1 / 8

Comparative School Performance Analysis: The Impact of Criteria on Evaluation

Explore how different criteria yield varying conclusions on school performance using the CRESST model. Study initial status, gain at student and school levels to compare AYP and VA classifications in two CRESST studies. Understand correlations between model results to assess effectiveness.

rusty
Download Presentation

Comparative School Performance Analysis: The Impact of Criteria on Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. School B: Highest Gain School C: Low IS, High Gain School A: Highest IS School D: Low IS, Better than exp gain School E: Med IS, Lower than exp gain Criteria You Choose Will Yield Different Conclusions About School Performance

  2. Example of CRESST Model:Latent Variable Hierarchical Model • Level 1: Two Time-point Series • Obtaining initial status and gain for each student • Level 2: Student Level • Gain for student is modeled as function of his/her initial status (& SES) • Level 3: School Level • Gain for school is modeled as function of school’s initial status (& SES)

  3. CRESST Study 1: Comparing AYP and VA Classifications • Examined gains for 3 Performance Subgroups within each school • Subgroups defined by initial starting point • Hi Performers: 2 SDs above mean • Average: Mean initial starting point • Low Performers: 2 SDs below mean • Also possible to define performance subgroups based on a set of absolute values (e.g., 10 pts above and below mean)

  4. 3 AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

  5. 2 AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

  6. 2 Non-AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

  7. CRESST Study 2:Adjusting for Background Characteristics in VAM • School effectiveness literature still searching for appropriate ways to adjust for background characteristics • Type A: adjustment of student background (S), yet no adjustment of school-level contextual effects (C) and school policies and practices effects (P) • Type B: adjustment of student background (S) and contextual effects (C)

  8. Correlations between Model Results

More Related