United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

ACT 

States Face Challenges 

Measuring Academic 

Growth 

Statement of Marnie S. Shaul, Director, 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, July 27, 2006

 

GAO-06-948T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 27, 2006

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

States Face Challenges Measuring 

Highlights of GAO-06-948T, a testimony Academic Growth 

before the House Committee on Education 

and the Workforce 

The No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLBA) requires that states 

improve academic performance so 

that all students reach proficiency 

in reading and mathematics by

2014 and that achievement gaps 

close among student groups. States

set annual proficiency targets using 

an approach known as a status 

model, which calculates test scores

1 year at a time. Some states have

interest in using growth models 

that measure changes in test scores 

over time to determine if schools 

are meeting proficiency targets. 

The Chairman of the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

asked GAO to testify on its recent 

report on measuring academic

growth. Specifically, this testimony

discusses (1) how many states are 

using growth models and for what 

purposes, (2) how growth models 

can measure progress toward

achieving key NCLBA goals, and 

(3) what challenges states face in

using growth models especially to 

meet the law’s key goals. 

While growth models may be

defined as tracking the same

students over time, GAO used a 

definition that also included 

tracking the performance of

schools and groups of students. In 

comments on the report, Education 

said that this definition could be 

confusing. GAO used this definition 

of growth to reflect the variety of 

approaches states were taking. 

Nearly all states were using or considering growth models for a variety of 

purposes in addition to their status models as of March 2006. Twenty-six 

states were using growth models, and another 22 were either considering or 

in the process of implementing them. Most states using growth models 

measured progress for schools and for student groups, and 7 also measured 

growth for individual students. States used growth models to target 

resources for students that need extra help or award teachers bonuses based 

on their school’s performance. 

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 are capable of tracking progress toward the goals of 

universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement gaps. For example, 

Massachusetts uses its model to set targets based on the growth that it 

expects from schools and their student groups. Schools can make adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) if they reach these targets, even if they fall short of 

reaching the statewide proficiency targets set with the state’s status model.

Tennessee designed a model that projects students’ test scores and whether 

they will be proficient in the future. In this model, if 79 percent of a school’s 

students are predicted to be proficient in 3 years, the school would reach the 

state’s 79 percent proficiency target for the current school year (2005-2006). 

States face challenges measuring academic growth, such as creating data 

and assessment systems to support growth models and having personnel to 

analyze and communicate results. The use of growth models to determine 

AYP may also challenge states to make sure that students in low-performing 

schools receive needed assistance. U.S. Department of Education 

(Education) initiatives may help states address these challenges. Education 

started a pilot project for states to use growth models that meet the 

department’s specific criteria, including models that track progress of 

individual students, to determine AYP. Education also provided grants to 

states to track individual test scores over time. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-948T.

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. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, which describes how 

states use growth models to measure academic performance and how 

these models can measure progress toward achieving key goals of the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA). With annual expenditures 

approaching $13 billion dollars for Title I alone, NCLBA represents the 

federal government’s single largest investment in the education of the 

48 million students who attend public schools. The NCLBA—the most 

recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965—requires states to improve academic performance so that all 

students are proficient by 2014 and achievement gaps among groups such 

as economically disadvantaged students close. The upcoming 

reauthorization of the law presents an opportunity to discuss some key 

issues associated with the act. 

To measure whether schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

toward having all students proficient by 2014, states set annual proficiency 

targets using an approach known as a status model, which calculates test 

scores 1 year at a time. With status models, states or districts determine 

whether schools make AYP based on performance for the year while 

generally not taking into account how much better or worse the school did 

than during the previous year. Thus, a school that is showing significant 

improvement in student achievement but has too few students at the 

proficient level would not likely make AYP. 

In addition to determining whether schools meet proficiency targets, some 

states have interest in also recognizing schools that make progress toward 

NCLBA goals. Growth models can measure progress in achievement or 

proficiency over time and vary in complexity, such as calculating annual

progress in a school’s average test scores from year to year; estimating test 

score progress while taking into account how factors such as student 

background may affect such progress; or projecting future scores based on

current and prior years’ results. While growth models are sometimes 

defined as tracking the same students over time, because of the 

committee’s interest in the range of models states are using to measure 

academic improvement, we define 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. We included models that 

track schools and student groups in order to provide a broad assessment 

of options that may be available to states. 

Page 1 GAO-06-948T 
My testimony today will focus on how growth models may provide useful 

information on academic performance. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how 

many states are using growth models and for what purposes, (2) how 

growth models can measure progress toward achieving key NCLBA goals, 

and (3) what challenges states face in using growth models especially to 

meet the law’s key goals. 

