• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform; 18th Edition
 

Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform; 18th Edition

on

  • 2,163 views

The 18th edition of the Report Card on American Education is a comprehensive overview of educational achievement levels, focusing on performance and gains for low-income students, in all 50 states and ...

The 18th edition of the Report Card on American Education is a comprehensive overview of educational achievement levels, focusing on performance and gains for low-income students, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.



Authors Dr. Matthew Ladner and Dave Myslinski analyze student scores, looking at performance and improvement over recent years. When combined, these policy measures build the state’s overall policy grade. Furthermore, the Report Card highlights education policies states have enacted and provides a roadmap to best practices, allowing legislators to learn from each other’s education reforms.



This year, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin writes an inspirational forward citing her state’s education reforms in teacher quality, school accountability, and literacy.



For more information, please visit www.alec.org.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,163
Views on SlideShare
2,163
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform; 18th Edition Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform; 18th Edition Document Transcript

    • Report Card onAmerican EducationRanking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and ReformDr. Matthew LadnerDave Myslinski
    • Report Card on American Education:Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform© 2013 American Legislative Exchange CouncilAll rights reserved. Except as permitted under the UnitedStates Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication maybe reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means,or stored in a database or retrieval system without the priorpermission of the publisher.Published byAmerican Legislative Exchange Council1101 Vermont Ave., NW, 11th FloorWashington, D.C. 20005Phone: (202) 466-3800Fax: (202) 466-3801www.alec.orgFor more information, contactthe ALEC Public Affairs office.Dr. Matthew Ladner and David J. MyslinskiLindsay Russell, Director, Education Task ForceISBN: 978-0-9853779-1-5Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform has been published by the AmericanLegislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as part of its mission to discuss, develop, and disseminate public policies that expandfree markets, promote economic growth, limit the size of government, and preserve individual liberty. ALEC is the nation’slargest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators, with 2,000 members across the nation. ALECis governed by a Board of Directors of state legislators, which is advised by a Private Enterprise Advisory Council representingmajor corporate and foundation sponsors.ALEC is classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, public policy organization. Individuals, philanthropicfoundations, corporations, companies, or associations are eligible to support ALEC’s work through tax-deductible gifts.
    • Table of ContentsAbout the Authors vAcknowledgements viForeword: Mary Fallin, Governor of Oklahoma viiChapter 1 : Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012.................................................................................1Literacy-Based promotion Advances as research Finds Long-Term Benefits 2Teacher Quaity Reform Advances 3Alternative Teacher Certification Acquires Strong Supprt in 2012 5Lawmakers Continue to Run Up the Score on School Choice Cynics 7Charter Schools Maintain Momentum Buttressed by Strong Research 10Four States Adopt Letter Grades for School Transparency in 2012 12Massive Open Online Courses Arrive with Substantial Implications 12Conclusion: Once More unto the Breach Dear Friends 14Chapter 2: Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others Crawl........................................................................17Caution: Achievement Gaps are not Always What They Appear 18Achievement Gaps: International Evidence of a National Disgrace 19The White-Black Achievement Gap 21The White-Hispanic Achievement Gap 23Trends in Economic Achievement Gaps by State 26Trends in the Achievement Gap for Disabled Students 29Conclusion: Glacial and Uneven Progress on Achievement Gaps 33Chapter 3: Education Policy Grades and Academic Performance...............................................................................................35Public Categories 36Homeschooling Regulation Burden Level 37Overall Policy Grade 37Is the Investment in State Per-Student Public Education Spending Paying Off? 37Ranking States on the Performance of General-Education Low-Income Students 38State SNAPSHOTS...............................................................................................................................41
    • Chapter 4: The Global Achievement Gap..............................................................................................................................................94American K-12 Costs grew Far Faster than Academic Achievement 95American K-12 and “Baumol’s” Disease 96State Academic Achievements in International Perspective 98State Academic Gains in International Perspective 99Conclusion: Deeper Reforms are Needed to Close the Global Achievement Gap 101Appendices...............................................................................................................................................................114Appendix A: Methodology for Ranking the States 106Appendix B: Methodology for Grading the States 110Appendix C: Index of Figures and Tables 112Appendix D: Model Legislation for K–12 Reform 113Appendix E: Education Reform Organizations 117
    • www.alec.org vDR. MATTHEW LADNERDr. Matthew Ladner is the Senior Advisor of Policy and Research for the Foundation for Excellence inEducation. He previously served as Vice President of Research at the Goldwater Institute. Prior to join-ing Goldwater, Ladner was director of state projects at the Alliance for School Choice. Ladner has writ-ten numerous studies on school choice, charter schools, and special education reform and coauthoredReport Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform forthe American Legislative Exchange Council. Ladner has testified before Congress, the United StatesCommissiononCivilRightsandnumerousstatelegislativecommittees.LadnerisagraduateoftheUniversityof Texas at Austin and received both a Masters and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University ofHouston.LadnerisaSeniorFellowwiththeFoundationforEducationalChoiceandtheGoldwaterInstitute.Ladner lives in Phoenix, Ariz., with his wife Anne and children Benjamin, Jacob, and Abigail.DAVE MYSLINSKIDave Myslinski serves as the State Policy Director for Digital Learning Now! at the Foundation forExcellence in Education. He previously served as the Education Task Force Director at the AmericanLegislative Exchange Council, where he focused on digital learning, K-12 education reform, and highereducation. Prior to that, Myslinski worked on state issues relating to health care and telecommunications.Mr. Myslinski is a graduate of Rutgers University.About the Authors
    • vi Report Card on American EducationWe wish to thank the following for making this Report Card on American Education possible:First, we thank the Alleghany Foundation and the Gleason Family Foundation for their generous sup-port for the creation and promotion of this book.The authors would like to specifically thank Education Task Force Director Lindsay Russell for her tire-less work and guidance in the production of this publication.We also thank Michael Bowman, Ron Scheberle, Edward Walton, and the professional staff of ALEC fortheir assistance in all aspects of this publication.Acknowledgments
    • www.alec.org viiFrom the first day of my administration,education has been a cornerstone of myagenda. Improving our schools is the rightthing to do for our children, but it also serves asan investment in our communities, our futureworkforce and our long term prospects for eco-nomic growth. Over the last two years, I am hap-py to announce that, through a collaborative ef-fort, Oklahoma successfully implemented a seriesof comprehensive reforms that put our childrenand our schools on a pathway to greater success.To promote our focus of “College, Career, andCitizen Readiness,” we decided to take a three-pronged approach advancing teacher quali-ty, school accountability and a greater focus onliteracy.To ensure teacher quality, we needed to makesure that underperforming teachers could belet go without jumping through expensive legalhoops. Although most of our educators are excel-lent, the lengthy and expensive appeals processused to dismiss those who were underperformingwas a burden on the state and our schools. Underthe old system, teachers dismissed by local schoolboards could appeal the decision through “trialde novo,” a seemingly endless legal process thatwas costly for schools. Reforms I signed into lawin 2011 now allow locally elected school boardsthe full authority and final decision in releasing ateacher that is under performing.We also focused on literacy, one of the founda-tions of any good education. Studies have shownfrom kindergarten through third grade that chil-dren learn to read, but from fourth grade forwardthey read to learn. What we found in Oklahoma,however, was that children were being sent to thefourth grade without the basic reading skills need-ed to learn,” thus falling farther and farther behind.The main culprit was a policy known as “so-cial promotion,” or the practice of allowing stu-dents to advance with similar aged peers regard-less of subject knowledge.Oklahoma’s legislature passed, and I signedinto law, a bill ending that practice and requir-ing every third grader to read at grade appropri-ate level before they can advance.We can now be confident our children are ei-ther prepared for success or else are receiving ad-ditional literacy help during their most criticallearning years.Increasing accountability is another corner-stone of the reform measures we have pursued inOklahoma. We cannot improve our schools un-less we can first identify our strengths and weak-nesses. To do so, we have recently instituted anew, easily understood A-F grading system forour public schools.With the new system in place, parents, stu-dents, teachers and administrators have an easyway of measuring their schools progress. Goodand improving schools are now publicly recog-nized for their successes, which we should all beproud of. And if a school is falling behind, we canidentify that problem and fix it.Implementing positive reforms, such as thosewe made in Oklahoma, requires collaborationand information. To create effective legislation,ALEC’s Report Card on American Educationserves as a helpful guide for education reform-ers across America. The Report Card offers an as-sessment of American Education and a blueprintfor how to make changes. With a comprehensivestate-by-state evaluation—providing spendinglevels and achievement data, an education policygrade, and state NAEP performance rankings—reformers across the country can assess whereForewordby Mary Fallin, Governor of Oklahoma
