Order Code RL33032
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models
Under the No Child Left Behind Act
Updated September 7, 2006
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act
Summary
A key concept embodied in the accountability provisions of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLBA, P.L. 107-110), is that of adequate yearly progress (AYP). In order
to be eligible for grants under ESEA Title I, Part A — Education for Disadvantaged
Pupils — states must implement standards of AYP that are applicable to all public
schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state, as well as the state
overall, and are based primarily on the scores of pupils on state assessments. Schools
or LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for two or more consecutive years face a
variety of consequences.
The primary model of AYP under the NCLBA currently is a group status model.
Such models set threshold levels of performance, expressed in terms of the
percentage of pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level on state assessments of
reading and mathematics, that must be met by all pupils as a group, as well as pupils
in designated demographic subgroups, in order for a public school or LEA to make
AYP. Current law also includes a secondary model of AYP, a “safe harbor”
provision, under which a school or LEA may make AYP if, among pupil groups who
did not meet the primary AYP standard, the percentage of pupils who are not at the
proficient or higher level declines by at least 10%, and those pupil groups make
progress on at least one other academic indicator in the state’s AYP standards.
Substantial interest has been expressed in the possible use of individual/cohort
growth models to meet the AYP requirements of the NCLBA. Such AYP models are
not consistent with certain statutory provisions of the NCLBA, as those have until
recently been interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). However,
under a pilot program, ED has allowed two states to use growth models to make AYP
determinations for the 2005-06 school year. Many proponents of growth models for
school/LEA AYP see them as being more fair and accurate than the models generally
employed to meet NCLBA requirements, primarily because they take into
consideration the widely varying levels of achievement of different pupil groups.
Growth models typically recognize the fact that different schools and pupils have
different starting points in their achievement levels, and recognize progress being
made at all levels.
Growth models of AYP have the disadvantage of implicitly setting lower initial
thresholds or expectations for some pupil groups and/or schools. Although any
growth model consistent with the NCLBA would need to incorporate the act’s
ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement by 2013-
2014, the majority of such models used currently or in the past do not include such
goals and might allow disadvantaged schools and pupils to remain at relatively low
levels of achievement for significant periods of time. Growth models of AYP may
be quite complicated and may address the accountability purposes of the NCLBA less
directly and clearly than the currently authorized AYP models.
This report will be updated when legislative or policy developments occur.

---

Contents
The Range of Possible Models for Measuring AYP for Schools and LEAs . . . . . 2
The AYP Models Explicitly Authorized by the NCLBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Growth Model Alternatives to the NCLBA’s Statutory Models of AYP . . . 7
Growth Model Pilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Issues Regarding Growth Model Alternatives to the NCLBA’s AYP Models . . 10
Are Growth Models of AYP More Fair and Accurate Than Status
or Improvement Models? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Are Growth Models of Greater Value Than Status or Improvement Models
for Purposes Other Than Accountability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Do States Have Sufficient Resources to Develop and Implement
Growth Models? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Are Growth Models Consistent with the NCLBA’s Ultimate Goal? . . . . . . 13
Would Use of Growth Models Likely Reduce the Number of
Schools/LEAs Identified as Failing to Meet AYP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Can Growth Models Be Applied at Grade Levels Without Annual
Assessments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
Growth Models Under
the No Child Left Behind Act
A key concept embodied in the accountability provisions of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLBA, P.L. 107-110) is that of adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward
proficiency on state assessments.1 In order to maintain eligibility for grants under
ESEA Title I, Part A — Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) for the
Education of Disadvantaged Pupils, the largest federal K-12 education program —
states must establish and implement standards of AYP that are applicable to all
public schools and LEAs in the state, as well as the state overall. These AYP
standards are to be based primarily, although not solely, on the scores of all pupils
as a group, as well as pupils in designated demographic subgroups, on state
developed or selected assessments that are linked to state standards of curriculum
content and pupil performance.2 Schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards
for two or more consecutive years face a variety of consequences and, ultimately,
corrective actions.3
Substantial interest has been expressed in the possible use of particular
concepts, usually referred to as growth models, to meet the AYP requirements of the
NCLBA. Such AYP models are not consistent with certain statutory provisions of
the NCLBA, as they have until recently been interpreted by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). In November 2005, the Secretary of Education announced a growth
model pilot program under which up to 10 states would be allowed to use growth
models to make AYP determinations for the 2005-2006 school year. Two states,
North Carolina and Tennessee, have been authorized to use growth models in making
AYP determinations based on pupil assessments administered in the 2005-2006
school year. This report discusses growth and other models for AYP determinations,
and analyzes issues related to the possible use of growth models to meet the AYP
requirements of the NCLBA.
1 For general information on all aspects of the AYP concept in general, the No Child Left
Behind Act provisions for AYP, and related issues, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle.
2 For more information on the pupil assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind
Act, see CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A
Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle.
3 For a discussion of these consequences and corrective actions, see CRS Report RL31487,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Overview of ESEA Title I-A Amendments Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle; and CRS Report RL33506, School Choice Under
the ESEA: Programs and Requirements, by David Smole.

