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 Title Page- Click to add title and subtitle accordingly

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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 3

Basics of NC AYP Growth Model Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 4

Statewide AYP Results 2005-06 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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 5

Results of NC Pilot 2005-06 School Year NO school went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 6

Results of NC Pilot 2005-06 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) Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 7

Statewide AYP Results 2006-07 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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 8

Results of NC Pilot 2006-07 School Year 12 schools went from not making AYP to making AYP based on growth model Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 9

Results of NC Pilot 2006-07 School Year 10 of the 12 schools also used safe harbor and/or confidence interval in addition to growth model Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 10

2006-07 Results Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 11

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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 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. Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 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? Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 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 Main text page- Click to add title and text accordingly 15