AMO: WT ...?

I would have said it was impossible to come up with a more convoluted school rating system than the AYP measure created by the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

Then I saw the AMO system North Carolina has created to replace it.  My immediate reaction was another acronym, which young texters use to express the concept of  "What the ...."

No Child Left Behind set an ever-changing series of proficiency goals,  which had to be calculated for a long list of  "subgroups"  (racial, income, disability, language status).  If any group fell short,  the school failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress  --  unless,  of course,  it squeaked through under various "wiggle room"  formulas.  Failing to make AYP had no consequences, unless a school got Title I aid for high-poverty schools,  in which case it could be forced to offer transfers,  get rid of staff and take other measures.

In the beginning,  I devoted barrels of ink to explaining this system.  The big goal,  making sure all groups of students got the attention and help they needed,  seemed worthy.  But over the years,  I concluded that making or failing AYP told the public virtually nothing useful about a school.  So I phased it out of my coverage.

The goal of all those changing targets was to move all states toward 100 percent proficiency for all students by 2014.  Another admirable goal.  But over the years,  it also became clear that setting a target didn't make it a reality.  Faced with the prospect of virtually all schools "failing,"  federal officials backed down from No Child Left Behind,  and this year North Carolina was among the states grated a waiver.

But the state had to create a substitute, which brings us to Annual Measurable Objectives.  Now, instead of moving toward 100 percent by 2014,  North Carolina is trying to "reduce the percentage of non-proficient students by one-half" by 2017.  I had no idea what that meant until Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools staff explained it to the school board on Wednesday. (Go to the presentation and start on page 32 to see for yourself. A reminder: CMS did not create this system.)

The new AMO targets vary by group. For elementary and middle school reading, the 2012 target was 83.2 percent of white students reading on grade level,  80.8 percent of Asians,  61.4 percent of low-income students,  57.8 percent of African Americans and 44.5 percent of students with disabilities.

Lower targets based on race and circumstance?  Does anyone else find that deeply disturbing?

You could argue that it's based on reality:  Those groups,  on average,  have logged lower pass rates for years.  Slow,  steady progress is better than none.

But remember the lesson of No Child Left Behind:  A target is not the same as a result. It's not even a strategy.  It's just a number to aspire to.  Heck, if we're doing that,  why not go back to the version where we're two years from educational utopia?

There are no rewards for making AMOs and no penalties for failing.  Just another set of numbers:  In 2012, 44.8 percent of CMS schools met all AMOs.

On Wednesday, board member Tom Tate complained about how difficult it can be to tease meaning out of education data.  Superintendent Heath Morrison,  a former high school principal,  concurred.  He launched into a rapid-fire riff on the kind of discussion that ensued once families started delving into all the results posted on websites:

"They'd say, 'Well, were you successful?'  Absolutely.  We made AYP by meeting and exceeding the AMO.  We needed the confidence interval over here,  safe harbor over here.  ACT scores are up,  ACT scores are down," he rattled off  (thank you, iRecorder). "Parents just looked at us and they'd say, 'Huh?' "

Exactly.  "Huh?" strikes me as a polite response to this new set of ratings.  I don't plan to spend much energy reporting on them.

Unless families start demanding to know why "Our school met its AMOs"  can translate to  "40 percent of our black students aren't reading on grade level."