Growth-To-Standard Using Georgia Milestones

Georgia Department of Education · February 2017

Growth-To-Standard Using Georgia Milestones — Georgia Department of Education, February 2017.
Published

February 16, 2017

Event
State agency
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-TO-STANDARD USING GEORGIA MILESTONES AN OVERVIEW Damian W Betebenner National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Dover, New Hampshire February 16th, 2017
  2. BACKGROUND • Since their development, SGP analyses have supported both norm- and criterion-referenced student growth analyses. • Norm-referenced results are more prominent used than the criterion-referenced analyses, particularly with respect to accountability. • Criterion-referenced SGP analyses were submitted and approved as part of the Growth Model Pilot Program under Secretary Spellings during the Bush Administration. • There is renewed interest in looking at growth-to standard with ESSA for state summative and ELP assessment.
  3. BACKGROUND • The norm- and criterion-referenced component of SGP analyses are the SGP (student growth percentile) and the AGP (adequate growth percentile). • AGP calculation requires establishing an ending achievement target and a time frame to reach the target. • The most common achievement goal is proficiency/career & college readiness. • The most common time frame is 3 years.
  4. BACKGROUND • AGPs are calculated using student growth projections that are calculated using coefficient matrices derived from SGP analyses. • SGP analyses produce coefficient matrices for each of 100 quantile values. • The coefficient matrices allow for the calculation of 100 percentile growth trajectories for a student. • AGPs are determined by examining the trajectories and finding the minimal trajectory that allows the student to reach the desired destination in the given time-frame. • AGP are like scale-score trajectories but they smooth “difficulty”.
  5. Georgia: 2016 ELA Norm & Criterion Referenced Growth & Achievement Percentile Growth Trajectory 2016 Achievement Percentile SGP SGP trajectories trajectories for for aa 3rd 3rd grade grade student student starting starting from from the the Level Level 1/Level 1/Level 22 cut. cut. Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 EOCT ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA Grade 9 Lit
  6. BACKGROUND • Two types of projections are calculated: Lagged and Current projections. • Lagged projections provide the AGP targets used for growth-to- standard. • Current projections are used to provide forward looking targets. • When baseline analyses are used, lagged targets and current targets don’t change. Annual re-norming can cause some discrepancies between current and lagged targets.
  7. BACKGROUND • Times frames used for growth-to-standard can either be fixed in time or fixed in duration (“rolled forward”). • Fixed time frames mandate the student reach proficiency at a particular time/grade. • Fixed in duration time frames (e.g., 3 years) are usually extended each year to yield new targets. • AGP calculations can support either approach to setting a time-frame. • Fixed in time approaches usually yield a “balloon payment” for students who have failed to make intermediate targets. This causes problems for accountability systems.
  8. SGP/AGP ILLUSTRATION
  9. SGP/AGP Illustration: 2009-2010 Advanced Reading Achievement Proficient ● DEMO Reading Scale Score ● Catch Up Target Growth Part Proficient Level Percentiles Very High 81st − 99th High 61st − 80th Unsatisfactory Typical 40th − 60th Low 20th − 39th Very Low 1st − 19th Grade 3 Grade 4 Scale Score 449 Achievement Level Achievement Target Unsatisfactory Proficient (529) Achievement Growth Percentile Growth Level Growth Target Catch Up (64) Growth
  10. SGP/AGP Illustration 2010-2011 Advanced Reading Achievement DEMO Reading ● Scale Score Proficient ● Catch Up Growth Target Catch Up ● ● Level Percentiles Target ● Very High 81st − 99th Part Proficient High 61st − 80th ● Typical 40th − 60th Low 20th − 39th Unsatisfactory Very Low 1st − 19th Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Scale Score 449 533 Achievement Level Achievement Target Unsatisfactory Part Proficient Proficient (538) Proficient (562) Achievement Growth Percentile 69 Growth Level Growth Target High Catch Up (75) Catch Up (76) Growth
  11. SGP/AGP Illustration 2011-2012 Advanced Reading Achievement Proficient ● ● ● Catch Up DEMO Reading Catch Up ● Target ● Target Scale Score Growth Part Proficient Level Percentiles Very High 81st − 99th High 61st − 80th Typical 40th − 60th Unsatisfactory Low 20th − 39th Very Low 1st − 19th Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Scale Score 449 533 579 Achievement Level Achievement Target Unsatisfactory Part Proficient Part Proficient Proficient (567) Proficient (586) Achievement Growth Percentile 69 85 Growth Level Growth Target High Very High Catch Up (74) Catch Up (71) Growth
  12. SGP/AGP Illustration 2012-2013