March 30, 2007 | Volume 4, Issue 1
A Call for "Growth Models" in the Students with Disabilities Subgroup in No Child Left Behind
As a former Special Education middle school teacher for students with mild to moderate disabilities in rural North Carolina and as a Teach For America corps member, I believe in bridging the achievement gap for students with disabilities while continuing to view individual progress with respect and dignity. I taught students with learning disabilities who were on average five grade levels behind in reading that made three times as much growth as their non-disabled peers on the End-of-Grade Assessment, yet did not meet state standards for achievement. I met with parents with tears in their eyes because their children had never passed the test and questioned how they could go through that pain one more year. I advised our principal at the beginning of the year as to the projected number of students with disabilities who realistically could pass the test. From these experiences, I found that the current method of measuring accountability for the students with disabilities subgroup in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) created an environment for identifying this population as individual failures and was used as the rationale for the school’s failure. I created an innovative system within my school that focused on progress for evaluating accountability called the “Growth Model,” to motivate our students with disabilities toward success, as opposed to declaring them failures.
Policy Analysis
The central mission of NCLB is to narrow the achievement gap between differing groups and to get every student to grade level proficiency by 2014. All students must meet grade level targets in reading, writing and math each year from grades 3–8 and once in high school. NCLB measures accountability through Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) which divides the student population into “subgroups” such as Students with Disabilities.1 If one of the subgroups does not meet the state’s standard, or does not have 95% of the subgroup population tested, then the school or district fails to meet AYP and is labeled “in need of improvement.” After three years of failing to meet AYP, the school incurs punishment ranging from mandatory tutoring, availability for students to transfer schools, and, in some cases, school takeover by the state.2
Across the country, students with disabilities have made progress on state assessments. However, many schools are not making AYP because of the overall academic performance of the Students with Disabilities subgroup measured against a set standard. In 2005, 942 of 1,831 Indiana schools (51%) did not make AYP as required by NCLB; 719 of the 942 schools (76%) reported not making AYP in the Students with Disabilities subgroup (131 schools did not indicate why they did not make AYP).3
A student with disabilities may make individual progress, yet not achieve success according to AYP in the following scenario. A student may begin the 3rd grade at a 1st grade reading level and after a year of working relentlessly, the student tests at the beginning of 3rd grade level. This student made two years of growth, yet failed the state accountability exam. According to current NCLB standards in North Carolina, if less than 76.8% of Students with Disabilities makes two years growth, but does not pass the state proficiency assessment, the entire school does not meet AYP.
Research from the Center of Evaluation & Education Policy and the Indiana Institute on Disability and Community shows that NCLB‘s current AYP accountability standards increases blame placed on the Students with Disabilities subgroups for schools and districts not meeting AYP.4 In addition, disability advocates have expressed concern that AYP data could be used to cast a negative light on students with disabilities, making them the scapegoats for school failure. One superintendent from an Indiana survey of local administrators noted that “focusing accountability solely on (an) individual student’s performance can end up blaming the victim for failure as opposed to recognizing the responsibility and impact of the entire faculty.”5 Furthermore, in 2005, a majority of state education officials indicated that they would like to see the accountability requirements for students with disabilities changed or eliminated.6
Proposed Policy
In order to prevent future blame placed on the Students with Disabilities and promote improvement within the subgroup, the reauthorization of NCLB must include “Growth Models” for the Students with Disabilities subgroup in AYP accountability measures.
Overview: Growth Model for Students with Disabilities in AYP
The current NCLB reauthorization’s proposal for instituting a “Growth Model” should track individual student progress, taking into consideration where a child begins and the progress made at the end of the year. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings states that “Growth Models” will give “schools credit for improvement from year to year.”7 I suggest that the credit for such a “Growth Model” be measured into AYP for the Students with Disabilities subgroup using the following methodology and Data Collection Tool.
