To make AYP, schools generally must:    show that the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level  or higher meets the state proficiency target for the school as a  whole and for designated student groups,  test 95 percent of all students and those in designated groups, and    meet goals for an additional academic indicator, such as the state’s  graduation rate. States measure AYP using a status model that determines whether or not  schools and students in designated groups meet proficiency targets on  state tests 1 year at a time. From this  point, they set annual proficiency targets that increase up to 100 percent  by 2014. Nearly All States Reported Using or Considering Growth Models to Measure Academic Performance

Twenty-six states reported using growth models in addition to using their  status models to track the performance of schools, designated student  groups, or individual students, as reported in our March 2006 survey. For example, Massachusetts used a model that measures growth for the  school as a whole and for designated student groups. Tennessee reported using a growth model that sets different goals for each  individual student based on the students’ previous test scores. Certain Growth Models Can Measure Progress toward Key NCLBA Goals

Certain growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA  goals of reaching universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement  gaps. Massachusetts designed a model that can measure progress toward the  key goals of NCLBA by setting targets for the improvement of schools and  their student groups that increase over time until all students are  proficient in 2014. In order to make AYP under this proposal, a school could reach the state’s  status model targets by counting as proficient in the current year those  students who are predicted to be proficient in the future. States Face Challenges in Implementing Growth Models

States generally face challenges in collecting and analyzing the data  required to implement growth models including models that would meet  the law’s goals. Education has initiatives that may help states  address these challenges. Using growth models can present risks for states if schools are designated  as making AYP while still needing assistance to progress. In November 2005, Education  announced a pilot project for states to submit proposals for using a growth  model—one that meets criteria established by the department—along with  their status model, to determine AYP. While NCLBA does not specify the  use of growth models for making AYP determinations, the department  started the pilot to evaluate how growth models might help schools meet  NCLBA proficiency goals and close achievement gaps. Through its approval of Massachusetts’ model and the growth model pilot  program, Education is proceeding prudently in its effort to allow states to  use growth models to meet NCLBA requirements. While growth models may be defined as tracking the same students over  time, GAO used a definition that also includes tracking the performance of  schools and groups of students. GAO used this  definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states are taking  to measure academic progress.
Why GAO Did This Study

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) requires that states improve academic performance so that all students reach proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 and that achievement gaps close among student groups. States set annual proficiency targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test scores 1 year at a time. Some states have interest in using growth models that measure changes in test scores over time to determine if schools are meeting proficiency targets. The Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce asked GAO to testify on its recent report on measuring academic growth. Specifically, this testimony discusses (1) how many states are using growth models and for what purposes, (2) how growth models can measure progress toward achieving key NCLBA goals, and (3) what challenges states face in using growth models especially to meet the law's key goals. While growth models may be defined as tracking the same students over time, GAO used a definition that also included tracking the performance of schools and groups of students. In comments on the report, Education said that this definition could be confusing. GAO used this definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states were taking.

What GAO Found

Nearly all states were using or considering growth models for a variety of purposes in addition to their status models as of March 2006. Twenty-six states were using growth models, and another 22 were either considering or in the process of implementing them. Most states using growth models measured progress for schools and for student groups, and 7 also measured growth for individual students. States used growth models to target resources for students that need extra help or award teachers bonuses based on their school's performance. Certain growth models are capable of tracking progress toward the goals of universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement gaps. For example, Massachusetts uses its model to set targets based on the growth that it expects from schools and their student groups. Schools can make adequate yearly progress (AYP) if they reach these targets, even if they fall short of reaching the statewide proficiency targets set with the state's status model. Tennessee designed a model that projects students' test scores and whether they will be proficient in the future. In this model, if 79 percent of a school's students are predicted to be proficient in 3 years, the school would reach the state's 79 percent proficiency target for the current school year (2005-2006). States face challenges measuring academic growth, such as creating data and assessment systems to support growth models and having personnel to analyze and communicate results. The use of growth models to determine AYP may also challenge states to make sure that students in low-performing schools receive needed assistance. U.S. Department of Education (Education) initiatives may help states address these challenges. Education started a pilot project for states to use growth models that meet the department's specific criteria, including models that track progress of individual students, to determine AYP. Education also provided grants to states to track individual test scores over time.