What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

States Face Challenges Measuring 

Academic Growth That Education's 

Initiatives May Help Address 

Highlights of GAO-06-661, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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

States that used 

a growth model 

States that did not use a growth

model but were considering one 

States that did not 

use a growth model 

Source: GAO analysis. 

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. 

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 shaulm@gao.gov. 

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

Page i GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 

Page ii GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

Page iii GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 17, 2006

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 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 lowperforming 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 lowperforming 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. 

Page 1 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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-toyear 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 

Page 2 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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. 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 lowerperforming 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 stateapproved 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 

Page 4 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 20011

 increased the federal government’s 

role in kindergarten-12th grade education by setting two key goals: Background 

• to reach universal proficiency so that all students score at the 

proficient level of achievement—as defined by the states—by 2014, 

and 

• 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). 

Page 5 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 

• show that the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level 

or higher meets the state proficiency target for the school as a 

whole and for designated student groups, 

• test 95 percent of all students and those in designated groups, and 

• meet goals for an additional academic indicator (which can be

chosen by each individual state for elementary and middle schools 

but must be the state-defined graduation rate in high schools). 

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 

 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). 

Page 6 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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

Percentage of students proficient 

0 

25 

50 

75 

100 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Source: GAO.

School year ending

28 

34 

40 

46 

52 

58 

64 

70 

76 

82 

88 

94 

100 

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. 

Page 7 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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

Percentage of students proficient 

0 

25 

50 

75 

100 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Source: GAO.

School year ending

Economically disadvantaged

Non-economically disadvantaged

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 

Page 8 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

2005 2006 

Percentage of students

School year ending

Source: GAO.

Not proficient 

Proficient 

70 

30 

63 

37 

Ten percent of 70

percent is 7 

percentage points.

Thus, the percentage

of students not

proficient decreases

from 70 percent to

63 percent.

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 

Page 9 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

Page 10 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 4: Results from Two Hypothetical Schools, Shown with a Status Model and a Growth Model 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

55 

School 

Washington

Middle School

Adams

Elementary

School

AYP: Yes

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

30 

AYP: No 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

35 

AYP: No 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

50 

AYP: Yes

2004–2005 2005–2006

Status model

Percentage proficient in 2 school years

(Annual proficiency target = 40 percent)

Growth 

model 

Change in 

percentage 

proficient 

-5 

5 

Source: GAO.

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. 

Page 11 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 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. 

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: 

Nearly All States Were 

Using or Considering 

Growth Models to 

Supplement Other 

Measures of 

Academic 

Performance 

Half of the States Were 

Using Growth Models, and 

Most Remaining States 

Were Considering Them 

• 20 of 26 states that used one growth model were also considering or 

in the process of implementing another growth model, and 

• 22 of 25 states that did not use growth models were considering or 

in the process of implementing them to provide more detailed

information about school, group, or student performance. 

 8

 Since students are expected to know more over time, such growth may or may not be

what is expected of students. 

Page 12 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 5: Map of States That Reported Using or Considering Growth Models, as of March 2006 

Vt. 

Idaho

States that used growth model 

States that did not use a growth model but were considering one 

States that did not use a growth model 

N.H. 

Mass. 

R.I. 

Conn. 

N.J. 

Del. 

Md. 

D.C. 

Alaska 

Hawaii 

Ala. 

Ark. 

Calif.

Colo.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa 

Kans.

La.

Maine 

Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

Mont. 

Nev. Nebr. 

N.Mex. 

N.Y.

N.Dak. 

Okla.

Oreg.

Pa.

S.Dak. 

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

Wash.

Wisc. 

Wyo. 

Fla.

Ariz.

Miss.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ky.

W.Va. 

Ohio

Source: GAO survey.

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. 

Page 13 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 1: Types of Growth Models and States Using Them, as of March 2006 

Measures growth of 

schools and groups

Measures growth of schools, 

groups,and individual students

Compares the change in scores or 

proficiency levels of schools or groups of 

students over time. 

Data requirements, such as measuring 

proficiency rates for schools or groups, are 

similar to those for status models. 

Compares the change in scores or 

proficiency levels of schools, groups of 

students, and individual students over time.

Data requirements, such as tracking the 

proficiency levels or test scores for 

individual students, are typically more 

involved than those for status models. 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Indiana 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

New York 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania

Vermont 

Washington 

Florida 

Mississippi 

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

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 

 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. 

Page 14 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
data needed to calculate growth are similar to those used for calculating 

status model results. 

