Overview
The Colorado Growth Model
References
New Directions for Student Growth Models
Damian W. Betebenner
National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment
Dover, NH
Presentation to
The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools
Phoenix, Arizona March 10th, 2009
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
Statistics Wisdom (an oxymoron?)
John Tukey
It is better to have an approximate answer to the right question than
a precise answer to the wrong question.
George E. P. Box
All models are wrong but some are useful.
Recommendation: Start at the end
The best growth model will answer the questions of relevance to your
stakeholders.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
What are the relevant questions?
Growth models address specific questions
Different growth analysis techniques are good at answering
different questions.
It is critical to understand these different questions.
Different questions lead to different conversations which lead to
different uses and outcomes.
Questions form the vocabulary of later conversations
Starting with the right questions simplifies development and
motivating the proper use of the growth model results.
It’s all about the conversations you want to have. The questions
set the table for those conversations.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
What are the relevant questions for parents?
Yen (2007), from a state survey of parents, teachers and administrators,
compiled a list of frequently voiced questions/concerns by stakeholder
group.
Parent Questions
Did my child make a year’s worth of progress in a year?
Is my child growing appropriately toward meeting state
standards?
Is my child growing as much in Math as Reading?
Did my child grow as much this year as last year?
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
What are the relevant questions for teachers?
Yen (2007), from a state survey of parents, teachers and administrators,
compiled a list of frequently voiced questions/concerns by stakeholder
group.
Teacher Questions
Did my students make a year’s worth of progress in a year?
Did my students grow appropriately toward meeting state
standards?
How close are my students to becoming Proficient?
Are there students with unusually low growth who need special
attention?
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
What are the relevant questions for administrators?
Yen (2007), from a state survey of parents, teachers and administrators,
compiled a list of frequently voiced questions/concerns by stakeholder
group.
Administrator Questions
Did the students in our district/school make a year’s worth of
progress in all content areas?
Are our students growing appropriately toward meeting state
standards?
Does this school/program show as much growth as that one?
Can I measure student growth even for students who do not
change proficiency categories?
Can I pool together results from different grades to draw
summary conclusions?
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview The Big Picture
The Colorado Growth Model Relevant Questions/Concepts
References Growth & Effectiveness
Growth, Effectiveness, and Value-Added
Fundamental Premise
“Good” schools bring about student growth in excess of that found at
“bad” schools.
“Good schools” are often called highly effective schools.
What’s the relationship between growth and effectiveness?
Effectiveness indicates who/what is responsible for the growth
(value-added models).
Yen’s questions make no mention of effectiveness.
Yen’s questions indicate stakeholder interest in a description of
student growth.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview
Describing Student Growth
The Colorado Growth Model
Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth
References
The Colorado Growth Model
How much growth did my student make?
Is it enough?
An important first step in the development of the Colorado
Growth Model was to separate the description of growth from
the assignment of responsibility (i.e., accountability).
Incorporating growth into accountability follows from the viable
description of growth.
A viable description of growth facilitates stakeholder
engagement and investigations of responsibility for good/bad
growth.
This leads to greater stakeholder support for accountability.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview
Describing Student Growth
The Colorado Growth Model
Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth
References
Describing Student Growth
Measuring student growth, even with a vertical scale, is not a simple
task.
Some believe a vertical scale simplifies the task of measuring
student growth.
Even with an interval (or ratio) scale, growth is not easy to interpret.
Consider, for example, height.
A child might grow 4 inches between ages 3 and 4.
4 inches is a well understood quantity.
The 4 inch increase becomes really meaningful only when understood
alongside the growth of other 3 to 4 year olds.
Student growth percentiles were developed to provide a normative
context for describing student growth.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Overview
Describing Student Growth
The Colorado Growth Model
Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth
References
Student Growth Percentiles
Should we be surprised with a child’s current achievement given their
prior achievement?
Student growth percentiles answer this question.
Consider a low achieving student with 90th percentile growth and a
high achieving student with 10th percentile growth.
The low achieving student grew at a rate exceeding 90 percent of
similar students.
The high achieving student grew at a rate exceeding just 10 percent of
similar students.
The low achiever’s growth is more exemplary (probabilistically) than
the high achiever’s.
