Report on Growth Models Highlights the Difficulties States Have Including Alternative Assessment Scores

Recently, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education’s (NASDSE) Project Forum released Growth Models and Students with Disabilities: Report of State Interview. Currently 15 states employ a type of growth model in their accountability assessments (North Carolina, Tennessee, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas). This policy analysis is a report of interviews with state personnel in those 15 states about the inclusion of students with disabilities in their approved growth model pilots.

Among the findings:
1.    The level of staff involvement in the development of growth models differs across states, but nearly all included the state’s administrators and the state special education director
2.    Only Delaware and Missouri currently include students who take an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) in their AYP growth calculations. Although other states partially include AA-AAS students in their AYP growth calculations or are considering ways to do so in the future.
3.    Training on growth models for states vary and may include PowerPoint presentations, interactive videos , web applications, regional conferences, sessions, and regional workshops
4.    Reporting growth model results to parents varies across all fifteen states, but some state reports may not include information about the results of growth model calculations.
5.    The level of improvement in state AYP scores for those states using growth models varies—some states reported increases, others saw very little change.

The report concludes by discussing some challenges states have faced in implementing and using growth models for students with disabilities. These include trying to place students with very severe disabilities on a trajectory towards proficiency, and the frequent changes in these assessments since they were initiated. The report also indicated the challenges for high achieving districts because growth models don’t show progress for students who are already proficient or those who have previously achieved an advanced level.

CEC is pleased models are addressing students with disabilities and gifts and talents and has called on the U.S. Department of Education and Congress to fund more pilot projects to address how growth models can effectively assess students with disabilities and gifts and talents. Growth models are certain to play a role in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and CEC is advocating for a strong research base before any mandated use.

Comments

[Dr. Cassandra Allen Holifield]

It's good to hear that CEC is on top of this paradigm shift towards moving to the Growth Model for determining AYP as it relates to students with disabilities. I think the shift "could" be a positive one "IF" the appropriate assessments are used to determine progress and if realistic percentages are used to determine "Growth" or not. For the most part I see this working similarly to how progress is reported in the RTI model and annual goals and short term objectives are measured in an IEP.

[wood pellet fuel]

the appropriate assessments are used to determine progress and if realistic percentages are used to determine "Growth" or not. For the most part I see this working similarly to how progress is reported in the RTI model