ayp consequences and erasure behavior
DESCRIPTION
AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior. Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation. AYP Classifications. Made AYP (Made) –met all AYP criteria Level 1 (L1) –did not meet criteria for first time - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior
Vincent Primoli Data Recognition Corporation
AYP Classifications• Made AYP (Made) –met all AYP criteria
• Level 1 (L1) –did not meet criteria for first time
• Level 2 (L2) – did not meet >= two years. Internal changes enacted to address problems.
• Level 3 (L3) –did not meet >= four years. External sources of assistance may be enacted.
• Making Progress (MP) –met AYP criteria for first year of two-year probationary period
Unit of Analysis - SGS
Example Jr. High
SGS School Year Grade Subject Erasures/TestAYP
Classification
1 1 2010 6 Math 0.8 Made AYP
2 1 2010 6 Reading 0.6 Made AYP
3 1 2010 7 Math 1.1 Made AYP
4 1 2010 7 Reading 0.6 Made AYP
5 1 2010 8 Math 0.7 Made AYP
6 1 2010 8 Reading 1.0 Made AYP
Data
• Erasure– SGS rates by erasure type (WR, RW, WW) and test type (OP, FT) – SGS outlier scores by erasure type and test type
• AYP– School-level AYP classifications for previous eight years
• Performance– SGS Z-scores – performance relative to grade-subject mean
• Demographic– School-level percent students eligible for free\reduced lunch
(ECO %)
Wrong-to-Right Outlier Score (WR OS)
• P-Value from T-Test• OS = │1.086 ln(p/q)│
WR Outlier Score % of SGSs
< 10 96.62%
>= 10 3.38%
>= 20 0.74%
>= 30 0.25%
>= 40 0.10%
Conditional Wrong-to-Right
TE = WR + RW + WWCWR = WR / TE
Historical AYP Categorization
AYP HistoryPercent of
SGSsZ-Score WR OS CWR
Made AYP 42% 0.54 0.8 0.66
Previous Level 1 30% -0.37 2.0 0.60
Previous Level 2 14% -0.80 2.8 0.57
Previous Level 3 14% -1.18 3.6 0.55
Conditional Probabilities
AYP HistoryPercent of
SGSs OS >= 10 OS >= 20 OS >= 30 OS >= 40
Made AYP 42% 0.87% 0.18% 0.06% 0.00%
Previous Level 1 30% 2.74% 0.43% 0.08% 0.01%
Previous Level 2 14% 5.14% 0.83% 0.18% 0.04%
Previous Level 3 14% 10.39% 3.00% 1.24% 0.68%
Likelihood Multiple (Compared to reference group - Made AYP)
OS >= 10 OS >= 20 OS >= 30 OS >= 40
Previous Level 1 3.2 2.4 1.4
Previous Level 2 5.9 4.6 3.3
Previous Level 3 12.0 16.6 22.3
Percent of Improbable Outlier Scores by Historical AYP
AYP History Percent of SGSs OS >= 10 OS >= 20 OS >= 30 OS >= 40
Made AYP 42% 11% 10% 9% 0%
Previous Level 1 30% 24% 18% 9% 3%
Previous Level 2 14% 22% 16% 11% 6%
Previous Level 3 14% 43% 56% 71% 92%
OS vs. CWR by Historical AYP
Performance vs. CWR by Historical AYP
Two-Year Directional AYP
AYP Losses No Change AYP Gains
Made-L1 Made-Made MP-Made
L1-L2 L1-L1 L3-MP
L2-L3 L2-L2 L2-MP
MP-L2 L3-L3 L1-Made
MP-L3
Conditional ProbabilitiesAYP Direction Two-year
CategorizationsPercent of
SGSs OS >= 10 OS >= 20 OS >= 30
Gain MP-Made 3.3% 10.3% 3.5% 1.7%Gain L3-MP 2.0% 13.5% 2.4% 1.2%Gain L2-MP 2.7% 4.3% 0.9% 0.0%
Gain L1-Made 4.9% 6.7% 1.7% 0.5%No Change L3-L3 4.5% 6.3% 1.9% 0.7%No Change L2-L2 1.3% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0%No Change L1-L1 0.4% 3.5% 2.1% 0.0%
No Change Made-Made 66.8% 2.0% 0.4% 0.1%Loss MP-L3 1.6% 8.5% 2.2% 0.4%Loss MP-L2 1.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0%Loss Made-L1 8.7% 4.6% 1.0% 0.4%Loss L1-L2 1.9% 2.9% 0.5% 0.0%
Loss L2-L3 0.8% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 3.4% 0.8% 0.3%
Conclusions
• Increased likelihood of aberrant rates in probationary schools
• More failure, more disproportionate• More failure, stronger correlation
– Erasure proficiency and performance– Erasure proficiency and erasure rate likelihood
• Directional AYP differences