The-Ugly-Truth

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

The Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW) is the non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)3 affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ICW promotes the rigorous educational standards and effective job training systems needed to preserve the strength of America’s greatest economic resource, its workforce.

Through its events, publications, and policy initiatives—and drawing upon the Chamber’s extensive network of 3 million members—ICW connects the best minds in American business with the most innovative thinkers in American education, helping them work together to ensure the nation’s continued prosperity.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. © Institute for a Competitive Workforce, September 2011 © National Chamber Foundation, September 2011 “U.S. CHAMBER” and “U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE” are registered trademarks of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

The National Chamber Foundation (NCF), a non-profit affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is dedicated to identifying and fostering public debate on emerging critical issues. We provide business and government leaders with insight and resources to address tomorrow’s challenges.

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America Introduction In March 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW) and National Chamber Foundation (NCF) released fact sheets for every state and the District of Columbia comparing the state of K–12 public education across nine categories. The fact sheets give business leaders, parents, community leaders, policymakers, and other stakeholders a snapshot of the education landscape in each state—what’s good, what’s bad, and what’s downright ugly. The fact sheets are meant to arm leaders with basic facts and spur them to learn more about what is really happening in their schools and statehouses with respect to K–12 public education. In other words, the fact sheets are meant to fuel change.

The Indicators The nine indicators comprising the fact sheets were selected to answer these questions: • What type of education policy infrastructure have states created?

- Indicators: n Standards n Data systems n Charter school laws n Teacher policies • How well are students performing?

- Indicators: n Student achievement n Graduation rate n Achievement gap • What impact does the condition of public education have on each state?

- Indicators: n Dropouts’ effect on the economy n Return on investment

2

Using data compiled from expert sources, ICW and NCF assessed all states and assigned a “Good,” “Bad,” or “Ugly” rating in each of these areas.

Additionally, the fact sheets noted which states won the U.S. Department of Education’s 2010 Race to the Top competition, which provided funding for state reform initiatives. To learn more about our methodology, see page 11.

Updates In this publication, we have compiled all state fact sheets to provide an easy reference and to give context to each state’s results. The fact sheets have been updated with additional National Assessment of Educational Progress results, information on the adoption of common academic standards in states, and newly released graduation rate data. Taken together, these state profiles paint a broad national portrait of K–12 public education—one that reveals just how much work lies ahead if we are to educate all students well and prepare them for success in work and life.

A brief analysis of state results in each category follows. It is important to emphasize that these state profiles are snapshots that reflect data captured at a point in time. They do not reflect the myriad changes taking place across the country, nor reform efforts under way. While it is beyond the scope of this project to document such activities and advances, we have chosen to highlight promising policy developments in a few leading states.

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

State Results What type of education policy infrastructure have states created?

These indicators assess some of the key components around which education policy is framed and implemented.

Standards Good: 48

Bad: 1

Ugly: 2

Academic standards outline what students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level. Each state has established its own standards, which vary substantially in quality and rigor across the nation. To address the concern that all students—regardless of where they live—should have access to an education framed around highquality, college- and career-ready standards, the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers launched the Common Core State Standards Initiative. This initiative yielded a set of “Common Core State Standards” that have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia since February 2010.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, long a standardswatcher, graded the quality of the Common Core reading and math standards, awarding them a B+ and A-, respectively.1 The Fordham Institute noted that the new standards were superior or “too close to call” in comparison with most states’ existing standards, which it also graded. Only nine states’ standards received As and Bs in both reading and mathematics, underscoring the need to strengthen the academic frameworks in a majority of states.

Regardless of the quality of a state’s existing standards—which remain in place during the transition to the Common Core standards—we rated as “Good” all states that adopted the Common Core standards, based on the Fordham Institute’s analysis. Of the five states that have, to date, chosen not to adopt the Common Core standards—Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia—two merited a “Good” rating for the strength of their current standards, one was “Bad,” and two were “Ugly.”

It is important to note that states’ transition to the Common Core standards is just beginning. Some states, particularly those with a change in leadership, may decide to reverse course and jettison their commitment to implementing the new standards—in which case it is all the more important that those states strengthen their existing standards to ensure that they prepare students for success in college and the workplace.

Data Systems Good: 46 Bad: 5

Ugly: 0

Strong data systems with reliable data are essential to informing decisions on where to target resources and interventions, from classroom to school, district, state, and beyond. With significant state, federal, and philanthropic investments, states have made great strides in improving their data capacity over the previous decade, a development spurred by the standards and accountability movement in education, and particularly the No Child Left Behind Act, the nation’s primary K–12 education law. Forty-six states earned the rank of “Good” by having in place eight or more of the ten core elements deemed essential in state data systems by the Data Quality Campaign (DQC); of these, twenty-four have all ten elements. Just five states lag behind, each with only six or seven data system elements in place; they were assigned a “Bad” rating.

Although states’ overall progress in building data infrastructure is to be commended, states must now work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance. To this end, DQC tracked implementation of 10 state actions to create a culture of effective data use, and reported that no state has taken all 10 actions, and just 13 states have taken 6 or more.2

Charter School Laws Good: 20 Bad: 21

Ugly: 10

Public charter schools provide needed educational options for families, with more freedom than most traditional public schools to innovate to

3

serve students’ needs. Since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992, nearly 5,300 charter schools have opened in 40 states and the District of Columbia, serving more than 1.8 million students—3.7% of all public school students.3 Yet 10 states do not have laws that even authorize charter schools, yielding an “Ugly” rating. Students in these states would benefit from access to more schooling options.

Among the states with charter school laws, 19 and the District of Columbia earned a “Good” rating, based on their charter school laws’ status among the top 20 as ranked by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) against that organization’s model charter law. While there is wide variation among these 20 states—with some much closer to the NAPCS model law than others—overall their laws are stronger than those of the 21 states whose charter school policies landed them in the “Bad” category. States should work to strengthen their charter laws by removing caps on enrollment, permitting multiple entities to authorize charter schools, allowing many types of charter schools to open, and otherwise allowing charter schools flexibility to operate while being held accountable for providing quality education.

Teacher Policies Good: 0 Bad: 48

Ugly: 3

Common sense affirms what studies have shown: Teachers have the biggest impact on student achievement among all school-related factors.4 Teachers’ effectiveness—or lack thereof—helps determine the course of a student’s future. One study found that having effective teachers three years in a row enabled students to outperform by 50 percentile points peers who started at the same level5—which could mean the difference between going to an Ivy League college and not graduating from high school.6

4

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) biennially grades states’ policies pertaining to teachers. NCTQ awarded no As or Bs in its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook; therefore, no state earned

a “Good” rating. Forty-eight states received Cs or Ds—yielding a “Bad” rating—while the failing marks of three states resulted in an “Ugly” rating. With an average grade of D, NCTQ found that states’ teacher policies are “broken, outdated and inflexible.”7 NCTQ noted these and other problems: • Evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness.

• States are complicit in keeping ineffective teachers in the classroom.

• States cling to outmoded compensation structures, providing few financial incentives to retain effective teachers.

• State pension systems are not flexible or fair, and many are in questionable financial health.

Spurred in part by the 2010 competition for Race to the Top funding (described in the next section), many states have undertaken significant reforms of their teacher policies. NCTQ’s 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook noted changes to many states’ policies but did not change states’ grades. In particular, NCTQ found “an increase in the number of states requiring annual evaluations of all teachers (from 15 states in 2009 to 21 states in 2010) and a more than doubling of the number of states requiring that evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations (from 4 states in 2009 to 10 states in 2010).”8 The study also noted that in 2010, 14 states adopted policies holding teacher preparation programs in their state accountable based on the academic performance of students taught by their graduates, compared with 2009, when Louisiana was the only state to pilot such an effort. These are promising developments, but states’ teacher policies are in need of substantial reform. According to NCTQ, most states’ evaluation, tenure, and dismissal policies remain disconnected from teachers’ classroom results, and teacher preparation and licensure requirements do not ensure that educators have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

Race to the Top Good: 12 Bad: N/A

Ugly: N/A

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education awarded approximately $4 billion to 12 states during two rounds of intense competition for funding under the Race to the Top program. The program was intended to reward “States that are leading the way with ambitious yet achievable plans for implementing coherent, compelling, and comprehensive education reform” that will “help trail-blaze effective reforms and provide examples for States and local school districts throughout the country to follow”— particularly in the areas of standards, assessments, data systems, teacher and principal effectiveness, and school turnarounds.9

SPOTLIGHT on REFORM: Colorado Colorado Governor Bill Ritter established the Colorado Council on Educator Effectiveness in January 2010 and signed educator effectiveness legislation in May 2010 that was heralded as a national model that “set the standard for those [state laws] that followed it.”1,2 The law— • Requires annual evaluations for all teachers, with at least 50% based on students’ academic growth as measured partially by test scores • Requires at least 50% of a principal’s annual evaluation to be determined by a combination of the academic growth of the students and the demonstrated effectiveness of the teachers in the principal’s school • Requires that teachers earn or lose tenure based on their demonstrated effectiveness • Requires teachers who receive two consecutive “ineffective” ratings to be placed on probationary status and have a year to improve or face termination • Requires reductions in force to be based on effectiveness, rather than seniority

While the Race to the Top competition was not an indicator against which all states were ranked—some strong contenders were not awarded funds—the 12 winning states were categorized as “Good” in recognition of their achievement. Many of the winning states’ planned activities are promising—ranging from data coaches to improved teacher evaluation systems to compensation reform—but not all are equally so.

And according to Education Week, every winning state but Georgia has amended its Race to the Top plan, most often to delay implementation or scale back a planned initiative.10 These modifications are significant not only because states were awarded funding partly on the basis of their promise to implement their plans as specified, but also because the modifications delay students’ ability to reap the benefits of reform.

How Well Are Students Performing?

Education policies and expenditures can be analyzed in many ways, but their impact on student achievement and outcomes is most important. These indicators examine the bottom line for students.

Student Achievement Good: 0 Bad: 0

Ugly: 51

Proficiency scores on many states’ exams differ widely from the scores reported on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam, an independent national testing program also known as the Nation’s

1

Office of Governor Bill Ritter, “Gov. Ritter Signs Bipartisan Educator Effectiveness Bill,” May 20, 2011, http://www.stand. org/Document.Doc?id=2646, accessed August 8, 2011.

2 Bellwether Education Partners, “Recent Teacher Effectiveness

Legislation: How Do the States Stack Up?” August 2011,

http://bellwethereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/

State-Teacher-Leg-Comparison.pdf, accessed August 13, 2011.

5

SPOTLIGHT on REFORM: Indiana As part of Governor Mitch Daniels’ comprehensive education reform package, Indiana enacted a series of bills in April and May 2011 that expand students’ options and promote teacher effectiveness. The new laws— Charter Schools3 • Expand charter school authorizing • Require all charter schools to be open to any student in the state • Give charter schools more personnel flexibility and access to unused facilities while holding them to rigorous accountability standards School Choice4 • Make private-school scholarships available to families who meet income guidelines • Expand the current tuition tax credit to provide private-school scholarships to more students Teacher Quality5 • Require annual teacher evaluations to include student achievement and growth in student learning • Require teachers’ performance to be a factor in hiring, promotion, salary, and dismissal decisions • Do not allow a student to be taught by a teacher rated “ineffective” for two consecutive years without parent approval • Require the Department of Education to partner with businesses and organizations to help schools increase operational efficiency

3 Office of Governor Mitch Daniels, “Governor signs charter

school and education choice bills,” May 5, 2011, http://www. in.gov/gov/gov_newsroom.htm, accessed August 8, 2011.

4 Ibid.

6

5 Office of Governor Mitch Daniels, “Governor signs teacher

quality bill, part of sweeping education reforms,” April 30, 2011, http://www.in.gov/gov/gov_newsroom.htm, accessed

August 8, 2011.

Report Card. As the only source of comparable independent student performance data at the state level—and one that serves as a check on inflated statereported scores—NAEP results form the basis of our analysis in this area.

NAEP results reveal how far short we are falling in educating all students to proficiency. All states were rated “Ugly” for their overall low performance. Only five states brought more than half of their students to proficiency on fourth-grade NAEP math tests.

Massachusetts led the way with 57% proficiency, and was the only state to surpass the 50% mark in eighth-grade math (at 52%). In fourth- and eighth-grade reading, no state met this benchmark; Massachusetts, again the highest-scoring state, prepared 47% and 43% of students to proficiency in these areas, respectively. In many states, the results are shocking.

Just 17% of District of Columbia fourth-graders, for example, are proficient in math and reading; in Mississippi, 22% of fourth-graders are proficient in each subject. Although NAEP proficiency levels are rigorous, we as a nation are nowhere near meeting our obligation to provide all students with the high-quality education they will need to meet the demands of today’s and tomorrow’s workforce.

However, states have made some progress in recent years. On the 2009 NAEP math assessment, the percentages of fourth-graders performing at or above the Basic level (82%) and at or above the Proficient level (39%) were higher than those on tests administered since 1990 (though unchanged from 2007); eighth-graders performed higher than in all earlier assessment years, with 73% performing at or above Basic and 34% at or above Proficient.11 On the 2009 NAEP reading assessment, higher percentages of fourth-graders performed better than on previous assessments (though unchanged from 2007), with about two-thirds at or above Basic and one-third at or above Proficient. Seventy-five percent of eighth-graders performed at or above Basic, and 32% performed at or above Proficient, with both percentages higher than in 2007.12

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

Achievement Gap Good: 0 Bad: 2

Ugly: 49

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—the nation’s primary K–12 education law—is dedicated to closing the “achievement gaps” that separate many groups of students from their peers.

