1. AERA March 25, 2008 Delaware’s Growth Model and Results from Year One

2. Background Information Invitation for states to submit proposals to use a growth model Pilot project – up to ten states Model must demonstrate that it can raise student achievement and enhance school accountability “Bright Line” principles of NCLB upheld DE first submitted proposal in March 2006 – was denied DE revised/resubmitted proposal September 2006 USED approved for use in 2006-07 with one condition –Cannot use Confidence Interval Calculate AYP by original and growth models Report both original and growth models

3. Why did we submit? To ensure more valid and reliable accountability determinations To monitor various subgroups progress To support our value of continuous improvement and longitudinal student growth

4. What model did we propose? Value Table Model –Maintains emphasis on performance levels (standards based achievement) –Values longitudinal student growth –Gives schools credit for moving students towards proficiency –Values growth especially below the standard

5. Who chose Delaware’s model? Committee of Stakeholders –District administrators, school administrators, teachers, parents, community

6. How do value tables work? Values are placed in a table to indicate points earned from one year to the next Calculate the average growth value for the school and each subgroup in reading and math Compare average growth to the target

7. Value Table for Grade 3 Grade 3 Level Grade 2 Level Level 1A Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B Proficient Below000200300 Meets0000300

8. Value Table for Grades 4-10 Year 2 Level Year 1 Level Level 1A Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B Proficient Level 1A 0150225250300 Level 1B 00175225300 Level 2A 000200300 Level 2B 0000300 Proficient 0000300

9. Growth Value Targets Table ReadingMath 2006186123 2007204150 2008204150 2009219174 2010237201 2011252225 2012267249 2013285276 2014300

10. Delaware’s Accountability System: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2006 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) –Total School Original Status / Safe Harbor –Subgroup Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators 2007 Participation (ELA, Math) Performance (ELA, Math) –Total School and Subgroup Growth Original Status / Safe Harbor Other Academic Indicators

11. How to meet AYP Meet Growth Value Targets or Original Status Targets in ELA and math Meet Participation Targets in ELA and math Meet the Other Academic Indicator

12. Ratings Ratings are determined by the combination of: AYP Determination State Progress Determination Accountability History

13. Ratings Table AYPSTATE PROGRESS STATE ACCOUNTABILITY DETERMINATION AFTER 2 CONSECUTIVE YEARS AASuperior AM ABCommendable MASuperior MMCommendable MB Academic Review BA Academic Progress BMAcademic ReviewAcademic Progress BBAcademic ReviewAcademic Watch Schools facing appropriate consequences per NCLB

14. How to be classified as Under Improvement Two consecutive years not meeting AYP in same content area -- ELA -- Math -- Other Academic Indicator

15. What Happened in 2007? 193 Schools with ratings –146 schools (76%) used growth model for rating 89 schools (46%) used growth model and made AYP 57 schools (30%) used growth model and did not make AYP –47 schools (24%) used original model for rating (all made AYP)

16. Comparison of Growth to Original 82 schools (42%) made both growth and original 57 schools (30%) did not make growth or original 7 schools (4%) made growth but not original 41 schools (21%) made original but not growth 6 schools used original model only – K, K-1, K-2 schools – no growth available

17. Correlation of Growth and Original Models – A look at those schools that did not make AYP (57 schools) Missed reading in growth model also missed reading in original model for same subgroups Missed math in growth model may or may not have missed math in original model for same subgroups Missed special education in reading or math in growth model also missed in original model

18. A look at Reading for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools) SubgroupMet OM TargetCISafe HarborSafe Harbor CI All Students 87%11%2%0% Black 57%40%3%0% Hispanic 84%8%0%8% White 98%0% 2% Special Education 4%21%42%33%* Low Income 65%28%5%2%

19. A Look at Math for Those Schools That Only Made Original Model (47 schools) SubgroupMet OM TargetCISafe HarborSafe Harbor CI All Students 99%0%2%0% Black 89%8%1%0% Hispanic 92%8%0% White 100%0% Special Education 17%33%29% Low Income 86%12%0%

20. Some Observations Growth model results will be similar to Original –Principles of NCLB, 100% proficient by 2013-14 –Different models produced similar determinations Growth models only help when real growth is occurring –Showing growth in low achieving students but rate of improvement is differs by subgroups If AYP was not met: –½ of the students maintained their level from previous year –1 in 4 improved –1 in 4 regressed –Similar pattern across subgroups

21. Contact Information Robin Taylor –rtaylor@doe.k12.de.usrtaylor@doe.k12.de.us –302-735-4080