Analysis of Accountability Ratings for Elementary Schools Texas, USA: Considering the School Growth and Students’ Demographics

Felipe Sepulveda, Christie Bledsoe, Marlene Zipperlen, Robert Rose

Abstract


The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare the Texas school accountability approach used from 2004 to 2011 based on a status-based model to a model that incorporates academic growth and student demographic variables.  Information from three large urban school districts in Texas was analysed considering data from 398 elementary schools and the reading and mathematics TAKS test scores of 24,065 fourth and fifth grade students.  Results indicated that the average school growth did not present significant differences between institutions with different accountability rating defined by TEA in 2011.  Statistical differences were found when the average school growth was analysed disaggregating the students’ population by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and English language proficiency.  A systemic approach must prevail for designing an accountability system used to judge the quality of education delivered at an elementary school.  This research was an analysis of how an accountability system could be useful to evaluate school effectiveness based on standard-based assessment results.  However, the use of only one measurement to judge a school’s efficacy regarding the quality education provided to students may be a reductionist and narrow approach.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.12.14


Keywords


school accountability; standard-based assessments; academic growth; school ranking

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abedi, J., & Levine, H. G. (2013). Fairness in assessment of English learners. Leadership, 42(3), 26-38.

Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Yough, M. S., & Gimbert, B. G. (2010). Value-added models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/00461521003703045

Ballard, K., & Bates, A. (2008). Making a connection between student achievement, teacher accountability, and quality classroom instruction. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 560-580.

Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2017). Has NCLB encouraged educational triage ? Accountability and the distribution of achievment gains. Education Finance and Policy, 12(1), 77–106. doi:10.1162/EDFP

Barrier-Ferreira, J. (2008). Producing commodities or educating children? Nurturing the personal growth of students in the face of standardized testing. Clearing House, 81(3), 138-140. doi:10.3200/tchs.81.3.138-140

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage†and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. doi:10.3102/00028312042002231

Braun, H. (2009). Discussion: With choices come consequences. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 52-55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00162.x

Brevetti, M. (2014). Re-evaluating narrow accountability in American schools: The need for collaborative effort in improving teaching performances. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 32-35.

Briggs, D. C., & Weeks, J. P. (2009). The impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 3-14. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00158.x

Buzick, H. M., & Laitusis, C. C. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 537-544. doi:10.3102/0013189x10383560

Choi, K., Seltzer, M., Herman, J., & Yamashiro, K. (2007). Children left behind in AYP and non-AYP schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student gains to validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 21-32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00098.x

Colunga, M. (2010, June 9). TAKS Vertical Scale. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3818&menu_id3=793

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Finkel, E. (2010). Gearing up for the new assessment: The next generation of standardized testing will focus on critical thinking skills. District Administration, 46(7), 78-82.

Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88. doi:10.1080/00461521003704738

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2008). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goldschmidt, P., Choi, K., Martinez, F., & Novak, J. (2010). Using growth models to monitor school performance: Comparing the effect of the metric and the assessment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 337-357. doi:10.1080/09243453.2010.496597

Heilig, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. doi:10.3102/0162373708317689

Hess, F. M. (2006). Accountability without angst?: Public opinion and no child left behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 587-610. doi:10.17763/haer.76.4.p245w24572592m62

Ho, A. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiencyâ€: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351-360. doi:10.3102/0013189x08323842

Hoffer, T. B., Hedberg, E. C., Brown, K. L., Halverson, M. L., Reid-Brossard, P., Ho, A. D., & Furgol, K. (2011). Final report on the evaluation of the growth model pilot project. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.

Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure? Theory into Practice, 42(1), 30-41. doi:10.1353/tip.2003.0009

Jacobsen, R., Snyder, J., & Saultz, A. (2014). Informing or shaping public opinion? The influence of school accountability data format on public perceptions of school quality. American Journal of Education, 121(1), 1-27. doi:10.1086/678136

Klein, A., & Hoff, D. (2007). Impact is slight for early states using “growth.†Education Week, 27(16), 24-25.

Kress, S., Zechmann, S., & Schmitten, M. (2011). When performance matters: The past, present, and future of consequential accountability in public education. Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation, 48(1), 185-234.

Krieg, J. M. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the no child left behind act. Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 654-664. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.004

Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus Growth : The Distributional Effects of School Accountability Policies, 29(3), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam

Lakin, J. M., & Young, J. W. (2013). Evaluating growth for ELL students: Implications for accountability policies. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 32(3), 11-26. doi:10.1111/emip.12012

Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2016). Accountability Pressure, Academic Standards, and Educational Triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 127–147.

Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Linn, R. L. (2006). Validity of inferences from test-based educational accountability systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19(1), 5-15. doi:10.1007/s11092-007-9027-6

Linn, R. L. (2008). Methodological issues in achieving school accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6), 699-711. doi:10.1080/00220270802105729

Lobascher, S. (2011). What are the potential impacts of high-stakes testing on literacy education in Australia? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(2), 9-19.

Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2010). Paradoxes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Education, 190(1/2), 21-30. doi:10.1177/0022057410190001-205

Mathis, W. J., & Trujillo, T. M. (2016). L essons from NCLB for the E very S tudent S ucceeds A ct. Boulder, CO.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Meyer, R. H. (2000). Value-added indicators: A powerful tool for evaluating science and mathematics programs and policies. Issue Brief, 3(3). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.

Mittleman, J., & Jennings, J. L. (2018). Accountability, Achievement, and Inequality in American Public Schools: A Review of the Literature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76694-2

Moloney, K. (2006). Teaching to the test. International Journal of Learning, 13(6), 19-25.

Neuman, S. B. (2013). The American dream: Slipping away? Educational Leadership, 70(8), 18-22.

Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 121-130. doi:10.3102/10769986029001121

Ready, D. D. (2013). Associations between student achievement and student learning implications for value-added school accountability models. Educational Policy, 27(1), 92-120. doi:10.1177/0895904811429289

Schlechty, P. C. (2011). The threat of accountabalism. Educational Leadership, 69(1), 80.

Tajalli, H., & Ortiz, M. (2017). An examination of Hispanic college enrolment and graduation: Has the Texas Closing the Gaps plan been successful? Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(4), 330-343. doi:10.1080/15348431.2017.1348301

Tang, S., Wang, Z., & Min, Y. (2019). Texas–Mexico Border vs. Non-Border School Districts’ Growth Trajectory of High-Stakes Reading Performance: A Multi-Level Approach. Education Science, 38(9), 1-15. doi:10.3390/educsci9010038

Texas Education Agency. (2011, October 20). Brochures. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147485434&menu_id=692&menu_id2=796&cid=2147483661

Texas Education Agency. (2013). Accountability rating system. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/faq.html

Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 107-122. doi:10.1080/00461521003703060

Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114.

Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 19. doi:10.14507/epaa.v18n19.2010

Vela, A., Jones, D., Mundy, M., & Isaacson, C. (2017). Determining the effectiveness of bilingual programs on third grade state exam scores. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33, 1-15.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206-216. doi:10.1002/pits.20291

Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2008). Measuring and evaluating school performance: An investigation of status and growth-based achievement indicators. Evaluation Review, 32(6), 569-595. doi:10.1177/0193841x08320398


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493