Docstoc

Policy Issues

Document Sample
Policy Issues Powered By Docstoc
					 Dropout Summit
 Policy Issues - H

Dr. Marco Muñoz, Evaluation Specialist
    Jefferson County Public Schools

   Lillian Pace, Legislative Director
  Congressman John Yarmuth Office

Kathy Zandona, Director of Education
       Greater Louisville, Inc.
              Policy Issues - H
H-24. Federal Accountability should be based on
  student improvement (Growth Model) instead of
  Current Status (AYP) measures.
H-25. Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
  should be open to School Districts to provide and
  should be accountable for the same
  accountability standards held for schools.
H-26. All state tests should have concurrent validity
  with the National Assessment of Educational
  Progress (NAEP)

7/28/2008          HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT           2
            Issue H-24
Federal Accountability should be
 based on student improvement
 (Growth Model) instead of
 Current Status (AYP) measures.



7/28/2008    HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   3
            Current Status Model
• Such models set threshold levels of performance--%
  of students scoring at a proficient /above level on
  state assessments of reading and math:
   – As a group and as sub-groups (LEP, ECE, Race,
     SES)
• Set each year from 2002 to 2014 so that they lead
  to 100% proficient or above in 2014
• Safe Harbor provision—% of students who are NOT
  at proficiency level, but declines by at least 10%

7/28/2008          HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT      4
          Our Policy Proposal:
   Growth-Based Accountability Models
• Measure student achievement over time
• Greater flexibility in tracking individual students’
  annual progress
• Following the examples of:
    • 2005-06 : Tennessee and North Carolina (2)
    • 2006-07: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
      Iowa, and Ohio (7)
    • 2007-08 Proposals: District of Columbia, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania (6)

 7/28/2008             HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT          5
      Elements of the Policy Proposal
• The primary focus shifts to the change/growth
  in achievement from the previous year
• Kentucky should evaluate success of their
  schools and districts in meeting student
  achievement goals by measuring students’
  progress from year to year.
• The modern concept of “value-added” growth
  model—accountable for the value they “add” to
  students’ starting points!

7/28/2008       HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   6
            Support from Research
• Inferences about school effectiveness from
  differences in student test performance at a fixed
  point in time are “scientifically indefensible” (Linn,
  2006; Raudenbush, 2004)
• Current status on achievement tests is “contaminated
  with factors other that school performance, in
  particular the average level of achievement prior to
  entering first grade – average effects of student family
  and community characteristics on student growth
  from first grade through the grade in which the
  student is tested (Myers, 2000).
7/28/2008            HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT         7
            Issue H-25
Supplemental Educational Services
 (SES) should be open to School
 Districts to provide and should be
 accountable for the same
 accountability standards held for
 schools.

7/28/2008                                       8
                   HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT
             Setting the Stage
At the National level, given the current policy
 debate associated with the reauthorization of
 NCLB, it is important to make data-informed
 policy-making.
At the District level, it is important to assess
 the extent to which SES programs can
 demonstrate positive effects on reading and
 mathematics using appropriate measurement

7/28/2008         HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT        9
            NCLB SES Overall Impact
• Reading:
      – Program effect [F=1.69, p=.19] indicating
        non-significant differences between SES and
        comparison students.
• Mathematics:
      – Program effect was not significant [F=1.52,
        p=.22] between SES and comparison
        students.


7/28/2008            HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT       10
            Overall lessons learned
• One-on-one tutoring WITH certified personnel AND
  knowledge of research-based instructional practices
• Providers with “proven” educational programs
• Alignment to state/district curriculum (CCA 4.1)
• Alignment to statewide assessment (KCCT)
• On-going, two-way communication between
  classroom teachers and service providers
• Link between intervention and everyday classroom
  practices (Herman, 2006).
• Implementation fidelity checks—walk the talk!
7/28/2008           HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT          11
               Looking ahead
  JCPS’s Support Branding Characteristics:
  • System perspective with feedback-loops
  • Training/monitoring for impact on student
    learning
  • High levels of communication
  Explore using JCPS as a Service Provider:
  • Results might be different for students who
    select JCPS as a provider instead of outside
    organization (Los Angeles Unified)

7/28/2008          HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT      12
            Issue H-26
All state tests should have
 concurrent validity with the
 National Assessment of
 Educational Progress



7/28/2008    HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   13
            Concurrent Validity
• Validity refers to the accuracy of the
  interpretations of test scores
• Concurrent validity is a type of validity
  evidence--based on relations to other tests
• KCCT (state) and NAEP (national) tests
• Converge evidence of the validity involves
  correlating a test with existing tests that
  measure similar constructs (e.g., SAT vs. ACT)

7/28/2008         HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT       14
            NAEP and the Variety of State
                   Assessments
• NAEP and state assessments measure
  different content—there is a lack of
  curriculum alignment.
• Gaps measured in terms of percent proficient
  or above on state assessments could be quite
  misleading due to the wide variation in the
  stringency of state definitions of the proficient
  performance standard (Hall & Kennedy, 2006;
  Peterson & Hess, 2006).
7/28/2008            HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   15
            NAEP vs. State Assessments
• 33 states that had 2005 grade 8 mathematics
  assessments
• Percentages proficient or above on the 2005
  grade 8 NAEP math assessment for 33 states
• The 25 point (from 13% to 25%) range of
  percentages in NAEP is clearly much smaller
  than the 71 point range (from 16% to 87%) for
  the state assessment results (Linn, 2005)

7/28/2008           HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   16
7/28/2008   HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   17
7/28/2008   HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   18
    Another Example Comparing
 State vs. NAEP Assessment Results
• The graph shows that 4th grade students in
  Massachusetts who score at or above
  proficient on their state math assessment
  would also score at or above NAEP's proficient
  achievement level, while students in
  Tennessee may score proficient on their state
  assessment but score below basic on NAEP.

7/28/2008         HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   19
7/28/2008   HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   20
                    Contact Information
Dr. Marco Muñoz, Evaluation Specialist
Jefferson County Public Schools
marco.munoz@jefferson.kyschools.us

Lillian Pace, Legislative Director
Congressman John Yarmuth Office
lillian.pace@mail.house.gov

Kathy Zandona, Director of Education
Greater Louisville, Inc.
kzandona@greaterlouisville.com

7/28/2008              HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT SUMMIT   21

				
DOCUMENT INFO