STUDENT GROWTH:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
STUDENT GROWTH INDICATORS
Damian W Betebenner, Ayaka Nukui & Kevin Whitman
Boise, ID March 29th, 2018
BACKGROUND
• As Karlynn mentioned, the student growth model that
Idaho is implementing is a growth-to-proficiency
model based upon a 3 year time frame assuming a
linear trajectory.
• Put another way, Idaho’s growth model is based upon
scale score gain (i.e., subtraction) with a adequacy
criterion (i.e., a target) defined by the 3 year linear
trajectory.
BACKGROUND
• At the March 6th Accountability Task Force meeting the
model and preliminary results were reviewed.
• The group liked the growth-to-proficiency model but
expressed concern about preliminary results.
• The results demonstrated correlations that were
problematic.
• The dichotomous results (student met target/student
didn’t meet target) were too “coarse”.
Correlation between percent reaching target
and other school level indicators (N>=10)
School Level Indicator Math 3 Year ELA 3 Year
Mean prior standardized 0.69 0.69
achievement
Percent prior year 0.73 0.70
proficient
Percent economically -0.44 -0.41
disadvantaged
Percent special education -0.28 -0.31
BIG PICTURE: BACKGROUND
• Idaho’s new vision for accountability is sharing clear,
understandable data about school performance
using a variety of indicators
• Outlined in IDAPA Rule 08.02.03.112.
• What additional growth indicators can be provided
to support this vision?
MATRIX OF USER/USES
Group (e.g., school,
User/Uses Individual
subgroup)
Minimal Capacity to Met Target/Didn’t Meet
Percent meeting target.
Interpret Target
Moderate Capacity to
Interpret
Power User
About this copy
Student Growth — Idaho Department of Education, March 2018.
This is an image-based copy of the original Keynote slides; builds and animations are flattened.