaleStudents suspended for specified lengths of timedivided by the total number of Hispanic FemaleStudents, 2019-20Figure 4.14: Percentage Point Change in HispanicFemale Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.15: Trends in Hispanic Female Studentswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.14 Percentage Point Change in Hispanic FemaleStudents with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

57

50

76

9

41

4

30

67

71

40

1

68

53

56

54

79

97

12

47

11

49

13

27

5

48

46

44

8

51

14

KPIID

−2 −1 0 1 2

Percentage Point Change

Median −0.4

−2.0

−1.6

−1.3

−1.2

−1.2

−1.1

−0.9

−0.9

−0.8

−0.7

−0.6

−0.6

−0.5

−0.5

−0.5

−0.3

−0.2

−0.2

−0.1

−0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.3

1.1

1.7

4.15 Trends in Hispanic Female Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

3.5%

1.8%

3.5%

1.9%

3.9%

1.9%

3.0%

1.4%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoClark CountyDistrict of ColumbiaLong BeachLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkSan FranciscoSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDallasDetroit

FresnoMilwaukeeSan AntonioWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 165 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.16 Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

60

32

25

54

9

13

77

26

56

1

16

71

41

48

29

76

68

5

67

97

47

46

12

14

8

40

4

19

44

10

53

52

57

50

34

30

51

43

15

2

23

79

27KP

IID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1.1%

1.4%

1.2%

1.8%

1.8%

2.2%

2.4%

2.2%

2.5%

2.8%

3.1%

2.5%

3.5%

3.4%

3.8%

3.9%

4.1%

4.4%

4.1%

4.1%

4.8%

4.9%

4.6%

4.7%

5.3%

2.7%

5.8%

7.0%

7.1%

7.5%

7.1%

6.9%

6.4%

7.3%

7.0%

9.4%

11.3%

7.7%

10.1%

8.4%

9.1%

0.4%

1.0%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.9%

0.6%

0.5%

1.1%

0.6%

1.0%

1.7%

1.1%

0.6%

1.2%

1.1%

1.5%

2.1%

1.9%

2.1%

2.3%

1.6%

2.1%

1.9%

2.8%

2.4%

1.0%

0.4%

0.8%

0.8%

1.2%

0.9%

0.8%

0.5%

1.6%

0.6%

1.2%

1.0%

0.6%

1.5%

0.5%

0.5%

1.0%

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 166 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students with Out-of-School

SuspensionsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.16: Total number of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students suspended forspecified lengths of time divided by the totalnumber of Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students, 2019-20Figure 4.17: Percentage Point Change in Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.18: Trends in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.17 Percentage Point Change in Free or Reduced-PriceLunch (FRPL) Students with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20

50

19

79

4

76

27

53

1

41

40

30

71

57

68

54

67

47

56

97

13

44

11

8

12

5

46

48

14

51

KPIID

−15 −10 −5 0 5

Percentage Point Change

Median −1.6

−16.1

−10.2

−5.8

−5.1

−3.0

−2.8

−2.8

−2.6

−2.4

−2.3

−2.2

−1.7

−1.7

−1.7

−1.6

−1.5

−1.5

−1.1

−1.0

−0.3

−0.3

−0.2

−0.2

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

1.5

5.3

4.18 Trends in Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

10.3%

5.2%

10.4%

4.5%

11.3%

4.6%

9.6%

2.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong BeachLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkSan FranciscoSeattle

DaytonDetroitJeffersonNorfolk

San AntonioSeattleToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 167 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.19 Percentage of Students with Disabilities with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

