For decades, federal policymakers have tried to implement education
reforms to improve opportunities for disadvantaged students and
ethnic-minority children. Since 2001, the focus of federal policy
has been the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation--which
increased federal funding for K-12 education programs and created
new academic requirements for states and public schools that
receive federal assistance.
NCLB established new requirements for states to set educational
standards, test students annually on core subjects, and to
implement reforms in public schools that fail to demonstrate
adequate progress on state tests. The combination of testing and
reform interventions was intended to provide better learning
opportunities for students in danger of falling behind in
low-performing schools.
After seven years, evidence suggests that No Child Left Behind,
like previous federal interventions, has failed to yield meaningful
improvements in students' learning. NCLB has also highlighted the
limits and unintended consequences of federal intervention.
As the 111th Congress considers the reauthorization of NCLB,
federal policymakers should review this experience and examine
other strategies for improving opportunities for disadvantaged
students and ethnic-minority children. One approach is to give
states and local policymakers greater authority to direct public
education in their jurisdictions.
Florida's experience with implementing aggressive education
reforms over the past decade suggests that states can
improve student learning. Before No Child Left Behind was enacted,
Florida implemented reforms to establish academic standards, test
students annually in core subjects, measure student progress, and
hold public schools and students accountable for results. These
systemic reforms also included creating new public and private
school-choice options, implementing instructional reforms and
intervention strategies to improve learning in core subjects, and
enacting new strategies designed to hire and retain effective
school teachers.
After implementing these education reforms, Florida's students
have made dramatic progress on the annual National Assessment of
Educational Progress. The percentage of students who scored "basic"
or above on the fourth-grade reading exam increased by 32 percent
between 1998 and 2007, and these gains did not come at the expense
of high-achieving students. The percentage of Florida
fourth-graders who scored "proficient" or better improved by 54
percent, and the number who scored "advanced" (the highest level)
increased by 100 percent.[1]
The greatest gains have been made by Hispanic and black
children. After a decade of strong progress, Florida's Hispanic
students now outscore the statewide averages for all
students in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and West Virginia on the 2007 4th-grade reading test.[2]
Florida's black students exceeded the statewide averages for all
students in Louisiana and Mississippi on the same exam, and are
within striking distance of overtaking several other statewide
averages.[3]
This paper reviews nationwide education reforms under No Child
Left Behind and state reforms in Florida--comparing federal and
state results. The paper examines the danger that federal
regulations and incentives pose to testing and accountability
systems in Florida and every other state. The limits of No Child
Left Behind and the promise of Florida's success suggest that
federal policies that give states greater authority to direct
education reform hold promise for improving education when states
and citizens commit to effective reforms.
No Child Left Behind: The
Background
The 111th Congress is scheduled to consider the ninth
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA). For four decades, the federal government has been
providing funding grants to states through ESEA programs in an
effort to improve public education in America.
In 2002, President George W. Bush signed legislation
reauthorizing ESEA, renaming it "No Child Left Behind." NCLB was
the product of a bipartisan compromise between the Bush
Administration and leading Congressional Democrats.[4] The Administration
sought to reform ESEA by introducing new standards and
accountability reforms that were inspired by the new President's
experience as governor of Texas. The Administration sought support
from leading Congressional Democrats by expanding the federal
funding for and authority over education. As the legislation was
developed on Capitol Hill, core components of the Administration's
original proposal--including measures such as private-school choice
and expanded flexibility for states--were stripped from the
legislation.
The final package was the 1,100-page NCLB that gave the federal
government new powers to regulate public education while
significantly increasing funding authorizations for federal
education programs.
The centerpiece of NCLB is a set of student testing and
accountability requirements that were designed to put all students
on course to achieve proficiency on state examinations by 2014. To
meet that objective, NCLB extended the Department of Education's
reach into school administrations. The law requires states to test
students annually in grades three through eight, and once between
grades 10 and 12 and to report student performance (including
disaggregated scores for student subgroups). Schools are measured
based on their progress in increasing the number of students who
score "proficient" or "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) on state
assessments. Schools that fail to meet AYP goals are subject to a
series of interventions and reforms, including school restructuring
and offering enrolled students after-school tutoring and the option
to transfer to another public school.
