High-stakes questions

NEA Today, Mar 2003 by Jehlen, Alain

A study for the Council of Chief State School Officers calculated that a school could have up to 18 test score targets to reach in each grade tested. Adding other requirements in the law, the council's study counted 37 separate opportunities to fail in each grade.

The reasoning behind the new fede al law is that high-stakes pressure will force schools to pull themselves up. Tr predictions released by state education officials, however, indicate they are bracing for the worst.

Many state planners believe, on the basis of current test scores, that many schools where the student body as a whole reaches the target scores will "fail" because one or more subgroups in one or more grades misses the target. This is why they project that the number of "failing" schools will be much higher than 20 percent in 2004-05.

And after 2004-05, the lists are predicted to get even longer because the law requires that the target be raised every two or three years on a steep path that reaches 100 percent proficiency in the year 2014. The California Department of Education recently projected its results and found that by 2014, 98 percent of its schools will flunk.

To avoid this high failure rate, some states are starting to lower their standard of what is "proficient" so more schools can meet the federal targets. But many states don't want to go that route. California, for example, decided not to alter its standards despite that expected 98 percent failure rate.

Then there's the issue of fundinghint: Current levels won't improve any school's chance of success. Despite the new rules that apply to every public school under ESEA, the federal share of education costs remains about 8 percent, and the President's proposed budget for the 2003-04 school year provides for no overall increase-it actually cuts ESEA by $90 million. A recent study in New Hampshire estimated that the new law will cost $575 per student, but the federal government will only provide $77.

"This whole situation demonstrates that you can't build a good accountability system from afar," says NEA Student Achievement Director Stephanie Fanjul. "It has to be created on the ground, by teachers and support professionals in partnership with the families, and with school boards and superintendents, all focused on the goal of helping our children learn.

"Our members have wholeheartedly supported accountability systems developed in that way. People in their communities know best how to meet their challenges, and government at its best facilitates that process. It doesn't dictate from Washington." V

-Alain Jehlen

For More: See the Arizona studies at www.asu.edu/educ/epsI/EPRU/ epru_2002_Research_Writing.htm, and the RAND study at www.rand.org/ publications/IP/IP202.