No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring	 
Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address	 
(17-JUL-06, GAO-06-661).					 
                                                                 
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.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-661 					        
    ACCNO:   A57080						        
  TITLE:     No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges	      
Measuring Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help  
Address 							 
     DATE:   07/17/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Academic achievement				 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Educational testing				 
	     Elementary school students 			 
	     Elementary schools 				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Secondary school students				 
	     Secondary schools					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Pilot programs					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-661

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
          * Status Models
          * Safe Harbor
          * Growth Models
     * Nearly All States Were Using or Considering Growth Models to
          * Half of the States Were Using Growth Models, and Most Remain
          * States Were Using Growth Models for State, Rather than Feder
     * Certain Growth Models Provide Useful Information on the Exte
          * Certain Growth Models Measure Progress in Achieving Key NCLB
          * Giving Credit for Growth May Overlook Some Low-Performing Sc
     * States Face Challenges In Measuring Year-to-Year Growth That
          * Requirements of Growth Models Pose Challenges for Implementa
          * Education Has Two Programs to Help States Develop Growth Mod
     * Concluding Observations
     * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
     * Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO's Survey of States' Use
          * Growth Model Reporting by Grade
          * Level of Reporting Growth Model Results
          * Measure of Achievement in Growth Models
          * Characteristics of Assessments Used in Growth Models
     * Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
     * Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * Related GAO Products
          * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

July 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth That Education's
Initiatives May Help Address

GAO-06-661

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 5
Nearly All States Were Using or Considering Growth Models to Supplement
Other Measures of Academic Performance 12
Certain Growth Models Provide Useful Information on the Extent That
Schools Are Achieving Key NCLBA Goals but May Overlook Some Low-Performing
Schools if Used for AYP 19
States Face Challenges In Measuring Year-to-Year Growth That Education's
Pilot Program and Data System Grants May Help Address 27
Concluding Observations 33
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 35
Appendix II Selected Data from GAO's Survey of States' Use or
Consideration of Growth Models 38
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 45
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47
Related GAO Products 48

Tables

Table 1: Types of Growth Models and States Using Them, as of March 2006 14
Table 2: How a Status Model and Certain Growth Models Measure Progress in
Achieving Key NCLBA Goals 20
Table 3: Criteria for Participating in Education's Growth Model Pilot
Project 30
Table 4: States Submitting a Proposal for Growth Model Pilot or Awarded a
Grant for a Longitudinal Data System 32
Table 5: Grades of Growth Model Reporting, by State 39
Table 6: Level of Growth Model Reporting, by State 40
Table 7: Measure of Achievement in Growth Models 41
Table 8: Characteristics of Assessments Used in Growth Models 43

Figures

Figure 1: Hypothetical Example of Annual Proficiency Targets Set under a
Status Model 7
Figure 2: Hypothetical Example of Closing Achievement Gaps 8
Figure 3: Safe Harbor 9
Figure 4: Results from Two Hypothetical Schools, Shown with a Status Model
and a Growth Model 11
Figure 5: Map of States That Reported Using or Considering Growth Models,
as of March 2006 13
Figure 6: Illustration of School-Level Growth 15
Figure 7: Example of Measurement of Above Average Growth for a
Fourth-Grade Student under Tennessee's Model 16
Figure 8: States' Introduction of Growth Models 17
Figure 9: Targets for a Selected School in Massachusetts Compared to State
Status Model Targets 21
Figure 10: Results for a Selected School in Massachusetts in Mathematics
22
Figure 11: Results for Selected Students in Mathematics from a School in
Tennessee 24

Abbreviations

AYP adequate yearly progress

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 17, 2006 July 17, 2006

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon Chairman The Honorable Howard P.
"Buck" McKeon Chairman

The Honorable George Miller Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education
and the Workforce House of Representatives The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives

The Honorable Michael N. Castle Chairman Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce House of Representatives The
Honorable Michael N. Castle Chairman Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce House of Representatives

The Honorable John A. Boehner House of Representatives The Honorable John
A. Boehner House of Representatives

The Honorable Sam Graves House of Representatives The Honorable Sam Graves
House of Representatives

The nation's economic prosperity and global competitiveness depend in
large part on the effective education of the 48 million students who
attend public schools. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLBA) requiring states to steadily improve academic performance so
that, at a minimum, all students are proficient, that is, able to read and
do math at grade level. Among the law's principal goals are that all
students are proficient by 2014 and achievement gaps close between high-
and low-performing students, especially those in designated groups such as
economically disadvantaged students. The nation's economic prosperity and
global competitiveness depend in large part on the effective education of
the 48 million students who attend public schools. Congress passed the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) requiring states to steadily improve
academic performance so that, at a minimum, all students are proficient,
that is, able to read and do math at grade level. Among the law's
principal goals are that all students are proficient by 2014 and
achievement gaps close between high- and low-performing students,
especially those in designated groups such as economically disadvantaged
students.

With these two key goals in mind, states were required to set challenging
standards for both academic content and achievement and to determine
whether schools made adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting those
standards. For a school to make AYP, it must meet or exceed the state's
annual proficiency targets and meet or demonstrate progress on a target on
another measure-graduation rates in high school or attendance or other
measures in elementary and middle schools. If schools do not meet these
requirements, their students may be eligible to receive tutoring or
transfer to another school. With these two key goals in mind, states were
required to set challenging standards for both academic content and
achievement and to determine whether schools made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) toward meeting those standards. For a school to make AYP, it must
meet or exceed the state's annual proficiency targets and meet or
demonstrate progress on a target on another measure-graduation rates in
high school or attendance or other measures in elementary and middle
schools. If schools do not meet these requirements, their students may be
eligible to receive tutoring or transfer to another school.

States set proficiency targets using status models that calculate the
percentage of students with test scores that meet or exceed these targets
1 year at a time. With status models, states or districts determine
whether schools make AYP based on annual performance while generally not
taking into account how much better or worse the school did as compared to
the previous year. Thus, a school that is showing large increases in
student achievement but has too few students at the proficient level would
not likely make AYP. Further, status models do not account for the fact
that student characteristics in a school may change from one year to the
next and these changes can affect whether a school makes AYP.

Because of the limitations of status models, some states have expressed
interest in determining AYP by using growth models that measure
year-to-year progress in proficiency. "Growth models" is a term that
refers to a variety of methods of tracking changes in proficiency levels
or test scores over time. One type of model, known as an improvement
model, measures year-to-year school growth, but does not account for the
fact that different students constitute a school from one year to the
next. Because of this, some researchers do not consider it to be a growth
model. In this report, we included improvement models as a type of growth
model in order to provide a broad assessment of options that may be
available for states. Growth models vary in complexity, such as
calculating annual progress in a school's average test scores from year to
year, estimating test score progress while accounting for factors such as
student background, or projecting future scores based on current and prior
years' results. In 2005, the Department of Education (Education) started a
pilot project to allow up to 10 states to use growth models to determine
whether schools make AYP for the 2005-2006 school year. The pilot project
requires that state growth models meet certain criteria, such as measuring
progress toward universal proficiency by 2014.

In response to congressional interest in how growth models may be used to
meet the law's key goals and in anticipation of reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, we assessed (1) the extent
that states have used growth models to measure academic achievement, (2)
the extent that growth models can measure school progress in achieving key
NCLBA goals, and (3) challenges states may face in using growth models to
meet AYP requirements and how Education is assisting the states.

