Student Growth Percentiles
With all of the changes going on in
New Jersey schools, specifically from Achieve NJ, it is important for educators to understand the new methods
being used to determine student achievement. Student growth percentiles (SGP)
are now one of the multiple ways to track student growth, which in turn, reflects on teacher and principal effectiveness. With New Jersey being on the
forefront of improving educational practice, the process of evaluating student
growth is becoming more precise and also varies by grade level. In grade levels
4-8, students take a multi-year assessment (NJ ASK) on the subjects of language
arts literacy and math. From these assessments, student growth percentiles are created
and give educators a novel way of analyzing student growth. SGPs quantify student achievement by
comparing scores with other students on the same academic level. The
comparisons can give teachers, parents, and students an alternate view of determining whether or not a student is
progressing appropriately for their grade level. By using these
percentiles, it is believed that schools can better determine if certain
practices are effective, as well as the teachers who are implementing them.
The use of SGPs has created various questions
about what the scores mean to academic achievement in our schools. In recent
years, value-added analysis models have been used to rate student achievement.
These analysis models use intricate statistics in order to show student growth
by analyzing a specific teacher or school. These methods attempt to show how
much a student/ group of students progressed due to the teacher/ school
contribution. Despite the fact that these tools may sometimes be a useful
indicator of effective practice, there fails to be one main question: How much
growth did a student actually make?
The absence of a measurement tool
for student growth has led to the emergence of SGPs, or student growth
percentiles. Student growth percentiles are a statistical method of showing how
much a particular student progressed in comparison to his/her academic peers.
In this circumstance, academic peers are students who have scored similarly on
standardized tests over the past years and are on the same academic path. Below
I have included a brief explanation taken from the RAND Corporation’s program
on SGPs:
"For
example, if Adele scored 263 on last year's test, her score at the end of this
year would be compared with the scores of all the other students who scored 263
last year. Adele's SGP would be her percentile rank (from 1 to 99) within this
group of similar peers. If Adele's SGP is 50, it means that her growth in test
scores is right in the middle: Half of the similar students who scored 263 last
year scored higher than she did this year, and half of them scored lower."
The use of SGPs can show progress
on a larger scale in relation to students who are also moving along the same
path. These scores answer the general question of “Is progressing like they should be?” Along with
providing a simpler way of showing academic progression (or lack thereof) for a
student, SGPs are now also a large portion of the data used in teacher
evaluations. It is important to note that due to the years the NJ ASK is administered, as well as the subjects being tested, SGPs apply to language arts and math teachers
in grades 4-8 only. A teacher’s “score” is taken from the median growth
percentile from a group of students. The median growth percentile or MGP is the
middle score in a group of students. Instead of creating an average of the
percentiles, the median score is used because it shows the growth of a middle or
“average” student. This is said to be a more accurate depiction of a typical
student because the middle score is not greatly affected by outliers in either
direction (either a student doing exceptionally well or poor). For the teachers
that get evaluated on SGPs, their score accounts for 30% of their yearly
evaluation. Although this may seem like it puts a great amount of pressure on
teachers, they are not the only ones who are affected, school principals are
evaluated based on these scores as well. Due to new educational standards from Achieve NJ, principals are also now critiqued based on how well students perform
on standardized tests. Their “scores”
are similar to the MGP used to evaluate teachers, but instead of a particular class,
the calculation uses all applicable students in creating their MGP.
Unfortunately, much like other analysis
methods, SGPs are not flawless in either determining student growth or teacher
effectiveness. The median scores used for evaluation do not account for
differences in student characteristics. Additionally, SGPs, like value-added
modeling, do not specify what exactly caused the improvement. Since the scores
do not show specific causes of improvement, it is difficult to determine
whether or not a different student would have made the same improvement in
the same conditions. SGPs may be a simple method to understand scores, however,
when looking at the variables that come into play that affect student
improvement, rating students and teachers based on these scores may be
altogether too simple. Learning is an
extremely dynamic process, and by just comparing numbers, we may not be
accurately analyzing a particular student’s progression through school. Also,
as past research has shown, standardized testing may not always be the best
indicator of learning. Since standardized testing has flaws in it self, by
evaluating teachers on exam results we may not be accurately scoring how
effective a teacher is in the classroom, but how well the student learned to
take the exam.
Since Achieve NJ has only recently been
introduced in the 2013-2014 school year, it will take some time for schools to accurately
assess whether the new standards are making positive changes. Additionally,
because SGPs are now a component of evaluation for "tested subject" teachers,
it is essential that educators understand the meaning of scores and how they
can be used properly. Hopefully, with proper use, the incorporation of SGPs can
become a helpful tool in improving educational practice. Despite some of the
flaws behind SGPs, by giving a new perspective on improving student
achievement, schools may be taking a step in the right direction.
Below are the two main articles that I used which are provided
through the State of New Jersey - Department of Education Website: www.
State.nj.us
Betebenner, D. (2011) An
Overview of Student Growth Percentiles, National Center for the Improvement
of Educational Assessment.
Betebenner, D. (2011), White paper from the National Center
for the Improvement of Educational Assessments (NCIEA): A Technical Overview of the Student Growth Percentile Methodology: Student
Growth Percentiles and Percentile Growth Projections/Trajectories, The
National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment