SGP: Norms and Standards
References
Student Growth Percentile and Growth to Standard
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 & Growth to Standard
SGP: Norms and Standards
References
SGP: Norms and Standards
The first analysis associated with student growth percentiles
is to establish growth norms (usually for the state) in each
subject and grade.
Norms are excellent for describing the distribution of
performance but are not sufficient alone to distinguish
adequate from inadequate.
Standards are required to judge the adequacy of growth.
Student growth projections/percentile growth trajectories are
used to allow states to make adequacy judgments regarding
growth [Betebenner, 2009].
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & Growth to Standard
SGP: Norms and Standards
References
SGP: Growth to Standard
Judging adequacy requires stakeholders to decide “adequate
for what?”.
Specifically, growth is usually judged in terms of its adequacy
to helps students reach/maintain desired levels of
achievement.
The Growth Model Pilot Program was set up by the USDOE to
allow states to use growth for AYP with students being
expected to be on track (i.e., demonstrating growth sufficient)
to reach/maintain proficient status.
Colorado successfully applied as part of the growth model
pilot program to use SGP growth-to-standard analyses.
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & Growth to Standard
SGP: Norms and Standards
References
SGP: Percentile Growth Trajectories
The usual adequacy criteria are for students to reach/maintain
(i.e., catch-up/keep-up to) proficient status within 3 years or by
the end of testing.
Note that given a students initial starting place, a destination,
and a time frame, we are have a situation involving
distance = ratextime.
Using the results from the SGP analyses, percentile
trajectories are estimated for each student indicating what
level of percentile growth is necessary for each student to
reach their desired target in the established time-frame.
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & Growth to Standard
2008 CSAP Mathematics
Growth and Achievement Chart
2008 Achievement Percentile Percentile Growth Trajectory
Scale Score
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
SGP: Norms and Standards
References
Going from Student Target to Group Targets
There are many ways to incorporate student level targets into
accountability discussions
The Colorado GMPP Application tabulated percentages of
students making adequate growth (with little impact on AYP
discussions).
Another approach is to take the median SGP and compare it
to the median target SGP.
Colorado has used the median SGP and median target SGP
for their district and school performance frameworks.
New York is exploring other ways to blend norm and criterion
referenced growth to satisfy AYP determinations.
Damian W. Betebenner SGP & Growth to Standard
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: Norms and Standards
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 & Growth to Standard
About this copy
Student Growth Percentile and Growth to Standard — Indiana Department of Education, February 7, 2011.
This is an image-based copy of the original beamer slides; builds and animations are flattened.