The document discusses control and feedback processes. Control involves establishing goals, measuring performance against standards, taking corrective action, and following through. Feedback is adjusting future actions based on past performance information and relies on interdependence within a system. Feedforward uses future-directed information to be more effective than feedback, which relies on late information only useful for future corrections. Growth percentiles are presented as a better way to measure student growth that accounts for starting proficiency levels when determining progress.

2. Control
 1. Establishment of goals and standards.
2. Measurement of actual performance
against standards.
3. Corrective action.
4. Follow through action.

3. FEEDBACK

Feedback is the process of adjusting
future actions based upon the information
about past performance
 It is based upon inter-dependence of
different parts of a system

4. FEEDback vs feedFORWARD

5. FEEDFORWARD
 This shows that the control should be
future-directed to be effective
 the information is late and the
rectification is not possible. One can only
refer to the data and make corrections
for the future.

6. FEEDFORWARD versus
FEEDBACK
 Feedforward control may prove to be much more
efficient than Feedback. This does not imply that
leaders should never give feedback or that
performance appraisals should be abandoned.
 Quality communication—between and among
people at all levels—is the adhesive that holds
organizations together. By using feedforward and
by encouraging others to use it—leaders can
dramatically improve the quality of
communication in their organizations.

7. • There are several ways to measure student growth year-to-year
• The Progress Reports have historically compared a student’s proficiency this year to his proficiency last year to make a growth
determination
• This growth measurement creates the right incentive for every student (i.e., maximize growth), but does not fully account for
the contours of the performance-progress relationship; specifically more low performing students make one year of progress
than high performing students
Not proficient Proficient
Percenta
ge of
students
making
one year 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
of Performance
4.0
•
progress
Other districts have chosen different ways to measure student growth; in particular, Colorado has adopted a growth model
that has been approved by the U.S. DOE which uses growth percentiles
• Growth percentiles, as we’ll show in the presentation, represent the next generation of student progress measurement, as
they control for each student’s starting proficiency
• New York State has openly expressed an interest in learning more about the Colorado model as it seeks to adopt its own
growth model; this may present an opportunity for NYC and NYS to align their school evaluations for Elementary/Middle
Schools over time

8. 8
Growth percentiles control for a student’s
starting proficiency
Assume there were 1,000 students who scored a 3.0 in 3rd grade; we could then
rank each student’s improvement based on his/her growth percentile
3rd grade 4th grade Illustrative
4 3.7 (90th percentile) A student who
…
progresses from
3.4 (70th percentile) 3.0 to 3.4 would
3
… be in the 70th
3.0 3.0 (35th percentile)
… percentile for all
2 students who
2.4 (10th percentile) started with a
proficiency rating
1
of 3.0 in 3rd grade
8