AYP, NCLB & PDCA

Before I start discussing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), I need to cover Plan Do Check Act. (PDCA) The PDCA cycle is a very straight forward concept that was documented and made popular by two brilliant men, Dr Shewhart and Dr Demming. These gentlemen made improving organization performance and quality their life's work.

PDCA
A simple working example for a student may be:

• Plan: Student plans to attain an "A" in Math (ie objective) by performing certain study tasks in a certain order (ie process) while exerting a set number of hours towards the goal. (ie cost/constraint)


• Do: The student executes per the plan.


• Check: The student takes a test, receives a grade(ie result) and compares the result to the objective.


• Act: If the objective is not met or the cost/constraint is exceeded, the student analyzes the gap(s) to determine the root cause(s) and what can be changed. (ie what prevented success? what should be changed?) Or, if the objective is attained within the cost/constraint, they may seek further improvement. (ie can I attain the objective with less cost/constraint by revising the process? should I raise my goal?)


• Plan: Revise Plan per previous PDCA cycle and repeat.

Please note that the student does not get to adjust the criteria required for an "A". Depending on the teacher's expectations, the criteria can be simple, aggressive, rational, irrational, etc. The student needs to believe the teacher's expectations are necessary and important.

Also, the student has no control of their current capability. Genetics or environment may have given incredible math gifts, study skills, ability to focus, etc. Or the student may be challenged in one or all of these areas. Therefore the student can only start at their "current reality" and adjust the factors they control.

Finally, let's assume this is a busy and active student, which means that free time/funding is constrained. Therefore the student will need to prioritize very carefully how they spend their limited amount of time. If they choose to pursue activities that they personally find interesting and important, it may prevent them from attaining the objective/"A".

I found this analogy very fitting since:

• The education system uses grading to measure student performance and to determine if the student is spending time and effort on the correct tasks. (ie studying the subject vs reading non-related yet informative books)
• The citizen's have given the education system a very clear syllabus regarding the objective/grading criteria (ie AYP/NCLB) and acceptable cost/constraint amounts (ie budget). This has been developed based on what knowledgeable people feel is required for the USA to have a world class education system.(ie remain globally competitive)
• We need to trust that the goals are necessary and important, and focus on closing the gaps.
• The education system does not get to select the capability and mix of it's student body.
• The education system can choose to focus spending on attaining the objectives. (ie English reading & writing, Math and Science) Or they can spend money in other interesting/important areas and risk not attaining the objective/"passing AYP".
• The education system can only control their processes, methods and people, starting with the current reality.
• Besides I just find it a wee bit funny/ironic that many educators who would find fault with AYP/NCLB would have no difficulty giving a student a "B" because the student spent their time pursuing an interesting/important hobby instead of focusing on the teacher's class and meeting the set objectives... Or because the student simply was not capable to the required level.

Hopefully this explains how the PDCA cycle relates to AYP/NCLB. At work we have a simple saying, "what gets measured gets done". Without the Objectives, Constraints and "Check" steps, people tend to stray from the goals or lose the passion to improve as people ask for other interesting/important things, problems arise, etc.

By the way, I realize I simplified this by saying the citizen's have given clear expectations... The reality is that many citizen's groups are continually trying to lobby for "interesting/important things" and the schools need to listen... However, when push comes to shove the quantifiable and reported metrics determine AYP success or failure...

Does this makes sense? Questions or comments? More AYP thoughts to come...