Will Growth Models Improve School Accountability and NCLB/AYP? Results From New Research Survey and Analysis of Current AYP Growth Proposals Kimberly O'Malley – Pearson Educational Measurement Bill Auty – Education Measurement Consulting

AYP Growth Proposals NCLB Alignment Elements ● The accountability model must ensure that all students are proficient by and set annual goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students. ● The accountability model must not set expectations for annual achievement based upon student background and school characteristics. ● The accountability model must hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics.

AYP Growth Proposals Foundational Elements ● The accountability model must ensure that all students in the tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system. Schools and districts must be held accountable for the performance of student subgroups. The accountability model includes all schools and districts. ● The State’s assessment system, the basis for the accountability model, must receive approval through the NCLB peer review process for the school year. In addition, the full NCLB assessment system in each of grades 3-8 and in high school in reading/language arts and math must have been in place for two testing cycles. ● The accountability model and related State data system must track student progress. ● The accountability model must include student participation rates in the state assessment system and student achievement on an additional academic indicator.

Cross-Cutting Issues from Peer Reviewers ● States should: ● incorporate available years of existing achievement data, instead of relying on only two years of data, ● align growth timeframe with school grade configuration and district enrollment, ● make growth projections for all students, not just those below proficient, and ● hold schools accountable for same subgroups as they did under status model. ● States should not: ● use wide confidence intervals, ● reset growth targets each year, and ● average scores between proficient and non-proficient students.

Current Status ● In sum,  the alignment and foundational elements appear to be necessary for approval  the cross-cutting issues appear more as guiding principles than requirements  USDE has allowed some creativity in proposals

Typology of Growth Models ● Improvement ● Difference Gain Scores ● Residual Gain Scores ● Linear Equating ● Transition Matrix ● Multi-Level

Characteristics of Growth Model Types ● Database ● Common Scale ● Confidence Interval ● Missing Scores ● Alternate Tests ● Growth Question Answered ● Student Performance Standards Explicitly Included in Definition of Growth ● Non-Linear Growth

Local Applications ● Oregon School Boards Assoc. Bridges project  Leadership Training to Improve Student Achievement  Providing Data Analysis to Pilot Districts  Range of Capacities  Partnership With Data Provider

Implementer's Guide to Growth Models ● Sequel to Policy-Maker's Guide to Growth ● CCSSO ASR project ● Collaboration of member states ● Publication later this year

Summary ● Next steps  Updates to paper ● Corrections ● Impact ● Additional proposals ● Implementer’s guide  Practical Advice for Implementing Growth Models  Available Later this Year