**Delaware's Proposal for a Growth Model**

**Re-Submitted to U.S. Department of Education**

**September 15, 2006**

**(revised November 9, 2006)**

**Historical Context of Education Reform in Delaware**

For more than a decade Delaware's education reform agenda has focused on
accountability. Standards for student learning have been developed in at
least seventeen content areas. Statewide achievement standards have been
in place for the content areas of English/language arts (assessed by
separate reading and writing tests) and mathematics in grades 3, 5, 8
and 10 through the use of the Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP)
since 1999. Achievement standards were adopted in the content areas of
science and social studies for grades 3, 5, 8 and 11 in 2001. Further,
Delaware revisited the achievement standards in reading, writing and
mathematics in grades 3, 5, 8 and 10 and set levels for grades 2, 4, 6,
7, and 9 in the summer of 2005. (Note: There is no writing assessment
given for students in grade 2.) As a result, there are five levels of
performance consistent across grades 3 through 10 in reading, writing,
and math. In grade 2, there are three levels of performance for reading
and math since the grade 2 assessment has fewer items than the
assessments at the other grades.

Vertical alignment of the grade level expectations in English/language
arts and mathematics as well as alignment of the assessments (DSTP) to
the grade level expectations was a result of substantial work in the
spring and summer of 2005. Importantly, when the actual cut scores were
determined, the cuts were set to reflect one year of growth from a
performance level in one grade to the same performance level in the next
grade. The achievement standards are vertically-articulated.
Additionally, performance level descriptors were developed. Technical
qualities of the assessments were reviewed and enhanced including
scaling, scoring and equating.

Delaware went through extensive reviews and conducted studies for grade
by grade alignment, vertical alignment and establishing the cut scores.
There are extensive documents available on our website
[www.doe.k12.de.us/aab](http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab). The following
excerpts are from the documentation, *[A Summary Report and
Recommendations to the Delaware State Board of Education for Revisiting,
Reviewing, and Establishing Performance Standards for the Delaware
Student Testing Program in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, October
2005.]{.underline}*

Note: These excerpts from the above-mentioned report may include
information about the writing assessment even though writing is not
included in the growth model proposal.

> "*To meet the requirements of the **No Child Left Behind** regulations
> and implement recommendations of the Governor's Executive Order 54,
> the Department of Education proposed a plan to convene panels of
> educators and members of the community to review the performance
> standards (cut scores) for both reading and mathematics at grades 3,
> 5, 8, and 10 in the summer of 2005 and to use performance levels based
> on the new cut scores in Spring 2006 for reporting at the student,
> school, district, and state levels and for school accountability
> (Woodruff, 2004). The project involved the following five steps:*

(1) *Conduct alignment studies*

(2) *Develop Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs) for reading, writing,
    and mathematics*

(3) *Revisit the cut scores in reading and mathematics for grades 3, 5,
    8, and 10*

(4) *Review proposed cut scores in reading and mathematics for grades 4,
    6, 7, and 9 in five performance levels and three levels for grade 2*

(5) *Revisit cut scores in writing for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 and
    establish cut scores for grades 4, 6, 7, and 9 in five performance
    levels*

> *From March through August 2005, over 280 classroom teachers,
> educators, administrators, and representatives from Delaware
> educational organizations and business community throughout the state
> participated in various development meetings and review workshops.
> Some of the participants were involved in more than one activity.
> These educators and community members have made great contributions to
> the development of the Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs) for
> reading, writing, and mathematics, reviewing the statewide
> assessments, and making recommendations on the adjusted cut scores in
> five performance levels for grades 3 through 10 and in three levels
> for grade 2.*
>
> *This report provides detailed information on the project,
> particularly the two review workshops and the resulting
> recommendations of new cut scores. More information on the method and
> results of the alignment studies can be found in separate reports.
> Documents and review materials that were used and developed for the
> project, such as the process of developing the PLDs, ordered test
> booklets, and samples of student writing, are listed as documentations
> but not attached to this report due to the volume and test security
> considerations.*
>
> *The Performance Level Descriptors clearly depict what students are
> expected to know and be able to do for each grade, differentiate among
> the performance levels, and reflect developmental skill progression
> across grades (Appendices C, D, and E). These content-based
> descriptions along with the Grade-Level-Expectations were used as the
> base in the review process for the panelists to adjust cut scores.*
>
> *At the July workshop, the reading panels raised the cut scores
> slightly for grade 3 Meets and Exceeds the Standard and for grade 5
> Meets the Standard. The panels suggested a lower cut score for grade 8
> Below the Standard, Meets the Standard, and Exceeds the Standard.
> After consulting with the measurement experts and the Technical
> Advisory Committee, the Department 'smoothed' the panel recommended
> lower cut scores for grade 10 Meets the Standard, Exceeds the
> Standard, and Distinguished.*
>
> *The mathematics panelists made minor adjustments on the existing cut
> scores for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. The panels suggested a slightly
> higher cut score for grade 5 Meets the Standard, Exceeds the Standard,
> and Distinguished and for grade 10 Below the Standard and
> Distinguished; the panels suggested a lower cut score for grade 3
> Below and Exceeds the Standard, for grade 8 Meets and Exceeds the
> Standard, and for grade 10 Meets the Standard.*
>
> *At the August review workshop, the panels made small adjustments on
> the preliminary cut scores for grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 in both
> reading and mathematics. After discussing these adjustments with the
> measurement consultants and the Technical Advisory Committee, the
> Department smoothed the reading panel recommendations for grade 9
> Below the Standard, Meets the Standard, and Distinguished.*
>
> *The writing panels recommended cut scores for grades 3 through 10
> after a thorough review of a large sample of student writing on both
> 2004 and 2005 DSTP assessments. The resulting recommended cut scores
> are the same across grades with a few exceptions: a lower cut score of
> 4 instead of 5 for grade 3 Below the Standard and a score of 7 instead
> of 8 for grades 3 and 4 Meets the Standard. In addition, the
> Department recommended a cut score of 12 instead of 13 for grades 7
> and 8 Distinguished level.*
>
> *The summary of recommended cut scores for reading, writing, and
> mathematics can be found in Table 10."*

Additional information from this report related to the alignment
studies:

> *["The Grade-by-Grade Alignment Studies]{.underline} were conducted in
> mathematics (March 8-9, 2005) and English language arts (April 4-5,
> 2005) for grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9. Webb's model was applied during
> the 2-day alignment session using four criteria: Categorical
> Concurrence, Depth of Knowledge Consistency, Range of Knowledge, and
> Balance of Representation. This model was previously used in summer
> 2003 for the alignment studies in English language arts and
> mathematics for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. Although the newly developed
> Grade-Level-Expectations (GLEs) have few changes for students by the
> end of each grade cluster, the goals and expectations by the end of
> each grade are more specific. The Alignment Committees reviewed the
> 2005 test form, item by item, to determine to what extent the DSTP
> measures the Content Standards and the GLEs. The committees also made
> recommendations to improve the degree of alignment for reading,
> writing, and mathematics based on the expectations for each grade,
> particularly in mathematics. The alignment reports for English
> language arts and mathematics are available (Documentations 5 and 6).
> These recommendations from the alignment studies are being reviewed by
> the Department and contractor content specialists and the Test
> Development Committee members and will be implemented, as appropriate,
> as part of the test construction process.*
>
> *[The Vertical Alignment Study]{.underline} was conducted in English
> language arts and Mathematics on April 19-21, 2005 as a pilot study
> funded by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) State
> Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) Technical
> Issues in Large-Scale Assessment (TILSA). A total of 57 classroom
> teachers and curriculum specialists throughout the state participated
> in the Vertical Alignment workshop at the elementary, middle, and high
> school levels. Using the Grade-Level-Expectations, the study assessed
> the alignment of content objectives and expectations across grades and
> was intended to inform the development of the Performance Level
> Descriptors (PLD). According to the primary analyses and
> recommendations from the panels, clarity of some expectations and the
> relationships/connections of expectations to the corresponding
> expectations at the prior grades should be improved. To make
> connections between the GLEs and the DSTP across grades, two
> additional sessions were developed and organized by the consultants,
> Charles Peters for reading and Linda Wilson for mathematics, to
> provide supplemental alignment information to the rating process.
> Participants provided very positive feedback about the workshop. The
> majority of the panelists reported that the orientation and training
> had prepared them for the alignment workshop adequately or very well
> and they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the process of
> rating. Participants also reported that the workshop had provided them
> with an opportunity to review the expectations not just for one grade
> but also the adjacent grades and discuss these expectations with
> fellow teachers who work in different grades. The alignment activities
> were "very helpful to listen to above, middle, and below grades about
> the concepts" and "very helpful for going back to teaching." Many
> teachers, through the alignment process, created a clear vision of
> aligning the expectations from one grade to the next."*

