Measuring and evaluating school performance: An investigation of status and growth-based achievement indicators

Evaluation Review

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 569-595

  Zvoch, Keith ^a   Stevens, Joseph J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation design; Longitudinal growth models; School accountability

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; SCHOOL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; TEACHING; UNITED STATES;

ACHIEVEMENT; CHILD; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SCHOOLS; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TEACHING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 55149097086     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: 15523926     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X08320398     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. American Evaluation Association. 2006. Public statement: Educational accountability. Fairhaven, MA: American Evaluation Association. http://www.eval.org/aea.edac.flyer.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008 ).
2. Ballou, D., W. Sanders, and P. Wright. 2004. Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29 (1). 37-65.
3. Bryk, A.S., and S.W. Raudenbush. 1988. Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical model. American Journal of Education 97: 65-108.
4. Bryk, A.S., S.W. Raudenbush, and S. Ponisciak. 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: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
5. Bryk, A., Y.M. Thum, J.Q. Easton, and S. Luppescu. 1998. Assessing school academic productivity: The case of Chicago school reform. Social Psychology of Education 2: 103-42.
6. Carlson, D. 2002. The focus on state educational accountability systems: Four methods of judging school quality and progress. In Incorporating multiple measures of student performance into state accountability systems: A compendium of resources, ed. W. J. Erpenbach, 285-97. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
7. Council of Chief State School Officers. 2006. ESEA reauthorization policy statement: CCSSO policy statement on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/ESEA_Policy_Stmnt.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008 ).
8. - -. 2007. Recommendations to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/ESEA_rec_final.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008 ).
9. Clotfelter, C.T., and H.F. Ladd. 1996. Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, ed. H. F. Ladd, 23-63. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
10. CTB / McGraw-Hill. 1997. TerraNova Technical Bulletin 1. Monterey, CA: CTB / McGraw-Hill.
11. Elmore, R.F., C.H. Abelmann, and S.H. Fuhrman. 1996. The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, ed. H. F. Ladd, 65-98. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
12. Erpenbach, W.J., E. Forte-Fast, and A. Potts. 2003. Statewide educational accountability under NCLB: Central issues arising from an examination of state accountability work-books and U.S. Department of Education reviews under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
13. 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, April 12-16, San Diego, CA.
14. Forte-Fast, E., and S. Hebbler. 2004. A framework for examining validity in state accountability systems. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
15. Goldschmidt, P., P. Roschewski, K. Choi, W. Auty, S. Hebbler, R. Blank, and A. Williams. 2005. Policymakers' guide to growth models and school accountability: How do accountability models differ? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
16. 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, November 15-16, Washington, DC.
17. Hill, R.K., and C.A. DePascale. 2003. Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 22: 12-20.
18. Kane, T.J., and D.O. Staiger. 2002. Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. Brookings Papers on Educational Policy 1: 235-83.
19. Kim, J.S., and G.L. Sunderman. 2005. Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher 34 (8). 3-13.
20. Linn, R.L. 2003. Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher 32 (7). 3-13.
21. - -. 2004. Accountability models. In Redesigning accountability systems for education, ed. S. H. Fuhrman and R. F. Elmore, 73-95. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Linn, R.L., and C. Haug. 2002. Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (1). 29-36.
23. Marion, S., C. White, D. Carlson, W.J. Erpenbach, S. Rabinowitz, and J. Sheinker. 2002. Making valid and reliable decisions in determining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
24. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2005. Key recommendations from the NCSL task force on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) final report. http://www.ncsl.org/print/statefed/nclb/NCLBRecommendations.pdf (accessed August 9, 2005 ).
25. - -. 2007. Joint statement of the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of School Administrators on ESEA reauthorization. http://www.ncsl.org/print/statefed/NCLB/ NCSLAASAJointNCLBStatement.pdf (accessed February 20, 2008 ).
26. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
27. Olson, L. 2004. Value-added models gain in popularity. Education Week 24 (12). 1-4.
28. Parkes, J., & J.J. Stevens. 2003. Legal issues in school accountability systems. Applied Measurement in Education 16 (2). 141-58.
29. Ponisciak, S.M., and A. Bryk. 2005. Value-added analysis of the Chicago public schools: An application of hierarchical models. In Value-added modeling: Issues with theory and applications, ed. R. Lissitz, 40-81. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
30. Porter, A.C., and M.S. Polikoff. 2007. NCLB: State interpretations, early effects, and suggestions for reauthorization. Social Policy Report 21 (4). Society for Research in Child Development. http://www.srcd.org/documents/ publications/spr/21-4_no_child_left_behind.pdf (accessed May 20, 2008 ).
31. Raudenbush, S.W. 2004. Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we measure school improvement? Paper presented at the William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series, April 1, Princeton, NJ. http://www.ets.org/research/ (accessed January 22, 2005 ).
32. Riddle, W.C. 2005. Adequate yearly progress (AYP): Might growth models be allowed under the No Child Left Behind Act? Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress.
33. Sanders, W.L., and S.P. Horn. 1994. The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 8: 299-311.
34. Stevens, J.J. 2005. The study of school effectiveness as a problem in research design. In Value-added modes in education: Theory and applications, ed. R. Lissitz, 166-208. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
35. Stevens, J.J., S. Estrada, and J. Parkes. 2000. Measurement issues in the design of state accountability systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New Orleans, LA.
36. Teddlie, C., and D. Reynolds. 2000. The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Falmer.
37. U.S. Department of Education. 2007. Secretary Spellings invites eligible states to submit innovative models for expanded growth model pilot. http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/12/12072007.html (accessed February 20, 2008 ).
38. Willms, J.D. 1992. Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington, DC: Falmer.
39. Zvoch, K., and J.J. Stevens. 2003. A multilevel, longitudinal model of middle school math and language achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (20). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n20 (accessed July 8, 2003 ).