澳门跑狗论坛

Guidance available at www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/stateletters/index.html#growthmodels

Many other states, moreover, appear eager鈥攋udging from their participation in recent conference calls and meetings on the topic鈥攁t least to explore the possibility of applying for the 鈥済rowth models鈥� pilot. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced the program in November, following pressure from states and education groups. (鈥淯.S. to Pilot New Gauge of 鈥楪rowth鈥�,鈥� Nov. 30, 2005.)

Officials in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah all told 澳门跑狗论坛 that they were planning to apply for the pilot initiative. The Department of Education released further guidance on the program, which has a Feb. 17 deadline for applications, on Jan. 27. As many as 10 states could take part after going through a peer-review process.

Representatives from 35 states were scheduled to attend a San Diego meeting last week, sponsored by the Washington-based Council of Chief State School Officers, on the use of growth models. And the Education Department estimated that nearly all the states participated in one of three question-and-answer teleconferences it sponsored about the program.

What鈥檚 more, as many as eight mostly rural states鈥擨daho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming鈥攁lso may use the pilot project to petition for the flexibility to form a rural accountability system focused on the individual student.

鈥淲e鈥檙e the kind of states that could actually create an accountability system that dealt with every child and not with groups of children,鈥� said Douglas D. Christensen, the education commissioner in Nebraska, which hosted a meeting of those states in Omaha on Jan. 17.

To be deemed to have made adequate yearly progress, a critical gauge of performance under the federal law, schools and districts must meet targets for the percent of students who score at the proficient level or above on state reading and math tests in any given year. In contrast, growth models track the progress of youngsters over time, and could give schools credit for moving students toward proficiency.

Proponents argue that such models are a fairer and more accurate way to judge schools than by comparing the performance of different cohorts of students. They also could better target resources to schools that are both low-performing and fail to move students significantly from where they started.

But others worry that the models are not yet ready for use in high-stakes accountability systems, and that they could take pressure off schools to bring all students to the proficient level.

鈥淚 think the department needs to be really careful about which states get the nod and get approved to do this,鈥� said Dianne Pich茅, the executive director of the Citizens鈥� Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington-based watchdog group that has favored allowing no more than five states in a growth-model pilot program.

鈥淚t鈥檚 an experiment,鈥� Ms. Pich茅 said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a program that鈥檚 authorized by the law.鈥�

鈥淲e want to see if growth models can be done, and if they can be done effectively,鈥� she added, 鈥渂ut we don鈥檛 want a whole other system to be used that will replace a system that is now reasonably effective at identifying where the trouble spots are.鈥�

鈥楪et in the Line鈥�

Some state officials said they intend to write letters or submit proposals to the federal department expressing their interest in the project, even though they do not now meet the criteria specified by Secretary Spellings in a letter dated Nov. 21.

The guidance released last week noted that department staff members will conduct an initial review of the proposals to determine basic eligibility. Only states that meet the minimum eligibility requirements will advance to the peer-review stage. The actual peer review will occur in April, with recommendations due to the secretary by May.

鈥淲e do intend to submit a letter letting the secretary know that we have interest in moving into this,鈥� said Betty J. Sternberg, the commissioner of education in Connecticut, which is pursuing a court challenge over the law. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 expect, given their requirements, to be in the first round. We just want to get in the line, if there鈥檚 a second round.鈥�

Other states already include a growth measure in their accountability systems and have advocated such leeway under federal law. 鈥淚t鈥檚 clear that those in Washington have realized that some flexibility is needed to make NCLB work most effectively,鈥� said Hanna Skandera, the deputy commissioner of accountability research and measurement for the Florida Department of Education.

Her state already gives schools credit for the academic growth of their lowest-performing students under its own plan, but has been prevented from doing so for purposes of complying with the No Child Left Behind law.

Tennessee, which has tracked the progress of individual students for 12 years as part of the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, also plans to apply.

鈥淲e鈥檝e seen the benefits to using a value-added approach,鈥� said Connie J. Smith, the executive director of the state鈥檚 office of innovation, improvement, and accountability. 鈥淚f you only have a single approach to accountability, you鈥檙e limiting yourself.鈥�

In Pennsylvania, about 100 districts have participated in the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System pilot over the past three years. The state department of education plans to request permission for those districts to take part in the federal pilot, while the rest of the districts move toward implementing such a plan in the future.

Ohio must include a value-added component in its accountability system starting in 2007-08, under state law. But officials there hope to start using such a measure under the federal law even sooner.

鈥淲e think there may be schools out there where the proficiency rates are relatively low, but where students make very strong progress while they鈥檙e enrolled鈥攕ufficient progress that they鈥檙e on the way to being proficient by the end of that school鈥檚 grade configuration or by a certain point in the future,鈥� said Mitchell D. Chester, an assistant superintendent for the state education department.

Adding a growth measure to the AYP equation also would allow the state to direct resources to schools that most need help: those with low proficiency rates making little headway, Mr. Chester argued.

The key difference between Ohio鈥檚 approach and traditional growth models, he added, is that schools would have to show that students were on track to reach proficiency by a specific time.

No Miracles

Under the pilot project, states still must bring all students to proficiency on state tests by 2013-14, the deadline specified in the federal law. Given that goal, it鈥檚 unclear whether using a growth measure would help substantially more schools meet their AYP targets.

鈥淚t helps a few schools,鈥� said Les Morse, the director of assessment and accountability for the Alaska Department of Education, which also plans to submit a proposal. 鈥淚t probably doesn鈥檛 help as many as educators in the field think it would help.鈥�

The bigger issue, he said, is a concept of fairness: 鈥淚 think it makes for a more valid system than just looking at status.鈥�

鈥淚t makes sense; it鈥檚 logical,鈥� said Valerie A. Woodruff, Delaware鈥檚 education secretary. Delaware probably will apply for the pilot, but is still weighing its options, she said last week.

Even in those states that already use a growth measure as part of their accountability systems, meshing that with the NCLB requirements could be tricky. Since 1996-97, for example, North Carolina has looked at the growth of all students for accountability purposes.

鈥淚t鈥檚 pretty clear that when the U.S. Department of Education is talking about growth models, they鈥檙e really talking about growth models applied only to the students who are not yet proficient,鈥� said Lou Fabrizio, the director of accountability for the state education department. So North Carolina presumably would have to use a different growth measure for compliance with the federal law.

Despite the interest in the federal pilot offer, many observers question whether most states actually have the infrastructure in place to track student growth over time. Some of the states planning to submit proposals 鈥渁re not qualified on the face of the secretary鈥檚 letter,鈥� said Brian Gong, the president of the Dover, N.H.-based Center for Assessment, which works with states to improve their systems of testing and accountability.

鈥淎lthough they say they鈥檙e interested, and they say they鈥檙e going to apply,鈥� he said, 鈥淚鈥檓 pretty sure that they aren鈥檛 going to get approved.鈥�

鈥淚n conversations that we鈥檝e had with folks from Washington, they鈥檝e encouraged us to submit something, even though there are points that we can鈥檛 meet,鈥� said Mary S. Heath, New Hampshire鈥檚 deputy commissioner of education. 鈥淚 feel like there鈥檚 a sense of openness and inquiry on their part to look at what people are proposing.鈥�

Those proposals could influence policymakers鈥� thinking about how to amend the 4-year-old federal law鈥攁n overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act鈥攚hen it鈥檚 reauthorized. The law is up for renewal next year.

The federal Education Department has encouraged states that are not eligible for the pilot project to consider using an index that gives schools credit for the improved performance of students below the proficient level. States have until April 1 to request such changes in how they calculate adequate progress.