Additional information from this report related to the cut scores:

> *"IV. Revisit/Review DSTP Performance Standards (Cut Scores) for*
>
> *Reading, Writing, and Mathematics*
>
> *The review of DSTP performance standards (cut scores) involved four
> steps: (1) revisit the existing cut scores for DSTP reading and
> mathematics in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10; (2) propose cut scores through
> interpolation procedure in reading and mathematics for grades 4, 6, 7,
> and 9 in five performance levels and three levels for grade 2; (3)
> review the preliminary cut scores through interpolation in reading and
> mathematics for grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9; and (4) revisit the existing
> cut scores in writing for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 and establish cut
> scores for grades 4, 6, 7, and 9 in five performance levels. Two
> review workshops were held, one was July 12-13 and one was August 2-3,
> 2005, at the Delaware Technical and Community College -- Terry Campus.
> Both workshops were run by measurement consultants with collaboration
> of Assessment and Analysis Group at the Department of Education.*
>
> *Due to the differences in methodology, modified Bookmark procedure
> was used for reading and mathematics; Body of Work procedure was used
> for writing, the review process, training, review materials, panel
> arrangement, and resulting recommended cut scores are summarized
> separately for reading/mathematics and writing in this report.
> Recruiting of panelists, Table Facilitator training, opening session,
> and general process are described in the following section for all
> three content areas."*

As a part of the process for revisiting and setting cut scores, cross
grade patterns were reviewed as the excerpt from this report below
describes:

> *["Identify the Across-Grade Performance Patterns]{.underline} After
> the review of ordered test booklets, participants were trained on how
> to identify the across-grade performance pattern and the existing cut
> scores for each content area. The Impact-Content Table was introduced
> for training; it provided participants with the information related to
> the impact data, that is, the percent of students at or above the cut
> score for Meets the Standard and the content expected to be mastered.
> Specifically, for each percentile rank the associated scale score,
> number of items in the ordered item booklet, and the number correct
> score are included. Using highlighted existing cut scores for grades
> 3, 5, 8, and 10, participants could visualize a decreasing trend of
> the percentage of students meeting the standard in both reading and
> mathematics, especially in mathematics.*
>
> *The following discussion occurred by grade level first and then by
> the content area. The Table Facilitators prompted the discussion
> focusing on: (1) Do these observed patterns seem reasonable? (2) Do
> these trends represent what participants saw in the classrooms around
> the state? (3) Do their observations support this data? Participants
> were also asked to provide evidence to support the current performance
> pattern or a hypothesis of alternative pattern(s) that they believed
> might better reflect student achievement across grades.*
>
> *In addition to the review of ordered test booklets, led by Alan
> Nicewander and Daniel Lewis, the reading panels also reviewed the test
> blueprints for grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. The test blueprint which
> increases the percentage of items that are of a higher cognitive level
> as students proceed up the grades was also cited as a reasonable
> explanation as to the slight decline in student performance with the
> existing cut scores for meeting the standard. Panel participants also
> perceived an inconsistency of the level of difficulty and cognitive
> demand between the items on Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Edition
> (SAT 10) Reading Comprehension (abbreviated version) and the
> Delaware-developed items.*
>
> *The mathematics panels, led by Howard Mitzel, had a general consensus
> that rising standards, or rising expectations, across grade levels
> were reasonable and desirable for Delaware students. Participants
> discussed motivational issues fostered by grade levels in the
> accountability system (e.g., grades 6 and 7). Much of the discussion
> centered on the recent modification to the state standards and the
> drafting of grade-specific grade level expectations as required by
> NCLB."*

The cut scores for reading and math are shown in the table below.

+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Table    |            |             |             |              |
| 10.        |            |             |             |              |
| Summary of |            |             |             |              |
| R          |            |             |             |              |
| ecommended |            |             |             |              |
| Cut Scores |            |             |             |              |
| for        |            |             |             |              |
| Reading,** |            |             |             |              |
|            |            |             |             |              |
| **and      |            |             |             |              |
| Mat        |            |             |             |              |
| hematics** |            |             |             |              |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
|            |            |             |             |              |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Reading  | **Below    | **Meets the | **Exceeds   | **Dis        |
| Grade**    | the        | Standard**  | the         | tinguished** |
|            | Standard** |             | Standard**  |              |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
|            |            |             |             |              |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 2          | n/a        | 361         | 419         | n/a          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 3          | 387        | 415         | 466         | 482          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 4          | 414        | 440         | 483         | 503          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 5          | 427        | 453         | 502         | 529          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 6          | 435        | 460         | 504         | 542          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 7          | 438        | 465         | 523         | 557          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 8          | 466        | 495         | 553         | 584          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 9          | 468        | 498         | 558         | 586          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| 10         | 470        | 501         | 562         | 588          |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
|            |            |             |             |              |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+

  --------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------
  **Mathematics   **Below the   **Meets the    **Exceeds the  **Distinguished**
  Grade**         Standard**    Standard**     Standard**     

                                                              

  2               n/a           351            404            n/a

  3               381           407            461            499

  4               408           432            477            505

  5               433           451            505            528

  6               451           466            518            539

  7               459           472            520            543

  8               469           487            527            549

  9               486           514            554            570

  10              506           523            559            578

                                                               
  --------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------

Again, this report is available with all of the attachments on the
[www.doe.k12.de.us/aab](http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab) website.
Information about the approved traditional accountability model,
including the approved workbook for Delaware, is also found on this
website.

In the growth model, the performance levels of "meets the standard"
(performance level 3), "exceeds the standard" (performance level 4) and
"distinguished" (performance level 5) are collapsed to one level
identified as "proficiency".

**Introduction to the Proposed Growth Model**

Delaware believes that it is one state that meets the seven required
core principles necessary for a growth model in its accountability
system. In fact, the growth model selected by Delaware for the pilot is
very similar, in theory, to one that Delaware had been developing prior
to the **No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)** **of 2002**. Delaware has the
necessary data systems and infrastructure, assessments for multiple
years in the areas of reading and math in contiguous grades, and a model
designed to hold schools accountable for all students being proficient
by 2013 -- 2014.

The proposed growth model was developed by a statewide NCLB stakeholder
group. The members represent the following groups: teachers, building
level administrators, administrators' association, special education
coordinators, title I coordinators, curriculum directors, local chief
school officers, State Board of Education, parents, business community,
advocacy groups, and local boards of education. The stakeholder group
has met periodically since the development phase of school and district
accountability in 1997. It provided policy recommendations to the
Secretary of Education and State Board of Education (SBE) for the first
accountability system, and the current accountability system under NCLB.
The group is instrumental in the development work for the accountability
workbook and is the group that brings forward suggestions for
improvements to the system.

Delaware has long valued a school and district accountability system
that provides fair and equitable ratings. Further, Delaware believes
that identifying schools and districts that are not closing the
achievement gap is a priority. This issue is so important that there is
a special statewide committee that researches and discusses the
achievement gap on a regular basis. They also identify and work to
disseminate best practices in schools where the achievement gap is
closing.

**Proposed Growth Model**

Delaware will calculate AYP based on status and safe harbor for all
schools and subgroups that meet the minimum n requirement of 40, herein
called the "traditional model". Delaware will also calculate AYP for
proficiency based on the following growth model methodology for all
schools and subgroups that meet the minimum n requirement of 40. The
participation rate, other academic indicators, and sanctions from the
traditional model will remain the same and will carry over to the growth
model. By calculating proficiency both ways, Delaware will have
information that will be useful in analyzing how this growth model
actually works and how the results compare to the AYP traditional model.
A school that makes AYP based on the traditional model or the growth
model will be deemed as meeting AYP. The consequences and sanctions for
schools that do not make AYP remain as described in Delaware's approved
accountability workbook, available at [www.ed.gov](http://www.ed.gov/)
or [www.doe.k12.de.us/aab]{.underline}.

