The future effect of backloaded NCLB models demonstrated in Calif.

There is a day of reconning coming for states that have backloaded their NCLB targets.

As 2014 approaches, more and more successful states will experience the same kinds of decline seen recently in Massachusetts - while their students continue to improve.

The law known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), enacted in 2002, set an ambitious goal: that across the nation, every state would test students annually in reading and math, and that the number of students scoring at the level of "proficient" or higher would rise each year, until all students reached proficiency in the year 2014.

Towards that end, each state developed its own assessment tests and identified a rate of adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards full proficiency by 2014. Schools that do not meet AYP can face sanctions ranging from being identified as a school needing improvement to (after five years) being subject to corrective action and restructuring--even a complete reorganization or takeover of the school.

One of the challenges of meeting AYP is that schools, districts and states must report not only a rise in total scores, but also progress in the scores of subgroups of students including minority students, English language learners (ELL) and students with disabilities.

"The result is that the lowest-performing subgroup will ultimately determine the proficiency of a school, district or state," says Rich Cardullo, one of the authors of a paper published in the Sept. 26 issue of Science magazine, which analyzes testing data from California's elementary schools.

Researchers at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) used state assessment data reported for the school years 2002-2003 through 2006-2007 to project the growth in student proficiency through 2014. Data was drawn from more than 4,900 California elementary schools.

The researchers used three different growth models (represented by the blue, grey and green lines) to project average annual growth in proficiency for mathematics (solid lines) and English language arts (dotted lines).

Models are plotted out to 2014 to illustrate that the available data (through 2007) does not indicate the accelerated growth in proficiency required to meet legislated goals. California's benchmarks for adequate yearly progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind are shown in the red lines.

More information on this research appears in the Sept. 26, 2008, edition of Science magazine.

Credit: University of California, Riverside by way of Schools Matter.

NCLB growth models now opened to all eligible states

All states that meet certain guidelines will now be allowed to take part in the U.S. Department of Education’s experiment with “growth models,” which lets states consider students’ achievement gains as part of the accountability measure under under No Child Left Behind.

Good.

When the program began two-years ago participation was limited to nine states. The feds now say that the pilot states have shown it can be done without compromising the goals of the law.

This from the US Department of Education press release:

Secretary Spellings Invites Eligible States

to Submit Innovative Models

for Expanded Growth Model Pilot

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today announced that she is opening the growth model pilot to all eligible states saying, "our work on reauthorization has shown broad bipartisan support for growth models and now, many states have improved data systems so they can track individual student growth over time."

"A growth model is a way for states that are raising achievement and following the bright-line principles of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to strengthen accountability," Secretary Spellings said. "I believe that extending the growth model pilot for the 2007-2008 school year will promote two important goals. It will allow states another effective way of measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) by measuring individual student growth over time, and it will continue to expand the flexibility available to states under No Child Left Behind."

The growth model pilot was established by Secretary Spellings in November 2005 and was included in the President's NCLB reauthorization blueprint earlier this year. Nine states currently have approved growth model proposals: North Carolina, Tennessee, Delaware, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Alaska and Arizona.

Any state that would like to take part should submit their growth model proposals to the U.S. Department of Education no later than February 1, 2008. A rigorous peer review process-similar to that used for the past two years-will ensure that the selection process is fair and transparent for all participating states. The Department will conduct an initial review of each proposal to ensure that the growth model meets the seven core principles and that the state is making progress in the required areas.

Ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual state goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students identified in the law;

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

Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics separately;

Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup, and include all schools and districts;

Include assessments that produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year in grades three through eight and high school, in both reading/language arts and mathematics;

that have been operational for more than one year and have received Full Approval or Full Approval with Recommendations before the state determines AYP based on 2007-2008 assessment results 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.

If there are any questions, the Department will contact the state by February 15 and ask for a response by March 14. Proposals that meet the requirements will be sent to a group of peer reviewers who will meet during the week of April 14-18. States that meet the qualifications to participate in the growth model pilot will be notified in May.

Advocates for Students With Disabilities Balk at Proposed NCLB Changes

Education Week reports:

As Congress wrestles with reauthorizing the 5½-year-old No Child Left Behind Act, some disability-rights advocates fear high standards for students with disabilities could be sacrificed as states seek more flexibility in the law.

