How Do We Measure Growth?

"Value Added" has become the focal point of the newest wave of education reform. How did your students gain when they were with you? Conceptually it makes sense. What achievement level did the students walk in at and what level did they leave at? If we were measuring the height of a student, it would be easy. Have the student stand next to the wall, mark the level they walk in as, mark the level they are at the end of the semester. Voila! The difference is how much they have grown.

When looking at student data, this is much harder. Here are two real examples using NWEA MAP data:

Group 1: Current First Grade Students in Math

        Fall Score - 171.66  RIT Mean

        Winter Score - 181.48 RIT Mean

        Mean Growth - 9.78 RIT

        68% of Students make their target growth

        19% more overall growth than a class of comparative peers in the Fall

Group 2: Current Fourth Grade Students in Math

        Fall Score - 205.73  RIT Mean

        Winter Score - 210.80 RIT Mean

        Mean Growth - 5.07 RIT

        50% of Students make their target growth

        2% more overall growth than a class of comparative peers in the Fall

From the data, it Group 1's teachers clearly out performed Group 2's teachers. They added more value. If only it were this easy. Lets add one more data point:

Group 1: Current First Grade Students in Math      

        Spring Score - 181.30 RIT Mean

        Fall Score - 171.66  RIT Mean

        Winter Score - 181.48 RIT Mean

        Mean Growth (Spring to Winter) - 0.18 RIT

Group 2: Fourth Grade Students in Math

        Spring Score - 205.50 RIT Mean

        Fall Score - 205.73  RIT Mean

        Winter Score - 210.80 RIT Mean

        Mean Growth (Spring to Winter) - 5.30 RIT

Group 1 did a great job this year with what they had. Their students lost a significant amount over the Summer (over 10 RIT points) and they brought those children back during the first semester. Who do we blame for the loss? The six-year old students? Their parents? Their Kindergarten teacher who got them that high? Lack of year round schools? None of these are realistic options. These teachers and children had significant growth but it was earn back growth.

Group 2 also did a great job. At the surface it seemed simply average, but as we look deeper this group achieved all new growth. They cut into new territory and helped their children learn new things because of the lack of regression for these students. 

Growth is vital to our overall achievement but it is more than a pre-post test scenario. It is complex including multiple factors: school, home, teacher, student, parent(s), and society. We need to drive forward and help improve, but when analyzing the data we can't simply set universal bars and say go achieve. It's far more complicated than that and that's ok. Perhaps there is more to growth of a child than simple numbers.

How You've Grown