Comment by Stephen Sawchuk on June 17, 2011 at 9:49am

That's a good one, Emily.

I still can't get over all the statistical gimmicks the Dept allowed states to use in order to make AYP -- averaging, giving half-credit to states when kids fell short (Alabama), huge minimum subgroup sizes, "safe harbor," confidence intervals, you name it. 

Comment by Emily Richmond on June 17, 2011 at 10:11am

Minimum subgroups ... another favorite, Stephen! The state of Nevada actually took that rule seriously and set their subgroups at 35. Little did they know most everyone else would go for 100 or even larger. When the Silver State figured out the scheme a year down the road and asked the feds for a waiver, the answer was a definite "no."

Comment by Dakarai I. Aarons on June 17, 2011 at 12:22pm

I'm with Steve. I still to this day can't believe that California and some of the others used 100 as their count. I thought 45 was bad enough in Tennessee! Safe harbor, though, has to be my favorite loophole--I did find it a task and a half, however, to explain it in a short paragraph in daily newspaper.

Comment by Emily Richmond on June 17, 2011 at 1:20pm

Dakarai ... wouldn't it have been great to punch F3 on our keyboard and be able to spit out the safe harbor definition?

The way NCLB's reauthorization seems to be heading, we might want to get a jump ahead and load the F4 key with the explanation of "growth model." 

Comment by Dakarai I. Aarons on June 17, 2011 at 1:25pm

And the F5 key will need to explain just exactly how we figure out which schools are in the bottom 5 percent--states seemed to have varying opinions on that in picking schools eligible for the SIG grants.

Comment