Figure 6: Illustration of School-Level Growth

SCHOOL 

SCHOOL

Year 1 

Year 2 

Sources: GAO and Art Explosion.

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. 

Page 15 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 7: Example of Measurement of Above Average Growth for a Fourth-Grade 

Student under Tennessee’s Model 

Actual thirdgrade score 

Expected fourthgrade score 

Actual fourthgrade score 

Expected

growth

Third grade Fourth grade

Actual 

growth 

Source: GAO illustration based on information provided by the State of Tennessee.

Higher-thanexpected growth

(value added)

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 

 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. 

Page 16 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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

Source: GAO survey.

Missouri 

Tennessee 

None 

Kentucky 

None 

North Carolina

None 

Arizona

California, Louisiana, New York, Oregon 

Connecticut, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont 

Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota

Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania

None 

Colorado, Texas, Utah, Washington 

Indiana

1991–1992

1992–1993

1993–1994

1994–1995

1995–1996

1996–1997

1997–1998

1998–1999

1999–2000

2000–2001

2001–2002

2002–2003

2003–2004

2004–2005

2005–2006

School year State(s) 

Once NCLBA was enacted, states were required to develop plans to show 

how they would meet federal requirements for accountability as measured 

Page 17 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 lowerperforming schools. However, the model does not provide information 

about individual teachers or students. In contrast, Tennessee’s model does 

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

Page 18 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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. 

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. 

Certain Growth 

Models Provide 

Useful Information on 

the Extent That 

Schools Are 

Achieving Key NCLBA 

Goals but May 

Overlook Some LowPerforming Schools if 

Used for AYP 

Certain Growth Models 

Measure Progress in 

Achieving Key NCLBA 

Goals of Universal

Proficiency by 2014 and 

Closing Achievement Gaps 

Page 19 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 group-level) 

Tennesseea

(student-level) 

Sets same annual proficiency 

target for all schools in the state

Sets biennial growth targets for 

each school/group in the state 

Sets same annual proficiency target 

for all schools in the state 

State proficiency targets 

increase incrementally to 100%

by 2014 

School/group growth targets 

increase incrementally to 100%

proficiency by 2014; increments 

may be different by school/group 

State proficiency targets increase 

incrementally to 100% by 2014

Projects future test scores to 

determine if students may be

proficient 

Universal proficiency 

by 2014 

School makes AYP if it reaches 

the state proficiency target 

School makes AYP if it reaches the 

state proficiency target or its own 

growth model targets 

School makes AYP if it reaches the 

state proficiency target based on 

students projected to be proficient in 

the future 

State proficiency target applies 

to each student group in all 

schools 

Each student group in a school has 

its own growth target 

State proficiency target applies to 

each student group in all schools 

Closing achievement 

gaps 

School makes AYP if each 

student group reaches the state 

proficiency target 

School makes AYP if each student 

group reaches the state proficiency 

target or its own growth model 

target 

School makes AYP if each student 

group reaches the state proficiency 

target based on students projected to 

be 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. 

a

The 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 

 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. 

Page 20 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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

Model Targets 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

2002 

Index points

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Massachusetts Department of Education; Commonwealth of

Massachusetts Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, June 29, 2005.

School year ending

School target 

State target 

27.4 

39.5 

51.6 

63.7 

75.8 

87.9 

100.0 

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. 

Page 21 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 10: Results for a Selected School in Massachusetts in Mathematics 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Index points

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Massachusetts Department of Education.

Baseline

Growth target

First cycle results

27.4 27.5 27.5 28.6

23.6

35.6

14.8 14.3

39.5 39.6

42.6 42.6

Students with

disabilities

Limited English

proficiency

Economically

disadvantaged

School as a 

whole

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 

 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. 

Page 22 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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

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: 

• fourth grade students projected to reach proficiency by seventh grade, 

• fifth grade students projected to reach proficiency by eighth grade, and 

• 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. 

Page 23 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Figure 11: Results for Selected Students in Mathematics from a School in Tennessee 

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

Test score

Source: Tennessee Department of Education. 

Individual students

Score

Target

414

431 434 438

444

477

492

Panel A: Actual student scores in fourth grade

(proficiency level = 457)

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

Test score

Individual students

Score

Target

501

470

491 489 491

517

527

Panel B: Projected student scores in seventh grade

(proficiency level = 487)

G

(Prof.)

F

(Prof.)

E

(Not

Prof.)

D

(Not

Prof.)

C

(Not

Prof.)

B

(Not

Prof.)

A

(Not

Prof.)

G

(Prof.)

F

(Prof.)