In addition to the current reporting of AYP information in the school or
district profile, Delaware will also report the growth value tables for
all subgroups that meet the minimum reporting n of 15. This means that
the percent proficient and the growth value (gv) tables will be reported
for all subgroups with an n of 15 in reading and mathematics publicly in
the school report cards and on the DOE's website. Further, more detailed
information, including the names behind the numbers, will be available
to school and district administrators through a password protected
website.

Many student longitudinal growth systems---often termed "value-added"
models---are very complex statistical procedures where student growth
(aggregated to the class or school level) is based on the use of
vertical score scales as well as on normative evaluations. On the other
hand, the Center for Assessment[^1] has developed an approach for
measuring student growth that relies on awarding points to the school
based on the change in students' performance across
vertically-articulated achievement standards. Essentially, a "value
table" is constructed whereby a school (or district) is awarded varying
amounts of points depending on how much progress, in terms of movement
across achievement standards, a student makes from one year to the next.
This value table approach, in addition to several conceptual advantages
(e.g., it is not based on vertically scaled scores), is an important
advance because it is quite transparent for school leaders to understand
how changes in student performance are translated into changes in school
accountability scores.

The value table approach for capturing student progress is based on the
theory that accountability can best motivate behavior on the part of
school personnel if the expectations are very transparent to the
educators. Importantly, the value table approach is one of the few
standards-based methods for calculating student growth. Unlike many
complex models, educational leaders can calculate their progress
scores---as well as what they need to do to meet the state goals---with
a hand calculator. Schools are awarded points based on students' scores
in year-one compared to their scores in the next grade in year-two.

This model does not condition or alter expectations based on student
demographics or other student characteristics. The beauty of this model
is that it is a standards-based approach to measuring growth. Student
progress is measured as the change in (or maintenance of) performance
levels for all students in a school or district. Finally, the Delaware
Department of Education plans to continually gather validity evidence to
evaluate the accountability system, which includes monitoring the
appropriateness of both the status and progress targets.

#### **The Value Table Approach**

This method for measuring progress assigns a certain number of points to
each of the various combinations of levels student performance in
consecutive years. For example, if a student scored at Level 1 in Year 1
and Level 2 in Year 2, that result would earn the student's school a
certain number of points. If, on the other hand, the student were Level
2 in Year 1 and then Level 1 in Year 2, that result would earn the
student's school no points. The table that provides the points earned
for each of the multiple combinations is referred to as a "value table."

One aspect of this system is that students who are Level 1 cannot go
down, no matter how little progress they might make from year to year,
and students who score at Level 5 cannot go up, no matter how much
progress they make. While there are many positive aspects to reporting
in terms of performance levels, this "floor" and "ceiling" effect is an
inherent limitation.

An advantage of the value table approach is that in addition to making
the targets transparent to educators, it also makes the policy values
very explicit. For example, do Delaware policy makers believe that
moving students from Level 1 to Level 2 is an important objective? If
so, then the system should reward schools that produce that result more
often. Do they believe that students below Level 3 should show more
progress each year than students already at Level 3? Again, if so, the
system should reflect that value. Thus, there is no single, inherently
"right" or "wrong" accountability system. The right accountability
system for a state is one that rewards schools for accomplishing the
primary objectives of the policy makers.

The value table approach is unique in terms of student longitudinal
growth based accountability systems because it incorporates explicit
state values into the accountability system. Delaware convened an
accountability task force, NCLB Stakeholder Group, representative of
educators and policy makers throughout Delaware, which met to help
specify the growth system and specific values.

Additionally, many other constituent groups were convened to provide
input into the specific value questions. One of the main values
satisfied through the value table was to recognize growth for students
scoring below proficient and to reward movement toward the proficient
score. This was operationalized by splitting the two performance levels
below proficient (Levels 1 & 2) in half so that schools would receive
credit for moving these students at least one-half of a performance
level. Prior to splitting these performance levels, the standard error
of measurement was evaluated to make sure that the width of the new half
performance levels was less than the standard error of measurement.

The actual process that was used to determine the value table numbers is
described below. Each cell in the value table was assigned a number
ranging from 1 to 49. The Stakeholder Group worked in teams to review
every position in the value table and rank order the positions from
(highest valued growth) to (lowest valued growth) using index cards. The
first step in the ranking process required the teams to place each index
card into one of four categories: high priority, medium priority, low
priority and no priority. Index cards placed in the no priority category
would be slated to receive 0 points. Next, the group was asked to number
the index cards from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) within each of the
priority categories. If the teams felt that two or more of the positions
were valued equally, they were assigned equal ranks, indicating that
those positions would be equal in point value. Essentially each card was
placed in one of 15 positions reflecting the how much each cell in the
value table was valued. The no priority cards were assigned a ranking of
0. The low priority cards were assigned a ranking between 1 and 5. The
medium priority cards were assigned a ranking between 6 and 10 and the
high priority cards were assigned rankings from 11 to 15. The average
rank was calculated for each of the 49 positions in the value table. The
resulting matrix follows:

Value Table with Average Rankings (Results of the Ranking Exercise)

  --------- ------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------
  Year 1    Year 2                                                
  Level     Level                                                 

            Level   Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B  Level 3  Level 4  Level 5
            1A                                                    

  Level 1A  2.25    5.75     10.75    11.75     13.75    14.25    14.25

  Level 1B  .75     3.25     6.5      11.5      13.5     13.75    14.25

  Level 2A  0       1        3.25     7.5       11.25    13.25    14

  Level 2B  0       0        1.25     3.25      8.75     13       13.75

  Level 3   0       0        .5       2.25      6.5      12.75    13

  Level 4   0       0        0        0         3        7.5      12

  Level 5   0       0        0        0         2        7.25     12.25
  --------- ------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------

After the Stakeholder Group ranked the positions and the average was
determined for each position as shown above, the average in each
position was multiplied by a constant to create whole numbers and
smoothed to more validly reflect the group's value statements. This
value table, shown below, was then used to refine and inform the
discussion about what value should be in each of the positions in the
value table.

Value Table Used to Initiate Discussion in Winter 2006

  --------- ------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------
  Year 1    Year 2                                                
  Level     Level                                                 

            Level   Level 1B Level 2A Level 2B  Level 3  Level 4  Level 5
            1A                                                    

  Level 1A  25      125      225      250       300      300      300

  Level 1B  25      75       175      225       300      300      300

  Level 2A  0       25       125      200       300      300      300

  Level 2B  0       0        50       125       300      300      300

  Level 3   0       0        25       100       300      300      300

  Level 4   0       0        0        25        300      300      300

  Level 5   0       0        0        0         300      300      300
  --------- ------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------

The values that the group decided would drive the points include:

-   Students scoring at PL3, PL4 and PL5 would receive the same number
    of points since they are all scoring at least proficient and would
    be collapsed into one category, "proficient";

-   Students whose performance slips by more than one cell in the matrix
    from one year to the next would receive no points; and

-   Growth below the bar would be honored.

After much discussion and reviewing several options, the group decided
on the values reflected in the table that follows. It should be noted
that the group held firmly to the principle of awarding points for
growth that was more than one year's worth of growth. That means that
students who move from level 1A to level 1B would be awarded points for
that growth.

Final Value Table (Fall 2006)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                         
                Level                                          

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B    Proficient

  Level 1A      0          150         225         250         300

  Level 1B      0          0           175         225         300

  Level 2A      0          0           0           200         300

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0           300

  Proficient    0          0           0           0           300
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

The resulting value table reflects the values, or weights, the
Stakeholder Group placed on student growth among the achievement levels.
In general, the Stakeholder Group valued movement into Proficiency
(Level 3) the most, as reflected by the greatest number of points. The
Stakeholder group felt it was unlikely that many students far below
Proficient (in Levels 1A and 1B) could validly jump to Level 3, but
could make growth to the next higher levels, and so the next largest
point values were assigned for students in the lowest achievement levels
moving up a plausible amount. Every cell in the value table was
completed through this type of deliberation and discussion. The
discussion was informed, but not dictated, by consideration of the
current statewide transitions between achievement levels.

