The goal of this research was to analyze the academic impact of the implementation of the Value Added Assessment Model. The researcher analyzed the Value Added Assessment Models in the three Value Added Assessment Model states that had implemented the Value Added Assessment Model for more than five years. Additionally, the research was done by analyzing the academic impact as measured by the eighth grade reading NAEP and the eighth grade mathematics NAEP. The researcher paired the three states that had implemented Value Added Assessment Model for more than five years, with three demographically matched states that had not implemented Value Added Assessment Model. The states were matched as follows: Ohio (Value Added Assessment Model implementing state) with Michigan (non Value Added Assessment Model state), Pennsylvania (Value Added Assessment Model implementing state) with Virginia (non Value Added Assessment Model state) and Tennessee (Value Added Assessment Model implementing state) with Georgia (non Value Added Assessment Model state). The mean composite scale score in NAEP from the following categories of students were compared and analyzed: 1) All students 2) White students 3) Black students 4) National School Lunch Program Eligible Students 5) National School Lunch Program Ineligible Students 6) Exceptional Education students. The results of the study indicated that the impact of Value Added Assessment Model on academic impact as measured by the eighth grade reading NAEP and the eighth grade mathematics NAEP was negligible.

No description available.

This study uses the state report cards published by the Tennessee Department of Education to compare the academic achievement grades to the value-added grades to determine if there is a relationship between the two grading systems. The data used for this study are from the 2001, 2002, and the 2003 state report cards published for each school using the five subject areas of reading, language, math, science, and social studies. One thousand sixty schools in the state of Tennessee were for this study. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the schools was used as a covariate to determine if the socioeconomic status of the school has an effect on the relationship between achievement grades and value-added grades on the state report card. Schools were grouped into one of three categories. Schools with 0 – 33% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as an upper SES school. Schools with 34-66% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as a middle SES school, and schools with 67-100% of their students eligible for free/reduced meals were categorized as a lower SES school. The data used to determine the grades on the report card are based upon the results of the state mandated achievement tests given in the state of Tennessee. The 3 cumulative three year averages of the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) are used to determine the achievement grades while the cumulative three-year value-added percentages are used to determine the value-added grades on the state report cards. There was a statistically significant relationship between academic achievement grades and value-added grades in math, language, and social studies on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 state report cards. In reading, the 2002 state report card did not show a significant relationship between the grades while the 2001 and 2003 report cards did indicate a significant relationship. In science, the 2001 and 2003 report cards did not indicate a significant relationship between achievement and value-added grades while the 2002 report card did indicate a significant relationship between the grades.

The purpose of this nonexperimental quantitative study was to determine if there was a relationship between the 2018 Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Growth Score given by the Tennessee Department of Education and the overall 2018 Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) Observation Rating for teachers in grades 3-12 in the participating public school district. Demographic variables associated with both the teacher and evaluator were considered to determine if there existed a significant difference between gender, teaching license, grade level, TEAM Certified Observer years of experience, and the growth score and overall TEAM Observation Rating. The participating public school district is located in Northeast Tennessee and has 12 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools, and 1 optional high school. Participants included employees of the school district in tested subject areas in grades 3-12. Eight research questions served as the framework of the study. Data were analyzed using a Pearson correlation, Independent Samples t-tests, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Results of the analysis revealed no significant correlation between TVAAS Growth Scores and the TEAM Observation Ratings for TN Ready tested teachers, in grades 3-12. There was no significant difference by gender in the TEAM Observation Ratings, no significant difference by type of teaching license in the TVAAS Growth Scores, and no significant difference by type of teaching license in the overall TEAM Observation Ratings. There was a significant difference in the TVAAS Growth Scores by grade level taught. Students in secondary classrooms showed more growth from testing than students in elementary classrooms. There was no significant difference by grade level taught in the overall TEAM Observation Ratings. There was a significant difference by TEAM Certified Observer’s years of experience in the TVAAS Growth Scores. Teachers assigned TEAM Certified Observers in the 0-1 year group and the 5-8 years group showed more student growth than teachers in the 2-4 years group. There was no significant difference by TEAM Certified Observer’s years of experience and the overall TEAM Observation Ratings for teachers in grades 3-12 in the participating public school district.

The goal of Title I is to provide extra instructional services and activities that support students identified as failing or most at risk of failing the state’s challenging performance standards in mathematics, reading, and writing. Low-income schools or Title I schools are the primary target of Title I funds. A school is eligible for Title I status when 40% of the school’s students are from low income families; these students are identified by their eligibility to receive free and reduced priced meals. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a significant difference in elementary schools’ TVAAS Composite scores between Title I and Non-Title I schools. Specifically, this researcher examined the relationship of Title I funding with student academic growth at the elementary level. The schools were located in rural Tennessee. Data were gathered from the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Tennessee State Report Cards and the TNDOE to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 types of schools. Research indicated mixed reviews on the impact Title I funds have on lower socioeconomic schools. The researcher performed 5 paired t test and 8 Pearson correlation coefficients. There was a significant difference in the schools’ composite scores between Title I and Non-Title I elementary schools in Tennessee. Non-Title I elementary schools in Tennessee had higher composite scores than those of the Title I elementary schools. Results from the Pearson correlations indicated no significant relationships for mean years of teaching experience with school composite scores.

This study was designed to examine the associations and differences that exist in the NCE scores of students on the TerraNova portion of the Tennessee Comprehensive Exam, as well as the possible influence of variables such as initial scores, grade level, gender, and free or reduced lunch status. The population consisted of a stable group of 49 students enrolled in a rural Tennessee school district reported to have taken the annual assessment at the same school as they progressed from 3rd to 8th grade during the 1999 to 2004 school years. The study focused on the performance of students over a six-year period. The analysis focused on eight research questions. The independent variables for the study were gender, socioeconomic status and grade level (test score reporting year). The dependent variables consisted of TerraNova value-added scores (NRT) and proficiency scores (CRT) translated to Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Reading / Language Arts and Mathematics portion of the TCAP. A combination of t test for independent samples, examination of effect size utilizing eta square (η2), and an analysis of data to determine correlation coefficient using Pearson's product moment coefficients (r) were used in 50 hypotheses. Statistically significant results were discovered in the following instances: students' 3rd grade Math scores and the same students' 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Math scores; 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade Reading/Language Arts scores and free/reduced lunch status; 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th grade Math scores and free/reduced lunch status; 3rd grade Reading/Language Arts scores and the same students' 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Math scores; 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Reading/Language Arts scores and student gender; 5th and 6th grade Math scores and student gender; 2002 and 2003 mean gain scores and student gender.