Public Forum on New York State’s NCLB Growth Model Proposal Shelia Evans-Tranumn Associate Commissioner Ira Schwartz Coordinator, Accountability, Policy, & Administration

Draft: September 26, “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.” Purpose of No Child Left Behind

Draft: September 26, Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007: Growth Model “By the start of the school year, the Regents shall establish, using existing state assessments, an interim, modified accountability system for schools and districts that is based on a growth model, subject to approval of the United States department of education where required under federal law.”

Draft: September 26, Key Questions:  How do we design accountability models that move students from low performance to proficient as well as from proficient to distinction?  How can we ensure that improved scores represent improved learning?  How do we take data and turn it into actionable information that improves teaching and learning?  How do we move from beating the odds to changing the odds? Next Generation Accountability System Design

Draft: September 26, Accountability: Status vs. Growth  Status Models: take a snapshot of a subgroup’s or school’s level of student proficiency at one point in time and often compare that proficiency level with an established target.  Growth Models: measure progress by tracking the achievement scores of the same students from one year to the next to determine student progress.

Draft: September 26, Why Growth? Types of Performance Improve- ment Status Low GrowthHigh Growth Low Status High Status Growth Acceleration Effective- ness Achieve -ment StatusChange Low/LowLow/High High/LowHigh/High Status/Growth Combinations

Draft: September 26, Betebenner, Jan. 2008, for RI project

Draft: September 26, Two Types of Growth Targets  Policy driven targets start with a policy goal (what should be) and then establish the targets for performance that are necessary to achieve this goal.  Data driven targets start with historical performance (what has been) and use that as a basis to project what should be expected of the units to be measured.

Draft: September 26, New York State’s Proposal  Use growth in two different ways: To make more refined AYP determinations (must be approved by USED) To supplement AYP and make a more comprehensive system, attending in particular to growth of students who are proficient or higher (not necessary to be approved by USED)

Draft: September 26, Constraints  Using growth in AYP is highly constrained: Focused on reaching proficiency and reducing the achievement gap Specifics dictated by USED Proposal must be submitted by Oct. 15 to USED; if approved, would apply to data  Using growth outside of AYP is less constrained, but there is less agreement on approaches: NYSED will work with partners to create this growth proposal Regents would like proposal by end of this school year

Draft: September 26, New York State: Local Initiatives  A number of NYS districts have developed local growth and value-added models. The two most prominent are: NYC’s Progress Report initiative. Capital Region BOCES initiative.  These initiatives are neither endorsed by SED nor require SED’s endorsement.  These initiatives are not constrained by USED’s growth model guidelines and were not designed for use in making AYP decisions.  These models can inform the development of State growth and/or value-added models for which USED’s permission is not required.

Draft: September 26, SED’s Interim Growth Model Design Principles  Interim Growth Model shall be implemented in school year (with Regents and USED approval).  Model shall meet core principles of Spellings 11/21/05 correspondence.  Model shall be based upon NY’s current State assessment program & shall not require the implementation of new assessments.  Model shall utilize such data as is currently collected through State data collection processes and shall not require the collection of new data elements.  Model’s purpose shall be to make more refined determinations of student progress, identify with greater precision high performing schools and districts, and support greater differentiation in support and services to schools and districts in need of improvement.

Draft: September 26, SED’s Interim Growth Model Design Principles  The model shall be based upon measuring whether students are proficient or on track towards proficiency within a prescribed time period.  Model shall use an “open architecture.” All calculations should be transparent.  The interim growth model shall be a stage in a process leading, by , to the development of an enhanced system that includes a value-added model.  The NCLB model should be combined with a State model that includes consequences and/or incentives for promoting growth for all students, while placing no school or district at risk of failing to make AYP, if it would make AYP under the current status model.

Draft: September 26, USED Seven Core Principles 1.All students proficient or on track to proficiency by 2014; set annual goals to close subgroup gaps. 2.Expectations for annual achievement based on meeting grade level proficiency, not based on demographic characteristics or school characteristics. 3.Produce separate decisions for math and ELA/reading. 4.Include students, subgroups, schools, and districts in accountability.

Draft: September 26, USED Core Principles – cont. 5.Assessment data: annual, 3-8 & high school, operational for more than one year (i.e., at least two years’ of data), produce comparable results grade-to- grade and year-to-year; approved in Peer Review. 6.Track student progress (longitudinal). 7.Include participation rates and additional academic indicator for accountability.

Draft: September 26, USED Peer Review Additional Specifications Fully approved assessment system Uniform minimum-n for all groups No confidence intervals for growth Very limited recalculation of student growth target Cannot use with multiple other non-Status approaches, such as Safe Harbor and Index Apply growth to all students for reporting and accountability (preference) Report student growth results (preference) State has vertical scale (preference?)

Draft: September 26, SED Draft Proposal  For grades 3-8, utilize a “proficiency plus” growth model for grades 3-8 similar to North Carolina’s approved model.  For high school, utilize a “value tables” model similar to Delaware’s approved grades 3-8 model.  Include an enhanced middle level and high school component in the proposal.  Build a “growth for all” State component that sets growth targets for all students, including those who are already proficient.