    • viii Report Card on American EducationFOREWORDtheir state currently stands, and what positivechanges they should consider.We live in an aspirational society and the op-portunity to receive a quality education is a partof the American Dream. The time to act is now—not just in Oklahoma, but across America. I amasking each reader of this guide to join me inpledging to improve our schools and give everychild the opportunity to receive a dream-worthyeducation that builds the foundation for a betterAmerica.Sincerely,Mary FallinGovernor of Oklahoma
    • Reform-Minded PolicymakersEnact Large Changes in 2012CHAPTER1
    • 2 Report Card on American EducationDuring the 2011 legislative sessions, anumber of blockbuster reforms wereproduced across a variety of educationpolicy areas. The Wall Street Journal dubbed 2011“The Year of School Choice,” and Education Weekreported on a “sea change” of teacher tenure andevaluation policy.i,iiThat momentum continued in2012 with major reforms impacting a variety ofK–12 policy domains. In addition to major poli-cy advances, a number of high-quality academ-ic studies strongly buttressed the case for thesecrucial reforms. Importantly, with state educationpolicy now beginning to accept a student-drivenenvironment, it has freed education innovators tofield-test stunningly novel digital learning tech-niques that have the potential to revolutionizelearning not just in the United States, but aroundthe world.In this chapter, we summarize legislativeachievements and new high-quality research thatreinforce the case for still more—and more sub-stantial—reform. Despite the quickening pace ofreform in recent years, one must keep things inperspective and not become complacent with thehard-earned battles we have won thus far. Theaverage American student still attends a schoolsystem that routinely practices social promo-tion, where school choice is scarce to non-exis-tent, where course options are limited for stu-dents seeking education beyond core classes,and where highly effective teachers go unreward-ed. At the same time, highly ineffective teachersremain untouched by corrective actions. Manystates continue to cling to absurd barriers to en-try for those seeking to join the teaching profes-sion, despite demonstrations that the barriers donothing to promote student learning and have nolink to teacher effectiveness. Most states continueto boost teacher pay based upon demonstrablymeaningless credentials and age alone.Despite these challenges, many reform-mind-ed state policymakers have replaced these an-tiquated policies with practical ones, bringingstates’ educational systems into the 21st centuryLITERACY–BASED PROMOTIONADVANCES AS RESEARCH FINDSLONG–TERM BENEFITSPresident Bill Clinton noted in his 1998 State ofthe Union address, “When we promote a childfrom grade to grade who hasn’t mastered thework, we don’t do that child any favors. It is timeto end social promotion in American schools.”iiiIt has taken social scientists many years to con-firm Clinton’s common-sense assertion. Many inthe nation’s colleges of education oppose the ideaof earned promotion, citing concerns such as thepossibilities of higher dropout rates and harm tochildren’s self-esteem.These opinions, however, most often are basedon unsophisticated studies carried out on some-times-flawed retention policies. A new generationof methodologically sophisticated statistical stud-ies employing powerful statistical techniques,carried out on more thoughtful earned promotionpolicies in Florida and New York City have led agrowing number of states to take decisive actionthat curbs rigid social promotion policies.ivAnswering tricky research questions such as,“Does this drug kill people or is it the cancer we’retreating?” requires researchers to employ power-ful statistical techniques. The impact of retentionpolicies represents just such a question. Oppo-nents claim that retention causes higher drop-out rates, but it is difficult to determine wheth-er the academic problems that trigger retentionReform-Minded PolicymakersEnact Large Changes in 2012
    • www.alec.org 3Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012cause students to drop out, or if the retention itselfcauses students to drop out.The ideal research design involves a randomassignment of children into retention and promo-tion groups, but this is impractical for a numberof obvious reasons. Researchers, however, havedeveloped analytical techniques that approach arandom assignment study in quality.Retention policies in Florida and New YorkCity require students to score above a certainthreshold in order to move onward to the suc-ceeding grade. In Florida, this is focused exclu-sively on third-grade reading, with the default be-ing for a child scoring at a very low level to beretained.Recently, researchers have begun to studythe academic trends of students scoring justabove the retention threshold and comparingthem to both students who were retained andstudents who scored low enough to qualify for aretention but who received an exemption in or-der to advance.TEACHER QUALITY REFORM ADVANCESIn his Oct. 24, 2003, column in The New YorkTimes, progressive columnist Bob Herbert relat-ed a conversation with a New York City publicschool teacher:“‘You have teachers who are very diligent,’ saida middle-aged teacher from the Bronx. ‘Theywork very hard, and even come up with moneyout of their own pockets to pay for supplies, oreven to help these children when they are introuble. But there are many, many others whoare not remotely interested in these kids. Theytell the kids to their faces: ‘I don’t care whatyou do. I’m still going to get paid.’”vThe fact that you are reading this book nowalmost certainly indicates that you likely had anumber of effective and selfless teachers of thesort Hebert describes. One can only describe any-one who thinks these types of teachers are any-thing but underpaid as deluded. If you never hadto sit in a class with the exact opposite sort ofFIGURE 1 | JURISDICTIONS WITH LITERACY–BASED PROMOTION POLICIES(STAR = NEW YORK CITY)WAORCAIDNVAZUTWYCOWIMOARGAKSOKMNINOHPASCFLAKMT NDSDNENMTX LAIAILMINYKYTNMS ALVANCMEHIWVVTNHMARICTNJDEMDDC
    • 4 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEteacher, count yourself lucky. A great many stu-dents attending dysfunctional schools are not sofortunate.The political power and preferences of educa-tion union bosses have largely made it impossibleto reward the former, or to remove the latter fromthe classroom.Fortunately, this has begun to change—a wel-come development after years of miserable sta-sis. Lawmakers in some states, including Flori-da and Indiana, have taken aggressive steps to tiethe compensation and retention of both teachersand principals to student performance and otherfactors. Unfortunately, educators and lawmakersin a sadly large number of other states have donenothing of the sort.New research indicates lawmakers should ur-gently update antiquated human resource poli-cies impacting teachers. A landmark 2011 study byHarvard and Columbia University professors dem-onstrated that individual teachers make immedi-ate and lasting impacts on student test scores. Re-searchers isolated an individual teacher’s impact bytracking student test score trends when a highly ef-fective teacher transfers between schoolsThe researchers established that not only dostudent test scores rise with an effective teach-er in the classroom, but, on average, student testscores from that teacher’s former class fall oncethe teacher transfers. The study, in short, foundextremely powerful evidence to demonstrate thatindividual teachers are not identical widgets andought not to be treated like interchangeable fac-tory workers.The Harvard and Columbia researchersfound long-term impacts even more impressive.By matching tax return data of students fromthe Internal Revenue Service with student out-comes, the authors demonstrated the long-termimpacts of effective teachers. Ultimately, thesehighly effective instructors produce positive ben-efits ranging from higher college attendance ratesand higher earned-income levels to lower teenagepregnancy rates for students.viRunning opposed to looking at each teach-er as an individual, union methods and influ-ence take a different tack. Most notable are em-ployment policies that focus simply on seniority.Firing teachers simply based on seniority, with-out regard to effectiveness, represents one of themost morally repugnant policies unions cling to.The salience of the issue emerged dramatically asthe nation plunged into a prolonged recession in2008. Temporary federal measures delayed theneed for large layoffs in public schools, but like-ly only kicked the can down the road. Researchon teacher quality demonstrates conclusively thatsome teachers are far more effective than others.Policies to reduce the teacher workforce that ig-nore teacher quality will result in an academ-ic catastrophe for American students. A numberof states—but far too few—have taken the nec-essary action to introduce common sense intoteacher human resource policy.Despite recent progress, The New TeacherProject, an organization with the goal of ensur-ing excellent teachers are available to all students,identified 14 states—Alaska, California, Hawaii,Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, NewYork, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,West Virginia, and Wisconsin—where it is illegalfor school administrators to consider student per-formance in making layoff decisions. This objec-tionable policy caters to the self-interest of a few,while endangering many children’s futures.viiImagine a school district that, due to fundingcuts, must reduce its teacher payrolls by 10 per-cent. If layoffs occur only according to seniority,then all teachers laid off will be young teachers,regardless of their effectiveness. As we detailed inthe 17the edition of ALEC’s Report Card on Amer-ican Education last year, researchers have foundexperience to be only weakly related to effective-ness, meaning that schools can employ both high-ly effective young teachers and ineffective veteraninstructors.Antiquated human resource policies that re-ward teachers with “step pay” —increases basedon age alone—may artificially inflate wages forolder teachers while artificially depressing young-er teacher wages. District officials also end up fir-ing more young teachers when they have to cutteaching jobs to achieve the same savings, leav-ing fewer teachers available to teach. These pol-icies also explicitly prohibit adjustments for ef-fectiveness. A district required to make cutscould potentially let go of a relatively small num-ber of higher paid ineffective teachers in order tokeep a larger number of younger, more effectiveinstructors.
