This is the html version of the file http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/educ/educ0704.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:IGIsLFG4vWoJ:www.usccr.gov/pubs/educ/educ0704.pdf+%22Closing+the+Achievement+Gap:+The+Impact+of+Standards+Based+Education+Reform%22&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: closing the achievement gap the impact of standards based education reform 
Closing the Achievement Gap:
Page 1
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Office of the General Counsel
Closing the Achievement Gap:
The Impact of Standards-Based Education Reform on Student Performance
Draft Report for Commissioners’ Review
July 2, 2004
Page 2
Staff Draft
July 2004
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act................ 7
The Achievement Gap ................................................................................................................ 9
National Efforts to Close the Achievement Gap....................................................................... 13
Goals 2000: Educate America Act........................................................................................ 13
Improving America’s Schools Act........................................................................................ 14
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ....................................................................................... 14
Testing and Adequate Yearly Progress............................................................................. 15
State Report Cards and Disaggregated Data Collection ................................................... 18
Accommodating and Including Students with Disabilities and Limited English
Proficiency ........................................................................................................................ 19
Students with Disabilities ............................................................................................. 19
Students with Limited English Proficiency.................................................................. 22
Highly Qualified Teachers................................................................................................ 23
Accountability and Remediation........................................................................................... 25
School-Centered Accountability and Remediation........................................................... 26
Public School Choice and Supplemental Services ....................................................... 26
Withholding Funds for Noncompliance ....................................................................... 30
Teacher-Centered Accountability and Remediation......................................................... 30
Student-Centered Accountability, Remediation, and High-Stakes Testing...................... 33
High-Stakes Testing and No Child Left Behind........................................................... 35
Funding Under No Child Left Behind.................................................................................. 38
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 2: Education Accountability in Virginia.................................................................... 47
State Student Demographics..................................................................................................... 48
Virginia’s Standards-Based Reform and Accountability System............................................. 52
Student Assessments and Performance Trends..................................................................... 56
Standards of Learning Assessment Results....................................................................... 62
Third-Grade SOL Assessment Results ......................................................................... 64
Fifth-Grade SOL Assessment Results .......................................................................... 66
Eighth-Grade SOL Assessment Results ....................................................................... 67
Correlation of SOL Assessments and NAEP Test Results ............................................... 70
NAEP Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading Results ...................................................... 70
NAEP Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Math Results........................................................... 71
Remediation Efforts in Virginia................................................................................................ 73
Student-Centered Initiatives.................................................................................................. 75
Teacher-Centered Initiatives................................................................................................. 76
School-Centered Initiatives................................................................................................... 80
Public School Choice........................................................................................................ 81
PASS: Partnership for Achieving Successful Schools...................................................... 84
Standards of Accreditation................................................................................................ 86
Page 3
Staff Draft
July 2004
School Report Cards and Data Collection ........................................................................ 88
Federal and State Education Funding....................................................................................... 89
Other Factors in Virginia Affecting Student Achievement ...................................................... 91
Parental and Community Involvement ................................................................................. 92
Class Size.............................................................................................................................. 96
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 98
Chapter 3: Education Accountability in Maryland............................................................... 104
State Student Demographics................................................................................................... 104
Maryland’s Standards-Based Reform and Accountability System......................................... 107
Student Assessments and Performance Trends................................................................... 109
Maryland State Assessments........................................................................................... 110
MSPAP Achievement Levels ..................................................................................... 110
MSA Achievement Levels.......................................................................................... 111
NAEP Assessment Results.............................................................................................. 112
Graduation/Dropout Rates and Exit Exams........................................................................ 114
Remediation Efforts in Maryland ........................................................................................... 117
Student-Centered Initiatives................................................................................................ 118
Teacher-Centered Initiatives............................................................................................... 120
School-Centered Initiatives................................................................................................. 124
Federal and State Education Funding..................................................................................... 126
Other Factors in Maryland Affecting Achievement ............................................................... 127
Class Size............................................................................................................................ 127
Student Poverty................................................................................................................... 129
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 129
Chapter 4: Findings and Recommendations for Bridging the Gap..................................... 132
Page 4
Staff Draft
July 2004
1
Introduction
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) has conducted a study of the racial
achievement gap, accountability, and remediation issues in elementary and secondary education.
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
resulting in the most significant federal education reform package in the last decade.
1
According
to the U.S. Department of Education, the primary purpose of NCLB is to provide stronger
accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents,
and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.
2
Since the enactment of
NCLB, states across the country have rushed to begin implementing the extensive requirements
of the act and to assess the resulting impact on their school systems. The recommendations in
this report are all intended to help school systems implement the requirements of NCLB in ways
that will provide the maximum benefit to low-income, minority, limited English proficiency
(LEP), and disabled students.
