Exploring Student Growth in New Hampshire: Considering Results and Next Steps

New Hampshire Department of Education · February 8, 2010

Exploring Student Growth in New Hampshire: Considering Results and Next Steps — New Hampshire Department of Education, February 8, 2010.
Published

February 8, 2010

Event
State agency
Slides
17
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. Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth New Directions Exploring Student Growth in New Hampshire: Considering Results and Next Steps Damian W. Betebenner National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Dover, New Hampshire AYP Taskforce Meeting Concorde, New Hampshire February 8th, 2010 Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  2. Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth New Directions Agenda for today Overview of student growth percentile model (norm and criterion referenced student growth) A review New Hampshire school performance (percent proficient versus median SGPs) based upon Fall 2010 NECAP results Issues regarding growth model deployment/implementation Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  3. Describing Student Growth Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Criterion Referenced Growth New Directions Growth & Effectiveness 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 context for describing student growth [Betebenner, 2009, Betebenner, 2008]. Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  4. Describing Student Growth Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Criterion Referenced Growth New Directions Growth & Effectiveness 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 Hampshire Growth Model
  5. Describing Student Growth Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Criterion Referenced Growth New Directions Growth & Effectiveness Combining norms/actual with standards/aspirational Growth adequacy is determined by whether a student’s growth is sufficient to reach/maintain desired achievement levels (e.g., proficiency). With established performance standards, percentile growth projections/trajectories are calculated for each student to reach/maintain desired levels of achievement. We have investigated Follow the Child targets previously using student growth percentiles Student growth percentiles can be seen as an extension/refinement (not a replacement) of New Hampshire’s Follow the Child initiative Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  6. Advanced Reading High Achievement CSAP Reading ● Typical Scale Score Proficient Growth Low ● Level Percentiles High 66th − 99th Typical 35th − 65th Part Proficient ● Low 1st − 34th Unsatisfactory Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Next Year Scale Score 462 539 563 609 Achievement Level Unsatisfactory Part Proficient Part Proficient Proficient Achievement Growth Percentile 66 66 90 Growth Level High High High Growth
  7. Describing Student Growth Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Criterion Referenced Growth New Directions Growth & Effectiveness Going from students to groups of students 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) one calculates the median of the student growth percentiles. If students were randomly assigned to schools, one expects 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 Hampshire Growth Model
  8. New Hampshire: 2009−10 NECAP Growth & Achievement Growth and Achievement Reading Performance by School Poverty 100 Higher Achievement Higher Achievement School Size X XX X X 90 Lower Growth X X X XX XX X XXXXXXX XXX X XX Higher X Growth X X 50 Students XX X X XXX XX XXX X X X XX X X 100 Students X XXX X X XXX X X X XX X X X X XX XXX X X X XXX X XXX XX 250 Students X XXXX XX XXXX XX XX X X X X XXX X XX X X X X XX XX XX XX X X X Fall 2010 Percent at/above Proficient X XX XXX X XXX X X X X X X XXXX XXX X X X XX XX X X X X 500 Students X XXXX X X X XX XX XXX X XX X X XX 70 X X X X XXX X XXX XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X XX XXX X XXX XX X XXX X X X XX X X X XX XX XX X X Percent Free/Reduced XX X X Lunch Students X ● Less than 20 percent X ● 20 to 40 percent ● 40 to 60 percent X ● 60 to 80 percent ● More than 80 percent Lower Growth Higher Growth 0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement Fall 2010 Median Student Growth Percentile
  9. New Hampshire: 2009−10 NECAP Growth & Achievement Growth and Achievement Reading Performance by School Poverty 100 Higher Achievement Higher Achievement School Size 90 Lower Growth Higher Growth 50 Students 100 Students X 250 Students Fall 2010 Percent at/above Proficient 500 Students X X Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students X ● Less than 20 percent X ● 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 Fall 2010 Median Student Growth Percentile
