Correlates of District-Level Performance

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

FY2006 FCAT Results. Reading Grade 3 FCAT SSS Reading Percent Level 1 All Students Tested.

Advertisements

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.

‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.

Multiple Regression II Fenster Multiple Regression Let’s go through an example using multiple regression and compare results between simple regression.

Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2012 Science Results Carolyn M. Wood, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems August.

Beyond the Classroom: The Use of Essential Skills for Remediation and Extension Christine Koch November 2008.

1 Prepared by: Research Services and Student Assessment & School Performance School Accountability in Florida: Grading Schools and Measuring Adequate Yearly.

N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Testing Requirements of NCLB test annually in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 test at least once in reading and mathematics.

The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate.

Using School Climate Surveys to Categorize Schools and Examine Relationships with School Achievement Christine DiStefano, Diane M. Monrad, R.J. May, Patricia.

DISTRICT MCAS RESULTS November 19, Charts by Grade vs. The State Charts by Grade Comparing 2001 through 2007 Longitudinal Comparisons CONTENTS.

PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND PUBLIC APRIL 15, 2013 New Jersey Department of Education School Performance Reports.

OCTORARA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT “CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES - MORE THAN PSSA AND AYP”

Introduction to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research, & Evaluation Summer.

Review Planning Faribault Public Schools DATA DAY.

ESEA NCLB  Stronger accountability  More freedom for states and communities  Use of proven research-based methods  More choices.

Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.

Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.

Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.

ESL Education Program Report Hudson ISD ESL/Content-Based An English program that serves students identified as students of limited English proficiency.

Keys to Closing the Gap in Florida: Accountability, Technical Assistance, and Targeted Resources Presentation to the National Governors’ Association John.

2007 FCAT Writing+ and Grade 03 FCAT-Sunshine State Standards Results The School District of Osceola County, Florida.

Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!

1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.

1 Strategic Plan Baseline Data September 2004 Prince William County School Board October 6, 2004.

Student Achievement Gains and Gaps in Saint Paul Public Schools Tom Watkins Director of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Saint Paul Public Schools May.

Mark DeCandia Kentucky NAEP State Coordinator

No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.

No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.

Closing the Gap: Improving Student Achievement from Miami-Dade and Beyond A team from Miami-Dade County Public Schools: Dr. Reginald Johnson, Administrative.

Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.

Mobile County Public Schools is the Largest System in Alabama.

Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.

Welcome to the District! Sue Chandler, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools.

1 Monroe County School District Spending vs. Student Achievement John R. Dick School Board District 4.

Academic Achievement Gaps in WCPSS Presented To Raising Achievement, Closing Gaps Taskforce September 18, 2009 Wake County Public School System.

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.

1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.

No Child Left Behind California’s Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) July 2003.

WCPSS Student Achievement Evaluation and Research Dept. August 19, 2008.

Annual Progress Report Summary September 12, 2011.

Public School Accountability System. Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall performance Uses multiple indicators for broad picture of overall.

1 School Report Cards 2002–2003 An Overview. 2 School Report Card: Overall Trends Elementary school achievement is up in English and math over Middle.

Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!

Data for the 2000 and 2001 Cohorts February 2006.

Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction November 2004 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Implementation of the.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.

Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]

Legislative Requirement 2013

PARCC Results Summary Report.

Beresford School District Report Card Data 16-17

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Minnesota March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Florida March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Colorado March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New York March 2015

Urban Charter Schools Impact in Washington DC March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Michigan March 2015

Michigan School Report Card Update

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Georgia March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Pennsylvania March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Missouri March 2015

Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New Mexico March 2015

PHILLIPS PREPARATORY SCHOOL

Title I Annual Parent Meeting

AYP and Report Card.

