The Predictive Accuracy of Family and Community Demographic Factors on the 2011, 2012, and

242 Pages·2017·2.66 MB·English

Seton Hall University
eRepository @ Seton Hall
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses
(ETDs)
Summer 6-9-2016
The Predictive Accuracy of Family and
Community Demographic Factors on the 2011,
2012, and 2013, Grade 6 Connecticut Mastery Test
Kelly Ann O'Leary
Seton Hall University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations
Part of theEducational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons
Recommended Citation
O'Leary, Kelly Ann, "The Predictive Accuracy of Family and Community Demographic Factors on the 2011, 2012, and 2013, Grade 6
Connecticut Mastery Test" (2016).Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2208.
https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2208
THE PREDICTIVE ACCURACY OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC
FACTORS ON THE 2011, 2012, AND 2013 GRADE 6 CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST

Kelly Ann O’Leary

Dissertation Committee
Christopher Tienken, Ed.D., Mentor
Anthony Colella, Ph.D.
Christine Siegel, Ph.D.
Albert Sackey, Jr., Ed.D.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

Seton Hall University
2016
©Kelly A. O’Leary

Abstract
THE PREDICTIVE ACCURACY OF FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ON THE
2011, 2012, AND 2013 GRADE 6 CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST

This study used a correlational, explanatory, longitudinal design with quantitative
methods to predict the percentage of students who will score at or above Goal. Archival data
from Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Math and Reading scores from 2011, 2012, and 2013 in
conjunction with five-year estimates of the U.S. Census data were examined. The study focused
on 21 out-of-school demographic variables, grouped by family human capital and community
social capital, to predict the percentage of students in Grade 6 who scored at or above Goal, the
district level, on the CMT. The study examined 130 school districts in Connecticut who took the
CMT in Grades 6 during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 testing cycles. Through simultaneous and
hierarchical linear regression, between 70.7% and 73.7% of the variance in district, Grade 6
Math CMT scores were accounted for by out-of-school factors and between 64.6% and 72.7% of
the variance in district, Grade 6 Reading CMT scores were accounted for by out-of-school
factors. Two community variables, families earning under $35,000 per year and percentage of
individuals 25 and older with a high school diploma, were identified as statistically significant
predictors for all testing years. Using a predictive algorithm, the percentage of students
performing at or above Goal on the Grade 6 2011, 2012, and 2013 CMT Mathematics was
accurately predicted in 72.4% of Connecticut districts and in 68.2% of Connecticut districts in
Reading. These findings strongly suggest that standardized tests are not assessing student
achievement; they are more accurately assessing family and community demographic factors.
This study calls into question the use of federal and state mandated standardized test scores, like
the CMT, to drive school reform decisions.
ii
Acknowledgments
The choice to pursue a doctoral degree was not difficult to make, other than being rather
cost prohibitive. At my very core, I am an educator who loves and values learning, which
includes my own. The Seton Hall Executive Education Doctoral (Ed.D.) Program, founded by
Dr. James Caulfield, has changed the way I think and has enabled me to become a true scholar
practitioner. I am honored to be a graduate of this program.
In the words of Alfred North Whitehead, “[No] one who achieves success does so
without the help of others. The wise and confident acknowledge this help with gratitude.” First,
and foremost, thank you to my brilliant dissertation committee. I am grateful for your guidance,
care, and support throughout this journey. My mentor, Dr. Christopher Tienken, continues to
challenge and push me to be my best self, which is the mark of an excellent teacher. Dr.
Tienken’s work within the field of education serves as an inspiration. Dr. Anthony Colella, my
second reader, I thank you for your expertise, feedback, and your belief in me to complete this
process. Dr. Christine Siegel, you have been an unwavering supporter of the St. Martin’s Family
and me for the past seven years. You are an exemplar for aspiring female administrators. Thank
you for agreeing to be on my committee amidst your busy schedule. Dr. Albert Sackey, Jr., I am
honored to have you as a member of this committee. I hope that we will be able to work together
more in the future; this was part of Dr. Caulfield’s dream for cohort members to network and
work together after they leave Seton Hall.
To the St. Martin de Porres Academy Family: the Administration, Board of Trustees,
Faculty, Staff, Students, Graduates, Families, Teaching Coaches, Volunteers, and Donors; your
support of me does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. I would not have been able to pursue my
doctoral degree without your belief and faith in me. The St. Martin’s Family holds a very special
iii
place in my heart and is doing the incredible work of breaking the cycle of poverty through
education and opportunity.
Last, to my incredible “Starfishes,” who at their very core know that every action, no
matter how small, can make a difference. Gina, Adriana, and Tobi, thank you for your
unconditional love and support. In February of 2013 during our orientation, I did not expect to
find lifelong friends. I have learned so much from each of you and I am blessed to have you in
my life. I hope to share many more years of laughter and tears although I feel as though we have
all cried enough! Gina, Adriana, and Tobi, the patron saints of never giving up; you embody the
truth that there will always be more to be given and something more to be learned. Nothing in
our lives is really over until the moment we stop trying. We all leave Seton Hall with much
more than we ever walked in with.

