Select CO RE Information about the CORE Growth Model October 31, 2016 (a CORE Academic Growth Model Step 1 After Spring testing is complete, EA collects student data from the CORE Districts & EA determines demographic and other adjustments Step 2 Each student gets a customized statistical prediction based on his or her characteristics +35 Average Growth - 3 for Econ. Disadv. - 4 for Disability + 2 for EL Status - 1 for Homeless Status + 1 for Foster Status + 2 School Averages _________ +32 points During the year Spring 2015 Test Score Spring 2016 Predicted Test Score using scale scores CORE Academic Growth Model Step 3  Actual Score Determine whether each student exceeded or did not meet prediction, and by how much using scale scores Student Exceeded Prediction by 5 Points Predicted Score Student Did Not Meet Prediction by 4 Points Predicted Score Actual Score Spring 2015 Test Score Spring 2016 Test Score Spring 2015 Test Score Spring 2016 Test Score CORE Academic Growth Model Step 4  On average, did a school’s students tend to exceed or not meet their predictions, and by how much? School A (Average +3.25 Points) +8 +7 +2 -6 +7 +6 Above Average Impact School B (Average -1.25 Points) +4 -4 -7 -3 -2 +5 +4 -6 Below Average Impact -3 +3 CORE Academic Growth Model Step 5  School 1 -7 -2 0 5 Growth result is converted to 0-100 Student Growth Percentile (SGP) School 2 -3 -4 -2 -1 School 3 -3 +3 School 4 +4 +2 -2 -4 +4 +8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Slower Growth Average Growth +2 +2 100 Faster Growth Converting to SGP to Index Level Growth Percentile 0 100 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9 Level 10 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 0 9 10 19 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 69 70 79 80 89 90 100 Converting to SGP to Index Level Growth Percentile 0 100 50 07 57 88 Level 1 Level 6 Level 9 0 100 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9 Level 10 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 0 9 10 19 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 69 70 79 80 89 90 100 Basic Results Interpretation Slower Growth 0 25 Overall 50 60 30 100 This grade-level team is producing… 55 7th Faster Growth 75 45 6th 8th Average Growth typical growth for their students faster-than-average growth for their students slower-than-average growth for their students* *does not mean these students lost knowledge Attending to variability and leveraging the power of two From the Carnegie Foundation… Variation in performance is the core problem to address. The critical issue is not what works, but rather what works, for whom and under what set of conditions. Aim to advance efficacy reliably at scale. A. Students know a lot and are growing faster than their peers 100 Percent Standards Met (2016) C A B. Students are behind, but are growing faster than their peers 80 C. Students know a lot, but are growing slower than their peers E 60 D. Students are behind, and are growing slower than their peers 40 B D E. Students are about average in how much they know and how fast they are growing 20 0 0 25 50 75 100 Schools in a district Academic Growth (2015-2016) Attending to variability and leveraging the power of two across the CORE Data Collaborative Edvantage Dashboard Item 7.2 Attachment2? The Six Core Principles -: - i?i (D 9. Apps Bookmarks [Pg School Improvemer?. A day of pump, circL. id"! {9 Eligible Vehicles [Pf Linked Learning x, General Input - SQH - Special Education - core stakeholder in]: he Other bookmarks Welcome Noah Bookman EH CORE Index Academic Vleasures Vleasures Growth Measures Advanced Comparisons View System Growth Versus Achievement Scatterplots Options l- it?: gilt; Li 5 ES :il-z; Abraham Lincoln Elementary A Hispanic Latino H- 15-52: Abraham Lincoln Elerr'entar-r' Acaden'w' for Enriched Sciences Related Dashboards Growth versus Achievement Scatterplots - School Report "35 Scatter Plot 1-3: Student Percenti Sacramento Uni?ed Sente Ana Uni?ed Angeles Uni?ed Oakland Uni?ed 0 Fresno Uni?ed Long Beach Uni?ed East Union Alliance Garden Grove Uni?ed '1 San Francisco Uni?ed San Eernandino City Uni?ed Aspire filescohort [stat A lilescohort [stat A Show a" @el?lmle l?watweiel mm An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. How 2015’s students performed in ELA and math. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. How 2016’s students performed in ELA and math – not the same set of students as last year. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. Similar to the LCAP status measure, the 6 out 10 says this school is about average in ELA achievement, and 2 out 10 says this school is low in math achievement An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. Similar to the LCAP change measure, this school has shown a year over year positive change in achievement. This is not the same as student growth. This is one year’s students compared to the next year. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. The CORE growth measure looks only at the 2016 students in terms of how they grew from 2015 to 2016. 50% would mean that students had an average year of growth. 97% and 82% are above average. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. In ELA, students know about an average amount, but they are growing much faster than their peers in other schools. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. In math, students are behind, but they are growing much faster than their peers in other schools. An Example: A school where 8 out 10 youth are in poverty, 2 out of 10 are English Learners and 25% are students with disabilities. In addition to the all students group, we examine growth by subgroups of students.