1 / 30

Ohio’s Experience with AYP

Ohio’s Experience with AYP. Presentation to the American Educational Research Association Mitchell D. Chester April 12, 2004. Pre-Implementation Concerns. Over-identification Accountability for students with disabilities Volatility of results. Presentation Outline.

taro
Télécharger la présentation

Ohio’s Experience with AYP

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. Ohio’s Experience with AYP Presentation to the American Educational Research Association Mitchell D. Chester April 12, 2004

  2. Pre-Implementation Concerns • Over-identification • Accountability for students with disabilities • Volatility of results

  3. Presentation Outline • Ohio’s accountability system • 2002-03 AYP results • Measures employed to increase validity and reliability • Conclusions

  4. Ohio’s Accountability System • School and district rating criteria • 2002-03 results

  5. Ohio Rating Criteria

  6. Ohio Rating Criteria

  7. Ohio Rating Criteria

  8. Ohio Rating Criteria

  9. Ohio Rating Criteria

  10. District Designations

  11. School Designations

  12. 2002-03 AYP Results • AYP within rating categories • School Improvement within rating categories • Disentangling the AYP categories

  13. AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  14. AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  15. AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  16. AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  17. AYP within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  18. School Improvement within Ohio’s Rating Categories

  19. AYP Categories

  20. AYP Categories

  21. AYP Categories

  22. AYP Categories

  23. AYP & Students with Disabilities

  24. AYP & Limited English Proficient Students

  25. Measures Employed to Increase Validity and Reliability • Safe Harbor • Averaging • Other

  26. AYP: Impact of Safe Harbor

  27. AYP: Impact of Averaging

  28. Other Measures • Tests of statistical significance • Confidence intervals • Minimum N

  29. Conclusions • 2002-03 AYP impact was lowest of pre-implementation estimates • Participation was not an issue • Need better understanding of false positives / false negatives

  30. Conclusions (continued) • Volatility of results needs careful attention • Consequential validity is the “main event”

More Related