---

CRS-2
The Range of Possible Models
for Measuring AYP for Schools and LEAs
While AYP definitions or standards may vary in a multitude of respects, their
basic structure generally falls into one of three general categories. The No Child Left
Behind Act statute, as implemented by ED currently, places primary emphasis on one
of these models, while incorporating a second model as an explicitly authorized
alternative. In recent years, critics of current policy have increasingly focused their
attention on a third model of AYP, which is the primary topic of this report.
The three basic structural forms for AYP of schools or LEAs are the group
status, successive group improvement, and individual/cohort growth models. In the
context of these terms, “group” (or “subgroup,” in the case of detailed demographic
categories) refers to a collection of pupils that is identified by their grade level and
usually other demographic characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, or economic
disadvantage) as of a point in time, such as all Hispanic third grade pupils enrolled
in a school or LEA in a particular year. The actual pupils in a “group” may change
substantially, or even completely, from one year to the next. In contrast, a “cohort”
refers to a collection of pupils in which the same pupils are followed from year-to-
year, such as the Hispanic pupils who entered third grade in a school, LEA or state
in fall 2002, and have been followed as a cohort since that time.
The key characteristic of the group status model is a fixed “annual measurable
objective” (AMO), or required threshold level of achievement, that is the same for
all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs statewide in a given subject and grade level.
Under this model, performance at a point in time is compared to a benchmark at that
time, with no direct consideration of changes over a previous period.
The key characteristic of the successive group improvement model is a focus on
the rate of change in achievement in a subject area from one year to the next among
groups of pupils in a grade level at a school or LEA (e.g., the percentage of this
year’s 5th grade pupils in a school who are at a proficient or higher level in
mathematics compared to the percentage of last year’s 5th grade pupils who were at
a proficient or higher level of achievement).
Finally, the key characteristic of the individual/cohort growth model is a focus
on the rate of change over time in the level of achievement among cohorts of the
same pupils. Such models may compare current performance of specific pupils or
cohorts to past performance, or may project future performance of pupils/cohorts
based on past changes in their performance level. Growth models are longitudinal,
based upon the tracking of the same pupils as they progress through their K-12
education careers. While the progress of pupils is tracked individually, results are
typically aggregated when used for accountability purposes. Aggregation may be by
demographic group, by school or LEA, or other relevant characteristics. In general,

---

CRS-3
growth models would give credit for meeting steps along the way to proficiency in
ways that a status model typically does not.4
To help illustrate the basic differences among these three AYP models,
simplified examples of basic aspects of each are described below. The reader should
keep in mind many other variations of these model types are possible.
! A group status model, such as the current primary model of AYP
under the NCLBA (described further below), establishes a series of
threshold levels or AMOs, which are percentages of pupils scoring
at a proficient or higher level of achievement on state standards-
based assessments of reading and mathematics. These AMOs have
a starting point and a series of increases toward (in the case of the
NCLBA) an ultimate goal of 100% of pupils at a proficient or higher
level of achievement, covering a multi-year period (for the NCLBA,
the period of 2001-2002 through 2013-2014). These AMOs are
specific to each grade level and subject (reading or mathematics) at
which state assessments are administered. A key feature of the
AMOs in this model is that they are the same for all pupil groups —
the “all pupil” group as well as each of the demographic subgroups
specified under the NCLBA (pupils with disabilities, pupils from
low-income families, pupils with limited English proficiency, etc.).
This model focuses solely on current year performance of the pupils
currently enrolled in each school/LEA for every grade level at which
assessments are administered.5 Comparisons to previous year
performance play no role in AYP determinations.
! An example of a simplified successive group improvement model is
the secondary (“safe harbor”) model authorized under the NCLBA.
Under this model, as embodied in the NCLBA, the basic structure of
the AYP system is the same as described above, but the primary
focus shifts to the change from the previous year for each group
assessed. If any specified demographic group fails to meet the
primary group status AYP criterion described above, the school or
LEA is still deemed to meet AYP standards if the percentage of
pupils scoring below the proficient level declines by 10% in
comparison to the previous year for pupils in that grade level and
demographic group. Thus, the primary focus shifts to the change in
achievement from the previous year, comparing (for example) this
year’s pupils from low-income families in the particular
school/LEA/grade level to last year’s pupils from low-income
families enrolled in that school/LEA/grade level (i.e., the pupils are
4 There is a variant of the group status model, sometimes called an “index model,” under
which partial credit would be attributed to performance improvements below the proficient
level — e.g., from below basic to basic.
5 Scores may be combined for pupils in all assessed grade levels in a school.

