Successive student cohorts and longitudinal growth models: An investigation of elementary school mathematics performance

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 14, Issue , 2006, Pages 1-22

  Zvoch, Keith ^a   Stevens, Joseph J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Longitudinal growth models; No Child Left Behind Act.; School accountability

Indexed keywords

EID: 31144445171     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: 10682341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v14n2.2006     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.
2. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R.F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 47-72). Teachers College Press: New York.
3. Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37-65.
4. Barton, P. E. (2004). Unfinished business: More measured approaches in standards-based reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/ unfinbusiness.pdf.
5. Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W. & Ponisciak, S. (2004). A value-added model for assessing improvements in school productivity: Results from the Washington, DC public schools and an analysis of their statistical conclusion validity. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
6. Bryk, A. Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Assessing school academic productivity: The case of Chicago school reform. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 103-142.
7. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. In R.D. Bock (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data (pp. 159-204). San Diego: CA: Academic Press.
8. Carlson, D. (2002). The focus on state educational accountability systems: Four methods of judging school quality and progress. In W.J. Erpenbach (Ed.), Incorporating multiple measures of student performance into state accountability systems: A compendium of resources (pp. 285-297). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9. CTB/McGraw-Hill (1997). TerraNova Technical Bulletin 1. Monterey, CA: Author.
10. Flicek, M. (2004). Judging school quality using longitudinal methods that are comprehensible to stakeholders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11. Forte-Fast, E., & Hebbler, S. (2004). A framework for examining validity in state accountability systems. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
12. Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. Teachers College Press: New York
13. Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000 (Research Report No. RR-046). Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
14. Gong, B. (2004). Models for using student growth measures in school accountability. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers' "Brain Trust" on Value-added Models, Washington, DC.
15. Hill, R. K., & DePascale, C. A. (2003). Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 12-20.
16. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. Brookings Papers on Educational Policy, 1, 235-283.
17. Kiplinger, V. L. (2004). Longitudinal study of student achievement growth in reading, writing, and mathematics achievement in thirty-six Colorado public school districts: Phase II final report. Colorado Springs, CO: Academic School District Twenty. Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://matrix10.d20.co.edu/ lssg/phase2/Phase2Report.pdf.
18. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
19. Linn, R. L., (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
20. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29-36.
21. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
22. Marion, S., White, C., Carlson, D., Erpenbach, W. J., Rabinowitz, S, Sheinker, J. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in determining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
23. National Conference of State Legislatures (2005). Task force on No Child Left Behind final report. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://www.ncsl.org/ programs/educ/nclb_report.htm.
24. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
25. Olson, L. (2004). Value-added models gain in popularity. Education Week, 24(12), 1-4.
26. Ponisciak, S. M., & Bryk, A. (2005). Value-added analysis of the Chicago Public Schools: An application of hierarchical models. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added modeling in education: Theory and applications (pp. 40-79). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
27. Popham, W. J. (1999). Where large scale educational assessment is heading and why it shouldn't. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(3), 13-17.
28. Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we measure school improvement? Paper presented at the William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved January, 22, 2005, from http://www.ets.org/research/researcher/PIC-ANG9.html.
29. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A.. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
30. Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 307-335.
31. Sanders, W. L., Saxton, A. M., & Horn, S. P. (1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): A quantitative, outcomes-based approach to educational assessment in J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 137-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32. Schwarz, R. D., Yen, W. M., & Schafer, W. D. (2001). The challenge and attainability of goals for adequate yearly progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 26-33.
33. Seltzer, M., Choi, K., & Thum, Y. M. (2003). Examining relationships between where students start and how rapidly they progress: Using new developments in growth modeling to gain insight into the distribution of achievement within schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 263-286.
34. Stevens, J. J. (2005). The study of school effectiveness as a problem in research design. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added modes in education: Theory and applications (pp. 166-208). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
35. Stevens, J. J., Estrada, S., & Parkes, J. (2000). Measurement issues in the design of state accountability systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
36. Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Falmer Press.
37. Webster, W. J., & Mendro, R. L. (1997). The Dallas value-added accountability system. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38. Willett, J. B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In E. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education 1988-89 (pp. 345-422). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
39. Willms, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
40. Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2005). Sample exclusion and student attrition effects in the longitudinal study of middle school mathematics performance. Educational Assessment, 10(2), 105-123.
41. Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2003). A multilevel, longitudinal model of middle school math and language achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (20). Retrieved July 8, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n20.