Little known or discussed is the fact that NCLB does not
require 100% of students in all subgroups to be proficient by 2014. With the
original safe harbor provision, a subgroup can make a 10% improvement in
proficiency rate and be considered making adequate yearly progress. Quick math
reveals that a subgroup in 2002 at 10% proficient can meet safe harbor with
rates of 11%, 12.1%, 13.3%, 14.6%, 16.1%, 17.7%, 19.5%, 21.4%, 23.6%, 25.7%,
28.5%, and 31.4%.

Everyone knew already that students hidden in small
subgroups did not have to be proficient, but that comes to a head in 2014 if the
“all students” group is large enough.

Don’t the new growth model guidelines require being on
pace for proficiency by 2014? Seems the new growth alternative hits its ceiling
in a few years. Each year, the growth line gets
steeper.

Seems a winning strategy is to tank it by
underperforming more than 10% in 2013 and “grow” back to norm in 2014. The
lesson is that with public education accountability systems, there’s almost
always a way to game the system.

**The EduGuru speaks: ** See the movie “21” or read
__Bringing Down the House__. Gaming the system eventually catches up with
you. When educators search for easier ways out rather than improving schools to
meet standards, what has been gained?

## Recent Comments

Glynn Ligon:Read your comment, Joe. Ugly stats. Gates, Del... | more »Joe O'Reilly:If you read some of the news stories of who the... | more »sangeeth:nice theme keep it up Sangeeth... | more »