An issue of applying the growth model across grades with different
numbers of performance levels arises when looking at growth from grade 2
to grade 3. There are three performance levels at grade 2 and five
performance levels at grades 3 through 10; however, performance levels
3, 4, and 5 have been collapsed into one level, proficient. The value
table for grade 2 to grade 3 will be as follows:

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  Grade 2 Level Grade 3                                        
                Level                                          

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B    Proficient

  Below         0          0           0           200         300

  Meets         0          0           0           0           300
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Values in the Growth Table**

The growth table reflects values that are consistent with NCLB. This
table does not value growth above proficient, and growth to proficiency
is valued less than being proficient. This means that students scoring
in performance levels 3 through 5 earn the same number of points. There
is no compensation for growth above proficiency and if all of the
students in a subgroup were proficient in year 1 and stayed proficient,
the average score for the subgroup would be 300. Likewise, if all of the
students in the subgroup moved from anywhere below proficiency in year 1
to proficiency in year 2, the average score for the subgroup would be
300 points. The maximum score, therefore, is 300, which is equivalent to
100% proficient, and all students are meeting the standards.

**Growth Targets**

To determine how much growth was good enough to make AYP, the NCLB
stakeholder group reviewed examples of student performance and the
subsequent averages produced from the model. The growth model targets
parallel the traditional percent proficient targets. If 100% of the
students in a subgroup were scoring at proficient, the growth value for
the subgroup would be 300. Therefore, in 2007 the growth target for
reading/ELA will be 68% of 300 or 204 and 50% of 300 or 150 for
mathematics. The table below shows the targets for both the growth model
and the traditional AYP model for reading and mathematics through
2013-2014.

  ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                **Growth**        **Model**         **Traditional**   **Model**

  **School      **Reading/ELA**   **Mathematics**   **Reading/ELA**   **Mathematics**
  Year**                                                              

  2003          na                na                57%               33%

  2004          na                na                57%               33%

  2005          na                na                62%               41%

  2006          186               123               62%               41%

  2007          204               150               68%               50%

  2008          204               150               68%               50%

  2009          219               174               73%               58%

  2010          237               201               79%               67%

  2011          252               225               84%               75%

  2012          267               249               89%               83%

  2013          285               276               95%               92%

  2014          300               300               100%              100%
  ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Again, the calculations will be done by subgroup separately for each
content area, reading and math.

**Methodology for Proposed Growth Model**

The state has a data system with a unique student identifier that allows
for assessment data to be tracked and matched from year to year for each
student. The proposed growth model assigns points based on the
combination of a student's performance level in two consecutive years
(see value tables in Appendix I). The calculations for the content areas
of reading and math are done separately. Points are assigned to the
outcomes that are more highly valued by the NCLB stakeholder group. The
model values individual student growth from one year to the next and
increases the validity and reliability of the state's accountability
system. This is realized by not misclassifying schools or districts that
are indeed helping the lowest achieving students move toward or to
proficient and then maintaining proficiency.

Delaware revisited the achievement standards in reading, writing and
math for students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the summer of 2005.
Educators reviewed the achievement levels that were set in 1999 and
adjusted some of the performance cuts during the review. After the
achievement levels were reviewed and adjusted at grades 3, 5, 8, and 10
in reading, writing and math, Delaware educators set five levels of
performance for reading, writing and math at grades 4, 6, 7, and 9. The
State Board of Education adopted these performance cut scores in the
fall of 2005. Three achievement levels were also established for reading
and math at grade 2. The grade 2 assessments have fewer items; therefore
three levels of performance were more appropriate than five.

Performance below proficiency has been divided into two subcategories to
better demonstrate growth below the proficiency level for the growth
model. In the "Well Below" category, performance level 1, the
performance cut score for the subcategory at each grade level and in
each content area was statistically determined to be at the scale score
point where the cumulative percentage of students scoring in the well
below category was fifty percent (50%). For the "Below the Standard"
category, performance level 2, the subcategory was set by dividing the
scale score points from the lower bound to the upper bound in half. The
levels at or above proficiency, performance levels 3 through 5, are
collapsed into one category. The subcategories are only used in the
growth model and not used in traditional model including status or safe
harbor. Cut scores for reading and math for the growth model are shown
in the table below.

Reading Cut Scores for Performance Levels Below Proficiency to
Proficiency (PL 3) for Determining Growth

  -------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                       PL 1A     PL 1B      PL 2A      PL 2B      PL 3

  Grade 2              na        na         na         \<337      361

  Grade 3              \<368     368        387        401        415

  Grade 4              \<400     400        414        427        440

  Grade 5              \<413     413        427        440        453

  Grade 6              \<416     416        435        448        460

  Grade 7              \<422     422        438        452        465

  Grade 8              \<448     448        466        481        495

  Grade 9              \<442     442        468        483        498

  Grade 10             \<448     448        470        486        501
  -------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Mathematics Cut Scores for Performance Levels Below Proficiency to
Proficiency (PL 3) for Determining Growth

  -------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                       PL 1A     PL 1B      PL 2A      PL 2B      PL 3

  Grade 2              na        na         na         \<330      351

  Grade 3              \<363     363        381        394        407

  Grade 4              \<391     391        408        420        432

  Grade 5              \<416     416        433        442        451

  Grade 6              \<434     434        451        459        466

  Grade 7              \<437     437        459        466        472

  Grade 8              \<449     449        469        478        487

  Grade 9              \<467     467        486        500        514

  Grade 10             \<487     487        506        515        523
  -------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Using the value tables from Appendix I, each individual student in the
subgroup will earn the corresponding points depending upon the cell in
the matrix that equals the growth or non-growth from DSTP 2006
performance level to the DSTP 2007 performance level. For example, if a
student scored in the bottom part of "below the standard", performance
level 2a in reading, in 2006 at grade 3 and moved to "meets the
standard", performance level 3 in 2007, the subgroup in the school that
the student attended in 2007 would receive 300 points. Each student's
performance is given a value from the table and the average number of
points for the subgroup is calculated. This average growth score is
benchmarked against the growth standard set by the NCLB stakeholder
group to determine whether or not the school and district met the growth
target. The actual growth is measured against potential growth.

The same process is followed separately for math. Growth for each
subgroup with a minimum n of 40 will be calculated using the process
described above.

It should be noted that preliminary review of the data show that more
than 94% of the students in the state who were enrolled in Delaware
public schools in 2005 had a test score on the DSTP in 2004. This means
that less than 6% of the students would potentially be excluded when
using the growth model. Further examination of the excluded students
indicates that 87% of the 6% of students were not enrolled in a Delaware
public school at all during in 2004 so had no baseline DSTP in 2004. The
rest of the excluded students were enrolled at some time in 2004 but not
during the testing window. Some enrolled after the testing window and
the rest left before the testing window and came back in 2005. This data
supports the following two points. First, the data system in Delaware is
extremely robust and student mobility is tracked including reasons for
exiting the public school system. Second, there is very little mobility
out of the state. Students tend to move within the state. Therefore
these students would be included at some level of the accountability
system -- district, if moving across schools within the district or
state if moving across districts but within the state.

It is important to note that while at least 94% of the students are
included in the growth model which means that these students have a test
score for year 1 and year 2, the remaining 6% have been included in the
traditional model provided they meet the full academic year requirement.
Therefore all students are included in at least the traditional or
growth models with 94% included in both models. Further, students who
should have been included but did not participate in the assessment are
reflected in the participation rate. Again the same participation rate
is used in both models.

**Use of Confidence Interval**

A one-tailed confidence interval, to be determined after further
investigation, will be used in the growth model. The details of the
computation are discussed below. The rationale for using a confidence
interval in the growth model is the same as the rationale for using
confidence intervals in the traditional status model. Confidence
intervals are used to control for sampling errors or measurement errors,
thereby increasing the validity and reliability of classifying schools
as making or not making AYP. When the size of the confidence interval
has been determined through the appropriate research methods, Delaware
will submit the confidence interval critical value to the USED for
approval per the condition required for approval of this growth model.