E

(Prof.)

D

(Prof.)

C

(Prof.)

B

(Not

Prof.)

A

(Prof.)

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 

Page 24 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 LowPerforming 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 

 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. 

Page 25 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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 

 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. 

Page 26 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
delaying a school’s inability to meet status model targets and forestalling 

needed assistance. 

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.

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. 

States Face 

Challenges In 

Measuring Year-toYear Growth That 

Education’s Pilot 

Program and Data 

System Grants May 

Help Address 

Requirements of Growth 

Models Pose Challenges 

for Implementation 

A significant challenge to implementing growth models that use studentlevel 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 

Page 27 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

Page 28 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

Education Has Two 

Programs to Help States 

Develop Growth Models 

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. 

Page 29 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 3: Criteria for Participating in Education’s Growth Model Pilot Project

Key NCLBA goals • ensure all students are proficient by 2014 

• set annual goals to ensure achievement gaps are closing for all students 

All students meet the same standard • establish high expectations for low-achieving students while not setting expectations 

based on student demographic characteristics or schools 

Content areas • produce separate accountability decisions in reading and math 

Participation • ensure all students in tested grades are included in assessments/accountability system 

• schools/districts must be held accountable for results of subgroups 

• model applied statewide must include all schools/districts 

Assessment system • include annual assessments in grades 3-8 and once in high school in both reading and 

mathematics 

• must have been operational for more than a year 

• must receive approval through NCLBA peer review process

• must also produce comparable results from grade to grade/year to year 

Data system • track student progress 

Participation rates and additional 

academic indicator 

• include student participation rates in assessment system and student achievement on an

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, 

Page 30 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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). 

Page 31 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Table 4: States Submitting a Proposal for Growth Model Pilot or Awarded a Grant 

for a Longitudinal Data System 

State 

Submitted a proposal 

for the growth model 

pilot project

Awarded a grant to assist in

developing a statewide 

longitudinal data system 

Alaska 9 9

Arizona 9

Arkansas 9 9

California 9

Colorado 9

Connecticut 9

Delaware 9

Florida 9 9

Hawaii 9

Indiana 9

Iowa 9

Kentucky 9

Maryland 9 9

Michigan 9

Minnesota 9

Nevada 9

New Hampshire 9

North Carolina 9

Ohio 9 9

Oregon 9

Pennsylvania 9 9

South Carolina 9 9

South Dakota 9

Tennessee 9 9

Utah 9

Wisconsin 9

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, 

Page 32 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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 indepth 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. 

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. 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 33 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
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 

Page 34 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 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 selfadministered 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 

Page 35 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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. 

• 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

• 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 

 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. 

Page 36 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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. 

Page 37 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Se

Surve

Gr

lected Data from GAO’s

y of States’ Use or Consideration of 

owth Models

Page 38 GAO-06-661

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: 

• 11 of those 19 states used growth models in three or more 

consecutive grades, and

• 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. 

No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

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. 

Page 39 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

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. 

Level of Reporting Growth 

Model Results 

Table 6: Level of Growth Model Reporting, by State 

Level at which growth model results are reported

 

Student Classroom Teacher

Cohort/ 

grade 

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 Carolina x

Ohio x x x x

Oklahoma x x x x x

Oregon x

Pennsylvania x x x x

South Carolina x x 

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. 

Page 40 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

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

scores 

Proficiency 

levels Index units

Measure of

relative 

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. 

Page 41 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

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. 

Page 42 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

Growth models rely on data from state proficiency tests and measure 

growth with a variety of characteristics as shown in table 8. 

Characteristics of 

Assessments Used in

Growth Models 

Table 8: Characteristics of Assessments Used in Growth Models 

Assessment mechanisms in growth models

Adjacent grades

Vertically linked 

scales

Vertically 

moderated

content 

standards 

Nationally normreferenced

assessments

Criterionreferenced

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 Carolina x x x x

Ohio x x x

Oklahoma x x x

Oregon x x

Pennsylvania x x

South Carolina x x x

Tennessee x x x x x

Texas x x

Utah x x

Vermont x x x

Washington x

Source: GAO survey. 

Page 43 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix II: Selected Data from GAO’s

Survey of States’ Use or Consideration of 

Growth Models

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. 

Page 44 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Education 

Department of Education 

Page 45 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 46 GAO-06-661 No Child Left Behind Act
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 47 GAO-06-661

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Marnie S. Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov

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. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

No Child Left Behind Act
Related GAO Products 

Page 48 GAO-06-661

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) No Child Left Behind Act
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER