1. School A:
Highest IS
School D: Low IS, Better than exp gain
School C: Low IS, High Gain
School B: Highest Gain
School E: Med IS, Lower than exp gain
Criteria You Choose Will Yield Different Conclusions About School Performance

2. Example of CRESST Model: Latent Variable Hierarchical Model
Level 1: Two Time-point Series
Obtaining initial status and gain for each student
Level 2: Student Level
Gain for student is modeled as function of his/her initial status (& SES)
Level 3: School Level
Gain for school is modeled as function of school’s initial status (& SES)

3. CRESST Study 1: Comparing AYP and VA Classifications
Examined gains for 3 Performance Subgroups within each school
Subgroups defined by initial starting point
Hi Performers: 2 SDs above mean
Average: Mean initial starting point
Low Performers: 2 SDs below mean
Also possible to define performance subgroups based on a set of absolute values (e.g., 10 pts above and below mean)

4. 3 AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

5. 2 AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

6. 2 Non-AYP Schools: Distribution of Student Gain

7. CRESST Study 2: Adjusting for Background Characteristics in VAM
School effectiveness literature still searching for appropriate ways to adjust for background characteristics
Type A: adjustment of student background (S), yet no adjustment of school-level contextual effects (C) and school policies and practices effects (P)
Type B: adjustment of student background (S) and contextual effects (C)

8. Correlations between Model Results
No adj
Stud IS
Stud SES
Stud IS_SES
Stud IS_SES & Mean IS
Stud IS_SES & Mean IS_SES 1
0.95
0.99
0.98
0.93
1.00
0.97
Stud IS_SES & MeanIS
0.90
0.79
0.87
0.92