Washington, DC, November 16, 2005 – The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is working to respond to the growing interest in the use of growth models for school accountability. While growth models have been used for decades in academic research and program evaluation, now a wide cross-section of policymakers at local, state, and national levels are inquiring about the potential for growth models to provide an alternative or useful addition to the accountability systems that each state is implementing under the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). To address the growing demand for this information, CCSSO is pleased to distribute a publication titled Policymakers’ Guide to Growth Models for School Accountability: How Do Accountability Models Differ?.
This paper, commissioned by the CCSSO Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative, addresses many questions education leaders may have about the differences between status models and growth models. Both status models and growth models used for school accountability are defined and described. Additionally, a type of status model (the improvement model) and a type of growth model (the value-added model) are discussed in the paper. The paper then goes on to provide more specific information about current research and practices regarding the different models:
- purposes and structures of status and growth models for accountability, with a focus on the school as the unit of analysis
- advantages and disadvantages of the different models in relation to purposes of an accountability system
- challenges in implementation of growth models and value-added models and description of resource requirements
- policy questions that may be addressed prior to state policymakers choosing to use a growth model for education accountability
- considerations in deciding to combine a growth model with a status model, such as the adequate yearly progress (AYP) reporting requirements under NCLB
The paper addresses the potential use of growth models by states for school accountability and the possibility of adding a growth model to existing systems to provide additional information about educational performance of schools and groups of students.
The authors of the paper are Pete Goldschmidt and Kilchan Choi (consultants), UCLA/CRESST; Pat Roschewski, Nebraska Department of Education; William Auty (consultant), EdMeasure; Steve Hebbler, Mississippi Department of Education; and Rolf Blank and Andra Williams, CCSSO.
To access this publication online, please click here.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public.
