The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) recently moved again toward greater flexibility in NCLB implementation. On November 18, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced that interested and qualified states may compete for inclusion in a ten-state pilot program that allows for the development and implementation of growth-based accountability models in adequate yearly progress (AYP). She made the announcement during an address at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum, in which Measured Progress participated as a corporate sponsor.

The growth model concept is one of the approaches states have requested in meeting AYP. When properly implemented, growth models can be described as a fair, reliable, and innovative method to measure school and student improvement. According to the USDOE, this is a timely change because states’ data infrastructure and accountability systems are richer and more sophisticated than when NCLB was first introduced, enabling a growth model approach to be built on critical elements of NCLB, state resources, and the current AYP model. 

Prefacing her remarks, Spellings mentioned that this program is “a way for states that are already raising achievement and following the bright-line principles of the law to strengthen accountability.”  The flexibility of growth-based accountability models shows great promise.

• Growth models give schools credit for student improvement over time by tracking individual student achievement from year to year.
• A group of experts and policymakers successfully examined and compared various models to determine how growth models could meet the goals of NCLB.
• The pilot program allows the USDOE to rigorously evaluate growth models and their alignment with NCLB, and to share results with other states to encourage broad usage. 

States who apply to join the pilot program must agree to meet these seven guidelines.

1. Ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students.
2. Set expectations for annual achievement based on meeting grade-level proficiency, not on student background or school characteristics.
3. Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics.
4. 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.
5. Include assessments in each of grades three through eight and one high school grade 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.
6. Track student progress as part of the state data system.
7. Include student participation rates and student achievement on a separate academic indicator in the state accountability system. 

The USDOE plans to monitor and evaluate the states’ applications (due in the USDOE offices by February 17, 2006) with outside peer reviews of proposals. States must provide data on a proposed growth model in comparison to their current AYP model. 

However, some states do not have adequate assessment systems or data capabilities in place to use a growth-based accountability model. But, under current NCLB guidelines states have the flexibility to use an index model that gives schools credit for moving students from a “below basic” to “basic” rating, even if they have not achieved proficiency. The USDOE listed nine states as currently using index models to determine AYP: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont. 

It remains to be seen how states will respond to this additional opportunity to flexibly meet NCLB AYP requirements, but the assumption is that qualifying states have already strategically planned for such a contingency and are prepared to submit proposals to the pilot program.

Doug Frazier