32

13

60

9

77

25

54

1

16

26

56

71

48

97

41

5

29

76

4

68

47

46

8

14

40

67

49

55

44

10

12

52

19

50

57

53

23

43

27

15

34

30

51

2

79KP

IID

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.7%

1.6%

1.6%

1.9%

2.1%

2.4%

3.4%

3.7%

3.7%

3.8%

3.7%

4.6%

4.4%

4.9%

4.6%

5.0%

6.0%

6.2%

6.2%

5.4%

5.9%

6.7%

6.2%

6.5%

5.7%

5.7%

8.0%

9.0%

9.2%

8.9%

5.2%

8.4%

9.4%

11.5%

11.5%

13.2%

10.3%

14.9%

8.7%

9.6%

11.0%

10.4%

13.6%

0.7%

0.9%

0.9%

1.0%

1.0%

0.9%

1.2%

1.4%

1.3%

0.9%

0.8%

1.3%

1.6%

1.5%

1.4%

0.7%

1.5%

1.6%

2.7%

3.0%

2.4%

1.8%

2.5%

2.0%

3.5%

0.7%

3.6%

3.4%

4.3%

3.1%

4.4%

0.8%

0.8%

1.7%

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

2.3%

2.1%

1.1%

2.3%

1.0%

0.9%

1.7%

1.1%

0.7%

2.0%

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of Students with Disabilities Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of Students with Disabilities Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of Students with Disabilities Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 168 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of Students with Disabilities withOut-of-School Suspensions

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.19: Total number of Students withDisabilities suspended for specified lengths oftime divided by the total number of Students withDisabilities, 2019-20Figure 4.20: Percentage Point Change in Studentswith Disabilities with Out-of-School Suspensions,2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.21: Trends in Students with Disabilitieswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.20 Percentage Point Change in Students with Disabilitieswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4

19

50

47

12

79

41

76

40

67

30

68

53

27

71

54

49

1

9

56

46

97

57

8

11

48

13

5

44

14

51

KPIID

−10 −5 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −2.6

−9.9

−9.3

−6.2

−5.7

−5.2

−4.6

−4.5

−4.5

−4.5

−4.1

−4.0

−3.9

−3.7

−3.7

−2.9

−2.6

−2.5

−2.4

−2.4

−1.4

−1.4

−1.3

−1.1

−0.6

−0.6

−0.4

0.1

0.1

0.7

1.1

2.4

4.21 Trends in Students with Disabilities with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

15.2%

6.5%

14.2%

6.3%

16.2%

6.2%

13.2%

4.3%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong BeachLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattle

DallasDaytonDes MoinesDetroit

NashvilleSan AntonioToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 169 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.22 Percentage of English Language Learners with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2019-20

11

60

32

25

54

13

29

9

1

26

77

97

48

44

41

19

71

56

16

46

5

49

76

43

10

68

50

55

79

67

8

40

47

4

53

12

15

30

2

23

27

52

14

57

51

34KP

IID

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.3%

0.6%

0.7%

1.0%

0.9%

1.0%

1.2%

1.2%

1.7%

1.2%

1.9%

1.8%

1.3%

1.9%

2.0%

1.9%

2.1%

2.3%

1.9%

2.2%

2.7%

2.7%

2.5%

2.4%

2.6%

3.3%

2.8%

2.9%

3.0%

3.5%

3.2%

3.5%

3.6%

4.3%

3.5%

3.5%

4.5%

4.2%

4.6%

4.7%

5.1%

4.6%

4.7%

0.5%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.5%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.6%

0.7%

0.5%

0.9%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

1.4%

1.1%

0.4%

0.3%

0.4%

0.6%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

Percentage of English Language Learners Suspended 1-5 DaysPercentage of English Language Learners Suspended 6-10 DaysPercentage of English Language Learners Suspended 11-19 DaysPercentage of English Language Learners Suspended 20+ Days

The Council of The Great City Schools 170 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Percentage of English Language Learnerswith Out-of-School SuspensionsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.22: Total number of English LanguageLearners suspended for specified lengths of timedivided by the total number of English LanguageLearners, 2019-20Figure 4.23: Percentage Point Change in EnglishLanguage Learners with Out-of-SchoolSuspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.24: Trends in English Language Learnerswith Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.23 Percentage Point Change in English LanguageLearners with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to2019-20

