Achievement gaps narrowing in state

O'Connell backs changes to NCLB

The Center for Education Policy has released an ambitious new report—billed as “the most comprehensive and thorough study to date of the results of state tests” since the No Child Left Behind Act became law in 2002—that found gains in achievement in California and much of the nation and a narrowing of the achievement gap that divides many student subgroups.

“Two main findings emerged from our analysis of student performance in the California assessments,” the researchers wrote in one of 50 separate analyses of individual states:

• “Student performance increased in reading and math between 2004 and 2006 [the time span covered by the analysis] as gauged by changes in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on state tests.”
• “From 2004 to 2006, gaps in percentages proficient in math narrowed between the Hispanic/white and economically disadvantaged/non-economically disadvantaged subgroups at all three grade levels analyzed,” meaning elementary, middle and high school.

The data were less clear in other areas, and sometimes less reassuring. “No consistent gap trends were found in reading,” although there is some evidence that English language learners may have lost ground to other student groups, according to the respected, independent organization’s report, while “Math achievement gaps widened between students with disabilities and non-disabled students.”

High standards predate NCLB in California
However, the report, “Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?,” begs a further question: Was NCLB responsible for the gains in student achievement?

“It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which these trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB. Since 2002, states, school districts, and schools have simultaneously implemented many different but interconnected policies to raise achievement,” the report acknowledges.

In separate statements, a key education policy expert at CSBA and the state’s elected schools chief went further.
“It would be completely misleading to make any correlation between NCLB and student gains in California,” said Holly Jacobson, CSBA’s assistant executive director for Policy Analysis and Continuing Education. “Not only did California put an accountability system in place long before NCLB, but California’s accountability system has disaggregated student scores by subgroup since the system’s inception” in 1999.

A timeline produced by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell’s office traces the evolution of California’s standards-based education system back to 1996, when class-size reduction and tougher professional development standards were enacted. Dozens of other milestones, such as introduction of the Academic Performance Index in 1999, also predate NCLB.

“The hard work done to align instruction, materials, professional development, and testing to our standards is clearly paying off,” O’Connell said in response to the CEP report.

O’Connell supportschanges in NCLB

In a separate announcement, O’Connell released his recommendations to the state’s congressional delegation as Congress prepares to take up reauthorization of NCLB—formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—
this year.

“I strongly agree with the goals of NCLB, but we must amend the law to more fairly and sensibly address the needs of states with established accountability systems and high expectations for schools,” O’Connell said. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization this year.

“I urge Congress to amend the law to allow states the option of using a growth model to measure student achievement. The use of growth models also encourages high standards. Because state standards vary widely, states such as California with nationally recognized high standards that expect more of their students are more likely to fall short of the federal ‘status model’ accountability goal, while states that hold lower expectations may appear to be doing better. This is both misleading and unfair,” O’Connell protested in a statement accompanying his formal recommendations.

In another development, a report released June 7 by the federal Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics documents wide differences in state proficiency standards, which NCLB relies on to determine whether students, schools and districts—and, by implication, entire states—are making adequate yearly progress. California’s are among the toughest.

O’Connell’s NCLB recommendations “are very much in line with CSBA’s Fix NCLB campaign,” as well as the recommendations of the Education Coalition, CSBA Principal Legislative Advocate Erika Hoffman pointed out.

Beyond flexibility on growth models, the summary of O’Connell’s recommendations includes:

• fully fund NCLB and make it a priority throughout the federal appropriations cycle
• extend and expand common-sense flexibility for meeting highly qualified teacher requirements
• allow states and school districts more flexibility and provide more efficient funding for the provision of supplemental educational services and school choice 
• recognize parental rights to exempt their children from state testing, and don’t penalize schools where more than 5 percent of parents exercise that right.

Related links:
Read O’Connell’s NCLB recommendations @ www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/documents/yr07ltr0604att.pdf
Find the Center for Public Education’s report on state tests @ www.cep-dc.org
Download the federal report comparing state standards @ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007482.pdf
Access CSBA’s Fix NCLB campaign toolkit @
www.csba.org/nclb/