Growth During Transition

CCSSO National Conference on Student Assessment · June 2015

Growth During Transition — CCSSO National Conference on Student Assessment, June 2015.
Published

June 22, 2015

Event
Conference
Slides
12
Format
Converted from Keynote

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. GROWTH DURING TRANSITION A DISCUSSION OF ISSUES FACING STATES Damian W Betebenner National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment San Diego, CA June 22nd, 2015
  2. STATES: MORE ALIKE THAN NOT • Idaho, Michigan, and West Virginia • All states were using student growth (SGPs) prior to assessment transition. • All states have the desire to use growth during the assessment transition. • All states envision dif culties communicating the results and use in accountability within the landscape of changing assessments fi
  3. CALCULATION & USE OF GROWTH • Technical (calculation) issues versus accountability use/communication issues. • Barring the existence of signi cant oor/ceiling effects, calculation of valid SGPs won’t be an issue. • States that have already transitioned (e.g., Utah, Wyoming, and WIDA) are able to calculate SGPs. • Accountability use/communication more dif cult. • Some states already battling bad impressions about student growth. • “How can you calculate growth across different tests?” fi fl fi
  4. THREE BROAD OPTIONS 1. Modify accountability and growth (start fresh) going forward. 2. Modify accountability system during transition and continue with same SGP growth 3. Continue with same SGP growth and accountability system as before.
  5. GROWTH: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS • It isn’t as hard to understand as popular perception suggests! • Calculation may be complicated, but knowing how to calculate student growth is not synonymous with understanding student growth: • The number π is difficult to calculate but is simple to understand conceptually. • Height and weight percentiles associated with children are difficult to calculate but are simple to understand conceptually. • Computational details are important, but often obscure a simple conceptual basis.
  6. GROWTH: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS MYTH: VERTICAL SCALES SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS • States transitioning to SBAC will have access to a vertical/ developmental scale. • Vertical/developmental scales allow users to compare (and subtract) scaled scores from grade to grade. • A vertical scale (i.e., gain scores) is not a “growth model”
  7. GROWTH: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS MYTH: VERTICAL SCALES SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS • Growth as an amount of change: • What could be more simple? • Like height or weight just calculate the amount of change. • Requires a vertical scale (which Indiana has up to this year and will have going forward) or a set of ordered performance levels. • Growth = Score Time 2 - Score Time 1 • Not as simple as it seems: Comparisons between students often lead to wrong conclusions.
  8. GROWTH: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS MYTH: VERTICAL SCALES SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS Let’s step outside of education for an example:
  9. GROWTH: DISPELLING SOME MYTHS MYTH: VERTICAL SCALES SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS • Which high jumper improved more? • Judy’s best changed 2 inches. • Anna’s best changed 6 inches. • An inch is an inch!!! • But is an inch really an inch??? • Change versus improvement. • 2 inches for an elite jumper is far more remarkable than 6 inches for a novice.
  10. GROWTH: NEXT STEPS • An assessment transition is an extreme version of what has happened annually • Correlations are likely sufficient to make SGPs informative. • Growth to standard possible using test linkage, but un-tested at this point. • Calculation is not the biggest issue! Explaining results is the biggest issue. • Good artists borrow, great artists steal: • Numerous states have produced great materials to help communicate results.
  11. Meske Vigil Sample School Level 5 How to interpret this student growth & achievement report Move Up Level 4 Advanced Target ● ● ● Catch Target Up Keep Up ●● ● ● Level 3 DEMO Target ● Scale Score Level 2 Proficient DEMO Achievement Part Proficient Level 1 Levels Unsatisfactory Student Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Growth 2011−2012 2012−2013 2013−2014 2014−2015 2015−2016 Percentile Scale Score 469 541 558 1580 Achievement Level Achievement Target Proficient Advanced Proficient Level 3 Level 4 (1596)/Level 5 (1617) Level 4 (1614) Achievement Growth Percentile −− −− 53 Catch Up/Keep Up Growth Level −− −− Typical Growth Move Up/Stay Up Growth Target Keep Up (76)/Move Up (93) Catch Up (71) Targets Level 5 Suggested Uses Advanced Move Up Level 4 Target ●● ● ● ● Catch Up Keep Up ●● ● ● Target ● Target Level 3 ● Review past growth to assess ● student academic progress toward DEMO achievement goals. Proficient Level 2 ● Develop remediation or enrich− ment plans based on rate of growth needed to reach higher DEMO achievement levels. Part Proficient Level 1 ● Identify the rate of progress needed in order to reach or Unsatisfactory maintain proficient status Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 on the DEMO next year. 2011−2012 2012−2013 2013−2014 2014−2015 2015−2016 Scale Score 570 633 679 1842 Achievement Level Achievement Target Proficient Proficient Proficient Level 3 Level 4 (1896)/Level 5 (1910) Level 4 (1906) Achievement Growth Percentile −− −− 5 Growth Level Growth Target −− −− Very Low Keep Up (85)/Move Up (96) Catch Up (92) Growth For more information please visit the Student Growth Percentiles Package (SGP Package) at www.sgp.io or contact dbetebenner@nciea.org Cooperatively developed by the SGP Package & the Center for Assessment, Inc. Distributed by the SGP Package.