Title: Vetoed State Growth Model, Rejected Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Growth Model Application, and Summe
1Vetoed State Growth Model, Rejected Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) Growth Model Application,
and Summer Growth Model Plans
- Accountability Reporting Services Meeting
- Council of Chief State School Officers
- Orlando, Florida
- Saturday, June 14, 2008
2Vetoed State Growth Model
- Legislators recruited primarily district and a
university professor to develop a growth model
that would be required to be reported on the
school report card - The propose growth model was based on state
growth norms, or average student performance,
from one year to the next - The growth would be reported on school report
cards and used to determine best practice schools
and schools that are beating the odds
3Legislative Proposal Legislation Adds Value to
Minnesota Schools
- Multiple Measures
- Report progress on high standards
- Report value added gains in reading and math
- Develop engagement indicators
- Equity
- High achievement gain expectations for all
students including students scoring above the
standards - Monitoring achievement gaps using gain
- Statewide School Improvement
- Identify schools that beat the odds
- Identify and replicate strategies to accelerate
learning for all students
4Legislative Proposal - Using State MCA-II and
MTELL Results to Measure Growth
- Minnesota has a Vertical Scale Score (VSS) to
track individual student growth in grades 3-8 - The VSS will be used to create state growth norms
where district, school, and student groups can be
compared to typical (and exceptional) growth for
students with similar achievement levels - State growth norms will be divided into two
parts, students making more than state norm
growth and students that are making less than
state norm growth - Later this was changed to three reporting
categories - Percent making greater than state norm growth
- Percent making state norm growth
- Percent making less than state norm growth
5Questions from the Department
- If a student starts at partially proficient on
the Math MCAII in Grade 3 and makes typical
growth (i.e. the median for their grade and
starting point), would s/he be proficient by
8th grade? - If a student starts at not proficient on the
Math MCAII in Grade 3 and makes typical growth
(i.e. the median for their grade and starting
point), would s/he be partially proficient by
8th grade? - The answer is NO to each of the above questions.
6Math MCA-II Students Making State Norm Growth
vs. Proficient
7Math MCA-II Students Making Top Third State Norm
Growth vs. Proficient
8Legislative Proposal - Example of Total Students
Growth by District and School
- State growth norms will be created from the 2006
to 2007 MCA-II VSS files where 33.3 of all
students are above state norms, 33.3 are at
state norms, and 33.3 are below state norms - The state report card will display the school
district percentage and individual school
percentage in comparison to the state percentage
for students at or above state norms - The percentage of students above state norms will
be emphasized
9Example of School Report Card Display - Students
Making State Norm Growth or Greater
10Growth Model Was Vetoed because it did not
maintain these paramount components
- Rigor maintain high standards to ensure all
students are proficient and ready for the 21st
century. - Relevance expectations are explicitly tied to
the Minnesota Academic Standards. - Readability Ability for the public, parents,
educators, and students to read and understand
what the growth model measures and what that
means to their school. Transparency is necessary
to the growth models effectiveness for it to be
used as a tool to improve schools.
11Education Omnibus Policy Bill Vetoed
- Proposed language did not send a clear and
consistent message to parents, educators, and the
public about school performance - Comparisons to average or top third performance
- Not tied to Minnesota Academic Standards
- Does not address the achievement gap
- Value-added language, achieved in a bi-partisan
agreement in 2004 and currently in statute was
substantially altered and changes the intent. - Removes the opportunity to evaluate the effects
of the teacher, school, and district on student
achievement - Unfunded mandates
- Determine and annually report to the public and
legislature best practices from above average
schools - Collecting student safety and engagement data via
surveying students beginning in 2009-10 and
reporting it annually
12Rejected Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Growth
Model Application
13AYP Growth Model Use
- All current rules for calculating AYP remain in
place - Growth is computed only for those schools and
districts that do not meet AYP through the Status
model (Performance Index) or Safe Harbor
calculations
14AYP Growth Model Working Group
- Members
- John Lindner, Rosemount - Apple Valley - Eagan
- Tom Watkins, St. Paul
- Lloyd Komatsu, Forest Lake
- Jim Angermeyr, Bloomington
- Dave Heistad (email), Minneapolis
- Paul Gustafson (email), Rochester
- Tom Boatman, MDE
- Christy Hovanetz Lassila, MDE
- Tasks
- Reviewed other states AYP growth models (nine
approved, AK, AR, AZ, DE, FL, IA, OH, NC, and TN
and five submitted but not approved HI, NH, NV,
OR, and PA) - Discuss pros and cons of AYP growth models
