Increasing numbers of states have incorporated measures of students’ academic growth into their data and accountability policies. Measuring growth is a statistically complicated task and complex growth measures can be easy to misinterpret. This paper reports on a survey of 317 Massachusetts principals’ understanding of the Student Growth Percentile (SGP), a popular growth model. The survey was designed to produce information about how Massachusetts principals use and interpret the SGP and the extent to which they have misconceptions about what SGPs mean. The survey reveals some common misconceptions, often based on confusion about the differences between the norm-referenced SGP and the state's criterion-referenced assessments. We conclude that there is a risk that principals will make inappropriate decisions based on SGPs. Because of their central role in school improvement, principals need better opportunities to learn about how to use SGP and other growth model data.
BetebennerD. W. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,28(4), 42–51.
2.
BetebennerD. W., WenningR. J., & BriggsD. C. (2011). Student growth percentiles and shoe leather. A response to Bruce D. Baker's critique of the Colorado Growth Model (“Take your SGP and VAMit, damn it!”) in School Finance 101. Retrieved from www.nciea.org/publications/BakerResponse_DB11.pdf.
3.
BoudettK. R., CityE. A., & MurnaneR. J. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4.
BrunnerC., FascaC., HeinzeJ., HoneyM., LightD., & MandinachE. (2005). Linking data and learning: The grow network study.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk,10(3), 241–267.
5.
CoburnC. E., & TurnerE. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis.Measurement,9, 173–206.
6.
CoburnC. E., & TurnerE. O. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction.American Journal of Education,113(2), 99–111.
7.
CollinsC., & Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2012). Putting growth and value-added models on the map: A national overview. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
8.
CorcoranS. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? And should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice.Education Policy for Action Series: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved from www.axmenberginstitute.org/pdf/valueaddedreport.pdf.
KoenkerR. (2005). Quantile regression.Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
LaguillesJ., WilliamsE., & SaundersD. (2009, April). Can lottery incentives boost web survey response rates'? A tale of three experiments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
16.
LissitzR. W., & HuynhH. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,8(10). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10
17.
MarshJ. A., McCombsJ. S., & MartorellF. (2009). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making.Educational Policy,24(6), 872–907.
18.
MarshJ. A., PaneJ. F., & HamiltonL. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (OP-170). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
19.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2009a). Growth Model Tutorials, Tutorial 1: The basics of the growth model. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/tutoriall.html.
20.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2009b). MCAS student growth percentiles: State report. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth.
SaundersW. M., GoldenbergC. N., & GallimoreR. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective quasi-experimental study of Title I schools.American Educational Research Journal,46(4), 1006–1033.
29.
SpillaneJ. P., & MieleD. B. (2007). Evidence in practice: A framing of the terrain. In MossP.A. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 46–73). Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
StigginsR. J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instructional priority.Phi Delta Kappan (January, 1988).
32.
SupovitzJ. A., & KleinV. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
WaymanJ. C., & ChoV. (2008). Preparing educators to effectively use student data systems. In KowalskiT. J., & LasleyT. J. (Eds.), Handbook on data-based decision-making in education (pp. 89–104). New York: Routledge.
37.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., & JohnstonM. T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://edadmin.edb.utexas.edu/datause/publications.htm.
38.
WaymanJ. C., & StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement.American Journal of Education,112(4), 549–571.
