Vetoed State Growth Model, Rejected Adequate Yearly Progress AYP Growth Model Application, and Summe

1
Vetoed 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

2
Vetoed 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

3
Legislative 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

4
Legislative 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

5
Questions 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.

6
Math MCA-II Students Making State Norm Growth
vs. Proficient
7
Math MCA-II Students Making Top Third State Norm
Growth vs. Proficient
8
Legislative 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

9
Example of School Report Card Display - Students
Making State Norm Growth or Greater
10
Growth 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.

11
Education 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

12
Rejected Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Growth
Model Application
13
AYP 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

14
AYP 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

15
Proposed 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

16
Proposed 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

17
Determining 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

18
Minnesota Developed Value Table

19
Example 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

20
For growing from the Does Not Meet HIGH range in
2007 to the Partially Meets LOW range in 2008,
the student is awarded 60 points.

21
Awarding 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

22
Awarding 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).

23
Awarding 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

24
Example Value Table with Student Outcomes for a
School with 250 Students
25
Math Value Table with Points Earned and Growth
Score for a School with 250 Students
26
Math Targets for AYP
27
Projected 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

28
Projected 2008 Outcomes
29
Reasons 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

30
Summer 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

31
Contact 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
• Phone[phone]