By insisting on accountability for the success of all students and publicly disaggregating data by student category, the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 version of ESEA, intensified the nation’s focus on closing achievement gaps. Despite improvements in recent years, achievement gaps remain large and pervasive, with devastating impacts not only for individual students but also for society. Research by McKinsey & Company found that the persistence of achievement gaps imposes the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession on our country.13 For this snapshot analysis, we have presented data on the largest achievement gaps between white and minority students in each state, but gaps exist between other groups of students—such as students with disabilities or limited English proficiency—that in many cases are even larger. Unfortunately, no state has succeeded in eliminating achievement gaps— which would have qualified as “Good”—though some have smaller gaps than others. All but two states were rated “Ugly” because their gaps were 15 points or greater. West Virginia and Wyoming were rated as “Bad” with gaps of less than 15 points. Nearly all states have one or more gaps of 20 to 30 points among students—a fact that is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness. Our nation’s focus on closing these pernicious gaps must continue, and indeed expand, if we are to honor our commitment to educating all students well.

Graduation Rate Good: 0 Bad: 36

make it to graduation—but dropouts are a widespread problem in many other schools in every state.15 Fortunately, after a decade of concentrated effort, the needle is beginning to move. There were 373 fewer dropout factories in 2009 than in 2002. And according to the Diplomas Count 2011 report, the national graduation rate is at 72%, up from 69% the year before and at its highest level in two decades.16 (The 72% rate reflects data on the Class of 2008, the most recent data available.) Although each major racial and ethnic group posted gains of at least 2 percentage points, black students improved the most.

Thirty-three states increased their graduation rates, with four states moving from the “Ugly” (below 70%) to the “Bad” (70–89%) category. Three states had especially noteworthy gains: 10 percentage points in California, 11 in Tennessee, and 15 in North Carolina.

By contrast, 13 states’ graduation rates declined, and five were flat. While the overall trend among states is positive, only five states graduate 80% or more of their students—Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. New Jersey, the nation’s graduation rate leader, graduates 87% of its students, nearly reaching our “Good” rating (90% or above)— but that still leaves more than 1 in 10 students behind.

Dropping out of high school takes a tremendous toll on a young person’s life and career opportunities, including a sizable financial penalty. A high school dropout earns, on average, about $260,000 less than a high school graduate over the course of his or her lifetime.17

What impact does the condition of public education have on each state?

In difficult economic times, it is even more critical that every dollar spent yield maximum results and that our education system fuel economic growth. These indicators explore the fiscal impact of education in each state.

Ugly: 15

Each year, approximately 1.2 million students—more than half of whom are students of color—drop out of high school.14 More than 2 million students attend one of more than 1,600 so-called “dropout factories”— schools where 60% or fewer of entering freshmen

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy Good: 0 Bad: 0 Ugly: 51 All states were rated “Ugly” for the significant financial impact that their dropout rates have on their bottom line. Over the course of their lifetimes,

7

SPOTLIGHT on REFORM: Florida Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislation in March and June 2011 that expands students’ options and promotes teacher effectiveness. The new laws— Charter Schools and Virtual Education6,7 • Allow high-performing charter schools to increase enrollment, open more schools, and receive longer charter terms • Expand the Florida Virtual School to offer fulltime instruction to K–12 students and part-time instruction for grades 4–12 • Allow district virtual schools to expand part-time instruction for high school students • Allow charter schools to offer online instruction and blended learning, a combination of traditional faceto-face and digital instruction • Require high school students to take one digital course to graduate • Require that districts offer at least three full- and part-time virtual options in K–12

School Choice8 • Offer more students in low-performing schools the opportunity to attend a better performing school • Expand access to McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Teacher Quality9 • Establish four performance levels for teachers and require at least half of a classroom teacher’s evaluation to be based on student learning gains • Require performance pay for the most effective teachers and incentive pay for those who teach in struggling schools or in hard-to-staff subject areas • Replace tenure with annual contracts for new teachers

6 Office of Governor Rick Scott, “Governor Scott Signs Legislation

to Strengthen, Expand Charter and Virtual Schools,” July 27, 2011,

http://www.flgov.com/2011/06/27/governor-scott-signs-legislation- to-strengthen-expand-charter-and-virtual-schools/, accessed

August 8, 2011.

7 Patricia Levesque “Meet the Ed Reform Idol contestants: Florida,”

Flypaper blog, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, August 1, 2011, http:// www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/08/meet-the-ed-reform-idol- contestants-florida/, accessed August 8, 2011.

8

Office of Governor Rick Scott, “Governor Scott Signs Legislation to Strengthen, Expand Charter and Virtual Schools,” July 27, 2011.

9 Office of Governor Rick Scott, “Governor Scott Signs Student

Success Act,” March 24, 2011, http://www.flgov.com/2011/03/24/ governor-scott-signs-student-success-act/, http://www.flgov.com/ wp-content/uploads/2011/03/03.24.2011-Student-Success-Act-SB736. pdf, accessed August 8, 2011.

dropouts from the Class of 2010 alone will cost the nation more than $337 billion in lost wages, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education (Alliance).18 At the state level, this impact ranges from more than $400 million lost in North Dakota to more than $35 billion in Texas, with an average of $6.6 billion per state—again, just for one class of dropouts.

8

The Alliance estimates that more than $310 billion would be added to the U.S. economy if our nation’s high schools were to raise the graduation rates of Hispanic, black, and Native American students to the levels of white students by 2020. Further, increasing the male graduation and college matriculation rate by just 5% could lead to savings

and revenue of almost $8 billion per year by reducing crime-related costs—an average of $151.6 million per state. States would save an average of $72.7 million in community college remediation costs and lost earnings if all 12th-graders graduated ready for college.

Return on Investment Good: 20 Bad: 21

Ugly: 10

For this indicator, we used grades from the 2007 Leaders and Laggards state-by-state report card (produced by ICW and partners) which measured the student achievement return that states get for their education expenditures, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

needs, and cost of living. Twenty states were rated “Good,” with 10 states each having received As and Bs in the Leaders and Laggards analysis. Twenty-one states were rated “Bad” for their C grades (11 states) or D grades (10 states), while 10 states’ F grades landed them in the “Ugly” category.

It is important to note that the Leaders and Laggards expenditure data came from the 2003–2004 school year, the most recent year for which data were available at the time that analysis was undertaken; the achievement data were 2003 NAEP data because they were closest to the instructional year of the expenditure data. The report noted that the return on investment metric “is obviously an imperfect measure of educational efficiency… However, at this time, we view the relatively straightforward calculation displayed here as the most useful measure given existing data and knowledge.”19 Many states’ fiscal pictures have worsened considerably since the publication of the report and the data on which it was based. Nonetheless, in the absence of updated state-level research on this ripe topic, we included the data in this analysis because of the importance of the overall indicator.

In a recent study of return on investment at the school district level, the Center for American Progress (CAP) found that efficiency varies widely within states, with some districts spending thousands more per student to obtain a similar level of academic achievement.20 CAP estimated that low productivity costs the nation’s school systems as much as $175 billion a year, and found that many districts could boost student achievement without spending more if they used their resources more productively. CAP also noted that high-spending school systems are often inefficient, posting mediocre productivity results after accounting for factors outside of the districts’ control. Further, according to CAP, just two states—Florida and Texas— currently provide annual school-level productivity evaluations that report to the public how well funds are being spent. Yet, in lean budget times, it is vital that states and districts analyze and leverage each dollar they spend on education—and other priorities— to achieve results.

A Call to Action Although our analysis shows that much promising work is under way in many communities across the nation, it is not happening with the intensity, urgency, and widespread backing needed to transform our education system. With the looming shortage of well-educated and skilled workers and serious threats to our nation’s competitiveness, leaders at every level—from parents to business leaders to school leaders to elected officials in cities, states, and the federal government—must demand a return on our investment. We cannot afford to waste funding—or our children’s futures—to protect the status quo in our schools and statehouses.

In The “Superman” Approach: A Business Leader’s Guide to Effective Education Reform, we provided suggestions on how business leaders can take meaningful action to spur education reform in their communities—from supporting an analysis of state laws affecting teachers, to asking tough questions of local school officials, to starting a school board PAC to funding the creation of a state education reform advocacy organization.21 As we stated in The “Superman” Approach, “It’s time to get serious about realigning our resources and holding schools, districts, and leaders at all levels accountable. This isn’t to say we can’t work together to make real change, but we can’t do it at the expense of getting real results. Too many children’s lives—and our nation’s future—hang in the balance.”

We hope that the data in this volume serve to educate concerned leaders who want to take on this vital work.

9

Endnotes

1. Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “The State of State Standards—and Common Core—in 2010,” July 2010.

2. Data Quality Campaign, “Data for Action 2010,” http://www.dataquality campaign.org/stateanalysis/executive_summary/,

accessed August 8, 2011.

3. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “The Public Charter Schools Dashboard,” http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/

dashboard/home, accessed August 8, 2011.

4. The Education Trust, “The Real Value of Teachers: If Good Teachers Matter, Why Don’t We Act Like It?” Thinking K-16,

vol. 8, no. 1 (2004), http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Spring04_0.pdf, accessed

August 8, 2011.

5. W. Sanders and J. Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Students Academic Achievement,

(Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996).

6. E. Starzyk and S. Stephens, “Darling-Hammond says pressure is mounting to reform teacher training,” Cleveland Plain

Dealer, 2008.

7. National Council on Teacher Quality, “2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, Primary Findings,” http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/

findings.jsp, accessed August 7, 2011.

8. National Council on Teacher Quality, “2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, Primary Findings,” http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/

updates/primaryFindings.jsp, accessed August 7, 2011.

9. U.S. Department of Education, “Race To The Top Fund,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html, accessed

August 8, 2011.

10. Michele McNeil, “More Race to Top Winners Push Back Promises.” Education Week, July 13, 2011, http://blogs.edweek.

org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/the_list_of_delays_states.html?qs=race_to_the_top, accessed August 8, 2011.

11. National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment Governing Board, Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Educational Progress Math 2009, “Summary of Major Findings,”

http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/summ.asp, accessed August 13, 2011.

12. National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment Governing Board, Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading 2009, “Summary of Major

Findings,” http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/summ.asp, accessed August 13, 2011.

13. McKinsey & Company, “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools,” April 2009, http://www.

mckinsey.com/appmedia/ images/page_images/offices/socialsector/pdf/achievement_gapreport.pdf, accessed

August 8, 2011.

14. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011, http://www.edweek.org/ew/

toc/2011/06/09/index.html, accessed August 8, 2011.

15. Robert Balfanz, John M. Bridgeland, Joanna Hornig Fox and Laura A. Moore, “Building a Grad Nation: Progress and

Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic; 2010–11 Annual Update,” http://www.americaspromise.org/

Our-Work/Grad-Nation/~/media/Files/Our%20Work/Grad%20Nation/2011%20Summit/Reports/GradNation-rd6-FINAL.ashx,

accessed August 8, 2011.

16. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

17. Alliance for Excellent Education, “Fact Sheet: High School Dropouts in America,” September 2010.

18. Ibid.

19. U.S. Chamber of Commerce,“ Leaders and Laggards: A State-by State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness,”

February 2007, http://www.uschamber.com/reportcard/2007/detailed-grading-methodology, accessed August 7, 2011.

20. Ulrich Boser, “Return on Educational Investment: A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity,” Center

for American Progress, 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/pdf/dwwroi.pdf, accessed August 8, 2011.

21. Institute for a Competitive Workforce, “The ‘Superman’ Approach: A Business Leader’s Guide to Effective Education

Reform,” 2010, http://icw.uschamber.com/publication/superman-approach-business-leaders-guide-effective-education-reform.

10

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

Methodology In developing the state fact sheets, we evaluated each state and the District of Columbia on nine broad categories, in addition to noting states that won funding under the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top competition. Below are the sources and methodology for each category; these descriptions have been updated to reflect new data and clarifications.

Achievement Gaps: For this category, we relied on National Assessment of Educational Progress state data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. For the purposes of this project, the largest gaps in each state between black and white and Hispanic and white students were identified. States with one or more achievement gaps between white and minority students of up to 15 points were categorized as “Bad,” and those with a 15-point gap or greater were categorized as “Ugly.”

No state has yet been able to erase the gap between white and minority students and thereby earn a “Good” rating.

Charter School Laws: For this category, we relied on the work of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which ranked the relative strength of each state’s charter school laws. (See National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.) For the purposes of this project, states ranked among the top 20 states with the strongest charter school laws were categorized as “Good,” states ranked below 20 were categorized as “Bad,” and states without charter school laws (and thus not ranked by NAPCS) were categorized as “Ugly.”

Data Systems: For this category, we relied on the work of the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), which annually evaluates the extent to which each state’s longitudinal data system includes the 10 core elements that DQC deems essential. (See DQC, State Analysis by Essential Element, February 2011.)

For the purposes of this project, states with eight or more of DQC’s elements were categorized as “Good,” those with only five to seven elements were categorized as “Bad,” and those with fewer than five were categorized as “Ugly.” DQC’s annual survey now also examines progress on 10 “state actions” to drive the use of data in informing policies and practices to improve student and system performance; these actions will be key metrics in future ICW and NCF analysis.

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy: For this category, we relied on analysis from the Alliance for Excellent Education’s “Education in the States” report card series. (See Alliance for Excellent Education, State High School Report Cards, October 2010.)

The Alliance’s analysis shows that all states’ low graduation rates cost dropouts millions of dollars of potential lifetime earnings as well as significant economic losses to each state; therefore, all states were categorized as “Ugly.”

Graduation Rates: For this category, we relied on 2007–08 state graduation rates from the national Diplomas Count 2011 report. (See Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.) For the purposes of this project, all states whose Diplomas Count-reported graduation rate was 70–89% were categorized as “Bad,” and those below 70% were categorized as “Ugly.” No state was categorized as “Good,” with a graduation rate of 90% or above. (Note: In our March 2011 release, we relied on 2006–07 data from Diplomas Count 2010.)

Return on Investment: For this category, we relied on the work of the Institute for a Competitive Workforce, which in 2007 produced a state-by-state education report card evaluating states’ return on investment for education funding (and other criteria).

(For a detailed explanation of methodology, see ICW, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.) For the

11

purposes of this project, states receiving an “A” or “B” from the Leaders and Laggards report for their return on investment were categorized as “Good,” those receiving a “C” or “D” were categorized as “Bad,” and those receiving an “F” were categorized as “Ugly.”

