Type of Document	Dissertation
Author	Yu, Fen
Author's Email Address	fyu1@lsu.edu
URN	etd-06112007-225430
Title	Identifying Effective and Ineffective Schools for Accountability Purposes: A Comparison of Four Generic Types of Accountability Models
Degree	Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Department	Educational Leadership, Research & Counseling
Advisory Committee	Advisor Name Title Charles Teddlie Committee Chair Eugene Kennedy Committee Co-Chair Dianne Taylor Committee Member Kim MacGregor Committee Member Timothy Slack Dean's Representative
Keywords	accountability models educational accountability value-added models growth models
Date of Defense	2007-05-07
Availability	unrestricted
Abstract The stakes associated with student performance have been raised to new highs under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001). Many people are concerned with the adequacy and appropriateness of the statistical models used in identifying low-performing schools for educational accountability. The purpose of this study was to compare four generic types of accountability models (i.e., status models, improvement models, growth models, and value-added models) and see if they reach consistent/inconsistent conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the same set of schools. Further, the four models were also compared in terms of “fairness”. A fair model is defined as one that produces school effectiveness indices that have low correlations with various student background variables (Webster, Mendro, Orsak, & Weerasinghe, 1998). The sample included this study consisted of all 297 K-5 schools in Louisiana. The results indicate that (1) the school effectiveness indices produced by the status model, the improvement model, and the growth model diverged significantly from those produced by the value-added model but converged highly among themselves; and (2) the school effectiveness indices produced by the value-added model had the lowest correlation with various student background variables. The methodological and policy implications of these findings were discussed.
Files	Filename       Size       Approximate Download Time (Hours:Minutes:Seconds)     28.8 Modem   56K Modem   ISDN (64 Kb)   ISDN (128 Kb)   Higher-speed Access    Yu_dis.pdf 1.06 Mb 00:04:53 00:02:30 00:02:12 00:01:06 00:00:05