A policy analysis of the federal growth model pilot program's measures of school performance: The Florida case

Education Finance and Policy

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 44-73

  Weiss, Michael J ^a   May, Henry ^b  

^a MDRC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858125305     PISSN: 15573060     EISSN: 15573079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00053     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. 2006. Executive summary: Alaska growth model proposal. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/ak/akes2006.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2006.
2. Arizona Department of Education. 2007. Proposal for a growth model to evaluate adequate yearly progress for schools and districts. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/az/azgmp.doc. Accessed 10 December 2007.
3. Arkansas Department of Education. 2006. Arkansas growth model proposal. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/ar/argmp.doc. Accessed 10 October 2006.
4. Bloom, Howard, Carolyn J. Hill, Alison Reback Black, and Mark W. Lipsey. 2008. Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. MDRC Working Paper on Research Methodology.
5. Choi, Kilchan, Pete Goldschmidt, and Kyo Yamashiro. 2005. Exploring models of school performance: From theory to practice. In Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement, edited by Joan Herman and Edward Haertel, pp. 119-46. NSSE Yearbook. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
6. Colorado Department of Education. 2008. The Colorado growth model: Higher expectations for all students. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/co/cogrowthproposal101508.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2010.
7. Delaware Department of Education. 2006. Delaware's proposal for a growth model resubmitted to U.S. Department of Education. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/de/derevision112006.doc. Accessed 10 October 2006.
8. Dunn, Jennifer L., and Jessica Allen. 2008. The interaction of measurement, models and accountability: What are the NCLB growth models measuring? Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting, New York, March.
9. Florida Department of Education. 2004. Assessment and accountability briefing book. Available http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fcataabb.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2006.
10. Florida Department of Education. 2006. Florida's application for the NCLB growth model pilot: Peer review documentation. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/fl/flrevisions2006.doc. Accessed 10 October 2006.
11. Hershberg, Theodore. 2005. Value-added assessment and systemic reform: A response to the challenge of human capital development. Phi Delta Kappan 87(4): 276-83.
12. Iowa Department of Education. 2007. No Child Left Behind growth model pilot proposal: U.S. Department of Education. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/ia/iagmp07.doc. Accessed 20 June 2007.
13. Kane, Thomas J., and Douglas O. Staiger. 2002. The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(4): 91-114.
14. Klein, Alyson. 2007. Impact is slight for early states using "growth." Education Week (19 December): 24-25.
15. Linn, Robert L. 2004. Accountability models. In Redesigning accountability systems for education, edited by Susan Fuhrman and Richard F. Elmore, pp. 73-95. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Lissitz, Robert W., Harold C. Doran, William D. Schafer, and Joseph Willhoft. 2006. Growth modeling, value added modeling and linking: An introduction. In Longitudinal and value added models of student performance, edited by Robert W. Lissitz, pp. 1-46. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
17. Lockwood, J. R., Daniel F. McCaffrey, Louis T. Mariano, and Claude Setodji. 2007. Bayesian methods for scalable multivariate value-added assessment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 32(2): 125-50.
18. Michigan Department of Education. 2008. Growth model pilot application for adequate yearly progress determinations under the No Child Left Behind Act. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/mi/migmp.doc. Accessed 21 July 2010.
19. Minnesota Department of Education. 2009. Minnesota's adequate yearly progress (AYP) growth model application: Peer review documentation. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/mn/gmp1-8-2009.doc. Accessed 21 July 2010.
20. Missouri Department of Education. 2008. State of Missouri's application for NCLB growth model implementation: Peer review documentation. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/mo/mogmp.doc. Accessed 21 July 2010.
21. North Carolina Department of Education. 2006. North Carolina's proposal to pilot the use of a growth model for AYP purposes in 2005-06. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/nc/ncgmp.doc. Accessed 10 October 2010.
22. Ohio Department of Education. 2006. Proposal to the United States Department of Education for employing a growth model for No Child Left Behind accountability purposes. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/oh/ohgmp07.doc. Accessed 20 June 2007.
23. Pennsylvania Department of Education. 2008. Proposal to the US Department of Education for participation in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) growth model pilot program. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/pa/pagmpfinal10-15-08.doc. Accessed 21 July 2010.
24. Porter, Andrew C., and Morgan S. Polikoff. 2007. NCLB: State interpretations, early effects, and suggestions for reauthorization. Social Policy Report 21(4): 3-10.
25. Raudenbush, Stephen W. 2004. What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29(1): 121-29.
26. Rubin, Donald B., Elizabeth A. Stuart, and Elaine L. Zanutto. 2004. A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29(1): 103-16.
27. Tekwe, Carmen D., Randy L. Carter, Chang-Xing Ma, James Algina, Maurice E. Lucas, Jeffrey Roth, Mario Ariet, Thomas Fisher, and Michael B. Resnick. 2004. An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29(1): 11-36.
28. Tennessee Department of Education. 2006. Proposal to the U.S. Department of Education: NCLB growth model pilot program. Available www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/tn/tngmp.doc. Accessed 10 October 2006.
29. Texas Department of Education. 2009. Texas Education Agency growth model pilot application for adequate yearly progress determinations under the No Child Left Behind Act. Available www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/tx/txproposrpt12122009.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2010.
30. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2005. Secretary Spellings announces growth model pilot, addresses chief state school officers' annual policy forum in Richmond. Press Releases. Archived Information. Available www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html. Accessed 9 August 2007.
31. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2007. Secretary Spellings invites eligible states to submit innovative models for expanded growth model pilot. Press Releases. Archived Information. Available www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/12/12072007.html. Accessed 2 December 2007.
32. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). 2008. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announces No Child Left Behind differentiated accountability pilot. Press Releases. Archived Information. Available www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2008/03/03182008.html. Accessed 19 March 2008.
33. Weiss, Michael J. 2008. Using a yardstick to measure a meter: Growth, projection, and value-added models in the context of school accountability. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
34. Wright, S. Paul, William L. Sanders, and June C. Rivers. 2006. Measurement of academic growth of individual students toward variable and meaningful academic standards. In Longitudinal and value added models of student performance, edited by Robert W. Lissitz, pp. 385-406. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.