Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Ohio Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Commentary
    • Ohio Gadfly Newsletter
    • Ohio Gadfly Blog
    • Events

In defense of Ohio's AYP plan

2.12.2003

I rarely defend the education authorities in Ohio; but I am doing so this time in response to Checker's editorial, Adequate yearly progress or balloon mortgage? [http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=9#367 ]

The basic problem with the NCLB goals is their total impracticability. The notion that every last child in the country, including children of illiterate parents and children with mental or emotional disabilities, can in ten years or so achieve a proficiency level of healthy middle class kids from the suburbs, boggles the mind of any thinking person. It must be a political statement, or one created heedlessly by a legislative committee unwilling to face facts. Therefore, every state should hope and expect that this aberration in an otherwise good law will in due course be changed. If I were the Ohio Superintendent or Governor, I would not want to repeat the mistake, and would postpone the time when non-compliance will be evident as long as possible. This is especially so when the federal government is not offering any significant additional funds to help pay for the vast remedial work necessary to achieve even the Ohio-Indiana modest goals, and, in view of our staggering federal deficits, is not likely to do so.

Setting and defending demonstrably unrealistic goals is hindering, not helping, the education reform process.

Hugh Calkins

Tags: Indiana No Child Left Behind Act Ohio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]