Transcript Slide 1

Public Forum on New York State’s
NCLB Growth Model Proposal
Shelia Evans-Tranumn
Associate Commissioner
Ira Schwartz
Coordinator, Accountability, Policy, & Administration
Purpose of
No Child Left Behind
“…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
and significant opportunity to obtain a highquality education and reach, at a minimum,
proficiency on challenging state academic
achievement standards and state academic
assessments.”
Draft: September 26,
2008
2
Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007: Growth Model
“By the start of the 2008-2009 school year,
the Regents shall establish, using existing
state assessments, an interim, modified
accountability system for schools and
districts that is based on a growth model,
subject to approval of the United States
department of education where required
under federal law.”
Draft: September 26,
2008
3
Next Generation Accountability
System Design
Key Questions:
 How do we design accountability models that move
students from low performance to proficient as well as
from proficient to distinction?
 How can we ensure that improved scores represent
improved learning?
 How do we take data and turn it into actionable
information that improves teaching and learning?
 How do we move from beating the odds to changing
the odds?
Draft: September 26,
2008
4
Accountability: Status vs. Growth
 Status Models: take a snapshot of a
subgroup’s or school’s level of student
proficiency at one point in time and often
compare that proficiency level with an
established target.
 Growth Models: measure progress by
tracking the achievement scores of the
same students from one year to the next to
determine student progress.
Draft: September 26,
2008
5
Why Growth?
Types of Performance
Status
Status/Growth Combinations
Change
High Status
Achieve
-ment
Effectiveness
Status
Growth
Improvement
High/Low
High/High
Acceleration
Low/Low
Low/High
Low Status
Low Growth
Draft: September 26,
2008
High Growth
6
Betebenner, Jan. 2008, for RI project
Draft: September 26,
2008
7
Two Types of Growth Targets
Policy driven targets start with a policy
goal (what should be) and then establish
the targets for performance that are
necessary to achieve this goal.

Data driven targets start with historical
performance (what has been) and use that
as a basis to project what should be
expected of the units to be measured.
Draft: September 26,
2008
8
New York State’s Proposal
 Use growth in two different ways:
 To make more refined AYP
determinations (must be approved by
USED)
 To supplement AYP and make a more
comprehensive system, attending in
particular to growth of students who are
proficient or higher (not necessary to be
approved by USED)
Draft: September 26,
2008
9
Constraints
 Using growth in AYP is highly constrained:
 Focused on reaching proficiency and reducing the
achievement gap
 Specifics dictated by USED
 Proposal must be submitted by Oct. 15 to USED; if
approved, would apply to 2008-09 data
 Using growth outside of AYP is less constrained, but there
is less agreement on approaches:
 NYSED will work with partners to create this growth
proposal
 Regents would like proposal by end of this school year
Draft: September 26,
2008
10
New York State: Local Initiatives

A number of NYS districts have developed local growth and
value-added models. The two most prominent are:


NYC’s Progress Report initiative.
Capital Region BOCES initiative.

These initiatives are neither endorsed by SED nor require SED’s
endorsement.

These initiatives are not constrained by USED’s growth model
guidelines and were not designed for use in making AYP
decisions.

These models can inform the development of State growth
and/or value-added models for which USED’s permission is not
required.
Draft: September 26,
2008
11
SED’s Interim Growth Model Design Principles





