ESEA Discussion Draft: Multiple Measures

While there is disagreement about many provisions of the NCLB discussion draft, it is nearly certain that the reauthorized law will include a system of multiple indicators. It is what many states, advocacy groups, and other organizations requested in the reauthorized law; it is what the Committee tried to deliver (and kudos for the diligent work); and yet, this particular system of multiple measures has been greeted with reservations due to its complexity and the concern that it could be used to mask inequities in academic progress among the law’s subgroups. The final solution, whatever it may be, will be a difficult needle to thread, but the discussion is now well underway and it begins with the language proposed in the discussion draft. As such, it is critical to understand the language in order to understand how it will develop in the coming weeks (maybe many weeks).

How, as provided in the discussion draft, do the multiple measures work? The process is laid out in section 1111. It begins with the foundation of the current status model of measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) that moves all subgroups toward grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year, according to the state’s determined annual measurable objectives (AMO) in, at least, math, reading or language arts and science according to the “academic assessments” provisions of the law. There are also new technical revisions to the measure of AYP such as: 1) an “N” size that must be between 30 and 40 students depending on the state’s agreement with the U.S. Department of Education; 2) a new and complex section of the statute (1124) on the calculation of graduation rates; and 3), caps on confidence intervals. These and other elements will receive more attention in later Updates.

The discussion draft adds a new subparagraph “(E) System of Multiple Indicators” that that allows multiple indicators to contribute to a school’s progress towards making its AYP AMOs. The allowable measures depend on the gradespan of the school. An elementary school may choose from the first two measures listed below and the credit that each subgroup receives by using these scores may not exceed 15% of its AMOs in reading or language arts and mathematics. Secondary schools may choose from the following five measures or fully meet the graduation rate growth targets, established in the new Section 1124. The total credit any secondary school group may receive may not exceed 25%. The graduation growth rate target option, if chosen, may only provide credit for up to 15% of a group’s AMOs. Additional conditions on the available multiple measures are identified below, referencing proposed Section 1111(b)(2)(E)(i).
‘‘(I) Growth on State assessments of science, history, civics and government, or writing.
‘‘(II) Increases in the percentage of students who move from the below basic level to the basic level and the proficient level to the advanced level, unless such score interpretations are already considered as part of the State’s growth model or performance index used to determine the school’s proficiency rate and as long as the total number of students who are proficient also increases.
 The credit may be only applied to the subject for which the increases occurred.
‘‘(III) Increases in the percentages of students passing rigorous, objective, independent end of course exams in core academic subjects such as for Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, QualityCore or another rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in … the Higher Education Act of 1965, if such courses are available in all schools in the state and such exams are not included in the State assessment system.
 This measure may only provide up to 10% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(IV) Increases in college enrollment rates and percentages of secondary school graduates enrolling in other public or private accredited degree granting institution of higher education.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(V) Decreases in dropout rates.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
In exchange for the multiple measures, the Committee’s draft sets aggressive objectives for these measures and growth targets for the measures. (You may want to stop reading at this point and prepare for some dizzying calculations).

Regarding the objectives, the state must set universal goals for achievement on each indicator that is equal to the highest performing subgroup in the highest performing 10% of local education agencies (LEA) in the state. States with only one LEA must set the average achievement of the top 15% of students in the state.

Regarding growth, the target must be the same for all subgroups and the growth targets are based on the average rate of percentage point growth of the top 20% of schools in the state that demonstrate the largest gains of performance for at least one year prior to the year the state implements the multiple indicators system.

Regarding rates over time, the annual growth must be substantial and continuous. It must be based on the difference between actual performance of each subgroup on each additional indicator in the year prior to the year the state implements its multiple indicators system and the universal goal over a 10 year period.

There is also partial credit granted. If there is progress on any indicator, other than the graduation rate growth targets, the group may get partial credit “based on the proportion of the percentage increase associated with fully meeting the indicator that is equal to the extent to which the annual growth target for the indicator is met.”

Finally, the draft requires that the state’s system of multiple indicators meet some across the board requirements:
 The same additional indicators must be the used for all schools or level of schools;
 The additional indicators must be measured separately for each subgroup;
 The credit may not help a school meet the 95% participation requirement;
 Secondary schools may not make AYP if they do not meet the full growth targets and credit from other indicators may not be applied to help a school meet the graduation rate growth targets;
 The state must report the results for each subgroup in addition to the aggregate AYP determination;
 The statewide data collection system must be capable of collecting valid and reliable data for each indicator; and
 The collection of the data must not delay reporting of AYP determinations;

The draft system of multiple indicators moves NCLB away from the single statewide assessment model, but it comes with a hefty cost. Managing such a system would be complex and the likelihood of unintended consequences is considerable. On Monday, the House will host a hearing on the discussion draft, and the system of multiple indicators will, to be sure, be a hot topic. There is plenty to discuss, assuming that the Members of the Committee have any interest in engaging the panelists at such a detailed level. We will see on Monday.

Author: DAD