Some education groups, as well as lawmakers, have called for more choice in how states can administer the law’s accountability provisions, including greater power for school-based teams to decide what type of assessment a student receiving special education services should take.

That’s a step away from grade-level achievement as a goal for all students, said James H. Wendorf, the executive director of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, a New York City-based group that works to provide opportunities for children and adults with learning disabilities. The law needs tweaks, not wholesale changes to its ambitious achievement goals, he believes.

Mr. Wendorf’s group advocates on behalf of the largest group of children served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the federal law that mandates special education services for some 6.6 million students nationwide. Students with “specific learning disabilities” account for nearly half the students covered under the law.

“No Child Left Behind has put some real teeth in the IDEA,” Mr. Wendorf said. “It’s given parents some information they wanted desperately, and some information that they didn’t know how much they needed until it was being provided to them.”

The federal law requires schools and districts to report the academic progress of students with disabilities, along with other subgroups of students, such as those in low-income families and those who are learning English. The performance of such subgroups on annual tests in reading and mathematics helps determine whether their schools have made adequate yearly progress toward proficiency for all students, as required under the law.

The reporting provision has forced administrators to pay attention to a group of students that is too often ignored, disability-rights advocates contend. They point to studies that show that students with disabilities, even those with cognitive impairments, can achieve at higher-than-expected levels when teachers hold them to grade-level standards.

As disability-rights advocates lobby federal lawmakers, their focus has been on maintaining what they see as the strong standards of the law, while allowing schools to get credit for a student’s academic growth towards proficiency, even if the student occasionally falls short of a particular benchmark.

For instance, the National Center for Learning Disabilities recently released two reports that outline the progress students with disabilities have made under the No Child Left Behind law, as well as the challenges that remain.

The group says that Congress should maintain the requirements for schools to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP; that all schools should be required to report the performance all student subgroups 20 students or more (current rules allow for a larger minimum); and that students should not be subject to repeated retesting for the purpose of determining AYP. Those recommendations would maintain or tighten existing rules for districts and states.

At the same time, the center supports allowing a “growth model” factor to be a part of No Child Left Behind’s accountability rules. Growth models allow schools to receive credit for improving individual students’ academic performance over time...

Growth Models Across America -- And More Pilots To Come

Alexander Russo @ This Weeek in Education asks:

"...[W]ho needs a reauthorization when you can just change the law as much as you want without anyone really protesting?"

...[Yesterday] the EdSec announced more growth model approvals. The latest three include Alaska, Arizona, and (last week) Florida.

...Additional waivers/pilots to look for in the coming months while reauthorization languishes include: that "just missed" AYP designation that she talked about last week in USA Today, a blanket waiver of some kind on [Highly Qualified Teachers] (statutorily, it's time to declare 40-plus states out of compliance and start doing compliance agreements).

This from the U S Education Secretary's press release.

To date, seven states have been fully approved to implement their growth models. In May 2006, North Carolina and Tennessee received full approval for the 2005-2006 school year. Last November, Delaware and Arkansas received full approval for the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, Florida was conditionally approved by the Department in November and received full approval on June 26 to implement their growth model for the 2006-2007 school year. Ohio’s growth model [Does anyone remember Mitchell Chester, one of Kentucky's Commish finalists? He's in charge of Ohio's testing program and might have provided much needed leadership and competence to a state with a jumbled assessment system - and apparently a newly dumbed down test.] was approved in May on the condition that the state adopt a uniform minimum group size for all subgroups, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students, in AYP determinations for the 2006-2007 school year. The Department plans to approve no more than 10 high-quality growth models for the pilot program.

"A growth model is a way for states that are already raising achievement and following the bright-line principles of the law to strengthen accountability," Secretary Spellings said. "Alaska and Arizona were recognized by our impressive group of peer reviewers to have written strong growth models that adhere to the core principles of No Child Left Behind."

...The bright-line principles for high-quality growth models are:

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

· Set expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency and not upon student background or school characteristics;

· Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics;
· Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts 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 that have been operational for more than one year and have received approval through the NCLB standards and assessment review process for the 2005-06 school year. The assessment system must also 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 as separate academic indicators in the state accountability system.