The document outlines a proposal for an alternative method to evaluate school and teacher performance in New Mexico, critiquing the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act's proficiency model due to its declining effectiveness. It introduces a new combined model based on trend analysis of various performance parameters, suggesting a grading scale for institutions and educators based on their growth and proficiency metrics. The author emphasizes the need for improved understanding and implementation of educational assessments to better reflect school performance.

1. An Alternative Method to Rate
School and Teacher Performance
By Patricio A. Rojas, Ph.D.
Associate Faculty at University of Phoenix
Albuquerque, NM
Director of Research, Data, and Assessment
Los Lunas Schools, NM
June 2012

2. BACKGROUND
• Director of Research, Data, and Assessment, Department of Curriculum
and Instruction, Los Lunas Schools, Los Lunas – NM.
• Member of AAAC (Accountability and Assessment Advisory
Committee), nominated by the office of the Education Secretary of
State.
• New Mexico State Coordinator for the Math EAG (Enhancement
Assessment Grant) Project, nominated by the Education Secretary of
State.
• Associate Professor at University of Phoenix, Albuquerque – NM.
• Faculty consulting for:
– San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
– Universidad de Don Bosco, El Salvador.
– Universidad Catolica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.
2

3. PRELIMINARIES
The legislation for No Child Left behind Act
was proposed by President George W. Bush on
January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by
Representatives Boehner (R-OH), Miller (D-
CA), and Senator Gregg (R-NH). The United
States House of Representatives passed the
bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45), and the
United States Senate passed it on June
14, 2001 (voting 91–8). President Bush signed
it into law on January 8, 2002.
3

4. No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind requires all government-run
schools receiving federal funding to administer a
state-wide standardized test (all students take the
same test under the same conditions) annually to
all students. The students' scores are used to
determine whether the school/teacher has taught
the students well. Schools which receive Title I
funding through the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 must make Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) in test scores (e.g. each year, its fifth
graders must do better on standardized tests than
the previous year's fifth graders).
4

5. RESEARCH
• Research shows that every year fewer schools are
making AYP using SBA-Proficiency model. In
2006, 29% of schools in the nation did not make
AYP; last year 2011, 35% did not make AYP, and
the forecast for 2012, indicates that the
percentage of schools not making AYP will be
45%. Source: CEP (Center on Education
Policy, Dec 2011)
• In 2006, 54% of districts in New Mexico did not
make AYP; last year 2011, 80% did not make
AYP, and the forecast for 2012, indicates that the
percentage of schools not making AYP will be
85%. Source: CEP (Center on Education
Policy, Dec 2011) 5

6. NCLB WAIVERS
• Obviously, the “attainment proficiency model“
or SBA-Proficiency model is not working at
national/state/ district level neither is the
growth model, using either SBA or MAP scores.
• With the addition of eight new states, so
far, we have 19 states on waivers, while
another 17 states and the District of
Columbia are under review.
• States granted waivers are exempt from
the laws’ requirement that all students
pass achievement tests by 2014 and make
progress toward that goal each year.
6

7. Consequences
•Last year we proposed an alternative growth
model based on the concept of students “on
track to graduation (OTTG)” if the student is
either proficient or makes expected growth.
•The state of New Mexico changed the scale
score making each grade ranging X00-X80
with the proficiency level at X40, where X
represents the grade, for example scale scores
for grade 5 ranges 500-580 with proficiency
level set at 540.
•This change eliminated the OTTG model we
presented last year. 7

8. More changes
• In 2011, the state released a
preliminary report named the School
Grading Report 2010-2011, giving
schools ratings of A-F using a statistical
tool not very well explained to the
stakeholders. The state is planning to
make this report official for the year
2011-2012, while promising a guide
for stakeholders to understand and
replicate the scores generated by the
statistical tool they are using. 8

9. NEW PROPOSAL
Because of this dramatic change in
data and regulations, this year we
are proposing a combination of the
attainment proficiency and growth
models based on trend analysis to
rate schools and teachers
performance.
9

10. NEW MODEL
• The new model is based on 6 trend analysis
for the following parameters:
– SBA Math Proficiency (SMP)
– SBA Reading Proficiency (SRP)
– MAP Math Growth (MMG)
– MAP Reading Growth (MRG)
– MAP Math Proficiency (MPP)
– MAP Reading Proficiency (MRP)
• Next year we could add two more parameters:
– SBA Math Growth (SMG)
– SBA Reading Growth (SRG)
10

