Assessing school achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches

Educational Administration Quarterly

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 667-699

  Heck, Ronald H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Growth modeling; Longitudinalversus successive cohort data collection; No Child Left Behind; School comparison; School processes; Student achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750906935     PISSN: 0013161X     EISSN: 15523519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X06293718     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bembry, K. L., & Schumacker, R. E. (2002). Establishing the utility of a classroom effectiveness index as a teacher accountability measure. Journal for Effective Schools, 1 (1). 61-80.
2. Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
3. Cahan, S. (1988). The heterogeneity of school achievement profiles. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14, 235-244.
4. Christie, K. (2005). Providing the facts. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (5). 341-342.
5. Cronbach, L. J., Linn, R. L., Brennan, R. L., & Heartel, E. H. (1997). Generalizability analysis for performance assessments of student achievement or school effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 373-399.
6. Goldstein, H. (1998). A response to Gibson and Asthana. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 521-523.
7. Hamilton, L., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (2001, April). Exploring claims about student achievement using statewide tests. In D. Koretz (organizer), New work on the evaluation of high-stakes testing programs. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
8. Hawaii Department of Education (1992). Effective schools survey. Honolulu, HI: Author.
9. Hawaii Department of Education (2006). School performance and improvement in Hawaii: Outcomes. Retrieved April 30, 2006, from http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/ suptreport/1997/Outcome_Indicators.pdf
10. Heck, R. H. (2003). Examining the stability of school effects and school effectiveness criteria. Journal for Effective Schools, 2 (1). 49-62.
11. Hershberg, T. (2005). Value-added assessment and systematic reform: A response to the challenge of human capital reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4). 276-283.
12. Hess, Frederick M. (2005) Commentary: Accountability policy and scholarly research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (4). 53-57.
13. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Corw. in Press
14. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34 (8). 3-13.
15. Kingsbury, G. G., Olson, A., Cronin, J., Hauser, C., & Houser, R. (2003). The state of state standards: Research investigating proficiency levels in fourteen states. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
16. Kreft, I. G., & De Leeuw, J. (1991). Model-based ranking of schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 15, 45-59.
17. Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness. A validity investigation of the Tennessee value added assessment system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (3). 287-298.
18. Lindley, D. V. (2000). The philosophy of statistics. The Statistician, 49, 293-337.
19. 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.
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. Mandeville, K. G. (1988). School effectiveness indices revisited: Cross-year stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 349-356.
22. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S., (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23. Meyers, R. A. (2000, June). Value-added indicators: A powerful tool for evaluating science and math programs and policies. National Institute for Science Education Briefs, 3 ( 3 ).
24. Muthén, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22 (3). 376-398.
25. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998-2006). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
26. National Center for Educational Statistics (2005). Characteristics of the 100 largest: Public elementary & secondary school districts in the U.S. 2001-2. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://165.224.221.98/pubs2003/ 100_largest/tables/table_08_1.asp
27. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110.
28. Olson, L. (2005a, May 18). States hoping to "grow" into AYP Success. Education Week, 24 (37). 15-15, 20-20.
29. Olson, L. (2005b, September 7). Defying predictions, state trends prove mixed on schools making NCLB targets. Education Week, 25 (2). 1-1, 26-27.
30. Pearlman, M., & Tannenbaum, R. (2003). Teacher evaluation practices in the accountability era. In T. Kellaghan & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 609-641). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
31. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2005). Johnny can read...in some states: Assessing the rigor of state assessment systems. Education Next, 5 (3). 52-53.
32. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Using an EM covariance matrix to estimate structural equation models with missing data: Choosing an adjusted sample size to improve the accuracy of inferences. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 1-19.
33. Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (4). 32-39.
34. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong,Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
35. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. W6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
36. Rogosa, D. R. (1999). Reporting group summary scores in educational assessments: Properties of proportion at or above cut-off (PAC) constructed from instruments with continuous scoring. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
37. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
38. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVASS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
39. Selzer, 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 (3). 263-286.
40. Sternberg, R. J. (2004, October 27). Good intentions, bad results. Education Week, 24 (9). 56-56, 42-42.
41. Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., Bembry, K. L., & Orsak, T. H. (1995, April). Alternative methodologies for identifying effective schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
42. Willms, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. London: Falmer.
43. Woodhouse, & Goldstein, H. (1988). Educational performance indicators and LEA league tables. Oxford Review of Education, 14, 301-320.
44. Yair, G. (1997). Implication of within school variability: An Israeli comparative study. Assessment in Education, 4, 225-248.