Javascript Menu by

OAGC - Ohio Association for Gifted Children
Value Added Growth Discussion and Documents

OAGC has long supported value-added assessement as a fairer system of education accountability that would be more appropriate for those students who are already performing above the proficiency bar. Though the computations behind it are complex, the concept of value-added assessment is quite simple: for every year a student attends school he or she should make at least one year's worth of growth. We have long suspected that for high achieving students this is usually not the case. As Ohio moves to incorporate a value-added growth measure into its accountability system in the 2007/2008 school year, it is useful to look at the many aspects of value-added assessment from the original concept conceived by Dr. William Sanders to the pilot growth models submitted to the US Department of Education to modify the current AYP models. Below are a number of links to documents for those of you who are interested in value-added assessment. It is, by no means, an exhaustive look at value added assessment, but it should provide food for thought. This overview contains:

Links to General Information About Value-Added Assessment
Links to information about how the US Department of Education might incorporated growth into the AYP measure included in the NCLB.

In November of 2005, US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, announced a new pilot for states who wished to use a growth measure in the AYP calculation under NCLB (No Child Left Behind). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which includes NCLB is up for reauthorization in 2007.

  • Link to the USDOE May 17, 2006 press release selecting Tennessee and North Carolina as the two growth model projects.
  • USDOE document with links to state applications from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Oregon, and Tennessee. With the exception of Oregon, the proposals are highly disappointing with regard to the growth expectations for students who are beyond proficient levels. Oregon is the only state that requires districts to continue a growth projectory for those students beyond proficiency. A few states, including Ohio, account for students above proficient who appear to be sliding back under the proficiciency bar. Gifted advocates may wish to read these applications -- especially the application from Oregon.
  • USDOE fact sheet on the pilot program. Twenty states submitted applications to be inluded in this pilot. Ohio's application was rejected as expected due to the lack of sufficient number of years of data.
  • Link to the non-partisan commission on NCLB on the Aspen Institute website. This website invites the public to share comments on NCLB. Gifted advocates may wish to share their disappointment aside from the Oregon proposal, high achieving students will not fare any better under the pilot growth systems. The site also has a list of the commissioners and a list of hearing dates and locations. The only scheduled hearing, so far, on the growth mechanism is to be held in Atlanta, Georgia on May 22nd.
Links to information about value-added in Ohio including the OAGC value-added powerpoint presented at the NAGC affiliate conference in Spring, 2006.