Student Growth Percentile and Growth to Standard

Indiana Department of Education · February 7, 2011

Student Growth Percentile and Growth to Standard — Indiana Department of Education, February 7, 2011.
Published

February 7, 2011

Event
State agency
Slides
11
Format
Converted from Beamer

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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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