ESEA Growth Model Language

Growth models are central to the reauthorization discussion. Many consider them a vast improvement over the law’s status model for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is conducting a pilot program that allows States to use growth models to measure AYP. As of July 2007, nine states are operating approved pilot programs. Yet, the low national participation rate and the variability among the kinds of models indicate what most already know: these models can be complicated and difficult to operate. Borrowing an old saw: the devils (plural) are in the details.

How Congress would manage the details was a matter of considerable debate in the spring and summer, and the House discussion draft now offers their first cut at the issue. The draft model, currently, follows the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative and narrows the scope of allowable growth models by establishing strict program parameters. According to the law, States could “incorporate” student academic growth into the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) so long as they meet some minimum requirements.

Allowable growth models must:
• Establish individual student growth objectives that are not based on individual student background characteristics;
• Establish separate, measurable objectives for the assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts;
• Include all students in the State’s assessment and accountability system; and
• Require that all groups meet the 2013–2014 target for 100% grade level proficiency or be on trajectory to meet or exceed grade level proficiency within 3 years.
In addition, approval would require States to include the results of assessments in their definition of AYP that:
• Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading or language arts (3 through 8, and in secondary school);
• Track student progress through a State-developed longitudinal data system that meets the requirements of section 1123 and that has been in use by the State for at least two years; and
• Include, as separate academic indicators, the rate of student participation in assessments under paragraph (3); and other academic indicators as described in the law.

The discussion draft’s growth model parameters have sparked considerable debate because it maintains the goal of 100% grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. This, some argue, potentially guts the benefit of an individual or school growth model, which is designed to measure unique academic progress according to unique starting points. Customized trajectory and 100% proficiency by 2014 do not blend well, and this remains an active debate in the House and Senate education committees.

Two closing notes: Congressional Research Service produced an excellent report on the status of the growth models this summer, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act. Those states that are now conducting growth model programs include:
1. North Carolina (approved in May 2006)
2. Tennessee (May 2006)
3. Delaware (November 2006)
4. Arkansas (November 2006)
5. Florida (June 2007)
6. Iowa (May 2007)
7. Ohio (Conditional, May 2007)
8. Alaska (July 2007)
9. Arizona (July 2007)

Resource:
Miller and McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft, Title I, House Committee on Education and Labor (August 2007), http://edworkforce.house.gov/ (the documents are no longer posted on the committee’s site).
See Wayne Riddle, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act (Congressional Research Service: August 2007).
Author: DAD