Interim Growth Model shall be implemented in 08-09 school year
(with Regents and USED approval).
Model shall meet core principles of Spellings 11/21/05
correspondence.
Model shall be based upon NY’s current State assessment
program & shall not require the implementation of new
assessments.
Model shall utilize such data as is currently collected through
State data collection processes and shall not require the
collection of new data elements.
Model’s purpose shall be to make more refined determinations of
student progress, identify with greater precision high performing
schools and districts, and support greater differentiation in
support and services to schools and districts in need of
improvement.
Draft: September 26,
2008
12
SED’s Interim Growth Model Design
Principles
 The model shall be based upon measuring whether
students are proficient or on track towards proficiency
within a prescribed time period.
 Model shall use an “open architecture.” All calculations
should be transparent.
 The interim growth model shall be a stage in a process
leading, by 2010-11, to the development of an
enhanced system that includes a value-added model.
 The NCLB model should be combined with a State
model that includes consequences and/or incentives for
promoting growth for all students, while placing no
school or district at risk of failing to make AYP, if it
would make AYP under the current status model.
Draft: September 26,
2008
13
USED Seven Core Principles
1. All students proficient or on track to
proficiency by 2014; set annual goals to
close subgroup gaps.
2. Expectations for annual achievement based
on meeting grade level proficiency, not
based on demographic characteristics or
school characteristics.
3. Produce separate decisions for math and
ELA/reading.
4. Include students, subgroups, schools, and
districts in accountability.
Draft: September 26,
2008
14
USED Core Principles – cont.
5. Assessment data: annual, 3-8 & high
school, operational for more than one
year (i.e., at least two years’ of data),
produce comparable results grade-tograde and year-to-year; approved in Peer
Review.
6. Track student progress (longitudinal).
7. Include participation rates and additional
academic indicator for accountability.
Draft: September 26,
2008
15
USED Peer Review Additional
Specifications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fully approved assessment system
Uniform minimum-n for all groups
No confidence intervals for growth
Very limited recalculation of student growth
target
Cannot use with multiple other non-Status
approaches, such as Safe Harbor and Index
Apply growth to all students for reporting and
accountability (preference)
Report student growth results (preference)
State has vertical scale (preference?)
Draft: September 26,
2008
16
SED Draft Proposal
 For grades 3-8, utilize a “proficiency plus”
growth model for grades 3-8 similar to North
Carolina’s approved model.
 For high school, utilize a “value tables” model
similar to Delaware’s approved grades 3-8
model.
 Include an enhanced middle level and high
school component in the proposal.
 Build a “growth for all” State component that
sets growth targets for all students, including
those who are already proficient.
Draft: September 26,
2008
17
NCLB Growth Model: General Approach



If a student scores proficient or above (Level 3/4) in
the current year, include that student’s results in the
Performance Index as is done under the present
status model.
Use growth to check whether students who did not
yet score proficient (Level 2) have grown enough
that it is likely they will become proficient within a
designated amount of time.
For purposes of calculating the Performance Index,
give schools and districts “full credit” for any student
who either scores proficient or above or who is
deemed to be on track for proficiency.
Draft: September 26,
2008
18
“On-Track” Growth to Proficiency
Example
Prof. 8
Prof. 7
Prof. 6
Prof. 5
Prof. 4
Observed growth Gr. 3-4
projected to Gr. 8
Proficient
Proficient or
On track to be proficient
Prof. 3
3
Draft: September 26,
2008
4
5
6
7
8
19
3-8 Growth Model: Simplified Example










Level 3 Scale Score = 650.
Billy scores a 614 in Grade 3 ELA.
Billy is 36 points below proficiency (650- 614).
Billy has four years to become proficient.
Billy must close the gap by ¼ (9 points) in Grade 4.
Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 4 is 623 (614 + 9).
Billy scores 635 in Grade 4.
Billy now has three years to become proficient.
Billy must close the gap by 1/3 (5 points) in Grade 5.
Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 5 is 640 (635 + 5).
Draft: September 26,
2008
20
Growth Model: Middle School
Extension




Students in middle school would be evaluated on whether
they made sufficient growth to become proficient by the
designated high school Regents examination.
The designated high school target is proficient on the
Regents Examination in Integrated Algebra and proficient
on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English.
Students in middle school would have until the target
assessment to be projected proficient; the number of
years permitted would be based upon the grade the
student entered middle school.
This middle school extension will only apply to schools
(and their subgroups), not to district AYP decisions in
instances where students transfer among schools within a
district.
Draft: September 26,
2008
21
Middle Level Extension: Simplified
Example
Level 3 Math Regents Exam is equated to scale score of
663*.

Billy scores a 623 in Grade 5 Math.

