GEMS

gems - Girls in Engineering, Mathematics, and Science Minneapolis, Minnesota 1997-2007

Single-gender, inquiry-based, teleologically drive, culminative events Designed specifically for 4th-12th grade girls Principally funded by the Medtronic Foundation, NASA Space Grant, Best Buy Foundation, ADC Foundation, Mortenson Family Foundation, and Lockheed Martin Corporation Coordinated partnerships within the STEM community and higher education

Attendance increased to 95% 44% increase in ‘on track to graduate’ 39% increase in passing required graduation tests Demand exceeded capacity

Julie Blue

1

Comparison Study of GEMS vs. No GEMS (2006-2007) • The following provides a descriptive comparison of students in the GEMS Program vs. students not in the GEMS Program in the following areas: – Demographics – NALT Mean Fall 2007 NCE – Graduation Requirements – Attendance *

In this data analysis, the number of “sessions” refers to participation in one year’s after school program or participation in one year of summer school. (Two sessions could refer to two years in the after-school program or one year in the after-school program and one year in summer school, etc.)

GEMS 2006-07 BACKGROUND •

• •

Julie Blue

812 current and former GEMS students were enrolled for at least some period of time in the Minneapolis Public Schools during the 2006-07 school year. They comprise 5 1/2 % of all of the MPS students whose demographic, enrollment, achievement, and attendance data are reported here.

All district comparison groups include girls only, and frequently only specific grade levels are selected to better match GEMS participation.

While ELL students, students of poverty, and students of color remain slightly underrepresented in GEMS, there has been a significant increase in number of students of color reported. In the 2004-2005 data, 54% of GEMS, current and former, were students of color. As reported in this data, 61.7% of GEMS, current and former, are students of color, with the largest increase being in the Hispanic population of students.

2

GEMS 2006-07 RESULTS •

• •

• •

Former and current GEMS students show stronger performance on each measure reported (NALT Math and Reading, Attendance, Level of School Enrollment, and Graduation Requirements) than do the district comparison group.

Former and current GEMS maintain their stronger performance when results are disaggregated by grade level, racial/ethnic group, poverty status, and ELL. The analysis of current and former GEMS, grades 9-12, not only indicates an overwhelmingly stronger performance on tests (reading, math, writing) required for graduation, but in 12th grade, 100 % of current and former GEMS in this study have met all graduation requirements. The racial/ ethnic groups showing the largest difference (GEMS/No GEMS) are African Americans and Hispanic.

Current and former GEMS are less mobile than those students who have not participated in GEMS. In general, the more GEMS sessions a student has attended, the stronger her performance on math, reading, attendance, and enrollment measures reported, and the stronger her performance on tests required for graduation, thus increasing her chances of graduating from high school.

Summary of GEMS Participants* •

•

Number of GEMS sessions attended: – 1 session, 64.3% – 2 sessions, 22.2% – 3 sessions, 7.3% – 4 or more sessions, 6.2% Racial/Ethnic Group: – 62% are students of color (38% are white) • • • •

•

2% American Indian 32% African American 15% Asian 12% Hispanic

Other Demographics – 50% are eligible for free or reduced price lunch – 12% are English Language Learners – 4% are enrolled in Special Education

*Summary Statistics Include Any Student Who Has Ever Participated in the GEMS Program (Through the 2006-2007 School Year; Grades 4-12) and Who Was Enrolled in MPS During 2006-2007 (n=812)

Julie Blue

3

GEMS 2006-07 NEXT STEPS •

In the fall of 2007, we identified a matched sample of GEMS/non-GEMS who had entered the 9th grade. We will continue tracking these students as they progress through high school, identifying course selection, GPA, performance on tests required for graduation, and college selection. We will also conduct case studies on three GEMS (11th and 12th grades) in order to collect qualitative data on the impact of GEMS not only on academic achievement and performance, but also on college selections and career choices.

•

As the GEMS program continues to grow, both within school sites and to include other school sites, we will examine NALT year’s growth in all content areas to determine specific areas that need to be addressed in curriculum design and implementation in both the after-school program and the summer school program.

GEMS Demographic Analysis • This analysis of the demographics of participants in the GEMS program includes any student who has ever participated in the GEMS program (through the 2006-2007 school year; girls only; grades 4-12) and who was enrolled in the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) at any point during the 2006-2007 school year (n=812).

• In the demographic analyses conducted here, the GEMS students described above are compared to other MPS students (girls only, grades 4-12) who were enrolled in MPS at any point during the 2006-2007 school year (n=14,857).

