1. The interaction of measurement, models and accountability: How values affect our growth model choices. Jennifer L. Dunn Center for Assessment

2. 2 Introduction Can NCLB accountability be improved by growth?  What do we mean by growth? Learning that occurs beyond what the student knew when they entered the system Movement towards proficiency  Is the construct being measured? Measurement models Accountability system One should not be considered without the other.

3. Center for Assessment 3 Purpose Explore the properties of two NCLB growth pilot models  Relationship scores and classifications to Status and Scaled score changes  Student performance in schools that are ‘helped’ by the growth model  Examine the similarities and differences of the models Growth of proficient students, amount of required growth, and how the models value growth Apply multiple models to the same data

4. Center for Assessment 4 Year 1 Performance Year 2 Performance Level OneTwoProficientFourFive Level 1 0200300 Level 2 0150300 Proficient 00300 Level 4 00300 Level 5 00300 NCLB Value Table School Score = Average of value table points

5. Center for Assessment 5 Initial PerformanceGrowth Target < Proficient - 1SD1/3 of the Distance > Proficient - 1SD & < Proficient - ½ SD ½ of the Distance > Proficient - ½ SD & < Proficient + ¼ SD Proficient > Proficient + ¼ SD & < Proficient + 1¼ SD Score – ¼ SD > Proficient+ 1¼ SDProficient + 1 SD NCLB Change Model School Score = % of students who meet or exceed target

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. Center for Assessment 9 Year 1 Performance Year 2 Performance Level OneTwoProficientFourFiveN Student Level 1 56.725.67.30.4277 Level 2 19.334.844.41.5342 Proficient 2.88.970.514.73.11,758 Level 4 0.535.937.326.1568 Level 5 7.924.867.3355

10. Center for Assessment 10 Initial PerformanceGrowth Target N Students % Meet < Proficient - 1SD1/3 of the Distance11146.0 > Proficient - 1SD & < Proficient - ½ SD ½ of the Distance16043.1 > Proficient - ½ SD & < Proficient + ¼ SD Proficient53561.7 > Proficient + ¼ SD & < Proficient + 1¼ SD Score – ¼ SD88487.7 > Proficient+ 1¼ SDProficient + 1 SD51492.8 Total220477.2

11. Center for Assessment 11 Summary of Results NCLB growth models:  Are more related to status than scaled score changes Relationship between scaled score change and the NCLB change model is stronger than the VT model  “Help” more schools as the AMO increases  Value moving students toward proficient while preventing students from falling below proficient

12. Center for Assessment 12 Conclusion Potential to Improve NCLB accountability? It depends:  We must carefully consider: The construct, the model, the system, & the interactions The use growth in accountability  Replace Status  Multi-tier system Adjusting the NCLB Core Principles  Inclusion  Different growth standards for different students  Moving beyond counts of students