The benefits of a long-term investment

Eduwonk brings up some good points about an op-ed in today’s Washington Post - while “triaging” students might be a reasonable response to making AYP in a single year, there are few rewards in the law for continuing that approach over even a couple of years. Also, states, not just Tennessee and North Carolina, have already taken advantage of flexibility in NCLB to do what the author recommends: reward schools for making progress, even if students don’t cross the proficiency threshold.

Principals and teachers concerned with making AYP have little motivation to ignore students with the lowest test scores. In fact, this is illustrated best in a quote from the op-ed:

“Ana’s got a 25 percent, the teacher said. What’s the point in trying to get her to grade level? It would take two years to get her to pass the test, so there’s really no hope for her. I feel like we might as well focus on the ones there’s hope for.”

What’s the point? Aside from giving Ana a chance to succeed academically, there is still an NCLB “point” in getting her to grade level. If the school invests in Ana in 3rd grade despite her low scores, Ana could be adding to their percent proficient by 5^th grade. The school, or school system, will still be accountable for Ana in 2 years, so I’m confused as to why it is rewarding to ignore Ana. The ultimate goal of 100% proficiency does, after all, mean 100% of students, Ana included.

On another note, several states have already created ‘Index’ systems that reward schools for increasing achievement at all levels. States’ calculations differ, but essentially schools receive an increasing number of points (say, zero for Level 1, 20 for Level 2, 30 for Level 3, etc.) with the maximum number of points given for students scoring at or above proficient. For some states (e.g., New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts) this formula is used to determine which schools meet AYP, for others (e.g., Pennsylvania, South Carolina), this is used for safe harbor. Either way, it rewards schools for growth, without ignoring the ultimate goal of 100% proficiency.

Is NCLB 99% pure? No, and it is important to keep pointing out problems with the incentive system, and potential solutions, but it is also necessary to keep both the short and long-term incentives in mind.