Methodology: Tracking Individual Progress through Growth Models
Students with disabilities should be evaluated on the basis of how much the student progresses toward the target achievement level at the designated grade level. In North Carolina, students must achieve at the 62nd percentile by the 8th grade in order to receive a high school diploma. The following growth model uses these figures in determining the necessary progress for students with disabilities between grades 6–8. In order to quantify an individual’s “growth,” schools and districts should use the following methodology for determining if a student has made AYP for NCLB.
- Subtract the student’s previous grade level from the designated grade level at achievement to find the number of years to meet achievement.
- Subtract the student’s previous grade level percentile from the target achievement percentile at the designated grade level to find the target “growth” to meet achievement.
- Divide the target “growth” to meet achievement by the number of years to meet achievement to find the target “growth” for the current grade level.
- Subtract the target “growth” for current grade level from the target achievement percentile at designated grade level to find the target achievement percentile at current grade level.
Figure 1: Figure 1: Proposed “Growth Model” Data Collection Tool
Figure 2: Figure 2: Proposed “Growth Model” Data Collection Tool with Formulas
Case Analysis: Individual Growth Model
Anthony is a student with a mild disability in North Carolina. He is currently a 7th grader who scored at the 42nd percentile during the previous year’s (6th grade) End of Grade Reading Assessment. By the 8th grade (the last year for standardized testing, or the “gateway year”), Anthony must be at the 62nd percentile in order to meet North Carolina reading proficiency standards for AYP. In the next 2 years, he must achieve 20 percentile points (62–42=20) or make 10 percentile points of growth (20/2=10) per year. Therefore, if Anthony makes 10 points of growth during the 7th grade, or the 52nd percentile, then he will be considered proficient by the North Carolina Students with Disabilities Subgroup in AYP.8
Conclusion
As protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Anthony and his peers have documented cognitive disabilities that cause these students to learn at different rates and in different ways. In the current model for measuring accountability for students with disabilities in NCLB, Anthony is considered a “failure,” even if he improves significantly more than his non-disabled peers. In addition, if Anthony’s peers within the students with disabilities subgroup do not have 76.8% of the group at the state’s designated percentage, then the entire school does not meet AYP.9 The school may have met all other standards of AYP for proficiency with NCLB, yet will be penalized as “in need of improvement” with blame placed on the students with disabilities subgroup.
The Reauthorization of NCLB must ensure that the Students with Disabilities subgroup is not a scapegoat by using the proposed “Growth Model” that pushes for high standards of individual growth and, at the same time, provides a constructive environment for assessing AYP across schools and districts. The “Growth Model” ensures that a student makes significant growth over an extended time in order to eventually achieve at the same level as their peers. The proposed “Growth Model” is a means for NCLB to ensure appropriate accountability methods and high standards for all students across the nation.
1 In North Carolina subgroups must be greater than 40 students.
2 U.S. Department of Education. “Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act.” Washington, D.C., 2007.
3 Cole, Cassandra. “Closing the Achievement Gap Services: Part III, What is the Impact of NCLB on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities?” Indiana Institute on Disability and Community and Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Volume 4, Number 11, Fall, 2006 http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N11_Fall_2006_NCLB_dis.pdf
4 Cole, Cassandra. “Closing the Achievement Gap Services: Part III, What is the Impact of NCLB on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities?” Indiana Institute on Disability and Community and Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Volume 4, Number 11, Fall, 2006 http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N11_Fall_2006_NCLB_dis.pdf
5 Center on Education Policy. “Identifying School Districts for Improvement and Corrective Action.” Washington, D.C., 2005
6 Center on Education Policy. “Identifying School Districts for Improvement and Corrective Action.” Washington, D.C., 2005
7 U.S. Department of Education. “Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act.” Washington, D.C., 2007
8 Conrad, Julia. Personal Experience at Warren Country Middle School, 2004–06.
9 Assuming there are more than 40 students with disabilities at the school.