Using General Outcome Measures in Mathematics to Measure Adequate Yearly Progress as Mandated by Title I

Abstract

Two critical requirements of Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 are that states use multiple measures to monitor adequate yearly progress of students served by Title I and that the primary yardstick of progress be each state's assessment system. In an effort to determine whether a general outcome measure could be considered one of these multiple measures, four alternate versions of a 15-item general outcome measure (GOM) of mathematics conceptual understanding and applications were developed and administered to 117 eighth-grade students at approximately equal intervals over the course of one year. Results of each administration were correlated with the students' scores on their state's multiple-choice mathematics achievement test. Correlations ranged from .81 to .87 with no significant differences, offering evidence of criterion validity. In addition, T-tests showed significant growth between administrations, suggesting that this GOM could be used as an alternative method of measuring adequate yearly progress.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, E.L. , & Linn, R.L. (1996, Spring). Title 1 assessment in a new era. CRESST Line, pp. 1, 11.

Burrill, G. (1997). The NCTM Standards: Eight years later. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 335-339.

Carlson, D. (1996). Adequate yearly progress in Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Carpenter, T.P. (1986). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 113-132). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.

Elmore, R.F. , & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: a guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fuchs, L.S. (1998). Computer applications to address implementation difficulties associated with curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 89-112). New York: Guilford.

Fuchs, L.S. , & Deno, S.L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.

Fuchs, L.S. , & Fuchs, D. (1993). Effects of systematic observation and feedback on teachers' implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 178-187.

10.

Fuchs, L.S. , Fuchs, D. , Hamlett, C.L. , Thompson, A. , Roberts, P.H. , Kupek, P. , et al. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique , 19(4), 23-49.

11.

Good, R.H.I. , & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford.

12.

Hiebert, J. , & Lefevre, P. ( 1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

13.

Hill, R. (1997, June). Calculating and reducing errors associated with the evaluation of adequate yearly progress. Paper presented at the Annual Assessment Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Colorado Springs, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 307)

14.

Impara, J.C. , & Plake, B.S. (1998). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.

15.

Monk, D.H. , & Ibrahim, M.A. (1984). Patterns of absence and pupil achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 295-310.

16.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (1997). Computerized adaptive testing user's manual. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.

17.

Parke, J.M. (1995). Validation of curriculum-based elementary mathematics application measures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3557.

18.

Powers, S. , Thompson, D. , Azevedo, B. , & Schaad, O. (1983). The predictive validity of the Stanford Mathematics Test across race and sex. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 43, 645-649.

19.

Thomson, S. , & Stanard, D. (1975). Student attendance and absenteeism. The Practitioner, 1(1), 1-13.

20.

Thurber, R.S. (1999). Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

21.

Tilly, D.W. , III, & Grimes , J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement: One vehicle for systematic educational reform . In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 32-60). New York: Guilford .

22.

Trombley, R.J. , & Weiss, D.J. (1993). Measurement of basic skills in mathematics. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 520)

23.

Weller, L.D. (1999). School attendance problems: Using the TQM tools to identify root causes. Journal of Educational Administration , 38, 64-82.