---

CRS-4
in the same demographic category, but are not necessarily the same
pupils).6
! An individual/cohort growth model begins by tracking the
performance of individual pupils over multiple (at least two) years.
The performance of pupils in the same grade level who share
relevant demographic characteristics within a school, LEA, or the
state overall may be combined into a cohort. The change in scores
for this cohort is compared to a standard of expected growth. The
expected growth may be either “data-driven” (e.g., the statewide
average rate of achievement growth for all pupils, or the predicted
rate of growth statewide for pupils with similar demographic
characteristics), or “policy-driven” (a multi-year growth path
sufficient to meet an ultimate goal, such as the NCLBA requirement
for all pupils to reach a proficient or higher level of achievement by
2013-2014). A school or LEA is deemed to meet AYP requirements
if the achievement growth of each relevant cohort of pupils meets
the expected level of growth. The path of expected growth, as well
as the starting points for the growth path, will likely differ for each
relevant demographic group of pupils.
Some growth models also incorporate a variety of statistical controls,
adjustments to account for pupil demographic characteristics or past achievement,
to sharpen the focus on estimating the impact of specific teachers, schools, or LEAs
on pupil achievement and to measure pupil growth against predicted growth for
pupils with similar characteristics, but these are not essential elements of all growth
models. Proponents argue that such models, with their controls for background
characteristics and past learning, maximize the focus on factors that are under the
control of teachers and other school staff. The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System (TVAAS) is one specific form of growth model that uses pupil background
characteristics, previous performance, and other data as statistical controls in order
to focus on estimating the specific effects of particular schools, districts, teachers or
programs on pupil achievement.7
6 One state, Massachusetts, has injected a partial growth element into its safe harbor
provision. In that state, a school or LEA that fails to meet the standard AYP requirements
still makes AYP if the number of pupils in relevant groups and subjects scoring below the
proficient level declines by 10% or more from the previous year or declines sufficiently to
put them on track toward proficiency by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
7 See, for example, Issues in the Design of Accountability Systems, by Robert L. Linn, CSE
Technical Report 650, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing, Apr. 2005.

---

CRS-5
The AYP Models Explicitly Authorized by
the NCLBA
The primary model of AYP under the NCLBA currently is a group status model.
As noted in the example above, group status models set as their AMOs threshold
levels of performance, expressed specifically in terms of the percentage of pupils
scoring at a proficient or higher (advanced) level on state assessments of reading and
mathematics. These AMOs must be met by any school or LEA, both overall and
with respect to all relevant pupil subgroups, in order to make AYP, whatever the
school’s or LEA’s “starting point” (for the multi-year period covered by the
accountability policy) or performance in the previous year. This AMO “uniform bar”
is applicable to all pupil subgroups of sufficient size to be considered in AYP
determinations. The threshold levels of achievement are to be set separately for
reading and math, and may be set separately for each level of K-12 education
(elementary, middle, and high schools). For example, it might be required that 45%
or more of the pupils in any of a state’s public elementary schools score at the
proficient or higher level of achievement in reading in order for a school to make
AYP.8
The initial minimum starting point for the “uniform bar” is to be the greater of
(a) the percentage of pupils at the proficient or advanced level of achievement for the
lowest-achieving pupil subgroup in the base year (2001-2002), or (b) the percentage
of pupils at the proficient or advanced level of achievement for the lowest-
performing quintile (5th)9 of schools statewide in the base year.10 The “uniform bar”
must generally be raised at least once every three years, although in the initial period
it must be increased after no more than two years. Such group status models attempt
to emphasize the importance of meeting certain minimum levels of achievement for
all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs, and arguably apply consistent expectations to
all pupil groups.
8 It has occasionally been said that the AYP systems approved by ED for a few states before
initiation of the growth model pilot announced in Nov. 2005 incorporate “growth” elements.
However, such claims appear to be based primarily on the inclusion in the AYP systems of
“pupil achievement indexes” (i.e., the “index models” referred to in footnote 4) that give
partial credit for achievement gains below the proficient level, comparing this year’s pupil
groups with last year’s. They do not meet the definition of growth model as used in this
report.
9 This is determined by ranking all public schools (of the relevant grade level) statewide
according to their percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher level of achievement
(based on all pupils in each school), and setting the threshold at the point where one-fifth
of the schools (weighted by enrollment) have been counted, starting with the schools at the
lowest level of achievement.
10 Under program regulations [34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(2)], the starting point may vary by
grade span (e.g., elementary, middle, etc.) and subject.