Julie Blue

4

Demographics: Comparison of the Two Groups •

To begin, comparisons between these two groups were made on the following demographic categories: – – – – –

Racial/Ethnic Group Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status ELL Status Special Education Status Level of school enrollment: • Percent active at the end of the school year • Percent at the same school for 95 days • Percent at the same school for 95 days and active at the end of the school year • Percent enrolled at the same school on October 1 and at the end of the school year

Racial/Ethnic Category Racial/Ethnic Category

Julie Blue

GEMS (n=812)

No GEMS (n=14,857)

1 American Indian

2.3%

4.8%

2 African American

32.3%

47.7%

3 Asian

14.9%

10.3%

4 Hispanic

12.2%

13.3%

5 White

38.3%

23.9%

5

Free/Reduced Lunch Status Free/Reduced Lunch Status

GEMS (n=812)

No GEMS (n=14,239)

Not Eligible for Free/ Reduced Lunch

50.0%

37.2%

Eligible for Free/ Reduced Lunch

50.0%

62.8%

ELL & Special Ed Status ELL and Special Education Status

GEMS (n=812) 88.2%

No GEMS (n=14,857) 78.8%

ELL

11.8%

21.2%

Not Special Education Special Education

95.6%

88.1%

4.4%

11.9%

Not ELL

Julie Blue

6

Continuous Enrollment Continuous Enrollment Category

GEMS (n=812)

No GEMS (n=14,857)

% Enrolled at End of School Year

87.9%

72.6%

% Enrolled at the Same School for 95+ Days % Enrolled at the Same School for 95+ Days and Active at the End of the School Year (June, 2007)

82.4%

59.7%

80.4%

57.3%

% Enrolled at the Same School on Oct. 1, 2006 and at the End of the School Year (June, 2007)

79.9%

56.0%

Overall Methodology • The GEMS vs. No GEMS students will be compared on the following measures: – NALT Mean Fall 2007 NCE – Graduation Requirements – Attendance

• On all graphs, Grade Level reported is the 2006-2007 Grade Level.

• Because the majority of GEMS students are not enrolled at special sites or alternative schools, the following comparisons of GEMS vs. No GEMS students do not include students at special sites or alternative schools.

Julie Blue

7

Methodology: NALT Mean Fall 2007 NCE • This analysis compares GEMS and No GEMS students on the Mean Fall 2007 NCE: – Overall – By Grade Level – By Racial/Ethnic Group – By Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status – By Number of GEMS Sessions.

• The analysis includes GEMS and No GEMS students (girls only) who were enrolled in grades 4-7 in MPS during the 2006-2007 school year.

• This analysis excludes students enrolled in MPS special sites or alternative schools (because the majority of GEMS students are not enrolled at special sites or alternative schools).

NALT READING and NALT MATH: Mean Fall 2007 NCE GEMS vs. No GEMS 70 60

59

58

Mean NCE

50

48

46

40 30 20 10 0 Reading

Math

GEMS, 1 session or more (Rdg n=350 , Math n=349 ) No GEMS (Rdg n=3438, Math n=3386)

Julie Blue

8

NALT READING: Mean Fall 2007 NCE by Grade Level GEMS vs. No GEMS 70 60

58

57

Mean NCE

50

47

60

57

46

46

45

40 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 (n=53, n=960)

Grade 5 (n=89, n=822)

Grade 6 (n=96, n=816)

Grade 7 (n=112, n=837)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

No GEMS

NALT READING: Mean Fall 2007 NCE by Racial/Ethnic Group GEMS vs. No GEMS 90 80

76

Mean NCE

70

67

60 40

50

47

50 40

44

43

37

36

30 20 10 0 American Indian African American (n=<10, n=163) (n=90, n=1359)

Asian American (n=58, n=324)

Hispanic American (n=60, n=628)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

Julie Blue

White American (n=137, n=964)

No GEMS

9

NALT READING: Mean Fall 2007 NCE

by Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status GEMS vs. No GEMS 80

76

70

64

Mean NCE

60 50

45

40

37

30 20 10 0 Free/Reduced Lunch (n=199, n=2215)

Not Elig/Not Receiving (n=151, n=1162)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

No GEMS

NALT MATH: Mean Fall 2007 NCE by Grade Level GEMS vs. No GEMS 70 60

Mean NCE

50

59

58 49

59

58 49

47

45

40 30 20 10 0 Grade 4 (n=52, n=935)

Grade 5 (n=89, n=812)

Grade 6 (n=97, n=807)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

Julie Blue

Grade 7 (n=111, n=828)

No GEMS

10

NALT MATH: Mean Fall 2007 NCE by Racial/Ethnic Group GEMS vs. No GEMS 80

74

70

67

Mean NCE

60 50

55 50

47

46

42

40

37

40 30 20 10 0

American Indian African American (n=<10, n=164) (n=87, n=1334)

Asian American (n=60, n=315)

Hispanic American (n=60, n=622)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

White American (n=137, n=951)

