Loading...
Title : Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center
link : Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center
Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center
Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy CenterShanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency
Tennessee is considering changing its school accountability system such that schools have the choice of having their test-based performance judged by either status (how highly students score) or growth (how much progress students make over the course of the year). In other words, if schools do poorly on one measure, they are judged by the other (apparently, Texas already has a similar system in place).
As we’ve discussed here many times in the past, status measures, such as proficiency rates, are poor measures of school performance, since some students, particularly those living in poverty, enter their schools far behind their more affluent peers. As a result, schools serving larger proportions of poor students will exhibit lower scores and proficiency rates, even if they are very effective in compelling progress from their students. That is why growth models, which focus on individual student gains on over time, are a superior measure of school performance per se.
This so-called “growth versus proficiency” debate has resurfaced several times over the years, and it was particularly prevalent during the time when states were submitting proposals for their accountability systems during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The policy that came out of these discussions was generally promising, as many states moved at least somewhat toward weighting growth model estimates more heavily.
At the same time, however, it is important to mention that the “growth versus proficiency” debate sometimes implies that states must choose between these two types of indicators. This is misleading. And the Tennessee proposal is a very interesting context for discussing this, since they are essentially using these two types of measures interchangeably. The reality, of course, is that both types of measures transmit valuable but different information, and both have a potentially useful role to play in accountability systems.
Remember that the primary purposes of accountability systems are: 1) to compel productive behavioral changes (e.g., motivating schools to improve); and 2) to direct assistance/action where it is needed. Both CONTINUE READING: Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center
thus Article Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center
that is all articles Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/10/shanker-blog-false-choice-of-growth.html
0 Response to "Shanker Blog: The False Choice of Growth Versus Proficiency | National Education Policy Center"
Post a Comment