1. A comparison of NCLB Accountability Models: What schools are being identified? Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jennifer L. Dunn Measured Progress

2. NCLB Growth Pilot Program Traditional NCLB  Status  Improvement Growth Model Pilot  Growth towards proficiency Schools need to meet one of these models to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

3. Growth Model Years to Proficiency Final Grade Included in Model Growth Target Calculation Target Classification AK 410 Standardized Scale Projection with correction for test reliability Observed Score AR Grade Dependent 8 Vertical Scale ProjectionObserved Score AZ 38 Vertical Scale RegressionPredicted Score (Lower Bound) FL 310 Vertical Scale ProjectionObserved Score NC 39 Standardized Scale Projection Observed Score IA Initial Score Dependent N/A Value TableObserved Score DE N/A Value TableObserved Score OH 3/next schoolN/A Multilevel modelProjected Score TN 3/graduation12 Multilevel modelProjected Score

4. Research Questions  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under different pilot growth models?  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under the status model and the pilot growth models?  How does a status confidence interval influence the above decision?  What is the relationship between the numbers of schools classified as meeting AYP under the improvement model and the pilot growth models?

5. Methods All models applied to single data set.  Two years of data from vertically scaled state math assessment. Models applied [3 Cut points] Low (58%), Med(72%), High (80%)  Status [Percent Proficient or Above] CI [95%, 98% 99%]  Improvement [Safe Harbor]  Growth [AK, AR, AZ, DE, FL, IA and NC]

6. Growth Model Comparisons Model N = 140 >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient Status1167847 AK62630 AR52021 AZ41816 FL627 NC132324 IA92023 DE255

7. Status with Confidence Interval Confidence Interval >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient None1167847 95%51619 98%72026 99%72327 (N=140)

8. Status [99% CI] and Growth Model (N = 93) >/= 80% Proficient Growth & CIGrowthCI AK2641 AR2017 AZ16011 IA1859 FL2433 NC141013 DE4123

9. Improvement Model (N = 140) >/= 58% Proficient >/= 72% Proficient >/= 80% Proficient Status 1167847 Improvement 146

10. Growth and Improvement Model >/= 80% Proficient N = 93 Growth and SHGrowthSH AK2284 AR2194 AZ3413 IA2214 FL2254 NC3223 DE056

11. Model>/= 58% Proficient (N=24) >/= 72% Proficient (N=62) >/= 80% Proficient (N=93) AK134 AR031 AZ0920 IA435 FL143 NC796 DE001 Growth after Status (99% CI) and Improvement

12. Conclusions Status, Improvement and Growth to Proficiency are different constructs  However there is overlap in schools meeting each standard. A handful of different schools are meeting the Growth to Proficiency but not Status and Improvement.  Unclear if these are “growing” schools or schools near status cut.

13. Future Research Can growth model differences be explained by model characteristics? Are the models defined appropriately?  Are growth targets realistic and obtainable? What is meant by growth to proficiency?

14. Thank You and Contact Information The Center for Assessment  Study was conducted when first author was an intern and second author was an Associate at the Center for Assessment. For further information and copies of the paper email:  jessica.allen@colorado.edu jessica.allen@colorado.edu  Dunn.Jennifer@measuredprogress.org Dunn.Jennifer@measuredprogress.org