1. Correlates of District-Level Performance
Jeffrey M. Miller
FERA November 20, 2003
University of Florida

2. NCLB is Flexible to States
“There are no national standards.”
“States design their own standards and their own tests.”

3. 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.”

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

5. 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…

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

7. 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 ( )
Change scores (2000 – 2001 to )

8. 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)

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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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*

14. 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