Understanding Proficiency and Risk
For years, educators have struggled understanding why there are differences between how students perform on screeners versus their summative, state assessments. Fundamentally, these assessments were designed for different reasons. We’ll begin with a recommendation about when to use each lens/performance band.
- Use “Risk” for determining which students need intervention as it represents students who are at risk of reading/math/writing/SEB “failure” or significant difficulty
- Use “Proficiency” for determining overall health of your class, grade, school and district
Now, let’s consider the rationale for this by exploring the differences: Proficiency Think about proficiency as where we want students to “be” by the time they leave our learning community; ready to handle the rigor of real world situations and using the respective skills for college and career. After NCLB, schools entered the era of accountability and as such states began introducing cut points that were often ambiguous and meeting minimum competencies. With the introduction of NAEP, ACT, SAT benchmark levels, schools have begun to increase their expectations for what warrants "proficient." Typically, our most average student (performing at the 50th percentile) is not proficient as these cut points are often around the 65th percentile. RiskMany new assessments were introduced after the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 which allowed districts to use an RTI model for identification of students with SLD. This increased the need for screeners which are helpful to identify students who need something more than what could be provided in the general classroom environment. Students at risk are those performing below 40% of other students and those in need of intensive intervention tend to fall below the 10th percentile, depending on the assessment used and cut points determined by the vendor. So, this often leads to about 25% of students who aren't at risk but aren't proficient which is why it's important to look at your scores through both the "lens" of proficiency and risk.
Performance Bands
Jaime Harris
Created on February 20, 2024
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Syllabus Organizer for Higher Education
View
Internal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Use
View
Math Mission
View
Simulation: How to Act Against Bullying
View
World Ecosystems
View
AI Diagnostic Survey for the Corporate Environment
View
Video: Keys to Effective Communication
Explore all templates
Transcript
Understanding Proficiency and Risk
For years, educators have struggled understanding why there are differences between how students perform on screeners versus their summative, state assessments. Fundamentally, these assessments were designed for different reasons. We’ll begin with a recommendation about when to use each lens/performance band.
- Use “Risk” for determining which students need intervention as it represents students who are at risk of reading/math/writing/SEB “failure” or significant difficulty
- Use “Proficiency” for determining overall health of your class, grade, school and district
Now, let’s consider the rationale for this by exploring the differences: Proficiency Think about proficiency as where we want students to “be” by the time they leave our learning community; ready to handle the rigor of real world situations and using the respective skills for college and career. After NCLB, schools entered the era of accountability and as such states began introducing cut points that were often ambiguous and meeting minimum competencies. With the introduction of NAEP, ACT, SAT benchmark levels, schools have begun to increase their expectations for what warrants "proficient." Typically, our most average student (performing at the 50th percentile) is not proficient as these cut points are often around the 65th percentile. RiskMany new assessments were introduced after the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 which allowed districts to use an RTI model for identification of students with SLD. This increased the need for screeners which are helpful to identify students who need something more than what could be provided in the general classroom environment. Students at risk are those performing below 40% of other students and those in need of intensive intervention tend to fall below the 10th percentile, depending on the assessment used and cut points determined by the vendor. So, this often leads to about 25% of students who aren't at risk but aren't proficient which is why it's important to look at your scores through both the "lens" of proficiency and risk.