The majority of educational reforms should focus on strengthening accountability. Implementing two competing systems to improve accountability is suggested, one based on test score growth and the other on proficiency (Psacharopoulos, 2014). Using the most effective reporting approach for student performance is vital, which raises the question of which of the two is best. The proposed bill to reform the accountability system to base it on test score increase rather than proficiency is recommended for signing by the governor of Michigan.
One advantage of adopting test score growth is that scaling concerns based on modeling the same grade over the years covered by the accountability measure are less likely to arise. The model considers the performance of the same grade over time, accounting for the improvement measure over time (Wang, Walters, & Thum, 2013). Although proficiency goals are set, schools are not monitored based on their current proficiency. By taking into account the baseline performance, the teacher can exert influence over each student’s performance (Ready, 2013). With the disparities in the children’s demographics, as schools are considered, children are assessed based on their ability to progress. As a result, the instructor can tailor their approach to each student’s potential for performance improvement. When the growth model is applied, realistic goals may be created because the teacher knows each student’s potential.
The evaluation is focused on the school’s progress in obtaining the predetermined level of proficiency in the future rather than changes in the percentage of proficient students. The model is helpful since it considers the school’s existing situation and evaluates its growth potential to help it meet the established goals (Ready, 2013). The accountability paradigm is essential for directing discussion on closing the achievement gap.