The Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago paper has a thoughtful, readable piece on what NCLB 2.0 might mean for Illinoisians.  The article also includes a quote about growth models that exceeds, in its hyperbole, any NCLB rhetoric I've seen so far:

Ed DeYoung, Elgin Area School District U-46's test score guru, is confident the nation will move to a system that looks at student growth rather than insisting all kids jump over the same bar.

"The alternative," DeYoung cautions, "is to self-destruct as a nation [emphasis added]."

In addition to this word-bomb, the piece hits on many of the big issues for reauthorization:  local assessments, multiple indicators, getting testing under control, uniform N sizes, and distinguishing between schools that miss AYP by an inch and those that are truly struggling.

Meanwhile, Steve Sawchuk of Education Daily ($) takes a more analytical approach to growth models and finds they have little impact and vary from state to state.  Looking at five states with growth models approved for a U.S. Department of Education pilot program, Ed Daily found that three -- in Florida, Iowa, and Arkansas -- increased the number of schools passing AYP by about 10 percent.  In two others, Tennessee and Alaska, growth models had little effect. 

Left unanswered -- and this is the $64 question:  Do real-world growth models do a better job of isolating the school effect? 

(Also left unanswered is whether Canada will be left unscathed if growth models are left out of NCLB 2.0 and the U.S. self-destructs. For an answer to that question, keep your eyes on the only news outlet that dares to explore such possibilities.)