iv
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family. I am the first person in my family to earn a
doctoral degree, but I did not arrive at this milestone on my own. My family has provided me
with incredible unconditional love and support. I am very blessed to be loved by so many.
To my parents, Donald and Lisa O’Leary, my Grammy, Joan Owens, and my uncle, Fr.
Richard O’Leary, O.S.A., you have all taught me that I can do more than I ever thought I could.
Life according to my parents, Grammy, and my uncle, is not measured by the number and value
of our possessions but by moments spent giving of one’s self, sharing wisdom, inspiring hope,
wiping tears, touching hearts, and living in communion with God. Thank you for loving me.
To my sisters Katherine Imholt and Margaret O’Leary Cotto and my dear friend Ann
Brillante, who is practically my sister, you have all taught me that laughter is the greatest gift we
can give to others and ourselves. Laughter has the ability to cleanse our body, mind, and put
things into perspective. As siblings and friends, we may not have it all together, but together we
have it all! Thank for journeying with me and supporting me when I was not always sure where
the road would lead me.
To my three-year-old niece, Emma, you have allowed me to experience the world
through new eyes–pure joy and wonder. You are still the only person who cheers with her arms
up when I walk into the room. I look forward to all our new adventures in the many years to
come!
To my dear friend and colleague, Allison Rivera, you have spent 11+ hours a day with
me for the past ten years. Thank you for your support, care, and above all, your friendship. Our
time together at St. Martin’s prepares us for the future in ways that we never thought possible, as
well as in ways in which we will only become aware of when we successfully face future
v
obstacles. Allison, you have an incredible spirit to see the very best in others and to cultivate it.
You have seen the best in me, and I would not be where I am today without you. Thank you!
To my guardian angels, Tio, Papi, Abuelita, Tiíta, Nunu, and Grampy, thank you for
watching over me and helping to pick me up when I fall. I hope to continue to make you proud.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ........................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents........................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xv
I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Background .................................................................................................................. 1
Focus on Standardized Testing .................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6
Null Hypotheses ........................................................................................................... 6
Independent Variables .................................................................................................. 7
Dependent Variables .................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 10
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 12
Delimitations .............................................................................................................. 13
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 15
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................. 18
Organization of the Study .......................................................................................... 18

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................... 20
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 20
Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 21
Jeffersonian Educational Ideal ................................................................................... 25
United States Education Policy .................................................................................. 26
Sputnik................................................................................................................ 26
TIERS and NAEP .............................................................................................. 28
No Child Left Behind......................................................................................... 29
Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top ......................................... 30
Influence of Community Demographic Variable on Test Scores .............................. 31
The Coleman Report .......................................................................................... 32
Human and Social Capital ........................................................................ 32
Jencks (1972): Families are to Blame, Not Schools ................................. 33
vii