Colorado Presentation Damian

8/14/2019 Colorado Presentation Damian

1/24

Overview

Student Growth Percentiles and Accountability

References

The Colorado Growth Model:

A Technical Overview

Damian W. Betebenner

National Center for the Improvement of Educational AssessmentDover, NH

CCSSO Conference on Student Assessment

Los Angeles, CA June 23rd, 2009

Damian W. Betebenner The Colorado Growth Model


2/24

Overview


References

The Colorado Growth Model

Student Growth Percentiles: What Is

Student Growth Percentiles: What Should Be


Student Growth for Multiple Purposes

Growth as the cornerstone of accountability: In Colorado student

progress to judge state, district, school and student performance.

The Colorado Growth Model addresses three related questions

using the same metric:

What is the level of growth for a student (i.e. Actual Growth)?

What should the level of growth for a student be (i.e. Aspirational

Growth)?

What could the level of growth for a student be (i.e., Realistic Growth)?

Student growth percentilesa normative description ofgrowthforms the basis of the Colorado Growth

Model [Betebenner, 2008]



3/24

Overview


References




Student Growth Percentiles

Normative Growth Question

Should we be surprised with a students current achievement given

their prior achievement?

Given a students prior scale scores and the associated conditional

density, their current scale score corresponds to a percentile of that

conditional distribution.

This percentile is the students growth percentile.

Growth percentiles are closely related to estimating the probability of

observing a students current achievement taking account of their

past achievement:

Pr(Current Achievement|Past Achievement).

Growth percentiles describe the rarity of a students current

achievement conditional upon their prior achievement.



4/24

2

005Scale

Score 20

06Scale

Sco

re

200

400

600

800 200

400

600

800


5/24

2

005Scale

Score 20

06Scale

Score

200

400

600

800 200

400

600

800


6/24

2

005Scale

Score 20

06Scale

Score

200

400

600

800 200

400

600

800


7/24

2

005Scale

Score 20

06Scale

Score

200

400

600

800 200

400

600

800

Overview The Colorado Growth Model


8/24

Overview


References




Student Growth Percentiles

Normative Growth Question

Should we be surprised with a students current achievement given

their prior achievement?

Student growth percentiles address this question.Consider a low achieving student with 90th percentile growth and a

high achieving student with 10th percentile growth.

The low achieving student grew at a rate exceeding 90 percent of

similar students.

The high achieving student grew at a rate exceeding just 10 percent of

similar students.

The low achievers growth is more exemplary(probabilistically) than thehigh achievers.

Judgments about the adequacy of student growth require external

criteria.


Overview The Colorado Growth Model


9/24

Overview


References




Combining Actual and Aspirational Growth

What Is

Each student receives a growth percentile quantifying their growth in

each of three subject for the academic year.

What Should Be

Each student receives percentile growth projections/trajectories esti-

mating:

What level of growth is required to reach each of the 3

performance levels in 1, 2, 3, and 4 years.

What Could Be

The percentile metric establishes a normative foundation allowing

stakeholders to set challenging yet realistic goals.



10/24

Grade 3/2005 Grade 4/2006 Grade 5/2007 Grade 6/2008 Grade 7/2009 Grade 8/2010

73rd

95th

7thq q

qq

Not On Track to Reach Proficient Not Catching Up

Colorado's Growth Model uses each student's growth percentile in two ways:

First, the growth percentile is used to describe how much a student has grown

during the last year. Second, the growth percentile is used to determine whether the

student is on track to reach/maintain proficiency. The following slides demonstrate,

for an individual student, how Colorado's Growth Model is used to determinewhether the student is On Track to Reach Proficient, that is "Catching Up".


11/24


73rd

95th

7thq q

qq

Is the student's growth,from 2007 to 2008, sufficientto put them on track to reach

proficient within 3 years?


12/24


73rd

95th

7thq q

qq



After 1 year the studentremains partially proficient,

so their 1 year growth was notenough to get them to proficient.