This report evaluates the civil rights implications of NCLB, reviews its early impact on
the racial achievement gap, and examines its implementation in two states, Maryland and
Virginia. The Commission’s objective in conducting this study was to document the achievement
gap, examine to what degree these two states had standards and accountability systems in place
before NCLB, how those systems are being adapted to comply with NCLB, and whether
remediation efforts have been successful in closing the gap. In reviewing the mandates of NCLB
and the reforms undertaken in Virginia and Maryland, the Commission has offered
recommendations intended to reduce the racial impacts of the reform efforts. The Commission
has also highlighted several best or promising practices that may serve as models to other states
as they move forward with implementing NCLB and state education reforms intended to increase
student achievement and close the achievement gap.
In the initial phases of its study, the Commission held a briefing in Charlotte, North
Carolina, in February 2003 to examine the potential civil rights impact of NCLB, high-stakes
testing, and education accountability reforms undertaken in the Carolinas.
3
Specifically, the
Commission focused on the availability and effectiveness of intervention and remediation for
low-performing students, due to concerns that national education reform could result in increased
numbers of low-income and minority students being retained in grade, denied a high school
diploma, or being pushed out or dropping out of school. The Commission was similarly
concerned about the impact of education reform and high-stakes testing on LEP and disabled
students.
During the one-day briefing in North Carolina, the Commission received testimony and
other information from parents, teachers, school administrators, local and national policy
1
See To Close the Achievement Gap with Accountability, Flexibility, and Choice, So That No Child is Left Behind,
Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).
2
U.S. Department of Education, “Introduction: No Child Left Behind,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/
index.html> (last accessed July 1, 2004).
3
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Education Accountability and High-Stakes Testing in the Carolinas,” Briefing
Summary, February 2003.
Page 5
Staff Draft
July 2004
2
analysts, and advocates. Information and insight gained during the briefing, as well as from
statements submitted by a distinguished panel of researchers, administrators, teachers, and
parents, are included in this report. The Commission also surveyed studies and gathered data
from various state agencies, advocacy groups, researchers, and other organizations in order to
examine the civil rights issues surrounding the implementation and impact of NCLB for
inclusion in this report.
NCLB requires states to administer annual standardized tests throughout grades 3 through
8 and in high school, and to create annual goals for student achievement or adequate yearly
progress (AYP) to determine if students are meeting or exceeding expectations for their grade
level. States and schools must also track the performance of various subgroups of the overall
student population, according to their race/ethnicity, gender, income status, disability, and
English proficiency. All student subgroups must meet AYP goals or the schools may face state or
federal government intervention, particularly with regard to their administration and funding.
Concurrent with these measures, states are expected to recruit and retain highly qualified
teachers to prepare students for the assessments and to provide necessary accommodations to
help students with disabilities or limited English proficiency meet AYP goals. Schools are also
required to report the results of these efforts to parents, and if a school consistently fails to meet
AYP goals, parents may qualify to have their child transferred to a better performing school
within their district.
In focusing its study on reform efforts in the two sample state school systems, Maryland
and Virginia, the Commission discovered similar patterns emerging. Both states have
longstanding accountability programs that underwent adjustment before gaining the approval of
the U.S. Department of Education under NCLB. Overall, Maryland and Virginia accountability
systems received high marks from Education Week during an annual assessment of school
systems around the country, however, both states failed to meet AYP targets for all student
subgroups. In both states, a persistent achievement gap divides their high- and low-performing
students and, in both states, the underperforming student groups are African American, Hispanic,
low-income, LEP, and disabled students.
Although Maryland and Virginia have made strides in developing extensive
accountability packages, neither state has demonstrated that it can ensure that low-income and
minority students will receive adequate instruction from highly qualified teachers to prepare
them for the rigors of standardized testing and overall academic success. Virginia and Maryland
also have comprehensive remedial programs in place that hold students, teachers, and schools
accountable for improved performance, but these programs have not yet significantly changed
the outcome of assessments for their most disadvantaged students, especially those who are
learning disabled or limited in their English proficiency. As a result, it appears many Virginia
and Maryland students will be stigmatized and left behind in two rapidly advancing school
systems.
While on average in Maryland and Virginia, Asian Americans generally are not under
performing, research on the complexity of the achievement gap reveals that not all Asian
American students are high achievers; just as not all African Americans and Hispanics are
academic underachievers. For example, as discussed further in Chapter 1, Vietnamese,
Cambodian, and Laotian populations in the United States have low high school attendance and
Page 6
Staff Draft
July 2004
3
graduation rates. According to a study reporting 1990 census data, 71.7 percent of Hmong, 64.3
percent of Cambodians, 59.8 percent of Laotians, and 39.4 percent of Vietnamese in the United
States have less than a high school education.
