Now We’re Getting Somewhere

As I was perusing my Google reader, I found a trend. First, there was just a general panic attack about NCLB being renewed. Next, people just let it all hang out and wanted to let congress know every little detail that was wrong with the bill. Then, once people got out all of their frustrations, suggestions for improvements started to seep through. Now, high office politicians are starting to take all of this in; here’s what they’ve come up with.

In an article from The Signal in Santa Clarita Valley, CA, a staff writer reported that McKeon, a local congressman was agreeing to a suggested NCLB fix. Said “fix” is directed towards how the government would assess a school’s progress.

           

States currently track yearly progress by using a ’status model’ that compares the performance of students in a specific grade against the performance of students of the same grade during the previous year. But some are concerned about the reliability of the model and suggest using a ‘growth model,’ which compares the achievement of the same students over time.

            They finally figured out that as NCLB stands right now, using the “status model”, school’s  have no clue how students are performing. Comparing students based on grade level is like comparing the younger sibling’s achievements based on what their big brother did last year. To test this new model the state of
Delaware is trying both the “status model” and “growth model”.

As part of a pilot program, the state of Delaware has been using a growth model in addition to the existing status model to measure progress and has seen an improvement in the accuracy of measurements.

            First question that come to my mind, did we test the “status model” at all? Or did we just throw it in NCLB and hoped it would work? A good portion of the articles about NCLB all have “an expert” talking about it what’s wrong with it or making some suggestion to improve it. That’s all fine and well that they’re here in the aftermath of it, but where were they when NCLB was first signed?

McKeon said that growth models can play an important role in the reauthorization of the bill. “

However, these growth models must be well-designed, they must be rigorous, and they must meet a number of criteria that are consistent and central to NCLB,” he said.

Joan Lucid, assistant superintendent for instruction for the Saugus Union School District said that at McKeon’s roundtable discussion in February, local educators brought up the problems with the current system for measuring student progress.  

“When you measure student growth over time, you really determine how well your programs are working,” Lucid said. “When you use a growth model, you actually are able to take a look at what individual students are doing over time and it allows you to then go back and target those individual students who aren’t making quite the progress you want them to be making.”

            Lucid also said that this was a great way to follow students who have special needs and those who are English language learners. By comparing an individual’s progress to their own progress, teachers can see where that child actually is. Switching methods of assessment might not be the only thing NCLB needs to change, but it’s a start.

 

Full Article

“McKeon Agrees With No Child Left Behind Fixes”

Katherine Geyer

The Signal  

 

---