The NCLBA requires states to set challenging academic content and achievement standards in reading or language arts and mathematics and determine whether school districts and schools make AYP toward meeting these standards. To make AYP, schools generally must: show that the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher meets the state proficiency target for the school as a whole and for designated student groups, test 95 percent of all students and those in designated groups, and meet goals for an additional academic indicator, such as the state’s graduation rate. 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 6 percentage points each year, as shown in figure 1. Schools that do not reach the state target will generally not make AYP. 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. 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). 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. 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, 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. 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, as shown in figure 4. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: 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). 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). 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. 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.