13/24


92nd

73rd

95th

7thq q

qq





In 2007 CDE estimated that it would take92nd percentile growth, consecutively for two years, to reach proficient.

Their 73rd percentile growth puts them behind that 2 year target.


14/24


88th

92nd

73rd

95th

7thq q

qq







In 2007 CDE estimated that itwould take 88th percentile growth,

consecutively for three years, to reachproficient. Their 73rd percentile growth

puts them behind that 3 year target.


15/24


88th

92nd

73rd

95th

7thq q

qq







In 2007 CDE estimated that itwould take 88th percentile growth,

consecutively for three years, to reachproficient. Their 73rd percentile growth

puts them behind that 3 year target.

Conclusion: Because the student was not proficient in 2008 and their 200708

growth percentile of 73 was less than both the two and three year targets, thestudent's growth is considered to be insufficient to reach proficient within three years

In short, the student is not on track to be proficient and is not "catching up".


16/24


63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q

On Track to Remain Proficient Keeping Up

Colorado's Growth Model uses each student's growth percentile in two ways:

First, the growth percentile is used to describe how much a student has grown

during the last year. Second, the growth percentile is used to determine whether the

student is on track to reach/maintain proficiency. The following slides demonstrate,

for an individual student, how Colorado's Growth Model is used to determine

whether the student is On Track to Remain Proficient, that is "Keeping Up".


17/24


63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q

Is the student's growth,from 2007 to 2008, sufficient

to remain at or aboveproficient for the next 3 years?


18/24


63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q



After 1 year the studentremains proficient,

so their 1 year growth wasenough to remain at proficient.


19/24


18th

63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q





In 2007 CDE estimated that itwould take, at a minimum, 18th percentile growth,

consecutively for two years, to maintainat or above proficient. Their 63rd percentile

growth puts them above that 2 year minimal target.


20/24


22nd

18th

63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q








In 2007 CDE estimated that itwould take, at a minimum, 22nd percentile

growth, consecutively for three years, tomaintain at or above proficient. Their 63rd

percentile growth puts them above that 3 yearminimal target.


21/24


22nd

18th

63rd

26th66th

q

q q

q








In 2007 CDE estimated that itwould take, at a minimum, 22nd percentile

growth, consecutively for three years, tomaintain at or above proficient. Their 63rd

percentile growth puts them above that 3 yearminimal target.

Conclusion: Because the student was proficient in 2008 and their 200708

growth percentile of 63 was greater than both the two and three year minimum targets, thestudent's growth is considered to be sufficient to remain proficient during the next three years.

In short, the student is on track to remain proficient and is "keeping up".

OverviewStudent Growth Percentiles and Accountability School Accountability


22/24

References

Going from Students to Schools

Its of interest to examine schools where students demonstrate, on

average, extraordinarily high and low student growth.

To summarize the student growth percentiles associated with a

school (or other grouping) calculate the median of the student

growth percentiles.

If students were randomly assigned to schools, expect to see a

median of 50.

Values greatly above or below 50 are of interest in identifying best

practices or providing extra support.

Examining growth with achievement sheds new light on school

performance.



23/24

District C: 2008 CSAP Math School ResultsStudent Growth versus Student Achievement by Percent Free/Reduced Lunch

Median of Student Growth Percentiles in School

Percentat/above

Proficientin

School

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

School Percent

Free/Reduced Lunch

q Less than 20 percentq 20 to 40 percentq 40 to 60 percentq 60 to 80 percentq More than 80 percentSchool Size

50 Students

100 Students200 Students

500 Students

1,000 Students

OverviewStudent Growth Percentiles and Accountability

R f


24/24

References

References

Betebenner, D. W. (2008).

Toward a normative understanding of student growth.In Ryan, K. E. and Shepard, L. A., editors, The Future of Test-Based

Educational Accountability, pages 155170. Taylor & Francis, New

York.


Colorado Presentation Damian

Documents

Transcript of Colorado Presentation Damian