Standards: For this category, we relied on the work of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington, D.C.based think tank, which graded the quality and rigor of each state’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards. (See Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards—and the Common Core—in 2010, July 2010.) For the purposes of this project, state standards receiving an “A” or “B” from Fordham were categorized as “Good,” those receiving a “C” or “D” were categorized as “Bad,” and those receiving an “F” were categorized as “Ugly.” When a state’s ELA and math standards grades fell into different categories, the grades were averaged to determine that state’s overall category. Although the substantial work of implementing new standards is just beginning, states adopting the Common Core State Standards were categorized as “Good” based on Fordham’s findings that the standards were superior or “too close to call” in comparison to most states’ existing standards. (The Common Core standards received a B+ and A- for ELA and mathematics, respectively.)

12

Student Achievement: For this category, we relied on the work of the New America Foundation, which aggregates state and federal data from multiple sources, including NAEP and the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. (See New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010.)

For the purposes of this project, states in which fewer than 60% of students are proficient on 2009 NAEP fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math exams were categorized as “Ugly,” while those with proficiency levels of 60–85% and 85–100% would have been categorized as “Bad” and “Good,” respectively. No states merited placement in the “Bad” or “Good” categories. (Reading scores, while previously a factor in states’ ratings, were added to each state’s fact sheet.)

Teacher Policies: For this category, we relied on the work of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), which graded teacher policies in each state.

(See NCTQ, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.) In addition, we relied on NCTQ’s 2010 companion publication, which noted changes to a range of states’ policies but did not change individual state grades from the 2009 report. We highlighted changes to states’ evaluation, tenure, dismissal, and data policies. (For more information on all state teacher policy changes, see NCTQ, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: Blueprint for Change, January 2011).

For the purposes of this project, state teacher policies receiving an “A” or “B” from NCTQ were categorized as “Good,” those receiving a “C” or “D” were categorized as “Bad,” and those receiving an “F” were categorized as “Ugly.” In addition, where applicable, we noted changes to state policies as reflected in the 2010 report.

Errata: In our March 2011 release, we incorrectly categorized West Virginia and Wyoming achievement gaps as “Ugly”; with gaps of less than 15 points, they have been reclassified as “Bad.” The District of Columbia’s achievement gaps were corrected from “more than a 50-point gap” to “more than a 55-point gap.” Florida’s achievement gaps were corrected from “more than a 25-point gap” to “more than a 20-point gap.” Maine’s achievement gaps were corrected from “nearly a 30-point gap” to “more than a 25-point gap.” Utah’s fact sheet was updated to include an achievement gap between Hispanic and white students in fourth-grade reading.

The Ugly Truth: A State-by-State Snapshot of Education in America

13

Education in Alabama: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Alabama’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B and B+, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On November 18, 2010, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Alabama students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Alabama’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Alabama must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Alabama an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: C+ • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: C-

14

However, Alabama has since enacted legislation replacing its PEPE teacher evaluation system with the new EDUCATEAlabama system. Under EDUCATEAlabama, every teacher is observed at least twice, and both observations are unannounced.6

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Alabama paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 74% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 24% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.7 Likewise, in reading, Alabama reports proficiency rates of 75% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 28% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 79%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

74%

87%

NAEP

24%

4th Grade Math

20% 8th Grade Math

Charter School Laws – Alabama does not have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.8 Return on Investment – Student achievement in Alabama is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Alabama received an F and ranked 43rd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,973 after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).9

State Test NAEP

28% 4th Grade Reading

75%

24% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Alabama’s black and white students on 8th grade math tests, and close to a 25-point gap in scores between black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading tests and 4th grade math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Alabama and the nation.

15

Graduation Rate – Alabama reports an 86% graduation rate,11 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 65%.12 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Alabama as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

86% 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Alabama for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $6.3 billion. If Alabama graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $53 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost

65%

Alabama

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Alabama

(State-reported)

earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Alabama’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $125 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

9 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

12 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Alabama High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Alabama.pdf) 1 2

16

Education in Alaska: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Data System – Alaska’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well

as publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Alaska must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.1

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Alaska an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.2 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: F • Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Alaska’s public charter school law is ranked 39th in the nation. Although there is no longer an arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate, Alaska must improve in a number of areas, including expanding authorizing options, strengthening quality control measures, increasing operational autonomy, and ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Alaska has 5,800 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.3

17

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Alaska paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 66% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 38% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.4 Likewise, in reading, Alaska reports proficiency rates of 78% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 27% proficiency rate in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 74%

State Test NAEP

38%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading State Test

66%

78%

NAEP

33% 27%

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

4th Grade Reading

27% 8th Grade Reading

Standards – In 2010, Alaska’s English language arts

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

(ELA) standards and math standards both received an F from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.5 Alaska has not adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.6

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Alaska’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests, and approximately a 20-point gap on 4th and 8th grade reading tests.8 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Alaska and the nation.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Alaska is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Alaska received an F and ranked 45th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($9,106 after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

18

82%

Graduation Rate – Although the state reported a 62% graduation rate,9 the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 66%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Alaska as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

66%

Alaska

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Alaska for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $1 billion. If Alaska graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $672,000 a year in community college remediation

62%

Alaska

(State-reported)

costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Alaska’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $18.6 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Data Quality Campaign, 2009-10 Survey Results, 2010. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

3 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

4 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 5 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

6 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Alaska High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Alaska.pdf) 1 2

19

Education in Arizona: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Arizona’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a B from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 28, 2010, the Arizona State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Arizona students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Arizona’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. However, the state must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Arizona must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Arizona’s public charter school law is ranked 11th in the nation. While the state places a cap on the number of charter schools a university, community college district, or group of community college districts can each approve, the law does allow a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. However, Arizona could improve its law by providing adequate authorizer funding, strengthening performance contracting requirements, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Arizona has 120,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Arizona an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: C-

20

However, Arizona has since enacted new legislation that requires the use of a teacher evaluation framework including quantitative data on student academic progress. In addition, districts are now prohibited from using tenure as a factor in teacher layoffs, and they no longer have to consider tenure when they rehire. If salary reductions are necessary, districts may reduce the salaries of some tenured teachers and not others.

Teachers dismissed for cause now have only 10 days to request a hearing rather than 30.7

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Arizona is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Arizona received a C and ranked 22nd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,507, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Arizona paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 63% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 29% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Arizona reports proficiency rates of 69% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 27% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 74%

72%

State Test NAEP

28%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

63%

State Test NAEP

29% 8th Grade Math

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 20-point gap in scores between Arizona’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math

25% 4th Grade Reading

69%

27% 8th Grade Reading

tests, and close to a 25-point gap in scores between Arizona’s Hispanic and white students on the same tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Arizona and the nation.

21

Graduation Rate – Arizona reports a 75% graduation rate,11 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 67%.12 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Arizona as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

67%

Arizona

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Arizona for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $6.4 billion.

If Arizona graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $104 million a year in community college remediation costs and

75%

Arizona

(State-reported)

lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Arizona’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $184 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

12 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Arizona High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Arizona.pdf) 1 2

22

Education in Arkansas: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Arkansas’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Arkansas students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Arkansas’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Arkansas must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Arkansas’s public charter school law is ranked 15th in the nation. While the state allows a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools, Arkansas could improve its law by lifting the state’s cap on charter growth, creating additional authorizing options, increasing operational autonomy, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Arkansas has 9,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Return on Investment – Student achievement in

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Arkansas an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.6

Arkansas is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Arkansas received a D and ranked 37th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,844, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: B • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: C-

23

Graduation Rate – Arkansas reports an 83% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 70%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Arkansas as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

83%

72%

70%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Arkansas

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Arkansas

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Arkansas paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 61% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 36% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Arkansas reports proficiency rates of 70% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 29% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 78%

State Test NAEP

36%

24

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

70%

61%

27% 8th Grade Math

State Test

71%

NAEP

29%

4th Grade Reading

27% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Arkansas’s black and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests and a 25-point gap in scores between black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Arkansas and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Arkansas for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $3.1 billion. If Arkansas graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $23 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Arkansas’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $77.4 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011 .

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Arkansas High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Arkansas.pdf) 1 2

25

Education in California: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, California’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received an A from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 2, 2010, the California State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that California students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

charter contracts and authorizer accountability, requiring the appropriate state agency to conduct an annual report on the performance of the state’s public charter schools and enacting statutory guidelines for relationships between charter schools and educational service providers. For the 2010-11 school year, California has 376,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.3

Charter School Laws – According to the National

Data System – California’s state longitudinal

Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, California’s public charter school law is ranked 6th in the nation, allowing new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. The state is also a leader in providing facilities support for public charter schools. California could improve its charter law by strengthening requirements for performance-based

data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

However, the state must work to match student-level P–12 data to higher education data. California must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance. 4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave California an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

26

However, California has since enacted legislation that eliminated its prohibition against using data from the state data system for the purpose of teacher evaluations and the evaluation of teacher preparation programs.6

Return on Investment – Student achievement in California is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. California received a D and ranked 34th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,836, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

Graduation Rate – California reports an 80% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in California as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 80%

73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

California

(Diplomas Count-reported)

California

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, California paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 41% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 30% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, California reports proficiency rates of 48% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 24% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 65%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

State Test

NAEP

60%

NAEP

48%

41% 30%

4th Grade Math

23% 8th Grade Math

24% 4th Grade Reading

22% 8th Grade Reading

27

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 30-point gap in scores between California’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in California and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in California for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $52 billion. If California graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $688 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, California’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $1.1 billion each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, California High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/California.pdf) 1 2

28

Education in Colorado: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Colorado’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B+ and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 2, 2010, the Colorado State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Colorado students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Colorado’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. However, the state must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Colorado must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Colorado’s public charter school law is ranked 4th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on

the number of charters permitted to operate. The law allows new start-ups, virtual schools, and public school conversions and autonomy for charter school leaders.

The state is also a leader in providing facilities support to charter schools. Colorado could improve its law by enacting statutory guidelines for relationships between charter schools and educational service providers as well as guidelines to govern the expansion of highquality charter schools through multi-school charter contracts and/or multi-charter contract boards. For the 2010-11 school year, Colorado has 77,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Colorado is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Colorado received an A and ranked 6th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,732, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

29

The Bad Graduation Rate – Colorado reports a 72% graduation rate,7 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.8 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Colorado as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Colorado

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Colorado an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.9 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: B-

30

72%

Colorado

(State-reported)

However, Colorado has since enacted legislation requiring annual evaluations for all teachers. Beginning in the fall of 2013, teachers will be rated “highly effective,” “effective” or “ineffective.” Fifty percent of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on students’ academic growth as measured partially by test scores, and teachers who receive two consecutive “ineffective” ratings will be placed on probationary status and have a year to improve or face termination. Beginning in 2011, the state must also annually report on the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs.10

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Colorado paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 81% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Colorado reports proficiency rates of 87% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 40% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 91%

State Test NAEP

45%

4th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 87%

81%

40%

8th Grade Math

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Colorado’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Colorado.

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

State Test

89%

NAEP

40%

4th Grade Reading

32% 8th Grade Reading

would total nearly $4.5 billion. If Colorado graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $52.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Colorado’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $92 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Colorado for the 2010 class of dropouts alone

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

8 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Colorado High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Colorado.pdf) 1 2

31

Education in Connecticut: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Connecticut’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 7, 2010, the Connecticut State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Connecticut students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Connecticut is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Connecticut received a B and ranked 20th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,971, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Connecticut an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: B• Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: F • Exiting ineffective teachers: CHowever, Connecticut has since enacted new legislation that calls for the use of “multiple indicators” when evaluating a teacher’s performance, including multiple indicators of student academic growth.6

Data System – Connecticut’s state longitudinal

32

data system contains seven of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to develop a teacher

identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data, and match student-level P–12 data to higher education data. Connecticut must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.7

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Connecticut’s public charter school law is ranked 24th in the nation. In 2010, Connecticut passed legislation that allows the state board to waive the state’s caps for charters with a demonstrated record of achievement. However, the state must lift its remaining restrictions on growth, provide additional authorizing options, strengthen performance contracting requirements and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. The state does allow a variety of public charter school options including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. For the 2010-11 school year, Connecticut has 5,800 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.8

Graduation Rate – Connecticut reports a 93% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 79%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Connecticut as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

93% 79%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Connecticut

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Connecticut (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Connecticut paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 81% for both 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 46% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Connecticut reports proficiency rates of 70% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 43% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

81%

NAEP

46%

4th Grade Math

State Test

81%

70% 40%

8th Grade Math

NAEP

42%

4th Grade Reading

77% 43%

8th Grade Reading 33

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy –

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Connecticut’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests, and close to a 30-point gap in scores between black and white students, and Hispanic and white students, on 4th and 8th grade reading tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Connecticut and the nation.

The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Connecticut for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $2.6 billion. If Connecticut graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $29 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Connecticut’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $63.3 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Connecticut High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Connecticut.pdf) 1 2

34

Education in Delaware: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Delaware’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received an F and B, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 19, 2010, the Delaware State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Delaware students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Delaware’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, it must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Delaware’s public charter school law is ranked 18th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. However, Delaware could improve its law by expanding authorizing options, strengthening its provisions for performancebased contracts, and ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Delaware has 5,800 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5 Winner of Race to the Top – Delaware was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $119 million to hire data coaches to work with teachers and development coaches to work with principals.6 Delaware will also work to identify and turn around its worst-performing schools within two years, and provide bonuses to teachers and principals willing to work in the toughest, academicallychallenged schools.7

The Bad Return on Investment – Student achievement in Delaware is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Delaware received a D and ranked 39th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,384, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Delaware an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.9

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: F • Expanding the pool of teachers: C+ • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D However, Delaware has since enacted new legislation now requiring a uniform teacher evaluation based on student achievement. Teachers must also show two years of satisfactory student growth (evidenced by satisfactory ratings in the “student improvement” component of the teacher appraisal process) within a three-year period before they receive tenure.10

35

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Delaware paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 66% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in mathematics, NAEP reveals a 36% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Delaware reports proficiency rates of 77% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 35% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

76%

State Test

66% 36%

77%

NAEP

35%

32%

4th Grade Math

77%

NAEP

31%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Delaware reports an 82% graduation rate,12 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 68%.13 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Delaware as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

36

82% 68%

Delaware

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Delaware

(State-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Delaware for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $1 billion. If Delaware graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $7.7 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Delaware’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $17.2 million each year.14 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Delaware’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests, and more than a 25-point gap in scores between black and white students on 8th grade math tests.15 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Delaware and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 7 King, Jr., Neil. (2010, March 29). Only Two States Win Race to the Top. Wall Street Journal, Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304 370304575151682457897668.html 8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

13 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

14 Alliance for Excellent Education, Delaware High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Delaware.pdf) 15 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

1 2

37

Alabama: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Education inEducation the Districtinof Columbia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, the District of Columbia’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received an A from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 22, 2010, the District of Columbia State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that District of Columbia students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, the District of Columbia’s public charter school law is ranked 8th in the nation.

