Performance Frameworks - Academic Growth

At the elementary school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the next on the annual CMAS assessments. Median student growth percentiles (MGPs) are the basic performance metric used to evaluate growth outcomes. For English Language Arts, MGPs are reported for the entire tested population and for the following student subgroups:

The framework assigns a rating to each of the MGP calculations outlined above. District and school MGPs will always fall within the range of 1 - 99, with 50 representing the midpoint for the state. Ratings cut points are set at different increments along this range and are consistent for all growth measures that appear in the performance framework.

For each rating, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned. Note that in accumulating points toward the overall Academic Growth rating, metrics representing the entire student population are given more weight than metrics representing student subgroups. This is reflected in larger point values associated with the All Students group. For all measures using MGPs, the same cut points are used to determine sub-indicator ratings.

*MGPs are not reported or used in the performance frameworks when fewer than 20 individual student growth percentiles are available.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.

At the elementary school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the next on the annual CMAS assessments. Median student growth percentiles (MGPs) are the basic performance metric used to evaluate growth outcomes. For Math, MGPs are reported for the entire tested population and for the following student subgroups:

The framework assigns a rating to each of the MGP calculations outlined above. District and school MGPs will always fall within the range of 1 - 99, with 50 representing the midpoint for the state. Ratings cut points are set at different increments along this range and are consistent for all growth measures that appear in the performance framework.

For each rating, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned. Note that in accumulating points toward the overall Academic Growth rating, metrics representing the entire student population are given more weight than metrics representing student subgroups. This is reflected in larger point values associated with the All Students group. For all measures using MGPs, the same cut points are used to determine sub-indicator ratings.

*MGPs are not reported or used in the performance frameworks when fewer than 20 individual student growth percentiles are available.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.

At the elementary school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the WIDA ACCESS English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment. For the ELP assessment, median growth percentiles (MGPs) and on-track percentages are used to evaluate growth outcomes.

Both metrics represent the results for all students with two consecutive years of results on WIDA ACCESS assessment. Outcome measures for subgroups of students within the English Language Proficiency results are not reported.

The framework assigns rating to the English Language Proficiency MGPs using the same cut points that have been established for other MGP metrics that appear in the frameworks: ratings cut points are set at 35.0, 50.0, and 65.0. On-Track percentages are set using the same method that is used for assigning ratings to Academic Achievement metrics: each on-track metric is ranked relative to statewide outcomes, and ratings cut points are set at the 15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles.

For each rating assigned to an individual MGP or On-Track metric, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned to the ELP growth metrics.

English Language Proficiency Median Growth Percentile

On Track to English Language Proficiency

*Growth results for student who had a language proficiency designation other than NEP or LEP are not included in performance framework calculations.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.

At the middle school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the next on the annual CMAS assessments. Median student growth percentiles (MGPs) are the basic performance metric used to evaluate growth outcomes. For English Language Arts, MGPs are reported for the entire tested population and for the following student subgroups:

The framework assigns a rating to each of the MGP calculations outlined above. District and school MGPs will always fall within the range of 1 - 99, with 50 representing the midpoint for the state. Ratings cut points are set at different increments along this range and are consistent for all growth measures that appear in the performance framework.

For each rating, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned. Note that in accumulating points toward the overall Academic Growth rating, metrics representing the entire student population are given more weight than metrics representing student subgroups. This is reflected in larger point values associated with the All Students group. For all measures using MGPs, the same cut points are used to determine sub-indicator ratings.

*MGPs are not reported or used in the performance frameworks when fewer than 20 individual student growth percentiles are available.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.

At the middle school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the next on the annual CMAS assessments. Median student growth percentiles (MGPs) are the basic performance metric used to evaluate growth outcomes. For Math, MGPs are reported for the entire tested population and for the following student subgroups:

The framework assigns a rating to each of the MGP calculations outlined above. District and school MGPs will always fall within the range of 1 - 99, with 50 representing the midpoint for the state. Ratings cut points are set at different increments along this range and are consistent for all growth measures that appear in the performance framework.

For each rating, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned. Note that in accumulating points toward the overall Academic Growth rating, metrics representing the entire student population are given more weight than metrics representing student subgroups. This is reflected in larger point values associated with the All Students group. For all measures using MGPs, the same cut points are used to determine sub-indicator ratings.

*MGPs are not reported or used in the performance frameworks when fewer than 20 individual student growth percentiles are available.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.

At the middle school level, the performance framework determines Academic Growth ratings based on metrics generated using the Colorado Growth Model. These metrics measure student progress from one year to the WIDA ACCESS English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment. For the ELP assessment, median growth percentiles (MGPs) and on-track percentages are used to evaluate growth outcomes.

Both metrics represent the results for all students with two consecutive years of results on WIDA ACCESS assessment. Outcome measures for subgroups of students within the English Language Proficiency results are not reported.

The framework assigns rating to the English Language Proficiency MGPs using the same cut points that have been established for other MGP metrics that appear in the frameworks: ratings cut points are set at 35.0, 50.0, and 65.0. On-Track percentages are set using the same method that is used for assigning ratings to Academic Achievement metrics: each on-track metric is ranked relative to statewide outcomes, and ratings cut points are set at the 15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles.

For each rating assigned to an individual MGP or On-Track metric, a district or school accumulates a set number of points toward its overall Academic Growth rating. Points are earned in proportion to the level of the rating, so that higher ratings equate to larger point totals. The table below shows how ratings and point values are assigned to the ELP growth metrics.

English Language Proficiency Median Growth Percentile

On Track to English Language Proficiency

*Growth results for student who had a language proficiency designation other than NEP or LEP are not included in performance framework calculations.

More information about the Colorado Growth Model is available here.