This article examines a value-added model to rate schools, taking into account varying characteristics of students entering the schools, including poverty, race, mobility, and stability. The model uses regression to separate the influence of demographics that are outside the schools’ control from those under school control. This value-added model leads to school ratings that compare actual performance to performance predicted by poverty rates. Even after adjusting for poverty, some schools consistently outperform others on a wide range of tests over a 5-year period, whereas other schools consistently perform at the bottom. Finally, this article discusses uses that can be made of this model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, A. P., & Xu, D. (1995). The measure of education: A review of the Tennessee value added assessment system.Nashville: Tennessee State Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Educational Accountability.
Bingham, R. D., Heywood, J. S., & White, S. B. (1991). Evaluating schools and teachers based on student performance: Testing an alternative methodology. Evaluation Review15(2), 191-218.
4.
Bock, R. D., Wolfe, R. D., Wolfe, R., & Fisher, T. H. (1996). A review and analysis of the value added assessment system. Nashville: Tennessee Controller of the Treasury.
5.
Borsuk, A. J. (2002, August 7). 38% of MPS schools face sanctions: State lists reading, math failures in 64 Milwaukee schools, 20 others. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
6.
Clotfelter, C., & Ladd, H. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable(pp. 23-64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Tymms, P. (2002). Technical and ethical issues in indicator systems: Doing things right and doing wrong things. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(6). Retrieved January 30, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n6/
10.
Heistad, D., & Spicuzza, R. (2000, April). Measuring school performance to improve achievement and to reward effective programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
11.
Heywood, J. S., Thomas, M.,& White, S. B. (1997). Does classroom mobility hurt stable students? Anexamination of achievement in urban schools. Urban Education, 32, 354-372.
12.
Innes, T. C., & Cormier, W. H. (1973, March). The prediction of achievement means of schools from non-school factors through criterion scalingPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
13.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14.
Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the myth revisited: Preliminary findings from a nationwide analysis of high-performing schools. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
15.
Meyer, R. H. (1997). Value-added indicators of school performance: Aprimer. Economics of Education Review, 16(3), 283-301.
16.
Phillips, G. W., & Adcock, E. P. (1997). Measuring school effects with hierarchical linear modeling: Data handling and modeling issues.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
17.
Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W.,& Alberg, M. (2001). Two-and three-year achievement results from the Memphis restructuring initiative. School Effectiveness and School Achievement, 12(3), 323-346.
18.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256.
19.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.
20.
Thomas, M., & White, S. B. (1993). Do students who remain at the same school do better? Unpublished manuscript, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee Urban Research Center.
21.
Thompson, B. R. (2003). Evaluating three programs using a school effectiveness model: Direct instruction, target teach, and class size reduction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
22.
Thrupp, M. (2001). Sociological and political concerns about school effectiveness research: Time for a new research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 7-40.
23.
Webster, W., Mendro, R., & Almaguer, T. (1993). Effectiveness indices: The major component of an equitable accountability system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
24.
White, S. B., Reynolds, P., Thomas, M., & Gitzlaff, N. (1993). Socioeconomic status and achievement revisited. Urban Education, 28, 328-328.
25.
White, S. B., & Thomas, M. (1991). Busing for stability and student achievement in P-5 program Milwaukee schools.Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee Urban Research Center.
