NCLB Recommendations #8 and #9

SUBJECT
AYP Alternate Measurement & Growth Models

P.L. 107-110 PROVISIONS
TITLE I PART A SUBPART 1 SEC. 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii); SEC. 1111(b)(2)

NSBA RECOMMENDATIONS
#8: The basic AYP system should be expanded to include gain score approaches that take into consideration the progress students make from year to year when calculating AYP.

#9: States should be able to use this alternate method of measuring AYP for schools and school districts instead of the existing status methodology, providing that the state accountability system is based on attaining 100 percent proficiency by 2014 and using intermediate goals.

RATIONALE
The current accountability system which focuses on “cut scores” is flawed and overlooks a key indicator of student achievement – academic growth. Research concluded that growth is a more accurate measure of success, particularly for students who are traditionally at risk. Allowing alternate methods of measuring AYP gives states greater flexibility to design their accountability systems while continuing to support the broader goals of NCLB. Although the U.S. Department of Education has given one-year approvals for growth models in five states, the number is too small and the conditions too restrictive for this effective policy option.

PROPOSED BILL LANGUAGE
Expansion of AYP to include Gain Scores and Partial Credit for meeting basic targets.-- Section 1111 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is further amended in subsection (b)(2)(C)(vii) by inserting after “such as” the following: “achievement under a ‘gain score’ approach (such as a value-added system), progress toward meeting basic proficiency targets,”.
Alternatives to AYP.-- Such section is further amended in subsection (b)(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(M)* Alternate Methods of Defining Adequate Yearly Progress.-- In lieu of defining adequate yearly progress under subparagraph (C), the State may define adequate yearly progress in any manner that –
“(i) uses the measures of performance and progress described in subparagraph (A);
“(ii) complies with the timeline required by subparagraph (F); and
“(iii) includes intermediate goals, as required by subparagraph (H).

*Note: (M) is a newly proposed subparagraph, its letter may vary in the final bill.

IMPACT OF CURRENT LAW
Since NCLB does not fully recognize student growth, many schools and school districts continue to be subject to sanctions even though they raise student achievement significantly from year to year. This sends a discouraging message to educators, students and families that their progress is not recognized. The Government Accountability Office reported in July 2006 that 26 states were using growth models as part of or separated from the federal law; and 22 were either considering or in the process of implementing growth models. While states have made strides in enhancing their data capacities to accommodate growth measures, current federal policies have not kept pace with local progress, with the U.S. Department of Education approving only a handful of states to use growth models for AYP calculations.

NSBA CONTACT
Reggie Felton, director of federal relations, 703-838-6782 or rfelton@nsba.org.