57

4

50

19

53

56

9

79

76

41

1

67

12

71

30

40

68

97

47

11

54

44

48

13

49

5

46

8

27

14

51

KPIID

−4 −2 0 2

Percentage Point Change

Median −0.8

−3.9

−3.5

−2.9

−2.8

−2.6

−2.3

−2.1

−2.0

−1.8

−1.7

−1.6

−1.3

−1.2

−1.2

−0.9

−0.8

−0.6

−0.5

−0.5

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.2

0.0

0.1

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.2

1.6

1.6

4.24 Trends in English Language Learners with Out-of-School Suspensions, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

4.8%

2.4%

5.0%

2.5%

4.9%

2.4%

4.2%

1.8%

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyDistrict of ColumbiaLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkPinellasSan FranciscoSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDaytonDetroit

JeffersonLong BeachToledoWichita

The Council of The Great City Schools 171 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.25 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students, 2019-20

11

13

32

54

25

1

77

60

9

5

56

16

26

71

97

41

68

29

10

12

67

14

48

44

47

52

46

8

49

55

23

53

43

40

50

57

30

51

34

79

15

19

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students

Median 15.5

0.5

1.8

1.9

3.1

3.3

4.7

4.8

4.8

4.9

5.7

5.8

6.1

6.2

7.1

8.4

9.9

10.7

11.3

14.6

14.9

15.2

15.8

16.8

18.4

18.5

19.5

20.1

20.6

23.7

25.6

26.2

29.4

33.0

40.5

43.0

46.0

51.7

62.7

62.9

67.3

73.4

96.9

The Council of The Great City Schools 172 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students

Note: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.25: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.26: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.27: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.26 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

53

57

9

41

47

79

1

49

40

67

46

71

68

54

30

44

97

13

48

12

14

56

8

11

5

51

KPIID

−30 −20 −10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median −6.2

−31.0

−22.0

−16.4

−15.2

−11.8

−10.9

−10.9

−10.8

−9.5

−8.4

−7.3

−7.1

−7.0

−6.2

−5.4

−5.3

−5.2

−4.9

−4.6

−4.0

−3.5

−3.1

−2.9

−1.0

−0.5

0.2

13.6

4.27 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

49.0

16.8

47.1

10.9

57.8

12.1

27.8

5.9

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong BeachLos AngelesMiami

New YorkNewarkPortlandSan FranciscoSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDallasDetroit

JeffersonNashvilleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 173 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.28 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black Male Students, 2019-20

11

32

13

54

25

26

60

9

56

1

29

16

71

68

5

41

97

14

46

77

12

47

44

10

52

48

43

49

8

67

53

50

55

57

23

15

30

79

34

40

19

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black Male Students

Median 37.3

2.3

2.7

3.9

6.8

7.6

11.8

14.6

16.3

19.5

19.5

20.7

21.7

23.7

24.3

24.9

25.9

28.1

28.2

29.1

33.5

37.3

39.8

40.7

41.9

43.0

43.2

53.0

53.7

55.2

55.5

63.3

64.7

65.3

68.4

71.9

96.6

96.7

109.3

114.5

119.1

139.2

The Council of The Great City Schools 174 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black

Male StudentsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.28: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.29: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Black Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.30: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Black Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.29 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

53

50

79

9

1

41

14

47

49

57

67

71

68

40

97

54

44

12

13

46

48

56

30

8

11

5

KPIID

−40 −20 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −15.6

−50.2

−47.2

−44.1

−43.2

−42.2

−34.2

−28.5

−24.5

−23.3

−21.1

−19.4

−18.9

−16.4

−14.7

−14.2

−12.7

−12.6

−11.6

−11.4

−11.3

−9.9

−9.5

−5.5

−5.2

−2.2

3.5

4.30 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

89.6

43.0

106.1

34.6

102.2

40.0

61.3

21.0

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSeattle

Clark CountyDallasDetroit

JeffersonSeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 175 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.31 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black Female Students, 2019-20

