150 likes | 264 Views
North Carolina’s NCLB Pilot Growth Model A Two-Year Review. American Educational Research Association March 25, 2008 Gary L. Williamson, Ph.D. Accountability Services Division. In the Beginning …. USED request for proposals in the 2005-06 school year
E N D
North Carolina’sNCLB Pilot Growth Model A Two-Year Review American Educational Research Association March 25, 2008 Gary L. Williamson, Ph.D. Accountability Services Division
In the Beginning … • USED request for proposals in the 2005-06 school year • Estimated 40 schools would have benefited in 2004-05 • However, did not apply USED imposed constraints 2
Basics of NC Growth Model for AYP • Use difference between initial test score and proficiency score three years later to set trajectory (Note – this is different from growth method used for ABCs.) • Student must be proficient within four years in state-tested grades 3
Statewide AYP Results2005-06 School Year • 2,300+ Schools, 115 LEAs • Approximately 45% schools made AYP • 299 schools in Title I School Improvement for 2006-07 • 64 LEAs in District Improvement for 2006-07 5
Results of NC Pilot2005-06 School Year • NO school went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model 6
Results of NC Pilot2005-06 School Year • Four schools each had one subgroup meet a proficiency target based on the growth model • Economically Disadvantaged Students met the reading target in two schools • “All students” group met the reading target (in one school) and the math target (in one school) 7
Statewide AYP Results2006-07 School Year • 2,350+ Schools, 115 LEAs • Approximately 45% schools made AYP • 456 schools in Title I School Improvement for 2006-07 • 60 LEAs in District Improvement for 2006-07 8
Results of NC Pilot2006-07 School Year • 12 schools went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model 9
Results of NC Pilot2006-07 School Year • 10 of the 12 schools also used safe harbor and/or confidence interval in addition to growth model 10
Thoughts on NC USED – Approved AYP Growth Model • Growth model not a panacea to solve “all or nothing” NCLB model • Lots of work for little perceived benefit • The application of safe harbor and the use of confidence intervals effaced the “benefits” of the growth model 12
Thoughts on Situation • NC asked USED to allow use of confidence interval after applying AYP growth for 2006-07 – it was denied • Two different growth models is confusing to schools and public…but so are safe harbor, AMOs, confidence intervals etc. 13
Thoughts on Situation • Students with disabilities taking alternate assessments were not included in growth – tests not on the same scale • How much growth is enough? • How much time to get to proficiency? 14
For More Information See link(s) at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ accountability/reporting/abc/2005-06/ and/or contact gwilliamson@dpi.state.nc.us 919.807.3787 15