16
October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education
October 25, 2012
Jonathan Wiens, PhD
Office of Assessment and Information Services
Oregon Department of Education
Option announced by USED in Sept 2011.
Removes requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating.
States can propose their own system ofSchool AccountabilitySupports and Interventions
Targets interventions toward 15% of Title I schools (about 90 schools)
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
Schools are given “Levels” in reading and math growth:Level 5: Schools with high growthLevel 4: Average to above average growthLevel 3: Below average, but not low, growthLevel 2: Low growthLevel 1: Very low growth
Reading and math growth are combined into a Growth Rating.
6
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. 7
8
9
10
Grade 5
Grade 6 GainGrowth
Percentile Growth Target
195 200 5 16 80
209 208 -1 8 72
209 214 5 34 64
209 218 9 61 58
209 226 17 96 48
227 232 5 57 27
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
Student Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Growth Percent
ile
Affect of using 3 Years of
data
A -- 211 215 34 --
B 190 211 215 66 +32
C 195 211 215 55 +21
D 200 211 215 42 +8
E 206 211 215 27 -7
F 212 211 215 17 -17
G 218 211 215 8 -26
This data show how 3 years of test scores can affect growth percentiles. Data are taken from Math growth in 2011-12.
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.
Grade
Target
Grade
3 6
4 7
5 8
6 11
7 11
8 11
12
13
Student
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Growth %tile
Affect of 3yrs of data
6th Grade Target %tile
6th Grade Target
RIT
Typical
Growth in 6th
Grade
B 190 211 215 66 +32 69 220 217
C 195 211 215 55 +21 68 221 217
D 200 211 215 42 +8 66 221 218
E 206 211 215 27 -7 64 222 219
F 212 211 215 17 -17 63 222 220
G 218 211 215 8 -26 62 223 221
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
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.
Targets for Students with Same Prior Test Score
Student
Math Score Histories7th
Grade Growth Percenti
le
8th Grade Growth Targets
4th 5th 6th 7thPercenti
leRIT
A 205 212 213 225 66 73 229
B 225 228 222 225 4 59 233
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).
15
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 WiensEmail: [email protected]
16
