1 / 16

New Growth Targets for 2012-2013

New Growth Targets for 2012-2013. October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education. ESEA Waiver. Option announced by USED in Sept 2011. Removes requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating.

arnaud
Download Presentation

New Growth Targets for 2012-2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Growth Targets for 2012-2013 October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education

  2. ESEA Waiver • Option announced by USED in Sept 2011. • Removes requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating. • States can propose their own system of • School Accountability • Supports and Interventions • Targets interventions toward 15% of Title I schools (about 90 schools)

  3. Workgroup Recommendations • Include individual student growth. • Several growth models were reviewed. • Colorado Growth Model chosen for implementation. • Use an overall rating system (including growth) to identify Priority, Focus, and Model Schools. • Several possible methodologies were reviewed. • Modified Colorado school rating system chosen for implementation. • Rating system is prototype for future report cards.

  4. Oregon’s Growth Model • Uses the Colorado Growth Model. • Includes all students having two consecutive years of standard OAKS assessments, regardless of whether or not they are meeting standard. • A student’s growth is compared to the growth of other students in the state having the same prior test scores (“Academic Peers”) • Student Growth is expressed as a percentile. A growth percentile of 75 would mean the students growth was as high or higher than 75 percent of his/her academic peers. • Computes Growth Targets – growth percentiles that put a student on track to be at standard in three years.

  5. Growth Model Points to Remember • Growth is based on comparing a student to his or her Academic Peers, who are students with the same test score histories. • Growth of low performing students is compared to that of other low performing students in the state. • Growth of high performing students is compared to that of other high performing students in the state. • Growth model applies to students in grades 4 to 8, and 11. • Uses up to four years of test data for each student.

  6. Growth and School Accountability • Schools are given “Levels” in reading and math growth: • Level 5: Schools with high growth • Level 4: Average to above average growth • Level 3: Below average, but not low, growth • Level 2: Low growth • Level 1: Very low growth • Reading and math growth are combined into a Growth Rating.

  7. Growth Ratings • School accountability uses the median growth percentile. • Median growth is the “middle” growth percentile. • This is the “typical” growth at the school. • We also report the median target growth percentile. • A school has “On Track” growth if the median growth percentile is as high as the median target percentile. • “On Track” growth indicates that a typical student is meeting his/her growth target. • Requirements to reach Level 5, Level 4, etc., are lower for schools with “On Track” growth.

  8. Growth Example - Elementary

  9. Growth Percentiles in Oregon

  10. Sample Growth Percentiles This sample shows various growth percentiles. Note that the middle four students all had the same starting point in 5th grade. The students in red are shown to emphasize that growth is evaluated relative to academic peers, not on absolute gains in test scores.

  11. SGPs – Higher Order Growth This data show how 3 years of test scores can affect growth percentiles. Data are taken from Math growth in 2011-12.

  12. Growth Targets • Growth targets are forward looking. • They estimate the growth necessary to meet in three more years, or by grade 11. • They are provided both as percentiles and as RIT scores. • The RIT score represents the typical score attained by students who grew to standard in the past. • The percentile should be viewed as an estimate of the difficulty of attaining the goal.

  13. Target Growth This data show how 3 years of test scores can affect growth percentiles. Data are taken from 5th grade Math growth in 2011-12.

  14. Growth Targets, continued The data below shows how important it is to remember that the growth data is based on “academic peers” who are students with similar score histories.

  15. Review of Data File • Includes all students in 2012 Spring Membership with a regular OAKs assessment. • Includes resident school and district from Spring Membership • Includes resident and attending school and district from SSID (as of October 24).

  16. Contact Information and Links • Details on the waiver: http://www.ode.state.or.us/go/nextgen • Details on priority, focus, and model schools: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3742 • Priority, Focus and Model School Detail Sheets: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3749 • Policy and Technical Manual: http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/policy/accountability/nextgen2012/nextgenaccountabilitymanual2012.pdf • Jon Wiens • Email: jon.wiens@state.or.us

More Related