ABCadabdra

The Washington Post (WP) reported today on the new study of state achievement tests published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. According to WP, the study:

offers evidence that the No Child Left Behind law's core mission -- to push all students to score well in reading and math -- is undermined by wide variations in how states define a passing score.

The study's aim was to investigate three research questions related to the NCLB policy calling for all students' proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014, and expecting each state to define that "proficiency."

1. How consistent are various states' expectations for proficiency in reading and mathematics?
2. Is there evidence that states' expectations for proficiency have changed since NCLB's enactment?
3. How closely are proficiency standards calibrated across grades?

The researchers found that "improvements in passing rates on state tests can largely be explained by declines in the difficulty of those tests."

According to the study, "State tests vary greatly in their difficulty." Thus a student could pass in, say, Michigan where the proficiency passing score is among the lowest in the country, and test lower than five-sixths of the same-grade students in the rest of the country.

What [parents and teachers] don't know is that "proficient" doesn't mean much. This is the proficiency illusion.

The Proficiency Illusion
(October 2007, 238pp/pdf, 2.1MB)

In a Nutshell, a summary
(1p/73KB)

Safe Schools in Congress

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was amended and reauthorized through FY2007 by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110). The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has issued a report on possible actions the 110th Congress may take regarding reauthorization of SDFSCA.

According to the report, NCLB authorizes funding for the SDFSA program, "which is the federal government's major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools." Grants are awarded to state and local educational agencies and to governors. Governors receive 20% of a state allotment to award grants and contracts to public and private entities.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Reauthorization and Appropriations, CRS Report RL33870 (pdf, 16pp/120kB, from Open CRS), Feb. 8, 2007

NCLB in Congress

Anticipating that Congress will amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on NCLB reauthorization issues that it believes Congress will focus on:

• Assessments
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• Performance based sanctions - which generally apply only to Title I-A schools
• Staff qualifications - regarding "highly qualified teachers"
• Funding levels
• International competitiveness
• Federal role

A Jan. 15 editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser noted, "Last year, 66 percent of public schools in Hawaii failed to meet the AYP requirements under No Child Left Behind...(but) it did show an overall improvement in student proficiency in both math and English." The editorial urges the federal government to allow states to use such student progress as an assessment measure rather than a rigid pass or fail benchmark.

It's unfair to deny students the chance to be measured against this more-forgiving scale. During the next few months, Congress will decide whether to reauthorize the law, or make improvments to it. Considering the stakes--our children's education--making improvements is not an option. It's an obligation.

The No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview of Reauthorization Issues for the 110th Congress, CRS Report RL33749 (pdf, 33pp/196kB, from Open CRS), December 16, 2006

See related FR post: NCLB - Measuring progress

NCLB - Measuring progress

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires that states (1) improve students' academic performance so that they achieve reading and math proficiency by 2014, and (2) close achievement gaps between high- and low-performing students. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently did a study on how states measure schools' academic achievement, or adequate yearly progress (AYP), in meeting these goals. States now set annual targets using status models that calculate test scores 1 year at a time. In addition to status models, 26 states use growth models that measure changes in test scores over time. Another 22 states, Hawaii among them, are considering implementing growth models. In its report, GAO assesses states' use of growth models, whether they achieve NCLB goals, and how the Department of Education (Education) is assisting states in using growth models.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce asked GAO to testify on its report. The testimony was released on July 27.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth That Education's Initiatives May Help Address, GAO-06-661, July 17, 2006
     Full report (pdf, 2MB, 54p.)
     Highlights (pdf, 372KB, 1p.)
     Abstract (html)

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth, GAO-06-948T, July 27, 2006, Testimony (pdf, 1MB, 24p.)

Related FR posts:

• Report card on NCLB, year 4
• No Child, "a product of negotiation, not law"

See Hawaii Dept. of Education (DOE) AYP news release, July 20, 2006

Report card on NCLB, year 4

As stated on their website, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) "is a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools." In March CEP released their fourth annual analysis of the state by state implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (The U.S. Department of Education also has an all states evaluation, How NCLB is making a difference in your state, available on the Ed.gov website.)

According to the CEP's news release, the NCLB has affected the "everyday lives of students and educators; [with] greatest impact in urban districts." Their survey of 50 state education officials, 299 school districts, and 38 geographically diverse case studies and 42 individual schools found that 71 percent " reported having reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to make more time for reading and mathematics, the topics tested for NCLB purposes. "

"The effects of NCLB are complex, and this policy has both strengths and weaknesses," said Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the independent, nonpartisan CEP. "If anyone is looking for a simple judgment on NCLB, such as 'good' or 'bad,' they will not find it in this report."

From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act
(available in pdf, 1.5MB, from CEP)

Summary, available in pdf, 428KB.
News release, available in pdf, 32KB.

No Child, "a product of negotiation, not law"

Reuters published an article today on Harvard University Civil Rights Project's newly released 60 page examination of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the subsequent policy shifts in states' accountability. The report charges that "political compromises forged between some states and the federal government have allowed schools in some predominantly white districts to dodge penalties faced by regions with larger ethnic minority populations." The report's executive summary states:

This report documents the changes states have made to their accountability plans and examines how these policy shifts affect the meaning of accountability and who benefits (and loses) from the changes. We reviewed decision letters sent to all 50 states that outlined the changes approved by ED through December 2005. The intent of this report is to provide policymakers with information they can use to develop a systemic approach to correcting the flaws in NCLB by documenting the requirements that are difficult for states to implement and identifying areas where the law may not be working as intended. The report provides an easy to understand synopsis of the changes allowed by ED and state-by-state summaries of the amendments each state adopted.

The news article quotes Gail Sunderman, lead author of the study, as saying, "There's a very uneven effect. There are no clear uniform standards that are governing No Child Left Behind. If one state gets one thing, another state can do something else."

The Unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How Negotiated Changes Transform the Law, by Gail L. Sunderman
(available in pdf, 504KB, from The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University)

Helping states define graduation rates

One third of students who enter high school do not graduate, thus facing limited job prospects. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that states use graduation rates to measure how well students are educated. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) today issued a report on how the Dept. of Education can help states better define graduation rates and evaluate intervention strategies to raise graduation rates.

Twelve states use the cohort definition that tracks students from when they enter high school to when they leave. Because this is a more precise definition than others, a majority of states plan to use this by school year 2007-08.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: Education Could Do More to Help States Better Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention Strategies
      Full report (PDF, 5.3MB, 67p., from GAO)
      Highlights (PDF, 372KB, 1p., from GAO)
      Abstract (HTML)