11

32

13

25

54

26

60

1

9

56

16

5

68

29

14

77

71

41

46

97

67

10

44

48

12

47

49

8

50

52

55

57

23

53

43

15

40

34

30

79

19

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black Female Students

Median 23.0

0.7

1.4

2.3

4.2

4.7

7.8

8.1

8.8

8.9

10.6

10.7

11.1

13.2

13.2

15.3

16.8

17.2

17.7

18.2

18.2

23.0

24.7

24.9

25.1

26.0

26.2

28.4

29.8

35.2

36.5

39.0

42.8

44.8

45.5

50.5

55.3

55.4

61.1

64.3

80.7

111.8

The Council of The Great City Schools 176 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black

Female StudentsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.31: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.32: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Black Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.33: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Black Female Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.32 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

53

9

40

1

50

57

41

47

67

49

97

71

79

68

54

48

44

13

46

30

8

56

14

11

5

12

KPIID

−30 −20 −10 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −8.5

−33.9

−30.4

−20.8

−19.9

−19.5

−18.0

−17.1

−15.6

−15.2

−14.4

−11.0

−9.5

−8.8

−8.1

−8.1

−8.0

−7.0

−6.2

−5.3

−5.0

−4.2

−3.6

−3.2

−1.8

1.6

1.8

4.33 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Black FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

54.7

24.8

57.6

19.2

62.0

21.2

38.4

10.8

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSeattle

Clark CountyClevelandDetroit

Fort WorthJeffersonSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 177 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.34 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic Male Students, 2019-20

11

19

13

25

54

32

9

60

97

43

29

56

26

77

1

41

5

71

44

16

46

12

68

52

47

10

15

48

53

8

67

49

23

55

50

14

30

34

57

40

79

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic Male Students

Median 11.8

0.6

1.2

1.3

1.9

2.6

2.6

5.3

5.7

6.7

6.9

6.9

7.0

8.1

8.4

8.6

8.8

9.2

9.8

10.1

10.8

11.8

11.9

12.3

12.3

15.1

15.2

17.2

17.9

17.9

18.9

19.2

19.4

19.8

20.2

20.6

22.8

30.9

34.0

36.9

39.1

64.6

The Council of The Great City Schools 178 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic

Male StudentsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.34: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.35: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Hispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.36: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Hispanic Male Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.35 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

1

57

9

53

71

67

41

40

50

49

30

97

68

14

12

47

56

79

44

54

13

48

8

11

46

5

KPIID

−20 −10 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −5.5

−24.8

−22.5

−15.5

−13.0

−11.5

−10.1

−9.7

−9.4

−8.3

−6.7

−6.6

−6.6

−6.0

−5.1

−4.9

−4.3

−4.1

−4.0

−3.4

−3.3

−2.8

−2.3

−1.0

−0.5

−0.3

0.4

4.36 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic MaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

33.3

14.3

31.7

12.7

30.7

11.6

19.1

6.9

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoClark CountyDaytonLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkPinellasPittsburgh

AustinClark CountyClevelandDallas

FresnoJeffersonSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 179 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.37 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic Female Students, 2019-20

11

13

54

32

25

29

9

56

60

77

26

1

97

16

5

41

46

44

68

15

52

71

47

23

10

49

48

67

55

53

50

8

43

12

14

30

40

57

34

79

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic Female Students

Median 6.4

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.1

1.2

2.5

2.8

3.1

3.1

3.5

3.7

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

5.0

5.2

5.6

6.1

6.6

6.9

7.0

7.1

8.0

8.1

8.1

8.2

8.4

8.5

8.5

8.8

9.3

9.6

14.2

15.1

15.5

18.5

28.2

37.2

The Council of The Great City Schools 180 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic

Female StudentsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.37: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.38: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Hispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 4.39: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Hispanic Female Students, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.38 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 HispanicFemale Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

