A narrow focus on proficiency rates incentivizes schools to focus on those students near the proficiency cut score, while an approach that takes into account all levels of performance incentivizes a focus on all students.ESSA requires that states measure “proficiency,” which literally means “a high degree of competence or skill.” But it doesn’t say anything about proficiency rates, so there’s nothing to prevent states from adopting a broader measure. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, Colorado is still in the minority because many states have yet to move beyond their No Child Left Behind-era obsession with proficiency rates. What does it say about education reformers that it’s taken us a decade to wrap our heads around the concept of an average? 2. Colorado uses a true growth model. Instead of a “growth-to-proficiency” model or some other contrivance, Colorado uses a bona fide growth model to gauge the progress a school is making with students. Specifically, it uses a “student growth percentile” model, which compares the progress of each student at a school to the progress of similar students at other schools and then assigns the student a “percentile rank” between zero and 99 based on how his or her progress stacks up. The advantage of this approach is that it is grounded in reality rather than the fantasies of policymakers or reformers. Instead of trying to specify the amount of progress students should make based on some utopian ideal, it rewards or sanctions schools for making more (or less) progress than one might expect under the circumstances. If you doubt the wisdom of this approach, just ask yourself this: Which is the better measure of a running back’s contribution—touchdowns or yards per carry? Would you cut Barry Sanders because he wasn’t scoring on every play? Or would you try to get the ball in his hands more often? 3. Colorado assigns more weight to growth than achievement. According to its draft plan, Colorado hasn’t finalized its weighting system yet. But the draft does cite the state’s weights from 2016:
In 2016, for elementary and middle schools 40 percent of points came from Academic Achievement measures and 60 percent from Academic Growth measures, while for high school the weighting was 30 percent Academic Achievement, 40 percent Academic Growth, and 30 percent Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness. Once the Colorado State Board of Education decides on the relative weights between indicators, CDE will update the state plan with this information.I’m making a bit of a leap here, but to me this passage suggests that Colorado will continue favoring growth over achievement ( unlike most states). Hopefully that’s the case, because right now Colorado is one of the few states with a school rating system that isn’t the accountability equivalent of the old-school T formation. For some reason, even though we’ve known for decades that different schools face different challenges, only a few states have embraced this insight by creating systems that judge schools based on things they control. No wonder we haven’t seen as much progress as we’d like. 4. Colorado protects the football I was tempted to put this first. However, for the sake of D.C.’s long-suffering football fans, I decided to bury it below the fold. Obviously, ESSA gives states an opportunity to experiment with new measures, which is great. But without a little practice, there are lots of ways for this to turn into a fumble. And the fact so many states are still assigning the same weight to (dumb) proficiency rates and the outputs of (smart) growth models doesn’t inspire much confidence in their ability to innovate. From the text of Colorado’s plan, it’s clear that the state takes a hardheaded approach to ensuring the validity and reliability of new measures, such as chronic absenteeism, which is reassuring under the circumstances. Pretty much everyone wants to get beyond test scores. But that’s easier said than done, so it’s best to take it slow and “protect the football.” Let’s start by fixing what’s obviously broken, and then move on to the hard stuff.
***
Unless you still believe in holding schools accountable for things they can’t control—and in those bold timelines politicians and bureaucrats are so fond of concocting—a school rating system like Colorado’s should suit you. After all, if you believe in top-down accountability, it will point you toward those schools that are truly failing their students. And if you believe in bottom-up accountability, it will point parents toward those schools where kids are making the most progress. Either way, there’s nothing wrong with keeping things simple and focusing on the basics. Ask the pros: They’ll tell you that’s how most championships are won.David Griffith is a research and policy associate at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he helps manage a variety of projects in Fordham’s research pipeline. A native of Portland, Oregon, David holds a bachelor’s degree in politics and philosophy from Pomona College and a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University. Prior to joining Fordham, he worked as a staffer for Congressman Earl Blumenauer, a research assistant at Data Quality Campaign and Education Sector, and a high school social studies teacher in Washington, DC. In his spare time, David enjoys playing soccer and embarking on culinary adventures with his wife, Lindsey.
The fight for educational equity has never been just about schools. The real North Star for this work is providing opportunities for each child to thrive into adulthood. This means that our advocacy...
Your donation will support the work we do at brightbeam to shine a light on the voices who challenge decision makers to provide the learning opportunities all children need to thrive.
Ed Post is the flagship website platform of brightbeam, a 501(c3) network of education activists and influencers demanding a better education and a brighter future for every child.
© 2020–2024 brightbeam. All rights reserved.