Growth to Standard

Rhode Island Department of Education · January 18, 2023

Growth to Standard — Rhode Island Department of Education, January 18, 2023.
Published

January 18, 2023

Event
State agency
Slides
11
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 Considerations for defining a year’s worth of growth Damian Betebenner Center for Assessment January 24th, 2023
  2. Catch-Up/Keep-Up
  3. Definitions • Each student for whom growth is calculated (i.e., an SGP) is also has a growth target (i.e., SGP_TARGET) calculated. • If the student’s prior achievement is not proficient, then the SGP_TARGET is the growth target to catch-up to proficiency within 3 years or by the end of testing (time frame can be changed depending upon policy) • If the student’s prior achievement is proficient, then the SGP_TARGET is the growth target to keep-up to proficiency for the next 3 years or by the end of testing.
  4. Definitions • The SGP_TARGET: • Isn’t a guarantee that the student reaching the target will catch-up/ keep-up. • It’s a one-year installment on a multi-year plan to catch-up/keep-up. • Requires an SGP in order to make a determination of catch-up/keep-up. • Will take on extremely high (above 90) or extremely low values (below 10) for students who are low achievers and high achievers, respectively. • Can be converted to a RICAS scale score if desired.
  5. Decision Matrix: Catch-Up/Keep-Up SGP ≥ SGPTarget SGP < SGPTarget Prior Achievement Catching Up Not Catching Up Not Proficient Prior Achievement Keeping Up Not Keeping Up Proficient
  6. Catch Up/Keep Up Drawback • Though a technically correct approach, I believe using SGP and SGP_TARGET to communicate growth/learning goals suffers from the following problems: • Difficult to communicate and comprehend, especially for non-technical stakeholders • Difficulty in communication inhibits stakeholder use of the data • 1 to 99 scale communicates precision that isn’t justified.
  7. A Year’s Worth of Learning
  8. Year’s Worth of Learning • Another approach that “coarsens” SGP and SGP_TARGET and utilizes the language of a “year’s worth of learning”. • The terms “a year’s worth of learning” is often well received by non-technical stakeholders even though it is not well defined. We propose the following definitions: • At or near a year’s worth of learning: 30 ≤ SGP ≤ 65 • Below a year’s worth of learning: SGP < 30 • Above a year’s worth of learning: SGP > 65
  9. Year’s Worth of Learning • Based upon these three categories of growth/learning, students are classified in two ways: • Category 1: Growth demonstrated in current year • Category 2: Growth needed/desired in current year • Note, the two categories are analogous to SGP and SGP_TARGET except they are expressed in terms of the three “year’s worth of learning” levels instead of the 99 different percentiles. • Note: Growth needed is to either catch up or keep up. That distinction is not made explicit.
  10. Decision Matrix: Year’s Worth of Learning Learning Observed SGP ≥<SGP 1 Year Target ≈ 1Year SGP < >SGP 1Year Target Definitely Learning Needed < 1 Year Enough More than more than (but not good) enough enough ≈ 1Year More than Not enough Enough enough > 1Year Definitely Not enough Enough not enough
  11. Year’s Worth of Learning • The qualifiers (not enough, enough, definitely not enough) are rough placeholders. • The goal of systemic improvement is to diminish (over time) the percentage of students demonstrating less than a year’s worth of learning and to maximize (especially for the lowest achieving students) the percentage of students demonstrating more than a year’s worth of growth. • Note: All of the calculations are done behind the scenes with SGP and SGP_TARGET, but the language used to communicate the results is “year’s worth of learning”.