Implement an accountability system that gives credit
for progress and/or proficiency.
Rationale: Currently, NCLB only allows a school to make adequate yearly
progress (AYP) if a certain percentage of students overall, and a certain
percentage of students in each subgroup, achieve an arbitrary level of
proficiency. In practice, this means that even schools progressing
significantly can be labeled as failing. This model adversely impacts
schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students who start off
academically behind. A system that gives credit for progress, in addition
to proficiency, acknowledges the effectiveness of schools that improve
even if they fall short of arbitrary proficiency benchmarks. Progress
goals should be set at ambitious but attainable levels.
Create levels for making AYP that distinguish truly
struggling schools from those that need limited assistance.
Rationale: Currently, NCLB treats all schools that fail to make AYP the
same in terms of intervention strategies. We need a system that
distinguishes struggling schools from those that may need some assistance
but are generally doing a good job of educating their students. A system
that distinguishes schools that need a lot of assistance from those that
need limited assistance will allow supports and financial resources to be
appropriately targeted.
Prohibit unnecessary and duplicative student testing.
Rationale: Many states and districts add NCLB requirements onto an
alr6/6/2006eady overburdened testing schedule. States and districts should
be required to audit their testing programs to prohibit them from layering
unnecessary and duplicative tests on schools. Too much instructional time
in classrooms is taken up by testing that is redundant or fails to yield
timely or useful information.
Reduce schools’ exclusive focus on reading and math.
Rationale: Research has identified serious unintended consequences of
high-stakes testing in only reading and math. First, many districts are
reporting a narrowing of the curriculum to only these subject areas.
Second, much of the extended time for reading and math instruction is
devoted to test preparation drill instead of high quality reading and math
instruction. Accountability should not drive schools to reduce meaningful
instruction in curricular areas that are not included in high-stakes
accountability systems. If students are very far behind, they should be
provided opportunities for additional intensive math or reading
instruction beyond that available during the normal school day or year.