4
Asian American high school students in these
subgroups report being academically marginalized as a result of school counselors and teachers
providing little guidance and support, the low expectations of teachers, the lack of access to
resources outside school to assist them, the lack of parental and community support, and
stereotyping and racial bias.
5
Many of these limiting factors are also present in the African American and Hispanic
educational experiences and contribute to the limiting of their chances of academic success.
Asian Americans are second only to Hispanics in facing barriers associated with being limited in
English proficiency.
6
And students in some Asian American subgroups with high poverty rates
tend to perform worse than those with greater economic resources.
7
As discussed in this report,
race and poverty are significant indicators of academic success for African Americans and
Hispanics.
The Commission recognizes that some policy analysts attribute the academic success of
some Asian Americans to their cultural values or a strong work ethic and, therefore, urge other
racial and ethnic minorities to adopt similar values and/or ethics in order to become academic
high achievers. The Commission, however, believes that the Asian American experience in this
country, including in the school system, is far more complex and that any serious discussion of
Asian American academic performance must consider the roles of race, poverty, language,
family and community support, the level of parental education, the nature of the historical
discrimination experienced by Asians in the United States, and how these factors vary among
Asian American subgroups. The Commission, therefore, believes that the Asian American
culture and work ethic rationale offered by some to explain the general academic achievement of
Asian American students is too simplistic.
The purpose of NCLB was to increase the performance of underachieving minority
populations. Indeed, according to Congress’ Statement of Purpose in passing NCLB, the act is
intended to meet “the educational needs of low achieving children in our Nation’s highest-
poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with
disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of
reading assistance.”
8
In keeping with NCLB’s mandate, the purpose of this report is to analyze
NCLB’s stated goal of focusing on these underachieving groups, and thus, the Commission is not
examining the cultural, historical, or socioeconomic variations of some Asian American students.
Instead, in keeping with the intent of the act’s purpose, we will look at broad trends in student
performance, which reflect that African American, Hispanic, LEP, and low-income students
have not yet achieved their full academic potential. Since many of the recommendations in this
4
Khatharyn Um, Ph.D., A Dream Denied: Educational Experiences of Southeast Asian American Youth Issues and
Recommendations (Southeast Asian Resource Action Center: Washington, DC, 2003), pp. i–ii (hereafter cited as
Um, Educational Experiences of Southeast Asian American Youth).
5
Ibid., pp. 1–16.
6
See, e.g., ibid., p. 2.
7
Ibid., pp. 9–10.
8
20 U.S.C. § 6301(2) (2004).
Page 7
Staff Draft
July 2004
4
report address the role of race and poverty in academic performance, we anticipate that the
recommendations will resonate with policymakers and Asian American advocates as they
examine why many Asian American student subgroups do not perform as well as indicated by
the overall data on Asian American performance.
The Commission acknowledges that a number of factors contribute to the achievement
gap and many of these concerns are addressed in this report. Chapter 1 of the report provides an
overview of the achievement gap and the federal government’s response in passing NCLB as a
means to reduce the gap. As a result of its research and study, the Commission determined that
while NCLB purports to hold all students, teachers, and schools accountable for student
achievement, certain key factors have not been addressed by the act, which are likely to result in
economically disadvantaged students, students of color, LEP students, and students with
disabilities being left behind. The Commission found that an increasing number of schools did
not meet the initial standards set by NCLB in the first two years of its implementation. In
addition, there is a shortage of qualified teachers, especially in disadvantaged and underserved
communities to ensure that the act’s requirements are met. States must also grapple with a
shortage of funding for education, especially as it relates to remedial programs designed to
improve student achievement and close the gap.
Chapter 2 examines changes in Virginia prior to and since the passage of NCLB. The
state’s Standards of Learning accountability program includes many of the important aspects
necessary for student success. The Commission discovered, however, that Virginia has yet to
close the achievement gap, which is most influenced by poverty, race, and the number of adults
without a high school diploma in a community. It also found that little state guidance is available
on teaching in a culturally diverse setting. While not an exhaustive list, the Commission
recommends the following to Virginia:
• More highly qualified teachers should be placed in high-minority and high-poverty
schools in Virginia to create and maintain acceptable class sizes. Both exceptional
instruction and smaller class sizes have been identified as significant factors in improving
student achievement in these schools. The state should create and implement a system to
track teacher placement that ensures that highly qualified teachers are quickly placed in
high-minority and high-poverty schools and that class sizes in these schools do not
increase beyond 20 students per class in the early grades.
• The state should work with teacher education institutions to establish requirements that
teacher education programs include cultural sensitivity and skills training required for
intercultural teaching. Virginia should consider whether or not these institutions require
and provide skills training in these areas as a part of the state’s rating of teacher education
programs.
