Rhode Island Strategic Goals Conceptualization

Rhode Island Department of Education · January 18, 2023

Rhode Island Strategic Goals Conceptualization — 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. Rhode Island 2030 Aligning Indicators to Strategic Goals Damian Betebenner Center for Assessment February 14th, 2023
  2. Indicators of Learning
  3. Strategic Vision • Rhode Island is developing a comprehensive, long term strategic plan for its education system. • There are several components
  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. A 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”.