---

CRS-6
The secondary model of AYP under the NCLBA currently is the “safe harbor”
provision, an example of a successive group improvement model.11 This is an
alternative provision under which schools or LEAs that fail to meet the usual
requirements may still be deemed to have made AYP if they meet certain other
conditions. A school where aggregate achievement is below the level required under
the group status model described above would still be deemed to have made AYP,
through the “safe harbor” provision, if, among relevant pupil groups who did not
meet the primary AYP standard, the percentage of pupils who are not at the proficient
or higher level in the school declines by at least 10% (not 10 percentage points)12, and
those pupil groups make progress on at least one other academic indicator included
in the state’s AYP standards.13 For example, if the standard AMO is 45%, and a
school fails to meet AYP because of the performance of one pupil group (e.g., the
mathematics scores of white pupils) and the percentage of such pupils scoring at a
proficient or higher level the previous year was 30%, then the school could still make
AYP if the percentage of white pupils scoring at a proficient or higher level increases
to at least 37% (the 30% from the previous year plus 10% of (100%-30%), or seven
percentage points).
During debates over the adoption of the NCLBA in 2001, much of the attention
was focused on successive group improvement models of AYP, not group status or
individual/cohort growth models. Both the Senate-passed version, and the primary
elements of the House-passed version, of the bill (H.R. 1, 107th Congress) that
became the NCLBA embodied successive group improvement concepts of AYP.14
Relatively little attention was paid to individual/cohort growth models during
consideration of the NCLBA. The group status model adopted by the conferees on
H.R. 1 as the primary AYP concept under the NCLBA substantially resembled the
pre-NCLBA AYP definition used in the state of Texas.
Possible reasons why relatively little attention was devoted to individual/cohort
growth models of AYP during consideration of the NCLBA in 2001 include the fact
that they were used by few states at the time to meet accountability requirements
under either state law or under federal law preceding the NCLBA (the Improving
11 This secondary AYP provision of the NCLBA is sometimes referred to as a “growth
model,” but it is not consistent with that term as used in this report, in part because it is
based on pupil group averages, and not the longitudinal performance of individual pupils
in a cohort.
12 As noted earlier, under the accountability policy approved for use in Massachusetts, a
school or LEA also meets the safe harbor requirement if the number of pupils in relevant
groups and subjects scoring below the proficient level declines sufficiently to put them on
track toward proficiency by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
13 Under the NCLBA, state AYP systems must include at least one indicator, other than
achievement test scores. For senior high schools, the additional indicator must be the
graduation rate. A typical additional indicator for elementary and middle schools is the
attendance rate.
14 The Senate-passed bill would have authorized states to use index systems with a limited
growth-related element — under an index system, states could have combined different
demographic groups of pupils, with greater weight applied to pupils whose level of
achievement was initially furthest below the proficient level.

---

CRS-7
America’s Schools Act of 1994);15 the implicit demand for resources (both extensive,
pupil-level longitudinal data systems and analytical capacity in state educational
agencies); their relative complexity, compared to the status and improvement models;
their assumed requirement for annual pupil assessments throughout all, or at least
most, of pupils’ K-12 education careers, which very few states had in place; and the
difficulty (although not the impossibility) of integrating into growth models an
ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement by a specified
time.
The remainder of this report will focus almost totally on individual/cohort
growth models of AYP versus group status models, and little further attention will
be paid to successive group improvement models of AYP. This is primarily because
the “safe harbor” alternative model of AYP is already available (unlike the
individual/cohort growth model alternative), and because it has reportedly been
invoked relatively infrequently. Some analysts argue the “safe harbor” provision is
used infrequently because it sets a very challenging standard, at least for pupil groups
that are currently at relatively low levels of proficiency,16 and that the required 10%
reduction in pupils below the proficient level should be reduced, perhaps to 3%-4%.17
Growth Model Alternatives to the NCLBA’s Statutory Models
of AYP
For the sake of simplicity, in the remainder of this report we will refer to the
three AYP models by the abbreviated titles of “status,” “improvement,” and “growth”
models. While there are many possible variations of growth models, they would all
appear to violate certain explicit statutory provisions of the NCLBA, at least as those
have been interpreted by ED separate from the growth model pilot discussed later in
this report. At the least, a growth model would involve the use of differing AMOs
for different cohorts of pupils, varying by pupil demographics and possibly by school
or LEA as well, and this would violate the uniform bar approach of the primary AYP
15 During the immediate pre-NCLBA period, a few states identified schools as failing to
make AYP if they failed to meet “expected growth” in performance based on factors such
as initial achievement levels and statewide average achievement trends. The “growth”
models used by states in the pre-NCLBA period were generally much closer in structure to
the successive group improvement model, as described in this report, than to the
individual/cohort growth model.
16 As noted earlier, the “safe harbor” provision requires a 10% reduction in the percentage
of relevant pupils whose performance is below the proficient level. For a pupil group
currently at 20%, this would require an increase in 8 percentage points (to 28%), but for a
group currently at 80%, this would require an increase of only 2 percentage points (to 82%).
17 See Issues in the Design of Accountability Systems, by Robert L. Linn, CSE Technical
Report 650, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing,
Apr. 2005.