To address these objectives, we conducted a survey of all states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to determine whether they were using
growth models as of March 2006. We received responses from all except
Puerto Rico, and in this report we will refer to the 51 respondents as
states. We visited or conducted telephone interviews with state and local
educational agency officials in 8 states that collectively use a variety
of growth models to understand their use. We selected these states and
schools based on expert recommendations and on variation in the types of
models they used. To examine the extent that these models measure progress
toward key goals of universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement
gaps, we analyzed student-level data from selected schools in
Massachusetts and Tennessee, states selected because of data availability.
In both cases, GAO conducted an assessment of the reliability of these
data and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for illustrating how
growth models measure progress toward key goals of NCLBA. We conducted
site visits to those states and selected school districts and schools to
learn how their results were calculated. We also conducted site visits in
California and North Carolina, two states with different types of growth
models, to provide additional perspectives. To identify challenges to
using growth models and Education's assistance to states, we interviewed
Education officials, state education officials, and other experts,
including members of Education's growth model working group. We also
reviewed relevant federal and state laws, policies, and guidance as well
as research on growth models. For more information on our methodological
model, see appendix I. We conducted our work between June 2005 and May
2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                Results in Brief

In addition to using their status models to determine AYP, nearly all
states were using or considering growth models for a variety of other
purposes, as of March 2006. Twenty-six states were using growth models,
and another 22 were either considering or in the process of doing so. Most
states that used growth models did so for schools as a whole and for
particular groups of students, and 7 also measured growth for individual
students. For example, Massachusetts measures changes in schools' and
groups' average test scores but not in individual students' scores, while
Tennessee sets different expectations for growth for each student based on
the student's previous test scores. Seventeen of the states that used
growth models had been doing so prior to passage of the NCLBA, while 9
began after the law's passage. States used their growth models for a
variety of purposes, such as targeting resources for students that need
extra help or awarding teachers bonus money based on their school's
relative performance.

Certain growth models may also measure progress toward achieving key NCLBA
goals. While growth models may allow states to recognize school progress
by tracking student gains over time, if states were allowed to use growth
models to determine AYP, they might reduce the number of lower-performing
schools eligible for federally required assistance while allowing federal
dollars to be concentrated in other lower-performing schools that do not
make AYP. We found that certain growth models, like status 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 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.
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. It may be advantageous for schools if their
states use growth models to determine AYP, since doing so could recognize
improvements schools are making. According to some district officials,
growth models could help their schools not be identified for improvement,
enabling them to use their own interventions instead of being required to
implement school transfer programs or work with state-approved
supplemental educational service providers. However, if states allow
schools to make AYP by using growth models, they may overlook some
lower-performing schools. For example, one school in Massachusetts that
served a high-minority, low-income population missed the state
English/Language Arts status model proficiency targets overall and for
each of its student groups. One group, students with disabilities, scored
44.3 points even though the proficiency target was 75.6. Yet the school
was able to make AYP because the school and all of its groups met or
exceeded their academic growth targets, including the group of students
with disabilities which improved by 6.3 points. These schools would need
to increase student proficiency at a faster rate than schools making AYP
under a status model.

States face technical challenges such as creating data and assessment
systems to support growth models, and Education has taken steps to help
states. The ability of states to use growth models to determine AYP
depends on the complexity of the model they choose and the degree to which
their existing data systems can be used to meet additional demands the
model may require. Complex growth models may require states to uniquely
identify all students and may call for data on student background, teacher
assignments, and courses. Moreover, states that use growth models for the
first time need at least 2 years of data before they could attain usable
results. Ensuring that these models are valid and reliable also presents a
unique set of challenges, as does hiring technical experts to implement
them and training local administrators and teachers to interpret and
present results. In 2005, Education started a pilot project to allow up to
10 states to use growth models that met the department's criteria along
with their status models, to determine whether schools make AYP. In May
2006, Education approved 2 states-North Carolina and Tennessee-to
participate in the pilot and to make AYP determinations for the 2005-2006
school year based on their proposed growth models. Education will also
consider proposals from other states for the 2006-2007 school year.
Recognizing that NCLBA requires increasingly detailed data and analyses,
Education also has initiated a separate grant program to help states
develop data systems that can measure, track, and analyze student test
scores from grade to grade and year to year.

By proceeding with a pilot project with clear goals and criteria and by
requiring states to compare results from their growth model with status
model results, Education 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. In comments on a
draft of this report, Education expressed concern that the use of a
broader definition of growth models would be confusing. GAO used this
definition in order to reflect the variety of approaches states have been
taking to measure growth in academic performance.

                                   Background

The No Child Left Behind Act of 20011 increased the federal government's
role in kindergarten-12th grade education by setting two key goals:

           o  to reach universal proficiency so that all students score at
           the proficient level of achievement-as defined by the states-by
           2014, and
           o  to close achievement gaps between high- and low-performing
           students, especially those in designated groups: students who are
           economically disadvantaged, are members of major racial or ethnic
           groups, have learning disabilities, or have limited English
           proficiency.

1 Pub. L. No. 107-110 (Jan. 8, 2002).

With these two key goals in mind, NCLBA requires states to set challenging
academic content and achievement standards in reading or language arts and
mathematics2 to determine whether school districts and schools make AYP
toward meeting these standards.3

Education has responsibility for general oversight of the NCLBA. As part
of this oversight, Education is responsible for reviewing and approving
state plans for meeting AYP requirements. As we have reported, it approved
all states' plans-fully or conditionally-by June 2003.4 It also reviews
state systems of standards and assessments to ensure they are aligned with
the law's requirements. As of April 2006, Education had approved these
systems for Delaware, South Carolina, and Tennessee and was in the process
of reviewing them in other states.

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

           o  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,
           o  test 95 percent of all students and those in designated groups,
           and
           o  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).

States generally used data from the 2001-2002 school year to set the
initial percentage of students that needed to be proficient for a school
to make AYP, known as a starting point, as prescribed in the NCLBA and
Education's guidance. Using these initial percentages, states then set
annual proficiency targets that increase up to 100 percent by 2014. For
example, for schools in a state with a starting point of 28 percent to
achieve 100 percent by 2014, the percentage of students who scored at or
above proficient on the state test would have to increase by 6 percentage
points each year, as shown in figure 1.5 Setting targets for increasing
proficiency through 2014 does not ensure that schools will raise student
performance to these levels. Instead, the targets provide a goal, and
schools that do not reach the goal will generally not make AYP.

2 The law also requires content standards to be developed for science
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year and science tests to be implemented
in the 2007-2008 school year.

3 States determine whether schools and school districts make AYP or not.
For this report, we will discuss AYP determinations in the context of
schools.

4 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's
Process for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions, GAO-04-734
, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004).

Figure 1: Hypothetical Example of Annual Proficiency Targets Set under a
Status Model

School districts with schools receiving federal funds under Title I Part A
that do not make AYP for 2 or more years in a row must take action to
assist students, such as offering students the opportunity to transfer to
other schools or providing additional educational services like tutoring.
School districts with schools that meet these criteria must set aside an
amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I funds to provide these
services and spend up to that amount depending on how much demand exists
for these services to be provided. These schools, in consultation with
their districts, are also required to implement a plan to improve their
students' achievement.

5 States were able to map out different paths to universal proficiency, so
long as there were increases at least once every 3 years and those
increases led to 100 percent proficiency by 2014. See GAO-04-734 , pages
16-18.

The law indicates that states are expected to close achievement gaps, but
does not specify annual targets to measure progress toward doing so.
States thus have flexibility in the rate at which they close these gaps.
To determine the extent that achievement gaps are closing, states measure
the difference in the percentage of students in designated student groups
and their peers that reach proficiency. Using a hypothetical example,
figure 2 shows how closing achievement gaps between economically
disadvantaged students and their peers would be reported.