My written statement is drawn from our recent report on growth models, 

which we completed for the committee.1

 For this report, we conducted a 

survey of all states to determine whether they were using growth models. 

We conducted telephone interviews with state and local education agency 

officials in eight states that collectively use a variety of growth models, 

and conducted site visits to California, Massachusetts, North Carolina and 

Tennessee. For Massachusetts and Tennessee we analyzed student-level 

data from selected schools to illustrate how their models measure 

progress toward key NCLBA goals. We conducted this work in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, nearly all states were using or considering growth models for 

a variety of purposes in addition to their status models as of March 2006.

Twenty-six states were using growth models, and another 22 were either 

considering or in the process of implementing them. Most states 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 measured growth for schools and groups of 

students but does not track individual students’ scores, while Tennessee 

set 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. 

Summary 

Certain growth models are capable of tracking progress toward the goals 

of universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement gaps. For 

 1

 GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth

That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address, GAO-06-661 (Washington, D.C.: July 17,

2006). 

Page 2 GAO-06-948T 
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, different from the one used for state purposes described 

above, that projects students’ test scores and whether they will be 

proficient in the future. In this model, if 79 percent of a school’s students 

are predicted to be proficient in 3 years, the school would reach the state’s 

79 percent proficiency target for the current school year (2005-2006). 

States face challenges in developing and implementing growth models that 

would allow them to meet NCLBA goals. Technical challenges include 

creating data and assessment systems to meet the substantial data 

requirements of growth models and having personnel that can analyze and 

communicate growth model results. For example, states need to have tests 

that are comparable from one year to the next to accurately measure 

progress. Further, some models require sophisticated data systems that 

have the capacity to track individual student performance across grades 

and schools. Using growth models can present risks for states if schools 

are designated as making AYP while still needing assistance to progress. 

For example, one school in Tennessee that did not make AYP under the 

status model would make AYP under the state’s proposed growth model. 

This school is located in a high-poverty, inner-city neighborhood and has 

been receiving federal assistance targeted to improving student 

performance. If the school continues to make AYP under the growth 

model, its students would no longer receive federally required services, 

such as tutoring or the option of transferring to a higher performing 

school. On the other hand, the school’s progress may result in its making 

AYP in the future under the state’s status model. U.S. Department of 

Education (Education) initiatives may help states address these 

challenges. For example, Education started a pilot project for states to use 

growth models that meet the department’s specific criteria to determine 

AYP. Education also provided grants to states to support their efforts to 

track individual test scores over time.

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 our recent report, Education expressed concern that the use of a 

broader definition of growth models would be confusing. GAO used this 

Page 3 GAO-06-948T 
definition in order to reflect the variety of approaches states have been 

taking to measure growth in academic performance. 

The NCLBA2 requires states to set challenging academic content and 

achievement standards in reading or language arts and mathematics3

 and 

determine whether school districts and schools make AYP toward meeting 

these standards.4

 To make AYP, schools generally must: 

Background 

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

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

whole and for designated student groups, 

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

• meet goals for an additional academic indicator, such as the state’s 

graduation rate. 

The purpose of Title I Part A is to improve academic achievement for 

disadvantaged students. Schools receiving Title I federal funds 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. 

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. 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. From this 

point, they set annual proficiency targets that increase up to 100 percent 

by 2014. For example, for schools in a state with a starting point of 28 

percent to achieve 100 percent by 2014, the percentage of students who 

scored at or above proficient on the state test would have to increase by 

 2

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

3

 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. 

4

 States determine whether schools and school districts make AYP or not. For this report, 

we will discuss AYP determinations in the context of schools.

Page 4 GAO-06-948T 
6 percentage points each year, as shown in figure 1.5

 Schools that do not 

reach the state target 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 

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. For example, an achievement gap 

exists if 40 percent of a school’s non-economically disadvantaged students

were proficient compared with only 16 percent of economically 

disadvantaged students, 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. 

 5

 States were able to map out different paths to universal proficiency subject to certain 

limitations. For example, states must increase the targets at least once every 3 years and 

those increases must lead to 100 percent proficiency by 2014. See 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 5 GAO-06-948T 
If a school misses its status model target in a single year, the law includes 

a “safe harbor” provision that provides a way for schools that are showing 

significant increases in proficiency rates of student groups to make AYP. 

Safe harbor measures academic performance in a way that is similar to 

certain growth models do and 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 the groups also show progress on 

another academic indicator. 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 was not proficient compared to 70 percent 

in the previous year. 