    • www.alec.org 5Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012“Last-in, first-out” (LIFO) policies, however,forbid such rational decision-making and are in-defensible in terms of promoting the best inter-ests of students. Fortunately, a small but growingnumber of states have required schools to use stu-dent academic progress as a factor when makinglayoff decisions. Figure 2 notes states that havemade this critical change.With teachers’ employment based on perfor-mance, teachers’ unions often express fears thatschool administrators will fire older teachers sim-ply because they are older and thus more expen-sive. Such accusations show very little confidencein public school administrators, most of whomstarted off as teachers themselves. Moreover, theycompletely ignore the body of federal civil rightslaws that protect against age discrimination. Ulti-mately, these scenarios represent little more thanscare tactics intended to preserve a broken sta-tus quo and jobs for longtime union members, al-though many who repeat the story may fail to rec-ognize it as such.Ending LIFO, however, only represents a nec-essary first step to overhauling a badly brokensystem that is not structured to recruit and retainhigh-quality instructors. Research clearly showsthat highly effective teachers make a substantialdifference in the lives of students, but most statescontinue to reward teachers for certifications andmaster’s degrees often unrelated to student learn-ing gains. This expensive practice is estimated tocost an additional $15 billion for our country’seducation outlays each year.viiiStates and districtscan better allocate their educational dollars by di-recting them to rewarding and retaining effectiveteachers instead of paying teachers for holding—and in many cases, earning—a certificate.ALTERNATIVE TEACHER CERTIFICATIONACQUIRES STRONG SUPPORT IN 2012Facing rapid student enrollment growth that thestate’s universities could not keep pace with ontheir own, Florida lawmakers embraced multiplealternative certification paths during the 1990s.FIGURE 2 | STATES THAT HAVE BANNED “LAST–IN, FIRST–OUT” POLICIES AS OF AUGUST 2012(SOURCE: STUDENTS FIRST)WAORCAIDNVAZUTWYCOWIMOARGAKSOKMNINOHPASCFLAKMT NDSDNENMTX LAIAILMINYKYTNMS ALVANCMEHIWVVTNHMARICTNJDEMDDC
    • 6 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEThe other option to alternative certification wasnot more traditionally certified teachers, but, inmany cases, no teachers at all. Alternative certifi-cation coincided with a substantial improvementin academic achievement, did nothing to preventsuch progress, and likely helped make it possible.Analysis of teacher characteristics and studenttest score gains indicate that alternative certifica-tion succeeded in attracting many highly qualifiedcandidates into the teaching profession. Geor-gia State Economist Tim R. Sass analyzed Flori-da certification routes and student test score gainsand identified 10 routes to certification in Florida.Examples include traditional programs, full rec-iprocity, and Educator Preparation Institutes—partnerships between the Florida Department ofEducation and the community college system.The Florida data warehouse maintained bythe Florida Department of Education contains in-formation about the route that teachers took forcertification and information about the types andnumber of courses taken in college. Sass includesa number of tables on the level of academic prep-aration of teachers by certification status. A sum-mary is in Table 1.In a broad sense, the data demonstratesthat alternatively certified teachers had higherSAT scores as entering college students. For in-stance, the average traditionally certified stu-dent earned an SAT score of 937, while the av-erage score for the highest scoring alternativecertification candidates—who were certifiedthrough the American Board for Certificationof Teacher Excellence (ABCTE)—was 1096. Al-ternative certification paths have allowed addi-tional academically accomplished candidates toenter the profession. The passing rates for theFlorida General Knowledge Certification Ex-ams also varied by certification route, generallythe alternative routes.Sass analyzed student learning gains by cer-tification route and finds that alternatively certi-fied teachers have similar academic gains to thosetraditionally certified—similar to the findings ofprevious studies. Sass, however, found positiveresults for ABCTE, particularly for math teachers,who performed better, on average, than for tradi-tional preparation program graduates. Across allspecifications and tests, ABCTE teachers boostmath achievement by 6 to 11 percent more thantraditionally prepared teachers.These results have implications for alterna-tive certification beyond the ABCTE program,as selectivity is a key feature of the program, andTable 1 | Characteristics of Teachers by Certification Route(Source, Sass 2011)Certification PathwayPercent fromMost SelectiveColleges(Barron’sRankings)Percent fromLeast SelectiveColleges(Barron’sRankings)Percent PassingState GeneralKnowledgeReadingCertificationExam on FirstAttemptAverage SATScoreTraditional Florida College ofEducation13.9% 19.6% 66.3% 937Course Analysis 19.2% 16% 64.5% 955Certified in Another State 7.8% 21.3% * *Graduate of an Out of StateTeacher Preparation Program7.5% 23.3% 55.9% *District AlternativeCertification Program22.9% 13.5% 76.4% 1029Educator Preparation Institute 22.3% 14.4% 91% 1029American Board for Certificationof Teaching Excellence22.5% 18% 100% 1096College Teaching Experience 35.8% 9.4% 69.2% **=Data not available
    • www.alec.org 7Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012prospective teaching candidates must completerigorous content examinations to be certified.Sass rightly cautions that the ABCTE cohort isnot large, so further research is warranted. Likethe empirical investigations into the learninggains for students with Teach for America teach-ers, the gains in reading are much smaller thanthose in math, which merits further investiga-tion. Researchers should continue to investigatethe link between selectivity of programs and stu-dent test score gains.ixFlorida’s positive experience reinforces na-tional research on alternative teacher certifica-tion. Harvard University scholars Daniel Nadlerand Paul E. Peterson succinctly summarized thefindings of their investigation into alternative cer-tification with What Happens When States HaveGenuine Alternative Certification? We Get More Mi-nority Teachers and Test Scores Rise. Nadler andPeterson distinguish between states with genu-ine and non-genuine alternative certification, be-cause many states have alternative certificationpaths on the books that require students to takeyears of coursework in a college of education.Nadler and Peterson identified 21 states withgenuine alternative teacher certification and thentracked the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) gains for all states. They found:In states that had genuine alternative cer-tification, test-score gains on the NAEP ex-ceeded those in the other states by 4.8 pointsand 7.6 points in 4th- and 8th-grade math,respectively. In reading, the additional gainsin the states with genuine alternative certi-fication were 10.6 points and 3.9 points forthe two grade levels, respectively. Among Af-rican Americans, test-score gains were alsolarger in the states with genuine alternativecertification.Nadler and Peterson then used informationfrom the U.S. Department of Education’s Officefor Civil Rights to measure the extent to whichthe race and ethnicity of each state’s teachingforce matched the state’s overall adult popula-tion. They found that states with genuine alterna-tive certification had teaching forces more closelyaligned with the ethnic makeup of the state andcited specific examples of alternative certificationprograms that were used disproportionately byminority degree holders to enter the teachingprofession.xFlorida’s experience has been consistent withboth of these national findings. Florida’s NAEPscores have improved substantially, and Nadlerand Peterson found Florida to have one of themost racially representative teaching forces in thenation.LAWMAKERS CONTINUE TO RUN UPTHE SCORE ON SCHOOL CHOICE CYNICSIn early 2011, an exchange between FriedmanFoundation for Educational Choice senior fellowGreg Forster and The Washington Post educationcolumnist Jay Mathews led to an interesting wa-ger. Forster provided Mathews with a summary ofhigh-quality random-assignment research show-ing a variety of positive benefits associated withschool choice programs. In response, Mathewswrote a piece that ran on The Washington Post’sWeb site on March 25, 2011, titled “Voucherswork, but so what?”xiMathews conceded the overwhelmingly pos-itive random assignment research on schoolvoucher programs, calling them “impressive.” Hethen, in essence, argued that charter schools arethe politically easier path to parental choice andthat vouchers were essentially irrelevant:The young educators who have led the ro-bust growth of charters prefer to work in pub-lic schools. Many voters will continue to re-sist sending their tax dollars to private schools,particularly with the pressures to cut back gov-ernment spending that are likely to be with usfor many years.If I am wrong about that, and the politicalwinds blow in a pro-voucher direction, thenForster’s good paper will be a useful addi-tion to the debate. But I think we are better offspending what money we have on public char-ter schools.It will take some big change in the culture—at least a half-century away—to give Forsterthe opportunity for universal vouchers thathe hopes for. I am not going to live that long.Charters are the better bet.xii
    • 8 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEMathews’ use of the term “bet” proved pre-scient, as Forster then challenged Mathews to awager. Mathews bet dinner at a restaurant of thewinner’s choice that 10 or fewer state legislativechambers would pass a private choice programexpansion in 2011. Lawmakers promptly blast-ed past that low bar. Forster, being a good sport,agreed to raise the bar from 10 legislative cham-bers passing a private choice program to seven ac-tual program enactments or expansions.America’s lawmakers quickly surpassed thathigher bar as well. Congress reenacted Wash-ington, D.C.’s Opportunity Scholarship Program(DCOSP); state lawmakers created brand newprograms in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, NorthCarolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Arizona, Col-orado, and North Carolina created entirely newprograms without previous precedent in 2011—Empowerment Savings Accounts in Arizona, adistrict-created voucher program in Colorado,and a personal use tax-credit program for stu-dents with disabilities in North Carolina.Indiana lawmakers created the nation’s mostexpansive school voucher program and expand-ed their preexisting tax credit program. Ohiolawmakers expanded their preexisting “failingschools” voucher and created a new program forspecial-needs children. Wisconsin lawmakers ex-panded Milwaukee’s voucher program and cre-ated a new one for Racine. Lawmakers expand-ed most preexisting choice programs nationwide.With such ample justification, The Wall StreetJournal proclaimed 2011 as “The Year of SchoolChoice.”xiiiWhen the smoke cleared, lawmakers had sur-passed the Forster-Mathews threshold by a widemargin. In 2012 lawmakers surpassed that thresh-old again, surprising those who asked themselves,“How are we going to top 2011 this year?” The yearafter “The Year of School Choice” turned out to be“The Year of School Choice: Part II.”Louisiana, with the strong partnership ofLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, State Superin-tendent John White, and state legislators tookthe lead with two far-reaching pieces of legisla-tion. First, Louisiana lawmakers created a schoolvoucher program to rival Indiana’s by creating thestatewide Louisiana K–12 Scholarship Program,which provides scholarships to students fromfamilies of modest incomes attending C-, D-, orF-rated public schools. To qualify, students mustlive in a household with an income at or below250 percent of the federal poverty rate—$57,625for a family of four in 2012. In all, approximately380,000 students out of Louisiana’s 700,000 stu-dents statewide are eligible to apply for a scholar-ship under the program.xivIn 2012, approximate-ly 950 out of Louisiana’s 1,300 statewide publicschools were graded as C or lower. Scholarship re-cipients can choose to attend non-public or A/B-rated public schools.Louisiana lawmakers also created a Tax Cred-it for Donations to School Tuition Organizationsprogram to provide scholarships for low-incomestudents. Louisiana policymakers had previous-ly created a scholarship for children with dis-abilities and provided a small tax deduction forprivate school expenses. Collectively, these pro-grams have made Louisiana one of the top privateschool choice states.For some time, Arizona lawmakers have beennational leaders in school choice reform And theywere not idle in recent years as Indiana and Lou-isiana policymakers made aggressive moves forthe title of the top parental choice state. In 2011,Arizona lawmakers created the EmpowermentScholarship Account (ESA) program—the first ofits kind in the nation. To replace a school vouch-er program for special-needs students that fell toa court challenge, the Empowerment ScholarshipAccount program created a novel approach to pa-rental choice, with special-needs students eligibleupon its implementation.Rather than a voucher program, ESA createseducation savings accounts for eligible students,which are managed by parents or guardians. Theaccounts can be used to support private schooltuition, the hiring of certified tutors, online edu-cation programs and even cover community col-lege or university tuition. Parents also may use thefunds to contribute to a 529 college savings planfor future higher education expenses. This createsa powerful incentive for parents to scrutinize edu-cation providers on both quality and cost.Under the program, the state deposits 90percent of an individual student’s annual pub-lic school funding total into an eligible stu-dent’s ESA. In return, the parent or guardian of
