Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured."— Presentation transcript:

1 A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured Progress

2 NCLB Growth Pilot Program Traditional NCLB  Status  Improvement Growth Model Pilot  Growth towards proficiency Schools need to meet one of these models to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

3 Growth Model Years to Proficiency Final Grade Included in Model Growth Target Calculation Target Classification AK 410 Standardized Scale Projection with correction for test reliability Observed Score AR Grade Dependent 8 Vertical Scale ProjectionObserved Score AZ 38 Vertical Scale RegressionPredicted Score (Lower Bound) FL 310 Vertical Scale ProjectionObserved Score NC 39 Standardized Scale Projection Observed Score IA Initial Score Dependent N/A Value TableObserved Score DE N/A Value TableObserved Score OH 3/next schoolN/A Multilevel modelProjected Score TN 3/graduation12 Multilevel modelProjected Score

4 Research Questions  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under different pilot growth models?  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under the status model and the pilot growth models?  How does a status confidence interval influence the above decision?  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under the improvement model and the pilot growth models?

5 Methods All models applied to single data set.  Two years of data from vertically scaled state math assessment. Models applied [3 Cut points] Low (58%), Med(72%), High (80%)  Status [Percent Proficient or Above] CI [95%, 98% 99%]  Improvement [Safe Harbor]  Growth [AK, AR, AZ, DE, FL, IA and NC]

6 Growth Model Comparisons Model N = 140 >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient Status AK62630 AR52021 AZ41816 FL627 NC IA92023 DE255

7 Status with Confidence Interval Confidence Interval >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient None % % %72327 (N=140)

8 Status [99% CI] and Growth Model (N = 93) >/= 80% Proficient Growth & CIGrowthCI AK2641 AR2017 AZ16011 IA1859 FL2433 NC DE4123

9 Improvement Model (N = 140) >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient Status Improvement 146

10 Growth and Improvement Model >/= 80% Proficient N = 93 Growth and SHGrowthSH AK2284 AR2194 AZ3413 IA2214 FL2254 NC3223 DE056

11 Model>/= 58% Proficient (N=24) >/= 72% Proficient (N=62) >/= 80% Proficient (N=93) AK134 AR031 AZ0920 IA435 FL143 NC796 DE001 Growth after Status (99% CI) and Improvement

12 Conclusions Status, Improvement and Growth to Proficiency are different constructs  However there is overlap in schools meeting each standard. A handful of different schools are meeting the Growth to Proficiency but not Status and Improvement.  Unclear if these are “growing” schools or schools near status cut.

13 Future Research Can growth model differences be explained by model characteristics? Are the models defined appropriately?  Are growth targets realistic and obtainable? What is meant by growth to proficiency?

14 Thank You and Contact Information The Center for Assessment  Study was conducted when first author was an intern and second author was an Associate at the Center for Assessment. For further information and copies of the paper  


Download ppt "A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google