CCD Education Task Force recommendation on Growth Models

For the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind

March 30, 2007

Growth Model Recommendations:

1. Allow for the addition of a growth model factor to the existing AYP determination procedure. [Section 1111 (b)(2)(B)]

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) should be demonstrated on students’ performance on annual academic assessments and a factor of growth. Any growth model that might become part of AYP determinations in NCLB’s reauthorization should be subject to the same criteria established by the U.S. Department of Education for pilot programs. These criteria are particularly important in protecting students with disabilities from once again being held to lower or different standards and expectations than other students and are:

§ Ensuring that all students are proficient by 2014 and setting annual goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students

§ Setting uniform expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency, not based on student background or school characteristics

§ Holding schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics

§ Ensuring that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, holding schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup, and including all schools and districts

§ Including that assessments in each of grades three through eight and high school in both reading/language arts and mathematics, must have been operational for more than one year, and must receive approval through the NCLB peer review process for the 2005-06 school year. The assessment system must also produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year.

§ Tracking student progress as part of the State data system; and

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

In addition to the current criteria, we recommend the addition of the following:

· Increasing scientifically based research the development of growth models that would meet the requirements, above.

· Including an expert in assessments for students with disabilities on the peer review committee for proposed growth models

· Requiring states to ensure informed stakeholder input in the development of growth models.

2. Require states to develop the capacity to build data systems and other infrastructure necessary to include student growth as a part of AYP determination.

3. Ensure the U.S. Department of Education provides technical assistance, monitors and listens to the pilot programs to fully understand how Growth Models improve the accuracy and fairness of accountability calculations.

Rationale: There are schools that are working diligently to facilitate the growth of all students, including students with disabilities, toward proficiency on state standards. Schools should be recognized for the effort if that effort results in significant growth.

While incorporating growth models into NCLB accountability for all students appears to have many desirable characteristics, we believe much remains to be learned from the pilot projects which are widely diverse in their approach, have not yet been in place for two consecutive school years and will not be implemented until fall 2007 in the remaining eight states.

We would reject the use of growth models as an alternate way of including students with disabilities in the assessment and accountability system. This would include any proposed use of a student’s IEP for assessing progress or having the IEP team define or determine what that progress should be.