Figure 2: Hypothetical Example of Closing Achievement Gaps

In this example, 40 percent of the school's non-economically disadvantaged
students were proficient compared with only 16 percent of disadvantaged
students in 2002, a gap of 24 percentage points. To close the gap, the
percentage of students in the economically disadvantaged group that
reaches proficiency would have to increase at a faster rate than that of
their peers. By 2014, the gap is eliminated, with both groups at 100
percent proficient.

Safe Harbor

If a school misses its status model target, the law also provides a way
for it to make AYP if it significantly increases the proficiency rates of
student groups that do not meet the proficiency target. The law includes a
provision, known as safe harbor, which allows a school to make AYP by
reducing the percentage of students in designated student groups that were
not proficient by 10 percent, so long as it also shows progress on another
academic indicator. Safe harbor measures academic performance similar to
certain growth models, according to one education researcher. For example,
in a state with a status model target of 40 percent proficient, a school
could make AYP under safe harbor if 63 percent of a student group were not
proficient compared to 70 percent in the previous year. See figure 3.

Figure 3: Safe Harbor

Growth Models

In contrast to status models that measure the percentage of students at or
above proficiency in a school 1 year at a time, growth models measure
change in achievement or proficiency over time. Some of these models show
changes in achievement for schools and student groups using students'
average scores. Other models provide more detailed information on how
individual students progress over time. Growth models can enable school
officials to monitor the year-to-year changes in performance of students
across many levels of achievement, including those who may be well below
or well above proficiency. They may also be used to predict test scores in
future years based on current and prior performance.

While definitions of growth models vary, for this report, GAO defines a
growth model as a model that measures changes in proficiency levels or
test scores of a student, group, grade, school, or district for 2 or more
years. Some definitions restrict the use of the term "growth models" to
refer only to those models that measure changes for the same students over
time.6 GAO included models in this report that track different groups of
students in order to provide a broad assessment of options that may be
available to states. Growth models can be designed to measure successive
groups of students (for example, students in the third grade class in 2006
with students in the third grade class in 2005) or track a cohort of
students over time (for example, students in the fourth grade in 2006 with
the same students in the third grade in 2005).7

School-level growth models track changes in the percentage of students
that reach proficiency or their achievement scores over time. For example,
the charts in figure 4 show how two hypothetical schools measure their
proficiency with a status model and with a measure of progress over time.

6 Council of Chief State School Officers, Policymakers' Guide to Growth
Models for School Accountability: How Do Accountability Models Differ?
Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2005.

7 Robert L. Linn "Accountability Models," in Susan H. Fuhrman and Richard
F. Elmore, eds. Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education, pp.
73-95. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.

Figure 4: Results from Two Hypothetical Schools, Shown with a Status Model
and a Growth Model

In the case of Washington Middle School, a growth model shows a decline in
performance, while a status model indicates that the school exceeded the
state proficiency target of 40 percent. This school was able to make AYP
even though its proficiency rate decreased. In contrast, the use of a
growth model with Adams Elementary School shows that the school improved
its performance, but its status model results indicate that the school did
not meet the 40 percent proficiency target. That school did not make AYP,
even though its proficiency rate increased. Thus, the type of model used
could lead to different perspectives on how schools are performing.

Individual-level growth models track changes in proficiency or achievement
for individual students over time. For example, individual student growth
can be measured by comparing the difference between a student's test
scores in 2 consecutive years. A student may score 300 on a test in one
year and 325 on the test in the next year, resulting in an increase of 25
points.8 These scores could then be averaged to measure school-level
results as in the previous example. Individual student growth can also be
measured over more than 2 years to identify longer-terms trends in
performance. Additionally, growth can be projected into the future to
predict when a student may reach proficiency, and that information may be
used to target interventions to students who would otherwise continue to
perform below standard.

 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. Although NCLBA requires states to use
status models to determine whether schools make AYP, the 26 states with
growth models reported using them for state purposes such as identifying
schools in need of extra assistance. Seventeen of these states had growth
models in place prior to NCLBA.

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:

           o  20 of 26 states that used one growth model were also
           considering or in the process of implementing another growth
           model, and
           o  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.

8 Since students are expected to know more over time, such growth may or
may not be what is expected of students.

Figure 5: Map of States That Reported Using or Considering Growth Models,
as of March 2006

Of the 26 states using growth models, 19 states reported measuring changes
for schools and student groups, while 7 states reported measuring changes
for schools, student groups, and individuals, as seen in table 1.

Table 1: Types of Growth Models and States Using Them, as of March 2006

                                           Measures growth of schools,        
Measures growth of schools and groups   groups,and individual students     
Compares the change in scores or        Compares the change in scores or   
proficiency levels of schools or groups proficiency levels of schools,     
of students over time.                  groups of students, and individual 
                                           students over time.                
Data requirements, such as measuring                                       
proficiency rates for schools or        Data requirements, such as         
groups, are similar to those for status tracking the proficiency levels or 
models.                                 test scores for individual         
                                           students, are typically more       
                                           involved than those for status     
                                           models.                            
Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Mississippi North Carolina 
Delaware Indiana Kentucky Louisiana     South Carolina Tennessee Texas     
Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota        Utah                               
Missouri New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon  
Pennsylvania Vermont Washington         

Source: GAO survey.

For example, Massachusetts' model measures growth for the school as a
whole and for designated student groups. The state awards points to
schools in 25-point increments for each student,9 depending on how
students scored on the state test. Schools earn 100 points for each
student who reaches proficiency, but fewer points for students below
proficiency. The state averages the sum of those points to award a final
score to schools. Growth in Massachusetts is calculated by taking the
difference in the average points that a school earns between 2 years, as
illustrated in figure 6. Because growth in Massachusetts is based on the
number of students in schools and groups scoring at various levels of
proficiency, the data needed to calculate growth are similar to those used
for calculating status model results.

9 Students with disabilities are generally included in these calculations.
The state is allowed to give different tests to students with significant
cognitive impairments and to count them differently for calculating points
awarded to schools.

Figure 6: Illustration of School-Level Growth

Other models measure growth and set goals for each individual student as
well as for student groups and the school as a whole. For example,
Tennessee reported using a growth model for state accountability purposes.
Its model, known as a value-added model, sets different goals for each
student based on the students' previous test scores. The goal is the score
that a student would be statistically expected to receive, and any
difference between a student's expected and actual score is considered
that student's amount of yearly growth,10 as shown in figure 7.

10 Tennessee's growth model described here is not used to make AYP
determinations under NCLBA. However, Tennessee is planning to use another
growth model to make AYP determinations for the 2005-2006 school year.

Figure 7: Example of Measurement of Above Average Growth for a
Fourth-Grade Student under Tennessee's Model

Tennessee's model, known as the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System,
determines growth for designated student groups and for the school as a
whole by using information on the relationships between all students' test
scores to estimate future scores for students and schools based on past
performance over time. The model can therefore determine whether schools
are below, at, or above their level of expected performance. The model
also estimates the unique contribution that the teacher and school make to
each student's growth in test scores over time.11 The state then uses that
amount of growth, the unique contribution of the school, and other
information to grade schools with an A, B, C, D, or F, which is considered
a reflection of the extent to which the school is meeting its requirements
for student learning.

Another approach that measures individual student growth is Florida's
approach that calculates, according to a state official, "student learning
gains." Unlike Tennessee's model, which estimates future scores of
individual students, Florida's model measures individual growth from one
year to the next by comparing the student's present performance with
performance in prior years. For example, a school can get credit for
student growth if a student moved from a lower level of proficiency to a
higher one or if a student's test scores increased substantially-more than
1 year's worth of growth-even if the student did not move into a higher
proficiency level.

