1 / 21

Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One

This article provides background information on Delaware's growth model and examines the results from the first year of implementation. It discusses the value table model used, how it works, and how it contributes to school accountability. The article also compares the growth model to the original model and explores the correlation between growth and meeting AYP targets. Overall, the findings suggest that the growth model produces similar results to the original model and demonstrates the importance of real growth in improving student achievement.

nedm
Download Presentation

Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One

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. Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One AERA March 25, 2008

  2. Background Information • Invitation for states to submit proposals to use a growth model • Pilot project – up to ten states • Model must demonstrate that it can raise student achievement and enhance school accountability • “Bright Line” principles of NCLB upheld • DE first submitted proposal in March 2006 – was denied • DE revised/resubmitted proposal September 2006 • USED approved for use in 2006-07 with one condition • Cannot use Confidence Interval • Calculate AYP by original and growth models • Report both original and growth models

  3. Why did we submit? • To ensure more valid and reliable accountability determinations • To monitor various subgroups progress • To support our value of continuous improvement and longitudinal student growth

  4. What model did we propose? • Value Table Model • Maintains emphasis on performance levels (standards based achievement) • Values longitudinal student growth • Gives schools credit for moving students towards proficiency • Values growth especially below the standard

  5. Who chose Delaware’s model? • Committee of Stakeholders • District administrators, school administrators, teachers, parents, community

  6. How do value tables work? • Values are placed in a table to indicate points earned from one year to the next • Calculate the average growth value for the school and each subgroup in reading and math • Compare average growth to the target

  7. Value Table for Grade 3

  8. Value Table for Grades 4-10

  9. Growth Value Targets Table

  10. 2006 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) Total School Original Status / Safe Harbor Subgroup Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators 2007 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) Total School and Subgroup Growth Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators Delaware’s Accountability System: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

  11. How to meet AYP • Meet Growth Value Targets or Original Status Targets in ELA and math • Meet Participation Targets in ELA and math • Meet the Other Academic Indicator

  12. Ratings Ratings are determined by the combination of: • AYP Determination • State Progress Determination • Accountability History

  13. Ratings Table Schools facing appropriate consequences per NCLB

  14. How to be classified as Under Improvement • Two consecutive years not meeting AYP in same content area -- ELA -- Math -- Other Academic Indicator

  15. What Happened in 2007? • 193 Schools with ratings • 146 schools (76%) used growth model for rating • 89 schools (46%) used growth model and made AYP • 57 schools (30%) used growth model and did not make AYP • 47 schools (24%) used original model for rating (all made AYP)

  16. Comparison of Growth to Original • 82 schools (42%) made both growth and original • 57 schools (30%) did not make growth or original • 7 schools (4%) made growth but not original • 41 schools (21%) made original but not growth • 6 schools used original model only – K, K-1, K-2 schools – no growth available

  17. Correlation of Growth and Original Models – A look at those schools that did not make AYP (57 schools) • Missed reading in growth model also missed reading in original model for same subgroups • Missed math in growth model may or may not have missed math in original model for same subgroups • Missed special education in reading or math in growth model also missed in original model

  18. A look at Reading for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools)

  19. A Look at Math for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools)

  20. Some Observations • Growth model results will be similar to Original • Principles of NCLB, 100% proficient by 2013-14 • Different models produced similar determinations • Growth models only help when real growth is occurring • Showing growth in low achieving students but rate of improvement is differs by subgroups • If AYP was not met: • ½ of the students maintained their level from previous year • 1 in 4 improved • 1 in 4 regressed • Similar pattern across subgroups

  21. Contact Information • Robin Taylor • rtaylor@doe.k12.de.us • 302-735-4080

More Related