The confidence interval will be applied to the average growth value.
Confidence intervals help to correct for sampling error (the student
members of a school are fluid from year to year and therefore, students
in a given year are considered a sample not a population), to reduce the
risk of Type 1 error (classifying a school as needing improvement when
in fact it does not) and ideally, to help correct for measurement error
in the assessments.

In a growth model, the use of confidence intervals follows a similar
rationale. They are needed to correct for sampling error, Type 1 error
and measurement error. While the arguments for sampling error and Type 1
error remain consistent, because the value table score is based on the
difference between two years of assessment data, both of which include
error, the use of confidence intervals to correct for measurement error
is even more critical. In the NCLB system, multiple decisions are made
about each school. Because of the multiple decision process, the ideal
confidence interval should incorporate a family-wise error rate
regardless of whether the decisions are based on value table scores or
the percent of proficient students. A confidence interval based on a
family-wise error rate would accurately correct for the possibility of
making a Type 1 error. However, because there is no precedent for
allowing a family-wise error rate by the US Department of Education,
Delaware is proposing the use of a confidence interval that will be
determined after further research.

When calculating the confidence interval around value table scores, one
is faced with the predicament of how best to estimate the true
variability of value table scores for the student population for each
school. For status, because the decision is a dichotomous one (a student
is either proficient or not proficient), the true variance of the
student population is known (the proportion of proficient students
multiplied by the proportion of students who are not proficient). Things
are not as simple for value table scores. Very little research has been
conducted on how best to estimate the true population variability of
student value table scores.

In statistical calculations, when the population variance is unknown,
the sample variance is used to estimate the population variance. In this
case, the

within school variance of observed student scores is considered an
appropriate estimator:

> $$\text{var}_{\text{school}} = \sum_{}^{}{(\text{vtscore}_{\text{student}} - \text{mean}_{\text{vtscore}_{\text{school}}})^{2}}n_{\text{vtscores}} - 1$$

where, mean_vtscore~school~ is the average value table score for the
school, vtscore~student~ is the value table score for the student, and
n~vtscores~ is the number of ELA test scores for the school of interest.
However, it is not clear which schools should be used to calculate this
estimate. For example, one could viably calculate any of the following:

1.  Observed within school variance for each school,

2.  Average within school variance for all schools in the state

3.  Average within school variance for a sample of schools which have
    value table scores near the growth cut point, and

4.  Student variance for a sample of schools with value table scores
    near the growth cut point.

Although it is not expected that the above four methods will alter the
absolute number of schools that pass the growth standard, they will
likely affect the specific schools that pass the growth standard.
Therefore, Delaware would like the opportunity to research each of the
above four options before selecting the most valid approach for
calculating value table confidence intervals.

**Step-by-Step Details of the Process**

The step by step process for calculating the growth value for each
subgroup within a school that meets the minimum "n" requirements is as
follows:

1.  All of the students who are members of the subgroup and are in the
    school for a full academic year (continuously enrolled from
    September 30 through May 31 of the school year) are assigned points
    from the value table (Appendix I) that correspond to their relative
    position in the value table. This is done separately for reading/ELA
    and math. For example, a student who scores at performance level 2a
    on the reading assessment in 2006 and scores at performance level 2b
    on the next grade reading assessment in 2007 will earn 200 points.

2.  The points for all students who are members of the subgroup will be
    totaled.

3.  The totaled points will be divided by the number of students to
    calculate the average growth value (gv).

4.  A confidence interval will be applied to the calculated average
    growth value and the resulting growth number will become the growth
    value for the subgroup.

5.  The growth value for the subgroup is then compared to the growth
    target for reading or math. If the growth value for the subgroup is
    equal to or greater than the established growth target, then the
    subgroup is said to be above the target. If the subgroup met the
    target through the use of the confidence interval, then the subgroup
    is said to be meeting the target. If the subgroup does not meet the
    target after the use of the confidence interval, the subgroup is
    said to be below the target.

Here is an example of how the growth value for a subgroup in a school
would be calculated for reading. There are 45 students in Subgroup A and
their individual scores are as follows:

2 students scored at PL1A on the Grade 6 DSTP reading assessment in 2005
and scored at PL2A on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;

4 students scored at PL2A on the Grade 6 DSTP reading assessment in 2005
and scored at PL2A on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;

15 students scored at PL2B on the Grade 6 DSTP reading assessment in
2005 and scored at PL3 on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;

5 students scored at PL1B on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2005
and scored at PL2A on the Grade 8 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;

4 students scored at PL2A on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2005
and scored at PL2B on the Grade 8 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;

11 students scored at PL2B on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in
2005 and scored at PL3 on the Grade 8 DSTP reading assessment in 2006;
and

4 students scored at PL3 on the Grade 7 DSTP reading assessment in 2005
and scored at PL 2A on the Grade 8 DSTP reading assessment in 2006.

Step 1. Referencing the value table in Appendix I, the following points
are awarded to the subgroup:

2 times 225 = 450

4 times 0 = 0

15 times 300 = 4500

5 times 175 = 875

4 times 200 = 800

11 times 300 = 3300

4 times 0 = 0

Step 2. Sum the points for a total of 9925.

Step 3. Divide by 45 for an average growth value for the subgroup of
221.

Step 4. Calculate the Confidence Interval.

Step 5. The growth target for 2006 in reading is 186. Therefore this
subgroup is above the target.

Four (4) students made at least one year of growth, moving from
performance level (PL) 2A in grade 6 to 2A in grade 7 and earned 0
points. Twenty six (26) students moved from below proficient to
proficient (2b to 3) which is more than one year of growth. An
additional eleven (11) students also made more than one year of growth
by moving from 1A to 2A, 1B to 2A, or 2A to 2B. For this subgroup it is
obvious that thirty-seven (37) or 82% of the students made more than one
year of growth. The corresponding percent proficient calculated the
traditional way for this subgroup would be 58%. Note that this is not a
compensatory model that rewards growth above proficiency. It rewards
growth towards proficient and staying proficient.

**Proposed Growth Model Applied to a School -- A Real School Example**

**Traditional Model -- School Results**

School A is a middle school serving grades 7 and 8 in a large urban
district in Delaware. The 2006 AYP matrix using the traditional model,
with the approved minimum n of 40, for this school is as follows:

+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| S       | ELA    | ELA      | Math   | Math     | Meets   | Safe  |
| ubgroup | P      | Co       | P      | Co       | Other   | H     |
|         | ercent | nfidence | ercent | nfidence | Ind     | arbor |
|         | Meets  | Interval | Meets  | Interval | icators |       |
|         | St     | Applied  | St     | Applied  | (Y or   |       |
|         | andard |          | andard |          | N)      |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| 2006    | 62%    | 62%      | 41%    | 41%      | Y       |       |
| Targets |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| All     | 76%    | 76%      | 55%    | 55%      | Y       | na    |
| S       |        |          |        |          |         |       |
| tudents |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Amer    |        |          |        |          |         |       |
| Indian  |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Black   | 66%    | 66%      | 38%    | 43%      |         | na    |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Asian   |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| H       | 74%    | 74%      | 55%    | 55%      |         | na    |
| ispanic |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| White   | 86%    | 86%      | 72%    | 72%      |         | na    |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| ELL     |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Special | 39%    | 48%      | 19%    | 26%      | Y       | Y     |
| Ed      |        |          |        |          |         |       |
| ucation |        |          |        |          |         | ELA   |
|         |        |          |        |          |         | and   |
|         |        |          |        |          |         | Math  |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+
| Low     | 63%    | 63%      | 39%    | 44%      |         | na    |
| Income  |        |          |        |          |         |       |
+---------+--------+----------+--------+----------+---------+-------+

As indicated in the table above for the traditional AYP model, this
school did not meet the targets with the special education subgroups in
both ELA and math. However, when safe harbor was applied, the school did
meet a decrease of 10% in the number of students not meeting the
standards in both ELA and math, each calculated separately, from 2005 to
2006. In fact, for ELA, the percent of special education students not
proficient in 2005 was 69.3% and in 2006 that percent was 61.4 -- a
decrease of 7.9% and the goal was 6.9%. In math, the percent of special
education students not proficient in 2005 was 86.4% and in 2006 that
percent was 81.3 -- a decrease of 5.1 and the goal was 8.6%. A
confidence interval of 75% was applied in math for safe harbor and the
school did meet the goal of an 8.6% decrease.

