the state of the state in reading
DESCRIPTION
The State of the State in Reading. Barbara Foorman, Ph.D. Yaacov Petscher, Ph.D. Florida State University Florida Center for Reading Research. Closing the Achievement Gap. Has been the focus of the federal initiative in education since ESEA passed in 1965. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The State of the State in Reading
Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.Yaacov Petscher, Ph.D.
Florida State University Florida Center for Reading Research
Closing the Achievement Gap• Has been the focus of the federal initiative in
education since ESEA passed in 1965.• Controlling for SES (FRL, minority, ELL
status) in analyzing for achievement gains is widespread. Ex: Beat the Odds analyses.
• With NCLB passage in 2001 and emphasis on AYP, value-added analyses popular.
• Debates regarding growth vs. attainment and definitions of proficiency continue.
Outcome Measures
• Percent meeting high standards in reading: % students passing FCAT (FCAT SSS)
• Percent making reading gains: % students making one year’s worth of growth (FCAT DSS)
• Percent of lowest 25% making reading gains: % students in lowest quartile that made 1 year of growth (FCAT DSS
One Year’s Growth Definition for FCAT Reading Developmental Scores*
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
230 166 133 110 92 77 77
*Retained students cannot demonstrate learning gains using Developmental Scale Score
FRL Minority ELL0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Elementary N=1659Middle N=537High N=382
Demographics
Comparison of Methods
• Covariate Adjusted Scores– Demographics – Academic achievement
• Latent Class Analysis– Demographics – Academic achievement
Beating the Odds
Beating the Odds Score
Raw Score <50th%ile >=50th%ile
>=50th%ile HL(Group 2)
HH(Group 1)
<50th%ile LL(Group 4)
LH(Group 3)
Proportion of Schools by Group for School Type and Outcomes Group
Elementary Schools (N = 1786) 1 (HH) 2 (HL) 3 (LH) 4 (LL)
% Meeting High Standards 33.8 17.3 17.2 31.7
% Making Reading Gains 39.4 9.6 11.6 39.4
% of Lowest 25% Making Reading Gains 45.7 6.4 5.3 42.6
Middle School (N = 575)
% Meeting High Standards 32.2 18.4 18.8 30.6
% Making Reading Gains 43.7 11.7 7.3 37.4
% of Lowest 25% Making Reading Gains 43.5 4.0 7.5 45.0
High School (N = 418)
% Meeting High Standards 37.1 15.1 13.9 34.0
% Making Reading Gains 41.4 12.2 9.6 36.8
% of Lowest 25% Making Reading Gains 45.7 6.9 5.3 42.1
Combination School (N = 232)
% Meeting High Standards 40.1 9.5 10.8 39.7
% Making Reading Gains 42.7 11.2 8.2 37.9
% of Lowest 25% Making Reading Gains 44.4 6.0 6.5 43.1
Elementary - Students
Middle School - Students
High School - Students
FLDOE Method
• Sort your data file• Calculate mismatches• Identify schools that meet some criteria
– What schools are consistently in the same group over all three dependent variables?
Number of Identified Schools
Different Approach
• Policy analyses are fun but…..• Do schools tend to cluster?• Can we describe profiles in a meaningful
way?• Are profiles similar to BTO groupings?• What are the differences in identification?
Evaluating Fit
• Traditional LCA– AIC– BIC– Boostrap Likelihood Ratio Test– Entropy
• Posterior Probability– Used a conservative estimate of 0.80
• Elementary – 14 schools dropped• Middle – 8 schools dropped• High – 5 schools dropped
Elementary
Latent Profile Analysis Clusters
Outcome BTO Groups C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 BTO Sum
% Meeting High Standards HH 9 249 227 0 9 60 554
HL 0 157 109 0 0 22 288
LH 165 0 23 46 66 9 309
LL 180 0 133 134 79 12 538
LPA Cluster Sum 354 406 492 180 154 103 % Making Reading Gains HH 109 255 201 2 34 61 662
HL 0 125 58 0 0 8 191
LH 93 0 10 46 44 8 201
LL 152 26 223 132 76 26 635
LPA Cluster Sum 354 406 492 180 154 103 Lowest 25% Making Gains HH 148 264 186 28 55 47 728
HL 0 83 16 0 0 0 99
LH 55 0 15 38 17 9 134
LL 151 59 275 114 82 47 728
LPA Cluster Sum 354 406 492 180 154 103
Middle
Latent Profile Analysis Clusters
Outcome BTO Groups C1 C2 C3 C4 BTO Sum
% Meeting High Standards HH 0 78 101 7 186
HL 0 37 69 0 106
LH 10 20 0 64 94
LL 42 62 0 62 166
LPA Cluster Sum 52 197 170 133 % Making Reading Gains HH 0 77 109 27 213
HL 0 13 44 1 58
LH 12 17 0 40 69
LL 40 90 17 65 212
LPA Cluster Sum 52 197 170 133 Lowest 25% Making Gains HH 15 79 89 60 243
HL 1 3 14 3 21
LH 6 16 2 13 37
LL 30 99 65 57 251
LPA Cluster Sum 52 197 170 133
High
Latent Profile Analysis Clusters
Outcome BTO Groups C1 C2 C3 C4 BTO Sum
% Meeting High Standards HH 0 69 5 66 140
HL 0 38 0 39 77
LH 0 27 38 0 65
LL 15 61 52 0 138
LPA Cluster Sum 15 195 95 105 % Making Reading Gains HH 0 70 13 65 148
HL 0 18 0 40 58
LH 0 27 30 0 57
LL 15 80 52 0 147
LPA Cluster Sum 15 195 95 105 Lowest 25% Making Gains HH 0 70 44 61 175
HL 0 0 14 12 26
LH 0 25 5 0 30
LL 15 100 32 32 242
LPA Cluster Sum 15 195 95 105
Comparing the Classification
What Can We Do?
• Describe the clusters• Explain the differences• Provide better recommendations to
stakeholders• Benefits of LCA
– Reduced measurement error– Include all schools– Multivariate
The [email protected]@fcrr.org