NCLB Seven Years Later: The
Consequences of Federal Intervention
As Congress considers reauthorization of No Child Left Behind,
policymakers should review the seven-year experience with the law.
Following are the principle lessons that should be drawn from this
experience:
The Costs of Expanded Federal Authority. While the
federal government provides only 9 percent of the funding for
public education, NCLB greatly expanded its policymaking authority
by overseeing education governance at the state and local levels.
NCLB gave the federal government the power to regulate policies
that had previously been the purview of governors, state
legislators, and local leaders--ranging from school teachers'
expected qualifications to the types of test assessments that must
be administered to students in certain grades.
This new federal authority has imposed significant costs on
states. First, greater federal authority has stripped states of
considerable autonomy in school governance. Second, expanded
federal regulations significantly increased the resources that must
be allocated by state and local governments simply to comply with
federal requirements.[5]
Unintended Consequences. NCLB is designed to improve
public school accountability and academic transparency, but it may
be having the opposite effect. NCLB requires states to test
students annually and created a menu of penalties for schools that
fail to demonstrate progress on state exams. States must measure up
against a benchmark that rises every year so that all students
score "proficient" on state tests by 2014. States establish the
content standards and pass/fail thresholds of these tests.
The interaction of these policies has created an incentive for
states to lower testing standards in order to avoid federal
sanctions. Researchers have reported a pattern whereby states lower
passing thresholds and otherwise "dumb down" assessments to boost
proficiency scores and avoid federal sanctions under NCLB.[6] Absent
a change in NCLB, the pressure on states to lower their standards
will increase as the 2014 deadline approaches. The result could be
less transparency for schools' actual performance.
The Limits of Federal Intervention. The past seven years
have also highlighted the limits of the federal government's power
to force states to implement various interventions--especially
interventions meant to empower parents, not public school
bureaucracy. For example, less than 1 percent of students in lower
performing schools who were eligible to transfer to an alternative
public school benefited from public school choice in 2004-2005.[7] Less
than 19 percent benefited from the limited-choice option of
supplemental educational services.[8]
Evidence suggests that poor implementation by school districts
has contributed to the low student participation. The Department of
Education reports that a survey of parents in eight school
districts found that only 27 percent of the parents of eligible
students were notified of the public-school transfer option. Among
those who were notified, the information often arrived after the
school year had started and, in some cases, included language that
was confusing or even discouraged parents from taking advantage of
the transfer option.[9]
Beyond parent-centered reforms, other strategies promoted by
NCLB appear to also have a limited impact. While NCLB sought to
improve teacher effectiveness by requiring that instruction be
grounded in research-based methods through the Reading First
program, a 2008 Department of Education study evaluating Reading
First found that the program had not produced a statistically
significant improvement in reading-comprehension test scores.[10]
Federal Funds for Education Spent Inefficiently. Since
the passage of NCLB, the federal government's budget for the
Department of Education has continued to fund programs that are
ineffective or unnecessary. The Bush Administration recognized that
there was ample room for savings: Its budget request for 2009
included a proposal to terminate 47 programs identified for
elimination through the federal government's Program Assessment
Rating Tool. The projected budget savings from terminating these
programs was approximately $3.3 billion.[11] As of the publication of
this paper, these programs have not been terminated.
Modest National Improvement in Student Learning. On the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, American students have
made modest advances infourth- and eighth-grade reading and math.
In mathematics, there has been some progress since the early 1990s,
but dividing that period into a pre-NCLB era (1990 to 2003) and
post-NCLB era (2003 to 2007) shows very similar rates of gradual
improvement in each. Modest progress was made in fourth-grade
reading during the post-NCLB era, but nationwide eighth-grade
reading scores have been perfectly flat since NCLB was enacted.
Some supporters of NCLB may contend that NCLB is responsible for
the modest improvements that have occurred over the past seven
years. But the gradual improvement that American students have been
making since the early 1990s suggests that it is just as likely
that we are seeing an unrelated trend of modest improvement.
Moreover, any recent gains in student test scores could obviously
be due to other factors including state, not federal, reforms.
