1. Florida Algebra I EOC Value-Added Model June 2013

2. Model is very similar to FCAT models 2011-12 Algebra I EOC score is a function of 2010-11 FCAT 2.0 math score and other student and classroom characteristics Teachers whose students show more growth than otherwise similar students, on average, have higher VAM scores Teachers whose students show less growth than otherwise similar students have lower VAM scores The Algebra I EOC Value-Added Model Model Overview 2

3.  2010-11 prior FCAT 2.0 math score (up to 2 will be included in future years)  English Language Learner (ELL) status (time as ELL)  Students with Disabilities (SWD) status  Gifted status  Difference from modal age in grade  Mobility (number of transitions)  Attendance  Class size  Homogeneity of entering test scores in the class  Percent gifted in class (not in FCAT models)  Percent at modal grade (not in FCAT models) Algebra I EOC Model Covariates Model Overview 3

4.  Students are included only if they have a 2010–11 FCAT 2.0 math score available as a predictor variable  The model was run four times, each with a different subset of students  Model was recommended and approved for grade 9 students only  97,593 students were included in this model Students Included in the Model Model Overview 4

5.  Are the input data accurate and sensible? Examine the descriptive statistics Are there any red flags?  Does the model behave as expected? Examine the variance components Examine R-squared to determine model fit Precision of the value-added scores  Do the results suggest advantages to certain groups? Impact data based on correlations between value-added scores and class characteristics SGIC Reviews Each Model from a Number of Perspectives Model Overview 5

6.  Unlike with the FCAT VAM, teacher value-added scores do not include a school component More than a third of schools have only one or two Algebra I teachers  Teachers receive a value-added score and standard error for that score  The standard error is one measure of the precision of the score Statistics Reported for Teachers Model Overview 6

7.  Impact data slides show the relationship of the teacher score to various classroom characteristics  Impact data reveal whether teacher scores are correlated with classroom characteristics  Impact data run for this model include students taking Algebra I EOC in 2011-12 and 8 th grade FCAT 2.0 in 2010-11 Impact Data Results Impact Analysis 7

8.  There are several ways to interpret a non-zero relationship, including the following: The model does not fully account for non-random assignment of students to teachers Classroom characteristics affect the rate of student learning There are real differences in teacher effectiveness, which are correlated with classroom characteristics Impact Data Results Impact Analysis 8

9. Teacher Estimates and Mean Normalized Prior Score Impact Analysis 9 Correlation = 0.02

10. Teacher Estimates and Percent Economically Disadvantaged Impact Analysis 10 Correlation = -.10

11. Teacher Estimates and Percent Students with Disabilities Impact Analysis 11 Correlation = -0.04

12. Teacher Estimates and Percent English Language Learners Impact Analysis 12 Correlation = 0.02

13. Teacher Estimates and Percent Gifted Impact Analysis 13 Correlation = 0.06

14. Teacher Estimates and Percent Non-White Impact Analysis 14 Correlation = -0.02

15.  Absolute value of correlations between teacher value- added scores and student characteristics are all less than or equal to 0.10  This suggests that the model has effectively “leveled the playing field” for teachers  Note that this also implies that ceiling effects and/or floor effects do not have a serious impact on teacher scores Summary of Impact Data Impact Analysis 15

16. Questions? 16

17. Contact Information Eric Larsen 650-843-8260 slarsen@air.org Harold Doran 202-403-5035 hdoran@air.org