57

9

1

41

71

53

30

67

50

68

47

48

56

40

54

13

97

44

49

11

14

46

5

12

8

79

KPIID

−10 −5 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −1.6

−9.9

−7.0

−6.6

−4.9

−4.3

−4.3

−3.9

−3.6

−3.3

−2.7

−2.3

−2.0

−1.8

−1.5

−1.4

−1.2

−1.1

−0.9

−0.6

−0.2

0.9

1.4

1.5

1.8

1.9

3.4

4.39 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Hispanic FemaleStudents, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

13.6

6.3

13.0

5.1

14.3

4.9

8.5

3.7

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

Broward CountyChicagoClark CountyDistrict of ColumbiaLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSan Francisco

AustinClark CountyClevelandDallas

JeffersonMilwaukeeSeattle

The Council of The Great City Schools 181 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.40 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch(FRPL) Students, 2019-20

11

32

13

25

54

60

9

77

56

26

16

71

1

41

5

68

97

29

67

47

12

14

10

48

44

8

46

52

53

43

40

57

23

50

30

34

15

79

19

KPIID

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students

Median 17.2

0.5

2.1

2.5

3.2

3.6

5.9

6.2

6.6

6.9

7.4

8.8

10.7

10.9

11.3

11.5

12.7

13.5

14.0

16.5

17.2

17.4

19.4

21.0

22.4

26.6

27.2

28.1

30.2

34.3

42.2

45.3

46.0

48.7

50.0

55.1

62.9

73.4

74.1

96.9

The Council of The Great City Schools 182 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Free or

Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) StudentsNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.40: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.41: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20Figure 4.42: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL)Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

4.41 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Free orReduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

79

53

1

57

41

71

47

30

44

40

68

97

67

13

54

56

48

8

46

11

5

12

14

KPIID

−100 −50 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −6.9

−92.6

−30.4

−29.8

−22.8

−16.4

−11.1

−10.0

−9.6

−8.8

−8.5

−7.9

−7.4

−6.5

−6.4

−6.1

−5.9

−3.7

−3.5

−2.1

−0.7

−0.4

0.8

1.4

17.1

4.42 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Students, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

60.1

20.0

53.8

14.0

68.8

14.1

36.3

8.4

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSan Francisco

ClevelandDetroitJefferson

SeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 183 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.43 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students with Disabilities, 2019-20

11

13

32

54

25

9

77

60

56

26

97

16

1

5

71

41

48

29

68

14

47

10

8

67

44

46

12

52

43

53

49

55

23

40

57

50

79

30

15

34

19

KPIID

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students with Disabilities

Median 25.3

0.8

1.2

3.0

5.8

6.9

7.3

7.7

10.3

11.3

11.4

12.8

13.3

13.4

15.4

16.0

18.0

20.5

21.7

23.2

24.5

25.3

25.5

29.7

31.1

32.4

38.8

38.9

42.7

46.6

47.8

48.3

50.0

51.4

64.2

70.5

74.3

92.2

100.8

106.5

114.6

124.0

The Council of The Great City Schools 184 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students

with DisabilitiesNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.43: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.44: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Students with Disabilities, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 4.45: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 Students with Disabilities, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.44 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students withDisabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

50

40

79

47

53

49

67

57

1

41

9

68

30

71

46

12

54

97

56

14

44

8

48

13

11

5

KPIID

−40 −30 −20 −10 0

Percentage Point Change

Median −15.5

−42.9

−30.8

−27.9

−27.3

−25.0

−24.3

−23.8

−23.7

−20.7

−20.1

−18.9

−18.1

−16.2

−14.9

−14.4

−11.1

−9.6

−5.8

−4.8

−4.6

−4.1

−3.7

−2.4

−1.6

−1.5

0.9

4.45 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 Students withDisabilities, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

77.0

28.0

80.0

23.5

84.1

22.2

48.2

12.9

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoClark CountyLong Beach

Los AngelesMiamiNew YorkNewarkSan Francisco

DetroitFort WorthFresnoGuilford County

JeffersonNashvilleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 185 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

4.46 Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 English Language Learners, 2019-20

