Data Sgp (Student Growth Potential) is a statistical measure of student learning that measures how students grow academically from year to year. Unlike traditional achievement reports that simply indicate levels of performance, growth reports provide insight into how much your child has improved relative to his/her peers – this information often is more meaningful for teachers and parents than traditional assessment results.
Value-added models (VAMs), another popular method of measuring teacher effectiveness, may not always be easy for policymakers and practitioners to interpret. VAMs rank student performances according to how much academic progress each one has gained since starting classes; by contrast, SGPs rank students of similar baseline academic performance according to percentile positions; this makes SGPs much simpler for understanding.
At first, SGP analysis may seem intimidating; with proper preparation, however, the process should be fairly straightforward. We have found that most issues arising during analyses often relate back to improper data preparation; it’s therefore wise to invest time and care into this step of analysis.
sgp data comprises a five-year panel of annually assessed student performance as numeric values. These numbers are then normalized for each individual by taking their median scores across all assessments; their unique identifier can then be found within this column while subsequent columns like SS_2013, SS_2014, SS_2015, and SS_2016 contain scaled assessments over these five years for every grade that the student was assessed in.
Note that SGP data do not offer us insight into a student’s actual achievement or whether stakeholders consider that level of performance adequate – they merely report how much each student has grown relative to his or her peers; hence making this measure more sensitive than VAMs for classroom composition considerations.
Comparisons should only be made within a single year; differences among SGPs between students may not reflect how teaching affects academic progress but may instead be attributable to variations in test taking histories.
When comparing SGPs between subjects, it is also advisable to take account of their test subject matter. For instance, mathematics might produce vastly different SGPs than English language arts if these subjects do not assess similar skills. In such cases, it would be appropriate to compare the student’s Student Growth Progressor score in that subject with that of similar students from another subject in order to verify its validity as a measure of student progress. Comparing student’s SGP in math with those from similarly performing subjects such as science will make their SGP more comparable and easier to interpret; generally speaking, only differences of 10 points should be considered significant.