Spellings to allow 'growth models' in NCLB

The department will allow up to 10 states to participate in a growth model pilot program in 2005-06, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced in a speech at the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum in Richmond, Va., Nov. 18.

NSBA commends Spellings’ decision to allow growth models. “We are optimistic that this decision will have a very positive long-term effect in assessing and raising academic performance,” says NSBA.Executive Director Anne L. Bryant.

“Growth models give schools credit for student improvement over time by tracking individual student achievement year to year,” Spellings says. “A pilot program gives the department the ability to rigorously evaluate growth models and their alignment with NCLB and to share results with other states.”

To participate in the pilot, states need to have annual assessment data for more than a year, Spellings says.

The secretary says allowing a growth model does not mean she is backing down on the goals of NCLB. “There is nothing inconsistent between this pilot and the bright lines of the law. A growth model is not a way around accountability standards.”

Growth models “measure progress by tracking the achievement scores of the same students from one year to the next with the intent of determining whether or not, on average, the students made progress,” explains a report published by CCSSO in October that describes various accountability models.

The basic question posed by a growth model, the report says, is “How much, on average, did students’ performance change?”

In contrast, the report says, a “status model,” such as AYP under NCLB, “takes a snapshot of a subgroup’s or school’s level of student proficiency at one point in time (or an average of two or more points in time) and compares that proficiency level with an established target.” The basic question under this model is: “On average, how are students performing this year?”

States that want to participate in the pilot program must submit their proposals by Feb. 17. To be approved for the pilot program, the department requires the proposed growth models to:

• ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for groups of students;

• set expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency, not based on student background or school characteristics;

• hold schools accountable for the performance of each student subgroup and include all schools and districts;

• include assessments in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school in both reading/ language arts and mathematics;

• have assessment systems that have been operational for more than one year, approved through the NCLB peer review process for the 2005-06 school year, and produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year;

• track student progress as part of the state data system; and

• include student participation rates and student achievement on a separate academic indicator in the state accountability system.

States approved for the pilot program must provide data to the department on how the growth model works compared to the current AYP model.

The U.S. Education Department says states that don’t have the capabilities to track individual student progress cannot use a growth model, but can still use as an alternative an “index model,” which gives schools credit for moving students from “below basic” to “basic,” even if they haven’t reached the “proficient” level. States that use an index model are still required to meet the NCLB goal of having all students proficient in reading and math by 2014.

According to the department, nine states use index models: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont.

The same day Spellings announced the growth model pilot, the department’s Institute of Education Sciences awarded a total of $52.8 million in grants to 14 states for the design and implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems.

The grants would help state education departments “generate and use accurate and timely data to meet reporting requirements, support decision making, and aid education research.”

The three-year grants range from $1.5 million for Connecticut to $5.8 million for Kentucky.

Grants also were awarded to Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, 11 national organizations announced the formation of a Data Quality Campaign Nov. 17 to improve the quality, accessibility, and use of data in education to inform policy and improve instruction.