First-year identification for school improvement showed no positive achievement impacts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Being identified for the first year of school improvement (after missing AYP for two consecutive years) was not associated with positive achievement impacts. → Brian Gill 2009

Evidence¶

Brian Gill 2009¶

Brian Gill, J.R. Lockwood III, Francisco Martorell, Claude Messan Setodji, Kevin Booker. (2009). An Exploratory Analysis of Adequate Yearly Progress, Identification for Improvement, and Student Achievement in Two States and Three Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/an-exploratory-analysis-of-adequate-yearly-progress-identification-for-improvement-and-student-achievement-in-two-states-and-three-cities

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same regression discontinuity analyses of Title I schools in two states and three districts, the report found no positive achievement impacts for schools "identified for the first year of school improvement."

"The study found some positive achievement impacts for schools that missed AYP, but not for schools that were identified for the first year of school improvement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Accountability sanction effects were not consistent across years and outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on
• Schools that missed AYP showed some positive subsequent achievement impacts under NCLB accountability — related