The District does have a cap on the number of charter schools that may be approved, but there is room for growth. Although there is only a single viable authorizer option available, there is considerable

authorizing activity and the District allows for a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. The District must work to ensure equitable funding for charter schools. For the 2010-11 school year, the District of Columbia has 29,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.3

Winner of Race to the Top – The District of Columbia was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The District is expected to receive up to $75 million with a focus on implementing the new IMPACT educator-evaluation system, one of the first in the nation to focus on student growth.4 In addition, these funds will be used to improve 34 of the city’s independent public charter schools.5

The Bad Data System – The District of Columbia’s longitudinal data system contains six of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The District still must work to publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data, as well as, match student-level P–12 data to higher education data. The District must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.6

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the District of Columbia an overall D- for its policies focused on teachers.7

38

Specifically, the District received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: D• Exiting ineffective teachers: D+ However, the District of Columbia has since implemented the new IMPACT teacher evaluation system in which 50% of the evaluation score is based on the teacher’s impact on student achievement.8

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many states, the District of Columbia paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the District reports proficiency rates of 44% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 17% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, the District reports proficiency rates of 46% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 17% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math State Test

State Test

NAEP

NAEP

50%

46%

44% 17%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

11% 8th Grade Math

Return on Investment – Student achievement in the District of Columbia is very low relative to its spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. The District received an F and ranked last among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,546, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).10

46% 17%

4th Grade Reading

14% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the District performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 55-point gap in scores between the District of Columbia’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in the District of Columbia and the nation.

39

Graduation Rate – The District of Columbia reports a 76% graduation rate,12 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 43%.13 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in the District as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 76%

72% 43%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

District of Columbia (Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in the District of Columbia for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $500 million. If the District graduated all students ready for college, it would save as much as $1.6 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost

District of Columbia (State-reported)

earnings. In addition, if the District increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, its economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $69.7 million each year.14 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

4 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 5 Anderson, Nick. (2010, August 25). Efforts to revamp schools by D.C., Maryland result in $325 million. Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082403075.html 6 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

13 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

14 Alliance for Excellent Education, District of Columbia High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/DC.pdf) 1 2

40

Education in Florida: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Florida’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B and A, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 27, 2010, the Florida State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Florida students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Florida’s public charter school law is ranked 2nd in the nation, with strong quality control measures and no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. Florida could improve its law by allowing virtual charter schools and creating authorizer accountability requirements. For the 2010-11 school year, Florida has 159,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.3 Data System – Florida’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Florida must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving

effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Florida is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report.5 Florida received an A and ranked 10th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,040, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

Winner of Race to the Top – Florida was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $700 million with the aim of meeting or beating the student results of top-performing Massachusetts and Connecticut on NAEP in math and reading.7 Florida also aims to increase the number of students who graduate from high school and earn college credit, and to cut the achievement gap between white and minority students.8

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Florida an overall C for state policies focused on teachers.9

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: B• Identifying effective teachers: C• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: C

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

41

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Florida paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 66% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 40% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Florida reports proficiency rates of 54% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

75%

State Test

NAEP

66% 40%

74%

54% 36%

29%

4th Grade Math

NAEP

32%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Florida reports a 73% graduation rate,11 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 64%.12 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Florida as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

42

64%

Florida

(Diplomas Count-reported)

73%

Florida

(State-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Florida for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $24 billion. If Florida graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $194 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Florida’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $507 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Florida’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.14 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Florida and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 8 Leslie Postal, “Florida one of ten Race to the Top winners,” Orlando Sentinel, August 24, 2010, (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-24/news/os-race-to- top-florida-20100824_1_top-grant-teachers-minority-students) 9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

12 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Florida High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Florida.pdf) 14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

1 2

43

Education in Georgia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Georgia’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B+ and A-, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 8, 2010, the Georgia State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Georgia students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Georgia’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Georgia must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Georgia’s public charter school law is ranked 7th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap

on the number of charters permitted to operate. The state allows new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. Georgia could improve its law by providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities, and providing clarity regarding the expansion and replication of high-quality charter schools through multi-school charter contracts and/or multi-charter contract boards arrangements. For the 2010-11 school year, Georgia has 50,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.4

Winner of Race to the Top – Georgia was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $400 million to expand its Performance Learning Academies—small schools that provide returning dropouts personalized graduation coaches, career counseling, credit recovery, flexible class schedules, and work-study.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Georgia an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: B• Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: C

44

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Georgia is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Georgia received a C and ranked 31st among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,491, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Georgia paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 75% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 34% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.8 Likewise, in reading, Georgia reports proficiency rates of 87% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 29% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

75%

81%

NAEP

34%

4th Grade Math

87%

94%

State Test NAEP

29%

27%

27%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Georgia reports a 75% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 59%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Georgia as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 75%

72% 59%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Georgia

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Georgia

(State-reported)

45

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Georgia for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $16 billion. If Georgia graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $75.5 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Georgia’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $276 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Georgia’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests and 4th grade reading tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Georgia and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

5 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Georgia High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Georgia.pdf 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

1 2

46

Education in Hawaii: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Hawaii’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 18, 2010, the Hawaii State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Hawaii students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Hawaii’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Hawaii must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Winner of Race to the Top – Hawaii was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $75 million to provide online video-conferencing for teacher professional development and Advanced Placement courses for the five turnaround schools located in remote, rural areas.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Hawaii an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: D

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Hawaii’s public charter school law is ranked 33rd in the nation. Hawaii law contains a cap on the number of public charter schools and the state has only a single viable authorizer option. Hawaii must remove its charter caps, strengthen requirements for charter application, review, renewal, and revocation processes, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Hawaii has 8,100 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.7

The Ugly Return on Investment – Student achievement in Hawaii is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Hawaii received an F and ranked 49th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,512, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

47

Student Achievement – Like many other states, Hawaii paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 39% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 37% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Hawaii reports proficiency rates of 62% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 26% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math State Test

State Test

NAEP

NAEP

68%

62%

50%

39%

37%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

26%

25%

22%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Hawaii reports an 80% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 66%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Hawaii as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

48

80% 66%

Hawaii

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Hawaii

(State-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Hawaii for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $1.5 billion. If Hawaii graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $13.7 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Hawaii’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $18 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Hawaii’s black and white students on 4th grade reading tests.13 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Hawaii and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Hawaii High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Hawaii.pdf) 13 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

1 2

49

Education in Idaho: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Idaho’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and B, respectively from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On January 24, 2011 the Idaho Senate Education Committee adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Idaho students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Idaho’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Idaho must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

50

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Idaho is high relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Idaho received an A and ranked 9th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,483, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

The Bad Graduation Rate – Idaho reports a 90% graduation rate,6 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 76%.7 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Idaho as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 90% 76%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Idaho

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Idaho

(State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Charter School Laws – According to the

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Idaho an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.8

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Idaho’s public charter school law is ranked 28th in the nation. Idaho law imposes a statewide cap of six new charter schools per year, as well as a per-district cap allowing no more than one new charter school opening each year. The law permits local school boards and a state charter school commission to authorize charter schools and allows a variety of public charter schools options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. Idaho must remove caps on charter school growth, require performancebased contracts, strengthen its renewal, nonrenewal and revocation requirements, and provide equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Idaho has 17,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.10

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Idaho has since enacted legislation requiring districts to adopt or develop a teacher evaluation model aligned to minimum standards that are based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Idaho also now requires all teachers working on interim certificates, alternate routes, or coming from out of state to complete a state-approved reading instruction course for full certification.9

51

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Idaho paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 79% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 41% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Idaho reports proficiency rates of 86% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 33% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 86%

State Test NAEP

41%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

86%

79%

38%

8th Grade Math

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is nearly a 30-point gap in scores between Idaho’s Hispanic and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Idaho and the nation.

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the

State Test

92%

NAEP

32% 4th Grade Reading

33% 8th Grade Reading

lost lifetime earnings in Idaho for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $1.5 billion. If Idaho graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $6.5 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Idaho’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $21.2 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

7 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

10 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Idaho High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Idaho.pdf) 1 2

52

Education in Illinois: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Illinois’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 24, 2010, the Illinois State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Illinois students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Illinois’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

However, Illinois must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as publicly report student-level

course completion (transcript) data. Illinois must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Illinois is solid relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Illinois received a B and ranked 16th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,966, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Illinois an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: BHowever, Illinois has since enacted legislation requiring that the use of data and indicators of student growth be “significant” factors in teacher evaluations, and that teachers must be rated as: “excellent,” “proficient,” “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory.”7

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Illinois’s public charter school law is ranked 30th in the nation. Illinois law contains a limit of 120 charter schools, with a maximum of 75 in Chicago and 45 in the rest of the state. While the law allows a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools, Illinois must expand authorizer options for applicants, strengthen quality control measures, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 201011 school year, Illinois has 45,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.8

53

Graduation Rate – Illinois reports an 87% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 79%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Illinois as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

87%

79%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Illinois

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Illinois

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Illinois paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 82% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 38% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Illinois reports proficiency rates of 74% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 33% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 86%

State Test NAEP

38%

54

4th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading State Test

82%

74% 33%

8th Grade Math

NAEP

32% 4th Grade Reading

83%

33% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Illinois’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests and 8th grade reading tests, and nearly a 40-point gap between black and white students on 8th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Illinois and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Illinois for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $12 billion. If Illinois graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $210 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Illinois’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $379 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Illinois High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Illinois.pdf) 1 2

55

Education in Indiana: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Indiana’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received an A from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 3, 2010, the Indiana Department of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Indiana students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Indiana’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Indiana must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

The Bad Graduation Rate – Indiana reports a 78% graduation rate,4 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.5 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Indiana as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Indiana

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Indiana an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

56

78%

Indiana

(State-reported)

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: F

Charter School Laws – According to the National

Return on Investment – Student achievement

Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Indiana’s public charter school law is ranked 25th in the nation. Indiana’s law allows local school boards, public four-year universities or their designated representative, and the Mayor of Indianapolis to authorize charters; however, the Mayor is allowed to authorize only five charters per year and virtual charter school enrollment is capped. Indiana must remove its charter caps, expand authorizer options, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 201011 school year, Indiana has 22,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.7

in Indiana is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Indiana received a C and ranked 25th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,770, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Indiana paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 73% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 42% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Indiana reports proficiency rates of 69% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 34% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 73%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

75%

74%

NAEP

42%

4th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

36%

8th Grade Math

34%

4th Grade Reading

69%

32%

8th Grade Reading

57

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Indiana’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Indiana and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Indiana for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $6.1 billion. If Indiana graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $40.3 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Indiana’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $152 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

5 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net) 10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Indiana High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Indiana.pdf) 1 2

58

Education in Iowa: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Iowa’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received an F and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 29, 2010, the Iowa State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Iowa students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Iowa is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. The state received a B and ranked 19th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,739, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Data System – Iowa’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Iowa must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher

Charter School Laws – According to the National

Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Iowa an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.6

Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Iowa’s public charter school law is ranked 36th in the nation. Although Iowa does not cap the number of charters permitted to operate, the state allows only public school conversions to charter schools, not new start-ups or virtual charter schools. Iowa must permit start-up charter schools and virtual charter schools, provide additional authorizing options for charter applicants, strengthen quality control measures, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Iowa has 600 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.7

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

59

Graduation Rate – Iowa reports an 89% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 80%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Iowa as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

89%

80%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Iowa

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Iowa

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Iowa paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 76% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 41% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Iowa reports proficiency rates of 73% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 34% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 80%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 80%

76%

NAEP

41%

60

4th Grade Math

State Test

73%

NAEP

34%

8th Grade Math

34%

4th Grade Reading

32%

8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is nearly a 30-point gap in scores between Iowa’s black and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Iowa and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Iowa for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $2.1 billion.

If Iowa graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $53.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Iowa’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $44.3 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, 2009. (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Iowa High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Iowa.pdf) 1 2

61

Education in Kansas: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Kansas’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and F, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On October 12, 2010, the Kansas State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Kansas students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Kansas is high relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Kansas received an A and ranked 8th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,581, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Data System – Kansas’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Kansas must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Kansas an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F

62

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Kansas’s public charter school law is ranked 38th in the nation. Although Kansas does not cap charter growth, the state has only a single viable authorizer option available. Kansas must expand authorizing options, ensure authorizer accountability, strengthen quality control measures, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Kansas has 5,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.7

Graduation Rate – Kansas reports a 90% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 76%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Kansas as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

90% 76%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Kansas

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Kansas

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Kansas paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 78% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 46% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Kansas reports proficiency rates of 85% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 35% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 87%

State Test NAEP

46%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

88%

78%

39%

8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

35% 4th Grade Reading

85%

33% 8th Grade Reading 63

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is nearly a 30-point gap in scores between Kansas’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests and a 24-point gap in scores between black and white students on 8th grade reading tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Kansas and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Kansas for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $2.5 billion. If Kansas graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $42.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Kansas’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $62.7 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Kansas High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Kansas.pdf) 1 2

64

Education in Kentucky: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Kentucky’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On February 10, 2010, the Kentucky State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Kentucky students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Kentucky is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Kentucky received a B and ranked 17th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,077, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Data System – Kentucky’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Kentucky must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision-making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Graduation Rate – Kentucky reports an 85% graduation rate,6 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.7 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Kentucky as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

85% 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

73%

Kentucky

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Kentucky

(State-reported)

65

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Kentucky an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.8

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Kentucky paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 55% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 37% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Kentucky reports proficiency rates of 68% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 71%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 74%

State Test NAEP

NAEP

55%

37% 27%

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Kentucky’s black

66

State Test

36%

4th Grade Reading

68%

33%

8th Grade Reading

and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Kentucky and the nation.