---

CRS-8
model of the NCLBA.18 Growth models would also provide for different starting
points or improvement paths for different pupils/cohorts.
In recent years, as experience with the NCLBA requirements for AYP has been
accumulated within states, LEAs, and schools, increased attention has been devoted
by some analysts and administrators to the possible use of growth models of AYP
under the NCLBA.19 Two bills introduced thus far in the 109th Congress (H.R. 1506,
and S. 724) would specifically authorize states to include measures of growth in pupil
achievement, on either an individual or cohort basis, as the additional indicator in
state AYP standards. Further, these bills would allow states to use improvement on
this additional indicator as a justification for reducing the number of schools
identified as failing to meet AYP. In effect, these proposals may be seen as
authorizing states to employ a growth-based model of AYP determination as an
additional alternative to the primary status-based model now embodied in the
NCLBA. Each of these bills would also authorize the appropriation of $80 million
for each of FY2006-FY2008 for competitive grants to states for enhancement of data
systems for AYP purposes (with priority for states that adopt a growth model). This
is similar to a program recently-initiated by ED (see below). In addition, five other
bills in the 109th Congress — H.R. 224, H.R. 2569, H.R. 4085, H.R. 4216, and H.R.
4578 — would make a number of statutory changes intended to allow the use of
growth models for AYP purposes.
Growth Model Pilot
In November 2005, the Secretary of Education announced a growth model pilot
program under which up to 10 states would be allowed to use growth models to make
AYP determinations for the 2005-2006 school year.20 The models proposed by the
states must meet at least the following criteria (in addition to a variety of criteria
applicable to all state AYP policies — e.g., measure achievement separately in
reading/language arts and mathematics):
! they must incorporate an ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a
proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-
2014 school year;
18 It is sometimes said that “index” systems incorporated into the AYP standards of three
states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma) constitute “growth model elements”
allowed by ED under current law. However, the distinctive element of these AYP standards
is the use of indexes that give partial credit for achievement gains at levels below proficient
(such as moving from below basic to basic). Such provisions have been allowed by ED, at
least for these three states, with the additional criteria that AYP must be calculated
separately for each required subject area and subgroup, incorporate the goal of all pupils at
a proficient or higher level of achievement by 2013-2014, not give extra credit for moving
beyond proficient, have AMOs, and not allow a school to make AYP without increasing the
number of students at the proficient level over the previous year.
19 Readers may also wish to consult a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
published in July 2006: “No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring
Academic Growth That Education’s Initiatives May Help Address,” GAO-06-661.
20 See [http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html].

---

CRS-9
! achievement gaps among pupil groups must decline in order for
schools or LEAs to meet AYP standards;
! annual achievement goals for pupils must not be set on the basis of
pupil background or school characteristics;
! annual achievement goals must be based on performance standards,
not past or “typical” performance growth rates;
! the assessment system must produce comparable results from grade-
to-grade and year-to-year;
! the progress of individual students must be tracked within a state
data system.
In addition, applicant states must have their annual assessments for each of grades
3-8 approved by ED, and these assessments must have been in place for at least one
year previous to 2005-2006.
In January 2006, ED published peer review guidance for growth model pilot
applications.21 In general, this guidance elaborates upon the requirements described
above, with special emphasis on the following: (a) pupil growth targets may not
consider their “race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, school AYP status, or any other
non-academic” factor; (b) growth targets are to be established on the basis of
achievement standards, not typical growth patterns or past achievement; and (c) the
state must have a longitudinal, individual pupil data system, capable of tracking
pupils as they move among schools and LEAs.
The requirements for growth models of AYP under this pilot are relatively
restrictive. The models must be consistent with the ultimate goal of all pupils at a
proficient or higher level by 2013-2014, a major goal of the statutory AYP provisions
of the NCLBA. More significantly, they must incorporate comparable annual
assessments, at least for each of grades 3-8 plus at least one senior high school year,
and those assessments must be approved by ED and in place for at least one year
before 2005-2006. Further, all performance expectations must be individualized, and
the state must have an infrastructure of a statewide, longitudinal database for
individual pupils. Proposed models would have to be structured around expectations
and performance of individual pupils, not demographic groups of pupils in a school
or LEA, although individual results would have to be aggregated for the demographic
groups designated in the NCLBA.
According to ED, 20 states submitted applications to be allowed to use growth
models to make AYP determinations beginning with either the 2005-2006 or 2006-
2007 school years. Thus far, two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, have been
approved to use proposed growth models in making AYP determinations based on
assessments administered in the 2005-2006 school year.
The North Carolina policy does not actually provide for a separate AYP model,
but rather the addition of a projection component to the current group status model.
If the achievement level of a non-proficient pupil is on a trajectory toward
proficiency within four years, then the pupil is added to the proficient group. All
21 See [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/growthmodelguidance.pdf].

