Projection Models are Superior to Student Growth Percentiles for K-12 Accountability Systems???

NCME Annual Meeting · April 2013

Projection Models are Superior to Student Growth Percentiles for K-12 Accountability Systems??? — NCME Annual Meeting, April 2013.
Published

April 28, 2013

Event
Conference
Slides
4
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. Projection Models are Superior to Student Growth Percentiles for K-12 Accountability Systems??? Damian W. Betebenner National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Dover, NH NCME Throwdown of the Day San Francisco, CA April 28th, 2013 Damian W. Betebenner Projection Models are Superior to SGP
  2. Main Points The SGP Model is intended to allow stakeholders to answer three questions simultaneously: What is? What is a student’s growth is answered in a norm-referenced fashion using student growth percentiles. What should be? What should a student’s growth be to reach or maintain desired levels of achievement is a criterion-referenced question and is answered using student growth projections. What is reasonable? Because SGPs are percentiles and are conditional probabilities, we implicitly understand what is a modest growth goal versus what is an ambitious growth goal. One needs both norms and criteria to fully understand all phenomena, including student growth. Thus, to answer the debate question, one needs both student growth percentiles (norms) and student growth projections (criteria) to make sense. Damian W. Betebenner Projection Models are Superior to SGP
  3. Demonstration: 2012−2013 Mathematics Norm & Criterion Referenced Growth & Achievement Baseline Referenced Percentile Growth Trajectory Scale Score 2012−2013 Achievement Percentile Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
  4. 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