Billy enrolls in a new middle school in Grade 6.

Billy is 40 points below proficiency (663-623).

Billy has four years to become proficient.

Billy must close the gap by 1/4 (10 points) in Grade 6.

Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 6 is 633 (623 + 10).

If Billy remained in his original school in Grade 6, then
his proficiency target would have been 637.
(650**-623= 27/2 years = 13.5 + 623 = 637.)
*Actual equated score not yet determined
**Represents Grade 7 Level 3 Scale Score

Draft: September 26,
2008
22
3-8 Growth Model: Implications for
Schools
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
On Track
Towards
Proficiency
(0 index points)
(1 Index Point
per
Student)
(2 Index Points
per
Student)
(2 Index Points
per
Student)
(2 Index Points
per Student)
10
50
35
Less Number of
Students On
Track
Towards
Proficiency
1
4
Totals
9
46
Number of
Students
Draft: September 26,
2008
NA
5
Performance
Index
NA
130
NA
35
5
5
136
23
Growth Model: High School Extension



Students who enter high school having scored Level 1 or
at low-Level 2 on the Grade 8 ELA or Mathematics tests
are considered on track towards proficiency if they score
between 55-64 on the designated Regents examinations
prior to Grade 12.
Schools have five years for certain English Language
Learners, certain students with disabilities, and students
who enter high school far below standards to
demonstrate proficiency in English language arts and
mathematics.
Value table is interim model to be used for cohorts prior
to the 2008-2009 school year cohort (i.e. next three
years).
Draft: September 26,
2008
24
Growth Model: High School Values
Table
Score on High School Regents Exam
Initial Grade 8 level
Less than 55
55-64
65 and higher
Level 1
0
200
200
2-minus
0
200
200
2-plus
0
100
200
3
0
100
200
4
0
100
200
Draft: September 26,
2008
25
Timeline for NCLB Growth Models
 July/September 2008 : Proposed model submitted to
Board of Regents for Review.
 September/October, 2008: Discussion with the Field of
the Model.
 October, 2008: Submission to USED.
 Fall 2008: Approval of model by USED.
 September 2009: Use of model to make AYP decisions
based on 2008-09 school year data, subject to availability
of resources.
Draft: September 26,
2008
26
Building a “Growth for All” Model
 Regents have directed SED to provide recommendations
for how to hold schools and districts accountable for
growth of students beyond proficiency as part of the
process of moving towards creation of a value-added
accountability model.
This “growth for all” model can be separate from NY’s
NCLB accountability system and need not be constrained by
NCLB growth model rules.
The Regents will need to decide what rewards and/or
consequences should be based upon a “growth for all”
model.
Draft: September 26,
2008
27
Building a “Growth for All” Model

One possibility would be to modify the current
process for designation of High Performing and
Rapidly Improving schools to include a “growth for
all” component: other possibilities include rewards,
regulatory relief, and differentiated consequences.
Draft: September 26,
2008
28
Approaches to “Growth for All” Models
-
Student growth in terms of what other reference
schools or reference groups have achieved (e.g.
“peer schools,” “low-income Hispanic students”).
-Growth of students compared to other students who
started with similar growth histories.
-Student growth in relation to statistical expectations
for what the student would have learned with a
typical teacher/school.
Draft: September 26,
2008
29
Define “Value-added”
 Increase over previous score or
performance
 Increase over what was expected
 Attribution of performance changes
(increases/decreases) to
agents/conditions
Draft: September 26,
2008
30
What do we value?







“A Year’s Worth of Growth”
More than “A Year’s Worth of Growth”
Not Going Backwards
Relative Growth
Absolute Growth
Growth to Proficiency
Growth to a Point Beyond Proficiency
Draft: September 26,
2008
31
What happens next?
-
Questions and Answers
- Small group discussions and
completion of surveys
- Summary and next steps
Draft: September 26,
2008
32
More Information
To submit questions or requests for more
information, please e-mail:
[email protected]
Draft: September 26,
2008
33