'Growing' concerns about adequate yearly progress
Education Department opens door for growth-based
school models

The AFT has long called for schools to be measured on the basis of progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. That concept got a shot in the arm late last year when U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced that as many as 10 states would be allowed to use "growth models" to determine which of their schools and districts are meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets tied to NCLB. This would mark a shift from the current policy, which fails to distinguish between schools making impressive gains in student achievement and those that clearly missed the mark and are failing to improve. The AYP system now lumps rapidly improving schools that "missed by an inch" together with struggling schools that "missed by a mile"—effectively divorcing the entire concept of "progress" from adequate yearly progress.

"Many educators and policymakers have asked me about the possibility of using growth models to recognize the progress schools are making," Spellings said in a recent address to the Council of Chief State School Officers. In response, according to Spellings, the Education Department will approve as many as 10 state-developed plans that track individual student test scores from year to year. Approved models would rate schools and districts based on how well they are proceeding toward meeting NCLB’s statutory goal of 100 percent student proficiency in math and science by the 2013-14 school year.

Devil in the details
The AFT met the Education Department Secretary’s announcement with cautious optimism. This was not the first time Spellings signaled interest in growth models. In a one-on-one interview with AFT president Edward J. McElroy at the union’s 2005 QuEST conference in Washington, D.C., Spellings acknowledged that AYP’s failure to give schools credit for rising student achievement is one of the most frequent criticisms she receives. It is also one of the most frequent complaints the union receives from the field, says president McElroy. And when it comes to fixing this problem, "the devil is in the details," the AFT president stresses.

Not all growth models are created equally. Done right, a growth model could help bring quick support and tailored resources to schools—the type of early assistance and constructive, research-based intervention that can help schools improve and students succeed. A solid growth model would match the practice to the rhetoric of school improvement. Done wrong, a growth model could be a way to isolate and blame schools serving the nation’s most disadvantaged communities, exposing them to unfair attacks from voucher proponents and other fringe groups.

States have until Feb. 17 to submit plans for AYP growth models. As the Education Department moves forward with this pilot, the AFT is asking for transparency in the process. The department should be prepared to share full details about each state’s proposed model, including a comparison of schools that make AYP under the traditional targets and schools that make AYP under the new growth model.

Interventions are key
Most importantly, the department should focus this initiative not only on identifying schools in need of improvement, but also on how a new growth model can move beyond the "blame game" to help deliver appropriate resources and research-proven interventions for schools. So-called remedies under the current law, such as public school choice and the use of supplemental educational service (SES) providers, have no proven track record of effectiveness. Instead, they are one-size-fits-all "solutions" that do nothing to build on a school’s individual strengths or address its particular weaknesses.

The union also continues to make the case that the administration and Congress must discuss growth and student achievement on the basis of sound research and practice, rather than sloganeering that sounds good in the political arena. One important step is to give credit to schools for progress even if they did not meet an arbitrary AYP benchmark, and that continues to be a major focus of the AFT’s efforts to help get NCLB right.