IOWA’S GROWTH MODEL INCORPORATED INTO DECISIONS ABOUT ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) This study summarizes Iowa’s use of an approved growth model as part of the decision the effects of using the growth calculations on AYP decisions for districts and schools. process for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for schools and districts. The growth model track to be pro�cient.” In this way, the determination about whether or not schools and districts were making AYP included an acknowledgement of the exemplary efforts being http://www.iowa.gov/educate/content/ counted as not pro�cient for the 2005-2006 school year, and who were again not pro�cient for the 2006-2007 school year. An evaluation of the improvement of those students from Adequate Yearly Growth (AYG), a student must move from a lower level in 2005-2006 to a higher level in 2006-2007. Iowa’s growth model was approved for use only for grades 3-8. This summary Inclusion of AYG students with AYP students AYG was determined using the above rules. Then those students were combined with the number of students who met AYP under the traditional process. The inclusion was conducted using the following steps, integrating Iowa’s original status model and the new Determine if school/district meets AYP using original (status) model. This step uses a 98 percent Con�dence Interval. If AYP is not met, proceed to the next step. Determine if school/district meets AYP using Safe Harbor (reducing the percent of non- AYP is Determine if school/district meets AYP using original (status) model. This step utilizes two Interval. If AYP is not met, proceed to the next step. Determine if school/district meets AYP using original (status) model. This step utilizes three years of uniformly averaged data (Triennium data check) and a 98 percent Con�dence Interval. If AYP is not met, proceed to the next step. Adequate Yearly Growth (AYG). Determine if school/district meets AYP using original calculations. This step does not use a con�dence interval. If AYP is not met, proceed to the next step. Determine if school/district meets AYP using Safe Harbor. If AYP is not met, proceed to Determine if school/district meets AYP using original calculations. This step utilizes two interval. If AYP is not met, proceed to the next step. Determine if school/district meets AYP using original calculations. This step utilizes three years of uniformly averaged data (Triennium data check) and does not use a con�dence AYP because Table 1 —Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Growth in Reading S OTAL Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Total students tested (Full Academic Year) S OTAL Students Meeting Adequate Yearly 1,311 1,811 1,811 Total students tested (Full Academic Year) Table 2 —Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Growth in Mathematics ATH S OTAL Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Total students tested (Full Academic Year) ATH S TOTAL Students Meeting Adequate Yearly Total students tested (Full Academic Year) Overall, 4.1 percent of Iowa’s students, while continuing to score as non-pro�cient on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, showed growth, and counted toward their school’s making AYP Table 3 —Percent of Students Achieving Growth TOTAL 11.32 11.68 8.11 11.10 11.10 Native American Table 4 —Percent of Students Achieving Growth OTAL 11.84 11.33 Native American Table 5 —Percent of Students Achieving Growth MATHEMATICS 2006-2007 TOTAL 6.11 11.34 8.11 11.56 8.11 Native American Table 6 —Percent of Students Achieving Growth MATHEMATICS 2007-2008 TOTAL 11.54 11.82 Native American —For 2006-2007, use of the growth model for AYP affected 139 total In Math, 79 schools were helped to meet AYP, six schools did not meet AYP make AYP. For 2007-2008, use of the growth model for AYP affected 141 total schools (four schools in In Math, 36 schools were helped to meet AYP, 42 schools still did not meet AYP AYP. The following tables show the number of schools that met AYP because of the contribution of Table 7 —Number of Schools Meeting AYP because of Growth 2006-2007 Reading AMO All Students Reading AMO Low SES Reading AMO Students with Disabilities Reading AMO English Language Learner Reading AMO African-American Reading AMO Asian Reading AMO Hispanic Reading AMO Native American Reading AMO White Math AMO All Students Math AMO Low SES Math AMO Students with Disabilities Math AMO English Language Learner Math AMO African-American Math AMO Asian Math AMO Hispanic Math AMO Native American Math AMO White Table 8 —Number of Schools Meeting AYP because of Growth 2007-2008 Reading AMO All Students Reading AMO Low SES Reading AMO Students with Disabilities Reading AMO English Language Learner Reading AMO African-American Reading AMO Asian Reading AMO Hispanic Reading AMO Native American Reading AMO White Math AMO All Students Math AMO Low SES Math AMO Students with Disabilities Math AMO English Language Learner Math AMO African-American Math AMO Asian Math AMO Hispanic Math AMO Native American Math AMO White —For 2006-2007, use of the growth model for AYP affected 78 total districts In Math, 50 districts were helped to meet AYP, two districts did not meet AYP In Reading, 65 districts were helped to meet AYP, three districts did not meet AYP make AYP. For 2007-2008, use of the growth model for AYP affected 83 total districts In Math, �ve districts were helped to make AYP, the AYP decisions of 78 districts was not affected. In Reading, four districts were helped to make AYP, the AYP decisions of 79 districts was not affected. make AYP. 9 district met AYP, in part due to use of the growth model. AYP, to the extent that growth helps at least one level (elementary, middle, or high) meet AYP. Since, in order to miss AYP, a district must miss at all levels, if the growth of students helps at least one level Value of the Growth Model to the extent that their efforts to assist lower performing students are �nally recognized and rewarded, and their efforts to help students achieve are re�ected by their students, schools,