    • www.alec.org 9Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012an ESA-eligible student must sign an agreementwith the Arizona Department of Education to ed-ucate his or her child in core academic subjectsand agree not to enroll them in a public school forthe next school year.Originally only for special-needs students at-tending public schools, Arizona lawmakers in2012 expanded the eligibility of the ESA programto include students attending D- and F-ratedschools or school districts, children of active-dutymilitary members, and children who had passedthrough the foster care system. These changeswill take effect in the fall of 2013 making 20 per-cent of Arizona public school students eligible forthe program.Already known for creating the nation’s firsttax credit program in 1997, which allows taxpay-ers to make donations to a qualified scholarship-granting nonprofit organization and receive a dol-lar-for-dollar credit against their state income taxliability, Arizona lawmakers created a new indi-vidual scholarship tax credit for children in mid-dle- and low-income families. Similar to a corpo-rate tax credit program created in 2006 aimed atlow- and middle-income students, lawmakers in2012 created a new individual tax credit to raiseadditional funds for these students.Pennsylvania was one of the earliest states to fol-low Arizona’s example in creating a scholarship taxcredit program with its Education Improvement TaxCredit (EITC). In 2012, lawmakers expanded theEITC by $25 million to bring the statewide cap ondonations to $75 million. They also created a new$50 million tax credit—the Education Opportuni-ty Scholarship Tax Credit Program—for students at-tending a low-performing public school.Three new states joined the private parentalchoice family in 2012 as well, all with new taxcredit programs. New Hampshire lawmakersoverrode the veto of Gov. John Lynch to enact ascholarship tax credit program for low- and mid-dle-income students. Virginia legislators passedtheir own scholarship tax credit program, whileMississippi lawmakers passed a small tax cred-it program to benefit children with dyslexia. Fig-ure 3 is the revised map showing states that haveenacted one or more private school choice pro-grams, including the three new states for 2012.FIGURE 3 | States with One or More Private School Choice Programs, 2012(Star=Washington, D.C.)WAORCAIDNVAZUTWYCOWIMOARGAKSOKMNINOHPASCFLAKMT NDSDNENMTX LAIAILMINYKYTNMS ALVANCMEHIWVVTNHMARICTNJDEMDDC
    • 10 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEIf Jay Mathews still has some money burninga hole in his pocket, we are more than happy tomake the same bet with him for 2013.CHARTER SCHOOLS MAINTAIN MOMENTUMBUTTRESSED BY STRONG RESEARCHThe 2011–2012 school year saw 5,714 charterschools in operation educating almost two mil-lion students. Of these charter schools, almost 10percent (518) were newly opened in 2011. Figure4 illustrates the growth in the number of charterschools nationwide between 2001 and 2011. Alltoo often, this level of growth is happening de-spite the inaction of lawmakers in many states.The Center for Education Reform annual-ly grades states’ charter school laws. In 2012,only Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Washing-ton, D.C., and newcomer Indiana had A-gradedcharter school laws. Figure 5 shows states scoringan A-rated charter school law in blue and B-ratedcharter laws in green.Indiana lawmakers improved their charterschool law grade from a B to an A in 2011, whileMaine’s lawmakers enacted their first char-ter school law in 2011, however it only earneda C grade. Idaho lawmakers removed a cap oncharter schools to move up to a B. Arizona im-proved from a B to an A—mostly on the basisof allowing universities to authorize charterschools—and Michigan lawmakers removed acap on university authorized charter schools af-ter a long multi-year struggle on the part of char-ter school advocates.On the other hand, 2012 sessions met withdisappointments in Alabama and Mississippi.xvThe Alabama debate included some truly absurdfear mongering from charter school opponents re-garding the possibility of Muslim charter schools.These came despite the fact that charter schoolscannot teach religion, and the only place anyonehas been using charter schools as al-Qaida train-ing centers is in the fever dreams of opportunisticcharter school opponents.ALEC has developed a set of model bills tostimulate improvement of America’s charterschool laws. A growing body of research indicatesthat students would benefit substantially fromstronger charter school laws. The Global ReportCard, published by the George W. Bush Insti-tute, recently found that one-third of the nation’stop 30 school districts ranked by mathematicsscores were charter schools.xviThis is an impres-sive achievement considering that charter schoolsstill only constitute 5 percent of the nation’s pub-lic schools.xviiFigure 4 | Total Charter Schools, 2000-2011(Source: Center for Education Reform)20001,65101000200030004000500060002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112,0092,3372,6323,0623,4723,8404,2204,6245,0435,4535,714
    • www.alec.org 11Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012Charter school opponents often claim thatcharter schools look better on paper than they ac-tually are because they “skim the cream” in select-ing highly motivated students. A growing bodyof empirical work, however, disproves the notion.Most charter school laws require a random lot-tery for admission when applicants exceed avail-able seats. This requirement creates the necessaryconditions for a high-quality random assignmentstudy. Additionally, the locations where charterschools are most often found are indeed wherethey are most often needed—districts notable forhistorically poor academic performance.A random assignment design represents thegold standard of social science research. The Foodand Drug Administration mandates random as-signment in evaluating the efficacy of new drugsbecause it is the most powerful research methodavailable. Random assignment is especially usefulin answering questions regarding whether char-ter schools perform better than district schoolsor whether they may simply appear to do so be-cause they draw more highly motivated studentsand parents.In a random assignment study, students arerandomly assigned into an experimental group(lottery winners) and a control group (lotterylosers). The random assignment of students intothese groups isolates our key variable of interest:the impact of charter schools. All the parents whoapplied for the lottery were motivated to seek anew school for their child. The key difference be-tween the two randomly chosen groups of stu-dents is the fact that one group got the opportuni-ty to attend a charter school and the other groupdid not get the same opportunity.Currently, four random assignment charterschool studies tap into charter school effectivenessand provide some high confidence. In one study,a team of researchers from MIT, Harvard, Duke,and the University of Michigan examined the ac-ademic impact of charter schools for students inBoston. They found that the charter school effectsare “large enough to reduce the black-white read-ing gap in middle school by two-thirds.”xviiiStanford University economist Caroline Hox-by performed separate random assignment stud-ies on charter schools in New York City and Chi-cago. In Chicago, Hoxby found that “students incharter schools outperformed a comparable groupof lottery losing students who remained in regularChicago public schools by 5 to 6 percentile pointsin math and about 5 percentile points in reading.… To put the gains in perspective, it may helpto know that 5 to 6 percentile points is just un-der half of the gap between the average disadvan-taged minority student in Chicago public schoolsand the average middle-income non-minority stu-dent in a suburban district.”xixHoxby also found a substantial charter schooladvantage in New York City: “On average, a stu-dent who attended a charter school for all of gradeskindergarten through eight would close about 86percent of the ‘Scarsdale–Harlem achievementgap’ in math and 66 percent of the achievementgap in English.”xxMathematica research performed a randomassignment study on 36 charter middle schoolsacross 15 states for the U.S. Department of Ed-ucation. Consistent with the Boston, Chicago,and New York charter school studies, this reportfound a positive and significant result for low-in-come students attending charter schools in urbanareas. The same study found significant negativeimpact for non-poor students attending charterschools in suburban areas. Researchers shouldfurther examine the suburban finding to deter-mine whether it holds up across a larger sampleof schools and to see whether the same patternemerges at the elementary and high school levels.The results for urban students, however, show aconsistent pattern of improved results associatedwith charter schools.xxiThe Obama administration’s Race to the Topcompetition generated a great deal of press bygiving states bonus points for removing char-ter school caps. Policymakers should recognize,however, that merely removing a statewide capis meaningless unless the state has a solid sys-tem of authorization—preferably with multipleindependent authorizers, including a statewideauthorizer. A state that only allows school dis-tricts to authorize schools, for instance, couldremove a statewide cap on the number of char-ter schools without seeing any increase in theactual number of charter schools. Lawmakersshould carefully examine the model ALEC billsto improve existing charter laws in their statesor create a high-quality statute in a state with-out a charter law.
    • 12 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEFOUR STATES ADOPT LETTER GRADESFOR SCHOOL TRANSPARENCY IN 2012Few, if any, actions by state policymakers havedone more to make a mockery of academic trans-parency and accountability than the widespreaduse of vague and misleading labels to describeschool performance. The most common flavor forthis practice involves stringing together a group offuzzy labels to describe school performance. Ar-izona lawmakers replaced their fuzzy label sys-tem with letter grades in 2010. Before that, Arizo-na schools often proudly displayed large bannersproclaiming that they were a “PERFORMINGSchool.”Such banners were hung secure in the knowl-edge that few Arizonans understood that “per-forming” was the second lowest performancelevel possible. With school grading, parentsand taxpayers instantly understand the possibleachievement levels. People respond differently toa D than to a “performing.”Florida pioneered the use of letter grades in1999, while New York City, a single district withmore students than in 12 different states, adoptedthe practice in 2006. In 2010 and 2011, lawmak-ers in Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico,Oklahoma, and Utah adopted A–F school grades.And in 2012, Alabama, Mississippi, North Caro-lina, and Ohio adopted the practice for schools intheir states.MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES ARRIVEWITH SUBSTANTIAL IMPLICATIONSWired magazine in 2011 featured a piece on afourth-grade “flipped” classroom—one where as-signing lecture material as homework frees upclassroom time for problem solving and in-depthprojects. This particular classroom used KhanAcademy, an online learning Web site with thou-sands of discrete academic lessons posted on You-Tube. (We discussed Khan in more depth in the17th edition of ALEC’s Report Card on AmericanEducation.) A growing number of education in-novators have used online resources to “flip” theclassroom.FIGURE 5 | States With A- or B- graded Charter School Laws, according to Center for Education Reform2012 Rankings(Dark Blue for A, Light Blue for B, Star Denotes Washington, D.C.)WAORCAIDNVAZUTWYCOWIMOARGAKSOKMNINOHPASCFLAKMT NDSDNENMTX LAIAILMINYKYTNMS ALVANCMEHIWVVTNHMARICTNJDEMDDC
    • www.alec.org 13Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012“This,” starts student Matthew Carpenter inWired, “is my favorite exercise.” I peer overhis shoulder at his laptop screen to see themath problem the fifth grader is pondering. It’san inverse trigonometric function: cos-1(1) = ?After your humble author had an involuntaryand painful flashback to his 1985 Trigonometryclass, he went on to read that this was MatthewCarpenter’s 642nd trig problem, and that he wasa 10-year-old student mid-way through the 4thgrade.Give that some thought: A formal evaluationof the efficacy of classroom flipping has yet to ap-pear, but some preliminary data released by KhanAcademy looks promising. In 2012, however, flip-ping the classroom was not the biggest bit of dig-ital learning news.Two Stanford professors, inspired by a presen-tation from Khan Academy’s founder and name-sake Sal Khan decided to put their graduate-levelcomputer science course online for free. Stanfordofficials drew the line at granting Stanford coursecredit for taking the course online, but the pro-fessors decided to issue certificates of comple-tion for online students successfully completingthe course. The course, which was focused on thetopic of artificial intelligence and required an ad-vanced grasp of mathematics, included lectures,readings and tests, and was open to anyone in theworld, free of charge.The subject of the course—artificial intelli-gence—required an advanced grasp of mathe-matics. Nevertheless, one of the two professorsthought they might get 1,000 students to takethe course. The other—a wide–eyed optimist—thought they could get 5,000 online students totake the class, along with the 200 in-person Stan-ford students.Both professors were wrong, as 160,000 peo-ple took the course and 20,000 of them success-fully completed it. One-hundred-ninety nationshad self-motivated citizens taking the course, andsome very interesting things happened along theFIGURE 6 | JURISDICTIONS ADOPTING A-through-F LETTER GRADES FOR SCHOOL TRANSPARENCY(STAR = NEW YORK CITY)WAORCAIDNVAZUTWYCOWIMOARGAKSOKMNINOHPASCFLAKMT NDSDNENMTX LAIAILMINYKYTNMS ALVANCMEHIWVVTNHMARICTNJDEMDDC