The school did not make AYP in 2006; but the reason was not performance
based. They did not make AYP because they did not meet the AYP
participation target of 95% with the special education subgroup in both
reading and math. The percent of special education students
participating in ELA was 89% and 90% in math.

**Growth Model -- School Results**

To apply the growth model to this school, the number of students in each
of the performance levels was determined by subgroup and the growth
values calculated. The details of the calculations can be found in
Appendix III. The following table shows the growth value for each
subgroup in reading and math without the application of a confidence
interval.

  ----------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------
  Subgroup                ELA Growth    Math Growth   Other Indicators
                          Value         Value         (traditional model)

  2006 Targets            186           123           

  All Students            241           185           Y

  Amer Indian                                         

  Black                   217           141           

  Asian                                               

  Hispanic                249           189           

  White                   263           227           

  ELL                                                 

  Special Education       140           81            

  Low Income              211           148           
  ----------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------

The growth model shows similar accountability results as the traditional
AYP model in that only the special education subgroups in reading and
math do not meet targets. Note that a confidence interval was not
applied in this example. The growth model details show a significant
lack of growth within and across performance levels in the special
education subgroup. The achievement gap between subgroups still exists
with the growth model and the pattern is similar to the traditional AYP
model. The results between the models are the same but a school can get
more information about growth within and across performance levels from
this growth table.

By viewing the detail matrices in Appendix III and IV, the school can
also very quickly see where there are needs. For example, looking at
special education math, one can see the following:

-   57 students (49.6%) scoring below proficient are making one year's
    worth of growth and are not on track to ever become proficient;

-   19 students (16.5%) are making less than one year's worth of growth
    and are not on track to ever become proficient;

-   20 students (17.4%) are proficient in year 2;

-   6 students were proficient and are now below proficient; and

-   5 students (4.3%) who were below proficient in 2005 were able to
    become proficient in 2006.

**Bottom Line -- School Results**

If this growth model proposal were approved, the results for this school
would be that they did not make AYP. The school did not make AYP with
the traditional model since they did not make the 95% participation
target. The school did not make AYP with the growth model because they
missed the 95% participation target, the ELA growth target for the
special education subgroup and the math growth target for the special
education subgroup.

**Core Principles**

Delaware believes that all core principles are met with this proposal
and with the accountability system. Each core principle will be
addressed below.

**1. The proposed accountability system must ensure that all students
are proficient by 2013-14 and set annual goals to ensure that the
achievement gap is closing for all groups of students.**

The growth model is part of a system that maintains fidelity to having
100% of the students at proficiency by 2013-2014, including safe harbor,
which is one way that a school or district can demonstrate improvement.
This method will not mitigate an accountability decision; it will make
the system fairer to schools. If schools are truly helping the lowest
achieving students move towards proficiency at the rate set by the
growth standards, they should be acknowledged for doing so. As
illustrated by the table on page 14, **all** students have to be scoring
at or above proficiency by 2013-2014 in order for the school to meet the
growth target of 300. The proposed growth model is not intended to
replace the current method of determining AYP status. The growth model
is not a compensatory model that rewards growth above proficiency. It
rewards growth towards proficient and staying proficient.

All students in grades 3 through 10 will be included in the growth model
calculation provided the students were in the school for a full academic
year in the current year and have a DSTP test score from the previous
year. Definitions and business rules for the traditional model can be
found in Delaware's Accountability Workbook and on the website at
[www.doe.k12.de.us/aab](http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab) under the school
accountability link. Published on the web are the Technical and
Operational Manuals for 2004 and 2005 Accountability. These Technical
and Operation Manuals include all of the business rules and definitions
for accountability in Delaware. Again, if a student has only one test
score, the student will still be included in the traditional model.
Therefore, all students are included on one model or the other with more
than 94% included in both models.

**2. The accountability system must establish high expectations for
low-achieving students that are not based on student demographic or
school characteristics.**

This growth model is not based, in any way, on individual student
demographics or school characteristics. There are no "individual
trajectories" set for students nor are "pathways to proficiency"
determined. The achievement standards are the same for all subgroups.
Low achieving students must show growth to proficiency for a school to
be rewarded in the proposed growth model.

**3. The accountability system must produce separate accountability
decisions about student achievement in reading/language arts and in
mathematics.**

As mentioned in the "Proposed Model" section above, separate
accountability decisions regarding student achievement will be made for
reading and mathematics. In fact, the growth targets for reading and
math are different until 2013-2014 when 100% proficiency (300 points) is
the target.

**4. All students in the tested grades must be included in the
assessment and accountability system; schools and districts must be held
accountable for the performance of student subgroups; and the
accountability system must include all public schools and districts in
the state.**

All students in grades three through ten will be included in the growth
model. For students in grade 3, growth will be determined by the level
of performance in grade 2 compared to grade 3. For high school students,
growth will be determined from grade 8 to 9 and grade 9 to 10. The
proposed growth model will include performance at the subgroup level and
for all schools and districts per the approved Delaware Accountability
Workbook.

Inherent to the growth model, students who are new to the state will not
be included in the growth model calculation for the first year; however,
these students are included in the traditional model calculation. These
students do count in the growth calculation in subsequent years provided
they stay in the state. Therefore, schools **are** held accountable for
students new to the state through the traditional model, but not through
the growth model. If a school receives a low performing student, the
school has one year only to get the student to proficient. In contrast,
a school's growth value will not benefit by receiving a high performing
student. Note that while the student new to Delaware would not be
included in the growth model the first year, the student would be
included in the first year in the traditional model.

There are no students in Delaware who are "unmatched" because of the
unique student identifier. The only situation that could occur with
missing data would be a student who did not participate in an
assessment. Students who do not participate are counted as "not
participating" when calculating the participation rate. The
participation rate for reading/ELA and mathematics is still included in
the AYP model whether using the traditional model or the growth model.

The growth model will be applied to all students in all schools that
contain any combination of grades 3 through 10. K, K-1 and K-2 schools
will not be included in the growth model. The traditional method for
determining AYP status will be used for the K, K-1 and K-2 schools. For
the 2006 school year, there are only 4 such schools -- Smyrna Early
Childhood Center, Appoquinimink Early Childhood Center, Morris Early
Childhood Center and Cedar Lane Early Childhood Center.

Students who take the alternate assessments (DAPA) also receive
performance level scores in the content areas. There are five (5)
performance levels for the alternate assessments. Therefore, the
students taking the DAPA will be included in the growth model
calculation just as students participating in the DSTP are included.
There will be no difference between DAPA and DSTP.

The preliminary review of the data show that more than 94% of the
students in the state who were enrolled in Delaware public schools in
2005 had a test score on the DSTP in 2004. This means that less than 6%
of the students would potentially be excluded when using the growth
model. Almost all of this 6% are students that would be excluded for not
meeting the full academic year (FAY) requirement. Further examination of
the excluded students indicates that 87% of the 6% of students were not
enrolled in a Delaware public school at all during in 2004 so had no
baseline DSTP in 2004. The rest of the excluded students were enrolled
at some time in 2004 but not during the testing window.

It is important to note that while at least 94% of the students are
included in the growth model, the remaining 6% are included in the
traditional model. Therefore **all** students are included in the
traditional and/or growth model with at least 94% included in both
models.

