From: To: Subject: Date:

Codd, Clover Anderson, Eric M; Gabele, Brian V; Robbins, Barbara J Re: Students with missing SGPs or predicted VAM scores Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:16:16 PM

As long as all three of you are comfortable I'm comfortable. C From: <Anderson>, Eric M <HYPERLINK "mailto:emanderson@seattleschools.org"emanderson@seattleschools.org> Date: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:15 PM To: "Gabele, Brian V" <HYPERLINK "mailto:bvgabele@seattleschools.org"bvgabele@seattleschools.org>, SPS <HYPERLINK "mailto:clcodd@seattleschools.org"clcodd@seattleschools.org>, "Robbins, Barbara J" <HYPERLINK "mailto:bjrobbins@seattleschools.org"bjrobbins@seattleschools.org> Subject: RE: Students with missing SGPs or predicted VAM scores

We should stick with the newly identified option and NOT hold up the process at this stage. I can discuss by phone if necessary. Eric 206.229.5882 cell

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----From: Robbins, Barbara J [HYPERLINK "mailto:bjrobbins@seattleschools.org"bjrobbins@seattleschools.org] Received: Thursday, 31 Oct 2013, 4:09pm To: Anderson, Eric M [HYPERLINK "mailto:emanderson@seattleschools.org"emanderson@seattleschools.org]; Gabele, Brian V [HYPERLINK "mailto:bvgabele@seattleschools.org"bvgabele@seattleschools.org]; Codd, Clover [HYPERLINK "mailto:clcodd@seattleschools.org"clcodd@seattleschools.org]; Drew, Stephen M [HYPERLINK "mailto:smdrew@seattleschools.org"smdrew@seattleschools.org]; Fleming, Christopher [HYPERLINK "mailto:chfleming@seattleschools.org"chfleming@seattleschools.org]; Munigal, Deepshika Y [HYPERLINK "mailto:dymunigal@seattleschools.org"dymunigal@seattleschools.org] Subject: RE: Students with missing SGPs or predicted VAM scores

I was able to talk to Clover briefly earlier while she was at the airport and described the two options wed identified at that time (the option of including the students SGP but not VAM and including them in the overall model hadnt been identified/described yet). The two options I described to here were: 1) Remove the ~6 students who dont have predicted scores from the reports, pull the teachers growth reports and talk to the principals about why they were pulled (fancier version of Erics #1 below) 2) See if a VAM could be calculated for them and, if so, include them (since deemed not possible) Her vote, based on the two options presented, was for #1 (to lose three teachers reports over possible additional delay). Since then, Eric and Brian identified additional options (2 and 3 below). Since Clover is now in the air, I wanted to see if we could apply her logic plus consider a teachers viewpoint on whether the results are following the published rules/approach. When Brian described the option of using only the SGP for that student, it sounded like it was an established standard way of handling missing VAM scores from last year but I wanted to confirm that was the case since the published Key Facts document says this: SPS and SEA jointly determined the methodology used to calculate student growth ratings. Two types of statistical measures are applied to all assessments available for a teacher: o Student growth percentiles (See video #2: http://bit.ly/PGEvid2) o Teacher value-added (See video #3: http://bit.ly/PGEvid3) o The teachers overall student growth score (0-100 scale) is the average of scores for each measure and assessment (See video #4: http://bit.ly/PGEvid4)

Barbs Questions: Did we have an official decision last year to include students where the state could not provide an SGP? Was it communicated anywhere if so? How many students was this true

for last year? It seems to me like any option that includes students who do not have both a VAM and an SGP score could be in conflict with our previously published rules for calculating growth (above), does anyone disagree with that? We know that three teachers are impacted by the 6 students with missing VAM scores how many teachers have students with missing SGPs? What are reasons that the state would not be able to provide an SGP for a student?

When I talked to Brian, it sounded like including students with missing VAMs was an established standard from last year, but based on the available documentation I am now not sure thats the case. Id like to see the answers to the above, but Im now thinking that 1 below continues to be most in line with Clovers stated direction and with published process/methods. Eric or Brian, can you weigh in on the above questions to help figure out if we should stick with 1) or if 2) below is a reasonable option? Thanks, Barb From: Anderson, Eric M Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:01 PM To: Gabele, Brian V; Robbins, Barbara J; Codd, Clover; Drew, Stephen M; Fleming, Christopher; Munigal, Deepshika Y Subject: Students with missing SGPs or predicted VAM scores Hi All, There are still a very small number of students who are missing SGPs (~105) or predicted VAM scores (~6). Currently, if a student is missing an SGP they are still counted in the teachers VAM score (but obviously not their SGP score). However, the reverse is not currently true. If a student is missing a predicted score (but has an SGP) they are NOT counted in either model. Even though this issue is very small in scale, I think a fix is warranted. I see two possible solutions:

1) Remove the ~6 students who dont have predicted scores from the reports 2) Make it consistent for these 6 students so that their SGPs counts toward the teachers SGP score. 3) Institute a new rule whereby a student only counts toward a teachers scores if they have results for BOTH models. #1 is the easiest by far. #2 is more feasible than #3. In fact, #3 may be impossible given our time constraints, but it would have the advantage of removing all blank data fields from the reports. We think #2 is the way to go, but our open to others thoughts on this issue. Eric Eric M. Anderson, Ph.D. Manager, Research, Evaluation, & Assessment Seattle Public Schools (206) 252-0844 HYPERLINK "mailto:emanderson@seattleschools.org"emanderson@seattleschools.org