Growing number of parents and legislators are being heard protesting the current regime of LEAP, iLEAP, and GEE high stakes testing.

 

Few question the necessity of measuring the degree to which student achievement is progressing, only the manner.

 

For more than 10 years, Tennessee’s public school students have been evaluated for their progress in academic achievement by a growth model or value-added system. More recently the U.S. Department of Education has cracked open the door to a limited number of pilot trials of growth models. Now, after a short test period comes a new announcement from the U.S. DOE:

 
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today announced approval of two high-quality growth models, which follow the bright-line principles of No Child Left Behind. Michigan is immediately approved to use the growth model for the 2007-2008 school year. Missouri's growth model is approved on the condition that the state adopt a uniform minimum group size for all subgroups, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students, in Adequate Yearly Progress determinations for the 2007-2008 school year.

In May 2006, North Carolina and Tennessee received approval to implement their growth models for the 2005-2006 school year. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida and Iowa received full approval to implement their growth model for the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, Ohio submitted a quality growth model that was conditionally approved by the Department in May.

"Once states had developed the framework to take a snapshot of student skills each year, as the law requires, I invited them to join me in combining those static measurements to demonstrate progress over time. After early pioneers proved that this method was viable, I invited all eligible states to adopt this more sophisticated measurement system, also known as the growth model or value-added approach," Secretary Spellings said. "Michigan and Missouri proposed models that will support educational innovation while continuing to hold schools accountable for the goal of every student performing at or above grade level by 2014. I look forward to seeing the positive results these changes will help produce for students." (Press Release from DOE, June 20, 2008).

This fall the Louisiana Accountability Commission will begin to evaluate some necessary revisions to the Louisiana student accountability program. There have been long-unanswered questions as to whether or not the current system is being used appropriately to measure more than simply changes in student achievement. Such testing as LEAP and iLEAP are, at best, snapshots of a student’s growth. Use of the results to measure class, school, district or state achievement is of highly questionable value.

The question of the day, it would seem, is should the Louisiana Accountability Commission tinker with nuts and bolts of the present system?

Or, should the Commission evaluate a major shift to a value added model such as has been done by a growing number of sister states?

Louisiana school boards should be concerned that changes being contemplated reflect what is best for public school students. While the state department consultant who has, in the past, been evaluating growth models is retiring, there are several others education researchers with experience available to serve as guides for the accountability commission.

A call for change to the highly praised accountability system now used in Louisiana should contain consideration of the growth model.
By Don Whittinghill LSBA Consultant