The data tables for 2005 are as follows:

Full School Year Students in 2005 (All)

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Have a score in 2004?   Count                   Percent

  Yes                     65676                   94.3

  No                      3967                    5.7

  Total                   69643                   100
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Full School Year Students in 2005 (This represents the 5.7%)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Have a score **Enrolled in  **Enrolled in  **Not Enrolled **Total**
  in 2004?**     2004 testing** 2004 but not   in 2004 (new   
                                during         in 2005)**     
                                testing**                     

  No             \-\--          13.0%          87.0%          100%

  Of the total   94.3%          0.7%           5.0%           100%
  population                                                  
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Full School Year Students in 2005

+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **   | **Am   | *    | **Asi | **    | *    | **S  | *    | **E  |
| Have | erican | *Bla | an/** | Hispa | *Whi | WD** | *Low | LL** |
| a    | Ind    | ck** |       | nic** | te** |      | Inco |      |
| s    | ian/** |      | **Pa  |       |      |      | me** |      |
| core |        |      | cific |       |      |      |      |      |
| in   | **     |      | Islan |       |      |      |      |      |
| 200  | Alaska |      | der** |       |      |      |      |      |
| 4?** | Na     |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
|      | tive** |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| Yes  | 90.7%  | 9    | 90.5% | 93.3% | 9    | 9    | 9    | 8    |
|      |        | 4.0% |       |       | 4.8% | 6.8% | 5.1% | 7.7% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| No   | 9.3%   | 6.0% | 9.5%  | 6.7%  | 5.2% | 3.2% | 4.9% | 1    |
|      |        |      |       |       |      |      |      | 2.3% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| T    | 100%   | 100% | 100%  | 100%  | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| otal |        |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+

The data tables for 2004 are as follows:

Full School Year Students in 2004 (All)

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Have a score in 2003?   Count                   Percent

  Yes                     65705                   94.9

  No                      3519                    5.1

  Total                   69224                   100
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Full School Year Students in 2004 (This represents the 5.1%)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Have a score **Enrolled in  **Enrolled in  **Not Enrolled **Total**
  in 2003?**     2003 testing** 2003 but not   in 2003 (new   
                                during         in 2004)**     
                                testing**                     

  No             \-\--          4.9%           95.1%          100%

  Of the total   94.9%          0.2%           4.8%           100%
  population                                                  
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Full School Year Students in 2004

+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **   | **Am   | *    | **Asi | **    | *    | **S  | *    | **E  |
| Have | erican | *Bla | an/** | Hispa | *Whi | WD** | *Low | LL** |
| a    | Ind    | ck** |       | nic** | te** |      | Inco |      |
| s    | ian/** |      | **Pa  |       |      |      | me** |      |
| core |        |      | cific |       |      |      |      |      |
| in   | **     |      | Islan |       |      |      |      |      |
| 200  | Alaska |      | der** |       |      |      |      |      |
| 3?** | Na     |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
|      | tive** |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| Yes  | 94.1%  | 9    | 91.9% | 94.8% | 9    | 9    | 9    | 9    |
|      |        | 4.9% |       |       | 5.1% | 7.5% | 7.0% | 0.1% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| No   | 5.9%   | 5.1% | 8.1%  | 5.2%  | 4.9% | 2.5% | 3.0% | 9.9% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| T    | 100%   | 100% | 100%  | 100%  | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| otal |        |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+

The data tables for 2003 are as follows:

Full School Year Students in 2003 (All)

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Have a score in 2002?   Count                   Percent

  Yes                     65152                   95.0

  No                      3434                    5.0

  Total                   68586                   100
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Full School Year Students in 2003 (This represents the 5.0%)

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Have a score **Enrolled in  **Enrolled in  **Not Enrolled **Total**
  in 2002?**     2002 testing** 2002 but not   in 2002 (new   
                                during         in 2003)**     
                                testing**                     

  No             \-\--          11.2%          88.8%          100%

  Of the total   95.0%          0.6%           4.4%           100%
  population                                                  
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Full School Year Students in 2003

+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| **   | **Am   | *    | **Asi | **    | *    | **S  | *    | **E  |
| Have | erican | *Bla | an/** | Hispa | *Whi | WD** | *Low | LL** |
| a    | Ind    | ck** |       | nic** | te** |      | Inco |      |
| s    | ian/** |      | **Pa  |       |      |      | me** |      |
| core |        |      | cific |       |      |      |      |      |
| in   | **     |      | Islan |       |      |      |      |      |
| 200  | Alaska |      | der** |       |      |      |      |      |
| 2?** | Na     |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
|      | tive** |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| Yes  | 91.8%  | 9    | 92.0% | 94.5% | 9    | 9    | 9    | 8    |
|      |        | 5.0% |       |       | 5.2% | 7.2% | 6.2% | 8.1% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| No   | 8.2%   | 5.0% | 8.0%  | 5.5%  | 4.8% | 2.8% | 3.8% | 1    |
|      |        |      |       |       |      |      |      | 1.9% |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+
| T    | 100%   | 100% | 100%  | 100%  | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| otal |        |      |       |       |      |      |      |      |
+------+--------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+

These data show that there is slightly more mobility over the three year
period in the American Indian/Alaska Native subgroup, the Asian/Pacific
Islander subgroup and the ELL subgroup. In each of these three
subgroups, there are relatively small numbers of students so one would
expect more variability. For example, for the table "Full School Year
Students in 2003", the total number of American Indian/Alaska Native
students is 196. Only 16 could not be matched, yet the percent of
student with no score in 2002 is 8.2%. Similarly, for the same table,
the total number of ELL students is 1317. Again, 157 (11.9%) were either
new in Delaware in 2003 or enrolled in Delaware in the 2002 school year
after the testing period. No analysis is available yet for the 2006
school year. This same kind of analysis can be done at the school level
if necessary but not in time for this document.

**5. Annual assessments in reading/ language arts and math in each of
grades 3-8 and high school must have been administered for more than one
year, must produce comparable results from year to year and grade to
grade, and must be approved through the peer review process for the
2005-06 school year.**

Annual assessments in reading and math have been operational in Delaware
since 2002 for students in grades 2 through 10. Therefore, there are
currently at least 4 years of information in the statewide data system
for each student -- 5 years when this model takes effect. The data
include old performance levels (prior to the October, 2005 adoption of
the new cuts), individual student demographics, individual scale scores
for each content area, and school characteristics. Equating studies of
the scale scores are done annually as part of the technical review of
the assessments, thereby assuring comparability of the results in
reading and math from year to year. Delaware has submitted all materials
for the peer review process and is scheduled to be reviewed in February,
2006. Materials are available if needed.

Individual student growth will not be provided to parents. This is not
an individual student growth model -- it is a school and subgroup growth
model. Parents receive written score reports every time that the student
participates in the DSTP or DAPA. A sample report has been included in
Appendix II of this document. This growth model proposal is for school
accountability purposes, not for determining individual growth. Delaware
believes that parents need to receive information relative to student
progress towards the standards including performance level, scale score
and percentile ranks for each test administration. Certainly a parent
could compare last year's individual score report with the current year.
However, each score report is relative to the grade level expectations
that were assessed.

The information about school accountability and subgroup growth will be
included in the annual release of the school report cards. The school
report cards will include the traditional AYP determinations and the
growth model calculations, reported for each subgroup in each content
area provided that the subgroup meets the minimum "n" reporting
requirement of 15. Thus, the growth value for each subgroup will be
reported just as the percent proficient determination is reported.

School report cards are published annually by the state in hardcopy and
sent for distribution by the school to every parent. School report cards
are also available electronically for each school at
[www.doe.k12.de.us](http://www.doe.k12.de.us/) for the current year as
well as for previous years.

**6. The accountability model and state data system must track student
progress.**

Delaware has a very rich data system that tracks individual student
progress. Each student is assigned a unique student identifier for life
and progress through the public education system is tracked by the
system. The unique student identifier has been in place in Delaware
since 1984. In fact, Delaware has a statewide pupil accounting system
that it makes available to all of the schools and districts at no cost.
Central to this system is a common data dictionary, a table of data
elements that are required at the state level and the periodicity for
updates on the elements, and a table of data elements that are specific
to each district. The statewide data base is updated nightly so that the
system is almost "real" time. This means that updated student
information is available almost immediately to the appropriate
school(s). There are a few data elements that are updated during the
work day or at peak times since they are critical to the daily
operations of a school. Eighteen of nineteen districts and fourteen of
seventeen charter schools currently use this pupil accounting process.
Since its usage by the districts is voluntary, those that choose not to
use this system must electronically send the required data to the
Department of Education within the required timeline -- nightly for most
of the data.

**7. The accountability system must include student participation rates
in the state\'s assessment system and student achievement on an
additional academic indicator.**

Participation rates of subgroups by content area, and the additional
academic indicators as described in the Delaware's Accountability
Workbook will still be used. No change is proposed for participation or
additional academic indicators.

