Folks with differing positions on NCLB reauthorization are uniformly dissatisfied with the multiple measures proposed in the Miller-McKeon discussion draft. On one side you have, oh, let's just say Amy Wilkins of Ed Trust who commented when the draft was released:

The efforts to dumb-down the definitions of progress and success by well-financed and ill-informed defenders of the status quo are gaining traction. Americans who share the goal of closing the achievement gaps have cause for concern.

On the other side you have, well, let's just say "the well-financed and ill-informed defenders of the status quo" who think the proposed multiple measures are too prescribed and will not enable schools to demonstrate the progress they have made.  Is the fact that neither side is happy a sign that House staffers actually got it right?  Probably not, because the problems with multiple measures extend beyond how they are defined.  It's virtually impossible to understand a) how they work and b) how they interact with the current AYP provisions, the proposed growth model or proficiency index.  And don't even get me started on the indecipherable weighting system. 

The multiple measure provisions are a mish-mash and, if enacted as written, would be sure to give many a state department of education staffer indigestion.  And, as others have said, making AYP more complicated and less transparent can hardly be a good thing.