Tennessee’s AYP Growth Model

1. Tennessee’s AYP Growth Model Encouraging schools to launch all students to proficiency and beyond…… State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Accountability Systems and Reporting September, 2007 Dan Long Dan.Long@state.tn.us

2. National Policy Context Secretary Spellings’ “Bright Lines” and Flexibility • Tennessee and North Carolina were pilots for growth model based on school year 2005-06 data, both continued for year 2 • Information from pilots will guide reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2007

3. Basic Facts about Current AYP Model and the Growth Model Pilots • Current AYP Model • Annual proficiency targets for reading and math for all schools and districts for grades 3 – 8 and high school • Safe harbor provision gives credit to schools and districts that fail reaching the proficiency target when they can show that they have a 10% or more reduction in the students that tested below proficient from the previous year.

4. Basic Facts about Current AYP Model and the Growth Model Pilots • Growth models for accountability • At the time of enactment of NCLB, a few states had growth model accountability systems which held their schools and districts responsible for growth in individual student academic progress. • These models measured a student’s “growth” in an academic area by comparing test scores on the current year test to previous years. • Tennessee’s “value-added” growth model was one of these.

5. Benefits of a Growth Model • More accurate picture of a school’s effectiveness because it measures the impact of its educational programs on individual students’ growth instead of comparing different cohorts of students from one year to the next as the current safe harbor does.

6. Benefits of a Growth Model • More accurate picture of schools with: • Small numbers of students • Large numbers of students who enter their first grade already academically behind • Large numbers of mobile students

7. Benefits of a Growth Model • Data which can better inform instruction and services • Strong potential to encourage schools to maximize ALL students’ progress, not just to focus on moving “bubble” students from below proficient to proficient. • Build “reward” system around growth instead of status model.

8. AYP Growth Model • Elementary/middle schools have two ways to meet AYP proficiency targets: • Status/safe harbor model • Growth model • Growth model uses a student’s projected score on an assessment three years into the future • not value-added

9. AYP Growth Model

10. AYP Growth Model • Students with projected scores that fall above the proficiency standard are counted as proficient

11. AYP Growth Model • Students with projected scores that fall below the proficiency standard are counted as below proficient

12. AYP Growth Model • Students who are currently below proficient but have projected scores at the proficient or advanced level are counted as proficient • Students who are currently proficient or advanced but have projected scores at the below proficient level are counted as below proficient

13. Projection Example

14. AYP Growth Model • TN set a very high standard to meet AYP through the growth model • All subgroups must meet the AYP target • In both reading/language arts and math

15. First-Year Results Schools that Made AYP Through Growth Model • 7 schools met the requirements of the growth model – and therefore met AYP overall

16. Second -Year Results 19 Schools Made AYP Through TN Growth Model

17. Conclusion • The AYP growth model holds great promise to • Help states identify the schools in greatest need of assistance • Encourage schools to focus on all students, including those in greatest need of assistance