1. October 25, 2012 Jonathan Wiens, PhD Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education

2. Option announced by USED in Sept 2011. Removes requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating. States can propose their own system of School Accountability Supports and Interventions Targets interventions toward 15% of Title I schools (about 90 schools) 2

3. Include individual student growth. Several growth models were reviewed. Colorado Growth Model chosen for implementation. Use an overall rating system (including growth) to identify Priority, Focus, and Model Schools. Several possible methodologies were reviewed. Modified Colorado school rating system chosen for implementation. Rating system is prototype for future report cards. 3

4. Uses the Colorado Growth Model. Includes all students having two consecutive years of standard OAKS assessments, regardless of whether or not they are meeting standard. A student’s growth is compared to the growth of other students in the state having the same prior test scores (“Academic Peers”) Student Growth is expressed as a percentile. A growth percentile of 75 would mean the students growth was as high or higher than 75 percent of his/her academic peers. Computes Growth Targets – growth percentiles that put a student on track to be at standard in three years. 4

5. Growth is based on comparing a student to his or her Academic Peers, who are students with the same test score histories. Growth of low performing students is compared to that of other low performing students in the state. Growth of high performing students is compared to that of other high performing students in the state. Growth model applies to students in grades 4 to 8, and 11. Uses up to four years of test data for each student. 5

6. Schools are given “Levels” in reading and math growth: Level 5: Schools with high growth Level 4: Average to above average growth Level 3: Below average, but not low, growth Level 2: Low growth Level 1: Very low growth Reading and math growth are combined into a Growth Rating. 6

7. School accountability uses the median growth percentile. Median growth is the “middle” growth percentile. This is the “typical” growth at the school. We also report the median target growth percentile. A school has “On Track” growth if the median growth percentile is as high as the median target percentile. “On Track” growth indicates that a typical student is meeting his/her growth target. Requirements to reach Level 5, Level 4, etc., are lower for schools with “On Track” growth. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 Grade 5Grade 6Gain Growth Percentile Growth Target 19520051680 209208872 20921453464 20921896158 209226179648 22723255727 This sample shows various growth percentiles. Note that the middle four students all had the same starting point in 5 th grade. The students in red are shown to emphasize that growth is evaluated relative to academic peers, not on absolute gains in test scores.

11. 11 StudentGrade 3Grade 4Grade 5 Growth Percentil e Affect of using 3 Years of data A--21121534-- B19021121566+32 C19521121555+21 D20021121542+8 E20621121527-7 F21221121517-17 G2182112158-26 This data show how 3 years of test scores can affect growth percentiles. Data are taken from Math growth in 2011-12.

12. Growth targets are forward looking. They estimate the growth necessary to meet in three more years, or by grade 11. They are provided both as percentiles and as RIT scores. The RIT score represents the typical score attained by students who grew to standard in the past. The percentile should be viewed as an estimate of the difficulty of attaining the goal. Grade Target Grade 36 47 58 611 7 8 12

13. 13 StudentGrade 3Grade 4Grade 5 Growth %tile Affect of 3yrs of data 6 th Grade Target %tile 6 th Grade Target RIT Typical Growth in 6 th Grade B19021121566+3269220217 C19521121555+2168221217 D20021121542+866221218 E20621121527-764222219 F21221121517-1763222220 G2182112158-2662223221 This data show how 3 years of test scores can affect growth percentiles. Data are taken from 5 th grade Math growth in 2011-12.

14. 14 The data below shows how important it is to remember that the growth data is based on “academic peers” who are students with similar score histories. Targets for Students with Same Prior Test Score Student Math Score Histories 7th Grade Growth Percentile 8th Grade Growth Targets 4th5th6th7thPercentileRIT A2052122132256673229 B225228222225459233

15. Includes all students in 2012 Spring Membership with a regular OAKs assessment. Includes resident school and district from Spring Membership Includes resident and attending school and district from SSID (as of October 24). 15

16. Details on the waiver: http://www.ode.state.or.us/go/nextgen http://www.ode.state.or.us/go/nextgen Details on priority, focus, and model schools: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3742 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3742 Priority, Focus and Model School Detail Sheets: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3749 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3749 Policy and Technical Manual: http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/policy/accountability /nextgen2012/nextgenaccountabilitymanual2012.pdf http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/policy/accountability /nextgen2012/nextgenaccountabilitymanual2012.pdf Jon Wiens Email: jon.wiens@state.or.us 16