11

32

25

13

54

60

29

26

77

97

9

5

1

56

44

71

41

16

10

43

68

46

48

67

49

47

12

53

8

55

52

50

23

14

15

79

30

57

40

19

34

KPIID

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 English Language Learners

Median 8.3

0.3

0.8

0.9

0.9

1.3

2.8

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.3

4.9

5.3

5.4

5.6

5.6

6.1

6.2

6.8

6.8

8.1

8.3

9.2

9.2

10.2

10.9

11.0

11.1

12.2

13.1

13.2

14.3

14.4

15.4

16.9

17.5

17.8

19.0

22.1

24.3

24.4

31.9

The Council of The Great City Schools 186 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Number of Instructional Days Missed Due toOut-of-School Suspensions per 100 English

Language LearnersNote: Lower values and larger decreases are desired

Figure 4.46: Total number of instructional daysmissed due to out-of-school suspensions dividedby total student enrollment multiplied by 100,2019-20Figure 4.47: Difference in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 English Language Learners, 2016-17 to2019-20Figure 4.48: Trends in Number of InstructionalDays Missed Due to Out-of-School Suspensionsper 100 English Language Learners, 2016-17 to2019-20

4.47 Difference in Number of Instructional Days MissedDue to Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 EnglishLanguage Learners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

57

53

9

79

1

71

56

41

50

67

30

44

68

97

12

47

48

13

40

54

14

11

49

5

46

8

KPIID

−30 −20 −10 0 10

Percentage Point Change

Median −2.6

−25.6

−17.9

−14.0

−9.6

−9.3

−8.9

−8.0

−7.5

−7.0

−5.0

−4.3

−4.1

−2.8

−2.3

−2.3

−1.9

−1.9

−1.6

−1.4

−1.1

−0.9

−0.8

−0.5

1.5

2.3

4.6

4.48 Trends in Number of Instructional Days Missed Dueto Out-of-School Suspensions per 100 English LanguageLearners, 2016-17 to 2019-20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Lower Quartile Upper Quartile

20.8

10.6

22.6

8.9

20.5

7.8

14.1

5.0

Best Quartile for Overall Performance

(2019-20)

Best Quartile for Change in Performance

(2016-17 to 2019-20)

BostonBroward CountyChicagoDistrict of ColumbiaLos Angeles

MiamiNew YorkNewarkPinellasSan Francisco

AustinClark CountyClevelandJefferson

Long BeachSeattleToledo

The Council of The Great City Schools 187 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

APPENDIX A. DATA COLLECTION

INSTRUMENTS

The Council of The Great City Schools 188 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 189 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 190 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 191 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 192 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 193 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 194 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 195 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

APPENDIX B. COUNCIL OF THE

GREAT CITY SCHOOLS

The Council of The Great City Schools 196 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

Council of the Great City Schools

The Council of the Great City Schools is a coalition of 76 of the nation’s

largest urban public school systems. Its board of directors is composed of

the superintendent of schools and one school board member from each

member city. An Executive Committee of 24 individuals, equally divided

in number between superintendents and school board members, provides

regular oversight of the 501(c) (3) organization. The mission of the Council

is to advocate for urban public education and assist its members in the

improvement of leadership and instruction. The Council provides services

to its members in the areas of legislation, research, communications,

curriculum and instruction, and management. The group convenes two

major conferences each year; conducts research and studies on urban school

conditions and trends; and operates ongoing networks of senior school

district managers with responsibilities in areas such as federal programs,

operations, finance, personnel, communications, research, and technology.

The Council was founded in 1956 and incorporated in 1961 and has its

headquarters in Washington, DC.

Chair of the Board

Barbara Jenkins

Superintendent, Orange County Public Schools

Chair-elect

Kelly Gonez

School Board, Los Angeles Unified School District

Secretary/Treasurer

William Hite

Superintendent, The School District of Philadelphia

Immediate Past Chair

Michael O’Neill

School Committee, Boston Public Schools

Executive Director

Raymond Hart

Council of the Great City Schools

The Council of The Great City Schools 197 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021

The Council of The Great City Schools 198 Academic Key Performance Indicators 2021