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

Charter School Laws – Kentucky does not have a

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Kentucky for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $4.2 billion. If Kentucky graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $52.3 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Kentucky’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $87.4 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.12

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

7 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Kentucky High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Kentucky.pdf) 12 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

1 2

67

Education in Louisiana: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Louisiana’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B+ and C, respectively from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 1, 2010, the Louisiana State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Louisiana students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Louisiana’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Louisiana must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Louisiana’s public charter school law is ranked 9th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. The law permits a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools.

Louisiana could improve by providing clarity to its law to govern the expansion and replication of high-quality charter schools through multi-school charter contracts and/or multi-charter contract board arrangements. For the 2010-11 school year, Louisiana has 37,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Louisiana an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: C-

68

However, Louisiana has since enacted legislation requiring all teachers to be evaluated annually, with student academic growth counting for 50% of a teacher’s evaluation.7

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Louisiana paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 58% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 23% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.8 Likewise, in reading, Louisiana reports proficiency rates of 61% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 20% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

64%

71%

NAEP

NAEP

58%

23%

20%

4th Grade Math

State Test

61%

20%

18% 4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Louisiana reports a 65% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 60%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Louisiana as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 72% 60%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Louisiana

(Diplomas Count-reported)

65%

Louisiana

(State-reported)

69

Return on Investment – Student achievement

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

in Louisiana is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Louisiana received an F and ranked 47th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,666, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).11

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Louisiana for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $6.3 billion. If Louisiana graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $27.5 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Louisiana’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $204 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point point gap in scores between Louisiana’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Louisiana and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 9 Alliance for Excellent Education, Louisiana High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Louisiana.pdf) 10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Louisiana High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Louisiana.pdf) 1 2

70

Education in Maine: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Maine’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On April 4, 2011, the Maine Department of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and

math for grade K-12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Maine students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

The Bad Graduation Rate – Maine reports an 83% graduation rate,4 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 77%.5 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Maine as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

77%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Maine

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Data System – Maine’s state longitudinal data system contains seven of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to provide information on untested students, develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students by course, as well as publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data.

Maine must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.6

83%

Maine

(State-reported)

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Maine is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Maine received a D and ranked 40th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($9,634, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

71

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Maine paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 52% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.8 Likewise, in reading, Maine reports proficiency rates of 71% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 35% proficiency rate in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 66%

State Test

71%

NAEP

45%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

State Test

71%

NAEP

52% 35%

8th Grade Math

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Maine an overall F for state policies focused on teachers.9 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

35%

4th Grade Reading

35%

8th Grade Reading

Charter School Laws – Maine does not have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.11 Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: F • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Maine now allows student test results to be used in teacher evaluations.10

72

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 25-pt. gap in scores between Maine’s black and white students on 4th grade reading tests and 8th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Maine and the nation.

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Maine for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $900 million. If Maine graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $7.7 million a year in community college

remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Maine’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $14.7 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

“Governor signs rigorous education standards into law,” Maine Department of Education press release. Augusta, ME, April 4, 2011.

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

11 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Maine High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Maine.pdf) 1 2

73

Education in Maryland: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Maryland’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and D, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 22, 2010 the Maryland State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Maryland students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Maryland’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students by course as well as publicly report student-level

course completion (transcript) data. Maryland must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Winner of Race to the Top – Maryland was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010.

The state is expected to receive up to $250 million to implement a new law requiring that 50% of a teacher’s effectiveness be tied to student achievement; a teacher deemed “ineffective” for two years in a row would not be allowed to teach in turnaround schools.5 The state will also use the funds to expand a “breakthrough center” charged with intervening in the lowestperforming schools, many of them concentrated in Prince George’s County and Baltimore.6

The Bad Graduation Rate – Maryland reports an 85% graduation rate,7 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 77%.8 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Maryland as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

74

77%

Maryland

(Diplomas Count-reported)

85%

Maryland

(State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Charter School Laws – According to the National

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Maryland an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.9

Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Maryland’s public charter school law is ranked 40th in the nation. Although Maryland does not cap the number of charters permitted to operate, state law limits charter authorizing to local school boards for most applicants. Maryland must expand authorizing options, strengthen quality control measures, increase operational autonomy and ensure equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Maryland has 14,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.11

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: C+ • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Maryland has since enacted legislation under which student growth must account for a significant portion of a teacher’s performance evaluation. In addition, the state extended the probationary period before a teacher is awarded tenure from two to three years.

Maryland now has a unique statewide student identifier that connects student data across key databases across years, and the state can match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth.10

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Maryland is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Maryland received a C and ranked 28th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,488, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).12

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Maryland paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 66% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 44% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.13 Likewise, in reading, Maryland reports proficiency rates of 80% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 37% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 89%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

87%

NAEP

State Test NAEP

80%

66% 44%

4th Grade Math

40%

8th Grade Math

37%

4th Grade Reading

36% 8th Grade Reading

75

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 30-point gap in scores between Maryland’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests, and close to a 25-point gap between Hispanic and white students on 8th grade math tests.14 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Maryland and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Maryland for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $5.4 billion. If Maryland graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $80 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Maryland’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $211 million each year.15 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 6 Anderson, Nick. (2010, August 25). Efforts to revamp schools by D.C., Maryland result in $325 million. Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082403075.html 7 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

8 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

11 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

12 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

13 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

15 Alliance for Excellent Education, Maryland High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Maryland.pdf) 1 2

76

Education in Massachusetts: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Massachusetts’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received an A- and B+, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 21, 2010, the Massachusetts State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Massachusetts students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Massachusetts’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Massachusetts must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Massachusetts’s public charter school law is ranked 3rd in the nation.

In 2010, Massachusetts passed a law that partially lifted the state’s caps on charter school growth and explicitly allowed charter governing boards to hold multiple charter contracts to promote the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools.

Massachusetts could improve its law by removing the remaining caps on charter school growth, ensuring

equitable operational and categorical funding, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Massachusetts has 28,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.4

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Massachusetts is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Massachusetts received an A and ranked 7th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,497, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5 Winner of Race to the Top – Massachusetts was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010.

The state is expected to receive up to $250 million to issue individual “Dropout Risk Index” scores to identify students at risk of dropping out as early as sixth grade and match them to academic, health, and social services.

In addition, each of the state’s 35 turnaround schools will add an hour to each school day.6

77

The Bad Student Achievement – Massachusetts reports proficiency rates of 48% and 49% for 4th and 8th graders, respectively, in math. However, NAEP reports a higher proficiency rate for both grades in Massachusetts—the only state in which this is the case.7 In reading, Massachusetts reports proficiency rates of 54% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 47% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

State Test

NAEP

48%

57%

49%

4th Grade Math

79%

NAEP

54%

52%

47%

43%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Massachusetts reports an 81% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 78%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Massachusetts as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

78

78%

Massachusetts

(Diplomas Count-reported)

81%

Massachusetts (State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Massachusetts an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.10 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

However, Massachusetts has since enacted legislation that permits a non-probationary teacher in a chronically low-performing school to be dismissed for “good cause” so long as the teacher is given written notice five days prior to the dismissal. The teacher has the right to appeal.11

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: C+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: D

The Ugly Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Massachusetts’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests, and close to a 30-point gap in scores between Hispanic and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Massachusetts and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Massachusetts for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $3.7 billion.

If Massachusetts graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $57.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Massachusetts’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $115 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

11 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Massachusetts High Schools, 2010.( http://www.all4ed.org/files/Massachusetts.pdf) 1 2

79

Education in Michigan: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Michigan’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and A-, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 15, 2010, the Michigan State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Michigan students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Michigan’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as match student-level P–12 and higher education data.

Michigan must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Michigan’s public charter school law is ranked 14th in the nation. Michigan law contains a cap of 150 schools authorized by state public universities, with no single university authorizing more than 50% of the total. Although Michigan law contains no caps on district, intermediate school district, and community college authorizers, these entities have largely been inactive authorizers, except for one tribal community college. Michigan can improve its law by lifting the cap on charter growth, increasing charters’ operational autonomy, strengthening requirements for charter application, review, renewal, and revocation processes, and ensuring equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Michigan has 114,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Michigan an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D

80

However, Michigan has since enacted legislation requiring that all teachers be annually evaluated with

multiple rating categories. Student growth—measured by national, state, or local assessments and other objective criteria—must be a significant factor.7

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Michigan is modest relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Michigan received a C and ranked 29th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,847, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

Graduation Rate – Although the state reported a 76% graduation rate,9 the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 74%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Michigan as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 76%

74%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Michigan

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Michigan

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Michigan paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 75% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 35% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Michigan reports proficiency rates of 77% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 31% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 88%

State Test NAEP

35%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

State Test

77%

75%

31% 8th Grade Math

NAEP

30% 4th Grade Reading

77%

31% 8th Grade Reading

81

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is over a 30-point gap in scores between Michigan’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests and a 40-point gap in scores between black and white students on 8th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Michigan and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Michigan for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $8.4 billion. If Michigan graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $126 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Michigan’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $280 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Michigan High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Michigan.pdf) 1 2

82

Education in Minnesota: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Minnesota’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and B, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On September 27, 2010, the Minnesota State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA for grades K–12.2 These new ELA standards received a B+ from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Minnesota students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Minnesota’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Minnesota must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Minnesota is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Minnesota received an A and ranked 4th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,349, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Minnesota’s public charter school law is ranked 1st in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. The law allows for multiple authorizers and provides a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. The state has also developed a comprehensive review process and oversight body for all authorizing agencies. Minnesota could improve its law by providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities and enacting guidelines to govern the expansion of high-quality charter schools through multi-school charter contracts and/or multicharter contract boards. For the 2010-11 school year, Minnesota has 38,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Minnesota an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.7

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

83

Graduation Rate – Minnesota reports a 92% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 78%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Minnesota as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

92% 78%

72%

United States

Minnesota

(Diplomas Count-reported)

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Minnesota

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Minnesota paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 58% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 54% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Minnesota reports proficiency rates of 67% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 38% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading State Test

73%

NAEP

54%

75%

State Test NAEP

58% 47%

37%

84

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

4th Grade Reading

67% 38%

8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Minnesota’s black and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests and a 35-point gap in scores between black and white students on 4th grade reading tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Minnesota and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Minnesota for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $4 billion. If Minnesota graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $89.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Minnesota’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $77.8 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes

4

5

6

7

8

9

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

Education Week, Common Standards Watch, September 2010. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/09/common-standards_watch_minneso.html) Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Minnesota High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Minnesota.pdf) 1 2 3

85

Education in Mississippi : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Mississippi’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 28, 2010, the Mississippi State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Mississippi students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Mississippi’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Mississippi must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Mississippi an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: C

86

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Mississippi’s public charter school law is ranked 41st in the nation (last out of all states that have charter school laws). Mississippi law does not permit new start-up charter schools. However, beginning in the 2012-13 school year, a pilot program will allow the conversion of public schools labeled “chronically underperforming” for three consecutive years. In addition, only parents from “failing” schools are allowed to petition the state board of education to convert their school to a charter school. Mississippi must substantially improve its law, including expanding authorizer options, permitting new start-up schools, and implementing quality control measures. For the 2010-11 school year, Mississippi has no students attending public charter schools.6

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Mississippi paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 54% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 22% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.7 Likewise, in reading, Mississippi reports proficiency rates of 48% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 22% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 58%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

54%

52%

NAEP

22%

4th Grade Math

15% 8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

22% 4th Grade Reading

48%

19% 8th Grade Reading

Return on Investment – Student achievement

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

in Mississippi is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Mississippi received an F and ranked 48th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,972, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 25-point gap in scores between Mississippi’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.9 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Mississippi and the nation.

87

Graduation Rate – Mississippi reports an 87% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 61%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Mississippi as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

87% 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

61%

Mississippi

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Mississippi for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $4.1 billion. If Mississippi graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $37 million a year in community college

Mississippi

(State-reported)

remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Mississippi’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $93.3 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Mississippi High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Mississippi.pdf) 1 2

88

Education in Missouri: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Missouri’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 15, 2010, the Missouri State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Missouri students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Missouri’s public charter school law is ranked 13th in the nation.

The state has multiple authorizers and provides a variety of charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. However, Missouri law only allows charter schools to open in the Kansas City and St. Louis school districts. While there is no cap on new startups, the law specifies that no more than 5% of the existing public schools in each district may convert to charters. Missouri can improve its law by allowing charter schools to expand statewide, strengthening

the requirements for charter application, review and decision-making processes, and ensuring equitable access to capital funding and facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Missouri has 19,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.4

Data System – Missouri’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Missouri must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.5

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Missouri is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Missouri received a B and ranked 14th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent national testing program also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,856, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Missouri an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.7

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: D

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

89

Graduation Rate – Missouri reports an 86% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 77%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Missouri as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

86%

77%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Missouri

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Missouri

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Missouri paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 45% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 41% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Missouri reports proficiency rates of 47% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

45%

90

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

State Test

NAEP

NAEP

41%

4th Grade Math

47%

35%

8th Grade Math

47%

50% 36%

4th Grade Reading

34% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 25-point gap in scores between Missouri’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Missouri and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Missouri for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $5.2 billion. If Missouri graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $53 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Missouri’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $147 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

5 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/).

