Education Trust made recommendations relative to the reauthorization of NCLB...including...
State longitudinal data systems must incorporate:
(1) A unique, statewide student identifier that remains stable over time;
(2) Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation
information;
(3) The ability to match individual student’s test records from year to
year;
(4) Information on untested students, including why they were not tested;
(5) Information on student attainment in high schools, including firsttime
grade-level enrollment, grade-level retention, verified transfer status,
drop-out status, receipt of standard diploma, receipt of non-standard
diploma, receipt of GED, incarceration, and death;
(6) A statewide audit system to ensure the validity and reliability of data
in such system;
(7) A unique statewide teacher identifier that remains stable over time
and matches student records to the appropriate teacher;
(8) Teacher elements, including grade levels and subjects of teaching
assignment, major and minor of undergraduate study, preparation
program participation, certification status, and professional development
program participation. Such teacher elements must be linked to a stable,
unique statewide teacher identifier.
(9) Student-level transcript information;
(10) Information on student participation in and performance on college
admissions and/or college-level assessments;
(11) Ability to link information from K-12 to data systems in higher
education, and to gather information on college enrollment, placement,
persistence, and attainment; and ability to link data systems to data from
workforce development, unemployment insurance, and military services
information systems.
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions should be modified to account for the growth in individual students’ academic achievement from year to year.
• Allow states to replace the current status model of AYP and implement a growth model that gives schools credit for students who are on a three-year growth trajectory toward proficiency by a date certain or by the last state assessment, whichever comes first. This calculation should be based on the growth of individual students over time. Growth models must establish growth targets for all students, including students who are already proficient or advanced.
• Accountability determinations should continue to be based on results for each group represented in the school/district/state in addition to overall results.
• Establish minimum standards regarding data systems and data quality for states to implement a growth model, including the ability to match test records of individual students from year to year and the ability to measure growth at the classroom and school level.
• In order to implement growth models, states must have had a stable assessment in place for at least 2 years, and/or provide documentation of the ability to equate scores from year to year.
• In order to use growth calculations for high school AYP determinations, states must administer assessments in multiple high school grades in mathematics and Reading/Language Arts.
Limit group size for school accountability determinations (i.e., N-size) to no more than 30 students with a confidence interval that does not exceed 95%.
No comments:
Post a Comment