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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Using Growth Models to improve quality of school accountability systems October 22, 2010.

Advertisements

Elementary Principals Meeting Data Presentation August 6, 2010.

Presented to the State Board of Education August 22, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.

Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.

2013 Accountability Report Jurupa Unified School District Board of Education Meeting.

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement Summary of 2007 Statistics Prepared by NORMES, University of Arkansas Presented to the Joint Adequacy.

Nevada Transitioning from measuring status and reporting AYP, to measuring growth and reporting on School Performance.

Robert L. Linn CRESST, University of Colorado at Boulder Paper presented at a symposium sponsored entitled “Accountability: Measurement and Value-Added.

Using Growth Models for Accountability Pete Goldschmidt, Ph.D. Assistant Professor California State University Northridge Senior Researcher National Center.

Reliability and Linking of Assessments. Figure 1 Differences Between Percentages Proficient or Above on State Assessments and on NAEP: Grade 8 Mathematics,

MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Instructional Core Adapted from Harvard University PELP Framework.

Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.

Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?

Vertical Scale Scores.

PSSA: Pennsylvania System of Schools Assessment Robert Valeria.

Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)

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

Including a detailed description of the Colorado Growth Model 1.

HULL HIGH SCHOOL 10 th Grade MCAS Results and Comparisons Spring of 2008 Testing.

Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.

Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.

SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.

1 Putting It All Together Training August 18, 2009 School Name (and motto or theme) ODMS PD SIP.

1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.

The Use of Trajectory-Modeled Growth as Part of Adequate Yearly Progress: One State's Results Christopher I Cobitz, Ph.D. Reporting Section Chief North.

1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.

1 Differentiated Accountability. 2 Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model On July 28, 2008, Florida was named one of six states to pilot a differentiated.

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

Fall Testing Update David Abrams Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, & Reporting Middle Level Liaisons & Support Schools Network November.

Spring 2015 Smarter Balanced (SBA) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) update September

SY PVAAS Scatter Plots State to IU Region to School District Grades 4-8, 11 Math & Reading PVAAS Statewide Team for PDE Contact your IU PVAAS contact.

A Closer Look at Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski Conference.

ESEA Waiver and Accountability Status School Committee Presentation September 24, 2013.

Park County School District #6 MAP and PAWS DATA REPORT FOR

The interaction of measurement, models and accountability: How values affect our growth model choices. Jennifer L. Dunn Center for Assessment.

Will Growth Models Improve School Accountability and NCLB/AYP? Results From New Research Survey and Analysis of Current AYP Growth Proposals Kimberly O'Malley.

Department of Research and Planning November 14, 2011.

Robert L. Linn Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing University of Colorado at Boulder CRESST Conference, UCLA September 9,

1 Student Assessment Update Research, Evaluation & Accountability Angela Marino Coordinator Research, Evaluation & Accountability.

School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.

July 2 nd, 2008 Austin, Texas Chrys Dougherty Senior Research Scientist National Center for Educational Achievement Adequate Growth Models.

Annual Student Performance Report September

August 1, 2007 DELAWARE’S GROWTH MODEL FOR AYP DETERMINATIONS.

NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting August 10, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Force Meeting: August 10, 2010.

Annual Measurable Objectives (trajectory targets).

Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.

AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One.

School Accountability No Child Left Behind & Arizona Learns.

1 Children Left Behind in AYP and Non-AYP Schools: Using Student Progress and the Distribution of Student Gains to Validate AYP Kilchan Choi Michael Seltzer.

Growth Model: A Way to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) The Effective Use of Data to Make AYP AERA CCSSO April 13, 2007.

Application of Growth and Value-Added Models to WASL A Summary of Issues, Developments and Plans for Washington WERA Symposium on Achievement Growth Models.

1 Getting Up to Speed on Value-Added - An Accountability Perspective Presentation by the Ohio Department of Education.

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS. Adequate Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), – Is part of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – makes schools.

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

School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.

University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 1 ABCs/AYP Background Briefing Lou Fabrizio Director.

May 20, Understanding New Hampshire’s 2008 AYP Status and Growth Reports.

Purpose of the study This study examines the NCLB accountability systems for 28 states. We took 36 real schools from around the nation (18 elementary,

American Education Research Association April 2004 Pete Bylsma, Director Research/Evaluation/Accountability Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

NDE State of the Schools Adequate Yearly Progress Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Nebraska Performance Accountability System Board of Education.

Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]

Lakeview Community Schools NeSA Results

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

ABCs/AYP Background Briefing

North Carolina’s NCLB Pilot Growth Model

Key Concepts & Questions Adequate Yearly Progress

Schools in Alert and Schools in Need of Improvement

Meeting the challenge Every Classroom Every Student Every Day

Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?

Presentation transcript:

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

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)

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

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?

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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  