    • 14 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONEway. For instance, 85 percent of Stanford’s in-per-son, paying students stopped attending the class,explaining that they preferred to watch the lecturesonline because they could pause and rewind them.When ranking student performance on ex-ams, the top Stanford-affiliated student came in at411th out of the 20,000 students who completedthe course. So, despite Stanford’s serious entrancerequirements, physical access to the lectures andprofessor office hours, and what one would pre-sume would be an above the global average graspof English, Stanford students could not crack thetop 400.The advent of the Massive Open OnlineCourse (MOOC) has been quite a shock to thehigher education establishment, with a varietyof universities joining various projects such asCoursera, EdX, and Udacity to provide free on-line education. These courses offer the highestquality curriculum and teachers but are largelynot yet credit bearing. The implications for K–12,while less commented upon thus far, are also pro-found. With Ivy League-quality courses alreadyonline and free, it is only a matter of time un-til district, charter, private and home school stu-dents avail themselves to such courses, eventual-ly en masse.For instance, Coursera, a joint project of 16top American Universities, already has more than40 college-level online courses in topics rangingfrom humanities, medicine, biology, social sci-ences, and mathematics to business and comput-er science. These courses are currently offeredby professors from Stanford, Princeton, Rice, theUniversity of Michigan, and a number of other in-stitutions, and students take these courses free ofcharge. These are far more than simple online lec-tures; they include reading, homework assign-ments, and examinations. However, the lectureportions employ novel techniques, many of whichare impractical with a large number of students ina traditional learning environment. For example,instant “pop” quizzes require students to demon-strate that they have absorbed material before be-ing allowed to proceed. If a student “gets lost” ina lecture, the technology literally requires them tofind their way back to the path. Those who suc-cessfully complete the course receive a certificateof completion, which some higher learning insti-tutions currently accept for credit.With free access to such knowledge, currentinstitutions of education will have to adjust orwill find themselves falling out of favor. Unlim-ited students now have access—for free—to theworld’s top experts in virtually every field. Thechallenge for institutions will be accurately andcomprehensively assessing student knowledge.As employers recognize that not all knowledge isgained through the traditional classroom, the im-portance of certification and validation of knowl-edge will become ever more important.Coursera co-founder Daphne Koller believesthat the future of universities will include a re-tooling effort whereby professors add value to on-line instruction through applied learning proj-ects.xxiiThe same logic could also be applied toK–12 instruction. It is impossible to forecast justwhat the average school will look like in 50 yearsor how it will perform, but put your bets down ondifferent and better.CONCLUSION: ONCE MORE UNTOTHE BREACH DEAR FRIENDSThe stasis in school practices, a result of whatStanford political scientist Terry Moe describedas a “Whack–a-Mole” strategy by unions, hasbeen compromised. Teachers’ unions and otherelements of the status-quo coalition have blockedthe vast majority of reforms the vast majority ofthe time. The resulting policy uniformity acrossstates left little in the way of meaningful differ-ences among states. In 1989, no state providedmuch in the way of parental choice outside theschool district system. Academic and financialtransparency stood somewhere between abysmaland nonexistent at the school level. Evaluatingteachers based, in part, by student performanceconstituted little more than a fantasy held by asmall group of reformers.Going forward, state laboratories of reformwill allow for the continued evaluation of a num-ber of important reforms. Education reform nowrepresents a decentralized learning process and,as parental dissatisfaction turns into intoleranceof continued failure, the pace will likely quick-en in the years ahead. A virtuous cycle is un-derway whereby policymakers enact reforms,and academics—employing high-quality statis-tical techniques—have found encouraging evi-dence to support such policies. Some of the more
    • www.alec.org 15Reform-Minded Policymakers Enact Large Changes in 2012recent examples of such research are summa-rized here.More reforms lead to still more research. No-tice that no one has yet been able to produce arandom assignment study to suggest that schoolvouchers harm student achievement, or even alogically coherent argument in favor of uncondi-tional tenure, much less any high-quality statisti-cal evidence in favor of it. Through a decentralizedlearning process carried out on a blossoming va-riety of policies, the case for reform continues toget stronger.Meanwhile, a new generation of innovatorshas bypassed bureaucracy, bringing powerfullearning tools directly to students. The full impli-cations of this for the K–12 system remain impos-sible to forecast, but this much is clear: The bestis yet to come.
    • 16 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER ONE
    • Closing Achievement Gaps: SomeStates Jog while Others CrawlCHAPTER2
    • 18 Report Card on American EducationIn 1997, Professor Lawrence Stedman char-acterized the state of academic achieve-ment gaps in America with precision andbrutal honesty:Twelfth-grade black students are performingat the level of middle school white students.These students are about to graduate, yet theylag four or more years behind in every area in-cluding math, science, writing, history and ge-ography. Latino seniors do somewhat betterthan 8th-grade white students in math andwriting but, in other areas, are also four yearsbehind white 12th graders. … Schools and so-ciety remains divided into two different worlds,one black, one white, separate and unequal.xxiiiThe following recent data demonstrates thatnationally, 15 years after Stedman’s chillinglyaccurate assessment, little has changed. Amer-ica’s system of schooling continues to system-atically underserve low-income and minoritystudents, despite large, above-and-beyond in-flation increases in per-pupil spending. Thepicture varies considerably from state to statehowever, with some states having made solidprogress in closing gaps and others falling evenfurther behind.This chapter ranks states according to theirprogress in closing achievement gaps. For rea-sons we will explain, there is only one good wayto close an achievement gap: Realize gains for ev-eryone, with larger-than-average gains for disad-vantaged student groups. Understanding ways ofclosing achievement gaps in proper context willreveal a large variety in the effectiveness of stateefforts to close those gaps.CAUTION: ACHIEVEMENT GAPS ARE NOTALWAYS WHAT THEY APPEARAchievement gaps easily can mislead the unwarythinker. Consider, for instance, the white-blackachievement gap. Normally, we would think clos-ing this gap is good and desirable, and a growinggap is bad and undesirable.The way in which achievement gaps grow orclose, however, is vitally important. Imagine, forinstance, a state whose white-black achievementgap closed due to a decline in the achievementscores of white students accompanied by a de-cline in black scores, with white scores decliningat a faster rate. Congratulations! The achievementgap closed, but you have an academic catastropheon your hands. This may seem like a far-fetchedscenario, but it actually happened in West Virgin-ia, as we detail here.Likewise, an achievement gap can expand,even when all scores have risen, if the scores ofthe traditionally higher scoring group increasefaster. The District of Columbia, in the midst ofa substantial gentrification, has seen just such atrend over the past decade. Ethicists can debatewhether we should view the District of Colum-bia trend as a boon or a disaster, but it is clearly abetter state of affairs than in West Virginia—withall scores going up in D.C., and all scores goingdown in West Virginia—unless you are the sortwho places an irrationally high value on equali-ty of misery.If you fall into that trap, you may congratulateWest Virginia for its “closing” achievement gap,while scolding Washington, D.C., for its “widen-ing” gap. This shows the need to go deeper thanthe surface and to examine the crucial details ofhow states close achievement gaps, not simply ifthey close them.Closing Achievement Gaps: SomeStates Jog while Others Crawl
    • www.alec.org 19Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others CrawlThere will always be differences in academicachievement between various student subgroupsand non-schooling factors that contribute to suchgaps. On the whole, students from low-incomehouseholds will face greater challenges than thosefrom their wealthy classmates.“Bad gap closings” and “good gap expansions,”if we wanted to call them that, are the exceptionsrather than the rules, but they have happened, aswe have detailed. Nevertheless, broadly speaking,the sort of huge and appalling gaps found in Amer-ica point to deep flaws in our system of schooling.The vast majority of the time, states show a per-sistent achievement gap. The following data pointto a horrible but unavoidable conclusion: Ameri-can schools give the most to the children with themost. Far too many children who begin with lit-tle receive very little in the way of an education.Vast swaths of American children find themselveswarehoused more than educated in what has be-come government-subsidized daycare.First, we present both national and interna-tional data on achievement gaps. Next, we careful-ly examine both national and state-level achieve-ment data to rank state performance. Americanshave been crawling a marathon in closing achieve-ment gaps. Distressingly, some are crawling awayfrom the finish line. A few states, however, havestood up and begun to jog in the right direction.ACHIEVEMENT GAPS: INTERNATIONALEVIDENCE OF A NATIONAL DISGRACEThe Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD) began giving examsto measure student K–12 achievement in mem-ber nations during the late 1990s. The 2009 Pro-gramme for International Student Assessment(PISA) gave random student samples academicexams in 74 countries. The following PISA datafocus on 15-year-old students (10th graders inAmerica), as this is often the minimum age ofmandatory school attendance around the world.In short, this data is as close to a comparable fin-ished academic product as possible.The U.S. Department of Education performedan additional analysis of the American data tobreak down results by both income and racial/eth-nic subgroups. Figure 1 presents data for Ameri-can subgroups by income compared to PISA aver-ages. The chart divides the American sample intoquartiles based upon the percentage of students atthe school level who qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch under the National School LunchProgram (NSLP). The program is administeredby the U.S. Department of Agriculture and pro-vides free and reduced-price lunches for childrenwhose family income falls below certain thresh-olds, which vary by family size and are updatedfrom year to year to account for inflation. In 2009,Figure 1 | PISA Combined Literacy Scores for 15-year-olds by School Affluence (Percentage of Studentsat American Schools Qualifying for a Free or Reduced Lunch)5510 100 200 300 400 500 600Mexico (Lowest OECD)75%-100%50%-74.9%U.S. Average25%-49.9%10.1%-24.9%Korea (highest OECD)Less than 10% U.S.539527502500471446425
