1 / 16

AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior

AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior. Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation. AYP Classifications. Made AYP (Made) –met all AYP criteria Level 1 (L1) –did not meet criteria for first time

vala
Download Presentation

AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior

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 Consequences and Erasure Behavior Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation

  2. AYP Classifications • Made AYP(Made)–met all AYP criteria • Level 1(L1)–did not meet criteria for first time • Level 2(L2) – did not meet >= two years. Internal changes enacted to address problems. • Level 3 (L3)–did not meet >= four years. External sources of assistance may be enacted. • Making Progress (MP)–met AYP criteria for first year of two-year probationary period

  3. Unit of Analysis - SGS

  4. Data • Erasure • SGS rates by erasure type (WR, RW, WW) and test type (OP, FT) • SGS outlier scores by erasure type and test type • AYP • School-level AYP classifications for previous eight years • Performance • SGS Z-scores – performance relative to grade-subject mean • Demographic • School-level percent students eligible for free\reduced lunch (ECO %)

  5. Wrong-to-Right Outlier Score (WR OS) • P-Value from T-Test • OS = │1.086 ln(p/q)│

  6. Conditional Wrong-to-Right TE = WR + RW + WW CWR = WR / TE

  7. Historical AYP Categorization

  8. Conditional Probabilities

  9. Percent of Improbable Outlier Scores by Historical AYP

  10. OS vs. CWR by Historical AYP

  11. Performance vs. CWR by Historical AYP

  12. Two-Year Directional AYP

  13. Conditional Probabilities

  14. Conclusions • Increased likelihood of aberrant rates in probationary schools • More failure, more disproportionate • More failure, stronger correlation • Erasure proficiency and performance • Erasure proficiency and erasure rate likelihood • Directional AYP differences

More Related