11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Missouri High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Missouri.pdf) 1 2

91

Education in Montana: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Bad Graduation Rate – Montana reports an 83% graduation rate,1 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 76%.2 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Montana as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

76%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Montana

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Data System – Montana’s state longitudinal data system contains seven of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data, and provide student-level SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement exam data. Montana must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

92

83%

Montana

(State-reported)

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Montana is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Montana received a D and ranked 32nd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,905, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).4

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Montana paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 60% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.5 Likewise, in reading, Montana reports proficiency rates of 81% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 38% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

State Test

81%

NAEP

67%

81%

60% 44%

45%

NAEP

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

35% 4th Grade Reading

38% 8th Grade Reading

Standards – In 2010, Montana’s English language arts

Charter School Laws – Montana does not have a

(ELA) and math standards both received an F from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.6 Montana has not adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA or math for grades K–12.7

charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.9

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Montana an overall F for state policies focused on teachers.8 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is a 17-point gap in scores between Montana’s Hispanic and white students on 8th grade math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Montana and the nation.

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: F

93

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Montana for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $800 million. If Montana graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $4.7 million a year in community college remediation

costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Montana’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $19.6 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

5 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 6 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

7 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Montana High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Montana.pdf) 1

2

94

Education in Nebraska: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Data System – Nebraska’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to match student-level P–12 data to higher

education data. Nebraska must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.1

The Bad Standards – In 2010, Nebraska’s English language

Return on Investment – Student achievement

arts (ELA) and math standards received an F and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.2 Nebraska has not adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.3

in Nebraska is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Nebraska received a C and ranked 30th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,297, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Nebraska an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.4 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Nebraska has since enacted legislation establishing teacher performance pay beginning with the 2016-17 school year, subject to collectivebargaining agreements.5

95

Graduation Rate – Nebraska reports an 89% graduation rate,7 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 77%.8 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Nebraska as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

89%

77%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Nebraska

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Nebraska

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Nebraska paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 92% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 38% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Nebraska reports proficiency rates of 95% for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 35% proficiency rate in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 96%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 95%

92%

NAEP

38%

96

4th Grade Math

State Test

95%

NAEP

35% 8th Grade Math

35% 4th Grade Reading

35% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

Charter School Laws – Nebraska does not

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 25-point gap in scores between Nebraska’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Nebraska and the nation.

have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.12

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Nebraska for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $1.6 billion. If Nebraska graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $22.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Nebraska’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $33 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Nebraska High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Nebraska.pdf) 12 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

1 2

97

Education in Nevada: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Nevada’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 22, 2010, the Nevada State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Nevada students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Nevada’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data, and provide studentlevel SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement exam data. Nevada must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Nevada an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: D+ However, Nevada has since enacted legislation lifting its teacher-student data firewall, which prevented the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluations.6

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Nevada’s public charter school law is

98

ranked 23rd in the nation. Although Nevada law does not place any caps on charter school growth, three school districts (Clark, Douglas, and Washoe) have enacted a moratorium on new charter schools. New charter schools can still open in these three districts, but they must be approved by a non-district authorizer. Nevada must expand authorizer options, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Nevada has 13,000 students attending public charter schools.7

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Nevada is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Nevada received a D and ranked 33rd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,460, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Nevada paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 55% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 32% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Nevada reports proficiency rates of 61% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 24% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

64%

State Test

NAEP

32%

62%

55% 25%

4th Grade Math

61%

NAEP

24%

22%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Nevada reports a 67% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 44%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Nevada as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 72%

67% 44%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Nevada

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Nevada

(State-reported)

99

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Nevada’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading tests and close to a 20-point gap in scores between Hispanic and white students on 4th and 8th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Nevada and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Nevada for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $6.2 billion. If Nevada graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $25.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Nevada’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $78.4 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Nevada High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Nevada.pdf) 1 2

100

Education in New Hampshire: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, New Hampshire’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and D, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 13, 2010, the New Hampshire State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that New Hampshire students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – New Hampshire’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to match student-level P–12 data to higher education data and provide studentlevel SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement exam data.

New Hampshire must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, New Hampshire’s public charter

school law is ranked 16th in the nation. New Hampshire law allows up to 10 conversion or new charter schools per year if approved by both a local school board and the state board of education. In addition, through a pilot program, New Hampshire law allows the state board to grant up to 20 charter schools through direct application to the state board by June 30, 2013. New Hampshire could improve its law by providing additional authorizing options for charter applicants, and ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, New Hampshire has 900 students attending public charter schools.5

Return on Investment – Student achievement in New Hampshire is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. New Hampshire received a B and ranked 11th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,509, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of New Hampshire an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.7 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: D• Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

However, New Hampshire has since enacted legislation adding “pupil course information” to the list of data elements that are to be submitted by schools to the state. This additional element will provide the data necessary to link student performance to individual teachers.8

101

Graduation Rate – New Hampshire reports an 88% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 78%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in New Hampshire as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

88%

78%

72%

United States

New Hampshire

(Diplomas Count-reported)

(Diplomas Count-reported)

New Hampshire (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, New Hampshire paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 64% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 56% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, New Hampshire reports proficiency rates of 70% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 41% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading State Test

73% 56%

64%

NAEP

102

4th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

43%

74%

8th Grade Math

41%

4th Grade Reading

70% 39%

8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than an 18-point gap in scores between New Hampshire Hispanic and white students on both 4th and 8th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in New Hampshire and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lifetime earnings in New Hampshire for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $1.1 billion. If New Hampshire graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $13.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, New Hampshire’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $15.4 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, New Hampshire High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NewHampshire.pdf) 1 2

103

Education in New Jersey: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, New Jersey’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 23, 2010, the New Jersey State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that New Jersey students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – New Jersey’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. New Jersey must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of New Jersey an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: B• Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

Return on Investment – Student achievement in New Jersey is poor relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. New Jersey received a D and ranked 36th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil 104

spending ($9,888, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, New Jersey’s public charter school law is ranked 26th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. Although New Jersey law only allows the state commissioner of education to authorize charter schools, it does allow a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. New Jersey must expand authorizer options for applicants, increase operational autonomy, strengthen its requirements for performance-based contracts, ensure authorizer accountability, provide adequate authorizer funding, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, New Jersey has 24,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.7

Graduation Rate – New Jersey reports a 96% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 87%, the highest in the country.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in New Jersey as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 96%

87% 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

New Jersey

(Diplomas Count-reported)

New Jersey (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, New Jersey paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 71% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 49% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, New Jersey reports proficiency rates of 63% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 42% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 73%

State Test NAEP

49%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading State Test

71%

NAEP

44%

63% 40%

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

82%

4th Grade Reading

42%

8th Grade Reading 105

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 30-point gap in scores between New Jersey’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in New Jersey and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in New Jersey for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $4.7 billion. If New Jersey graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $95.6 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings.

In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, New Jersey’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $189 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, New Jersey High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NewJersey.pdf) 1 2

106

Education in New Mexico: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, New Mexico’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On October 21, 2010, the New Mexico State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that New Mexico students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – New Mexico’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to report student-level SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement exam data. New Mexico must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, New Mexico’s public charter school law is ranked 20th in the nation. New Mexico allows new start-ups and virtual schools, but not public school conversions. Although New Mexico is a leader in providing facilities support to charter schools, the state caps charter school growth. New Mexico could improve its law by removing caps, ensuring authorizer accountability, strengthening requirements for performance-based contracts and charter oversight, increasing operational autonomy, and enacting statutory guidelines for relationships between charter schools and educational service providers. For the 2010-11 school year, New Mexico has 15,000 students attending public charter schools.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of New Mexico an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: C• Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: B-

107

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, New Mexico paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 42% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 26% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.7 Likewise, in reading, New Mexico reports proficiency rates of 52% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 22% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math State Test

State Test

NAEP

NAEP

26% 4th Grade Math

20% 8th Grade Math

Return on Investment – Student achievement in New Mexico is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. New Mexico received an F and ranked 50th, second to last, among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,624, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

108

63%

52%

43%

42%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

20% 4th Grade Reading

22% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 25-point gap in scores between New Mexico’s black and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests and more than a 20-point gap in scores between the state’s Hispanic and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.9 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in New Mexico and the nation.

Graduation Rate – New Mexico reports a 60% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 57%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in New Mexico as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72% 57%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

New Mexico

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in New Mexico for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $3.5 billion. If New Mexico graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $31.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition,

60%

New Mexico (State-reported)

if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, New Mexico’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $57.7 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, New Mexico High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NewMexico.pdf) 1 2

109

Education in New York: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, New York’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and B, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 19, 2010, the New York Board of Regents adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that New York students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – New York’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, New York must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, New York’s public charter school law is ranked 5th in the nation. New York allows new start-ups and public school conversions. In 2010, New York raised its cap on start-up charter schools to 460. It provides that 230 may be authorized by the State University of New York (SUNY) and 230 may be authorized by the State Board of Regents, with annual caps of 33 new schools for SUNY and 32 new schools for the Board of Regents until 2014 (with any unused new school slots each year rolling over into future years).

New York could improve its law by removing its cap on charter growth and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities for charter schools. For the 2010-11 school year, New York has 51,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

110

Winner of Race to the Top – New York was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $700 million with a focus on expanding “partnership zones” for turnaround schools.

These zones will feature more charter and restructured schools that are supported by districts but granted autonomy over curriculum, scheduling, and staffing in exchange for producing dramatic student achievement gains.6 In the months leading up to the RTTT competition, the state passed legislation to increase the charter school cap from 200 to 460 schools and create a new teacher and principal evaluation system that links performance in part to student achievement.7

The Bad Graduation Rate – New York reports a 71% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 72%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in New York as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

New York

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of New York an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.10 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D However, New York has since enacted legislation enhancing its teacher evaluation system by requiring 40% of the composite effectiveness score to be based on student achievement measures. New York also provides for expedited hearings before a single hearing officer to dismiss teachers who have a pattern of ineffective performance.11

71%

New York

(State-reported)

Return on Investment – Student achievement in New York is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. New York received a D and ranked 41st among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($9,679, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).12

111

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, New York paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 80% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 40% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.13 Likewise, in reading, New York reports proficiency rates of 69% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 87%

State Test NAEP

40%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

State Test

80%

77%

34% 8th Grade Math

NAEP

36% 4th Grade Reading

69% 33% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 20-point gap in scores between New York’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests and close to a 30-point gap in scores between the state’s black and white students on 8th grade reading and math tests.14 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in New York and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in New York for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $19 billion. If New York graduated all students ready for college, the state would save almost $192 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, New York’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $457 million each year.15 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 7 Medina, Jennifer (2010, August 24) New York Wins Race to the Top Grant. New York Times, Retrieved from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/new- york-wins-race-to-the-top-grant/?scp=2&sq=teacher%20evaluation%20new%20york%20race%20to%20the%20top&st=cse 8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

11 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

12 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

13 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

15 Alliance for Excellent Education, New York High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NewYork.pdf) 1 2

112

Education in North Carolina: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, North Carolina’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 3, 2010, the North Carolina State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that North Carolina students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – North Carolina’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, North Carolina must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Return on Investment – Student achievement in North Carolina is very strong relative to state

spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. North Carolina received an A and ranked 2nd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,698, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Winner of Race to the Top – North Carolina was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $400 million to develop new student assessments in all subjects and update its school accountability model to focus on student graduation and college and career preparation. In addition, the state will establish four “STEM anchor schools” to focus on areas crucial to the state’s economic development plan.6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of North Carolina an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.7 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D+ • Identifying effective teachers: C• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, North Carolina’s public

charter school law is ranked 32nd in the nation.

Although the state allows for a variety of public charter school options—including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools—state law places a cap on the number of charter schools at 100, with a maximum of five per school district per year. North Carolina law allows local school boards, the University of North Carolina, and the state board of education to serve as authorizers, but in practice, the state board of education is the only active authorizer in the state.

North Carolina must lift its restrictive cap, improve its requirements for charter application, review, oversight, renewal, and revocation processes, and provide facilities support to charter schools. For the 201011 school year, North Carolina has 42,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.8

113

Graduation Rate – North Carolina reports a 70% graduation rate,9 but the actual rate is closer to 73%, according to the national Diplomas Count report.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in North Carolina as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

70%

North Carolina

(Diplomas Count-reported)

North Carolina (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, North Carolina paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 81% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 43% proficiency rate or lower for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, North Carolina reports proficiency rates of 67% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 32% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

82%

NAEP

43%

114

4th Grade Math

69%

81%

36% 8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

32%

4th Grade Reading

67%

29% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 30-point gap in scores between North Carolina’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in North Carolina and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in North Carolina for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $14 billion. If North Carolina graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $97.4 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, North Carolina’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $233 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, North Carolina High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NorthCarolina.pdf) 1 2

115

Education in North Dakota: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, North Dakota’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 20, 2011, the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K-12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure North Dakota students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – North Dakota’s state longitudinal data

Return on Investment – Student achievement in North Dakota is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. North Dakota received a B and ranked 15th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,734, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, North Dakota must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Graduation Rate – North Dakota reports an 86% graduation rate,6 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 80%.7 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in North Dakota as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

116

80%

North Dakota

(Diplomas Count-reported)

86%

North Dakota (State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of North Dakota an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.8

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, North Dakota paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 71% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, North Dakota reports proficiency rates of 76% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 35% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

81%

NAEP

45%

4th Grade Math

State Test

80%

71% 43%

8th Grade Math

NAEP

35% 4th Grade Reading

76%

34% 8th Grade Reading

117

Charter School Laws – North Dakota does not

Dropouts’ Effect on Economy – The Alliance

have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.10

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in North Dakota for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $400 million. If North Dakota graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $6.2 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, North Dakota’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $8.9 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

“State Superintendent Approves New State Content Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, Based on the National Common Core Standards,” North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Bismarck, ND, June 20, 2011.

3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation, November 2007.

6 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

7 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, North Dakota High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/NorthDakota.pdf) 1 2

118

Education in Ohio: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Ohio’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 18, 2010, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Ohio students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Ohio’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to match student-level P–12 and higher education

data. Ohio must also work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Winner of Race to the Top – Ohio was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $400 million to provide quick-response technical assistance to the 68 lowest-achieving schools.5 The state will also focus on closing the achievement gap between white and minority students, evaluating teachers in part by student performance, and turning around lowperforming schools.6

The Bad Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Ohio’s public charter school law is ranked 27th in the nation. Ohio law limits startup charters to “challenged” districts (those rated as an “academic watch” or “academic emergency”). Ohio law permits several charter authorizers and allows for a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools, but there is a moratorium in place on new virtual schools.