Draft: September 26, NCLB Growth Model: General Approach  If a student scores proficient or above (Level 3/4) in the current year, include that student’s results in the Performance Index as is done under the present status model.  Use growth to check whether students who did not yet score proficient (Level 2) have grown enough that it is likely they will become proficient within a designated amount of time.  For purposes of calculating the Performance Index, give schools and districts “full credit” for any student who either scores proficient or above or who is deemed to be on track for proficiency.

Draft: September 26, “On-Track” Growth to Proficiency Example Prof. 6 Prof. 5 Prof. 4 Prof. 3 Observed growth Gr. 3-4 projected to Gr. 8 Proficient On track to be proficient Proficient or Prof. 8 Prof. 7

Draft: September 26, Growth Model: Simplified Example  Level 3 Scale Score = 650.  Billy scores a 614 in Grade 3 ELA.  Billy is 36 points below proficiency ( ).  Billy has four years to become proficient.  Billy must close the gap by ¼ (9 points) in Grade 4.  Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 4 is 623 ( ).  Billy scores 635 in Grade 4.  Billy now has three years to become proficient.  Billy must close the gap by 1/3 (5 points) in Grade 5.  Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 5 is 640 ( ).

Draft: September 26, Growth Model: Middle School Extension  Students in middle school would be evaluated on whether they made sufficient growth to become proficient by the designated high school Regents examination.  The designated high school target is proficient on the Regents Examination in Integrated Algebra and proficient on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English.  Students in middle school would have until the target assessment to be projected proficient; the number of years permitted would be based upon the grade the student entered middle school.  This middle school extension will only apply to schools (and their subgroups), not to district AYP decisions in instances where students transfer among schools within a district.

Draft: September 26, Middle Level Extension: Simplified Example  Level 3 Math Regents Exam is equated to scale score of 663*.  Billy scores a 623 in Grade 5 Math.  Billy enrolls in a new middle school in Grade 6.  Billy is 40 points below proficiency ( ).  Billy has four years to become proficient.  Billy must close the gap by 1/4 (10 points) in Grade 6.  Billy’s proficiency target in Grade 6 is 633 ( ).  If Billy remained in his original school in Grade 6, then his proficiency target would have been 637. (650**-623= 27/2 years = = 637.) *Actual equated score not yet determined **Represents Grade 7 Level 3 Scale Score

Draft: September 26, Growth Model: Implications for Schools Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4On Track Towards Proficiency Performance Index (0 index points)(1 Index Point per Student) (2 Index Points per Student) Number of Students NA130 Less Number of Students On Track Towards Proficiency 14NA Totals

Draft: September 26, Growth Model: High School Extension  Students who enter high school having scored Level 1 or at low-Level 2 on the Grade 8 ELA or Mathematics tests are considered on track towards proficiency if they score between on the designated Regents examinations prior to Grade 12.  Schools have five years for certain English Language Learners, certain students with disabilities, and students who enter high school far below standards to demonstrate proficiency in English language arts and mathematics.  Value table is interim model to be used for cohorts prior to the school year cohort (i.e. next three years).

Draft: September 26, Growth Model: High School Values Table Score on High School Regents Exam Initial Grade 8 levelLess than and higher Level minus plus

Draft: September 26, Timeline for NCLB Growth Models  July/September 2008 : Proposed model submitted to Board of Regents for Review.  September/October, 2008: Discussion with the Field of the Model.  October, 2008: Submission to USED.  Fall 2008: Approval of model by USED.  September 2009: Use of model to make AYP decisions based on school year data, subject to availability of resources.

Draft: September 26, Building a “Growth for All” Model  Regents have directed SED to provide recommendations for how to hold schools and districts accountable for growth of students beyond proficiency as part of the process of moving towards creation of a value-added accountability model.  This “growth for all” model can be separate from NY’s NCLB accountability system and need not be constrained by NCLB growth model rules.  The Regents will need to decide what rewards and/or consequences should be based upon a “growth for all” model.

Draft: September 26, Building a “Growth for All” Model  One possibility would be to modify the current process for designation of High Performing and Rapidly Improving schools to include a “growth for all” component: other possibilities include rewards, regulatory relief, and differentiated consequences.

Draft: September 26, Approaches to “Growth for All” Models - Student growth in terms of what other reference schools or reference groups have achieved (e.g. “peer schools,” “low-income Hispanic students”). -Growth of students compared to other students who started with similar growth histories. -Student growth in relation to statistical expectations for what the student would have learned with a typical teacher/school.

Draft: September 26, Define “Value-added”  Increase over previous score or performance  Increase over what was expected  Attribution of performance changes (increases/decreases) to agents/conditions

Draft: September 26, What do we value?  “A Year’s Worth of Growth”  More than “A Year’s Worth of Growth”  Not Going Backwards  Relative Growth  Absolute Growth  Growth to Proficiency  Growth to a Point Beyond Proficiency

Draft: September 26, What happens next? - Questions and Answers - Small group discussions and completion of surveys - Summary and next steps

Draft: September 26, More Information To submit questions or requests for more information, please