  Myth: A Growth or Value-Added Model Would Be Fairer than AYP.It is often argued that AYP* doesn’t take into account the academic growth of children. The argument goes like this: A school which helps children learn should get credit for being an effective school even if its students don’t meet state standards. This is especially true for schools serving children who start out behind, such as poor children and children of color. It is unfair to blame schools for the poor preparation children get before they come to class; if schools are able to get a year’s worth of growth for children in a year, then they should be considered successes, no matter where their children start out or finish. There is a great deal of logic to that argument. There are two problems, however, one philosophical, one practical. Philosophically, most of the growth models being proposed abandon entirely the idea of closing academic gaps. If schools are responsible only for making sure some learning happens, but not responsible for making sure their students meet state standards, then those children who need to make the most progress – poor children, children of color, children with disabilities, and children who are learning English – will be once again consigned to the back of the classroom. They will learn something, but they’ll never be expected to catch up; never expected to learn everything they’ll need to succeed after high school graduation. It is possible to construct a growth model where this wouldn’t be the case – a growth-to-standards model, but then we run into the practical problem, which is that only one state has a data system that permits real tracking of student growth while keeping the goal of closing gaps. Tennessee has pioneered the use of data to track growth in individual students’ learning, and if each state kept the kind of information that Tennessee does, it would be possible to design a value-added accountability system that kept schools focused on closing gaps. But many states have balked at the more limited data requirements of No Child Left Behind; very few states have implemented the more sophisticated data systems that are needed to track student learning the way that Tennessee does. There are states – such as New York and Massachusetts – that have built into their accountability systems recognition of schools that move their students from below basic to basic, which accounts for growth. And, AYP does in fact have a “growth” model built into it no matter what the state system is. It is known as Safe Harbor. Under the Safe Harbor provisions, a school is counted as having made AYP if it reduces the percentage of students who are not proficient in state standards by 10 or more percent and improves on one other academic indicator. This makes sure that schools get credit for substantial improvement, even if they do not meet the absolute targets; but those improvements are still closely tied to state standards and to closing achievement gaps. * AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, is the main accountability mechanism of No Child Left Behind, requiring that each state that receives money under the Title I provisions of NCLB account for the academic progress of all identified subgroups of students, with the goal that all students meet state academic standards by 2014. For a more detailed description of how AYP works, see “The ABCs of AYP,” produced by The Education Trust. You can find it under “resources” at www.achievementalliance.org or under ESEA/NCLB at www.edtrust.org.
        |
 |
 |