In Florida, the significant education reforms to increase school
accountability and parental choice began years before No Child Left
Behind. This suggests that academic progress should be attributed
to state reform efforts rather than No Child Left Behind. NAEP
data, in fact, demonstrates that the change in the trend line for
Florida's scores occurred between 1998 and 2002. If any of the
improvement after 2002 could be attributed to NCLB, the question
arises: Why so little progress in other states?
Florida: A Decade of K-12 Education
Reforms
In 1999, Florida Governor Jeb Bush entered office promising to
implement a series of aggressive education reforms if elected.
Having won office, Governor Bush immediately pursued a dual-track
strategy of education reform: standards and accountability for
public schools, and new choice options for students to improve
learning opportunities. In the years that followed, these reforms
were complimented by additional reforms, including
instruction-based reforms, the curtailing of social promotion for
students who fail to master grade-level work, and new strategies
for hiring and compensating effective public school teachers. The
following is an overview of Florida's sweeping education reforms:[12]
Academic Standards and Testing. The foundation of
Florida's K-12 education reforms was the 1999 "A+ Accountability
Plan," which required that students in grades three through 10 be
tested annually in reading and math through the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT incorporated both
norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures. Together, these
measures evaluate a student's performance compared to peers across
the nation and compared to state standards. This system was
developed to allow the tracking of students' progress each
year.
Holding Schools and Students Accountable. The state also
created a new accountability system based on FCAT. Both schools and
students were held accountable for their performance. Annual state
report cards ranked public schools on a scale from A to F based on
students' performance each year. Schools that earned high marks
received funding bonuses and greater autonomy. The state required
schools that received an F twice in a four-year period to implement
state-sanctioned reforms. Students were also held accountable for
their performance: The A+ Plan ended social promotion by requiring
that students pass the FCAT before moving on to fourth grade.
Remedial instruction was provided to students who were denied
promotion.
School-Choice Options. The A+ Plan also established new
school choice options for families. Students attending any school
with two F's in four years became eligible to receive vouchers to
attend another school, public or private. This program would later
be ended by a Florida state Supreme Court decision. But Florida
created a broad range of public or private school options during
this period:
- Private school choice: Since 2000, Florida has offered
private-school tuition scholarships to children with disabilities
through the McKay Scholarship program. During the 2007-2008 school
year, 19,852 students received scholarship through the McKay
program.[13] The average scholarship amount was
$7,295.[14] Since 2001, Florida has also offered
corporations a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to
non-profit groups that fund private school scholarships for
disadvantaged children. During 2007-2008, 21,493 students received
scholarships worth an average of $3,750.[15]
- Charter schools: Florida has one of the strongest
charter-school laws in the nation. Charter schools are publicly
funded schools that agree to meet certain performance standards
required by their charter agreement. They are otherwise free of the
rules and regulations that governing public schools. Thus, charter
schools offer families a choice within the public school system. In
the 2007-2008 academic year, 105,329 students were enrolled in the
state's 358 public charter schools.[16]
- Virtual education: Florida offers students the ability
to learn online through virtual education. The state-funded Florida
Virtual School currently offers more than 90 courses (ranging from
GED to Advanced Placement Courses). Middle and high school students
anywhere in Florida can participate in these courses for free. The
state projects that 134,400 courses will be completed during the
2008-2009 school year.[17]
Curriculum and Instructional Reform. A major focus of
Florida's curriculum reforms over the past decade has been on
improving reading instruction. In 2002, the state implemented "Just
Read, Florida" to improve reading instruction. This initiative
included a program to create new reading academies to train
teachers in reading instruction and hire 2,000 reading coaches in
public schools across the state. Students in grades six through 12
who demonstrated insufficient reading skills received remedial
instruction.
Hiring and Compensating Effective Teachers. Teacher
quality is a leading factor affecting student performance. Over the
past decade, Florida enacted new policies for attracting and
rewarding high-quality teachers. First, Florida established
policies to allow alternative paths to teacher certification to
attract teachers to the classroom who otherwise would not consider
teaching as a profession, given the barriers created by
teacher-certification requirements. The state opened "Educator
Preparation Institutes" to facilitate the transition to teaching.