---

CRS-10
other provisions of the current group status and successive group improvement
models would continue to apply. Thus, the ultimate goal becomes: by the end of the
2013-2014 school year, all pupils will be either at a proficient or higher level, or on
a four-year trajectory toward proficiency (without use of confidence intervals). The
trajectory calculations will be made for pupils in the 3rd through 8th grades. SEA staff
estimate that 4% of the schools in North Carolina that failed to meet AYP standards
based on 2004-2005 assessment results would have met AYP standards if this growth
model had been in place.
Under the Tennessee policy, schools and LEAs will have two options for
meeting AYP: meeting either the AYP standards under the group status or
successive group improvement models of current law, or meeting AYP standards
according to a “projection model.” Under the projection model, pupils are deemed
to be at a proficient or higher level of achievement if their test scores are projected
to be at a proficient or higher level three years into the future, based on past
achievement levels for individual pupils. It should be noted that under this model,
pupils who currently score at a proficient level, but who would be projected to score
below a proficient level in three years, would not be counted as proficient. Further,
the Tennessee growth/projection model implicitly assumes that pupils attend schools
performing at a state average level. If, in actuality, they attend low-performing
schools, their future achievement level may be overestimated.
Tennessee’s projection model will not be applied to high schools. SEA staff
estimate that 13% of the schools in Tennessee that failed to meet AYP standards
based on 2004-2005 assessment results would have met AYP standards if this model
had been in place.
Issues Regarding Growth Model Alternatives
to the NCLBA’s AYP Models
Why is there increased interest in growth models for determining AYP under
the NCLBA? What might be the major advantages and disadvantages of growth
models of AYP, in comparison to status or improvement models? These questions
are addressed in the following pages.
Are Growth Models of AYP More Fair and
Accurate Than Status or Improvement Models?
Many proponents of growth models for school/LEA AYP see them as being
more fair — to both pupils and school staff — and accurate than status or
improvement models, primarily because they can be designed to take into
consideration the currently widely varying levels of achievement of different pupil
groups. Growth models generally recognize the reality that different schools and
pupils have very different starting points in their achievement levels and recognize
progress being made at all levels (e.g., from below basic to basic, or from proficient
to advanced), giving credit for all improvements over previous performance.

---

CRS-11
Growth models would likely increase the ability to attribute pupil achievement
to their current school, as opposed to their past schools or background characteristics,
especially (but not only) if controls (and/or predicted growth elements) are included
in the model. They more directly measure the effect of schools on the specific pupils
they serve over a period of years, attempting to track the movement of pupils between
schools and LEAs, rather than applying a single standard to all pupils in each state.
They have the ability to focus on the specific effectiveness of schools and teachers
with pupils whom they have actually taught for multiple years, rather than the change
in performance of pupil groups among whom there has usually been a substantial
amount of mobility. They can directly (as well as indirectly) adjust for non-school
influences on achievement, comparing the same students across years and reducing
errors due to student mobility.
Proponents of growth models often argue that status models of AYP in
particular make schools and LEAs accountable for factors over which they have little
control, and that status models focus insufficiently on pupil achievement gains,
especially if those gains are below the threshold for proficient performance, or gains
from a proficient to an advanced level. Status models, such as the current primary
model of AYP under the NCLBA, might even create an undesirable incentive for
teachers and schools to focus their attention, at least in the short run, on pupils who
are only marginally below a proficient level of achievement, in hopes of bringing
them above that sole key threshold, rather than the most disadvantaged pupils whose
achievement is well below the proficient level. The current status model of AYP also
confers no credit for achievement increases above the proficient level, e.g., bringing
pupils from the proficient to the advanced level.
At the same time, growth models of AYP have the significant disadvantage of
implicitly setting lower thresholds or expectations for some pupil groups and/or
schools. Although any growth model deemed consistent with the NCLBA would
likely need to incorporate that act’s ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher
level of achievement by 2013-2014 (see below), the majority of such models used
currently or in the past do not include such goals, and tend to allow disadvantaged
schools and pupils to remain at relatively low levels of achievement for considerable
periods of time.
Growth models of AYP may be quite complicated, and may address the
accountability purposes of the NCLBA less directly and clearly than status or (to a
lesser extent) improvement models. If the primary purpose of AYP is to determine
whether schools and LEAs are succeeding at raising the achievement of their current
pupils to challenging levels, with those goals and expectations applied consistently
to all pupil groups, then the current provisions of the NCLBA might more simply and
directly meet that purpose than growth model alternatives.
Pupil mobility among schools and LEAs is substantial, and has important
implications for all models of AYP. However, its implications are multifaceted, and
do not necessarily favor a particular AYP model. Growth models have the advantage
of attempting to track pupils through longitudinal data systems. But if they thereby
attribute the achievement of highly mobile pupils among a variety of schools and
LEAs, accountability is dispersed. At the same time, the presence of highly mobile
pupils in the groups considered in determining AYP under status and improvement