11 The state calculates the unique contribution of schools and teachers by
using a multivariate, longitudinal statistical method where results are
estimated using data specific for students within each classroom or
school.

Models that calculate results for individual students require more data
than are typically used for calculating status model results. In
particular, states must use a data system that is capable of tracking the
performance of individual students over time.

States Were Using Growth Models for State, Rather than Federal, Purposes

Seventeen of the 26 states using growth models reported that their models
were in place before the passage of the NCLBA during the 2001-2002 school
year, and the remaining 9 states implemented them after the law was
passed, as shown in figure 8.

Figure 8: States' Introduction of Growth Models

Once NCLBA was enacted, states were required to develop plans to show how
they would meet federal requirements for accountability as measured by
whether their schools made AYP. Education approved these plans, but
generally did not permit states to include growth models. According to
Education officials, since NCLBA requires that states make AYP
determinations on the basis of the percentage of students who are
proficient at one point in time-rather than the increase or decrease in
that percentage over time-growth models were considered inconsistent with
the goals of the act. For example, California began using its model,
called the Academic Performance Index, in the 1999-2000 school year to set
yearly growth targets for schools. These targets were based on combined
test scores for reading/language arts, mathematics, and other subjects.
However, according to officials at the California Department of Education,
California's model, developed prior to NCLBA, was not designed to
explicitly achieve the law's key goals of universal proficiency by 2014 or
closing achievement gaps. Further, a California Department of Education
official explained that because the model did not report scores from
reading, math, and other subjects separately, California was not approved
to make AYP determinations using its model.12 In contrast, Massachusetts'
growth model was in place prior to NCLBA passage and then was adapted to
align explicitly with the law's key goals. Education approved
Massachusetts' AYP plan, allowing the state to use both its status model
and growth model to determine AYP.

Instead of using growth models to make AYP determinations, states used
them for other purposes, such as rewarding effective teachers and
designing intervention plans for struggling schools. For example, North
Carolina used its model as a basis to decide whether teachers receive
bonus money. Tennessee used its value-added model to provide information
about which teachers are most effective with which student groups. In
addition to predicting students' expected scores on state tests,
Tennessee's model was used to predict scores on college admissions tests,
which is helpful for students who want to pursue higher education. In
addition, California used its model to identify schools eligible for a
voluntary improvement program.

The type of growth model used has implications for how results may be
applied. California's model provides information about the performance of
its schools, enabling the state to distinguish higher-performing from
lower-performing schools. However, the model does not provide information
about individual teachers or students. In contrast, Tennessee's model does
provide information about specific teachers and students, allowing the
state to make inferences about how effective its teachers are. While
California may use its results for interventions in schools, Tennessee may
use its results to target interventions to individual students.

12 The state uses its growth model as the additional indicator specified
in NCLBA.

Certain Growth Models Provide Useful Information on the Extent That Schools Are
 Achieving Key NCLBA Goals but May Overlook Some Low-Performing Schools if Used
                                    for AYP

Certain growth models measure the extent that schools and students are
achieving key NCLBA goals. While the use of growth models may allow states
to recognize gains schools are making toward the law's goals, it may also
put students in some lower-performing schools at risk for not receiving
additional federal assistance. 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. The
Massachusetts model has been used to make AYP determinations as part of
the state's accountability plan in place since 2003. This model is
approved by Education in part because it complies with the key goal of
universal proficiency by 2014. Tennessee submitted a new model to
Education for the growth model pilot project that differs from the
value-added model we describe earlier. The value-added model, developed
several years prior to NCLBA, gives schools credit for students who
exceeded their growth expectations. The new model gives schools credit for
students projected to reach proficiency within 3 years in order to comply
with the key NCLBA goal of showing that students are on track to reach
proficiency by 2014.

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. Our analysis of how models in Massachusetts and
Tennessee can track progress toward the law's two key goals is shown in
table 2.

Table 2: How a Status Model and Certain Growth Models Measure Progress in
Achieving Key NCLBA Goals

                  Status model                    Growth models
                                     Massachusetts                  
                                     (school-level and  Tennesseea  
                                     group-level)       (student-level)
Universal      Sets same annual   Sets biennial      Sets same annual
proficiency by proficiency target growth targets for proficiency target
2014           for all schools in each school/group  for all schools in
                  the state          in the state       the state   
                  State proficiency  School/group       State proficiency
                  targets increase   growth targets     targets increase
                  incrementally to   increase           incrementally to 100%
                  100% by 2014       incrementally to   by 2014     
                                     100% proficiency               
                                     by 2014;           Projects future test
                                     increments may be  scores to determine
                                     different by       if students may be
                                     school/group       proficient  
                  School makes AYP   School makes AYP   School makes AYP if
                  if it reaches the  if it reaches the  it reaches the state
                  state proficiency  state proficiency  proficiency target
                  target             target or its own  based on students
                                     growth model       projected to be
                                     targets            proficient in the
                                                        future      
Closing        State proficiency  Each student group State proficiency
achievement    target applies to  in a school has    target applies to
gaps           each student group its own growth     each student group in
                  in all schools     target             all schools 
                  School makes AYP   School makes AYP   School makes AYP if
                  if each student    if each student    each student group
                  group reaches the  group reaches the  reaches the state
                  state proficiency  state proficiency  proficiency target
                  target             target or its own  based on students
                                     growth model       projected to be
                                     target             proficient in the
                                                        future      

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA and of information provided by the states of
Massachusetts and Tennessee.

Note: Additional requirements for schools to make AYP are described in the
background section of this report. Massachusetts refers to proficiency
targets as performance targets and growth targets as improvement targets.

aThe information presented in this table reflects the model Tennessee
proposed to use as part of Education's growth model pilot project, as
opposed to the value-added model it uses for state purposes we described
earlier in this report. The information is based on the March 2006
revision of the proposal the state initially made in February 2006.

Our analysis of data from selected schools in those states demonstrates
how these models measure progress toward the key goals. One school in
Massachusetts had a baseline score of 27.4 points in math.13 Its growth
target for the following 2-year cycle was 12.1, requiring it to reach 39.5
points by 2004. In comparison, the state's target using its status model
was 60.8 points in 2004. The growth target was set at 12.1 because, if the
school's points increased this much in each of the state's six cycles, the
school would have 100 points by 2014. In so doing, it would reach
universal proficiency in that year, as is seen in figure 9.

13 Massachusetts scores each school with an index system that awards
points based on how many students are at different proficiency levels
instead of using the percentage of students that are proficient. For
example, a school gets 0 points for each student at the lowest of five
proficiency levels and 100 points for each fully proficient student, with
increments of 25 points for students in the levels in between.

Figure 9: Targets for a Selected School in Massachusetts Compared to State
Status Model Targets

In fact, the school scored 42.6 in 2004, thus exceeding its target of
39.5. The school also showed significant gains for several designated
student groups that were measured against their own targets. However, the
school did not make AYP because gains for one student group were not
sufficient. This group-students with disabilities-showed gains of 9.3
points resulting in a final score of 23.6 points, short of its growth
target of 28.6.14 Figure 10 compares this school's baseline, target, and
first cycle results for the school as a whole and for selected student
groups.

14 According to a state officials, when calculating results using the
percentage of students that were not proficient for safe harbor
calculations (as described in NCLBA), the state found that the results
from this student group were not high enough for the school to make AYP.