Judgments about the adequacy of student growth require external
criteria.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
NCIEA
CDE
Colorado Department of Education
High
Math
Advanced ●
Typical
Achievement
● Low
CSAP Math
● Scale Score
● ● Growth
Level Percentiles
Proficient
High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Next Year
Scale Score 515 517 589 603
Achievement Level Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 15 92 76
Growth Level Low High High Growth
2008 CSAP Growth & Achievement Report
Advanced High
Reading
Typical Achievement
CSAP Reading
Low ● Scale Score
Proficient Growth
Level Percentiles
● High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Next Year
Scale Score 567 620 652 657
Achievement Level Part Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 72 89 72
Growth Level High High High Growth
Advanced
High Writing
Achievement
● Typical
CSAP Writing
● Scale Score
Low
● ● Growth
Proficient
Level Percentiles
Example Student 3020
High 66th − 99th
Part Proficient Typical 36th − 65th
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Next Year
Scale Score 478 517 519 574
Achievement Level Part Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 77 44 86
Growth Level High Typical High Growth
NCIEA
CDE
Colorado Department of Education
Advanced
Math
Achievement
CSAP Math
● Scale Score
Growth
Proficient ● Level Percentiles
● High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Scale Score 511 521 555 545 588
Achievement Level Part Proficient Part Proficient Part Proficient Unsatisfactory Part Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 20 66 27 84
Growth Level Low High Low High Growth
2008 CSAP Growth & Achievement Report
Advanced Reading
Achievement
CSAP Reading
● Scale Score
Proficient ● ● ●
Growth
Level Percentiles
High 66th − 99th
Part Proficient Typical 36th − 65th
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Scale Score 644 644 642 629 677
Achievement Level Proficient Proficient Proficient Part Proficient Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 25 14 5 71
Growth Level Low Low Low High Growth
Advanced Writing
Achievement
● ● CSAP Writing
Scale Score
Proficient Growth
● Level Percentiles
Example Student 3020
High 66th − 99th
Part Proficient Typical 36th − 65th
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Scale Score 501 556 532 562 593
Achievement Level Part Proficient Proficient Part Proficient Part Proficient Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 54 14 56 81
Growth Level Typical Low Typical High Growth
Overview
Describing Student Growth
The Colorado Growth Model
Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth
References
Combining Normative and Criterion-Referenced Growth
Growth adequacy is determined by whether a student’s growth is
sufficient to reach/maintain desired achievement levels (e.g.,
proficiency).
Percentile growth projections/trajectories are calculated for each
student.
These “growth-to-standard” trajectories indicate what it will take for
the student to reach/maintain proficiency and other achievement
levels.
The Colorado Growth Model was recently approved as part of the
Growth Model Pilot Program using this approach.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
NCIEA
CDE
Colorado Department of Education
Advanced
Math
Achievement
High CSAP Math
● Scale Score
Growth
Proficient Typical
Level Percentiles
● Low
High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Next Year
Scale Score 408
Achievement Level Part Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile
Growth Level Growth
2008 CSAP Growth & Achievement Report
Advanced Reading
Achievement
High
CSAP Reading
● Scale Score
Typical
Proficient Growth
● Low Level Percentiles
High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Next Year
Scale Score 559
Achievement Level Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile
Growth Level Growth
Advanced
Writing
Achievement
CSAP Writing
High ● Scale Score
Growth
Proficient Typical
Level Percentiles
Example Student 3020
Low High 66th − 99th
Part Proficient Typical 36th − 65th
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Next Year
Scale Score 467
Achievement Level Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile
Growth Level Growth
NCIEA
CDE
Colorado Department of Education
Advanced
Math
High Achievement
CSAP Math
● Scale Score
Typical
Growth
Proficient Low
Level Percentiles
High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Next Year
Scale Score 425 435 475
Achievement Level Proficient Part Proficient Part Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 21 52
Growth Level Low Typical Growth
2008 CSAP Growth & Achievement Report
Advanced Reading
Achievement
High
CSAP Reading
● Scale Score
Typical
Proficient ● Growth
Level Percentiles
Low
High 66th − 99th
Typical 36th − 65th
Part Proficient ●
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Next Year
Scale Score 478 547 587
Achievement Level Part Proficient Part Proficient Part Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 70 73
Growth Level High High Growth
Advanced
Writing
High
Achievement
CSAP Writing
● Scale Score
Typical
Growth
Proficient
Low Level Percentiles
Example Student 3020
High 66th − 99th
Part Proficient Typical 36th − 65th
Low 1st − 35th
Unsatisfactory
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Next Year
Scale Score 436 447 527
Achievement Level Part Proficient Part Proficient Proficient Achievement
Growth Percentile 34 98
Growth Level Low High Growth
Overview
Describing Student Growth
The Colorado Growth Model
Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth
References
Going from Students to Schools
It’s of interest to examine schools where students demonstrate, on
average, extraordinarily high and low student growth.
