Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Student Growth † Damian W. Betebenner National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Dover, NH DBetebenner@nciea.org March 20, 2008 Abstract Annual student achievement data derived from state assessment programs have led to wide spread enthusiasm for statistical models suitable for longitudinal analysis. In response, the United States De- partment of Education recently solicited growth model proposals from states as a means of satisfying NCLB adequate yearly progress requirements. Given the current policy environment’s rigid adherence to NCLB’s universal proficiency mandate, the preponderance of models thus far proposed maintain compli- ance by estimating future (i.e., projected) student achievement. Referred to as the “growth-to-standard” approach, these criterion referenced growth models designate whether a student is “on track to being proficient” and use this designation as evidence of school quality. This paper begins by situating current growth-to-standard approaches within a larger domain of statistical models including those based solely upon achievement as well as more traditional growth models. Within this context, we demonstrate that current growth-to-standard approaches present an impoverished view of student progress because they lack a normative foundation. To remedy this, student growth percentiles are introduced as a normative description of growth capable of accommodating, informing, and extending criterion referenced aims like those embedded within NCLB. Background Accountability systems constructed according to federal adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements currently rely upon annual measurement of student achievement to make judgments about school quality. Since their adoption, such status measures have been the focus of persistent criticism (Linn, 2003; Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). Status measures, though appropriate for making judgments about the achievement level of students at a school for a given year, are inappropriate for judgments about educational effectiveness. In this regard, status measures are blind to the possibility of low achieving students attending effective schools. It is this possibility that has led some critics of NCLB to label its accountability provisions as unfair and misguided and to demand the use of growth analyses as a better means of auditing the quality of schools. A fundamental premise associated with using student growth for school accountability is that “good” schools bring about student growth in excess of that found at “bad” schools. Students attending such schools— commonly referred to as highly effective/ineffective schools—tend to demonstrate extraordinary growth that is causally attributed to the school or teachers instructing the students. The inherent believability of this premise is at the heart of current enthusiasm to incorporate growth models into state accountability systems. It is not surprising that the November 2005 announcement by Secretary of Education Spellings for the Growth Model Pilot Program (GMPP) permitting states to use growth model results as a means for compliance with NCLB achievement mandates was met with great enthusiasm by states. (Spellings, 2005). In guidance to states applying for the GMPP, the United States Department of Education stated explicitely that the universal proficiency mandate of NCLB would not be compromised and that growth models would be held to the same exacting standard as approved status models. In response, of the models thus far approved as part of the GMPP, a majority maintain compliance by examining “growth” in terms of future (i.e., projected) student achievement. Referred to as the “growth-to-standard” approach, these criterion referenced growth † An electronic version of this paper is available at http://www.nciea.org.