Student Growth
Idaho Department of Education · March 2018
Student Growth — Idaho Department of Education, March 2018.
Published
March 29, 2018
- Event
- State agency
- Slides
- 7
- 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
- STUDENT GROWTH: CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL STUDENT GROWTH INDICATORS Damian W Betebenner, Ayaka Nukui & Kevin Whitman Boise, ID March 29th, 2018
- BACKGROUND • As Karlynn mentioned, the student growth model that Idaho is implementing is a growth-to-proficiency model based upon a 3 year time frame assuming a linear trajectory. • Put another way, Idaho’s growth model is based upon scale score gain (i.e., subtraction) with a adequacy criterion (i.e., a target) defined by the 3 year linear trajectory.
- BACKGROUND • At the March 6th Accountability Task Force meeting the model and preliminary results were reviewed. • The group liked the growth-to-proficiency model but expressed concern about preliminary results. • The results demonstrated correlations that were problematic. • The dichotomous results (student met target/student didn’t meet target) were too “coarse”.
- Correlation between percent reaching target and other school level indicators (N>=10) School Level Indicator Math 3 Year ELA 3 Year Mean prior standardized 0.69 0.69 achievement Percent prior year 0.73 0.70 proficient Percent economically -0.44 -0.41 disadvantaged Percent special education -0.28 -0.31
- BIG PICTURE: BACKGROUND • Idaho’s new vision for accountability is sharing clear, understandable data about school performance using a variety of indicators • Outlined in IDAPA Rule 08.02.03.112. • What additional growth indicators can be provided to support this vision?
- MATRIX OF USER/USES Group (e.g., school, User/Uses Individual subgroup) Minimal Capacity to Met Target/Didn’t Meet Percent meeting target. Interpret Target Moderate Capacity to Interpret Power User