The AYP system is flawed, casting doubt on the way No Child Left Behind money is doled out (or not), says Harvard University Professor Paul E. Peterson. Simplistically speaking, AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is a system of grade-level testing used to determine whether schools remain eligible for NCLB monies. Peterson proposes two fixes to the process for measuring AYP. The first is to use a more accurate and fair measure of academic progress; the second is to hold not just schools but also teachers and students accountable for AYP.

It would be tough to argue against Peterson’s first point. NCLB only measures whether or not a student is proficient at a certain grade level based on inconsistent individual state standardized tests. The measurement does not give credit to students who make considerable gains but who still may not be grade-level proficient. Some kids are so far behind that credit should be given for making significant/measurable progress, even if they do not make it to proficiency at a certain level at a given time. It makes absolutely no sense to force changes on a school that makes significant year to year gains with a population of students who begin at a very low level of performance. As Peterson says, all states now have the ability to move to an A–F grading scale that focuses purely on student growth, so why not measure progress on that scale and give credit where credit is due, even if there is still more ground to make up?

Peterson’s second point centers largely around tying high-stakes testing to grade advancement or graduation and is a bit more controversial. It just doesn’t seem fair to disregard an entire year’s worth of learning and grades because a student fails one test, especially when that test differs from state to state. It may not be a popular position, but I believe there is much merit in a national assessment tool. Peterson also proposes that the high-stakes test results might be used to measure teacher effectiveness. Knowing the effectiveness of teachers is a good thing; measuring them by the results of one test, however, could be quite misleading. If we are going to fund schools based on test results, then we need to create a standardized, valid assessment lacking in bias.