Nevada Transitioning from measuring status and reporting AYP, to measuring growth and reporting on School Performance

Status to Growth 2003 – state reports student performance on state CRT program assessments, schools evaluated based on achievement of AYP for reading and math state legislature passed a bill requiring the NDE to develop a new model for evaluating schools that included students’ academic growth as part of the equation.

Motivation for change AYP model identified increasing number (%) of schools as in need of improvement. 55% of schools did not make AYP in 2011 Limited ability to identify schools making progress Focus on “bubble students” instead of increasing proficiency of all students

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) School Year Elementary SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School ELAMathELAMathELAMath %65.9%63.8%65.9%86.7%71.3% %77.2%75.9%77.2%91.1%80.8% %88.5%88%88.5%95.5%90.3% %

School AYP Profile Population ELA Participation ELA Achievement Math Participation Math Achievement Other Indicator ELA Status ELA Safe Harbor Math Status Math Safe Harbor School Yes NAYes NAYes American Indian/ Alaskan Native Yes NAYes NA Asian/ Pacific Islander Yes NAYes NA Hispanic Yes NAYes NA African American Yes NAYes NA White Yes NAYes NA IEP Yes NAYesNoNA LEP YesNoNAYes NA Low SES (FRL) Yes NAYes NA

AYP model reporting – HSPE math

How the results are reported AYP model – School achieved AYP – School didn’t make AYP  (In need of improvement)

Nevada’s Growth Model In 2010, State panel recommended use of the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) model – Nevada model based on the work of D. Betebenner in Colorado. Growth model adopted by State Board and included as part of the state’s RTTT proposal Growth model was included as a core component of the Waiver Application and is basis for new school performance framework and educator evaluation system

What values are used to compute school performance AYP model – Percent of students at or above the cut score for meeting the standards – Other indicator (ADA) School Performance model – Growth* – Status (% of students meeting proficiency targets) – Gap – Other indicator (ADA)

Growth* SGP – all students with two consecutive years of data (>90% of all students in grades 4-8) MGP – school Median Growth Percentiles reported for all schools and subgroups AGP – Adequate Growth Percentile, growth to a standard, target is proficiency within 3 years or by grade 8.

Why SGP Nevada assessments are vertically aligned but not vertically scaled Relatively simple to explain Graphical display easy to understand Relatively easy to calculate Affordable Significant support from school districts

How the results are reported for students Student reports include growth relative to their academic peers, and also indications of whether they are growing at a rate to attain or maintain proficiency. – Growth score Catching up Keeping up

Reporting student growth

How the results are reported for schools Nevada School Performance Framework (NSFP) model uses both status (proficiency) and growth (SGP, AGP and gap reduction) to calculate an index score for each school School receives an STAR rating (1-5 Star) based on an NSPF index score

NV growth model –bubble chart

Using growth as part of school evaluation Elementary/Middle School Index (100 points) Growth (40 points) MathReading School Median Growth Percentile (MGP) 10 Overall % of Students Meeting Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP) 10 Status (30 points) Overall % of Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 15 Gap (20 points) % of IEP, ELL, and FRL Students Meeting AGP10 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) or Other State-Approved Indicator (10 points) Other Indicator10 Table 2.A.4 Elementary/Middle School Index

High School Index (100 points) Status/Growth (30 points) MathReading Overall % of 10 th Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 55 Cumulative % of 11 th Grade Students Meeting Proficiency Expectations 55 School Median Growth Percentile for grade 10 (MGP) 55 Gap (10 points) Cumulative % of 11 th Grade IEP, ELL, FRL Proficiency Gap 55 Graduation (30 points) Overall Graduation Rate 15 Graduation Rate Gap for IEP, ELL, and FRL Students 15 College and Career Readiness (16 points) % of Students in NV Colleges Requiring Remediation4 % of Students Earning an Advanced Diploma4 AP Participation/Proficiency4 ACT/SAT Participation/Proficiency4 Other (14 points) Average Daily Attendance (ADA) or Other State-Approved Indicator10 % of 9 th Grade Students who are Credit Deficient4

How index scores are computed Elementary School Point Attribution Status (school) points Reading/ELA proficiency rate <3535 and <4949 and <7070 and <81≥ 81 Math proficiency rate <4949 and <6262 and <7979 and <89≥ 89 Growth (School) points Median Reading/ELA SGP <3434 and <4444 and <5858 and <67≥ 67 Median Math SGP <3232 and < 4343 and <5858 and <69≥ 69 % meeting Reading/ELA AGP <3535 and <4848 and <6868 an d<79≥ 79 % meeting Math AGP <3434 and < 4646 and <6666 and <79≥ 79

Index score computation (contd) Gap (Subgroup) points %FRL meeting R/ELA AGP <3131 and <4343 and <6161 and <71≥ 71 %FRL meeting Math AGP <3030 and <4242 and <5959 and <71≥ 71 %ELL meeting R/ELA AGP <99 and <1818 and <3838 and <56≥ 56 %ELL meeting Math AGP <1414 and <2727 and <5050 and <66≥ 66 %IEP meeting R/ELA AGP <11 and <1515 and <3636 and <58≥ 58 %IEP meeting Math AP <99 and <2020 and <4848 and <68≥ 68 Gap (Supergroup) points % Supergroup meeting R/ELA AGP <3131 and <4242 and <5858 and <68≥ 68 % Supergroup meeting Math AGP <2828 and <4141 and <5858 and <70≥ 70 Other indicator points All students ADA <9494 and <9595 and <9696 and <97≥ 97

Index Scores and Star Ratings Performance ClassificationIndex points 5 Stars≥ 77 4 Stars 68 and < 77 3 Stars 50 and < 68 2 Stars 32 and < 50 1 Star < 32

Growth as a measure of educator effectiveness 2011 legislature required development of a new educator evaluation system for the state New system must use student performance as at least 50% of the final rating Student performance rating includes: – Growth (SGP) 35% – Proficiency (status) 15% – Gap Reduction 5%

Cautionary note Study of the stability of school level classifications using the SGP model Looked at classification error in designation of schools relative to measures of status and growth. Need to use multiple years of data to be relatively confident in classifications. Take away message: “You can use SGP to classify schools, but proceed with caution.”

Richard N. Vineyard Supervisor of Assessment Programs Nevada Department of Education