B. The transitional measure of progress
Because IASA contained so many new requirements – including that states have standards and rich, aligned assessments – Congress gave states a "transition" period (for roughly six years after Congress passed the legislation) to develop and field-test their assessments. States were not required to have their new assessments in place until 2000-2001. During this "transition" period, the law allowed the use of slightly modified criteria for the selection of schools for school improvement. The theory was that until their final assessments were in place, states could not adopt their final definitions of adequate yearly progress because the definitions of adequate yearly progress must be based on results on the final assessments. The definitions of adequate yearly progress are usually stated in terms of specific test score gains on the state test.
During this transitional period, states were required to devise a procedure for identifying schools and LEAs in need of improvement that relies on accurate information about the continuous and substantial yearly academic progress of each school and LEA2.
2. 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(7)(B), and U.S. Department of Education's Guidance on Standards, Assessment, and Accountability, p.57, (1997).