    • 20 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOa family of four could earn a maximum of justmore than $40,000 to qualify for a reduced-pricelunch, but approximately 80 percent of these stu-dents qualify for a free lunch, which, for the samefamily of four, has a maximum family income ofjust over $28,000.xxivFigure 1 compares Ameri-can income subgroups against the performance ofthe lowest and highest OECD performers.The wealthiest Americans achieve quitewell—higher than average for the highest per-forming nation. Notice, however, how things slipby income: Students attending schools with amajority of low-income students score closer tothe average of Mexico (the lowest scoring OECDcountry) than to South Korea (the highest scoringnation). This is a disappointing result, to say theleast, given that American schools spend approx-imately four times as much per pupil on a pur-chasing-power-adjusted basis.xxvFigure 2 shows the same disappointing pat-tern by racial and ethnic subgroups.American 15-year-old white students score atan internationally competitive level, but one canonly describe the results for black and Hispan-ic students as catastrophic. Mexico’s schools mayproduce the lowest scores in the OECD, but on apoint-produced-per-dollar basis, they easily out-shine American schools serving black and His-panic students, despite having lower average fam-ily incomes.Researchers find the same achievement gapsin domestic and international testing data. Eachyear, millions of children—disproportionatelylow-income and minority children—fail to learnbasic literacy skills in the developmentally criti-cal grades. Rather than addressing these problemshead-on, standard practice involves simply sociallypromoting students to the next grade. Our collectivefailure to reform this shameful practice preserves asystem of schooling that routinely gives the least tothe students who start with the greatest needs.One can only describe the catastrophicallylow level of academic achievement among low-income and minority students as a crisis and asource of enormous national shame. The collec-tive failure of American schools and society to ed-ucate low-income and minority students has pro-duced what McKinsey & Company describes as a“permanent national recession” in America. Ob-viously, the economic impact of education fail-ure falls primarily upon the poor, but with conse-quences for everyone.In subsequent pages, we measure and rank theprogress of each of the 50 states and the Districtof Columbia in narrowing achievement gaps byrace/ethnicity and income. We will utilize NAEPdata to do so, making use of all four major NAEPtests (fourth-grade mathematics, fourth-gradereading, eighth-grade mathematics and eighth-grade reading) for the entire period for which all51 jurisdictions took these exams available at thetime of this writing (2003 to 2011).The data makes clear that some states havemade progress on narrowing gaps, while oth-ers continue to flounder as achievement gaps notonly fail to narrow but actually continue to grow.Figure 2 | PISA Combined Literacy Scores for 15-year-olds—American scores by Race and Ethnicity0 100 200 300 400 500 600Mexico (Lowest OECD)American Black StudentsAmerican Hispanic StudentsU.S. AverageAmerican White StudentsKorea (highest OECD) 539525500466441425
    • www.alec.org 21Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others CrawlTHE WHITE–BLACK ACHIEVEMENT GAPThe yawning gap in academic achievement be-tween white and black students continues to be-devil American schools. Figure 3 details the sizeof the gap between white and black achievementfor each of the main NAEP exams, plus the com-bined point total for all four tests in 2003 (the firsttests administered to all 50 states) and 2011 (thelatest available NAEP results at the time of thiswriting). The figure shows score gaps by subtract-ing the average score for black students from theaverage score for white students on the combinedfourth- and eighth-grade reading and math ex-ams, respectively, and then presents a combinedtotal from all four tests.Figure 3 shows that the national achievementgaps are very large. Despite some improvement be-tween 2003 and 2011, the white/black achieve-ment gap remained larger than 100 points in2011. To put these scores in context, on NAEPreading, the average amount of academic prog-ress achieved in an average academic year rough-ly equals 10 points.xviiIn other words, a group offifth graders could be expected to score about 10points higher than a group of fourth graders onthe NAEP reading test, all else being equal.The national 25-point gap between white andblack students in eight-grade reading in 2011 there-fore constitutes a gigantic problem: Black eighth-graders were reading at an average level compara-ble to white fifth-graders. Further, the fact that theresults in 2011 were a smidgen better than in 2003provides limited comfort. At this rate, assuminguninterrupted progress (a heroic assumption)the white-black achievement gap on eighth-gradereading would close in about 65 years.Nationwide, the country saw a 13-point de-cline in the size of the white-black achievementgap between 2003 and 2011. This averages rough-ly four points per NAEP test over that eight-yearperiod. This is a geological rate of progress rela-tive to the needs of the country to prepare all stu-dents for the challenges of the 21st century.The picture however becomes more promisingwhen examining state rather than national results.National stasis conceals a considerable amount ofvariation among states regarding improvements inreducing income achievement gaps.Figure 4 shows the reduction (or in some casesexpansion) in the size of the total NAEP white-blackachievement gap (negative numbers) and the statesin which the gap grew for the 2003-2011 period.(Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hamp-shire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota,Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming lacked black stu-dent populations large enough for NAEP to re-liably sample, and thus are not included in theanalysis. Washington D.C., lacked a white studentpopulation large enough to sample in the eighthgrade, excluding them from the analysis as well.)National leaders in reducing the white-blackachievement gap—New York, Louisiana, andFlorida—doubled the average rate of progress.The worst performing state, Oregon, saw almosta 23-point increase in the size of the white-blackachievement gap between 2003 and 2011.Figure 3 | White-Black Achievement Gap by NAEP Subject, 2003 and 2011304R 8R 4M 8M Combined2003201125 27 25 27 253531119106
    • 22 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOFigure 5 presents the absolute size of white-black achievement gaps by state using the 2011data—the combined NAEP fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics tests. The figuresagain represent the combined white scores minusthe combined black scores on the four NAEP testsgiven consistently since 2003. Rather than mea-suring trends, Figure 5 shows the absolute size ofthe gaps in 2011 by subtracting black scores fromwhite scores on the four main NAEP exams.Again, use caution when interpreting the data inFigure 5. For instance, West Virginia has the nation’ssmallest white-black achievement gap in the nation.Cause for celebration? Not in this case: West Virgin-ia also had the lowest scores for white students in thecountry on all four major NAEP tests in 2011.Black student scores in West Virginia are a bitabove the national average, but the small achieve-ment gap is largely explained by the low scores ofthe students who comprise almost 93 percent ofthe student population. West Virginia has whitescores far below the national average and blackscores that are approximately average, creating asmall white-black achievement gap, but hardlyone that anyone would wish to emulate.Figure 6, therefore, corrects for such issueswith regard to progress, or lack thereof. The trendlines presented in Figure 5 can provide a mislead-ing picture of trends if white students’ scores in agiven state have underperformed the national aver-age. Between 2003 and 2011, scores for white stu-dents were generally increasing. A state in whichwhite students’ scores increased below the nationalaverage, stagnated, or actually fell could show a de-cline in the white-black achievement gap. In someinstances this could happen even if black students’scores themselves were declining (e.g., if white stu-dents’ scores were declining at a faster rate).Figure 4 | Trends in the Combined NAEP White-Black Achievement Gap, 2003 to 2011(Negative Numbers=Declining Gap)-31-30 -20 -10 0 10 20OregonWashingtonMissouriOhioMarylandAlaskaSouth CarolinaVirginiaNebraskaColoradoMassachusettsPennsylvaniaNew MexicoDelawareIowaMississippiWest VirginiaConnecticutKentuckyAlabamaNorth CarolinaTexasNevadaWisconsinMinnesotaGeorgiaRhode IslandArizonaNational publicCaliforniaIllinoisIndianaMichiganOklahomaTennesseeArkansasKansasNew JerseyFloridaLouisianaNew York-28-26-25-23-22-21-21-20-16-16-16-13-13-12-12-12-11-10-10-9-9-8-8-8-7-6-6-6-5-4-3-2-2012581523
    • www.alec.org 23Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others CrawlFigure 6 takes these possibilities into account byonly ranking the trend of the white-black achieve-ment gap for states making at least average progressfor white students. This is, in fact, the best way toclose an achievement gap: Have both advantagedand disadvantaged students make gains, with thedisadvantaged student group showing larger gains.In summary, these states made truly admirableprogress on the white-black achievement gap.The white-black achievement gap is not goinganywhere fast. Florida, which advanced fastestduring this period, would take more than threedecades to close the gap if the current pace weremaintained. Colorado, the state with the slowestprogress, would close the gap between white andblack students in approximately 296 years at thecurrent pace.xxviiiThere are worse things afoot, however, thanwhat we see in Colorado. Recall from Figure 4that Alaska, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon,and Washington expanded the size of their white-black achievement gaps between 2003 and 2011.In Oregon, the question is not whether they canstart to close the gap but just how big it will getbefore deciding to do something about it.Reformers must recalibrate the scale of theirefforts if they wish to achieve meaningful resultswhile they are still alive.THE WHITE–HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT GAPAmerica’s Hispanic children have also had con-siderable difficulty in closing the achievementgap. Figure 8 presents the 2003 and 2011 white-Hispanic achievement gaps for the four mainNAEP exams and the combined total. The gap-ing size of the 2011 gap overshadows the factthat each of the academic gaps shrank marginal-ly between 2003 and 2011. For instance, the 2009Figure 5 | Combined NAEP Achievement Gaps (4th and 8th Grade Reading and Math) by Jurisdiction, 20110 50 100 150 200 250West VirginiaHawaiiKentuckySouth DakotaOklahomaNew MexicoAlaskaWashingtonDelawareArizonaTexasOregonNevadaLouisianaNew YorkIndianaVirginiaGeorgiaKansasTennesseeMississippiFloridaNorth CarolinaIowaNational publicRhode IslandMassachusettsAlabamaOhioSouth CarolinaNew JerseyCaliforniaColoradoArkansasMaineMissouriMarylandNebraskaIllinoisPennsylvaniaMinnesotaMichiganConnecticutWisconsinDistrict of Columbia 23513613112512412412212212011811311111110910810810710610610610510410310110110099989897979595939392898985858382805149
    • 24 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOfourth-grade reading gap between white and His-panic students stood at an appalling 25 points—roughly equivalent to two and a half school yearsof academic progress.One might hope that language barriers ac-count for the gap and that it would narrow asthe billions of dollars spent on English-LanguageLearner programs took hold—hope in vain, thatis. The eighth-grade reading gap looms almostidentically large to the fourth-grade gap. At therate of progress achieved between 2003 and 2011(if steadily and consistently maintained—a heroicassumption) Hispanics will close the gap seen inFigure 7 somewhere around the year 2056.Figure 7 | National White-Hispanic Achievement Gaps by NAEP Subject, 2003-2011284R 8R 4M 8M Combined2003201124 2721 21 20282310488Figure 6 | Declines in the White-Black Achievement Gap on the Combined NAEP exams for States withAverage or Above White Academic Progress, 2003 to 20114051015202530FloridaNewJerseyKansasArkansasOklahomaCaliforniaArizonaMinnesotaGeorgiaTexasNevadaAlabamaKentuckyConnecticutNewMexicoPennsylvaniaMassachusettsColorado3586810910121213211622252326
    • www.alec.org 25Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others CrawlFigure 8 | Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap Trend, 2003-2011(Note: Negative Scores Signify a Closing Gap)-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30HawaiiOhioWashingtonConnecticutWisconsinVirginiaPennsylvaniaWyomingOregonColoradoUtahNew JerseyTexasOklahomaMarylandCaliforniaIndianaNevadaArkansasMassachusettsKansasNew YorkFloridaNational publicNew MexicoIdahoArizonaRhode IslandNorth CarolinaNebraskaIowaMinnesotaMichiganIllinoisDelawareAlaskaGeorgia -31-27-26-24-24-24-21-21-18-18-16-16-16-15-15-15-12-12-11-11-8-7-7-6-6-4-3-2-204445122126The national situation hardly inspires confi-dence, although more progress is seen than in thecase of the black-white gap. State-by-state data,however, demonstrates amazing variability amongjurisdictions in closing the Hispanic achievementgap. One can find everything from inspiring suc-cess to worsening failure in the states.Figure 8 presents the trend for the combinedwhite-Hispanic gaps on the four main NAEP exams(fourth-grade math and reading, eighth-grade mathand reading). The Hispanic populations of a numberof states fell below the size required to reliably sam-ple, so they are not included in the analysis. Thesestates included Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hamp-shire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota,Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wy-oming. Washington, D.C., had eighth-grade whitepopulations too small to reliably sample as well.In total, 19 states reduced their total His-panic achievement gap more than the nation-al average, although most only by modestmargins. Notice the substantial variation inoutcomes among states: Delaware reduced theHispanic gap by approximately three-times thenational average. Meanwhile, Ohio suffered anincrease to the gap more than twice the size ofthe national decline.Figure 9 presents the absolute size of thewhite-Hispanic achievement gap using all fourmajor NAEP exams given in 2011. Note that thesame caveats previously discussed regarding thewhite-Black achievement gap apply to the His-panic gap as well.Figure 10 presents the figures for states mak-ing admirable progress on the white-Hispan-ic achievement gap—states with above-averagewhite and Hispanic student gains.