Figure 10: Results for a Selected School in Massachusetts in Mathematics

Massachusetts has designed a model that can measure progress toward the
key goal of NCLBA by setting growth targets for each year until all
students are proficient in 2014. Schools like the one mentioned above can
get credit for improving student proficiency even if, in the short term,
the requisite number of students have yet to reach the current status
model proficiency targets. The model also measures whether achievement
gaps are closing by setting targets for designated student groups, similar
to how it sets targets for schools as a whole. Schools that increase
proficiency too slowly-that is, do not meet status or growth targets-will
not make AYP.

Tennessee developed a different model that also measures progress toward
the NCLBA goals of universal proficiency and closing achievement gaps.
Tennessee created a new version of the model it had been using for state
purposes to better align with NCLBA.15 Referred to as a projection model,
this approach projects individual student's test scores into the future to
determine when they may reach the state's status model proficiency targets
in the future.16 This model was accepted as part of Education's pilot
project, allowing the state to use it to make AYP determinations in the
2005-2006 school year.17

15 Tennessee continues to use its original model to rate schools based in
part on the unique contributions-or the value added-of the school to
student achievement.

In order to make AYP under this proposal, a school could reach the state's
status model targets by counting as proficient those students who are
predicted to be proficient in the future. The state projects scores for
elementary and middle school students 3 years into the future to determine
if they are on track to reach proficiency, as follows:

           o  fourth grade students projected to reach proficiency by seventh
           grade,
           o  fifth grade students projected to reach proficiency by eighth
           grade, and
           o  sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students projected to reach
           proficiency on the state's high school proficiency test.

These projections are based on prior test data and are not based on
student characteristics. Also, the projections are based on the assumption
that the student will attend middle or high schools with average
performance (an assumption known as average schooling experience), and
allow the student's current school to count them as proficient in the
current year if they are projected to be proficient in the future.

Tennessee estimated that of its 1,341 elementary and middle schools, 47
schools that did not make AYP using its status model would be able to make
AYP under its proposed model that gives schools credit for students
projected to be proficient in the future. At our request, Tennessee
provided analyses for students in several schools that would make AYP
under the proposed model. To demonstrate how the model works, we selected
students from a school and compared their actual results in fourth grade
(Panel A) with their projected results for seventh grade (Panel B) (see
figure 11).

16 While Tennessee's model estimates future performance, other models are
able to measure growth without these projections. For example, as
mentioned earlier in the report, Florida uses a model that calculates
results for individual students by comparing performance in the current
year with performance in prior years.

17 Tennessee submitted this model to Education to use as part of the
Growth Model Pilot Project in March 2006 on the basis of feedback received
regarding its original submission made in February 2006.

Figure 11: Results for Selected Students in Mathematics from a School in
Tennessee

Note: The same students are presented in both panels (for example, student
A in panel A is the same student as student A in panel B). While these
data reflect the scores of individual students, Tennessee provided data to
GAO in such a way that student privacy and confidentiality were ensured.
Data are illustrative and are not meant to be a statistical representation
of the distribution of students in this school.

Some students who were not proficient based on their scores in 2004-2005
were projected to be proficient by the time they reach later grades. For
example, student A did not score at the proficient level in fourth grade
but was projected to score at the proficient level in seventh grade. The
state has proposed to determine whether schools make AYP by using the
percentage of students who are projected to be proficient (like student A)
in the future, instead of the percentage of students presently proficient.
For example, if 79 percent of an elementary school's students are
projected to be proficient on future math tests, the school will make AYP
for the state's 79 percent target in the 2005-2006 school year, regardless
of the percentage of students in that school that are currently
proficient.

Tennessee's proposed model can also measure achievement gaps. Under NCLBA,
a school makes AYP if all student groups meet the state proficiency
target. For example, a school could have a 20 percentage point gap for one
group if, for example, 59 percent of students with limited English
proficiency were proficient compared to 79 percent of their peers. While
results based on projections may show that achievement gaps are closing,
gaps would actually be closed only if the projections were realized.

Giving Credit for Growth May Overlook Some Low-Performing Schools in the Near
Term

Using these models to measure progress, states could recognize improvement
by allowing some schools to make AYP even though the schools may have
relatively low achieving students. These schools may have a long way to go
before reaching 100 percent proficiency and will need to increase student
proficiency at a faster rate than schools making AYP under a status model.
If a school that receives funds under Title I is unable to sustain this
rate of progress, it may have difficulty reaching universal proficiency by
2014. In addition, if a school that did not meet status model targets but
made AYP by meeting growth model targets, its students may not qualify for
additional assistance provided for by NCLBA. Schools that receive Title I
funds and that do not make AYP for 2 consecutive years are identified for
improvement. According to some school district officials, it may be
helpful not to be identified for improvement because they can devise their
own interventions instead of implementing school transfer programs or
working with state-approved supplemental educational service providers.
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.

In Massachusetts, of the 134 schools in the two districts we analyzed, 23
of the 59 schools that made AYP did so based on the state's growth model
even though they did not reach the state's status model proficiency rate
targets in 2003-2004.18 The state had its growth model approved by
Education as part of its accountability plan and therefore was able to
determine that these 23 schools made AYP. One of these schools served a
high-minority, low-income population and missed the state proficiency
target in English/Language Arts of 75.6 points for the school as a whole
and for each of its student groups. For example, one student group,
students with disabilities, scored 44.3 points, missing the target by
31.3. However, this school made AYP, because the school as a whole and
each of its student groups had shown enough improvement to meet their
growth targets-including the group of students with disabilities that
improved by 6.8 points.

18 Another 11 schools also met the growth target, but these 11 schools
made AYP under NCLBA's safe harbor provision, by which they reduced by 10
percent the percentage of students that had not reached proficiency.

In Tennessee-of the 1,341 schools for which the state made AYP
determinations in the 2004-2005 school year-47 of the 353 schools (13.3
percent) that had not made AYP would do so if the state's proposed
projection model were applied.19 However, some of these schools have many
other indicators of needing assistance. For example, one school that would
be allowed to make AYP under the proposed model was located in a
high-poverty, inner-city neighborhood. That school receives Title I
funding, as two-thirds of its students are classified as economically
disadvantaged. The school was already receiving services required under
NCLBA to help its students. If it makes AYP 2 years in a row, these
services may no longer be required.

Additionally, estimates of future proficiency often rely on certain
assumptions. In the case of Tennessee's proposed model, a key assumption
is that students would receive an average schooling experience in the
years between when the data were measured and when the final projection is
made. According to Tennessee officials, an average schooling experience is
defined as one in which a student receives instruction in a school whose
performance is the average of all schools in the state. To the extent that
a student attends a school with performance that is significantly
different from average, actual performance is likely to deviate from the
estimates, rendering those estimates relatively less reliable. Moreover,
by allowing a school to count students' future proficiency in the current
year, the Tennessee proposal may only be delaying a school's inability to
meet status model targets and forestalling needed assistance.

19 Under the state's current model, of the 1,341 schools assessed, 988
made AYP and 353 did not. When the proposed projection model was applied,
1,035 schools would have made AYP and 306 schools would have not. Thus, 47
schools that did not make AYP in the 2004-2005 school year would have been
designated as making AYP if the state's proposed projection model were in
place in that school year.

 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. Challenges states face include the extent
that states' data and assessment systems will support the models, whether
the models can generate valid and reliable results, and states' expertise
to use, manage and communicate results about growth. These challenges are
generally similar to those faced by states in implementing status models
but are accentuated, because growth models measure progress over multiple
years and thus require more data and systems designed to track data over
time. Education's growth model pilot program and data system grants may
make it possible for more states to meet AYP requirements using a growth
model, but greater usage largely depends upon improving states' data and
assessment systems.