School districts are also allowed to offer their own forms of
alternative certification. Today, about half of all new teachers in
Florida are coming to the profession through alternative
certification programs.
Florida also offers performance pay for teachers. In 2007,
Florida's performance-pay system offered a total of $147 million in
state aid to school districts to pay performance bonuses to
teachers. Bonuses can reach up to 10 percent of a teacher's pay.
Through this program, schools are awarded funds to provide bonuses
to personnel who contribute to measurable improvement in students'
academic achievement.
An example of this performance-pay approach was a program to
encourage greater participation in Advanced Placement (AP) classes.
Governor Jeb Bush pushed the One Florida Initiative, which sought
to replace race-based affirmative action with more effective
instruction: better preparation instead of lowered standards. The
results have been impressive. Working in partnership with the
College Board beginning in the year 2000, One Florida sought to
increase the academic achievement of Florida's students, who are
particularly underrepresented in Florida's universities. The
comprehensive plan included professional development for teachers
and counselors and free Pre-SAT exams for students. Florida
officials created AP Potential--a Web-based tool to identify
promising students for AP coursework.
The program relied heavily on incentives, creating an AP Teacher
Bonus of $50 for every passing score per student, up to $2,000 per
year, and paying the school an additional bonus of $650 per student
who passes an AP exam. Florida officials worded this bonus in the
funding formula very precisely so that it is paid to the individual
school, not to the school district.
Florida's A+ reform plan assigns letter grades to schools based
on student performance. The One Florida plan provided an additional
school bonus of $500 per student attending a D- or F-rated school
that passes an AP exam. The idea was to set high expectations and
to reward success. The National Math and Science Initiative
recently collected data on the number of students who pass AP
exams, broken down by ethnicity. Florida leads the nation in
Hispanics, and does so at a rate nearly 8 times greater than that
of the lowest performer (Arizona).
Do schools respond to incentives? The evidence speaks for
itself: Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Florida students that
passed AP tests increased by 154 percent. Meanwhile, the number of
Hispanic and black students in Florida that passed an AP exam more
than tripled.
The Results: Florida's Academic
Success
Beyond these remarkable gains in AP achievement rates, Florida
students have made remarkable progress since 1998. One critical
measure of student learning is fourth-grade reading scores. Early
childhood literacy represents the foundation for all subsequent
learning. Students who do not learn to learn to read in the early
grades tend to fall further and further behind each passing year.
Literally unable to comprehend their middle school textbooks, these
students often become disruptive and drop out of school as early as
the 8th grade. Chart 1 demonstrates the progress made by
Floridafourth-grade students on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) exam between 1998 and 2007.
An analysis of NAEP test scores over the past decade shows that
Florida's fourth- and eighth-grade students have made greater
progress than the national average. Florida's greatest progress has
been made by ethnic-minority children.
For fourth-grade reading, Florida's gains were more than twice
as large as the national average. Although eighth-grade reading
improvements were more difficult to achieve for both Florida and
the nation, Florida's eighth-grade reading gains were more than
twice as large as the national average for Anglos, more than eight
times larger than the national average for black students, and
about three times larger for Hispanics. Florida's students also
produced above-average gains in both fourth- and eighth-grade
math.
Florida vs. Other States. The scope of Florida's progress
becomes clear by comparing its students' performance on the NAEP
exam with that of children in other states. For example, Chart 4
compares the performance of students in Florida with students in
California. As the chart demonstrates, Florida's low-income
students now outperform the statewide average of all students in
California.
In 1998, Florida's low-income students were far behind
California's statewide average. This was not unexpected, given what
is known about student demographics and educational performance.
The entire sample of fourth-grade students is contained in the
California numbers--including all of the state's wealthy
children.
The dramatic progress of Florida's minority students also
becomes clear when comparing the progress made by Florida's
low-income, minority children with the statewide average of all
students in California. The average student in California has a
socio-economic advantage over a low-income student living in
Florida. For example, the median family income for a family of four
in California was $74,801 in 2006.[18] The average income for a
family of four eligible for the federal free and reduced-price
school lunch program is $39,200.
