SGP & High School Analyses
References
Student Growth Percentile Analysis of High School Data
Damian W. Betebenner
National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment
Dover, New Hampshire
Indiana Department of Education
Indianapolis, Indiana February 7th, 2011
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & High School Data
SGP & High School Analyses
References
SGP & High School Analyses
NCLB required states to test in Reading/ELA and
Mathematics in Grades 3 to 8 and once in high school.
States implementing growth analyses in their 3 to 8 are often
interested in extending those analyses to 10th grade.
Indiana administered EOC (end of course) assessments in
English and Algebra I in grade 10.
What are the questions Indiana wants to answer?
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & High School Data
SGP & High School Analyses
References
Review of SGP
Student growth percentiles (SGPs) are most often calculated
for grade level cohorts of students taking annual assessments
in one or more content areas [Betebenner, 2009].
For example, in Indiana SGPs are currently calculated in
Mathematics and English/Language Arts in grades 4 to 8.
Nothing prevents one from calculating an SGP using 10th
grade as the dependent variable and 8th, 7th, . . . grades as
independent.
Need to consider differences in what is being calculated
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & High School Data
SGP & High School Analyses
References
SGP Analysis in 10th grade
A 10th grade growth percentile represents a conditional
probability across two years instead of one.
Massachusetts has calculated these SGPs for 2 years and
reports them to high schools.
Because they quantile what has taken place across two years,
attributions of responsibility (i.e., teacher or school
accountability) are more tenuous.
Possible to calculate a median SGP for only those students
continuously enrolled for two years at the school to “tighten”
the argument.
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & High School Data
2009 Statewide High School Performance
Growth and Achievement MCAS ELA by School Poverty
100 Higher Achievement X Higher Achievement
XXXXXXX XX
XXX XX XXXX
XX
XXXX X School Size
X X XX
XX
X X X X XXX XX XX X
XX X
X X XX X X X X
X XX X X
90 Lower Growth X X X
XX X
XXXXXX
XX
X XX
X XX X X
XXX X XX X
XX XX XX X X X X X
X Higher Growth 50 Students
X X X XX X XX XXX XXXXXXX X XX X X 100 Students
X XXXX XXX XXX X X
XXX X X
XXX X X XX
X XXX X
X XX X
X 250 Students
80 X XX X X XXXX XXX
XX XX X
X X XX X
X XXX XXX X X X
X X XX X X 500 Students
2009 Percent at/above Proficient
XX XX
X XX X
XX
X X X X X XX X X X X
1000 Students
X X XX
XX XX X
X XXXX XX XX X XX
XXX X X
XXXX X X
XX X
X X X XX X X School Percent
50 XXX X X X X Free/Reduced Lunch
X XXX
X X ● Less than 20 percent
● 20 to 40 percent
30 X ● 40 to 60 percent
● 60 to 80 percent
● More than 80 percent
Lower Growth Higher Growth
0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement
2009 Median Student Growth Percentile
2009 Statewide High School Performance
Growth and Achievement MCAS ELA by School Poverty
100 Higher Achievement Higher Achievement School Size
90 Lower Growth Higher Growth 50 Students
100 Students
250 Students
500 Students
2009 Percent at/above Proficient
70 1000 Students
X X School Percent
50 X X X Free/Reduced Lunch
● Less than 20 percent
● 20 to 40 percent
30 ● 40 to 60 percent
● 60 to 80 percent
20 ● More than 80 percent
Lower Growth Higher Growth
0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement
2009 Median Student Growth Percentile
2009 Statewide High School Performance
Growth and Achievement MCAS Math by School Poverty
100 Higher Achievement XX X Higher
XX Achievement School Size
X X X XX
XXX X XXX XX X X X
Lower GrowthX X X X X
XX XX X X
X XX X X X
Higher Growth
X 50 Students
90 X XXX X XX XXX XXX
XX
X X XX X X X X XX XX X X X 100 Students
X XX XXXX X XXX X XXX X
XXXX X XX
XXXX X X X
XX X XX X X
X 250 Students
80 X X X XXX X XXX X XXX X X
XX XX
X XXX XX X X X
500 Students
X X X X XXX
2009 Percent at/above Proficient
XX X
XX X
XX
XX X XX X X
X XX X X X X X 1000 Students
70 X X X X XX
X X X X XX XX X X X X
X X X X X X XX X XX X
X X XX X XX XXX X X X X X X X
60 X X XXX X
X XX X XXX
X XX X XX
XXX X X XX
X XX
XXX X X XX School Percent
X X X XX X
X X XX X X X X Free/Reduced Lunch
XX
XX XX
X XX X X X X X X
● Less than 20 percent
40 XX
X XX
XX X X
X ● 20 to 40 percent
X X X ● 40 to 60 percent
X X ● 60 to 80 percent
20 ● More than 80 percent
10 XX
Lower Growth X
Higher Growth
0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement
2009 Median Student Growth Percentile
2009 Statewide High School Performance
Growth and Achievement MCAS Math by School Poverty
100 Higher Achievement Higher Achievement School Size
90 Lower Growth Higher Growth 50 Students
100 Students
250 Students
500 Students
2009 Percent at/above Proficient
70 1000 Students
School Percent
X Free/Reduced Lunch
● Less than 20 percent
X ● 20 to 40 percent
X ● 40 to 60 percent
X ● 60 to 80 percent
20 ● More than 80 percent
10 XX
Lower Growth Higher Growth
0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement
2009 Median Student Growth Percentile
SGP & High School Analyses
References
References
Betebenner, D. W. (2009).
Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4):42–51.
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & High School Data
About this copy
Student Growth Percentile Analysis of High School Data — Indiana Department of Education, February 7, 2011.
This is an image-based copy of the original beamer slides; builds and animations are flattened.