A SUMMARY OF MODELS AND STANDARDS-BASED APPLICATIONS FOR GRADE-TO-GRADE GROWTH ON STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

ETS Research Report Series

Volumn 2010, Issue 1, 2010, Pages i-31

  Buzick, Heather M ^a   Laitusis, Cara Cahalan ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; ESEA; growth models; longitudinal; NCLB; state assessments; students with disabilities; value added

Indexed keywords

EID: 85165605092     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23308516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2010.tb02221.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abt Associates. (2006). Improving results for students with disabilities: Key findings from the 1997 national assessment studies. Bethesda, MD: Author.
2. Ahearn, E. (2009). Growth models and students with disabilities: Report of state interviews. Retrieved from http://www.projectforum.org
3. Alaska Department of Education. (2007). Match rate – Students Fall 2005 to Fall 2006. Retrieved from http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/AKGrowthModel/May2007/Studentmatch%20rate%2005%20to%2006.pdf
4. Albus, D., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Cormier, D. (2009). Characteristics of states' alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2008 (Synthesis Report 72). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2009). 2009 public policy agenda. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/advocacy/briefs-agenda/09PPA.htm
6. Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 42–51.
7. Betebenner, D. (2008). A primer on student growth percentiles. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
8. Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. New York, NY: Wiley.
9. Braun, H. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
10. Braun, H., & Wainer, H. (2007). Value-added modeling. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 475–501). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
11. Braun, H., Chudowsky, N., & Koenig, J. (Eds.). (2010). Getting value out of value-added: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Briggs, D., & Weeks, J. (2009). The impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 3–14.
13. Council of Chief State School Officers Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative. (2009). Guide to United States Department of Education growth model pilot program 2005–2008. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/CCSSO%20ASR%2009%20Guide%20to%20Growth%20Pilot%20projects.pdf
14. Center on Education Policy. (November, 2009). State Test Score Trends Through 2007–08: Has progress been made in raising achievement for students with disabilities? Washington, DC: Author.
15. Christensen, L. L., Lazarus, S. S., Crone, M., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). 2007 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 69). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16.
17. Council on Exceptional Children. (2009). Race to the top, Comments of Council of Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12938
18. Delaware Department of Education. (2009, November). Accountability technical manual. Retreived from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab/files/DDOE-TM%202008-09-Final.pdf #Accountability Technical Manual 2008–2009
19. Dunn, J., & Allen, J. (2009). Holding schools accountable for non-proficient students: Coordinating measurement and accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 27–41.
20. Eckes, S., & Swando, J. (2009). Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2479–2504.
21. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodations decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174–181.
22. Growth Model Task Force. (2009). Growth models for accountability: Considerations and recommendations for including students with disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
23. Hancock, G. R., & Choi, J. (2006). A vernacular for linear latent growth models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 352–377.
24. Hill, R., Gong, B., Marion, S., DePascale, C., Dunn, J., & Simpson, M. A. (2006). Using value tables to explicitly value growth. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (pp. 255–290). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
25. Jöreskog, K. G. (1977). Structural equation models in the social sciences: Specification, estimation, and testing. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Applications of statistics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
26. Klein, J. A., Wiley, H. I., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Technical Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27. Kolen, M. J. & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
28. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: Praeger
29. Lissitz, R. W., & Huynh H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10
30. Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Research, 38, 353–364.
31. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of Kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 306–321.
32. National Center for Educational Achievement. (2008). 2008 survey of state longitudinal data systems. Retrieved from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/
33. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002)
34. Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53–104.
35. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Shriner, J., & DeStefano, L. (2007). Assessment accommodation considerations for middle school students with disabilities. In C. C. Laitusis & C. Cook (Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works? Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
37. Sireci, S. G., Scarpeti, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
38. Slater, S. C., Wentzel, C., & Chard, L. (2009, April). Applications of growth models within the framework of No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
39. Texas Department of Education. (2008). Response to United States Department of Education clarification questions on Texas' growth model pilot proposal. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/growth_proposal/111208_TXResponseto_USDE_ClarificationQuestions.pdf
40. Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R., Altman, J. R., & Cuthbert, M. (2008). Trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
41. Tong, Y., & O'Malley, K. (2006). An empirical investigation of growth models. Austin, TX: Pearson Educational Measurement.
42. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Fund: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/072909d.html
43. Weiss, M. J. (2008). Using a yardstick to measure a meter: Growth, projection, and value-added models in the context of school accountability (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
44. Yen, W. M. (2007). Vertical scaling and No Child Left Behind. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 273–282). New York, NY: Springer.
45. Yen, W. (2008). Measuring academic growth in California. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
46. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Langenfeld, K. L., Nelson, J. R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.