A Study of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Used an a Predictor of High School Academic Success in English and Math

Document Sample
A Study of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Used an a Predictor of High School Academic Success in English and Math Powered By Docstoc
					                 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO




A STUDY OF THE IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS USED AS A PREDICTOR OF

 HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN ENGLISH AND MATHEMATICS




                 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

     THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

               IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

                     DOCTOR OF EDUCATION


          PROGRAM IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND

                  EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY



                              BY

                     PATRICE D. ROBINSON


                DIRECTOR: TODD J. HOOVER, PH.D.

                       CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

                           MAY, 2005
                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      v

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

CHAPTER

          I.         INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           1
                         Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               1
                         Norm Referenced and Criterion Referenced Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                 5
                         Historical and Theoretical Prospective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     7
                         Academic Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          10
                         Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          11
                         Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          11
                         Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               13
                         Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              13
                         Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            14

           II.        REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                               15
                          Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15
                         Standards and Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 17
                          Testing Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           19
                          Denver, Colorado‘s Study of the ITBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       20
                          Chicago‘s Usage of Standardized Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        21
                          Consortium Reports on Chicago‘s Elementary Promotion Data . . . .                                        22
                         Assessment Usage in Other Illinois Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        23
                          ITBS and the Austin, Texas Independent School District . . . . . . . . .                                 26
                          ITBS and Measuring Student Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     30
                           Social Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        31
                          Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     33

           III.      METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           34
                         Setting and Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            34
                         Chicago Public Schools‘ High School Assessment Program . . . . . .                                        35
                         Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            37
                         Research Design and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       37
                         Data Collection and Testing Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         38
                         Iowa Test of Basic Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             38
                         ACT Testing Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              40
                         The Prairie State Achievement Exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        41
                         Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       43

                                                                iv
 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   44
         Analyses of Data – Question One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       45
         Linear Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           50
         Question One Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   55
         Analyses of Data – Question Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       56
         Question Two Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 64
         Analyses of Data – Question Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       65
          Logistic Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            70
         Question Three Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   74
         Summation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         75

   V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         77
          Summarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          77
          Interpretation of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               80
          Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        82
          Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         83
          Political Historical Perspective on Standardized Testing . . . . . . . . .                                 85
          No Child Left Behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               88
          The 2004 Rand Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 89
          Graduation and Dropout Trends in Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                             90
          Conclusion – A Final Look at the Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . .                                95
          Recommendations for Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         97

VI.     APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
            Explanation of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

VII.     REFERENCE LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104




                                                    v
                                  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

       The author would like to take this opportunity to formally thank my committee

members, colleagues, friends and supervisors for their unyielding support and patience. I

would also like to acknowledge my family‘s sacrifice, my academic advisor, committee

members and my Savior for all of the support and encouragement that has been forthcoming

during this program.

       My husband, Charlie F. Robinson, has been especially supportive during the entire

process. Thank you for being a sounding board, ―both‖ parents, and ―Mom‘s‖ taxi when

necessary. I also sincerely thank my mother, Mrs. Norma Robinson, who has been untiring

in her support and devotion. What a great prayer warrior! And, I gratefully thank my

children who surely were convinced that I was losing my mind when I had deadlines to meet.

       All of my committee members were extremely supportive. For their special brand of

care, support, constructive criticism and hen-pecking I especially thank my advisors Drs.

Karin Sconzert and Todd Hoover, and my committee member Dr. Phyllis Tate. Dr. Hoover

is also praised and thanked for introducing me to logistical regression and explaining it so

well I actually understand what I did.

       Last but not least, I thank God for putting it on my heart to return to school and

then preparing a way to give me an opportunity to complete the program with the myriad

physical challenges that have arisen. My life will never be the same. My Christian

beliefs and trust have grown tremendously.




