Academic Growth: Recommendations for the Senate HELP Committee
Center for Assessment Responds to Request for Information (RFI) on Measuring Students’ Academic Success
The Center for Assessment responded today to a request for information (RFI) from the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee on school-level academic growth indicators that can inform parents and policymakers.
In the RFI, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the HELP committee, said that the U.S. education system “celebrates schools with high average test scores more than those that grow their students’ achievement.” He noted that states that have begun tracking the academic progress of individual students and using that information to measure the student growth at each school, and that “there is much to be learned” about that work, including “how federal laws and regulations get in the way and how the federal government can support state efforts.”
In its response, the Center said that when developed and used appropriately, growth measures provide essential information to support student learning and to monitor academic progress at the aggregate level, including schools, districts, and student groups. Other key points from the Center’s response include:
- There is no one-size-fits-all growth model. States should select growth approaches based on clearly articulated purposes and priorities.
- Fairness in accountability requires balancing multiple values. Policymakers must carefully consider tradeoffs between fairness to students and fairness to schools. It’s important to recognize this tension and build a system that is faithful to both.
- High-quality assessments and data systems are foundational. Growth measures are only as strong as the tests and longitudinal data systems on which they rely. Continued federal support for high-quality assessments and state longitudinal data systems is critical.
- Communication is key. Growth information is often misunderstood or misused. Clearer reporting, better visuals, and modern communication tools are needed to support appropriate interpretation by families, educators, and policymakers.
- Exercise caution when using growth measures in early grades. Compared with assessments in the upper grades, there is less certainty about the quality and interpretability of the information these measures provide.
- Federal policy can support advancements. Measuring growth in high school could benefit from greater flexibility, as many states lack coherent assessment systems. Moreover, supporting collaboration and innovative accountability pilots could help states develop more effective practices.
The Center: The leader in growth models
The Center has led the development and implementation of student growth models in collaboration with states and other partners. More than 20 years ago, the Center’s co-founder, Dr. Richard Hill, developed the approach known as value tables, which remains in prominent use today. Later, Dr. Damian Betebenner developed the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) model, which is the most widely used growth model in the United States.
Consistent with the Center’s principles, the ideas behind value tables and SGPs are open-source and freely available. At the same time, the Center does not advocate using any one student growth model. Rather, we work with our state clients to design and implement a range of approaches aligned to the state’s context and priorities. Our interest is in making sure measures of academic growth are technically defensible and useful for their intended purposes.
“We appreciate the HELP committee’s focus on academic growth,” said Chris Domaleski, the Center’s executive director. “In our work with states and school districts, we’ve seen the power of growth models in supporting students’ academic progress and parents’ and policymakers’ insight into their schools.”
Read the Center’s full response to the HELP Committee’s RFI here.