Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation."— Presentation transcript:

1 AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation

2 AYP Classifications Made AYP (Made) –met all AYP criteria Level 1 (L1) –did not meet criteria for first time Level 2 (L2) – did not meet >= two years. Internal changes enacted to address problems. Level 3 (L3) –did not meet >= four years. External sources of assistance may be enacted. Making Progress (MP) –met AYP criteria for first year of two-year probationary period

3 Unit of Analysis - SGS Example Jr. High SGSSchoolYearGradeSubjectErasures/Test AYP Classification Math0.8Made AYP Reading0.6 Made AYP Math1.1Made AYP Reading 0.6Made AYP Math0.7Made AYP Reading1.0Made AYP

4 Data Erasure – SGS rates by erasure type (WR, RW, WW) and test type (OP, FT) – SGS outlier scores by erasure type and test type AYP – School-level AYP classifications for previous eight years Performance – SGS Z-scores – performance relative to grade-subject mean Demographic – School-level percent students eligible for free\reduced lunch (ECO %)

5 Wrong-to-Right Outlier Score (WR OS) P-Value from T-Test OS = │1.086 ln(p/q)│ WR Outlier Score% of SGSs < % >= % >= % >= % >= %

6 Conditional Wrong-to-Right TE = WR + RW + WW CWR = WR / TE

7 Historical AYP Categorization AYP History Percent of SGSs Z-Score WR OSCWR Made AYP42% Previous Level 130% Previous Level 214% Previous Level 314%

8 Conditional Probabilities AYP History Percent of SGSs OS >= 10OS >= 20OS >= 30OS >= 40 Made AYP42%0.87%0.18%0.06% 0.00% Previous Level 130%2.74%0.43%0.08% 0.01% Previous Level 214%5.14%0.83%0.18% 0.04% Previous Level 314%10.39%3.00%1.24% 0.68% Likelihood Multiple (Compared to reference group - Made AYP) OS >= 10OS >= 20OS >= 30OS >= 40 Previous Level Previous Level Previous Level

9 Percent of Improbable Outlier Scores by Historical AYP AYP History Percent of SGSs OS >= 10OS >= 20OS >= 30OS >= 40 Made AYP42%11%10%9%0% Previous Level 130%24%18%9%3% Previous Level 214%22%16%11%6% Previous Level 314%43%56%71%92%

10 OS vs. CWR by Historical AYP

11

12 Performance vs. CWR by Historical AYP

13

14 Two-Year Directional AYP AYP LossesNo ChangeAYP Gains Made-L1Made-MadeMP-Made L1-L2L1-L1L3-MP L2-L3L2-L2L2-MP MP-L2L3-L3L1-Made MP-L3

15 Conditional Probabilities AYP Direction Two-year Categorizations Percent of SGSs OS >= 10OS >= 20OS >= 30 GainMP-Made3.3%10.3%3.5%1.7% GainL3-MP2.0%13.5%2.4%1.2% GainL2-MP2.7%4.3%0.9%0.0% GainL1-Made4.9%6.7%1.7%0.5% No ChangeL3-L34.5%6.3%1.9%0.7% No ChangeL2-L21.3%4.8%0.0% No ChangeL1-L10.4%3.5%2.1%0.0% No ChangeMade-Made66.8%2.0%0.4%0.1% LossMP-L31.6%8.5%2.2%0.4% LossMP-L21.0%2.4%0.0% LossMade-L18.7%4.6%1.0%0.4% LossL1-L21.9%2.9%0.5%0.0% LossL2-L30.8%4.3%0.0% Total100.0%3.4%0.8%0.3%

16 Conclusions Increased likelihood of aberrant rates in probationary schools More failure, more disproportionate More failure, stronger correlation – Erasure proficiency and performance – Erasure proficiency and erasure rate likelihood Directional AYP differences


Download ppt "AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google