Twenty-six states reported using growth models in addition to using their

status models to track the performance of schools, designated student 

groups, or individual students, as reported in our March 2006 survey. 

Additionally, nearly all states are considering the use of growth models 

(see fig. 2). 

Nearly All States 

Reported Using or 

Considering Growth 

Models to Measure 

Academic 

Performance 

Page 6 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 2: 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 shown in table 1. 

Page 7 GAO-06-948T 
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 used a model that 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,6

 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 points to award a final score to 

schools. Growth in Massachusetts is calculated by taking the difference in

the annual scores that a school earns between 2 years. Figure 3 illustrates 

the growth a school can make from one year to the next as measured by 

Massachusetts model. 

 6

 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 8 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 3: Illustration of School-Level Growth

SCHOOL 

SCHOOL

Year 1 

Year 2 

Sources: GAO and Art Explosion.

Tennessee reported using a growth model that sets different goals for each 

individual student based on the students’ previous test scores. The goal is 

the score that a student would be expected to receive, and any difference 

between a student’s expected and actual score is considered that student’s

amount of yearly growth,7

 as shown in figure 4. 

 7

 Tennessee’s growth model mentioned here is not used to make AYP determinations under 

NCLBA. However, Tennessee developed a different growth model to determine AYP for 

Education’s growth model pilot project. That model is discussed later in this testimony. 

Page 9 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 4: Example of Higher-than-Expected 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)

In addition, Tennessee’s model, known as the Tennessee Value-Added 

Assessment System, estimates the unique contribution—the value added—

that the teacher and school make to each individual student’s growth in 

test scores over time.8

 The state then uses that amount of growth, the 

unique contribution of the school, and other information to determine 

whether schools are below, at, or above their level of expected 

performance. The model also grades 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. 

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. States used them for 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

 8

 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 10 GAO-06-948T 
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. 

Certain growth models can measure progress in achieving key NCLBA 

goals of reaching universal proficiency by 2014 and closing achievement 

gaps. 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. Tennessee submitted a new model 

to Education for the growth models pilot that differs from the value-added 

model described earlier. This new model gives schools credit for students 

projected to reach proficiency within 3 years in order to meet key NCLBA 

goals. Our analysis of how models in Massachusetts and Tennessee can 

measure progress toward the law’s two key goals is shown in table 2. 

Certain Growth 

Models Can Measure 

Progress toward Key 

NCLBA Goals 

Page 11 GAO-06-948T 
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 

our report. Massachusetts refers to proficiency targets as performance targets and refers to 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. The information is based on the March 2006 revision of the proposal the state initially

made in February 2006. 

Massachusetts designed a model that can measure progress toward the 

key goals of NCLBA by setting targets for the improvement of schools and 

their student groups that increase over time until all students are 

proficient in 2014. Schools can get credit for improving student proficiency 

even if, in the short term, the requisite number of students has yet to reach

the state’s status model proficiency targets. For example, figure 5 

illustrates a school that is on track to make AYP annually through 2014 by 

reaching its growth targets. While these growth targets increase at a faster 

pace than the state’s annual proficiency target until 2014, they do provide 

the school with an additional measure by which it can make AYP. 

Page 12 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 5: 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 

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. For example, 

one selected school in Massachusetts 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—fell 

short of its growth target, as shown in figure 6. 

Page 13 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 6: 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

Tennessee developed a different model that can also measure 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.9

 Referred to as a projection 

model, this approach projects individual student’s test scores into the 

future to determine when they may reach the state’s status model 

proficiency targets. 

In order to make AYP under this proposal, a school could reach the state’s 

status model targets by counting as proficient in the current year those 

students who are predicted to be proficient in the future. 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: 

 9

 Tennessee continues to use its original model to rate schools based in part on the unique

contributions—or the value added—of school to student achievement. 

Page 14 GAO-06-948T 
• 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 assume that the student 

will attend middle or high schools with average performance (an 

assumption known as average schooling experience). 10 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 fig. 7). 

 10 While Tennessee’s model estimates future performance, other models are able to 

measure growth without these projections. For example, Florida uses a model that

calculates results for individual students by comparing performance in the current year

with performance in prior years. 

Page 15 GAO-06-948T 
Figure 7: 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. 

Tennessee’s proposed model can also measure achievement gaps. Under 

NCLBA, a school makes AYP if all student groups meet the state 

proficiency target. In Tennessee’s model, whether the achievement gap is 

potentially closed would be determined through projections of students’ 

performance in meeting the state proficiency target. 

