AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior

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


5 1 2010 8 Math 0.7 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



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

AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior

Documents

Transcript of AYP Consequences and Erasure Behavior