School Progress Assessment: George Miller and NBLB

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

(full disclosure CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB) (also in orange: Miller and NCLB)

One of the many problems with the current Miller/Pelosi draft of the re-authorization of NCLB is how it assesses schools.  The feds require schools get assessed with an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report.  It sets benchmarks.  If you do not meet them, you fail.  It is a very rigid system.  They mandated this program, yet never provided the money for states to actually track schools and students. Thus states have had to cough up the money on their own for data programs.

Here in California we already have a great assessment program called the Academic Performance Index (API).  (Get that AYP (feds) API (Cali)).  The API sets goals based on progress over time.  So if a school is way behind, but they show significant percentage improvement (say 20% or so gains), they don't get on the failing list and get punished.  Many schools who were really far behind under NCLB were classified as failing and punished, even though they were showing dramatic gains under API.  It was a vicious and disheartening cycle.
California really likes its system.  It still puts a heavy emphasis on improvement, but schools that start out severely underperforming don't get punished while they are making huge improvements. 

Since NCLB passed, California has put a lot of money into a system to track students under the AYP.  We still are not there yet, years later.  One of the many fixes to NCLB that education advocates both here in CA and across the country have been pushing for is for states to be able to assess students on the API model.  Jack O'Connell, State Superintendent of Schools, wrote a letter to George Miller, where he addressed this problem (sorry no cite, came via email):

After reviewing the discussion draft, I am pleased to see that the Committee recognizes the limitations of the current law's status model for measuring AYP.  However, I am disappointed to not that the draft does not allow states to use valid improvement measures to hold districts and schools accountable. [snip]

Provisions in the draft would increase technical complexity while reducing academic accountability at the cost of existing, proven and reliable state systems.

Got that.  They are putting more mandates on the schools, thus making the reporting mechanisms even more complicated.  That costs money.  And they are not increasing flexibility so schools can be assessed using other, superior models like the API.

As noted in the reauthorization recommendations I issued earlier this year, the API has been a successful agent of change for our schools and districts.  It is a publicly recognized and understood tool for holding schools accountable for improvement.  Using the notion of "earned autonomy," the reauthorized law should recognize the authority of states to measure AYP with their own state system, so long as that system meets conditions of peer-reviewed rigor, demonstrated progress and approval by the ED (Education Department).  The federal government would retain the authority to hold states accountable for their results according to an agreed metric.  Our shared focus should be on the academic objectives and not the restricted methodology.

I know it is a bit weird for progressives to be arguing for states rights, but in this case we really do have a better, fairer system and the federal government is forcing us to use a rigid inferior one.

Fourth in a series.
Previous posts:

Nancy Pelosi and George Miller are getting it wrong: NO on NCLB

Getting George Miller's Attention and the Bad Miller/Pelosi NCLB Bill

Merit Pay and NCLB: George Miller Still Getting it Wrong
----------------

Take Action, contact Miller and Pelosi.  More information on the CTA website.