    • 26 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOIf Georgia were to maintain its current pace,then it would close the white-Hispanic achieve-ment gap in approximately 16 years. Colorado,the slowest of the states making admirable prog-ress, would take 448 years at its current pace. TheHispanic achievement “Hall of Shame” is made upof Connecticut, Hawaii, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vir-ginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where the gapexpanded between 2003 and 2011.TRENDS IN ECONOMICACHIEVEMENT GAPS BY STATENationwide, the gap in achievement between poorand non-poor students on the combined NAEPassessments has declined somewhat between the2003 and 2011 NAEP, as shown in Figure 11.The gaps between students from low- andmiddle/high-income families are large and onlynarrowing slowly. A national achievement gapof almost 27 points on fourth-grade reading be-tween poor and non-poor students representsa very large gulf in academic achievement fromthe 2011 NAEP. On average, poor children willnot be reading approximately at the level of non-poor fourth-graders until they finish the seventhgrade. The situation proved only slightly betterin eighth-grade reading. Non-poor students alsooutscore poor students by a sizable margin infourth-grade math and by an even larger amountin eighth-grade math.Finally, Figure 11 sums all four gaps into a cu-mulative gap of 104 points for 2003 and 99 pointsin 2011. Mark your calendar for the year 2177 tocelebrate cutting the income achievement gap inFigure 9 | Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap in NAEP Scale Points, 20110 50 100 150 200 250KentuckyMontanaFloridaAlaskaMichiganLouisianaTennesseeWyomingArkansasGeorgiaSouth CarolinaOklahomaMissouriIndianaVirginiaDelawareKansasSouth DakotaNorth CarolinaIowaOhioNew HampshireMarylandTexasNew MexicoHawaiiAlabamaIdahoOregonNevadaIllinoisArizonaNational publicNebraskaNew YorkWisconsinWashingtonNew JerseyMinnesotaRhode IslandPennsylvaniaUtahColoradoMassachusettsCaliforniaConnecticutDistrict of Columbia 213129114114112111106102102100979592909089878786858282827978787676767573726766666461605956555453534733106
    • www.alec.org 27Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others CrawlFigure 10 | Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap Closing for States Making an Average orAbove-Average Progress for White Students, 2003-20110 5 10 15 20 25 30 35OregonColoradoUtahNew JerseyTexasOklahomaMarylandCaliforniaNevadaArkansasMassachusettsKansasNew YorkNational publicFloridaNew MexicoIdahoArizonaRhode IslandNorth CarolinaNebraskaIowaMinnesotaMichiganIllinoisDelawareAlaskaGeorgia 312726242424211818161616151515121211117766432221fourth-grade reading by half, assuming endur-ance of the current glacial pace of improvement.The national trend between 2003 and 2011failed to show much progress, but in terms ofsheer size of income achievement gaps amongstates, we find a remarkable amount of variation.Figure 12 presents the combined NAEP achieve-ment gap between poor and non-poor studentsfor all 50 states and the District of Columbia.Notice that the state with the largest incomegap, Connecticut, has an income achievementgap more than twice as large (121 points) as thestate with the smallest gap, Wyoming (60 points).Statistical evaluation of variation between thesescores lies outside of the scope of this work, butobviously, multiple demographic and other fac-tors influence the size of such gaps. Connecticut,for example, contains a large inner-city district(Hartford) into which many of the state’s low-in-come students have clustered. Wyoming, a ruralFigure 11 | The National NAEP Family Income Achievement Gap (Non FRL eligible minus FRL eligible) bySubject, 2003 and 2009284R 8R 4M 8M Combined2003201127 25 23 23 2328 2610499
    • 28 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOstate, lacks a similar major urban district. Highscores among non-poor students contribute tothe gap just as much as low scores among poorstudents.Figure 12 shows the absolute size of the in-come gaps in 2011. Figure 13 shows the progress(or lack thereof) for all 50 states in closing theincome achievement gap on the combined NAEPexams. Some states moved the needle on loweringincome gap, while many others floundered help-lessly, their gaps growing larger.Figure 13 presents the combined NAEP in-come achievement gaps for all 50 states and theDistrict of Columbia for the 2003–2011 period.The figures presented in Figure 13 simply rep-resent the 2011 combined gap minus the 2003combined gap. Positive numbers signify a grow-ing income achievement gap, while negative num-bers show a declining gap.Broadly speaking, income gap figures by stateshow most jurisdictions in the middle: some hav-ing made limited progress, and a disturbinglylarge number of states having somewhat expand-ed their income achievement gap. Two jurisdic-tions—Washington, D.C., and Oregon—suffereddisturbingly large increases in income achieve-ment gaps.Figure 14 illustrates the trends in the econom-ic achievement gap for states making average orbetter academic progress for non-poor students.Florida, the state with the most rapidly clos-ing gap between 2003 and 2011, could close itsFigure 12 | 2011 Combined NAEP Income Achievement Gap by State—Non- Poor minus Poor scores onthe four main NAEP exams0 30 60 90 120 150WyomingOklahomaNorth DakotaIdahoMontanaWest VirginiaNew HampshireSouth DakotaMaineIndianaKentuckyDelawareUtahHawaiiNevadaIowaVermontKansasFloridaNew MexicoNew YorkTexasOhioArizonaTennesseeLouisianaArkansasNebraskaMissouriMichiganNorth CarolinaOregonAlabamaGeorgiaNational publicSouth CarolinaMinnesotaRhode IslandMississippiWashingtonWisconsinMassachusettsVirginiaNew JerseyAlaskaPennsylvaniaIllinoisMarylandCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaConnecticut
    • www.alec.org 29Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others Crawleconomic achievement gap in approximately 59years if they maintain their current pace. California,the slowest moving of the states making admirableprogress during this period, is on pace to close thisgap in 880 years. As bad as this sounds, 19 statesand the District of Columbia all watched their eco-nomic achievement gaps expand during this period,putting them on pace to never close them.TRENDS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT GAPFOR DISABLED STUDENTSThe disability achievement gap does not generateas much attention as racial, ethnic, or econom-ic gaps, but policymakers should pay greater at-tention to trends in scores for children with dis-abilities. Few areas of K–12 policy have proved astroublesome and frustrating as the education ofchildren with disabilities. At the time of the pas-sage of the federal Education for All HandicappedChildren Act in the 1970s, public schools weredenying an estimated one million students accessto their schools.xxixOf all the trends in achieve-ment gaps, this one is easily the most trouble-some, with the least amount of state progress.While federal special education law stands asa landmark piece of legislation protecting disabledstudents from discrimination, huge problems sur-round the education of children with disabilities.Parents register enormous dissatisfaction with thelack of services available; researchers point to theover-identification of minority students and out-of-control costs; and teachers vent their frustration withthe amount of red tape and paperwork involved.In 2001, the conservative Thomas B. FordhamFoundation and the liberal Progressive Policy In-stitute (PPI) teamed up to summarize the situa-tion this way:“For this program that has done so much isalso sorely troubled. America’s program forFigure 13 | Trend in the Combined NAEP Non-Poor/Poor Achievement Gap Trend, 2003-2011-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30New YorkIllinoisFloridaMassachusettsOklahomaMichiganNew JerseyIndianaWisconsinGeorgiaArizonaAlabamaNorth CarolinaRhode IslandDelawareIowaTennesseeNational publicNew HampshireWyomingHawaiiOhioTexasLouisianaMinnesotaVermontNew MexicoCaliforniaConnecticutMarylandPennsylvaniaIdahoNebraskaNevadaKansasMontanaSouth CarolinaColoradoKentuckyVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaMissouriUtahAlaskaSouth DakotaNorth DakotaMaineMississippiArkansasOregonDistrict of Columbia 26221199877666544432111100-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-4-5-5-6-7-7-7-8-9-9-10-10-10-13-175
    • 30 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOyoungsters with disabilities has itself developedinfirmities, handicaps and special needs of itsown. … [W]e are not educating many disabledchildren to a satisfactory level of skills andknowledge. Too often we are frustrating theirparents, distracting their teachers, hobblingtheir schools, and making it harder to keep or-der in their classrooms, all this despite the bestof intentions and the most earnest of efforts byfamilies, educators, and policymakers.”xxxThe Fordham/PPI message broke somethingof a taboo against criticizing the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) by exposing alegion of problems with special education. Theseproblems included, but are not limited to, the factthat IDEA emphasizes procedure over studentachievement, that an alarmingly large number ofchildren have been inappropriately placed in spe-cial education due to poor early reading instruc-tion, and there is evidence of racial bias in place-ment of minority children.xxxiBy some estimates, 40 percent of the in-crease in K–12 spending has gone toward specialeducation. Special education, in short, does toolittle to help children with disabilities and toomuch to harm children without disabilities. JayMathews of The Washington Post noted that theavailable research “suggests that the special ed-ucation system has led to widespread, if well-in-tentioned, misuse of tax dollars and has failed tohelp kids.”xxxiiMore recently, there has been evidence ofsome progress on the special education front. Af-ter decades of steady increases in the number ofchildren identified with a disability, the popula-tion of students with disabilities peaked in 2004–2005, with 6.7 million youngsters, comprising13.8 percent of the nation’s student population.The following year marked the first time sincethe enactment of IDEA that special-education par-ticipation numbers declined—and they have con-tinued to do so, falling to 6.5 million students by2009–2010, or 13.1 percent of all students nation-wide. There are multiple possible causes for thisdecline. The most hopeful of these is the possibil-ity that improved reading instruction through theproliferation of Response to Intervention (RTI)Figure 14 | Decline in the Combined NAEP Economic Achievement Gap for States Making Average orBetter Progress Among Middle-/High Income Students, 2003-2011102468101 122 23 3657 7710910FloridaMassachusettsNewJerseyWisconsinGeorgiaArizonaAlabamaRhodeIslandTennesseeNationalpublicHawaiiOhioTexasVermontNewMexicoCalifornia