11. REGRESSION ANALYSIS
• We collected information for the six
parameters as shown below
PERCENTAGE OF PROFICIENT 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
STUDENTS
SCHOOL A MATH 42.0 43.2 43.2 30.7 36.8 41.1 33.5 34.5
SBA PROFICIENCY READING 65.6 58.6 63.7 57.2 59.0 46.2 43.3 38.6
SCHOOL A MATH 28.0 47.6 55.2 57.4 68.9 79.6 76.1 72.1
MAP PROFICIENCY READING 57.0 60.0 65.5 70.3 74.0 79.1 75.1 71.3
SCHOOL A MATH 40.2 42.1 43.9 41.3 43.3 39.9 37.8 39.0
MAP GROWTH READING 32.0 27.3 26.4 20.9 29.3 36.9 28.8 24.0
• Next we performed a regression analysis in each of
these parameters to find the regression line
equation. We used the slope of the lines to create
a rank by using the average of the slopes
computed for each parameter. 11

12. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
SBA READ PROFICIENCY
65.6
y = -3.77x + 70.99
63.7
59.0
57.2
58.6
46.2
43.3
38.6
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
12
READING Linear (READING)

13. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
SBA MATH PROFICIENCY
43.2
y = -1.21x + 43.57
43.2
42.0
41.1
36.8
34.5
33.5
30.7
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
MATH Linear (MATH) 13

14. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
MAP MATH GROWTH
y = -0.48x + 43.09
43.9
43.3
42.1
41.3
40.2 39.9
39.0
37.8
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
14
MATH Linear (MATH)

15. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OFSTUDENTS
MAP MATH PROFICIENCY
79.6
76.1
72.1
68.9
y = 6.38x + 31.91
55.2
57.4
47.6
28.0
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
15
MATH Linear (MATH)

16. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
MAP READ PROFICIENCY
y = 2.62x + 57.24
79.1
75.1
74.0
71.3
70.3
65.5
60.0
57.0
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
16
READING Linear (READING)

17. SCHOOL A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS
MAP READ GROWTH
y = -0.10x + 28.64
36.9
32.0
29.3 28.8
27.3 26.4
24.0
20.9
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
17
READING Linear (READING)

18. SCHOOL A
SCHOOL A SCHOOL A y = 6.38x + 31.91 SCHOOL A y = 2.62x + 57.24
PERCENT OF STUDENTS y = -3.77x + 70.99 PERCENT OFSTUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENTS
SBA READ PROFICIENCY MAP MATH PROFICIENCY MAP READ PROFICIENCY
65.6 63.7
79.676.1 72.1 79.1
57.2 59.0 74.0 75.1
58.6 68.9
55.2 71.3
47.6 57.4 65.5 70.3
46.2 43.3
38.6 60.0
28.0 57.0
READING Linear (READING) MATH Linear (MATH) READING Linear (READING)
SCHOOL A SCHOOL A y = -0.48x + 43.09
PERCENT OF STUDENTS
y = -1.21x + 43.57 PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCHOOL A y = -0.10x + 28.64
SBA MATH PROFICIENCY MAP MATH GROWTH PERCENT OF STUDENTS
43.2 MAP READ GROWTH
42.0 43.2 41.1 43.9 43.3
42.1 36.9
40.2 41.3 39.9 32.0
36.8 39.0 27.3 26.4 29.3 28.8
37.8 24.0
34.5
30.7 33.5 20.9
MATH Linear (MATH) MATH Linear (MATH) READING Linear (READING)
This is a view of all six graphs at once. It is hard to make a decision if this school is performing
as desired. We need to find a measure to rate the school, we will use the slopes of the
regression lines as explained in the next slide
18

19. MEASURE TO RATE SCHOOLS
• The following are the six regression lines
– SRP y 3.77 x 70.99
– SMP y 1.21x 43.57
– MMG y 0.48x 43.09
– MMP y 6.38x 31.91
– MRP y 2.62x 57.24
– MRG y 0.10x 28.64
• We compute the average of the slopes and we
called the rank, in this case RANK = 1.41
• Now we need to decide a scale to assign a
grade.
19

20. MEASURE TO RATE SCHOOLS
• This is a tentative scale that requires some
more research
RANK GRADE
4+ A
2.00 – 3.99 B
0.00 – 1.99 C
-1.99 - -0.01 D
-2.00 - F
• The school in the example with rank = 1.41
will receive a grade C.
• Another example is shown on the next slide
20