• Written mandatory professional development or continuing education requirements
should be created. Teachers, similar to other professionals, should be required to maintain
and expand their professional skills.
• Specific strategies and goals should be developed for involving parents by state education
agencies and local school districts. Methods for measuring the success of these strategies
and whether the goals have been met should be developed.
Page 8
Staff Draft
July 2004
5
• The state, school districts, and schools should view educational outcomes as related to
broader social issues and work with communities to address social issues such as health,
housing, public safety and crime, and poverty. These social issues have implications for
student achievement.
Chapter 3 examines the changes in the state of Maryland before and after the enactment
of NCLB. Although the state has received national attention for its education reform efforts, the
state has yet to resolve the achievement gap that exists for its minority and disadvantaged
students. Maryland should continue concentrating its efforts on developing new approaches for
an ever-changing student population, and those measures that have proven successful should be
fully supported with adequate state and federal funding. While educators and administrators
pursue the creation of a successful system that complies with the rigors of NCLB, the state must
not overlook the needs of those students who still risk falling through the cracks. Therefore, the
Commission recommends that Maryland, for example:
• Give priority remediation, including supplemental funding, to high-poverty and high-
minority population schools.
• Conduct a thorough review of the academic intervention portion of the Every Child
Achieving plan to determine what additional efforts should be undertaken and how
existing efforts can be enhanced to close the student achievement gap.
• Make broad use of online student tutorials and online High School Assessment and
Maryland State Assessment sample tests in order to supplement existing one-on-one
remediation efforts. This also addresses concerns that remediation administered during
school time distracts from needed class time.
• Link teacher evaluations to student performance. This linkage creates additional teacher
accountability and fosters high teacher expectations for all students.
• Enhance the range of students’ alternatives to low-performing public schools by
providing more supplemental educational services and interdistrict transfers.
Clearly, states are faced with a daunting task, which is especially challenging in light of
the implementation schedule imposed by the U.S. Department of Education. Although the
federal government has relaxed some of the initial deadlines and requirements for
implementation, many educators and administrators have found their school systems unable to
make the quick but complicated adjustments needed to conform to the requirements of NCLB.
For example, students who have traditionally performed poorly on standardized tests will need
remedial assistance to improve their scores and achievement levels, but states often find that
funding falls short for such efforts, or that those who are most in need are not receiving these
services. In addition, teacher shortages exacerbate the problem of overcrowded classes or
inadequate instruction, which is critical in light of the rigorous testing protocols and mandates of
NCLB. States across the country have resoundingly complained that most of their students will
not be able to meet AYP goals, and as a result, parents may seek to transfer their children to
better performing schools. These schools, however, will be in short supply in the neediest
communities. Students sit at the core of these consequences, where poor test performance will
require them to commit added time and effort for remediation, possible retention in grade, and
Page 9
Staff Draft
July 2004
6
perhaps most significantly, denial of a traditional high school diploma. The practical implications
of these changes have begun to be realized in states around the country.
In order to prepare for the foreseeable future, the Commission recommends, among other
things, that:
• State and local education agencies should use well-designed tests as diagnostic tools for
assessing students and for developing appropriate intervention and remediation to help
them. When testing shows a child is behind, the school should respond with appropriate,
early educational intervention geared to bringing the student up to individual proficiency,
beyond retention and denial of graduation for low-performing students.
• In order to comply with NCLB’s data collection and reporting requirements, all states
must have the means to disaggregate data on student performance by race, ethnicity,
gender, income, language, and disability. Congress should reintroduce and pass an
appropriations bill for a competitive grant program designed to help states create the data
systems needed to meet these requirements.
• Agencies, states, and districts should provide stronger financial and professional
incentives to attract and keep effective teachers, especially in schools that have large
numbers of minority students.
• Federal, state, and local education agencies should purposefully target class size
reduction for the highest minority and poverty schools in order to help reduce the
achievement gap.
• Sufficient funding must be made available to states to fully implement all the
requirements and sanctions mandated by NCLB. Moreover, schools with relatively higher
populations of poor and minority students must be provided with sufficient federal and
state educational resources for their students to perform on par with white students and
students in wealthier districts.
The Commission’s recommendations contained throughout this report, and assembled in
Chapter 4 for easy reference, do not represent an exhaustive listing of the changes needed to
avoid leaving children out of our evolving education systems. After conducting this study and
writing this report, the Commission is concerned that state and federal agencies are unprepared
to handle the chronic deficiencies that have plagued our school systems for decades. While
NCLB’s attempt to focus on, gather information about, and address the achievement gaps for
minority and disadvantaged groups is laudable, NCLB alone does not equip schools to remedy
those longstanding deficiencies. NCLB and the related state laws and policies that purport to
improve our children’s academic performance and eventual success must not ignore the
probability that millions of disadvantaged students and students of color will not be adequately
instructed, will not be promoted, will not graduate, and may be further stigmatized due to the
unintended consequences of the very system instituted to help them.