Page 16 GAO-06-948T 
States generally face challenges in collecting and analyzing the data 

required to implement growth models including models that would meet 

the law’s goals. In addition, using growth models can present risks for 

states if schools are designated as making AYP while still needing 

assistance to progress. Education has initiatives that may help states 

address these challenges. 

States Face 

Challenges in 

Implementing Growth 

Models 

States must have certain additional data system requirements to 

implement growth models, including models that would meet NCLBA 

requirements. 

First, a state’s ability to collect comparable data over at least 2 years is 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. Second, the capacity to collect data across 

time and schools is also required to implement growth models that use 

student-level data. This capacity often requires a statewide system to 

assign unique numbers to identify individual students. 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. 

Third, states need to ensure that data are free from errors in their 

calculations of performance. While ensuring data accuracy is important 

for status models, doing so is particularly important for growth models, 

because errors in multiple years can accumulate, leading to unreliable 

results. 

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 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.

Page 17 GAO-06-948T 
Using growth models can present risks for states if schools are designated

as making AYP while still needing assistance to progress. On the basis of 

growth model results, some schools would make AYP even though these 

schools may have relatively low-achieving students. As a result, some 

students in Title I schools may be disadvantaged by not receiving 

federally-required services. 

In two Massachusetts districts that 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.

11

Consequently, these schools may not be eligible to receive services 

required under NCLBA for schools in need of improvement, such as 

tutoring and school choice. Because these schools would need to sustain 

high growth rates in order to achieve universal proficiency by 2014, it is 

likely that their students would benefit from additional support. 

In Tennessee, 47 of the 353 schools that had not made AYP in the 

2004-2005 school year would do so under the state’s proposed projection 

model. 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 the school

continues to make AYP under the growth model, these services may no 

longer be provided. 

Education’s initiatives, such as the growth model pilot project, may 

facilitate growth model implementation. In November 2005, Education 

announced a pilot project for states to submit proposals for using a growth 

model—one that meets criteria established by the department—along with 

their status model, to determine AYP. While NCLBA does not specify the 

use of growth models for making AYP determinations, the department 

started the pilot to evaluate how growth models might help schools meet 

NCLBA proficiency goals and close achievement gaps. 

For the growth model pilot project, each state had to demonstrate how its 

growth model proposal met Education’s criteria, many of which are 

consistent with the legal requirements of status models. In addition to 

 11 Another 11 schools also met the growth target, but these 11 schools made AYP under

NCLBA’s safe harbor provision.

Page 18 GAO-06-948T 
those requirements, Education included criteria that the proposed models 

track student progress over time and have an assessment system with 

tests that are comparable over time. Of the 20 proposals, Education 

approved 2 states—North Carolina and Tennessee—to use growth models 

to make AYP determinations in the 2005-2006 school year. States may 

submit proposals for the pilot again this fall. 

In addition to meeting all of the criteria, Education and peer reviewers 

noted that Tennessee and North Carolina had many years of experience 

with data systems that support growth models. These 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 awarded nearly

$53 million in grants to 14 states for the design and implementation of 

statewide longitudinal data systems—systems that are essential for the 

development of student-level growth models. While independent of the 

pilot project, states with a longitudinal data system—one that gathers data

such as test scores on the same student from year to year—will be better 

positioned to implement a growth model than they would have been 

without it. Education intended the grants to help states generate and use 

accurate and timely data to meet reporting requirements, support decision 

making, and aid education research, among other purposes. Education 

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. Educators can use information about 

the academic growth of individual students to tailor interventions to the 

needs of particular students or groups. In this respect, models that 

measure individual students’ growth provide the most in-depth and useful

information, yet the majority of the models currently in use are not 

designed to do this. 

Conclusion 

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 

Page 19 GAO-06-948T 
only states with the most advanced models that can measure progress 

toward NCLBA goals to use the models to determine AYP. Under the pilot 

project, which has clear goals and criteria that requires 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 fastimproving schools. 

While growth models may be defined as tracking the same students over 

time, GAO used a definition that also includes tracking the performance of 

schools and groups of students. In comments on our report, Education 

expressed concern that this definition 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. GAO used this 

definition of growth to reflect the variety of approaches states are taking 

to measure academic progress. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or members of the committee may have. 

For more information on this testimony, please call Marnie S. Shaul at 

(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Blake Ainsworth, Karen Febey, Harriet Ganson, Shannon Groff, 

Andrew Huddleston, Jason Palmer, and Rachael Valliere. 

Page 20 GAO-06-948T 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130595) 
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. 
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