Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics P resented to the PARCC Governing Board June 26, 2013

1. Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics Presented to the PARCC Governing Board June 26, 2013

2. Objective Discuss and approve the PARCC Statement of Intent for Growth Metrics

3. Why Now? • A decision is needed this spring to: • Ensure PARCC has sufficient time to build the technology infrastructure needed to support growth calculations on the summative assessment; and • Allow states time to plan for their own reporting and use of growth data in during the transition to PARCC.

4. The Ad-Hoc Committee on Growth Metrics (ACGM) Recommends that: • PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): absolute and normative measures. • Individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. • PARCC report consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states) by subject/course, student subgroups, and grade, but that states may opt out of state-by-state reporting. • PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues.

5. Definitions of Growth • The ACGM recommends that PARCC draw a distinction between: • Measures of annual progress (student growth), whichdescribe individual students’ or groups of students’ progress in terms of their academic achievement from one year to the next. • Growth modeling, whichrefers to the methods used to make claims about educator/institutional effectiveness through statistical modeling of student achievement data obtained at multiple points in time.

6. Absolute and Normative Measures • The ACGM recommends that PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): • Absolute Measure: The purpose of the first common measure of annual progress is to describe a student’s academic progress in terms of how much he/she has learned from one year to the next in relation to a construct that spans multiple grades. This is an “absolute” measure of annual progress. This measure would be dependent on PARCC developing a vertical scale (e.g., mean gain score). • Normative Measure:The purpose of the second common measure of annual progress is to describe a student’s academic progress from one year to the next in relation to his/her academic peers. This is a “normative” measure of annual progress (e.g., Student Growth Percentile). • The ACGM recommends that the methodology for these measures (i.e., how the measures will be calculated) be selected with significant input from all PARCC states and the PARCC TAC.

7. No Common Method of Growth Modeling • The ACGM recommends that individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. • For example, a state may: • Use the PARCC measure of annual progress by aggregating student results to the teacher, school, or district; or • Utilize PARCC scale score data and apply its own statistical model to generate teacher, school, or districts results.  

8. Reporting Levels • The ACGM recommends that: • PARCCpublicly reports consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states). Data from all states would be included in the consortium level results. • Statelevel results also be available in public reports, although individual states would have the right to be excluded from these reports. • Individual student, school, and districtlevel measures be reported by individual states at their own discretion.

9. Ongoing Data Management and Security • The ACGM recognizes that ultimately selecting, producing, and reporting common measures of annual progress according to this Statement of Intent will require continuing study of technical and operational feasibility, including timing, data management, and protection of student identifiable information. • PARCC states (and not PARCC) will own their data. However, the ACGM recommends that PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues. Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

10. Proposed Next Steps • Proposed next steps for PARCC span five main areas: • Determine the methodology for the PARCC measure of annual progress (i.e., how the measure will be calculated) • Establish a data governance process to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues • Determine additional reporting specifications and business rules • Provide communications support • Support state implementation Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

11. Question and Answer • Are there any questions? Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

12. Draft Motion for Approval The Governing Board votes to approve these recommendations Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.

13. The Ad-Hoc Committee on Growth Metrics (ACGM) Recommends that: • PARCC produce two types of common measures of annual progress (student growth): absolute and normative measures. • Individual PARCC states either use their own growth model or decide how to use PARCC’s measure of annual progress for accountability and evaluation purposes. • PARCC report consortium level results (aggregated across all PARCC states) by subject/course, student subgroups, and grade, but that states may opt out of state-by-state reporting. • PARCC sustain an active data governance process with representation across PARCC states to allow for shared, ongoing decision-making on data ownership and management issues. Pre-decisional draft. Not for public release.