With the advent of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the current policies of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the debate on a standards-based and growth-model-based assessment began and rages on. It is clear that both tactics have pros and cons though having the same goal that students meet or exceed a level of proficiency on state level assessments (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Most teachers, schools, and districts can agree that standards are a good way to set basic goals for students, but how to measure achievement can get messy. Let’s discuss the pros and cons of both a standards-based, or what I will call a proficiency-based model, and the growth-based model at the teacher and district levels.
First, it should be noted that the terminology of standard-based and proficiency-based are being used interchangeably here. Standard-based grading is the process of teachers evaluating specific skills or criteria met by students (Bennett, 2019) in contrast to simply assigning a letter grade. This is the system of using terms like “meets standard,” “exceeds standard,” etc. Proficiency-based models use standards-based grading to report on how well a student has met a specific standard (Bennett, 2019) and therefore inherently encapsulates the concept and term using standards-based grading as a means of measuring proficiency.
Growth based assessment on the other hand, is “‘A collection of definitions, calculations, or rules that summarizes student performance over two or more time points and supports interpretations about students, their classrooms, their educators, or their schools’” (Bennett, 2019, para. 19). A simple example can be used to illustrate the difference between these two models.
Proficiency Target: All students will get a score of at least 75 on the end of unit assessment.
Growth Target: All students will increase their scores by 40 points from pre assessment to post assessment (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015).
Proficiency-based models have many pros and cons at the teacher and district level. For teachers this model asks them to think about the minimum expectation of student performance (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015) knowing that this is the baseline for all students in a class. This is also a helpful concept for districts whose populations may be diverse and widespread as is the case in some large counties. A minimum expectation can be helpful with wide ranges in economics and demographics.
This model also focuses on narrowing achievement gaps with proficiency targets (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). This refers to the disparity in performance between different groups of students in various success measures (Ansell, 2011). These disparities are often between cultural, racial, socio-economic, and gender lines. For teachers and districts the standard nature of targets can lessen disparity between diverse groups of students, in theory.
Finally the proficiency model has three big advantages for teachers in particular, but districts as well. The model is more familiar to teachers, it simplifies scoring for teachers, and it does not require pre assessment or any other baseline data (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). These aspects of the model may save precious time for teachers and districts. Teachers can score assessments quickly and with less complications. With no need for pretesting and baseline data, districts can accept new students easily and teachers can just start where they are without trying to find previous data on students. Teachers can avoid extensive training or professional development, which districts like based on cost and resources.
The model is not without its downfalls however. To start, just measuring proficiency may not meet requirements of states or at the federal level (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Districts and teachers will not be meeting requirements if states or the federal government require evidence of growth in addition to meeting proficiency standards. Both districts and teachers should know what is expected at state and federal levels to avoid noncompliance, which may take up some of the time spared by the simplicity of the model.
More importantly, the model may support the unrealistic expectation that all students will achieve proficiency in an academic year (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Differences in development, previous skills, and starting levels that may be deficient can all have an impact on student proficiency. Not to mention outside conditions for students like trauma, illnesses, and more. This highlights the important points that the model may not accurately show a teacher’s impact on student achievement and that it may gloss over the highest and lowest performing students (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). The all-in-one format of the model can overlook the many factors that teachers take into account when teaching and a focus on the minimum level may leave out the students needing more help or wanting more.
The proficiency model allows teachers and districts to have a arguably accurate account of the status of each student. However, as Colette Bennett (2019) says “Status is not growth…” (para. 15). It is for this reason that many teachers and districts prefer the growth-based model. Of course, this model has its own peaks and pitfalls for both to consider.
Many of the drawbacks associated with this model fall on the teachers and target creators, perhaps even at the district level. The most glaring of which is that creating rigorous and realistic growth targets is particularly challenging (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). If teachers or district level target creators are off, the lowest achieving students may not ever reach proficiency and growth targets may create even more challenges comparing data across teachers or grades (Bennett, 2019).
In addition, poorly constructed pre and post assessments can devalue growth targets (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Although this is the case in any model, if baseline data is not good due to poorly constructed tests the targets may be invalid from the start. Careful thought will be needed from teachers or test creators to ensure the creation of valid student learning targets. In correlation with this, growth target scoring can become much more complex than proficiency-based versions (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). Again, time and care will need to be employed in scoring growth based assessments, spending precious teacher and district capitals of time and effort.
Pitfalls aside, there are some advantages of the growth-based system. Teachers especially are recognized for their efforts with all students and that their impact will look different from student to student (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015). At a district level this recognition could keep teacher retention at higher levels and make the district a more hospitable place.
This model also guides critical discussions on achievement gaps by addressing individual students rather than a class as a whole. This helps teachers to identify the needs of students at the ends of the achievement spectrum, increase growth for higher achieving students, and support lower performing students (Bennett, 2019). This intimate knowledge of every student is nothing but a benefit to teachers. Districts also benefit from attention to individual students as, in theory, student achievement will go up.
There are many aspects of each model that must be considered. Neither is perfect or totally flawed in its essence. It is important to note that there are several states that are using a hybrid model of the two (Lachlan-Haché & Castro, 2015), perhaps the best option. It is important to remember that the ultimate goal is the success of the student and whatever option helps to achieve that goal is the right one.
References
Ansell, S. (2011, July 7). Achievement Gap. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/index.html
Bennett, C. (2019, November 4). Contrasting Growth and Proficiency Models for Student Achievement. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/growth-model-vs-proficiency-model-4126775
Lachlan-Haché, L., Ed. D., & Castro, M., Ed. D. (2015, April). Proficiency or Growth? An Exploration of Two Approaches for Writing Student Learning Targets (Publication). American Institutes of Research. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Exploration-of-Two-Approaches-Student-Learning-Targets-April-2015.pdf