Requirements of Growth Models Pose Challenges for Implementation

One challenge states face in using growth models is the ability to collect
comparable data over at least 2 years, a minimum requirement for any
growth model. States must ensure that test results are comparable from one
year to the next and possibly from one grade to the next, both of which
are especially challenging when test questions and formats change.
Depending on the type of model, states may incorporate scores from 2, 3,
or even more prior years. Officials from 13 states that were implementing
or considering the use of growth models told us that they need to consider
their state's ability to make comparisons from one year to the next before
their model could be operational. Other states that are implementing new
data systems or assessments may have to wait a few years before they have
enough data to assess progress from one year to the next. For example, one
of those state officials said that his state will need at least 3 years of
test data in order to set realistic multiyear growth targets for its
proposed growth model. Some states currently using growth models, such as
Florida and Ohio, have been collecting and comparing student data for
several years.

A significant challenge to implementing growth models that use
student-level data is the capacity to collect these data across time and
schools. This capacity often requires a statewide system to assign unique
numbers to identify individual students. At least 37 states have systems
with unique numbers as of April 2006, according to officials with the Data
Quality Campaign (a nonprofit organization that helps states improve data
quality). Developing and implementing these systems is a complicated
process that includes assigning numbers, setting up the system in all
schools and districts, and correctly matching individual student data over
time, among other steps. For example, school staff must have students'
unique numbers when students change schools. However, Education officials
have cited cases of school staff assigning a new number for a student
instead of locating the student's original number. Additionally, peer
reviewers for Education's growth model pilot project cited concerns about
the ability of 3 states to correctly match student data from year to year.
Some states have contracted with outside organizations to assist them in
establishing these systems. In addition, one model provides a "teacher
effect score" as an estimate of the impact that individual teachers have
on individual students' academic achievement, thus requiring even more
information.

Ensuring data are free from errors is important for calculations using
status models and growth models. Doing so is more important when using
growth models, because errors in multiple years can accumulate, leading to
unreliable results. Fourteen state officials cited concerns about the
design and reliability of growth models in areas ensuring data accuracy
and measuring progress.

States also need greater research and analysis expertise to use growth
models as well as support for people who need to manage and communicate
the model's results. For example, Tennessee officials told us that they
have contracted with a software company for several years because of the
complexity of the model and its underlying data system. Florida has a
contract with a local university to assist it with assessing data
accuracy, including unique student identifiers required for its model. In
addition, states will incur training costs as they inform teachers,
administrators, media, legislators, and the general public about the
additional complexities that occur when using growth models. For example,
administrators in one district in North Carolina told us that personnel
issues are their main concerns with using growth models. Their district
lacks enough specialists who can explain the state's growth model to all
principals and teachers in need of guidance and additional training. In an
effort to address their limited capacity, district officials told us they
have been collaborating with neighboring districts to share training
resources regarding the state's growth model.

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. Education
officials told us that the department is conducting its pilot project
under authority provided in the law that, upon request from a state,
allows the Secretary to waive certain requirements in the NCLBA.20 While
the NCLBA does not specify the use of growth models for making AYP
determinations, the department started the pilot in part to gain
information on how these models might help schools achieve the law's key
goals. According to Education officials, 7 states had already requested to
use growth models for AYP determinations before the department invited
states to submit growth model proposals.

For the growth model pilot project, each state had to demonstrate how its
growth model proposal met Education's criteria, referred to as "core
principles" outlined in its November 2005 announcement. While many of
these criteria are consistent with the legal requirements of status
models, tracking student progress over time and having an assessment
system with tests that are comparable over time are new (see table 3).

20 20 U.S.C. 7861.

Table 3: Criteria for Participating in Education's Growth Model Pilot
Project

Key NCLBA goals            o  ensure all students are proficient by 2014   
                              o  set annual goals to ensure achievement gaps  
                              are closing for all students                    
All students meet the      o  establish high expectations for              
same standard              low-achieving students while not setting        
                              expectations based on student demographic       
                              characteristics or schools                      
Content areas              o  produce separate accountability decisions in 
                              reading and math                                
Participation              o  ensure all students in tested grades are     
                              included in assessments/accountability system   
                              o  schools/districts must be held accountable   
                              for results of subgroups                        
                              o  model applied statewide must include all     
                              schools/districts                               
Assessment system          o  include annual assessments in grades 3-8 and 
                              once in high school in both reading and         
                              mathematics                                     
                              o  must have been operational for more than a   
                              year                                            
                              o  must receive approval through NCLBA peer     
                              review process                                  
                              o  must also produce comparable results from    
                              grade to grade/year to year                     
Data system                o  track student progress                       
Participation rates and    o  include student participation rates in       
additional academic        assessment system and student achievement on an 
indicator                  additional academic indicator                   

Source: Education.

Twenty states submitted proposals to Education by the February 17, 2006
deadline. Education reviewed proposals from the 14 states that planned to
make AYP determinations for the 2005-2006 school year and forwarded 8 of
them for peer review. In May 2006, Education approved North Carolina and
Tennessee to use their proposed growth models to make AYP determinations
for the 2005-2006 school year. Education noted that those states met all
of the department's criteria, such as reaching the key NCLBA goals of
universal proficiency and closing achievement gaps. Additionally,
Education and peer reviewers noted that those states had many years of
experience with data systems that support calculating results using growth
models. The 6 states whose proposals had received peer review were invited
to resubmit proposals in September 2006. Other states that had submitted
proposals for the 2006-2007 school year, and those that had not previously
submitted proposals were invited to do so by November 1, 2006, for
potential implementation in the 2006-2007 school year.

While Tennessee received unconditional approval to implement its proposed
growth model, peer reviewers noted they were concerned that Tennessee's
use of "average school experience" is likely to result in inaccurate
projections, especially for disadvantaged students. This is because many
students attend schools in districts that are struggling, and the schools
they are likely to attend 3 years out could provide them with a school
experience that is markedly below average. For this reason, Education
requested that the state, after it implements the model, provide data to
compare actual results with its projections.

North Carolina received approval as long as its system of standards and
assessments was approved by July 1, 2006. Reviewers of the state's
proposal noted that the state proposed to average student results for
calculating growth, instead of examining growth results of all students,
in direct violation of Education's criteria. According to Education, the
state changed its original approach so that growth would account for all
students and would not use averages.

Six states had proposals that were peer-reviewed but not approved. The
department cited a variety of reasons for not approving these proposals,
including that they did not lead to universal proficiency by 2014, applied
growth calculations to nonproficient students only (instead of all
students), used a margin of error on individual test results that would
likely lead to students' being counted as proficient when in fact they
were not, and proposed annually resetting growth targets. Education is
allowing these states to resubmit their proposals for review later in
2006. If approved then, they can use growth models to make AYP
determinations in the 2006-2007 school year.

Approved states must report to Education the number of schools that made
AYP on the basis of their status and growth models. Education expects to
share the results with other states, Congress, and the public after it
assesses the effects of the pilot.

In addition to the growth model pilot project, Education announced in
April 2005 a competition for grants for the design and implementation of
statewide longitudinal data systems. While independent of the pilot
project, states with a longitudinal data system-one that gathers data on
the same student from year to year-will be better positioned to implement
a growth model than they would have been without it. Many states applied
to participate in the growth model pilot project or received a grant (see
table 4).

