1 / 18

Robert L. Linn Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing

AYP for Schools: Consequences of State Accountability Design Decisions. Robert L. Linn Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing University of Colorado at Boulder. CRESST Conference, UCLA September 8, 2005. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

esben
Download Presentation

Robert L. Linn Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AYP for Schools: Consequences of State Accountability Design Decisions Robert L. Linn Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing University of Colorado at Boulder CRESST Conference, UCLA September 8, 2005

  2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Central to the Accountability System of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 • States required to define AYP for the state, school districts, and schools in a way that enables all children to meet the state’s student achievement standards by 2014

  3. State Variation in Percentage of Schools Meeting AYP vs. Variation in Performance on NAEP • Variation in percentage of schools meeting AYP is extremely large and makes little sense in comparison to variation of performance on NAEP

  4. Many Reasons for State-to-State Variability in Percentage of Schools Missing AYP Targets • Definition of proficient level of achievement • State demographics—Influence on number of subgroups in schools with sufficient n for reporting • Number of grades tested—More grades, more use of disaggregated results • Trajectory selected to go from starting point to 100% proficient in 2013-2014 • Minimum n used for disaggregated reporting • Whether or not the state uses confidence intervals

  5. Porter, Linn, & Trimble Focus on Three State Design Decisions • Trajectory to go from starting point to 100% proficient • Minimum n for disaggregated reporting • Use of confidence intervals

  6. Trajectories • Straight line • Straight line with plateaus • Back-loaded

  7. State Improvement Trajectories for AYP

  8. Minimum Number of Students

  9. State Use of Confidence Intervals

  10. Number of KY Schools that Would Have Failed Various Numbers of AYP Goals in 2003 as a Function of Design

  11. Number of KY Schools that Would Have Failed Various Numbers of AYP Goals in 2004 as a Function of Design

  12. Number of Kentucky Schools that Would Have Met AYP RequirementsGiven Various Design Decisions

  13. Conclusions • State design decisions have a major influence on the likelihood that a school will meet AYP requirements • State variation in percentage of schools making AYP is influenced by state design decisions

More Related