Despite the tremendous advantages that California students have
in this comparison, Florida's low-income Hispanic students
surpassed the statewide average for all California students in
2005, and increased the size of their lead in 2007. Florida's
low-income black students likewise started far behind the statewide
average for California in 1998, and had closed the gap considerably
by 2007. If both groups of students make the same amount of
progress between 2007 and 2009 that they made between 2005 and
2007, Florida's low-income black students will tie the statewide
average for all California students in 2009.
The progress made by minority students in Florida has been well
above the national average as Chart 5 demonstrates. On fourth-grade
NAEP reading scores, Florida's Hispanic students had a six-point
lead over the national average for Hispanics in 1998, and expanded
that lead to 14 points in 2007, despite the fact that the national
average improved by 12 points. Florida's black students were six
points behind the national average for black students in 1998, and
14 points ahead in 2007.
The extent of the progress made by Florida's Hispanic students
becomes clear by comparing Hispanic fourth-grade students' reading
NAEP scores with the statewide average of students in other states.
As Chart 6 demonstrates, Hispanic students in Florida now have
higher NAEP reading scores than the statewide average score of
students in fifteen states.
What Explains Florida's Progress?
Florida's progress in improving all students' academic
achievement and reducing the achievement gap between
ethnic-minority and white children warrants greater academic
research to judge which reforms have had the greatest impact on
students and classrooms. Given the scope of these reforms, it is
impossible to isolate which specific reform has resulted in
improvement. In all likelihood, a combination of these broad
reforms is responsible for the state's improvement.
Researchers have, however, examined the specific reforms and
reported positive benefits of individual reforms that highlight the
promise of these reform strategies. Jay Greene and Marcus Winters
of the University of Arkansas evaluated two years of the policy of
ending social promotion and reported that "retained Florida
students made reading gains relative to the control group of
socially promoted students." Similarly, studies by the Manhattan
Institute, the Urban Institute, and the Friedman Foundation
reported positive benefits experienced by public schools from the
state's accountability and choice reforms.[19]
A 2003 Manhattan Institute study found that competition created
by the pressure of school choice was leading to significant
improvements in public schools: "Public schools currently facing
voucher competition or the prospect of competition made exceptional
gains on both the FCAT and the Stanford-9 test compared to all
other Florida public schools and the other subgroups in our
analysis."
In 2007, the Urban Institute published the results of a similar
analysis of the effect of the A+ accountability and choice reforms
on Florida's public schools. The analysts found that student
achievement improved in schools labeled "F" in subsequent years.
They also found that reforms undertaken by the low-performing
public schools contributed to the improvement: "When faced with
increased accountability pressure, schools appear to focus on
low-performing students, lengthen the amount of time devoted to
instruction, adopt different ways of organizing the day and
learning environment of the students and teachers, increase
resources available to teachers, and decrease principal
control."
In 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice studied
the effect of the A+ accountability and choice program on public
schools threatened by the possibility of losing children to other
schools through the voucher option. The study evaluated the
performance of public schools from the 2001 to 2007. The extended
time period analyzed in the study allowed the evaluation of how the
elimination of the voucher option affected public school
performance after 2006, when the vouchers were deemed
unconstitutional and removed from the A+ program.
The Friedman Foundation reports that before vouchers were made
available, the A+ program spurred modest improvement in public
schools. But A+ produced dramatic gains in threatened public
schools once vouchers were incorporated: "In 2002-03," the Friedman
Foundation reports, "public schools whose students were offered
vouchers outperformed other Florida public schools by 69 points."
In the years that followed, as voucher participation rates dropped
due to procedural obstacles, the positive effect of competition was
less significant. The study also found that "The removal of
vouchers caused the positive impact on public schools to drop well
below what it had been even in 2001-02, before vouchers were widely
available."
It is also important to consider whether other changes in the
school environment, such as demographic trends, are responsible for
Florida's improved academic achievement. Our analysis suggests that
there is no reason to believe that other factors are responsible
for this improvement.[20]
Why NCLB Threatens Florida's
Successful Reform
In 2007,former U.S. Deputy Secretary ofEducation Eugene Hickok
and Matthew Ladner warned that NCLB's goal of 100 percent
proficiency by 2014 created an incentive for states to simply lower
the bar for passing scores on state exams to show artificial
progress.[21] Growing evidence suggests that this "race
to the bottom" in state academic standards and tests is indeed
occurring. If unchanged, this perverse incentive threatens to
undermine Florida's standards-based reforms.
