Adequate Yearly Progress is a flawed tool. But, with a few changes, AYP can become the impetus for educational good that its architects originally foresaw. Almost all educational accountability laws are enacted by well-intentioned lawmakers who want what's best for children. Sometimes, however, certain features of these laws actually diminish rather than enhance educational quality. Such is the case with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The very name of NCLB, of course, elicits warm visions of a caring government's assurance that nary one child will be neglected in our public schools. Yet, one of this cleverly labeled law's provisions--namely, its adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirement--now causes serious educational mischief in the nation's schools. NCLB, as most educators know, is the current incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), a landmark federal statute that, for the first time, lobbed substantial federal tax dollars into the nation's public schools. Because the next reauthorization of ESEA will soon be upon us, it's altogether imperative that the AYP flaws in this influential law be remedied. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] An Unintended Malignancy In a nutshell, NCLB currently calls on schools to increase the test scores of successive cohorts of students, including several NCLB-designated subgroups. Incorporating an amalgam of federal and state controls, NCLB sets forth the general structure of AYP but allows states to 1) decide what levels of student achievement will be required for a particular state's students to be 2) select the achievement tests to measure students' levels of proficiency, and 3) install state-specific timelines to ensure that all of the state's students will become proficient by the close of the 2013-14 school year. Given state-by-state choices regarding these three key options, it comes as no surprise that state percentages of AYP-failing schools vary considerably. Nonetheless, the NCLB requirement that all students earn proficient-or-above test scores by 2014 is having an adverse impact on schooling. This is because, though states can slightly jiggle their AYP timelines regarding how they'll reach the 2014 goal, they still must satisfy this federal demand for proficient-or-above perfection. Schools that fail to reach their annual AYP targets soon become the recipients of serious sanctions (if those schools receive NCLB dollars) or public embarrassment (if those schools don't receive NCLB dollars). Avoiding those negative consequences has become a primary focus of educators at all levels of public schooling. Many of these failure-avoidance endeavors by educators, unfortunately, have nothing to do with improving education. In truth, the havoc caused by AYP is sufficiently serious that characterizing it as a malignancy really doesn't demand much literary license. Five Changes Any changes to AYP in the reauthorized rendition of ESEA must be politically palatable. For instance, if AYP is eliminated or eviscerated in a new version of ESEA, then the public might interpret this as evidence of educators' lack of concern about children's academic progress. Such perceptions would, almost certainly, doom any versions of a reauthorized ESEA under consideration. I'm convinced, however, that with five changes, AYP can be saved without losing political face. Moreover, AYP can become the impetus for educational good that its architects originally foresaw. RECOMMENDATION #1 Change the language. A new version of ESEA should abandon the current NCLB descriptive labels--basic, proficient, and advanced. Shifting to a new set of fundamentally different achievement descriptors will provide state officials with an opportunity to install more clear and more defensible definitions of student achievement levels. Student's test performances could be described in a three-category system revolving around the grade-level performance of students, namely, below grade level, at grade level, and above grade level. …