21. SCHOOL B
SCHOOL B y = -3.7381x + 67.121 SCHOOL B y = -2.35x + 54.175 SCHOOL B y = -2.0845x + 64.948
PERCENT OF STUDENTS PERCENT OFSTUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENTS
SBA READ PROFICIENCY MAP MATH PROFICIENCY MAP READ PROFICIENCY
67.6 54.2 63.7 62.5
52.3 52.6
60.6 58.6 58.1
53.7 47.2 45.2 46.2 42.1 42.5 56.9 57.2
39.5 35.2
43.3
38.6 30.4 42.3
45.2
READING Linear (READING) MATH Linear (MATH) READING Linear (READING)
SCHOOL B y = 0.0342x + 42.478 SCHOOL B y = -0.3617x + 42.42 SCHOOL B y = -0.3617x + 42.42
PERCENT OF STUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENTS
SBA MATH PROFICIENCY MAP MATH GROWTH MAP READ GROWTH
45.3 43.2 45.3 43.2
50.1 42.0 42.0
41.1 40.3
42.0 41.1 42.0 36.8
43.5 42.1 36.8 40.3 35.6
42.0 43.2 43.544.1
35.6
32.5
MATH Linear (MATH) MATH Linear (MATH) MATH Linear (MATH)
RANK = - 1.45 GRADE = D 21

22. RATING TEACHERS
• We could use the same methodology and
scale to rate teachers, here are a couple of
examples.
• Teacher A RANK = 2.81 GRADE = B
• Teacher B RANK = 4.19 GRADE = A
• Teacher C RANK = - 3.52 GRADE = F
22

23. TEACHER A
TEACHER A TEACHER A TEACHER A
SBA/READ/PROF MAP/READ/GROWTH MAP/MATH/PROF
65.0
84.5 60.4
48.5
45.0 52.6
68.4 52.6
68.4 46.2
65.0
34.7
35.0 36.2 25.3
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TEACHER A TEACHER A TEACHER A
SBA/MATH/PROF MAP/MATH/GROWTH MAP/READ/PROF
53.9 45.0
44.7
47.4 37.9 42.7
42.1
45.0 35.0
42.3 33.3 32.6 38.1
28.6
26.3
2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
RANK = 2.81 – GRADE = B

24. TEACHER B
TEACHER B TEACHER B TEACHER B
SBA/READ/PROF MAP/READ/GROWTH MAP/READ/PROF
88.8 86.0
88.8 86.9
44.4 75.0
42.1
52.1
52.1
35.6 36.1 45.0
30.0
31.2
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TEACHER B TEACHER B TEACHER B
SBA/MATH/PROF MAP/MATH/GROWTH MAP/MATH/PROF
56.5
61.1
50.8 48.3 54.3
43.5
47.5 47.4 37.5
27.8 25.0
42.4
10.0 10.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
RANK = 4.19 - GRADE = A
24

25. TEACHER C
TEACHER C
TEACHER C TEACHER C
SBA/READ/PROF 91.7 66.6
86.6 MAP/READ/GROWTH 76.0 MAP/READ/PROF
80.0 70.0
80.8 64.0
55.6
52.7
45.4 46.0
38.8 38.4 33.2
45.9 28.5
TEACHER C TEACHER C TEACHER C
SBA/MATH/PROF MAP/MATH/GROWTH MAP/MATH/PROF
88.0
76.0 77.6 79.2 86.9
79.2
76.0 62.9
74.1 72.2
38.8 38.4
59.3 38.0
57.7 64.0
16.4
RANK = -3.52 - GRADE = F
25

26. EXTRA VALUE OF THE MODEL
• Using forecasting methodologies we could
design an expected growth/proficiency for both
teachers and schools.
• For School A the forecasted values are:
PERCENTAGE OF PROFICIENT 2011-2012 FORECAST
STUDENTS GOAL
SCHOOL A SBA MATH 44.1 42.8 44.1
PROFICIENCY READING 38.6 33.5 38.6
SCHOOL A MAP MATH 35.2 33.0 35.2
PROFICIENCY READING 45.2 46.2 46.2
SCHOOL A MAP MATH 42.0 39.2 42.0
GROWTH 35.2 35.9
READING 35.9
26

27. CONCLUSIONS
1. The new model presented seems to be
1. Fair
2. Easy to use and replicate
3. Easy to explain to families
2. We could easily introduce the concept of “added value”
for any other parameter: College
readiness, extracurricular activities, sports, etc.
3. Any new parameter should be measured by percentage
of students, parents, or teachers participating.
4. We tested six schools and ten teachers. We requested
input from principals and administrators, over 90%
agreed with the grades assigned by this model.
27

28. •QUESTIONS?
Patricio A. Rojas, Ph.D.
projas@llschools.net
(505)866-8226
THANK YOU
28