Embed
Email

ppt - CASN

Document Sample

Shared by: ewghwehws
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
0
posted:
1/20/2012
language:
pages:
33
Comparing Growth in

Student Performance



David Stern, UC Berkeley

Career Academy Support Network



Presentation to Educating for Careers/

California Partnership Academies Conference

Sacramento, March 4, 2011



1

What I’ll explain



• Why “value added” is the most valid way to

compare academy students’ progress with

other students in same school and grade



• How to compute value added



• Example of application to career academies





2

???

What questions

do you have

at the start?







3

What is “value added”?



• Starts with matched data for individual

students at 2 or more points in time

• Uses students’ characteristics and previous

performance to predict most recent

performance

• Positive value added means a student’s

actual performance is better than predicted

• If academy students on average perform

better than predicted, academy has positive

value added

4

.93

Correlation between

academic performance index

and % low-income students

in California school districts









5

Value added is better measure

than



• Comparing average performance of 2 groups

of students without controlling for their

previous performance – because one group

may have been high performers to start with



• Comparing this year’s 11th graders (for

example) with last year’s 11th graders –

because these are different groups of

students!

6

Creates better incentives



• Reduces incentive for academy to recruit or

select students who are already performing

well

• Recognizes academies for improving

performance of students no matter how they

performed in the past

• Provides a valid basis on which to compare

student progress, and then ask why



7

What NOT to do



• DON’T attach automatic rewards or

punishments to estimates of value added –

use them as evidence for further inquiry

• DON’T rely only on test scores – analyze a

range of student outcomes: e.g., attendance,

credits, GPA, discipline, etc.

• DON’T use just 2 points in time – analyze

multiple years if possible, and do the analysis

every year

8

Recent reports



• National Academies of Science: “Getting

Value out of Value Added”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1

2820

• Economic Policy Institute: “Problems with the

Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate

Teachers”

http://epi.3cdn.net/b9667271ee6c154195_t9

m6iij8k.pdf

9

How it’s done



• Need matched data for each student at 2 or

more points in time

• Accurately identify academy and non-

academy students in each time period

• Use statistical regression model to predict

most recent performance, based on students’

characteristics and previous performance





10

Example: comparing

teachers

• Each point on graph shows one student’s

English Language Arts test score in spring

2003 (horizontal axis) and spring 2004

(vertical axis) for an actual high school

• Regression line shows predicted score in

2004, given score in 2003

• Students who had teacher #30 generally

scored higher than predicted in 2004 – this

teacher had positive value added

11

Scatterplot of 2003 and 2004 English

Language Arts scores at one high

school

Scatterplot of 2003 and 2004 scores,

with regression line



Dots above the line represent students

who scored higher than predicted in 2004.

Dots below the line represent students

who scored lower than predicted.

Most students with teacher 30

scored higher in 2004

than predicted by their 2003 score





This student’s 2004 score

was higher than predicted









This student’s 2004 score

was lower than predicted

Example using academies,

in a high school with

4 career academies

and 4 other programs:



Programs 2, 4, 5, and 8 are

career academies



15

Parents’ education differs across programs









16

Student ethnicity also differs









17

Students in programs 4, 5, and 8 are



• less likely to have college-educated parents



• less likely to be white.





Comparisons of student performance should take

such differences into account.









18

Grade 11 enrollments, 2009-10





Analysis focused on

students in grade 11

who were present in

at least 75% of classes.









19

Mean GPA during junior year, 2009-

10









20

Mean 11th grade test scores, spring

2010









21

Mean 8th grade test scores for 2009-10

juniors









22

Juniors in programs 4 and 5 had lower grades and test score



But comparing 11th grade test scores is misleading because

students who entered programs 4 and 5 in high school

were already scoring lower at end of 8th grade.



More valid comparison would focus on CHANGE

in performance during 2009-10.









23

Numbers of students by change in English

lang. arts performance level during 2009-10









Performance levels:

far below basic,

below basic, basic,

proficient, advanced.





Only program 8

had more students

whose performance

level went up than

students whose

performance level

went down.

24

Change in GPA from grade 8 to 11





Programs 1, 3, and 8

had students with

highest GPAs in

8th grade.



GPA in 11th grade was

lower than in 8th grade

for students in these

3 programs.









25

Predicting 2010 test score based on 2009

score









Dots above the line represent students

who scored higher than predicted in 2010.

Dots below the line represent students

who scored lower than predicted.







26

Predicting 11th grade GPA based on 8th

grade









Dots above the line represent students

who scored higher than predicted in 2010.

Dots below the line represent students

who scored lower than predicted.









27

Regression analysis uses prior performance

along with other student characteristics

to estimate each student’s predicted performance

in 2009-10.



In this analysis, programs 2-8 are compared to

program 1.



Positive regression coefficient says, on average,

students in that program exceeded prediction

more than students in program 1 did.







28

Value added results for test

scores

Only program 8 had positive

value added compared to

program 1.



The only statistically significant

differences with program 1

were programs 2 and 4, both

negative. In these two programs,

students scored significantly

lower than predicted.









29

Value added results for GPA



Programs 3, 6 and 8 were

significantly different

from program 1.

Average GPA was lower

than predicted

in these three programs.









30

Questions for this school



• Why did juniors’ GPA in 2009-10 fall below

prediction in programs 3, 6, and 8?

• Why did juniors’ test scores in English

language arts fall below prediction in

programs 2 and 4?

• Important to see whether these patterns

persist for more than one year.





31

Conclusion



• Academy National Standards of Practice: “It

is important to gather data that reflects

whether students are showing improvement

and to report these accurately and fairly to

maintain the academy’s integrity.”



• Measuring value added will keep academies

in the forefront of evidence-based practice



32

???

What questions

do you have now?







33



Related docs
Other docs by ewghwehws
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!