NCLB 'Growth Model' Plan Called Step in Right Direction

Finally responding to repeated calls by NEA and others for a more reasonable approach to measuring school progress, the U.S. Department of Education has opened the door to using "growth model" plans to determine if schools are meeting the so-called federal No Child Left Behind law's requirements.

In what NEA said is a step in the right direction, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings on Nov. 18 announced a pilot project that will allow states to evaluate the success of their schools and districts in meeting student achievement goals by measuring students' progress from year to year. NCLB's current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements rely strictly on standardized test scores.

Initially, only up to 10 states meeting certain requirements will be selected in a competitive process.

The new policy does not prescribe any specific growth model. It allows qualified states to submit a plan to the Department by Feb. 17, 2006. The Education Department will then review the plan and decide whether it is approved, denied, or needs to be modified, so many different growth models might be allowed.

In an official statement, NEA President Reg Weaver said, "Evaluating school progress based only on a 'snapshot' of two standardized test scores on any given day, while failing to measure individual student progress over time is a fundamentally flawed approach. Today the Department heeded the calls of millions of educators for a 'growth model' that truly reflects the great progress we are making in the classroom."

The Washington Post reported on Nov. 21 that together with previous moves by the Department of Education to bring increased flexibility to NCLB regulations, "these actions amount to a major response to critics who have called No Child Left Behind rigid and unworkable. They also help the administration combat efforts to amend the law in Congress."

Joel Packer, NEA Manager of ESEA Policy, said the new policy "essentially validates what NEA has been saying for several years: that the current 'snapshot' model of AYP is fundamentally flawed, and that using some measure of student growth is a more reliable and valid accountability measure for schools."

Packer pointed out some of the key points of the new "growth model" policy as explained to date by the Education Department, including:

• A state may apply for the pilot project only if it has tested in each of grades 3-8 (and once in high school) for at least two years. States that did not begin testing until this year (the first year under NCLB which mandates testing in each of grades 3-8), must wait to use a growth model at least until the 2006-07 school year.
• Any growth model submitted by states must still result in 100% of all students being proficient in reading and math by 2013-14.
• Any growth model cannot backload how much growth is expected until the last couple of years and must put the state on a reasonable trajectory to get to 100% by 2013-14 for all subgroups.
• A state may set a point in time with a set goal: such as within four years students will be on grade level by the end of the school level they are currently attending.
• States cannot base growth targets on previous rates of growth or "typical" rates of growth.
• The state's standards and assessment system must be approved by the Education Department for this school year. The Department is in the process of conducting peer reviews of each state's system. Of the first five states reviewed so far, none have received final approval. The review process could prove to be a major limitation.

Secretary Spellings' complete remarks and related information on the "growth model" policy are available on the Department of Education Web site.

For more information on various school accountability models, including "growth models," visit this section of the Council of Chief State School Officers Web site.

November 2005