---

CRS-12
models may seem unfair to school staff. However, the impact of such pupils in
school-level AYP determinations is limited by the NCLBA’s provision that pupils
who have attended a particular school for less than one year need not be considered
in such determinations.
Are Growth Models of Greater Value Than Status or
Improvement Models for Purposes Other Than
Accountability?
Growth models of AYP may offer increased value for purposes other than
meeting the school and LEA accountability requirements of the NCLBA. These
other purposes may include diagnosing pupil needs, conducting educational research,
or pinpointing the specific impact of teachers, schools, or other educational resources
on pupil achievement. These advantages derive largely, but not solely, from the
incorporation of longitudinal pupil tracking systems within growth models.
Of course, current law does not prevent the use of growth models, under state
authority, as a diagnostic/research/alternative accountability tool separate from the
AYP and other requirements of the NCLBA. While the current statutory text and
policy guidance associated with the NCLBA discourage the use of separate state and
federal accountability systems for schools and LEAs,22 they are not prohibited in
practice, and separate accountability systems are currently being used by several
states alongside the AYP system required by the NCLBA. Finally, the usefulness of
a model of AYP for purposes other than accountability may be of limited relevance
to a debate over whether such a model should be used for the accountability purposes
of the NCLBA.
Do States Have Sufficient Resources
to Develop and Implement Growth Models?
It is generally agreed that growth models of AYP are more demanding than
status or improvement models in several respects, especially in terms of data
requirements and analytical capacity. For a longitudinal data system sufficient to
support a growth model, it is likely that states would need to have pupil data systems
incorporating at least the following:
1. A unique statewide student identifier.
2. The ability to produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to
year (vertically-scaled assessments).
3. Student-level enrollment, demographic and program participation information.
4. Information on untested students.
5. Student level graduation and dropout data.
22 For example, the NCLBA provides that “Each [participating] State shall demonstrate that
the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability
system....” Nevertheless, several states have continued to administer separate accountability
systems, authorized under state law, while also implementing the AYP provisions of the
NCLBA.

---

CRS-13
6. State-wide audit system.23
While the availability of information on state data systems is insufficient to enable
one to determine with precision how many states could/could not currently
implement such models if they chose to do so, it is very likely that growth models
generally require resources and data systems that many states currently lack.24
This concern is being addressed in part through an ED program intended to help
states design, develop, and implement statewide, longitudinal data systems. An
initial appropriation of $24.8 million was provided for this program, administered by
ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES),25 for FY2005, and a slightly lower
amount ($24,552,000) was provided for FY2006. The Administration has requested
a substantial increase, to $54,552,000, for FY2007. The initial competition for
assistance was announced in April 2005, and a first round of awards to 14 states was
announced in November 2005.
Under this program, aid is to be provided to state educational agencies (SEAs)
via cooperative agreements, not grants, to allow increased federal involvement in the
supported activities. According to the announcement in the April 15, 2005 Federal
Register, the program is intended “to enable SEAs to design, develop, and implement
statewide, longitudinal data systems to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze,
disaggregate, and use individual student data.... Applications from states with the
most limited ability to collect, analyze, and report individual student achievement
data will have a priority....” According to ED, the program is designed to help SEAs
meet the AYP and reporting requirements of the NCLBA, as well as to conduct
value-added or achievement growth research, including “meaningful longitudinal
analyses of student academic growth within all subgroups specified by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001.” There will also be an emphasis on encouraging data
sharing among states, while at the same time protecting the security and privacy of
data.
Are Growth Models Consistent
with the NCLBA’s Ultimate Goal?
The simple answer to this question is that most growth models used in the past
or currently do not incorporate an ultimate goal such as the one under the NCLBA
23 Aimee Guidera, director of the Data Quality Campaign, as quoted in: Commission on No
Child Left Behind, Commission Staff Research Report, “Growth Models: An examination
w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f N C L B , ” A u g . 2 0 0 6 , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/{DEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5}/
Growth%20Models%20and%20NCLB%20Report.pdf], visited on Sept. 6, 2006.
24 According to a Mar. 16, 2005, Memo from the Council of Chief State School Officers
[http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Growthmemo.pdf], about half of the states have
“statewide individual student record data systems” necessary to implement growth models
of AYP.
25 This program is authorized by Section 208 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,
P.L. 107-279. The authorized funding level is $80 million for FY2003 and “such sums as
may be necessary” for each of the succeeding five fiscal years.

