15
American Educational Research Association March 25, 2008 Gary L. Williamson, Ph.D. Accountability Services Division North Carolina’s NCLB Pilot Growth Model A Two-Year Review
American Educational Research AssociationMarch 25, 2008
Gary L. Williamson, Ph.D.Accountability Services Division
North Carolina’sNCLB Pilot Growth Model
A Two-Year Review
2
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
3
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
4
Basics of NC AYP Growth Model
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
3 4 5 6 7
grade
actual
needed
4
5
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
6
Results of NC Pilot2005-06 School Year
• NO school went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model
6
7
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
8
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 2006-078
9
Results of NC Pilot2006-07 School Year
• 12 schools went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model
9
10
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
11
2006-07 ResultsLEA Sch LEA School Grade # #
Code Name Name Span Students Targets Met Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math
070327 Beaufort County John C Tayloe Elem 02-03 249 19 B ED
110324 Buncombe County Candler Elem PK-05 308 13 ED
250306 Craven County Ben D Quinn Elem PK-05 222 17 B ED
260410 Cumberland County Ponderosa Elem PK-05 211 13 AS B, ED
320310 Durham County Eastway Elem OK-05 202 21 B AS, B, H, ED, LEP AS, ED, LEP
450346 Henderson County Upward Elem OK-05 277 19 ED H, ED AS, H
600393 Mecklenburg County First Ward Elem OK-05 255 15 AS, B ED
600565 Mecklenburg County Univ Pk Creative Arts OK-05 258 13 B AS ED
770347 Richmond County Richmond Primary PK-03 126 17 B B, ED ED
920470 Wake County Lead Mine Elem OK-05 278 19 ED B
920480 Wake County Lockhart Elem OK-05 381 23 SWD
920531 Wake County Pleasant Union Elem OK-05 346 21 ED ED B
Met w/Growth Met w/CI Met w/SH
11
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
For More Information
See link(s) at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/
accountability/reporting/abc/2005-06/ and/or contact
15