Page 10
Staff Draft
July 2004
7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has conducted a study of the racial achievement
gap, accountability, and remediation issues in elementary and secondary education. As examples
of national trends of reform efforts, the Commission has focused on the measures implemented
by Maryland and Virginia intended to close the gap between student subgroups. One of the most
significant reforms to take place is the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a
sweeping six-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
1
This legislation, passed in a bipartisan vote and signed by President Bush on January 8, 2002,
2
changes the federal government’s role in kindergarten-through-grade-12 education by asking
America’s schools to describe their success in terms of what each student achieves on state
testing. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the act is based on four education
reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control,
expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to
work.
3
From its inception, the act received bipartisan support, yet since its implementation,
members of both political parties, advocacy groups, and educators have raised concerns
regarding different aspects of the act, including, for example, the timetable for implementation,
funding, encroachment on states’ rights, and sweeping, strict standards for children with
disabilities and English language learners. The act seeks to raise achievement by meting out
sanctions to schools that fail to meet required goals. It has succeeded in focusing schools on
closing the achievement gap between minority, disadvantaged, and other students,
4
but many
educators see some of the requirements as unworkable.
5
Recently, criticism has been leveled at
Secretary of Education Rod Paige for being slow in adopting regulations on how the states can
1
To Close the Achievement Gap with Accountability, Flexibility, and Choice, So That No Child is Left Behind,
Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).
2
See Andrew Rudalevige, “No Child Left Behind: Forging a Congressional Compromise,” No Child Left Behind?
Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West, eds. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 23 (hereafter
cited as Rudalevige, “NCLB: Forging a Congressional Compromise”).
3
U.S. Department of Education, “Introduction: No Child Left Behind,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/
index.html> (last accessed July 1, 2004).
4
The purpose of NCLB was to increase the performance of underachieving minority populations. Specifically,
according to Congress’ Statement of Purpose in passing NCLB, the act is intended to meet “the educational needs of
low achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory
children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of
reading assistance” and to close “the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the
achievement gaps between minority and nonminority, and between disadvantaged children and their more
advantaged peers.” 20 U.S.C. § 6301(2)–(3) (2004). The act does not explicitly define minority populations,
however, the legislative history of the act most notably refers to the underperformance of African American,
Hispanic, and Native American racial subgroups. See, e.g., H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001); H.R. 340, 107th Cong.
(2001); S. 7, 107th Cong. (2001); H
OUSE
C
OMM
.
ON
E
DUC
.
AND THE
W
ORKFORCE
, H.R. R
EP
. N
O
. 107-63, pt. 1
(2001).
5
Sam Dillon, “1 in 4 Schools Fall Short Under Bush Law,” New York Times, Jan. 27, 2004, p. A21 (hereafter cited
as Dillon, “1 in 4 Schools Fall Short Under Bush Law”).
Page 11
Staff Draft
July 2004
8
comply with the law.
6
According to an independent study, about 28 percent of schools
nationwide failed to meet their annual target last year, which under NCLB triggers a mandatory
set of costly remediation efforts, including supplemental tuition services and offers to move
children to different schools where space is available.
7
As discussed further in this chapter, this
year, responding to growing criticism, the Bush administration announced an easing of several
requirements of the act.
In February 2003, the Commission held an Education Accountability briefing, which helped
to illuminate several components of education reform that require the attention of policymakers,
including:
• Sufficient funding for accountability and testing programs.
• Proper alignment of curriculum and assessment.
• Adequate teacher preparation to ensure quality instruction for every student.
• Inclusive assessment techniques that guarantee English language learners and students with
disabilities will not be left behind.
• Information sharing with parents to encourage their involvement in the education
accountability.
• Most importantly for purposes of this report, appropriate intervention and remediation for
low-performing students.
In addition, the briefing and Commission research have also focused on the civil rights
implications of high-stakes testing in light of current education reform methods.
8
While NCLB
does not require the attachment of individual high stakes to any tests, there are concerns that
states will be more inclined to attach stakes, such as retention in grade or failure to graduate, as a
result of NCLB testing. In light of this concern, testimony of the parents, teachers, state and local
administrators, policy analysts, and advocates at the Commission’s briefing highlighted the
importance of evaluating the use and effect of high-stakes testing. Specifically, the panelists
underscored the need for schools, schools districts, and policymakers to:
• Monitor and evaluate the impact of high-stakes testing of specific student populations,
especially students of color adversely affected by the vestiges of educational segregation,
students in underfunded and understaffed rural and inner-city schools, and students with
disabilities and limited English proficiency.