                                                  iii
                                             LIST OF TABLES



    Table                                                                                                               Page

     1.      Standardized Testing Instruments Utilized by the Chicago Public . . . . . . . . 36

     2.      Grade and ITBS Stanine Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

     3.      ITBS Reading Stanine Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

     4.     English Semester 1 Grade Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

    5.      English Semester 2 Grade Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

     6.      ITBS Mathematics Stanine Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

     7.      Mathematics Semester 1 Grade Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

     8.      Mathematics Semester 2 Grade Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

     9.     Correlations Reading Semester 1 Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

    10.      Excluded Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

    11.     Correlations Reading Semester 2 Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

    12.     Excluded Variables When Mathematics Semester 1 Dependent Variable . . . 52

    13.     Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

    14.     Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

    15.     Excluded Variables When Mathematics Semester 1 Dependent Variable . . . 54

.   16.     Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


                                                               vi
                                               LIST OF TABLES

  Table                                                                                                                  Page

  17.       Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

  18.       State of Illinois Cut Points of Established Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

  19.       Descriptive Statistics for ITBS and PSAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

  20.       Performance Summary Information for the Spring, 2001 ACT . . . . . . . . . . . 59

  21.      Descriptive Statistics for ITBS and PSAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

 22.       Correlations When PSAE Reading Score is Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . . . 61

 23.       Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

 24.      Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

 25.       Correlations When PSAE Math Score is Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

 26.      Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

 27.      Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

 28.      Casewise Diagnostic Accuracy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

 29.     Total Number of 12th Grade Failures over a 4 Year Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

30.      Total Number of 12th Grade Failures with Percents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

31.     English Semester One Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

32.      English Semester Two Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

33.     Math Semester One Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

34.     Math Semester Two Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

35.     High School Graduate Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

36.     ITBS Statistics Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


                                                            vii
Table                                                                                                               Page

37.     ITBS Reading Stanines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

38.     ITBS Math Stanines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

39.     Variables in the Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

40.     Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

41.     Classification Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

42.     Cohort Graduate Status of the Class of 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95




                                                      viii
                                        ABSTRACT


    This study was conducted to determine if the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)

could be used to predict the academic and test success in English and mathematics of

high school students enrolled in a general high school on the southwest side of Chicago,

Illinois. After an examination of the records for over 1600 students from grades 9

through 12, the final study centered on 295 students who met the study criteria of grades and

assessments.

     The data were analyzed by utilizing both linear and logistic regression analyses

between the eighth grade ITBS scores, English and mathematics grades, and the achievement

test scores of the Illinois Prairie State Exam (PSAE). Correlations and analyses were

conducted on the PSAE criterion referenced test and the teacher assigned grades of the

student‘s final grade student performance in mathematics and English.

    These computations yielded mixed results. In general, although results indicated

that the ITBS could be used as a predictor of test scores in mathematics, at 10% or lower

those results did not have a high level of accuracy. Using regression analysis, ITBS stanines

could not be used as predictors of high school academic success.




                                              ix
                                          CHAPTER 1

                                       INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

       In an effort to improve the quality of education prior to the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001, many school districts adopted policies of retention and promotion that were

primarily driven by standardized assessment. For some school districts, a child‘s promotion

to the next grade level or even his ability to enter high school was judged by his one time

achievement on a standardized exam. In the spring of 1996, Illinois School District 299,

collectively better known as the Chicago Public Schools, adopted this type of promotion

policy. Aimed at eliminating social promotion and raising student achievement levels, there

was a minimal standard of promotional test score levels established in both reading and

mathematics for third, sixth, and eighth graders. Students were administered the Iowa Test

of Basic Skills (ITBS) and a minimum achievement score was set for promotion in the

selected grades of 3rd, 6th and 8th (Chicago Public Schools, 1996).

        Students who did not meet the criteria set forth by these new standards had to attend

Summer Bridge Programs (SBP) and retake the standardized tests at the end of the

summer classes. At that time, students who failed to make the minimum achievement score

for the appropriate grade level were then retained in that grade, or, if fifteen years of age,

were sent to ―a transitional program site in their [the student‘s assigned] region‖ (Chicago

                                                1
                                                                                               2

Public Schools, 1996, p. 12).

        These ―transitional program sites‖ or alternative schools were originally free

standing sites located apart from the elementary and high school facilities. At that time, they

were called Academic Preparatory Regional Transition Centers (Chicago Public Schools,

1996); later they were called Academic Preparatory Centers (Chicago Public Schools, 2000).

Today, the ―centers‖ are physically placed in high schools and are called Achievement

Academies (Chicago Public Schools, 2003).

       Although it does not affect the senior students in this archival research study, it


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: This is a study of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) being used to predict grades in high school English and math classes in a Chicago Public High School. Prior to the study, students were required to achieve at grade level scores on the ITBS to be able to enroll in high school.
BUY THIS DOCUMENT NOW PRICE: $35 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEED
PARTNER Patrice D Robinson