  10. New Hampshire: 2009−10 NECAP Growth & Achievement Growth and Achievement NECAP Math Performance by School Poverty 100 Higher Achievement X Higher Achievement School Size 90 Lower Growth X X X Higher Growth XX 50 Students XX X X X X X XX XX X X X 100 Students XX XXXX XX X X XXX X XX XX XX XX X X XXX XX XXXXX X XX X XX X X X 250 Students 80 X X XX XX X X XX X XXX Fall 2010 Percent at/above Proficient X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X XX X X X X XXX X XX 500 Students X XX X XX XX X XX X X XX X X X XX X X X X X XX XXX X X XXX XXXXXX X XXXX XX XX X XX X XX X X XX XX XXX X X XX X X X X XXX X X XX X X X X XX X X XX X X X X XX X X XX X X X XX X XX X XX XX XX X XXX 60 X X X XXX X X X XXXX X XXX X XX X XX X X Percent Free/Reduced XX X X XX X X X Lunch Students X ● Less than 20 percent X X ● 20 to 40 percent 30 ● 40 to 60 percent ● 60 to 80 percent ● More than 80 percent Lower Growth X Higher Growth 0 Lower Achievement Lower Achievement Fall 2010 Median Student Growth Percentile
  11. New Hampshire: 2009−10 NECAP Growth & Achievement Growth and Achievement NECAP Math Performance by School Poverty 100 Higher Achievement Higher Achievement School Size 90 Lower Growth Higher Growth 50 Students 100 Students 250 Students Fall 2010 Percent at/above Proficient X 500 Students X X Percent Free/Reduced 50 X Lunch Students ● 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 Fall 2010 Median Student Growth Percentile
  12. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References Descriptive Accountability “Accountability system results can have value without making causal inferences about school quality, solely from the results of student achievement measures and demographic characteristics. Treating the results as descriptive information and for identification of schools that require more intensive investigation of organizational and instructional process characteristics are potentially of considerable value. Rather than using the results of the accountability system as the sole determiner of sanctions for schools, they could be used to flag schools that need more intensive investigation to reach sound conclusions about needed improvements or judgments about quality.” R. L. Linn (2008) Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  13. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References Turning Data into Information Growth Model Data Calculations Growth Model Data Use Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  14. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References Turning Data into Information Calculating growth quantities is the first and easiest step in the development and deployment of a growth model. Student growth percentiles and quantities derived from them are just data. That data needs to be transformed into information. Turning data into information requires a statewide effort focused on dissemination and use of the data. Data visualization vis-à-vis reporting is an important means to help users quickly find the important “stories” that the data have to tell. Good reporting/data visualization is an integral part of outreach/professional development/training efforts. These efforts are just a part of the conversation about using data to inform practice and our larger understanding of education quality. Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  15. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References Web 2.0: Data Visualization and Social Networking The Colorado Department of Education and the Center for Assessment have been working for the last two year on developing next generation data visualization to accompany growth model data. The goal: Transform conversations about education through active engagement with data (i.e., evidence). Our efforts have received tremendous interest and recognition: Recognized by Adobe for innovative uses of their technology as an Adobe Max Award finalist in October, 2009. Multiple states signing MOUs to co-develop a cloud-based reporting platform in a non-proprietary fashion. Colorado recently devoted $2.5 million of stimulus funds to the development efforts Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  16. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References Web 2.0: Data Visualization and Social Networking With a collaborative spirit, with a collaborative platform where people can upload data, explore data, compare solutions, discuss the results, build consensus, we can engage passionate people, local communities, media and this will raise–incredibly–the amount of people who can understand what is going on. And this would have fantastic outcomes: the engagement of people, especially new generations; it would increase knowledge, unlock statistics, improve transparency and accountability of public policies, change culture, increase numerary, and in the end, improve democracy and welfare. E. Giovannini, Chief Statistician, OECD. June 2007 Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model
  17. Growth & Accountability Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth Web 2.0 Technologies New Directions References References Betebenner, D. W. (2008). Toward a normative understanding of student growth. In Ryan, K. E. and Shepard, L. A., editors, The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability, pages 155–170. Taylor & Francis, New York. Betebenner, D. W. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4):42–51. Linn, R. L. (2008). Educational accountability systems. In The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability, pages 3–24. Taylor & Francis, New York. Damian W. Betebenner New Hampshire Growth Model