No GEMS

NALT MATH: Mean Fall 2007 NCE

by Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status GEMS vs. No GEMS 80

74

70

64

Mean NCE

60 50 40

48 39

30 20 10 0 Free/Reduced Lunch (n=200, n=2173)

Not Elig/Not Receiving (n=149, n=1151)

GEMS (1 or more sessions ever)

Julie Blue

No GEMS

11

NALT READING and NALT MATH: Mean Fall 2007 NCE by # of GEMS Sessions GEMS vs. No GEMS 70

64

60

Mean NCE

50

63 58

57

58

56

48

46

40 30 20 10 0 Reading

Math

No GEMS (Rdg n=3438, Math n=3386) GEMS, 1 Session (Rdg n=268, Math n=265) GEMS, 2 Sessions (Rdg n=72, Math n=72) GEMS, 3 Sessions (Rdg n=10, Math n=12)

Methodology: Graduation Requirements • The previous analysis conducted in 2004-2005 compared GEMS and No GEMS students on the MBST (Minnesota Basic Standards Test); however, because graduation test requirements have changed that comparison is no longer useful.

• This analysis will compare GEMS (n=253) and No GEMS (n=5,327) students who were enrolled in grades 9-12 in MPS during the 2006-2007 school year. This analysis excludes students enrolled in MPS special sites or alternative schools (because the majority of GEMS students are not enrolled at special sites or alternative schools).

• For 2006-2007, the following graduation requirements were in place for students in grades 9-12: – Students in grade 9 (Class of 2010) took the Writing GRAD test (and will need to pass Reading GRAD at grade 10 and Math GRAD at grade 11); – Students in grades 10-12 (class of 2009, 2008, 2007, respectively) were required to pass the MBSTs (reading and math at grade 8, writing at grade 10).

Julie Blue

12

Methodology: Graduation Requirements (continued) • The following comparisons will examine: – the percent of GEMS vs. No GEMS students who have passed the graduation test(s) required for their grade level (thus, the information for 9th graders will only include information based on the Writing GRAD test; the information on students in grades 10-12 will include information based on the reading, math, and writing MBSTs); and – the percent of GEMS vs. No GEMS students who are on track to graduate (i.e., they are on track for credits and they have passed the GRAD test(s) required at their grade level).

Overall Percent Passing Required Graduation Test(s) GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100.0% 90.0%

85.8%

Percent Passing

80.0% 70.0%

61.7%

60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent Passing Required Grad Test(s) GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever (n=253)

Julie Blue

No GEMS (n=5,327)

13

Percent Passing Required Graduation Test(s) by Grade Level GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100.0%

100% 90%

92.1% 82.9%

Percent Passing

81.7%

80.6%

80%

66.9%

70% 60%

56.6% 47.9%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Grade 9 (n=111, n=1591)

Grade 10 (n=72, n=1421)

Grade 11 (n=38, n=1254)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Grade 12 (n=32, n=1061)

No GEMS

Percent Passing Required Graduation Test(s) by Racial/Ethnic Group GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100%

95.7% 88.9%

90%

Percent Passing

80% 70% 60%

86.4%

76.9%

75.6% 70.0%

70.0% 57.0% 49.3%

48.1%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% American Indian (n=10, n=179)

African American (n=82, n=2369)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Asian (n=26, n=691)

Hispanic (n=18, n=653)

White (n=117, n=1435)

No GEMS

14

100%

Percent Passing Required Graduation Test(s)

by Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 91.5%

90% 80%

75.4%

75.3%

Percent Passing

70% 60%

53.3%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Free/Reduced Lunch (n=89, n=3004)

Not Elig/Not Receiving (n=164, n=2214)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

No GEMS

Percent Passing Required Graduation Test(s) by Number of GEMS Sessions GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100.0%

92.3%

90.0%

83.7% 80.0%

80.0% Percent Passing

70.0%

94.1%

61.7%

60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% No GEMS (n=5327) GEMS, 1 Session (n=129) GEMS, 2 Sessions (n=55) GEMS, 3 Sessions (n=26) GEMS, 4 or More Sessions (n=43)

Julie Blue

15

Overall Percent On Track to Graduate GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 90.0% 78.7%

Percent on Track to Graduate

80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

54.4%

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent On Track to Graduate GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever (n=253)

No GEMS (n=5,317)

Percent On Track to Graduate by Grade Level GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100%

96.9%

Percent on Track to Graduate

90% 80%

76.4%

75.7%

76.3%

75.4%

70% 57.7%

60% 50%

47.4%

43.6%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Grade 9 (n=111, n=1588)

Grade 10 (n=72, n=1416)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Grade 11 (n=38, n=1253)

Grade 12 (n=32, n=1060)

No GEMS

16

Percent On Track to Graduate by Racial/Ethnic Group GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100%