Ohio must remove its moratorium on virtual schools, strengthen its requirements for charter application, review and decision-making processes and performancebased contracting, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Ohio has 100,000 students attending public charter schools.7

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Ohio an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.8

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: C• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Ohio is mediocre relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Ohio received a C and ranked 24th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,937, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).9

119

Graduation Rate – Ohio reports an 85% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 74%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Ohio as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

85%

74%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Ohio

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Ohio

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Ohio paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 71% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.12 Likewise, in reading, Ohio reports proficiency rates of 72% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 37% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

79%

NAEP

45%

120

4th Grade Math

State Test

82%

71% 36% 8th Grade Math

NAEP

36% 4th Grade Reading

72% 37% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 25-point gap in scores between Ohio’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.13 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Ohio and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Ohio for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $10 billion. If Ohio graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $132 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Ohio’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $233 million each year.14 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 6 Candisky, Catherine and Riskind, Jonathan. (2010, August 24). Ohio will get $400 million in federal school aid. The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved from http:// www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/24/ohio-race-to-top.html 7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 13 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

14 Alliance for Excellent Education, Ohio High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Ohio.pdf) 1 2

121

Education in Oklahoma: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Oklahoma’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B+ from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 25, 2010, the Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Oklahoma students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Oklahoma’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. However, the state must work to publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Oklahoma must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Oklahoma an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: D+ • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D+ However, Oklahoma has since enacted legislation establishing a teacher evaluation system that bases 35% of a teacher’s score on student academic growth using multiple years of standardized test data and an additional 15% on other academic measurements.6

Return on Investment – Student achievement

122

in Oklahoma is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Oklahoma received a C and ranked 27th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,864, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Oklahoma’s public charter school law is ranked 22nd in the nation. Oklahoma’s law only allows charter schools to be established in districts with more than 5,000 students in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties and in districts that have schools on the state’s school improvement list—amounting to 21 of the state’s 537 districts. While Oklahoma is a leader in providing operational autonomy to its charter schools, it must expand charter schools statewide, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 201011 school year, Oklahoma has 6,600 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.8

Graduation Rate – Oklahoma reports a 76% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 70%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Oklahoma as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

76%

70%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Oklahoma

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Oklahoma

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Oklahoma paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 59% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 33% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Oklahoma reports proficiency rates of 63% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 28% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 66%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test NAEP

State Test

63%

59%

33% 24%

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

NAEP

28% 4th Grade Reading

66%

26% 8th Grade Reading

123

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is close to a 20-point gap in scores between Oklahoma’s black and white students on 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Oklahoma and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Oklahoma for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $3.7 billion. If Oklahoma graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $39.5 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Oklahoma’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $96.4 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, How State Charter Laws Rank Against The New Model Public Charter School Law, January 2010.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Oklahoma High Schools, 2010.(http://www.all4ed.org/files/Oklahoma.pdf) 1 2

124

Education in Oregon: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Oregon’s English language

Return on Investment – Student achievement in

arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and B+, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On October 29, 2010, the Oregon State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Oregon students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Oregon is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Oregon received a B and ranked 12th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by their students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,966, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Data System – Oregon’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students as well as provide student-level SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement exam data. Oregon must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Oregon’s public charter school law is ranked 17th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate.

However, Oregon law requires that at least 50% of a virtual charter school’s enrolled students reside in the authorizing district. Oregon can improve its law by providing additional authorizing options for charter applicants and ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Oregon has 20,000 students attending public charter schools.6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Oregon an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.7

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: F • Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas:

125

Graduation Rate – Oregon reports an 84% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Oregon, compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

84% 73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Oregon

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Oregon

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Oregon paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 71% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 37% proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Oregon reports proficiency rates of 70% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 33% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

77%

NAEP

37%

126

4th Grade Math

84% 71% 37% 8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

31% 4th Grade Reading

70% 33% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 19-point gap in scores between Oregon’s black and white students on 4th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Oregon and the nation.

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Oregon for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $3.1 billion. If Oregon graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $64.3 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Oregon’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $51.1 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation, November 2007.

6 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Oregon High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Oregon.pdf) 1 2

127

Education in Pennsylvania: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Pennsylvania’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and F, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 2, 2010, the Pennsylvania State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Pennsylvania students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Pennsylvania’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Pennsylvania must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Pennsylvania’s public charter school law is ranked 12th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. However, some school districts such as Philadelphia have placed a moratorium on new schools and issued enrollment caps. Pennsylvania law provides that applications denied by local school boards can be appealed to a state appeals board.

Pennsylvania allows a variety of charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. Pennsylvania can improve its law by prohibiting district-mandated restrictions on growth, ensuring authorizer accountability, providing authorizer funding, expanding authorizer options beyond local school boards, allowing multi-school charter contracts or multi-contract governing boards, and ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Pennsylvania has 87,000 students attending public charter schools.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Pennsylvania an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D+ • Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

128

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Pennsylvania is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Pennsylvania received a D and ranked 35th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,651, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

Graduation Rate – Pennsylvania reports an 89% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 78%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Pennsylvania as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

89%

78%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Pennsylvania

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Pennsylvania (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Pennsylvania paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 70% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 46% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Pennsylvania reports proficiency rates of 72% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 40% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

81%

72%

70% 46%

State Test

NAEP

4th Grade Math

40%

8th Grade Math

NAEP

37% 4th Grade Reading

80%

40% 8th Grade Reading

129

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is over a 25-point gap in scores between Pennsylvania’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Pennsylvania and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Pennsylvania for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $8.9 billion.

If Pennsylvania graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $125 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Pennsylvania’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $288 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation, November 2007.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Pennsylvania High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Pennsylvania.pdf) 1 2

130

Education in Rhode Island: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Rhode Island’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a D from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 1, 2010, the Rhode Island State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Rhode Island students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Rhode Island’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Rhode Island must

also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Winner of Race to the Top – Rhode Island was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010.

The state is expected to receive up to $75 million, which will be used to develop a new educator-evaluation system and a more sophisticated data system; create a stronger support system for new teachers; and develop models of teacher compensation based on teacher effectiveness.5 Rhode Island will also prohibit districts from assigning a student for two years in a row to teachers deemed “ineffective” on a new evaluation system.6

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Rhode Island an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.7 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Rhode Island has since enacted legislation approving a set of teacher evaluation standards, thus allowing the state to develop a model evaluation system ready for use in 2011. All teachers must be evaluated at least annually, with 51% of that evaluation based on student growth and achievement.8

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Rhode Island’s public charter school law is ranked 37th in the nation. Although Rhode Island partially lifted its cap on charter schools in 2010, state law permits only 35 charter schools statewide. Rhode Island must remove the remaining caps on charter school growth, provide additional authorizing options for charter applicants, ensure authorizer accountability, provide adequate authorizer funding, strengthen quality control measures, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Rhode Island has 3,900 students attending public charter schools.9

131

Graduation Rate – Rhode Island reports a 73% graduation rate,10 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 70%.11 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Rhode Island, compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

73%

70%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Rhode Island

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Rhode Island (State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Rhode Island paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 53% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 39% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.12 Likewise, in reading, Rhode Island reports proficiency rates of 62% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

63%

68%

NAEP

State Test NAEP

53% 39% 28%

132

4th Grade Math

8th Grade Math

36%

4th Grade Reading

62%

28% 8th Grade Reading

Return on Investment – Student achievement in

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance

Rhode Island is very low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Rhode Island received an F and ranked 44th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,711, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).13

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Rhode Island for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $900 million. If Rhode Island graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $7.7 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Rhode Island’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $15.4 million each year.15 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 24-point gap in scores between Rhode Island’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.14 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Rhode Island and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 6 Jordan, Jennifer, D. (2010, August 25.) Rhode Island schools win $75 million in federal Race to the Top grants. The Providence Journal, Retrieved from http:// www.projo.com/news/content/race_to_the_top_announcement_08-25-10_PIJLJIC_v117.2535821.html (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/ racetotop_winners.html) 7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

9 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

10 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

11 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

12 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 13 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation, November 2007.

14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

15 Alliance for Excellent Education, Rhode Island High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/RhodeIsland.pdf) 1 2

133

Education in South Carolina: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, South Carolina’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 14, 2010 the South Carolina State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that South Carolina students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – South Carolina’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to provide information on untested students, as well as match student-level P–12 and higher education data. South Carolina must

also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, South Carolina’s public charter school law is ranked 19th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. South Carolina law allows for a variety of public charter school options, including new startups, public school conversions, and virtual schools.

South Carolina can improve its law by ensuring equitable funding and access to facilities as well as strengthening quality control measures. For the 201011 school year, South Carolina has 17,000 students attending public charter schools.5

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of South Carolina an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.6 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: C • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: C+

134

Return on Investment – Student achievement in South Carolina is modest relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. South Carolina received a C and ranked 26th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,398, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).7

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, South Carolina paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 75% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 34% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.8 Likewise, in reading, South Carolina reports proficiency rates of 78% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 28% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 84%

State Test NAEP

84%

75%

34%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

78%

NAEP

28%

30%

4th Grade Math

State Test

24%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – South Carolina reports a 75% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 59%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in South Carolina, compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

75%

72% 59%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

South Carolina

(Diplomas Count-reported)

South Carolina (State-reported)

135

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 24-point gap in scores between South Carolina’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in South Carolina and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in South Carolina for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $7.8 billion. If South Carolina graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $54.3 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, South Carolina’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $151 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, South Carolina High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/SouthCarolina.pdf) 1 2

136

Education in South Dakota: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, South Dakota’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards both received a C from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On November 29, 2010, the South Dakota State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that South Dakota students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in South Dakota is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. South Dakota received a B and ranked 18th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($7,809, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).4

The Bad Graduation Rate – South Dakota reports an 88% graduation rate,5 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 79%.6 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in South Dakota, compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

79%

South Dakota

(Diplomas Count-reported)

88%

South Dakota (State-reported)

137

Data System – South Dakota’s state longitudinal data system contains seven of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data, and match student-level P–12 data to higher education data. South Dakota must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.7

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of South Dakota an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.8

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, South Dakota has since enacted legislation requiring teachers to receive annual evaluations during their first three years in the classroom, and teachers with four or more years to receive evaluations every other year.9

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, South Dakota paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 74% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 42% proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, South Dakota reports proficiency rates of 74% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 37% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 77%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 77%

74%

NAEP

42%

138

4th Grade Math

State Test

74%

NAEP

42%

8th Grade Math

33%

4th Grade Reading

37%

8th Grade Reading

Charter School Laws – South Dakota does not

Dropouts’ Effect on Economy – The Alliance

have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.11

for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in South Dakota for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $700 million. If South Dakota graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $4 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, South Dakota’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $8.7 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between South Dakota’s black and white students on 4th grade math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in South Dakota and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

5 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

6 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

7 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 8 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, South Dakota High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/SouthDakota.pdf) 1 2

139

Education in Tennessee: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Tennessee’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received an A- and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 30, 2010, the Tennessee State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Tennessee students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Tennessee’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Tennessee

must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

Winner of Race to the Top – Tennessee was one of 12 states to win the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competition in 2010. The state is expected to receive up to $500 million to establish an “Achievement School District” to serve persistently low-achieving schools, and will enlist nonprofit providers to help improve them. The state will also establish a new process to identify and intervene early in low-performing schools.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Tennessee an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: B• Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: C • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: F However, Tennessee has since enacted legislation requiring that all teachers be evaluated annually, with 50% of the evaluation based on student achievement data. In addition, Tennessee now allows districts to submit their own proposed salary schedules for approval by the commissioner; previously, districts were required to use the state-formulated salary schedule based on training and experience factors.6

140

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Tennessee’s public charter school law is ranked 29th in the nation. The state caps the number of charter schools permitted to operate.

Although Tennessee law provides local school boards as the only authorizer option for most applicants, under limited circumstances, the state commissioner of education may authorize the restructuring of a noncharter public school as a charter school. Tennessee must remove restrictions on charter school growth, allow virtual charter schools, expand authorizer options, ensure authorizer accountability, strengthen requirements for performance-based contracts and charter school oversight, and ensure equitable funding.

For the 2010-11 school year, Tennessee has 6,800 students attending public charter schools.7

Graduation Rate –Tennessee reports an 82% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 77%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Tennessee as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

77%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Tennessee

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Tennessee is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Tennessee received a C and ranked 21st among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance

82%

Tennessee

(State-reported)

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,599, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).10

141

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Tennessee paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 90% for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 28% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Tennessee reports proficiency rates of 90% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 28% proficiency rate in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 90%

State Test

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

90%

90%

NAEP

28%

4th Grade Math

State Test

93%

NAEP

25% 8th Grade Math

28% 4th Grade Reading

28% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 24-point gap in scores between Tennessee’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Tennessee and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Tennessee for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $7.3 billion.

If Tennessee graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $46.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Tennessee’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $183 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 Education Week, Race to the Top Winners: Snapshots, August 2010. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/racetotop_winners.html) 5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

7 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed no February 9, 2011.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Tennessee High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Tennessee.pdf) 1 2

142

Education in Texas: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Texas’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received an A- and C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 Texas has not adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Data System – Texas’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students. Texas must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Texas is strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Texas received a B and ranked 13th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent national testing program also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($5,971, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Texas an overall C- for state policies focused on teachers.5 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: B+ • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C• Exiting ineffective teachers: D

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Texas’s public charter school law is ranked 21st in the nation. Although Texas law has a cap of 215 state-authorized openenrollment charter schools, it does not have a cap on state-authorized university charter schools, stateauthorized junior college charter schools, or school district-authorized charter schools. Texas law allows for a variety of public charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. Texas must remove restrictions on charter school growth, ensure equitable funding and access to facilities, ensure authorizer accountability, and provide adequate authorizer funding. For the 2010-11 school year, Texas has 166,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.6

143

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Texas paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 83% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 38% or lower proficiency rate for both grades. Likewise, in reading, Texas reports proficiency rates of 84% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 28% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.7 Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 85%

State Test

38%

84%

83%

NAEP

36%

4th Grade Math

94%

State Test NAEP

28%

27%

4th Grade Reading

8th Grade Math

8th Grade Reading

Graduation Rate – Texas reports a 79% graduation rate,8 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 67%.9 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Texas as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

144

79% 67%

Texas

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Texas

(State-reported)

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is a 20-point gap in scores between Texas’s black and Hispanic students compared to white students on 4th grade math tests, and close to a 25-point gap between the state’s black and Hispanic students compared to white students on 8th grade math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Texas and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Texas for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $35 billion. If Texas graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $282 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Texas’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $691 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, How State Charter Laws Rank Against The New Model Public Charter School Law, January 2010.