**Additional Information**

The proposed growth model will cause one change to the Delaware
Accountability Workbook under principle 3.2. In the sequence of steps
used to determine the accountability ratings and make AYP decisions, an
additional step would be inserted after step 9. Step 9 would be
renumbered as 9a and the additional step would be as follows:

9b. A growth value will be determined following the methodology set
forth in the proposed growth model.

Tthe minimum group size will still be 40. The additional academic
indicators will stay as approved. Confidence intervals will be applied
to the proposed growth model to be determined through further research
as noted in the "Use of Confidence Interval" section earlier. Sanctions
for schools not making AYP are the same as described in the workbook.
The additional data from the growth process will be reported in the
school, district or state report card just as the current traditional
model accountability data is reported. School and district level
administrators will have information available through the school and
district accountability web-based system which provides the details,
including individual student information, used for each of the separate
pieces of the accountability process. More information on this system is
available if desired. It is, however, a password protected system
designed to ensure confidentiality of student information.

This growth model is not intended to provide individual student
information to parents. The points that a student earns for his/her
school will not be reported to parents or to others. Since this is a
school and district accountability system, not an individual student
accountability system, it is the collective average of the points for a
subgroup within the school or district that will be reported.

**Conclusion**

Delaware believes that we have a useful and usable growth model proposal
and one that is reasonable. There is no intent to mitigate any part of
the accountability system; nor is there intent to aid schools in
"getting out of" the accountability process. Instead, the belief in
Delaware is that the current system is valid and reliable. The addition
of a growth model will only enhance the validity and reliability of that
system. Further, there is consensus that all of the educational
communities, including businesses and parents, want to make sure that
schools and districts are making every effort to help the lowest
achieving students meet proficiency and remain proficient. We believe
that this proposal moves us closer to that goal and it moves us closer
to eliminating the achievement gap.

Appendix I

Value Table for Grades 3 through 10

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                         
                Level                                          

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B    Proficient

  Level 1A      0          150         225         250         300

  Level 1B      0          0           175         225         300

  Level 2A      0          0           0           200         300

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0           300

  Proficient    0          0           0           0           300
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

Value Table for Grade 2 to 3

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  Grade 2 Level Grade 3                                        
                Level                                          

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B    Proficient

  Below         0          0           0           200         300

  Meets         0          0           0           0           300
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

Appendix II: Sample Student Report

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="7.6409722222222225in"}

Appendix III: A Real School Example \-- Details of Growth Calculation
for Reading

Reading Number of Students for All Students Subgroup (N=915)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      17         5           8           3            4

  Level 1B      10         7           14          11           5

  Level 2A      5          8           13          15           26

  Level 2B      4          3           10          11           33

  Proficient    3          3           24          43           630
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for All Students Subgroup (GV=241)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          750         1800        750          1200

  Level 1B      0          0           2450        2475         1500

  Level 2A      0          0           0           3000         7800

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            9900

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            189000
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading Number of Students for Black Subgroup (N=429)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      14         2           3           2            3

  Level 1B      7          5           9           9            4

  Level 2A      3          6           8           9            16

  Level 2B      1          1           6           5            16

  Proficient    2          3           18          28           249
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for Black Subgroup (GV=217)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          300         675         500          900

  Level 1B      0          0           1575        2025         1200

  Level 2A      0          0           0           1800         4800

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            4800

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            74700
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading Number of Students for Hispanic Subgroup (N=69)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      2          2           4           0            0

  Level 1B      0          2           1           1            0

  Level 2A      0          1           0           3            2

  Level 2B      0          0           1           0            3

  Proficient    1          0           0           1            45
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for Hispanic Subgroup (GV=249)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          300         900         0            0

  Level 1B      0          0           175         225          0

  Level 2A      0          0           0           600          600

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            900

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            13500
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading Number of Students for White Subgroup (N=383)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      1          1           1           1            1

  Level 1B      3          0           4           1            1

  Level 2A      2          1           5           3            8

  Level 2B      3          2           3           6            14

  Proficient    0          0           6           12           304
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for White Subgroup (GV=263)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          150         225         250          300

  Level 1B      0          0           700         225          300

  Level 2A      0          0           0           600          2400

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            4200

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            91200
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading Number of Students for Special Education Subgroup (N=115)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      14         1           3           1            2

  Level 1B      7          4           6           3            2

  Level 2A      2          3           6           5            6

  Level 2B      1          3           4           1            5

  Proficient    1          1           5           3            26
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for Special Ed Subgroup (GV=140)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          150         675         250          600

  Level 1B      0          0           1050        675          600

  Level 2A      0          0           0           1000         1800

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            1500

  Level 3       0          0           0           0            7800
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading Number of Students for Low Income Subgroup (N= 391)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      15         4           7           3            3

  Level 1B      8          4           9           8            2

  Level 2A      3          4           10          11           14

  Level 2B      1          2           8           1            19

  Proficient    3          3           14          26           209
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Reading \-- Number of Points Earned for Low Income Subgroup (GV=211)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          600         1575        750          900

  Level 1B      0          0           1575        1800         600

  Level 2A      0          0           0           2200         4200

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            5700

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            62700
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Appendix IV: A Real School Example \-- Details of Growth Calculation for
Math

Math Number of Students for All Students Subgroup (N=918)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      87         42          5           6            4

  Level 1B      28         44          22          16           23

  Level 2A      7          16          7           15           16

  Level 2B      2          15          9           12           30

  Proficient    2          21          29          31           429
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for All Students Subgroup (GV=185)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          6300        1125        1500         1200

  Level 1B      0          0           3850        3600         6900

  Level 2A      0          0           0           3000         4800

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            9000

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            128700
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math Number of Students for Black Subgroup (N=429)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      68         23          3           4            1

  Level 1B      18         29          13          11           11

  Level 2A      4          10          7           11           8

  Level 2B      1          11          7           7            15

  Proficient    2          9           13          17           126
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for Black Subgroup (GV=141)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          3450        675         1000         300

  Level 1B      0          0           2275        2475         3300

  Level 2A      0          0           0           2200         2400

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            4500

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            37800
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math Number of Students for Hispanic Subgroup (N=70)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      6          5           1           1            0

  Level 1B      3          4           0           0            2

  Level 2A      0          2           0           0            1

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            3

  Proficient    0          0           6           2            34
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for Hispanic Subgroup (GV=189)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          750         225         250          0

  Level 1B      0          0           0           0            600

  Level 2A      0          0           0           0            300

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            900

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            10200
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math Number of Students for White Subgroup (N=384)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      13         12          1           1            3

  Level 1B      7          11          9           5            10

  Level 2A      3          4           0           4            7

  Level 2B      1          4           2           4            11

  Proficient    0          10          10          12           240
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for White Subgroup (GV=227)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          1800        225         250          900

  Level 1B      0          0           1575        1125         3000

  Level 2A      0          0           0           800          2100

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            3300

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            72000
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math Number of Students for Special Education Subgroup (N=115)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      48         11          2           0            1

  Level 1B      11         6           3           3            1

  Level 2A      1          0           0           0            1

  Level 2B      1          0           0           3            2

  Proficient    0          3           1           2            15
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for Special Education Subgroup (GV=81)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          1650        450         0            300

  Level 1B      0          0           525         675          300

  Level 2A      0          0           0           0            300

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            600

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            4500
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math Number of Students for Low Income Subgroup (N= 392)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      60         26          4           5            1

  Level 1B      17         30          13          9            8

  Level 2A      4          5           4           3            8

  Level 2B      1          7           4           3            8

  Proficient    1          9           15          15           132
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

Math \-- Number of Points Earned for Low Income Subgroup (GV=148)

  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Year 1 Level  Year 2                                          
                Level                                           

                Level 1A   Level 1B    Level 2A    Level 2B     Proficient

  Level 1A      0          3900        900         1250         300

  Level 1B      0          0           2275        2025         2400

  Level 2A      0          0           0           600          2400

  Level 2B      0          0           0           0            2400

  Proficient    0          0           0           0            39600
  ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

[^1]: This approach was designed by Rich Hill and fully explained in a
    paper entitled, Creating a Fair Value Table for Louisiana (September
    7, 2004). Available from the National Center for the Improvement of
    Educational Assessment, Inc.