Federal accountability requirements after the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the need to report progress for various disaggregated subgroups of students meant that the methods used to set and articulate performance standards across the grades must be revisited. Several solutions that involve either "a priori" deliberations or "post-hoc" adjustments have been offered over the years. In this paper, I provide a methodological review of the alternative cut-score articulation methods, including some novel solutions (e.g., using predictive methods) that have been proposed in the context of the next-generation K-12 assessments. In systematically evaluating these methods, I focus on the psychometric challenges they might present and the practical feasibility of their operational implementation. In addition, results from a survey of several state departments of education help to provide information on the prevalence of these methods across the states. Overall, this review shows that none of the alternative methods is completely free of limitation; yet, each method provides solutions that are appropriate for addressing certain methodological and practical requirements.Therefore, in the context of the next-generation assessments and the need to identify students who are on track to being college and career ready, practitioners are advised to consider a combination of methods and cautioned against overreliance on any single method.