To summarize the student growth percentiles associated with a
school (or other grouping) calculate the median of the student
growth percentiles.
If students were randomly assigned to schools, expect to see a
median of 50.
Values greatly above or below 50 are of interest in identifying best
practices or providing extra support.
Examining growth with achievement sheds new light on school
performance.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
Denver County 1: 2007 CSAP Math School Results
Student Growth versus Student Achievement by Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage
Percent Free/Reduced Lunch
Less than 20 percent
20 to 40 percent
Percentage of Proficient/Advanced Students in School
80 Sustaining Excelling 40 to 60 percent
60 to 80 percent
More than 80 percent
60 School Size
50 Students
50 100 Students
200 Students
500 Students
30 Underperforming Improving 1,000 Students
Median of Student Growth Percentiles in School
Note: Achievement and growth levels used to qualify school performance are presently under review by CDE and subject to revision.
Denver County 1: 2007 CSAP Math School Results
Student Growth versus Student Achievement by Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage
School Percent
Free/Reduced Lunch
Percentage of Proficient/Advanced Students in School
● Less than 20 percent
80 Sustaining Excelling ● 20 to 40 percent
● 40 to 60 percent
● 60 to 80 percent
● More than 80 percent
School Size
50 Students
100 Students
200 Students
30 Underperforming Improving 500 Students
1,000 Students
Median of Student Growth Percentiles in School
Overview
The Colorado Growth Model
References
References
Yen, W. M. (2007).
Vertical scaling and No Child Left Behind.
In Dorans, N. J., Pommerich, M., and Holland, P. W., editors, Linking
and Aligning Scores and Scales, pages 273–283. Springer, New
York.
Damian W. Betebenner New Directions for Student Growth Models
The Colorado Growth Model
Operationalizing Growth−to−Standard for AYP using Growth Percentiles
Grade 4/2005 Grade 5/2006 Grade 6/2007 Grade 7/2008 Grade 8/2009 Grade 9/2010
The Colorado Growth Model uses each student's growth percentile in two ways:
First, the growth percentile is used to describe how much a student has grown
during the last year. Second, the growth percentile is used to determine whether the
student is on track to reach/maintain proficiency. The following slides demonstrate,
for individual students, how the Colorado Growth Model is used to determine
whether the student is On Track to either Reach or Maintain Proficiency.
That is, whether the student is either "Catching Up" or "Keeping Up".
Grade 4/2005 Grade 5/2006 Grade 6/2007 Grade 7/2008 Grade 8/2009 Grade 9/2010
On Track to Reach NCLB Proficient − Catching Up
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach NCLB
proficient within 3 years?
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach NCLB
proficient within 3 years?
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
After 1 year the student
remains unsatisfactory,
so their 1 year growth was not
● enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
Is the student's growth, 67th percentile growth, consecutively for two years, to reach NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient Their 70th percentile growth puts them ahead of that 2 year target.
to put them on track to reach NCLB
proficient within 3 years?
67th
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
After 1 year the student
remains unsatisfactory,
so their 1 year growth was not
● enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
Is the student's growth, 67th percentile growth, consecutively for two years, to reach NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient Their 70th percentile growth puts them ahead of that 2 year target.
to put them on track to reach NCLB
proficient within 3 years?
55th
67th
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take 55th percentile growth,
After 1 year the student consecutively for three years, to reach NCLB
remains unsatisfactory, proficient. Their 70th percentile growth
so their 1 year growth was not puts them ahead of that 3 year target.
● enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
Is the student's growth, 67th percentile growth, consecutively for two years, to reach NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient Their 70th percentile growth puts them ahead of that 2 year target.
to put them Conclusion: Even
on track to reach NCLBthough the student was not NCLB proficient in 2008, their 2007−08
growth
proficient percentile of 70 was more than either the two or three year targets. As such
within 3 years?
the student's growth is considered to be sufficient to reach NCLB proficient within three years. 55th
In short, the student is on track to be NCLB proficient and is "catching
67th up".
70th ●
42nd ●
68th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take 55th percentile growth,
After 1 year the student consecutively for three years, to reach NCLB
remains unsatisfactory, proficient. Their 70th percentile growth
so their 1 year growth was not puts them ahead of that 3 year target.
● enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Not On Track to Reach NCLB Proficient − Not Catching Up
61st ●
10th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach
NCLB proficient within 3 years?
61st ●
10th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
After 1 year the student
remains unsatisfactory,
so their 1 year growth was not
Is the student's growth, enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach
NCLB proficient within 3 years?
61st ●
10th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
89th percentile growth, consecutively for two years,
After 1 year the student to reach NCLB proficient. Their 61st percentile
remains unsatisfactory, growth puts them behind that 2 year target.
so their 1 year growth was not
Is the student's growth, enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach
NCLB proficient within 3 years?
89th
61st ●
10th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
89th percentile growth, consecutively for two years,
After 1 year the student to reach NCLB proficient. Their 61st percentile
remains unsatisfactory, growth puts them behind that 2 year target.
so their 1 year growth was not
Is the student's growth, enough to get them to NCLB proficient.
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to put them on track to reach
NCLB proficient within 3 years?
77th
89th
61st ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take 77th percentile growth,
consecutively for three years, to reach
NCLB proficient. Their 61st percentile growth
10th ●
puts them behind that 3 year target.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it would take
89th percentile growth, consecutively for two years,
Conclusion: Because the After student
1 yearwas
the not NCLB proficient
student to in 2008
reach NCLB and their Their
proficient. 2007−08
61st percentile
remains unsatisfactory,
growth percentile of 61 was less than both the two and three year targets, the year target.
growth puts them behind that 2
so their 1 year growth was not
student's
Is the student's growth is enough
growth, considered to be
to get them insufficient
to NCLB to reach proficient within three years
proficient.
from 2007 toIn2008, sufficient
short, the student is not on track to be NCLB proficient and is not "catching up".
to put them on track to reach
NCLB proficient within 3 years?
77th
89th
61st ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take 77th percentile growth,
consecutively for three years, to reach
NCLB proficient. Their 61st percentile growth
10th ●
puts them behind that 3 year target.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Not On Track to Remain NCLB Proficient − Not Keeping Up
● 19th
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to remain at or above NCLB
proficient for the next 3 years?
● 19th
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to remain at or above NCLB
proficient for the next 3 years?
● 19th
After 1 year the student
remains NCLB proficient,
so their 1 year growth was
enough to remain at NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 26th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above NCLB at or above NCLB proficient. Their 19th percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them behind that 2 year minimal target.
26th
● 19th
After 1 year the student
remains NCLB proficient,
so their 1 year growth was
enough to remain at NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 26th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above NCLB at or above NCLB proficient. Their 19th percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them behind that 2 year minimal target.
27th
26th
● 19th
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 27th percentile
growth, consecutively for three years, to
After 1 year the student
maintain at or above proficient. Their 19th
remains NCLB proficient,
percentile growth puts them behind that
so their 1 year growth was
3 year minimal target.
enough to remain at NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 26th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above NCLB at or above NCLB proficient. Their 19th percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them behind that 2 year minimal target.
Conclusion: Even though the student was NCLB proficient in 2008, their 2007−08
growth percentile of 19 was less than both the two and three year minimum targets. As such, the
student's growth is considered to be insufficient to remain NCLB proficient over the next three years.
In short, the student is not on track to remain NCLB proficient and is not "keeping up".
27th
26th
● 19th
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 27th percentile
growth, consecutively for three years, to
After 1 year the student
maintain at or above proficient. Their 19th
remains NCLB proficient,
percentile growth puts them behind that
so their 1 year growth was
3 year minimal target.
enough to remain at NCLB proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
On Track to Remain Colorado Proficient − Keeping Up
63rd ●
66th ●
26th ●
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to remain at or above Colorado
proficient for the next 3 years?
