The Colorado Growth Model: Operationalizing Growth-to-Standard for AYP using Growth Percentiles

Arizona Department of Education · March 10, 2009

The Colorado Growth Model: Operationalizing Growth-to-Standard for AYP using Growth Percentiles — Arizona Department of Education, March 10, 2009.
Published

March 10, 2009

Event
State agency
Slides
32
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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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