Table 4: States Submitting a Proposal for Growth Model Pilot or Awarded a
Grant for a Longitudinal Data System

                  Submitted a proposal for    Awarded a grant to assist in    
                   the growth model pilot        developing a statewide       
State                  project               longitudinal data system      
Alaska                                  
Arizona                                 
Arkansas                                
California                              
Colorado                                
Connecticut                             
Delaware                                
Florida                                 
Hawaii                                  
Indiana                                 
Iowa                                    
Kentucky                                
Maryland                                
Michigan                                
Minnesota                               
Nevada                                  
New Hampshire                           
North Carolina                          
Ohio                                    
Oregon                                  
Pennsylvania                            
South Carolina                          
South Dakota                            
Tennessee                               
Utah                                    
Wisconsin                               

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Education.

Note: States not listed neither applied to participate in the growth model
pilot program nor received a grant to develop a longitudinal data system.

Longitudinal data systems link data, such as test scores and enrollment
patterns, of individual students over time. Education intended the grants
to help states generate and use accurate and timely data to meet reporting
requirements, support decision making, and aid education research, among
other purposes. Education received applications from 45 states for the
3-year grants, and in November 2005, Education awarded a total of $52.8
million in grants to 14 states. States receiving grants must submit annual
and final reports on the status of the development and the implementation
of these systems. Education plans to disseminate lessons learned and
solutions developed by states that received grants.

                            Concluding Observations

While status models provide a snapshot of academic performance, growth
models can provide states with more detailed information on how schools'
and students' performance has changed from year to year. Growth models can
recognize schools whose students are making significant gains on state
tests but are still not proficient and may provide incentives for schools
with mostly proficient students to make greater improvements. Educators
can use the growth models of individual students to tailor interventions
to the needs of particular students or groups. In this respect, models
that measure individual students' growth provide the most in-depth and
useful information, yet most of the models currently in use are not
designed to do this.

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. Education is allowing
only states with the most advanced models that can measure progress toward
NCLBA goals to use the models to determine AYP. 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. However, if schools that show
the most growth but do not meet status model targets are permitted to make
AYP, states could target Title I school improvement on their
lowest-performing schools.

By proceeding with a pilot project with clear goals and criteria and by
requiring states to compare results from their growth model with status
model results, Education 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.

                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the Department
of Education. Education's comments are reproduced in appendix III.
Education also provided additional technical comments, which have been
included in the report as appropriate.

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. To inform its pilot
project, Education used research that defines the term "growth model" to
refer to models that track the growth of individual students.

For the purposes of this report, we defined growth models to include
models that track growth of schools, groups of students, and individual
students over time. 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.

As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of Education and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix IV.

Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of
methodological models. We interviewed experts in the field of measuring
academic achievement as well as state, district, and school officials. We
also reviewed documentation from states' Web sites, and examined published
studies that detailed characteristics and policy issues of states' models.
We conducted a series of interviews in selected states with officials who
had a variety of experiences and viewpoints on growth models. In four of
those states-California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Tennessee-we
interviewed officials at the state, district, and school levels so that we
could obtain a variety of perspectives on growth models. We selected those
states for in-depth interviews based on diverse characteristics of their
respective models, all of which were in place prior to the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA).

To address the first objective, we surveyed state education agencies in
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and reviewed
documentation from states' accountability workbooks. States reported to us
whether they were using or considering the use of a growth model to
measure academic achievement. The surveys were conducted using
self-administered electronic questionnaires sent in an e-mail to all 52
states beginning January 13, 2006. We closed the survey on March 16, 2006,
after the 51st respondent had replied. Puerto Rico did not complete the
survey.

The survey asked respondents to indicate, first, whether the state was
currently using a growth model. GAO classified school-level models, like
improvement models, as growth models for the purposes of this report. Some
restrict the use of the term "growth models" to refer only to those that
measure changes for the same group of students or individual students over
time (see, for example, Council of Chief State School Officers,
Policymakers' Guide to Growth Models for School Accountability: How do
Accountability Models Differ? Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2005). GAO included
school-level models in this study to provide a broader assessment of
options that may be available to states. If the state was using a growth
model, we asked about its characteristics, whether the state was
considering use of an additional model, whether the state planned to apply
to Education's growth model pilot program, and how the results from its
model were used. If the state was not using a growth model, we asked
whether it was considering doing so. We also asked about characteristics
of the model under consideration and about key issues that must be
addressed in order for it to be implemented. In some cases, we asked
additional questions in e-mails and in phone interviews. The other methods
we used to learn about states' models included reviewing documentation
from states' Web sites and examining published studies that detailed
characteristics and policy issues of states' models.

To address the second objective, we analyzed data from selected schools
from two states, Massachusetts and Tennessee. These states were chosen
based on a variety of factors, including expert recommendation, their use
of different growth models, geographic diversity, and data availability.
Within these states, we selected schools that were in urban, suburban, and
rural areas.

           o  For Massachusetts, for one urban district and one suburban
           district, we selected the median school (as measured by the
           schools' index values) among schools that had shown growth but had
           not made adequate yearly progress in the 2004-2005 school year.1 
           o  For Tennessee, for one urban district and one rural district,
           we selected schools that were used in the state's growth model
           pilot project proposal.

State officials from Massachusetts provided individual student data to GAO
from the two selected school districts. GAO reviewed the state's adequate
yearly progress and growth model calculations and replicated school-level
index and calculations from student and statewide data. State officials
from Tennessee provided analyses its contractor had performed, also using
individual student data. In both cases, GAO conducted an assessment of the
reliability of these data and found the data to be sufficiently reliable
for illustrating how growth models measure progress toward key goals of
NCLBA. These assessments included electronic testing of data fields and
interviews with state officials and in Tennessee's case, the contractor as
well. These interviews consisted of questions regarding the history of the
data system, system audits and security, and possible threats to the
systems, among other topics. GAO's assessments also included reviews of
documentation regarding the data systems.

To address the third objective, we used data from the survey and
information provided to us by Education and state officials. We reviewed
documentation related to Education's growth model pilot project and
proposals submitted by several states. We interviewed Education and state
officials about the pilot project, including criteria for selection and
processes for review and approval. We conducted our work between June 2005
and May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

1 When selecting the median school, we also selected schools ranked
closely to it to ensure that we had selected elementary, middle, and high
schools. For example, if the median school was an elementary school, we
selected the middle and high schools that were ranked most closely to the
elementary school.

Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO's Survey of
States' Use or Consideration of Growth Models

The tables below provide specific information on characteristics of
states' growth models (as of the 2005-2006 school year), as reported on
the survey. This information includes the grades in which growth models
were reported, the level at which growth models were reported, the
measures of achievement used to determine growth in test scores, and the
characteristics of the assessments used to compare students' test scores.

Growth Model Reporting by Grade

States using growth models varied as to whether or not they used test
scores from consecutive grades. Seventeen states reported using growth
models in consecutive grades, while 9 states reported using them in
nonconsecutive grades. For example, Tennessee uses test scores from grades
4 through 12, while Vermont uses grades 5, 8, and 10. Whether states used
test scores from consecutive grades may depend on the type of model they
used. The states that reported measuring individual student growth used
test scores in consecutive grades (for example, grades 3 through 12 or 4
through 10). In contrast, the 19 states that use school-level information
in their growth model calculations varied in the combination of grades
they used in their models:

           o  11 of those 19 states used growth models in three or more
           consecutive grades, and
           o  8 used a variety of grade combinations.

For each state with a growth model, table 5 lists the grades in which the
state reports school growth and indicates whether the model measures
individual student growth.