6
“Rescuing Education Reform,” New York Times, Op-Ed, Mar. 2, 2004, p. A22.
7
See Center on Education Policy, Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act, January 2004, p. 55 (hereafter cited as
Center on Education Policy, Year 2 of NCLB); Michael Dobbs, “‘No Child’ Tests for Schools Relaxed, English
Learners Get Transition Time,” Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2004, p. A01 (hereafter cited as Dobbs, “‘No Child’
Tests for Schools Relaxed”). About 26,000 of the nation’s 91,400 public schools are on probation because they
failed to make adequate yearly progress on tests for the 2002–03 school year. Center on Education Policy, Year 2 of
NCLB, p. 55; Dillon, “1 in 4 Schools Fall Short Under Bush Law,” p. A21.
8
High-stakes testing generally refers to standardized tests whose results are used to determine a student’s promotion
from one grade to the next and/or graduation from school.
Page 12
Staff Draft
July 2004
9
• Improve the accuracy of the methods used to measure student achievement.
• Continue evaluating the effectiveness of high-stakes testing on student performance.
The Commission’s research on education reform and NCLB reveals that standards-based
education reform must not only hold students, parents, teachers, and administrators accountable,
but it must also give them sufficient resources and support to provide remediation to failing
students and failing schools. Specifically, this chapter will discuss the nation’s achievement gap,
the ways in which NCLB is seeking to remedy that gap, and the federal requirements to be
implemented by the states. In addition, this chapter will examine the major accountability
provisions of NCLB, and whether their implementation will help underperforming minority
students, students with disabilities, and limited English proficiency students. It will also examine
high-stakes testing as an education reform tool and the civil rights implications of its application.
Chapters 2 and 3 will look at these issues from two states’ perspectives and examine the
remediation measures Maryland and Virginia have implemented to decrease their achievement
gap both before and after implementation of NCLB, as well as highlight some of the states’ best
practices. Finally, Chapter 4 will offer recommendations for some of the challenges presented in
the report.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
The gap in educational achievement between white students and African American and
Hispanic students has been well documented and is large and persistent.
9
An average African
American or Hispanic elementary, middle, or high school student currently achieves at about the
same level as the average white student in the lowest quartile of white achievement.
10
In reading,
for example, the average African American 17-year-old performs at the same level as white 13-
year-olds.
11
The achievement gap has persisted for decades and has grave consequences for
graduating from high school, earning secondary degrees, and earning a living.
12
The gaps
actually narrowed in the 1970s and ’80s, but beginning in the late ’80s, progress stalled and the
remaining achievement gap differences remained large.
13
Some performance gaps among
students appear before children enter kindergarten and persist into adulthood.
14
9
John E. Chubb and Tom Loveless, eds., “ Bridging the Achievement Gap,” Bridging the Achievement Gap,
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), p. 1 (hereafter cited as Chubb and Loveless, “Bridging the
Achievement Gap”).
10
Ibid.
11
Robert Rothman, “Closing the Achievement Gap: How Schools Are Making It Happen,” Journal of the
Annenberg Challenge, vol. 5, no. 2, Winter 2001/02, <http://www.annenbergchallenge.org/pubs/cj/gap_cj.htm> (last
accessed Jan. 30, 2004) (hereafter cited as Rothman, “Closing the Achievement Gap”) (see section entitled “The
Gap Shrank . . . Then Expanded Again” discussing data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress).
12
Chubb and Loveless, “ Bridging the Achievement Gap,” p. 1.
13
Rothman, “Closing the Achievement Gap” (see section titled “The Gap Shrank . . . Then Expanded Again”).
14
See, e.g., Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 1998); National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Reading and Mathematics
Scores for Black and White Seventeen-Year-Olds, 1971–1996; NAEP Vocabulary Scores for Black and White Three-
and Four-Year-Olds, 1986–1994.
Page 13
Staff Draft
July 2004
10
Although overall performance gaps appear to have narrowed in instances, they still
remain a reality in American schools.
15
In reviewing the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) testing data from 1992 to 2000, the National Assessment Governing Board
found the overall student achievement levels to be encouraging, but it noted that no significant
progress has been made in reducing the performance gaps experienced by minority and
economically disadvantaged children.
16
In an August 2000 report, NAEP showed that in 1999,
white students had higher reading and math scores than their African American and Hispanic
peers.
17
And while the overall gap between white and African American and white and Hispanic
students had narrowed in reading, math, and science since 1973, the gap between these student
subgroups has widened for certain age groups since approximately 1986.
18
According to the U.S. Department of Education, on the 2000 NAEP reading assessment
40 percent of white 4th graders scored at or above proficient, compared with only 12 percent of
their African American peers, 16 percent of their Hispanic peers, and 17 percent of their Native
American peers.
