Title page for ETD etd-06112007-225430

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
  • accountability models
  • educational accountability
  • value-added models
  • growth models
Date of Defense 2007-05-07
Availability unrestricted
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.
  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

Browse All Available ETDs by ( Author | Department )

If you have more questions or technical problems, please Contact LSU-ETD Support.