Assessing Student Growth to Foster School Excellence

1
Assessing Student Growth to Foster School
Excellence

• Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education
• Education Leadership Conference
• American Psychological Association
• September 18, 2006

2
Overview

• Goal To understand current uses of assessment in
  NCLB and to clarify consensus on how APA might
  influence NCLB reauthorization.
• Presentations
• Status, improvement, and growth models of school
  accountability (Jeff Braden)
• Educational evaluation of English Learners
  Issues and answers for measuring progress fairly
  (Sam Ortiz)
• What is school excellence? Is it the same for
  everyone? (Gary Stoner)
• Discussion How should we work to maintain/change
  NCLB? (Steve Rollin)

3
Status, Improvement, and Growth Models of School
Accountability

• Jeffery P. Braden, PhD
• Committee on Psychological Tests Assessments
• North Carolina State University

4
Overview

• Identify adequate yearly progress (AYP)
  definitions under No Child Left Behind
• AYP models
• Status
• Improvement (aka Safe Harbor)
• Growth
• Promises and Problems with Growth Models

5
No Child Left BehindAdequate Yearly Progress

• AYP currently defined by three types of targets
• Participation in annual state tests
• Performance on state tests ( proficient)
• One non-test indicator (attendance, graduation
  rate)
• NCLB mandates testing for
• Reading Mathematics (and in 2007, Science)
• Grades 3-8, once in HS (but different for
  Science)
• Specific populations w/in schools

6
AYP Targets Defined by

• Test outcomes 4 dimensions
• Participation (gt 95) Performance (
  proficient)
• For two subject areas (Reading Math)
• 2 subject areas X 2 types of goals 4 dimensions
• Student groups 9
• All students
• Ethnicity (American Indian/Alaska Native,
  Asian/PI, black, Hispanic, white)
• Economically disadvantaged
• Limited English Proficient
• Students with Disabilities

7
AYP Targets For A School

• Pool data from all eligible grades
• Determine if minimum sample size is reached for
  the 9 target groups
• If yes, target applies
• If no, target does not apply and data roll up
  to district, state
• Compare test data to participation performance
  goals for all eligible groups
• Failure to miss any target for any group
  failure to meet AYP for school

8
AYP is determined by making it over all 18
hurdles (9 hurdles for reading and 9 for math) by
disaggregation of data.
9
AYP Status Model
Goldschmidt et al. (2005). Policymakers guide to
growth models for school accountability How do
accountability models differ? Washington, DC
Council of Chief State School Officers.
10
AYP Safe Harbor Improvement Model
Goldschmidt et al. (2005). Policymakers guide to
growth models for school accountability How do
accountability models differ? Washington, DC
Council of Chief State School Officers.
11
(No Transcript)
12
Comparison of Models

• Promise of status model
• Easy to understand
• Same goals for all (equity)
• Leads to 100 proficiency by 2014
• Problems of status model
• Fails to accommodate differences in student
  populations between schools
• Fails to identify/reward progress toward
  proficiency
• Increasingly difficult targets yield high rates
  of school failure

13
Growth Model
Goldschmidt et al. (2005). Policymakers guide to
growth models for school accountability How do
accountability models differ? Washington, DC
Council of Chief State School Officers.
14
Comparing ModelsA Hypothetical Example

• North Carolina AYP Performance Targets
• 76.7 annual target for Reading
• 95 participation goals
• Failing AYP
• Not meeting AYP in three consecutive years
• No meaningful improvement fails to meet safe
  harbor provisions
• Yet strong growth for students entering in 3rd
  grade over three consecutive years

15
(No Transcript)
16
Additional Issues for Growth Models

• Value added
• Implies causality by attempting to factor out
  other influences (e.g., demographics, typical
  school gains)
• What constitutes appropriate growth?
• Progress toward proficiency standard
• Improvement generally
• Can growth be measured longitudinally?
• Qualitative vs. quantitative change across
  academic domains, scaling issues

17
Using Growth Models for AYP

• Promises
• Accommodates differences between schools in
  student populations
• Could reward progress
• Potential linkage to progress monitoring
• Problems
• Capacity to measure predict change over time
• Mobility
• Equity
• Practicality

18

• Educational evaluation of English Learners
  Issues and answers for measuring progress fairly
  (Sam Ortiz)
• What is school excellence? Is it the same for
  everyone? (Gary Stoner)

19
Discussion
20
Proposed Changes to NCLB

• Drop 100 proficiency goal by 2014
• Replace with goals that are ambitious,
  scientifically achievable, and increase
  regularly
• Drop safe harbor (improvement) provisions
• Replace with growth concurrent with achieving
  proficiency on State annual assessments or on
  scientifically based measures for student
  progress monitoring (as defined by the National
  Center on Student Progress Monitoring)

21
Proposed Changes to NCLB

• Require states to align proficiency definitions
  to NAEP (prevents low/varying standards)
• Increase test inclusion requirement for students
  in US schools from three to six years.
• Alternate assessments
• Change significant cognitive disability
• Increase cap counted toward proficiency from 1
  to 2
• Modified achievement standards cap from 2 to 3