---

CRS-14
— that all pupils reach a proficient or higher level of achievement by 2013-2014 —
but growth models could presumably be designed or modified to embody this
element. Growth models of AYP generally incorporate one of two types of growth
target, the “how much improvement is enough” aspect of the model: (a) data
driven/predicted growth, or (b) policy driven/required growth targets. The first type
of growth target has been most common, while the NCLBA’s ultimate goal would
represent a growth target of the second variety, with separate paths (with presumably
separate starting points) for each relevant pupil cohort. Incorporating the NCLBA’s
ultimate goal into growth models might be technically difficult and inconsistent with
the typical nature of such models in the past — with their orientation toward
comparing achievement growth among a cohort of pupils with typical or predicted
growth — but not impossible.
The two models approved thus far under ED’s growth model pilot arguably
meet the ultimate goal requirement. However, under the North Carolina model,
pupils need only be proficient or on track toward proficiency within four years as of
2013-2014, while Tennessee’s growth model alternative focuses on projections of
proficiency three years into the future. Strictly speaking, neither would require that
all pupils reach a proficient level of achievement as of the end of the 2013-2014
school year.
Would Use of Growth Models Likely Reduce the
Number of Schools/LEAs Identified as Failing to Meet AYP?
With the initial implementation of the provisions of the NCLBA, several
thousand public schools and hundreds of LEAs have been identified each year as
failing to meet state AYP standards.26 It frequently appears to be implicitly assumed
by potentially interested parties that widespread use of growth models of AYP would
result in significantly smaller percentages of schools and LEAs being identified as
failing to meet AYP standards. This view seems to be based largely on the
assumption that differing starting points for various cohorts of pupils would involve
lower starting points and initial AMOs for disadvantaged pupil groups, reducing the
number of schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP due to the performance of one or
a few of such demographic groups.
Indeed, it is easy to hypothesize that during the first few years of
implementation of growth models of AYP, required performance thresholds would
be relatively low for disadvantaged pupil cohorts, and fewer schools or LEAs would
fail to meet AYP standards. However, if one assumes that any AYP model under the
NCLBA must meet that act’s ultimate goal requirement, with regular increases in
AMOs leading toward the ultimate goal of all pupils at a proficient or higher level
by 2013-2014, any significant reduction in the number of schools or LEAs failing to
make AYP would likely be temporary. This is particularly true because we are
already several years into the NCLBA’s presumed overall timeline of 2001-2002 (the
“base year” for AYP determinations) to 2013-2014. Of course, if it is assumed that
use of growth models somehow improves the productivity of schools and LEAs —
26 See CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle.

---

CRS-15
e.g., by improving motivation of pupils or teachers, or by providing better diagnostic
data on pupil achievement — then it is possible that this would ultimately reduce the
number of schools/LEAs failing to meet AYP, but there is currently no direct proof
that this would occur. As noted earlier, the two growth models approved for use
under ED’s pilot program would have reduced the number of schools failing to meet
AYP standards to only a limited degree if they had been in use in 2004-2005.
Can Growth Models Be Applied
at Grade Levels Without Annual Assessments?
The value and usefulness of growth models of AYP are highly dependent on a
regular flow of valid information on pupil achievement levels. As a result, it is
frequently assumed that growth models can be appropriately implemented only when
achievement test results, linked to a continuum of state content and performance
standards, are available at least annually. This creates difficulties for implementing
growth models across the entire K-12 grade span, since the NCLBA requires the
administration of state standards-based assessments in each of grades 3-8, plus only
one senior high school grade. It may be possible to fully implement growth models
only over grade ranges for which annual assessment results are available. Substantial
difficulties might be presented by the large degree of variation in curriculum, and
frequently in assessments, for senior high school pupils, although that can present
difficulties under any of the three types of AYP model.
Concluding Remarks
As discussed above, there are a number of potential advantages of growth
models of AYP for schools or LEAs, either alone or as supplements to the other
major types of AYP model — status and improvement. There are also some
potential disadvantages, especially if growth models alone are used, as well as
numerous difficulties and complexities, some inherent in the growth models
themselves, and others associated with efforts to incorporate such major NCLBA
provisions as an ultimate goal into those models.
In states that implement growth models of accountability under state law, such
as Tennessee, there is a desire to make state and federal accountability standards
more consistent. Other states may well want to implement growth models of AYP
because they consider them to be more fair, accurate, or educationally useful.
As discussed above, ED has allowed two states to employ growth models
meeting a variety of requirements in making AYP determinations for the 2005-2006
school year. If the pilot program is expanded, or the statutory language is amended,
one possibility for the future would be to allow states to employ either a status or a
growth model, along with the current secondary improvement model, to determine
AYP for schools and LEAs. Another possibility would be to allow use of a growth
model as a second “safe harbor” provision, applicable only in cases where a school
or LEA would not meet the requirements of the primary status model of AYP. A
third possibility might be efforts to combine growth and status elements into a new

---

CRS-16
“hybrid” model of AYP, such as the “hybrid success” model developed by staff of
the Northwest Evaluation Association.27
crsphpgw
27 For information on this concept, see G. Gage Kingsbury, et al., Adequate Yearly Progress
using the Hybrid Success Model: A Suggested Improvement to No Child Left Behind,
Northwest Evaluation Association, July 2004, available at [http://www.ctredpol.org/
pubs/Forum28July2004/AlanOlsonPaper.pdf].

---