New Directions for Student Growth Models

Arizona Department of Education · March 10, 2009

New Directions for Student Growth Models — Arizona Department of Education, March 10, 2009.
Published

March 10, 2009

Event
State agency
Slides
51
Format
Converted from PDF

This deck is an image-based copy of the original slides. Builds and animations are flattened; the slide text is reproduced below for search and screen readers.

Slide text
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14.  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
  15.  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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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