7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08.

9 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Texas High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Texas.pdf) 1 2

145

Education in Utah: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Utah’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and A-, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 8, 2010, the Utah State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Utah students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Utah’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, it must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Utah’s public charter school law is ranked 10th in the nation. In March 2010, the state enacted laws that fund charter enrollment at 42,000 students for the 2010-11 school year and 48,000 students for the 2011-12 school year. Utah law permits local school boards, the state charter school board, and designated higher education institutions to authorize charter schools, subject to state board of education approval. The state also allows for a variety of charter school options, including new start-ups, public school conversions, and virtual schools. For the 2010-11 school year, Utah has 39,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5

146

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Utah is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Utah received an A and ranked 1st among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($4,671, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).6

The Bad Graduation Rate – Utah reports an 88% graduation rate,7 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 72%.8 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Utah as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 88% 72%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Utah

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Utah

(State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Utah an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.9 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

147

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Utah paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 63% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 41% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.10 Likewise, in reading, Utah reports proficiency rates of 78% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 33% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

73%

78%

NAEP

NAEP

83%

63% 41%

State Test

4th Grade Math

35% 8th Grade Math

31% 4th Grade Reading

33% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is a 30-point gap between Hispanic and white students on 4th grade reading tests and 8th grade math tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Utah and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Utah for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $2.2 billion. If Utah graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $17.7 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Utah’s economy would see a combination of crimerelated savings and additional revenue of about $39.3 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, How State Charter Laws Rank Against The New Model Public Charter School Law, January 2010.

6 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

7 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

8 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Utah High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Utah.pdf) 1 2

148

Education in Vermont: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Vermont’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and F, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On August 17, 2010, the Vermont State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Vermont students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Vermont’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students and publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Vermont must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Graduation Rate – Vermont reports an 86% graduation rate,5 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 83%.6 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Vermont as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

83%

86%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Vermont

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Vermont

(State-reported)

149

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Vermont paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 63% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 51% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.7 Likewise, in reading, Vermont reports proficiency rates of 69% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 41% proficiency rate in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 69%

State Test NAEP

51%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

70%

63% 43%

8th Grade Math

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Vermont is poor relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Vermont received an F and ranked 42nd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($11,159, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8

150

State Test NAEP

69%

41%

4th Grade Reading

41%

8th Grade Reading

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Vermont an overall F for state policies focused on teachers.9 Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D • Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: F • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: F

Charter School Laws – Vermont does not have a

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.10

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Vermont for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $300 million. If Vermont graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $4.6 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Vermont’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $9.3 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is a 15-point gap in scores between Vermont’s black and white students on 4th grade reading tests.11 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Vermont and the nation.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

6 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

7 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

10 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

11 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Vermont High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Vermont.pdf) 1 2

151

Education in Virginia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Virginia’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a B+ and a C, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 Virginia has not adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 Data System – Virginia’s state longitudinal data system contains eight of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. The state still must work to develop a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students and publicly report student-level course completion (transcript) data. Virginia must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.3

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Virginia is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Virginia received an A and ranked 5th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,467, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Charter School Laws – According to the National

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Virginia an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.5

Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Virginia’s public charter school law is ranked 35th in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. Virginia law allows local school boards to serve as authorizers (either independently or together in the case of regional charter schools); however, there is almost no authorizing activity in the state.

Virginia must expand authorizing options for charter applicants, ensure authorizer accountability, provide adequate authorizer funding, strengthen quality control measures, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities.

For the 2010-11 school year, Virginia has 200 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.6

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C • Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

152

Graduation Rate – Virginia reports an 80% graduation rate,7 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 73%.8 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Virginia as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 80%

73%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Virginia

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Virginia

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Virginia paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 85% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 43% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, Virginia reports proficiency rates of 87% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 38% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 86%

State Test NAEP

43%

4th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading 89%

85%

36% 8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

38% 4th Grade Reading

87%

32% 8th Grade Reading 153

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Virginia’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Virginia and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Virginia for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $8.4 billion. If Virginia graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $91.9 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Virginia’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $179 million each year.11 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 4 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

5 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

6 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

7 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

8 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 Alliance for Excellent Education, Virginia High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Virginia.pdf) 1 2

154

Education in Washington: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Washington’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a C and an A, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On July 20, 2011, the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K-12.2 These new standards received a B+ and A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that Washington students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Washington is very strong relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Washington received an A and ranked 3rd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($6,132, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).5

Data System – Washington’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Washington must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Washington an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.6

However, Washington has since enacted legislation that increased teachers’ probationary period from two to three years. In addition, the state now has the ability to match individual student records with teacher records.7

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D+ • Expanding the pool of teachers: C• Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D+

155

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Washington paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 51% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 43% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.8 Likewise, in reading, Washington reports proficiency rates of 68% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 36% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

State Test

NAEP

52%

43%

4th Grade Math

73% 51%

39%

8th Grade Math

Charter School Laws – Washington does not have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.9

156

NAEP

33% 4th Grade Reading

68% 36% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 20-point gap in scores between Washington’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.10 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Washington and the nation.

Graduation Rate – Washington reports a 77% graduation rate,11 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 66%.12 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Washington as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008 77%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

66%

Washington

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Washington for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total more than $7.5 billion. If Washington graduated all students ready for college, the state would save almost $125 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost

Washington (State-reported)

earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Washington’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $111 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, August 2011. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 9 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

10 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

11 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

12 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Washington High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Washington.pdf) 1 2

157

Education in West Virginia: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, West Virginia’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and B, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 2, 2010, the West Virginia State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that West Virginia students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – West Virginia’s state longitudinal data system contains nine of the ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential.

The state still must work to match student-level P–12 data to higher education data. West Virginia must also work to maximize use of data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Graduation Rate – West Virginia reports an 84% graduation rate,5 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 72%.6 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in West Virginia as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

158

72%

West Virginia

(Diplomas Count-reported)

84%

West Virginia (State-reported)

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of West Virginia an overall D+ for state policies focused on teachers.7

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is a 12-point gap in scores between West Virginia’s black and white students on 4th grade reading tests.8 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in West Virginia and the nation.

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: C• Expanding the pool of teachers: C • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: C-

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, West Virginia paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 53% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 28% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.9 Likewise, in reading, West Virginia reports proficiency rates of 61% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 26% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

65%

53% 28%

State Test

64%

NAEP

4th Grade Math

19% 8th Grade Math

NAEP

26% 4th Grade Reading

61%

22% 8th Grade Reading

159

Return on Investment – Student achievement

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

in West Virginia is dismal relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. West Virginia received an F and ranked 46th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,004, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).10

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in West Virginia for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total nearly $1.8 billion. If West Virginia graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $3.8 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, West Virginia’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $35.8 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Charter School Laws – West Virginia does not have a charter school law, thereby limiting needed educational options for students. Effective charter schools foster innovation and flexibility, improve student achievement, and allow for customized approaches to meet student needs.11

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

6 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010).

8 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

9 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 10 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

11 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

12 Alliance for Excellent Education, West Virginia High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/WestVirginia.pdf) 1 2

160

Education in Wisconsin: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Wisconsin’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and F, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 2, 2010, the Wisconsin State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure

that Wisconsin students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Wisconsin’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Wisconsin must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Wisconsin’s public charter school law is ranked 34th in the nation. Wisconsin allows a variety of charter school options, including new start-ups, conversions, and virtual schools, but the state caps student enrollment in virtual charters at 5,250. In Milwaukee, the law allows the local school board, city of Milwaukee, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, and the Milwaukee Area Technical College to serve as authorizers; however, outside Milwaukee, only local school boards may serve as authorizers.

Wisconsin must expand authorizing options, ensure authorizer accountability, provide adequate authorizer funding, strengthen quality control measures, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Wisconsin has 35,000 students attending public charter schools, which provide needed educational options for families.5 Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Wisconsin an overall D for state policies focused on teachers.6

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D• Identifying effective teachers: D• Retaining effective teachers: C • Exiting ineffective teachers: D However, Wisconsin has since enacted legislation repealing its teacher-student data firewall and now allows the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluations.7

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Wisconsin is middling relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report. Wisconsin received a C and ranked 23rd among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($8,205, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).8 161

Graduation Rate – Wisconsin reports an 89% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 81%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Wisconsin as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

89%

81%

72%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Wisconsin

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Wisconsin

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Wisconsin paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 79% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 45% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Wisconsin reports proficiency rates of 82% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 34% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

State Test

81%

NAEP

45%

162

4th Grade Math

State Test

82%

79%

39% 8th Grade Math

NAEP

33% 4th Grade Reading

85%

34% 8th Grade Reading

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 30-point gap in scores between Wisconsin’s black and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.12 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Wisconsin and the nation.

Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Wisconsin for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $3.7 billion. If Wisconsin graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $86.2 million a year in community college remediation costs and lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Wisconsin’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $101 million each year.13 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2011.

8 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

13 Alliance for Excellent Education, Wisconsin High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Wisconsin.pdf) 1 2

163

Education in Wyoming: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good Standards – In 2010, Wyoming’s English language arts (ELA) and math standards received a D and F, respectively, from the national Thomas B. Fordham Institute.1 On June 16, 2010, the Wyoming State Board of Education adopted the rigorous Common Core State Standards in ELA and math for grades K–12.2 These new standards received a B+ and an A- for ELA and math, respectively, from the Fordham Institute.3 Mastery of these standards will help ensure that

Wyoming students are prepared for success in college and the workforce.

Data System – Wyoming’s state longitudinal data system contains all ten core elements that the Data Quality Campaign deems essential. Now, Wyoming must work to maximize use of that data capacity in driving effective decision making to improve system and student performance.4

The Bad Charter School Laws – According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ 2011 ranking of state charter school laws, Wyoming’s public charter school law is ranked 31st in the nation, with no arbitrary cap on the number of charters permitted to operate. Wyoming law allows only local school boards to authorize charter schools, and there is little authorizing activity. Wyoming must improve quality control measures, increase operational autonomy, and ensure equitable funding and access to facilities. For the 2010-11 school year, Wyoming has 300 students attending public charter schools.5

Return on Investment – Student achievement in Wyoming is low relative to state spending on education according to the 2007 national Leaders and Laggards report.7 Wyoming received a D and ranked 38th among all states for its return on investment, which was measured by its students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—an independent measuring stick also known as the Nation’s Report Card—relative to its per-pupil spending ($9,618, after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living).

Teacher Policies – In its 2009 State Teacher Policy

Achievement Gap – Not only is the state

Yearbook, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave the state of Wyoming an overall D- for state policies focused on teachers.6

performing insufficiently overall, but some groups of students are faring even worse. There is more than a 10-point gap in scores between Wyoming’s Hispanic and white students on both 4th and 8th grade reading and math tests.8 This is morally unacceptable and a significant threat to continued prosperity and economic competitiveness in Wyoming and the nation.

Specifically, the state received grades on its ability to perform in the following areas: • Delivering well-prepared teachers: D• Expanding the pool of teachers: D • Identifying effective teachers: D • Retaining effective teachers: D • Exiting ineffective teachers: D-

164

Graduation Rate – Wyoming reports a 79% graduation rate,9 but the national Diplomas Count report calculates a rate of 71%.10 Below is the percentage of students graduating in 2008 in Wyoming as compared to the United States.

Percentage of Students Graduating in 2008

72%

79%

71%

United States

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Wyoming

(Diplomas Count-reported)

Wyoming

(State-reported)

The Ugly Student Achievement – Like many other states, Wyoming paints a misleading picture of how well its students are performing. While the state reports proficiency rates of 62% or higher for 4th and 8th graders in math, NAEP reveals a 40% or lower proficiency rate for both grades.11 Likewise, in reading, Wyoming reports proficiency rates of 65% or higher for 4th and 8th graders, while NAEP reveals a 34% proficiency rate or lower in both grades.

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Math 75%

State Test NAEP

40%

Student Achievement in 4th and 8th Grade Reading

4th Grade Math

71%

62% 35%

8th Grade Math

State Test NAEP

33%

4th Grade Reading

65%

34%

8th Grade Reading 165

Dropouts’ Effect on the Economy – The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that the lost lifetime earnings in Wyoming for the 2010 class of dropouts alone would total over $500 million. If Wyoming graduated all students ready for college, the state would save as much as $10.1 million a year in community college remediation costs and

lost earnings. In addition, if the state increased its male high school graduation rate just 5%, Wyoming’s economy would see a combination of crime-related savings and additional revenue of about $9.5 million each year.12 Significantly reducing dropouts each year would multiply these positive outcomes.

Endnotes Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standard Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career, October 2010. (http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states) 3 Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The State of State Standards – and Common Core – in 2010, July 2010.

4 Data Quality Campaign, 2010-11 Survey Results, 2011. (http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states) 5 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws, January 2011.

6 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, January 2010.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness, February 2007.

8 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009.

9 U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express, State Graduation Rate, All Students: 2007-08 (http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/data-element-explorer.cfm).

Accessed on February 9, 2011.

10 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Diplomas Count 2011, June 2011.

11 New America Foundation, Federal Education Budget Project, September 2010. (http://febp.newamerica.net/) 12 Alliance for Excellent Education, Wyoming High Schools, 2010. (http://www.all4ed.org/files/Wyoming.pdf) 1 2

166

Institute for a Competitive Workforce U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Foundation 1615 H Street NW | Washington, DC 20062