19
In math, achievement also lagged—35 percent of white 4th graders scored at
or above proficient, while just 5 percent of African Americans, 10 percent of Hispanics, and 14
percent of Native Americans scored as high.
20
It has been reported that if all students nationwide
15
See generally Pascal D. Forgione, Jr., Achievement in the United States: Progress Since a Nation at Risk? (Center
for Education Reform and Empower America, 1998); National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, From
Gatekeeper to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, School Poverty
and Academic Performance: NAEP Achievement in High Poverty Schools, 1998 (concluding that despite some signs
of improvement, a large gap in academic performance between students in high- and low-poverty schools remains).
16
Marilyn Whirry, National Assessment Governing Board, “Statement on the NAEP 2000 Fourth-Grade Reading
Report Card,” Apr. 6, 2000, <http://www.nagb.org> (last accessed Jan. 30, 2003). The National Assessment
Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan, executive branch agency of the federal government charged with
monitoring national and state progress toward the National Education Goals and providing policy guidance for
NAEP.
17
See National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student
Performance, NCES 2000-469. NAEP did not report data for other racial/ethnic student subgroups because the
sampling of data was too small to analyze and report.
18
According to NAEP data, “[t]he gap between white and black students in reading narrowed between 1971 and
1999 in each age group. Since 1988 it has widened somewhat at ages 13 and 17. The gap between white and
Hispanic students narrowed between 1975 and 1999 at age 17 only. The gap between white and black students in
math narrowed between 1973 and 1999 in each age group. Some widening is evident since 1986 at age 13, and since
1990 at age 17. The gap between white and Hispanic 13- and 17-year-olds narrowed between 1973 and 1999, but
has widened since 1982 among 9-year-olds. The gap between white and black students in science generally
narrowed since 1970 for 9- and 13-year-olds, but not for 17-year-olds. The gap between white and Hispanic students
at any age in 1999 was not significantly different from 1977. It has widened somewhat among 13-year-olds since
1992.” Ibid.
19
See U.S. Department of Education, “Reaching Out…Raising African American Achievement,”
<http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/achievement_aa.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004); U.S.
Department of Education, “Reaching Out…Raising Hispanic Achievement,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
accountability/achieve/achievement_ hisp.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004); U.S. Department of Education,
“Reaching Out…Raising American Indian Achievement,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/
achievement_native.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004).
20
See U.S. Department of Education, “Reaching Out…Raising African American Achievement,”
<http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/achievement_aa.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004); U.S.
Department of Education, “Reaching Out…Raising Hispanic Achievement,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
accountability/achieve/ achievement_hisp.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004); U.S. Department of Education,
Page 14
Staff Draft
July 2004
11
were held to “world class” standards on graduation tests, as are imposed in NAEP’s assessments,
nearly 40 percent of all students would fail, and the rate for minority students and students with
disabilities could be as high as 80 percent.
21
Poverty, race, and ethnicity play significant roles in student achievement. Generally,
high-poverty schools, that is, schools where more than 75 percent of the students receive free or
subsidized lunch, have higher numbers of African American and Hispanic students, higher rates
of student absenteeism, less parental involvement, and more negative attitudes toward scholastic
achievement.
22
The National Center for Education Statistics reported that “in 2000, higher levels
of students eligible for subsidized lunch were generally associated with lower test scores on 4th
grade mathematics assessment.”
23
Because achievement gaps between racial groups are similar to those that exist between
wealthy and poor students, some have suggested that the problem is one of income, rather than
racial discrimination.
24
Since African American children are more likely to be poor than their
white peers, commentators maintain the gap in achievement reflects the difference in family and
school resources.
25
Family income explains some of the differences, but it does not explain the
entire gap. Bias and low expectations in the classrooms, a smaller tax base for school districts,
less qualified teachers, and other factors, for example, play their parts. Allan Alson, the
superintendent of the Evanston Township High School District in Illinois and a founder of the
Minority Student Achievement Network, states that “[t]here are multiple variables that cause and
exacerbate the gap. We do ourselves a disservice and get stalled if we get in public debates about
whether the problem is [race or income or another factor]. We have to acknowledge that it is all
of them.”
26
Performance trends between white and African American and Hispanic students are
significant because they reveal the stark discrepancies in student achievement levels. Many of
the limiting factors present in the African American and Hispanic educational experiences,
“Reaching Out…Raising American Indian Achievement,” <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/
achievement_native.html> (last accessed May 24, 2004).
21
Jay P. Heubert, “High-Stakes Testing: Opportunities and Risks for Students of Color, English-Language Learners
and Students with Disabilities,” 2000, <http://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?i=920#fn6> (last accessed June 29,
2004).
