Status Models

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. To make AYP, schools 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 (which can be  chosen by each individual state for elementary and middle schools  but must be the state-defined graduation rate in high schools). Using these initial percentages, states then set  annual proficiency targets that increase up to 100 percent by 2014. Nearly All States Were Using or Considering Growth Models to Supplement Other Measures of Academic Performance

Nearly all states were using or considering growth models to track  performance, as of March 2006. Half of the States Were Using Growth Models, and Most Remaining States Were Considering Them

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, in our survey as of March 2006 (see figure  5). Additionally, nearly all states are considering the use of growth models:    20 of 26 states that used one growth model were also considering or  in the process of implementing another growth model, and    22 of 25 states that did not use growth models were considering or  in the process of implementing them to provide more detailed  information about school, group, or student performance. These targets were based on  combined test scores for reading/language arts, mathematics, and other  subjects. While states developed growth  models for purposes other than NCLBA, states such as Massachusetts and  Tennessee have adjusted their state models to use them to meet NCLBA  goals. Certain Growth Models Measure Progress in Achieving Key NCLBA Goals of Universal Proficiency by 2014 and Closing Achievement Gaps

Like status models, certain growth models can measure progress in  achieving key NCLBA goals of reaching universal proficiency by 2014 and  closing achievement gaps. Tennessee’s proposed model can also measure achievement gaps. While delaying these  interventions may disadvantage students in some Title I schools, reducing  the number of schools identified for improvement could allow for greater  concentration of dollars in the lowest-performing schools. States Face Challenges In Measuring Year-to- Year Growth That Education’s Pilot Program and Data System Grants May Help Address

States face challenges in implementing growth models that Education’s  initiatives may help address. Education Has Two Programs to Help States Develop Growth Models

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. 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. If schools are  allowed to make AYP by getting credit for growth, some lower-performing  schools will make AYP and the opportunity for school improvements the  federal law prescribes to help students may be missed. Education commented that it appreciates our concluding observation that  the department “is poised to gain valuable information on whether or not  growth models are overstating progress or whether they appropriately give  credit to fast-improving schools.” Education expressed concern that the  definition of growth models used in the report may confuse readers  because it is very broad and includes models that compare changes in  scores or proficiency levels of schools or groups of students. While we acknowledge that some research exists to  define growth models as tracking the same students over time, other  research exists to show that there are different ways of classifying models  that states use or could potentially use. As such, the definition used in this  report reflects the variety of approaches states are taking to measure  academic progress. GAO’s assessments  also included reviews of documentation regarding the data systems. No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional  Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School  Choice Provision. GAO-05-7.
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 math 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. To determine the extent that growth models were consistent with NCLBA's goals, GAO assessed (1) the extent that states have used growth models to measure academic achievement, (2) the extent that growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA goals, and (3) the challenges states may face in using growth models to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements and how the Department of Education (Education) is assisting the states. To obtain this information, we conducted a national survey and site visits to 4 states. While growth models are typically defined as tracking the same students over time, GAO used a definition that also included tracking schools and groups of students. In comments, 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

Twenty-six states were using growth models, and another 22 were considering or in the process of implementing growth models, as of March 2006. States were using or considering growth models in addition to status models to measure academic performance and for other purposes. Seventeen states were using growth models prior to NCLBA. 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 can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA goals. If states were allowed to use these models to determine AYP, they might reduce the number of lower-performing schools identified for improvement while allowing states to concentrate federal dollars in the lowest-performing schools. Massachusetts sets growth targets for schools and their student groups and allows them to make AYP if they meet these targets, even if they do not achieve state-wide goals. Some lower-performing schools may meet early growth targets but not improve quickly enough for all students to be proficient by 2014. If these schools make AYP by showing growth, their students may not benefit from improvement actions provided for in the law. States face challenges measuring academic growth--such as creating data and assessment systems to support growth models--that Education's initiatives may help address. The ability of states to use growth models to make AYP determinations depends on the complexity of the model they choose and the extent that their existing data systems meet requirements of their model. Education initiated data grants to support state efforts to track individual test scores over time. Education also started a pilot project for up to 10 states to use growth models that met the department's specific criteria to determine AYP. Education chose North Carolina and Tennessee out of 20 states that applied. With its pilot project, Education may gain valuable information on whether growth models overstate progress or appropriately credit improving schools.