Table 5: Grades of Growth Model Reporting, by State

                  Grades reported Measured individual student growth 
Arizona                  3 - 8 
California              3 - 11 
Colorado                3 - 10 
Connecticut        4, 6, 8, 10 
Delaware                3 - 10 
Florida                 4 - 10                 x                  
Indiana                 4 - 10 
Kentucky                3 - 12 
Louisiana               3 - 11 
Massachusetts    3, 4, 6-8, 10 
Michigan           4, 7, 8, 11 
Minnesota      3, 5, 7, 10, 11 
Mississippi              3 - 8                 x                  
Missouri       3, 7, 8, 10, 11 
New York            4, 8, 9-12 
North Carolina          3 - 12                 x                  
Ohio                 3 - 8, 10 
Oklahoma             3 - 8, 10 
Oregon             3, 5, 8, 10 
Pennsylvania       3, 5, 8, 11 
South Carolina           4 - 8                 x                  
Tennessee               4 - 12                 x                  
Texas                   4 - 11                 x                  
Utah                    3 - 12                 x                  
Vermont               5, 8, 10 
Washington            4, 7, 10 

Source: GAO survey.

Level of Reporting Growth Model Results

States with growth models reported results for schools but varied in terms
of reporting results at other levels, such as the individual student or
school district. Table 6 lists the different levels at which states with
growth models reported results.

Table 6: Level of Growth Model Reporting, by State

                         Level at which growth model results are reported
                                        Cohort/                                      
                                         grade                                 
              Student Classroom Teacher  level  Subgroup School District State Other
Arizona                                    x               x               x     x   
California                                         x       x       x       x   
Colorado                                                   x                   
Connecticut                                x       x       x       x       x   
Delaware                                                   x       x       x   
Florida          x                                         x       x           
Indiana                                    x       x       x       x       x   
Kentucky                                   x       x       x       x       x   
Louisiana                                          x       x       x       x   
Massachusetts                              x       x       x       x       x   
Michigan                                   x               x                   
Minnesota                                  x       x       x       x       x   
Mississippi                                                x                   
Missouri         x        x        x       x       x       x       x       x   
New York                                           x       x       x           
North                                                      x                   
Carolina                                                                       
Ohio                                               x       x       x       x   
Oklahoma                                   x       x       x       x       x   
Oregon                                                     x                   
Pennsylvania                                       x       x       x       x   
South                                                      x       x           
Carolina                                                                       
Tennessee        x        x        x       x       x       x       x       x   
Texas                                                      x       x       x   
Utah             x        x                x       x       x       x       x   
Vermont                                            x       x       x           
Washington                                                 x       x           

Source: GAO survey.

Measure of Achievement in Growth Models

The measure of achievement in growth models indicates the methods states
use to compare individual and group scores to determine the amount of
growth. Table 7 outlines the measures that each state with a growth model
used to determine how growth is reported.

Table 7: Measure of Achievement in Growth Models

                            Measure of achievement in growth models
                  Scaled Proficiency Index     Measure of relative            
                  scores   levels    units         distribution         Other
Arizona                                              x               
California                          x                                
Colorado         x                                                   
Connecticut      x         x                                         
Delaware         x         x                                         
Florida                    x                                           x   
Indiana          x         x                                         
Kentucky         x         x        x                x               
Louisiana                           x                                
Massachusetts                       x                                
Michigan                   x                                         
Minnesota        x         x        x                x               
Mississippi      x                                                   
Missouri         x                                                   
New York                   x        x                                
North Carolina                                       x               
Ohio                                x                                
Oklahoma                   x        x                                
Oregon                              x                                
Pennsylvania               x        x                                
South Carolina                      x                                
Tennessee        x         x                         x                 x   
Texas            x                                                   
Utah             x         x                                         
Vermont                             x                                
Washington                 x                                         

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: Scaled scores: Raw scores that have been transformed to scores with
common attributes (i.e., a certain mean or standard deviation).

Proficiency levels: Descriptions of a student competency in a particular
subject area, usually defined as ordered categories on a continuum, often
labeled from "basic" to "advanced."

Index units: A tool for measuring school, district, and state level
performance that is calculated by combining test results from multiple
grades into a composite score. This score is then compared to a goal, from
which a performance rating is generally given.

Measure of relative distribution: A means of indicating the percentage of
scores in a distribution that are lower than a particular obtained score.
The remaining scores are at the same level or higher.

Characteristics of Assessments Used in Growth Models

Growth models rely on data from state proficiency tests and measure growth
with a variety of characteristics as shown in table 8.

Table 8: Characteristics of Assessments Used in Growth Models

                               Assessment mechanisms in growth models
                                  Vertically                                            
                       Vertically moderated    Nationally                         
              Adjacent   linked    content   norm-referenced Criterion-referenced 
               grades    scales   standards    assessments       assessments      Other
Arizona          x                                  x                             
California                                          x                 x           
Colorado         x         x          x                               x           
Connecticut                                                           x           
Delaware                              x                               x           
Florida          x         x          x                               x           
Indiana          x         x                                          x           
Kentucky                                            x                 x           
Louisiana                                                             x             x   
Massachusetts    x                                                    x           
Michigan                                                              x           
Minnesota                                                             x           
Mississippi      x         x                                          x           
Missouri                                            x                 x           
New York         x         x          x                               x           
North            x         x          x                               x           
Carolina                                                                          
Ohio             x                    x                               x           
Oklahoma         x                    x                               x           
Oregon                                                                x             x   
Pennsylvania                          x                               x           
South            x                    x                               x           
Carolina                                                                          
Tennessee        x         x          x             x                 x           
Texas            x                                                    x           
Utah             x                                                    x           
Vermont          x                    x                               x           
Washington                                                            x           

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: Adjacent grades: Grades that are consecutive, as opposed to
nonconsecutive. This term is used in reference to tests administered in,
for example, grades 3-5 or 9-12.

Vertically linked scales: Scales that link similar content across grades
in a way that allows test scores to be directly comparable.

Vertically moderated content standards: Standards that equate content
across grades and focus on categories of performance within a content
area, not on changes in scaled scores.

Nationally norm-referenced assessments: Assessments that compare a
student's score to those of a nationally representative group of students.

Criterion-referenced assessments: Assessments that relate a student's
score on an assessment to a specific body of knowledge, such as the
state's content standards, rather than to other students' scores.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Marnie S. Shaul, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

Blake Ainsworth (Assistant Director), Jason Palmer (Analyst-in-Charge),
and Dan Alspaugh (Analyst-in-Charge) managed the assignment. Karen Febey,
Shannon Groff, and Robert Miller made significant contributions to this
report, in all aspects of the work. Kathy Larin, Harriet Ganson, Lise
Levie, Beth Morrison, and Rachael Valliere provided analytic assistance.
Luann Moy provided support with the survey. Anna Maria Ortiz and Beverly
Ross provided analytic assistance with measuring school results related to
key NCLBA goals. Jim Rebbe provided legal support and Mimi Nguyen
developed the report's graphics.

Related GA Related GAO Products

No Child Left Behind Act: Improved Accessibility to Education's
Information Could Help States Further Implement Teacher Qualification
Requirements. GAO-06-25 . Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. GAO-05-879 . Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in
Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-05-618
. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.

Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More
Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5 . Washington, D.C.: Jan.
12, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to Provide Additional Technical
Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for School Choice Provision.
GAO-05-7 . Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for
Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734 .
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective
Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909 . Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 23, 2004.

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements.  GAO-04-659 . Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.

Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing
Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581 . Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine
Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631 . Washington, D.C.: July
17, 2003.

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389 . Washington,
D.C.: May 8, 2003.

(130506)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-661 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-661 , a report to congressional requesters

July 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth That Education's
Initiatives May Help Address

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.

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.

States That Reported Using or Considering Growth Models, as of March 2006

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.
*** End of document. ***