Conceptual and empirical differences among various value-added models for accountability

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 393-413

  Timmermans, Anneke C ^a   Doolaard, Simone ^a   de Wolf, Inge ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Dutch Inspectorate of Education   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

educational accountability; school effects; secondary education; value added

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858789729     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: 17445124     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2011.590704     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aitkin, M. and Longford, N. 1986. Statistical modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 149: 1-43.
2. Cervini, R. A. 2005. The relationship between school composition, school process and mathematics achievement in secondary education in Argentina. International Review of Education, 51: 173-200.
3. Cullen, J. B. and Reback, R. 2006. Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system (NBER Working Paper No. 1228), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4. Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T. and Hughes, M. 2008. Are "failing" schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81: 242-270.
5. Evers, A., Van Vliet-Mulder, J. C. and Groot, C. J. 2000. Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland [Documentation of tests and test research in The Netherlands], Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
6. Figlio, D. N. and Getzler, L. S. 2002. Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system (NBER Working Paper No. 9307), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
7. Goldstein, H. 1997. Methods in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8: 369-395.
8. Goldstein, H. and Spiegelhalter, D. J. 1996. League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 159: 385-443.
9. Gray, J. 2004. School effectiveness and the "other outcomes" of secondary schooling: A reassessment of three decades of British research. Improving Schools, 7: 185-198.
10. Gray, J., Peng, W.-J., Steward, S. and Thomas, S. 2004. Towards a typology of gender-related school effects: Some new perspectives on a familiar problem. Oxford Review of Education, 30: 529-550.
11. Hill, P. W. and Rowe, K. J. 1996. Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7: 1-34.
12. Hox, J. J. 2002. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Jacob, B. A. 2005. Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of public economics, 89: 761-796.
14. Keeves, J. P., Hungi, N. and Afrassa, T. 2005. Measuring value added effect across schools: Should schools be compared in performance?. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31: 247-266.
15. Kuyper, H. and Van der Werf, M.P.C. 2003a. VOCL'99: De resultaten van het eerste leerjaar [VOCL'99: Results of the first grade], Groningen, The Netherlands: GION.
16. Kuyper, H. and Van, der Werf, M.P.C. 2003b. VOCL'99-1: Technisch rapport [Technical report], Groningen, The Netherlands: GION.
17. Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. 1977. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159-174.
18. Leckie, G. and Goldstein, H. 2009. The limitations of using school league tables to inform school choice. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 172: 835-851.
19. Luyten, H. 1998. School effectiveness and student achievement, consistent across subjects? Evidence from Dutch elementary and secondary education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4: 281-306.
20. Ma, X. 2001. Stability of school academic performance across subject areas. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38: 1-18.
21. Meyer, R. H. 1997. Value-added indicators of school performance: A primer. Economics of Educational Review, 16: 283-301.
22. Nash, R. 2003. Is the school composition effect real? A discussion with evidence from the UK PISA data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14: 441-457.
23. Opdenakker, M.-C. and Van Damme, J. 2001. Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematic achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27: 407-432.
24. Opdenakker, M.-C. and Van Damme, J. 2007. Do school context, student composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education?. British Educational Research Journal, 33: 179-206.
25. Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J. and Goldstein, H. 2009. A user's guide to MLwiN, Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
26. Raudenbush, S. W. 2005. Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34(5): 25-31.
27. Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S. 1986. A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59: 1-17.
28. Raudenbush, S. W. and Willms, J. D. 1995. The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20: 307-335.
29. Ray, A. 2006. School value added measures in England: A paper for the OECD project on the development of value-added models in education systems Retrieved fromhttps://consumption.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RW85.pdf
30. Sammons, P., Nuttall, D. and Cuttance, P. 1993. Differential school effectiveness: Results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority's junior school project data. British Educational Research Journal, 19: 381-405.
31. Sanders, W. L. and Horn, S. P. 1994. The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8: 299-311.
32. Snijders, T.A.B. and Bosker, R. J. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, London, UK: Sage.
33. Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P. and Smees, R. 1997a. Differential secondary school effectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups. British Educational Research Journal, 23: 451-469.
34. Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P. and Smees, R. 1997b. Stability and consistency in secondary schools' effects on students' GCSE outcomes over three years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8: 169-197.
35. Van Dijk, H. 1995. Constructie en validering van de GIVO, Groninger Intelligentietest voor Voortgezet Onderwijs [Construction and validity of the Groningen intelligence test for secondary education], Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
36. Veenstra, R. 1999. Leerlingen-klassen-scholen: Prestaties en vorderingen van leerlingen in het voortgezet onderwijs [Students-classes-schools: Achievement and progress of students in secondary education], Groningen, The Netherlands: ICS (Interuniversity Centre for Social Science Theory and Methodology).
37. Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., Orsak, T. H. and Weerasinghe, D. The applicability of selected regression and hierarchical linear models to the estimation of school and teacher effects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. March.
38. Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., Orsak, T. H. and Weerasinghe, D. An application of hierarchical linear modeling to the estimation of school and teacher effect. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April.
39. Willms, J. D. 1992. Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators, Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
40. Willms, J. D. and Raudenbush, S. W. 1989. A longitudinal hierarchical linear model for estimating school effects and their stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26: 209-232.