|
   |
   |
| ||||||||||
| |
Value-Added Assessment and No Child Left Behind NCLB's requirement that schools bring all their children to high standards by 2014 is a worthy goal. So, too, is the insistence that school-wide averages are not enough - student subgroups, including low-income, non-English-speaking, special needs and those of varied ethnicities, must meet these standards as well. The problem with the legislation, however, is that it doesn't identify which schools are on target to meet these requirements. In most cases, NCLB's AYP measures can correctly sort out successful schools from those that are failing their students. But for many schools, AYP measures do not provide a fair and complete assessment of school performance. At the heart of this problem is the fact that AYP focuses on achievement to the exclusion of growth. The following chart helps us identify and understand AYP's twin deficiencies. Proficiency (achievement), high and low, is tracked on the vertical axis, while growth, high and low, is tracked on the horizontal axis. In the bottom left cell are schools that are clearly not serving the needs of their students - providing them with low proficiency and low growth - and thus deserve to be sanctioned. Schools in the top right cell are performing wonderfully. They are doing what we want all schools to do: provide their students with both high proficiency and high growth. For the schools in these two cells, AYP measures accurately reflect their educational outcomes.  Unfortunately, not all schools fall in these two cells. The problems with AYP are clearly evident in the remaining two cells. The bottom right cell contains schools with high growth, but low proficiency. These schools have succeeded in academically "stretching" their students, but given how far behind they were when they entered school, the schools have not yet been able to raise them to proficiency. These schools, while not bringing their students to AYP-required levels, are clearly helping them improve their academic performance, yet still face sanctions under current law. In the top left are schools whose students are meeting their AYP goals, but where little growth is occurring. Most often found in affluent communities where high-test scores go hand-in-hand with family income, these schools can be referred to as "slide and glide" because they appear to be resting on the laurels of their students. It is important to understand that NCLB does nothing to hold these schools accountable for providing their students with the annual growth to which they are entitled. In a global economy characterized by fierce competition for demanding jobs that pay high salaries and benefits, this is a highly significant shortcoming. Fixing AYP Without Abandoning Proficiency Through "Growth to Standards"
Schools would do this by using a value-added methodology that converts the static achievement scores of their students to dynamic growth scores. If students currently performing below their AYP target are on track to reach proficiency by the time they graduate, they would be counted among those meeting their AYP target in the current year. If a school were to place enough of these students on growth-to-standards trajectories, it could meet its AYP goal for the year. Using a growth-to-standards approach, in other words, would reduce the proportion of schools failing AYP, but without abandoning the commitment to proficiency. Several existing approaches - Northwest Evaluation Association's growth model, Harold Doran's REACH model and William Sander's value-added model - could accomplish this. U.S. Department of Education’s NCLB Growth Model Pilot | ||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | © 2004 Center for Greater Philadelphia |