In 2007, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation published "The
Proficiency Illusion," a report highlighting widespread problems in
state testing and accountability systems.
Researchers have known for some time that most states have
failed to set high academic standards, and have lowered their cut
scores (the passing threshold on examinations) and otherwise
allowed easier standards to pass their tests. "The Proficiency
Illusion" also revealed that many states' proficiency standards
lack internal consistency, such as Michigan's
testing system, with low cut scores in early grades followed by
higher cut scores in middle grades. The result is that students and
schools may be labeled proficient in early grades and then quickly
decline in later grades.
"The Proficiency Illusion" points out how NCLB's 2014 deadline
for universal proficiency exacerbates this illusion of
proficiency:
Policy groups from left, right, and center, including the
estimable and hawkish Education Trust, now agree: this lofty
aspirational objective is doing more harm than good. It has
worsened the proficiency illusion. If Congress wants states like
Michigan to aim higher, so that Mr. and Mrs. Smith know how Susie
is really performing, the best thing it can do is to remove this
provision from the law. With this perverse incentive out of the
way, Michigan just might summon the intestinal fortitude to aim
higher--and shoot straighter.
In 2008, Paul Peterson and Rick Hess issued the latest of three
studies on state standards in Education Next by comparing
state accountability exams to state performance on the NAEP, which
provides a benchmark for academic transparency.[22] The authors had
previously compared state and NAEP testing data for 2003 and 2005.
They concluded that the 2007 comparison of state and NAEP testing
"finds in the new data a noticeable decline, especially at the
eighth-grade level…. In eighth-grade reading, for example,
standards overall are down by 0.2 standard deviations. This means
that, in 8th-grade reading, states are reporting a substantial
improvement that is not evident on the NAEP." Peterson and Hess
conclude that:
Two years ago, we could see small evidence for a decline in
standards but detected no race to the bottom. That is still true
for 4th graders. But 8th-grade standards, if not exactly racing
downward, are moving steadily away from world-class standards.
Those responsible for NCLB reauthorization, as they struggle
forward, should first and foremost establish a clear and consistent
definition of grade-level proficiency in reading and math, even if
it means giving up the cherished but decidedly unrealistic goal of
proficiency for all students by 2014.[23]
Will Safe Harbor Prevent a Race to the
Bottom?
Starting in 2014, there will be two ways for districts and
schools to avoid federal sanctions under No Child Left Behind.
First, they can ensure that children reach the goal of 100 percent
proficiency on state tests. Or, as a second alternative, they can
meet federal guidelines known as "safe harbor."In essence, the
"safe harbor" provision grants districts and schools a pass on
Adequate Yearly Progress providing that the school or district
reduces the number of children who score below "proficient" by 10
percent, and also achieves at least a 10 percent improvement in one
of NCLB's subgroups.[24] If these requirements represented an
obtainable standard, states presumably would not feel pressured to
drop their cut scores.
Some researchers have claimed that the race to the bottom in
state testing will be prevented by the "safe harbor" provision in
NCLB. Our analysis suggests that this is not the case.
To examine whether a safe harbor provision would prevent an
incentive for a race to the bottom, we considered how safe harbor
would affect Florida's 67 school districts, where students
(particularly minority children) have been making steady academic
progress.
Table 1 (see Appendix) applies safe harbor to the overall
performance of Florida districts for fourth-grade reading and math
over the past six years without judging any of the required student
subgroups, including children who are ethnic minorities, have
limited English proficiency, or special needs. Based on our
calculation of the data, Florida's districts failed to make the
Adequate Yearly Progress required by safe harbor71 percent of the
time based on the overall fourth-grade results alone, without any
consideration of subgroup performance. Inclusion of subgroup
performance could only lower the percentage of districts achieving
safe harbor. In addition, school districts must achieve safe harbor
for a number of grade levels, not just fourth grade.
