Archive for April, 2010
Senior Program Associate
Learning Point Associates
Tennessee’s recent win in the first round of Race to the Top (RTTT) competition arguably could be attributed to past work in developing value-added growth modeling and plans to tie student academic growth data to educator evaluations and effectiveness. As other state education agencies look to appear more serious about changing their current systems for the second round of RTTT, growth modeling is one area that states may emphasize more and attempt to impose more serious accountability reforms.
Growth models in today’s accountability-driven system could be described as calculations attempting to measure whether students, on average, are increasing their scores at a pace to be “on track” to earn a desired proficiency level on a particular test. More specifically, they “use 2 or more years of assessment results as an indicator of school performance and attach decision rules to changes in performance” (Goldschmidt & Choi, 2007).
With the need to honor the complexity of individual student learning and the fact that students start at different levels of learning across the United States, growth models have helped draw attention to the importance of measuring the accumulation of student achievement below the proficiency threshold. What gets measured, how we measure, and what else we analyze beyond academic measurements are all as important as the growth model itself, however. Expectations for growth models to measure student achievement and to determine teacher, principal, and school effectiveness will be extremely high after Tennessee’s win. In spite of some criticism of, and imperfections with, growth models, aren’t these models what we want and need?
As an administrator, I would want to know as specifically as possible how much progress our students are making from expensive investments in curricula, professional development, and assessment systems—what’s working and what’s not. Growth models can help identify teacher strengths and areas of need and adjust appropriately to make improvements along the way. As a teacher, I would want to know what’s working with my kids. If I’m reflective and data driven, I would want the investment of my time to pay off with my students.
Knowing that there is still anxiety about tying teacher performance to assessment data, what recommendations do you have that could make growth modeling more effective and powerful for teachers, students, and administrators? What assessment, program, and demographic data will help make growth models fair for students and teachers, as well as for accountability systems? What else can our experts be doing to build better growth models, or what have you seen that you recommend?
Goldschmidt, P., & Choi, K. (2007). The practical benefits of growth models for accountability and the limitations under NCLB. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/P%20goldschmidt%20Policy%20Brief%20v3.pdf
Many states, districts, and schools are considering the implications of each model laid out in the School Improvement Grants (SIGs) and what it looks like to actually implement each model. The Center on Innovation & Improvement (CII) has released a new resource, Toolkit for Implementing the School Improvement Grant (SIG) Transformation Model, to help districts and schools once they have decided to pursue the transformation model. The new toolkit is focused specifically on the transformation model option and provides states and districts with action items and resources for implementing the SIG transformation model.
What does transformation look like in an urban setting and in a rural setting? What are the most important elements for a successful transformation?
CII has a section on their website dedicated to SIG implementation, including additional handbooks, tools, and webinar archives for states and districts to use while considering options.