This study examines student growth on mathematics and reading assessments across academic years (Spring 2006 through Spring 2009) using three different growth models: hierarchical linear model (HLM), value-added model (VAM), and student growth percentile model (SGP). Comparisons across these three growth models were conducted to investigate the differences and similarities of the results obtained from these three growth models. Multilevel growth parameter estimates, model-fit indices, and predictor effects were used to comparatively evaluate these three growth models. Furthermore, three criteria were used to evaluate each of the growth models: reliability, validity, and fairness. The results obtained from each of the growth models were compared for mathematics and reading assessments. Similar results were found across the three growth models, suggesting that even though different methodologies were used to study student growth, similar results were obtained. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]