Ed. Week LTE on "Growth Models" and NCLB

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

The following letter to the editor was published  in the current edition 
of Education Week -- note that all Ed.Week content is available free on 
line through the end of January at www.edweek.org (you may have to 
register, but there is no cost or resulting spam)

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS NEED MANY DATA SOURCES
Education Week -- January 16, 2008

<>To the Editor:

Most current "growth" models for educational accountability ("'Growth 
Models' Gaining in Accountability Debate," 
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/12/19/16growth.h27.html> Dec. 
19, 2007) fail to address the public's primary concern about the No 
Child Left Behind Act's intense focus on testing: the reduction of 
curriculum and instruction to "teaching the test." A growing majority of 
Americans recognize how narrow a slice of learning standardized exams 
measure and how unfair it is to make decisions based on such limited 
instruments.

Unfortunately, states and cities are implementing growth models that 
rely on existing standardized tests. They simply use the data 
differently. For example, when New York City evaluates schools using 
cohort and growth measures, it relies almost entirely on standardized 
test scores. This is not the use of multiple measures that educators, 
parents, and the public want and deserve.

To support improved instruction and higher achievement, states need to 
construct assessment systems that include multiple sources of evidence 
of learning and school well-being. Existing practices in some states, 
such as Nebraska, and in other nations can be the basis for developing 
such systems. (Numerous pieces proposing alternative accountability 
possibilities are on the FairTest Web site at www.fairtest.org 
<http://www.fairtest.org>.) The 142 groups signing the Joint 
Organizational Statement on NCLB support this approach.

Of course, such assessments must be used to help schools, rather than 
punish them the way the No Child Left Behind law does. The next 
authorization of the law must make it a priority to promote 
educationally beneficial assessment. Such changes deserve far more 
attention than growth measures based on existing tests.

Monty Neill
Executive Director
National Center for Fair & Open Testing
(FairTest)
Cambridge, Mass.


   http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/16/19letter-2.h27.html