Set adequate growth above the 65th percentile

The advice. “Above 65 should be goal of adequate growth. Your job is to get these kids to have more than a year’s worth of learning in a year.”

Why. The 50th percentile is, by construction, a year’s growth in a year. A student who is behind and grows at the 50th percentile stays behind permanently. If the target is proficiency rather than maintenance, the adequacy threshold has to sit above the median.

The exchange it came out of. The committee first observed that growth-to-standard is “going to be fairly difficult for schools with low-achieving students” and that for those schools “the norm actually tells you more than the growth” — the 60th percentile being adequate there, which is “a nuance for how growth is reported.” Asked how much room OEAA had to adjust, OEAA said it dislikes reporting raw numbers because they discourage: growth that cannot be achieved reads as failure.

The committee’s response was to raise the bar rather than soften the report. The problem with an unachievable target is that it is unachievable, not that it is visible.

Tension. This sits against Build a growth system that supports all students. Raising the adequacy threshold makes targets more aggressive, which is the opposite of what the session set out to do. The committee’s position appears to be that the timeframe should extend (via NGA) while the per-year expectation rises — more years at a higher rate, rather than fewer years at an impossible one. The record does not state this reconciliation explicitly.

Status. Open.