For Release: New Education Sector Report Examines Growth Models as a Component of Accountability Systems

Washington, D.C.—From the earliest efforts to establish educational accountability systems, policymakers recognized the strong correlation of test scores with students' socio-economic status. In 1998, the National Education Goals Panel noted "perceived unfairness in the system of rankings and rewards can seriously erode the trust necessary for effective incentives."

Growth models, which incorporate measures of student growth as well as the absolute numbers of students who pass standardized tests, are one way to address this issue. A new Education Sector report, Growth Models and Accountability: A Recipe for Remaking ESEA, explores efforts to combine growth and achievement into a single accountability measure. "Educational accountability isn't just a matter of identifying which schools have the most failing students," say co-authors Kevin Carey, policy director of Education Sector, and Robert Manwaring, a fiscal and policy consultant. "It also requires some response to that information that will help fewer students fail."

Since 2005, 15 states have been approved to implement a growth model pilot. The states adopted one of four distinct models—Trajectory, Transition Tables, Student Growth Percentiles, and Projection—each with some drawbacks.

How much did these new calculations change NCLB? "Not much," say the authors. On average, 56 percent of schools made adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under the old model in the 2006–07 school year. The growth model pilots increased that amount by only 3 percentage points.

Colorado, however, created its own state-specific accountability system that emphasizes communicating with the public and making meaningful distinctions between different kinds of schools. This Education Sector report takes a look at three different Denver-area schools where students are far from meeting the state’s proficiency standard to illustrate how incorporating growth measures into an accountability system might suggest different state responses.

As the reauthorization of ESEA draws nearer, Growth Models and Accountability offers policymakers suggestions on incorporating growth measures into accountability systems. Although, as Carey and Manwaring note, "there are no easy answers," this report does offer a recipe for combining student growth with student achievement as a more meaningful accountability system.

Education Sector is an independent think tank that challenges conventional thinking in education policy. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to achieving measurable impact in education, both by improving existing reform initiatives and by developing new, innovative solutions to our nation's most pressing education problems.

###