22
National Center for Education Statistics, The Conditions of Education 2002, NCES 2002-025, p. 58. Many experts
agree that forms of parental involvement can be critical to children’s success in school. NAACP Education
Department, “NAACP Call for Action in Education,” p. 17, <http://www.naacp.org> (last accessed Apr. 30, 2004)
(hereafter cited as NAACP, “Call for Action in Education”). For example, one analysis of national test results found
that the three factors over which parents have control—student attendance, the availability of a variety of reading
materials at home, and the amount of television watched—accounted for nearly 90 percent of the difference in
student test scores. Ibid. A review of 71 high-poverty elementary schools found that student test scores rose the
fastest in schools where teachers reported that they had high-quality instruction and worked with parents on
students’ education. Ibid. Parental involvement, high expectations, and encouragement should not be
underestimated. For purposes of this chapter, however, we examine the federal government’s attempt to close the
achievement gap through legislation.
23
National Center for Education Statistics, The Conditions of Education 2002, NCES 2002-025, p. 58.
24
Rothman, “Closing the Achievement Gap” (see section entitled “The Gap Shrank . . . Then Expanded Again”).
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid. (quoting section entitled “The Gap Shrank . . . Then Expanded Again”).
Page 15
Staff Draft
July 2004
12
which contribute to the limiting of their chances of academic success, are also present for some
Asian American populations. As seen in Chapters 2 and 3, on average, Asian Americans in
Maryland and Virginia generally achieve on par with white students. Research on the complexity
of the achievement gap reveals, however, that not all Asian American students are high
achievers; just as not all African Americans and Hispanics are academic underachievers.
27
Students in some Asian American subgroups with high poverty rates tend to perform worse than
those with greater economic resources.
28
As discussed in this report, race and poverty are also
significant indicators of academic success for African Americans and Hispanics. Indeed, overall
Asian American performance numbers can overstate the success of low-performing and high-
poverty subgroups, such as Cambodians and Laotians, who get grouped into the broad category
of Asian Americans.
29
In the same vein, above average performance by some racial subgroups,
such as Caribbean blacks, for example, can be overlooked.
30
Oversimplification of the categories
and lack of racial subgroup data can mask more complex issues.
In A Dream Denied: Educational Experiences of Southeast Asian American Youth, it is
noted that 1990 census data reported that 71.7 percent of Hmong, 64.3 percent of Cambodians,
59.8 percent of Laotians, and 39.4 percent of Vietnamese in the United States have not graduated
from high school.
31
Asian American high school students in these subgroups also report being
academically disenfranchised as a result of school counselors and teachers providing little
guidance and support, the low expectations of teachers, the lack of access to resources outside
school to assist them, the lack of parental and community support, and stereotyping and racial
bias.
32
In addition, many Asian American students in low-performing subgroups, similar to
some Hispanic students, report that their parents face barriers to parental involvement with their
schools because they have little or no understanding of the education system since they are often
27
See generally U.S. Department of Education, “Remarks by Secretary Paige to Asian American Community
Leaders, Los Angeles, California,” July 11, 2003, <http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/07/07112003.html> (last
accessed June 19, 2004) (hereafter cited as U.S. Department of Education, “Remarks by Secretary Paige to Asian
American Community”). Secretary of Education Rod Paige commented that:
We know that in the Asian community there are needs as well. We know that many subscribe to
the myth of the model minority when it comes to education . . . and that there’s no need to worry
about the Asian community because that’s taken care of on its own. We know that is a myth. We
know that—we think your kids deserve the same kinds of attention.
Ibid.
28
Khatharyn Um, Ph.D., A Dream Denied: Educational Experiences of Southeast Asian American Youth Issues and
Recommendations (Southeast Asian Resource Action Center: Washington, DC, 2003), pp. 9–10 (hereafter cited as
Um, Educational Experiences of Southeast Asian American Youth).
29
Robert C. Johnston, “Who Is ‘Asian’? Cultural Difference Defy Simple Categories,” Education Week, Mar. 15,
2000, p. 21 (hereafter cited as Johnston, “Who Is ‘Asian’?”). The average family incomes of Southeast Asian
Americans tend to be low, ranging from $41,243 for Vietnamese families to $26,378 for Laotian and Hmong
families in 1989, as compared to $54,733 for white families. Kimberly Goyette and Yu Xie, “Educational
Expectations of Asian American Youths: Determinants and Ethnic Differences,” Sociology of Education, vol. 72,
1999, p. 24 (citing 1993 U.S. Census Bureau data).
30
Johnston, “Who Is ‘Asian’?” p. 21.
31
Ibid., pp. i–ii.
32
Ibid., pp. 1–16.
Page 16
Staff Draft
July 2004
13
the first generation in the United States, they are not English proficient,
33
and many parents lack