63rd ●
66th ●
26th ●
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Is the student's growth, After 1 year the student
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient remains proficient,
to remain at or above Colorado so their 1 year growth was
proficient for the next 3 years? enough to remain at proficient.
63rd ●
66th ●
26th ●
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Is the student's growth, After 1 year the student
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient remains proficient,
to remain at or above Colorado so their 1 year growth was
proficient for the next 3 years? enough to remain at proficient.
63rd ●
66th ● 18th
26th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 18th percentile growth,
consecutively for two years, to maintain
at or above proficient. Their 63rd percentile
growth puts them above that 2 year minimal target.
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Is the student's growth, After 1 year the student
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient remains proficient,
to remain at or above Colorado so their 1 year growth was
proficient for the next 3 years? enough to remain at proficient.
63rd ● 22nd
66th ● 18th
26th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 22nd percentile
growth, consecutively for three years, to
In 2008 CDE estimated that it maintain at or above proficient. Their 63rd
would take, at a minimum, 18th percentile growth, percentile growth puts them above that 3 year
consecutively for two years, to maintain minimal target.
at or above proficient. Their 63rd percentile
growth puts them above that 2 year minimal target.
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Is the student's growth, After 1 year the student
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient remains proficient,
to remain at or above Colorado so their 1 year growth was
proficient for the next 3 years? enough to remain at proficient.
Conclusion: Because the student was Colorado proficient in 2008 and their 2007−08
growth percentile of 63 was greater than both the two and three year minimum targets, the
student's growth is considered to be sufficient to remain ●proficient during the next three years. 22nd
63rd
In short, the
student is on track to remain Colorado proficient and is "keeping
66th 18th
up".
26th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 22nd percentile
growth, consecutively for three years, to
In 2008 CDE estimated that it maintain at or above proficient. Their 63rd
would take, at a minimum, 18th percentile growth, percentile growth puts them above that 3 year
consecutively for two years, to maintain minimal target.
at or above proficient. Their 63rd percentile
growth puts them above that 2 year minimal target.
Grade 5/2005 Grade 6/2006 Grade 7/2007 Grade 8/2008 Grade 9/2009 Grade 10/2010
Not On Track to Remain Colorado Proficient − Not Keeping Up
45th ● 22nd ●
58th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to remain at or above Colorado
proficient for the next 3 years?
45th ● 22nd ●
58th ●
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
Is the student's growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient
to remain at or above Colorado
proficient for the next 3 years?
45th ● 22nd ●
58th ●
After 1 year the student
remains proficient,
so their 1 year growth was
enough to remain at proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 25th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above Colorado at or above proficient. Their 22nd percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them below that 2 year minimal target.
45th ● 22nd ● 25th
58th ●
After 1 year the student
remains proficient,
so their 1 year growth was
enough to remain at proficient.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 25th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above Colorado at or above proficient. Their 22nd percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them below that 2 year minimal target.
31st
45th ● 22nd ● 25th
58th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 31st percentile
After 1 year the student growth, consecutively for three years, to
remains proficient, maintain at or above proficient. Their
so their 1 year growth was 22nd percentile growth puts them behind
enough to remain at proficient. that 3 year minimal target.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
Is the student's growth, would take, at a minimum, 25th percentile growth,
from 2007 to 2008, sufficient consecutively for two years, to maintain
to remain at or above at or above proficient. Their 22nd percentile
proficient for the next 3 years? growth puts them below that 2 year minimal target.
Conclusion: Even though the student was proficient in 2008, their 2007−08
growth percentile of 22 was less than both the two and three year minimum targets. As such, the
student's growth is considered to be insufficient to remain Colorado proficient over the next three years.
In short, the student is not on track to remain Colorado proficient and is not "keeping up".
31st
45th ● 22nd ● 25th
58th ●
In 2008 CDE estimated that it
would take, at a minimum, 31st percentile
After 1 year the student growth, consecutively for three years, to
remains proficient, maintain at or above proficient. Their
so their 1 year growth was 22nd percentile growth puts them behind
enough to remain at proficient. that 3 year minimal target.
Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010
About this copy
New Directions for Student Growth Models — Arizona Department of Education, March 10, 2009.
This is an image-based copy of the original PDF slides; builds and animations are flattened.