NCLB: AYP Minus One (Or Two, Or Three)

I'm one of a very small (but extremely wise and influential) group of people and organizations extremely worried about the Duncan administration giving in to state and local bureaucrats and gutting the accountability measures in NCLB in a cyncial deal to get states to adopt Race To The Top-style reforms (or at least promise to).  But I'm prepared to compromise on a couple of small, sensible fixes if it will help everyone feel better about themselves and get on with more important things (like checking to see how RTTT and SIG are actually being implemented).  Everyone talks about expanding the safe harbor/growth model provisions so that schools get credit for progress but what about -- this is my own crazy idea far as I know -- an "AYP minus one" system in which schools that make AYP for all but one, two, or three subgroups can still be said to have made AYP.  That would allow schools to focus on what they need to focus on but still keep the clear subgroup accountability for everyone.  Solved.  Next problem?

Comments

[Tom]

That would make too much sense.

[Sandra]

Subgroup accountability is important.

[Patrick Riccards]

What about "red shirting" a particular school for a given year? A school district could "designate" a school whose data wouldn't count for a particular year (though it would still be reported). You just couldn't designate the school more than two years in a row. Then you are still looking at the subgroups, but you allow for a little more time to turn around a really struggling school or two.

[Tim]

I heard somewhere that NCLB is not causing as much school closings as the news articles imply. Alexander, do you know if that is true? If it isn't then it really doesn't matter if schools don't make AYP.