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
The Colorado Growth Model: Operationalizing Growth-to-Standard for AYP using Growth Percentiles — Arizona Department of Education, March 10, 2009.
This is an image-based copy of the original PDF slides; builds and animations are flattened.