Year-to-year scores are quite volatile, even within the context
of strong overall improvement. The scores improve, often by less
than 10 percent, then regress, and then improve again. Getting
overall math and overall reading scores to improve by 10 percent in
the same year is rare. Only 29 percent of Florida districts make it
over the fourth-grade hurdle. In fact, in 2008, only 6 percent of
Florida districts made achievement gains that would qualify them
for safe harbor based on overall results. NCLB judges school
districts based on tests in grades three to eight, and one test in
high school. Therefore, it seems very likely that none of Florida's
districts would ever meet the Adequate Yearly Progress requirement
provided by the safe harbor provision.
We will leave the debate over whether public schools
should be able to routinely increase their passing rates by
10 percent year after year to others. The point is that they do
notincrease their passing rates by 10 percent annually, even
in the nation's leading reform state.
The evidence suggests that NCLB will create a tremendous and
perverse pressure on Florida and other states to weaken academic
standards and lower the passing thresholds on state assessments.
Ironically, a law aspiring first and foremost to create
transparency in public education contains the seeds of its own
destruction: encouraging states to lower standards.
Lessons for Federal and State
Policymakers
The experience of No Child Left Behind and Florida's sweeping
education reforms should lead federal and state policymakers to the
following lessons:
- Like previous federal interventions, NCLB has failed to
deliver meaningful improvement in student learning. The
historic increase in federal funding for and authority over
elementary and secondary education has not resulted in significant
reform or improvement in America's schools.
- States can improve student learning by implementing systemic
reforms. Florida's experience suggests that aggressive
education reforms to hold schools and students accountable for
results offer parents public and private school-choice options,
strengthen instruction and mediation, and improve teacher quality
can lead to significant progress in all students' academic
achievement.
- The current system of NCLB's accountability regulations
threatens to undermine state accountability reforms. No Child
Left Behind's 2014 deadline for 100 percent proficiency continues
to encourage a "race to the bottom" by providing an incentive for
states to lower academic standards and testing cut scores. Unless
this provision is fixed, standards-based reform will be undermined
across the country. Transparency for school performance and results
will be lost.
What Members of Congress and State
Policymakers Should Do
Given these lessons, Members of Congress and state policymakers
should re-evaluate federal and state governments' current approach
to improving public education. At the federal level, Congress and
the incoming Administration should limit federal policymaking
authority and transfer greater power back to the state and local
levels. State policymakers should implement systemic education
reform to hold schools and students accountable for results, expand
parental choice, and improve school and teacher effectiveness.
- Specifically, Congress should reform No Child Left Behind to
include a policy similar to the proposed charter option that would
give states the opportunity to opt out of No Child Left
Behind.The opt-out option would allow every state to choose
between the status quo and a simplified contractual arrangement in
which the state would have broad authority to consolidate and
refocus its federal funds on state-directed initiatives in exchange
for monitoring and reporting academic progress to the public. The
charter option would restore greater federalism in education,
allowing state leaders to embrace innovative strategies
according to their local needs, priorities, and reform philosophy
while making them more directly responsible to parents and
taxpayers for the results. In the 110th Congress, this option was
promoted by both the Senate's and House of Representatives' A-PLUS
Acts.[25]
- At the state level, policymakers should follow Florida's
example and implement aggressive reforms to improve public
education. The Sunshine State's pioneering education reforms
appear to have a positive impact on student achievement. Initial
evidence suggests that ending social promotion, increasing school
accountability, and expanding parental choice are contributing to
improved academic achievement and public school performance. State
policymakers across the country should study Florida's model and
implement similar systemic reforms.
Conclusion
Education reformers have worked for decades to eliminate
achievement gaps and improve learning opportunities for all
children. To date, the federal government's efforts, including No
Child Left Behind, have failed to spur significant improvement. But
a single decade of sweeping state-level reforms in Florida has
demonstrated that improving academic achievement is possible.
Education reformers at the federal and state levels should study
Florida's experience and implement strategies that will facilitate
promising state-level reforms.
Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., is Vice
President of Research at The Goldwater Institute. Dan Lips is Senior Policy
Analyst at The Heritage Foundation Senior Data Graphics Editor John
Fleming developed the charts for this report.
Appendix