Title 1 Annual Parent Meeting

Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name

History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Ace it!SM Tutoring Teacher Training

Mississippi Succeeds Unprecedented Achievement, Unlimited Potential

Presentation transcript:

Correlates of District-Level Performance Jeffrey M. Miller FERA November 20, 2003 University of Florida millerjm@ufl.edu

NCLB is Flexible to States “There are no national standards.” “States design their own standards and their own tests.” http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/state/standards.html

However, NCLB standardizes reporting between states “They must produce annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress.” http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/index.html?src=ov

Florida has traditionally focused on school and student reporting One school report (2003)

As such, performance correlates have been made at these levels Example within one county · female students were more likely than male students to receive a standard diploma, · twenty-three percent (23.4%) of students left district during four years of high school, · Black male students (37.2%) were least likely to receive a standard diploma after four years, · fifty percent (50.0%) of students who required a fifth year of school were eligible for FRL…

NCLB reporting requirements of district-level data suggests that Florida should examine correlates of FCAT performance at the district-level.

What a Study of District Correlates Might Look Like Sample: 67 school districts in FL (excludes the experimental lab schools and the School for the Deaf & Blind); Grades 4-8 Separate multiple regression analyses Mean DSS Reading Mean DSS Mathematics Yearly scores (2000 - 2001) Change scores (2000 – 2001 to 2001-2002)

Methodology Predictors Aggregated by Elementary, Middle, & High School % on Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL) % Limited English Proficient (LEP) % Teachers with Advanced Degrees (TAD) Total Staff (STAFF) Teachers Average Years of Experience (TAYE)

FCAT Means & Standard Deviations Grade Math 01 Math 00-02 Reading 01 Reading 00-02 4 Mean 1273.99 152.36 1269.94 200.54 Std. Dev. 61.36 24.86 77.80 33.19 5 1404.39 186.27 1476.15 49.90 56.90 33.69 76.08 23.84 6 1581.57 47.43 1513.75 113.25 66.44 29.64 77.51 27.80 7 1607.00 129.46 1633.54 67.66 67.56 22.94 76.74 19.91 8 1746.27 101.49 1712.91 113.87 62.27 17.24 67.36 24.81

Predictors Means & Standard Deviations Grade FRL TOTSTAF %TAD %TAYE 4 Mean 55.63 1720.91 28.21 13.61 Std. Dev. 13.35 2669.06 8.59 1.85 5 6 48.24 752.34 28.97 13.98 1090.26 9.68 7 8

Standardized Predictors of District Mean DSS Math 2001 GRADE FRL LEP STAFF TAD TAYE  p 4 -.78 .00* .05 .69 -.10 .41 .01 .90 .26 .01* 5 -.81 -.04 -.05 .57 .08 .35 .12 6 -.70 -.08 .47 -.01 .95 .18 .05* .24 7 .45 -.11 .13 .15 .07 8 -.77 .44 -.14 .16

Standardized Predictors of District Mean DSS Reading 2001 Standardized Predictors of District Mean DSS Reading 2001 GRADE FRL LEP STAFF TAD TAYE  p 4 -.74 .00* -.18 .08 -.11 .23 .09 .30 .14 .06 5 -.24 .03* -.04 .68 .04 .62 .11 .15 6 -.75 -.22 .01* .58 .10 .16 .13 7 -.78 -.03 .76 -.17 .04* .17 8 -.13 -.16 .07 .05 .52

Standardized Predictors of District DSS Change Math 00-02 GRADE FRL LEP STAFF TAD TAYE  p 4 -.08 .60 .27 .14 .17 .30 .26 .09 -.10 .47 5 .07 .63 .23 .39 -.01 .95 -.20 .16 6 -.09 .59 .10 .05 .76 -.26 .13 .38 7 -.23 .12 .41 .02* .08 .64 .49 .18 .19 8 .25 .06 .11 .44 -.21 -.38 .00*

Standardized Predictors: District DSS Change Reading 00-02 Standardized Predictors: District DSS Change Reading 00-02 GRADE FRL LEP STAFF TAD TAYE  p 4 .11 .43 .28 .12 .34 .04* -.12 .91 .18 .19 5 .00 1.0 .40 -.06 .73 .09 .57 -.14 .32 6 .06 .67 .36 -.05 .76 0.10 .50 -.16 .26 7 -.13 .45 .00* .25 .07 -.11 .37 .70 8 -.09 .46 .30 .68 -.01 .92