possible in MN - Select best AYP growth model option for MN
schools to demonstrate growth while meeting
bright line principles - Discuss calculation rules for AYP growth model
application
15Proposed AYP Growth Model
- Schools and districts are awarded points based on
how much a student has improved her performance
over the previous years (see value table) - Points awarded for growth between different
performance ranges, with more points for greater
growth - Use of performance ranges rather than actual
scale scores - Can be used with MCA-II, MTELL, and MTAS
- Continuity across grades, in transition to MCA-III
16Proposed AYP Growth Model
- Award compounding points for consecutive years of
improvement - Award half of the point difference from the
current performance movement to the next higher
performance range
17Determining Point Values in Value Tables
- Point values in the value tables were determined
empirically and followed intuitive rules - Based on the same point values used in the status
model for scale compatibility with the AMOs - Point values based on observations of actual
student performance from prior to current year on
the assessments - More points for greater growth
- More points for achievement levels closer to
proficiency - Zero points awarded for regression from
proficient to not proficient - regression from Exceeds to Meets, both proficient
achievement levels, students earn 75 points
rather than 100 even though the student is
proficient, their level of proficiency is
declining - Fifty points are awarded for students who
maintained the Partially Meets level for
consistency with the status model and because it
demonstrates that the student made growth and did
not regress from the prior year - Maximum 100 points can only be earned for
proficient scores - Compounding point values earn points for observed
movement plus half the difference in points to
the next highest achievement level - The same value tables will be used for all grades
and both subjects - Use of achievement levels (performance ranges)
rather than actual vertical scale scores - Can be used with MCA-II, MTELL, and MTAS without
statistically transforming the scales - Continuity across grades and transition to
MCA-III in 2011
18Minnesota Developed Value Table
19Example Applying the AYP Growth Model in 2008
- Three years of MCA-II performance for Student 1
- 2006 Does Not Meet LOW
- 2007 Does Not Meet HIGH
- 2008 Partially Meets LOW
- Student 1 showed two consecutive years of growth
20For growing from the Does Not Meet HIGH range in
2007 to the Partially Meets LOW range in 2008,
the student is awarded 60 points.
21Awarding Compounding Points
- For making two consecutive years of growth (2006
to 2007 growth and then 2007 to 2008 growth),
Student 1 is eligible for compounding points - Compounding points one-half the difference in
the points for the next performance range - For Student 1 (Partially Meets LOW in 2008),
the next performance range would be Partially
Meets HIGH
22Awarding Compounding Points
- Difference between reaching Partially Meets LOW
and Partially Meets HIGH for a student in Does
Not Meet HIGH last year is 15 points (75 60).
23Awarding Points Summarizing the Example
- Student 1 earns 40 growth points for growing from
Does Not Meet HIGH to Partially Meets LOW - Student 1 earns 7.5 bonus points for her second
consecutive year of growth - Half the additional points she would have earned
if she had grown to the next performance range - Calculations are repeated for all students in the
school and district
24Example Value Table with Student Outcomes for a
School with 250 Students
25Math Value Table with Points Earned and Growth
Score for a School with 250 Students
26Math Targets for AYP
27Projected 2008 Outcomes
- The AYP growth model projections do not include
compounding points- third year of data available
May 2008 - Does not include high schools
- grade 10 will not have the two years of reading
results until 2008 - grade 11 students will not have two years of math
results until 2009 - Based on 2007 data, three additional schools meet
AYP using the growth model
28Projected 2008 Outcomes
29Reasons Rejected
- ..heart of the peers concerns relates to the
interaction of Minnesotas existing performance
index with the value table. - Scenarios where students make growth but do not
reach proficiency in three years. - Compounding growth, needed evidence of impact
- Split of achievement levels
- Two assessments (SWD and ELL) not approved
- Match rate provided does not satisfy request of
the Department - Justifications for values in values table are not
adequate - Maintain same achievement level and earn points
30Summer Growth Model Plans
- Develop a growth indicator for 2008 to include on
the school report card in August - Objective report on high achievement-high growth
schools and low achievement-high growth schools
to reward and identify high achievement-low
growth and low achievement-low growth schools to
provide additional assistance - Develop a school accountability system with a
rating system that incorporates growth - Objective report to parents and public a single
indicator (A-F, 1-5 stars) the effectiveness of
the school
31Contact Information
- Christy Hovanetz Lassila, Ph.D.
- Assistant Commissioner
- Minnesota Department of Education
- 1500 Highway 36 West
- Roseville, MN 55113
- Email Christy.Hovanetz-Lassila_at_state.mn.us
- Phone651-582-8856