92.3%

90% Percent on Track to Graduate

81.4% 76.9%

80%

67.7%

67.1%

70%

66.7%

60% 50% 40%

40.0%

43.0%

40.2%

38.9%

30% 20% 10% 0% American Indian (n=10, n=179)

African American (n=82, n=2364)

Asian (n=26, n=688)

Hispanic (n=18, n=652)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

White (n=117, n=1434)

No GEMS

Percent On Track to Graduate by Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100% 87.2%

Percent on Track to Graduate

90% 80% 70%

69.3% 62.9%

60% 50%

45.0%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Free/Reduced Lunch (n=89, n=3000)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Not Elig/Not Receiving (n=164, n=2212)

No GEMS

17

Percent On Track to Graduate by Number of GEMS Sessions GEMS vs. No GEMS (Grades 9-12) 100.0%

93.0%

Percent on Track to Graduate

90.0%

84.6%

80.0%

76.0% 70.9%

70.0% 60.0%

54.4%

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% No GEMS (n=5317) GEMS, 1 Session (n=129) GEMS, 2 Sessions (n=55) GEMS, 3 Sessions (n=26) GEMS, 4 or More Sessions (n=43)

Methodology: Attendance • The following comparisons include GEMS (n=802) and No GEMS (n=12,059) students who were enrolled in grades 4-12 in MPS during the 2006-2007 school year and exclude students enrolled in MPS special sites or alternative schools (because the majority of GEMS students are not enrolled at special sites or alternative schools).

• This examination of the GEMS vs. No GEMS students will compare the average percent attendance: – – – – – – –

Julie Blue

Overall

By Grade Level

By Racial/Ethnic Group

By Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status

By English Language Learner Status

By Continuous Enrollment Status

By Number of GEMS Sessions.

18

Average 2006-2007 Attendance GEMS vs. No GEMS 100% 95.2%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

92.8%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever (n=802)

Average 2006-2007 Attendance by Grade Level GEMS (n=802) vs. No GEMS (n=12,059)

100%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

No GEMS (n=12,059)

94.7% 93.9%

96.0% 94.8%

96.2% 94.8%

96.5% 94.0%

95.9% 93.7%

94.7% 91.3%

93.7% 91.8% 90.6%

90%

92.8% 91.1%

90.0%

85%

80%

75%

70% Grade 4 (n=70, n=1449)

Grade 5 (n=114, n=1348)

Grade 6 (n=122, n=1315)

Grade 7 (n=138, n=1312)

Grade 8 (n=105, n=1308)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Grade 9 (n=111, n=1591)

Grade 10 (n=72, n=1421)

Grade 11 (n=38, n=1254)

Grade 12 (n=32, n=1061)

No GEMS

19

Average 2006-2007 Attendance by Racial/Ethnic Group GEMS (n=802) vs. No GEMS (n=12,059) 100% 96.5% 94.7%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

95.5%

95.5%

95.5%

94.6%

92.7% 91.5%

90%

88.8% 87.2%

85%

80%

75%

70% American Indian (n=19, n=510)

African American (n=254, n=5395)

Asian American (n=120, n=1394)

Hispanic American (n=99, n=1691)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

White American (n=310, n=3069)

No GEMS

Average 2006-2007 Attendance by Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) Status GEMS (n=802) vs. No GEMS (n=11,773) 100% 95.9%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

94.6%

94.7% 91.8%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70% Free/Reduced Lunch (n=398, n=7254)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Not Elig/Not Receiving (n=404, n=4519)

No GEMS

20

Average 2006-2007 Attendance by English Language Learner Status GEMS (n=802) vs. No GEMS (n=12,059) 100% 95.3%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

95.2% 93.3%

92.7%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70% ELL (n=95, n=2555)

Not ELL (n=707, n=9504)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

No GEMS

Average 2006-2007 Attendance by Continuous Enrollment Status GEMS (n=802) vs. No GEMS (n=12,059) 100%

Average Percent Attendance

95.8%

95.7%

95.6%

95%

93.9%

94.2%

94.2%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70% Enrolled 95+ Days at Same School (n=669, n=8312)

95+ Days at Same School & End of Year (n=653, n=8090)

GEMS, 1 Session or More Ever

Julie Blue

Enrolled at Same School Oct 1 & End of Year (n=649, n=7915)

No GEMS

21

Average 2006-2007 Attendance GEMS by Number of GEMS Sessions vs. No GEMS 100% 96.0% 94.8%

Average Percent Attendance

95%

95.8%

95.5%

92.8%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

No GEMS (n=12,059) GEMS, 2 Sessions (n=179)

GEMS, 1 Session (n=515) GEMS, 3 Sessions (n=57)

GEMS, 4 or More Sessions (n=51)

Julie Blue

22