    • www.alec.org 31Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others Crawlmay have lessened the misidentification of chil-dren with reading problems as having a disabili-ty.xxxiiiFurther research is certainly warranted onthis subject.Figure 15 presents the disability gaps by sub-ject with NAEP data for both 2003 and 2011.We calculated these figures by subtracting thescores of children with disabilities from theFigure 15 | The National NAEP Disability Achievement Gap by Subject, 2003 and 2011354R 8R 4M 8M Combined2003201138 41 3822 2539 38137 139Figure 16 | Trends in the Combined NAEP Disability Achievement Gap, 2003-2011(Note: Negative Numbers Signify a Closing Gap)-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60VermontSouth CarolinaRhode IslandNorth CarolinaMississippiHawaiiArizonaMissouriVirginiaOregonCaliforniaDistrict of ColumbiaMichiganMaineColoradoAlaskaMontanaNebraskaIowaIllinoisWashingtonWest VirginiaKansasNevadaSouth DakotaNational publicNew YorkUtahIdahoLouisianaMinnesotaConnecticutIndianaWisconsinPennsylvaniaWyomingNew HampshireAlabamaArkansasOhioFlorida -36-30-21-20-11-11-11-10-9-8-7-7-2-2133566678911121314192428303035363841445859-5
    • 32 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWOscores for children without disabilities for eachmajor NAEP test.Not surprising, the scale of the disabilityachievement gap is considerably larger than eitherthe economic or the racial/ethnic gaps. Disturb-ing, however, is that the disability achievementgap has been growing, rather than shrinking, andit is the only gap to do so.Figure 16 calculates the achievement gap trendfor each jurisdiction between 2003 and 2011.Again, states with negative numbers exhibit nar-rowing gaps, while states with positive numbersexperienced a growing gap between disabled andnon-disabled students during this period. Thischart does not include the 11 states that failed tomeet NAEP inclusion standards for children withdisabilities: Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Mary-land, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.xxxivSome ofthese states failed to test a very large percentageof their special-needs students on NAEP (some-times testing only a minority of students) makingtheir scores for special-needs students unreliablein our judgment.Notice the wide amount of variability amongjurisdictions with regard to the disability gap. BothNorth Dakota and Florida made almost five timesthe amount of progress in closing the disability gapas the national average, while North Carolina sawits gap grow by almost the same amount.Florida has the smallest disability achieve-ment gap in the nation at 110 points, which, whileFigure 17 | The Combined NAEP Disability Achievement Gap, 20110 50 100 150 200 250FloridaNew HampshireLouisianaOhioIndianaConnecticutWyomingMississippiNebraskaNational publicVirginiaNew YorkMaineSouth DakotaIllinoisKansasNorth CarolinaMichiganMissouriPennsylvaniaNevadaMinnesotaWest VirginiaWisconsinMontanaOregonAlaskaUtahSouth CarolinaIdahoWashingtonCaliforniaArkansasRhode IslandColoradoArizonaIowaVermontAlabamaDistrict of ColumbiaHawaii 212182177172172169167165164162160156154154153150147147146145145144144143141140140140139138136135135134133130127110167169146
    • www.alec.org 33Closing Achievement Gaps: Some States Jog while Others Crawlhuge, is still only slightly larger than half the sizeof Hawaii’s yawning gap. As Figure 18 shows,Florida also leads the way among states makingadmirable progress on the disability gap.Since 2001, all Florida children with disabil-ities have been eligible under Florida’s McKayScholarships for Students with Disabilities Pro-gram to transfer to a public or private school oftheir choice. While it is certain that other policychanges also helped increase academic achieve-ment among children with disabilities, we dohave evidence that the McKay Scholarship pro-gram has helped increase scores in Florida publicschools that are now facing higher levels of com-petition while directly aiding 25,000 students en-rolled in the program.xxxvIt could be that the McKay Scholarship pro-gram was largely incidental to Florida havingthe smallest disability gap and making the mostprogress—it’s just not very likely. The guaranteedright to a public education works better when youalso have the right to opt out of a different schoolsetting if needed.CONCLUSION: GLACIAL AND UNEVENPROGRESS ON ACHIEVEMENT GAPSThe average American school, district, and statedid precious little to narrow race- or income-based achievement gaps between 2003 and 2011.A disturbingly large swath of schools, districts,and states, in fact, did precisely the opposite. Giv-en the emphasis on testing and accountabilityushered in by the No Child Left Behind Act, onlythe scale of the disappointment can be in ques-tion; there can be no doubt that these results fallfar short of the hopes of the bipartisan group thatushered in that law.The genius of our founders, however, is stillat work: We have some states accomplishing farmore than others in lowering academic achieve-ment gaps. We move now to an analysis of gainsin order to get a firm grasp on the scale of successand failure in various jurisdictions.The incomplete information presented in thischapter does support one early conclusion: What-ever it is we are doing as a nation to improve theeducation to date, it has not been enough.Figure 18 | States Closing the Disability Achievement Gap without Below-Average Performance amongNon-Disabled Students, 2003-201130010203040Florida Arkansas Alabama Pennsylvania Louisiana3621 20711
    • 34 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER TWO
    • 3CHAPTEREducation Policy Gradesand Academic Performance
    • 36 Report Card on American EducationBeginning with the 16th edition of ALEC’sReport Card on American Education, wecreated a new system to grade the ed-ucation reform policies of each of the 50 statesand the District of Columbia. These grades arebased on whether states have enacted policiesto reform their education systems through qual-ity testing and accountability mechanisms, im-proving teacher quality, and expanding parents’ability to choose the best learning environmentfor their children, including traditional publicschools, public charter schools, private schoolchoice, homeschooling, and digital learning op-tions. We derived these grades based on mea-sures and grading systems from education orga-nizations or experts that analyzed various aspectsof education reform.Our overall goal in grading states on their ed-ucation policies is to best reflect how each stateis striving to provide high-quality education op-tions to every student.With that goal in mind, our grading method-ology must be changed to stay relevant, addressthe changing environments across the states, andincorporate new policies in the reformer’s tool-box. As such, we have adjusted our grading meth-odology to account for new policies that havebeen enacted as well as new sources that providea more comprehensive look at each state’s educa-tion system.We calculated states’ education policy gradesin the following manner. First, we converted allrankings into letter grades where possible. Forexample, we converted homeschooling regulationburden levels as such: none = A, low = B, moder-ate = C and high = D. Next, we converted all lettergrades to a numerical score based on a GPA scale(A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0). Those scores were tal-lied and divided by the number of categories inwhich a score was present. In some categories,grades were awarded with pluses and minuses,and numerical conversions were altered appropri-ately. A grade of B-, for example, was converted toa numeric score of 2.667, while a C+ was convert-ed to 2.333.)Policy CategoriesBased on the original education policy rankingsthat have been used in recent Report Cards, thesepolicy grades were based on the updated analysisand rankings of education reform groups for sixreform categories.Academic Standards: Using the ThomasB. Fordham Institute’s grades of academic stan-dards, we looked at each state’s academic stan-dards. This category has been altered from lastEducation Policy Grades andAcademic PerformanceTable 2 | Letter Grade KeyGrade Low Score High ScoreA 3.834 4.166A- 3.5 3.833B+ 3.167 3.499B 2.834 3.166B- 2.5 2.833C+ 2.167 2.499C 1.834 2.166C- 1.5 1.833D+ 1.167 1.499D 0.834 1.166D- 0.5 0.833F 0.00 0.499
    • www.alec.org 37Education Policy Grades and Academic Performanceyear’s Report Card and provides a more up-to-dateview of standards being taught in two categories:mathematics and English language arts.Charter School Law: The charter schoolrankings analyze whether a state has a charterschool law and, if so, how strong the law is in sup-porting the success of charter schools. The Centerfor Education Reform provides this informationin their annual charter school law grades. Charterschools are innovative public schools that agree tomeet performance standards set by governing au-thorities, but are otherwise free from most regu-lations governing traditional public schools. Thisautonomy allows for new teaching methods, spe-cial curricula and academic programs, and flex-ible governance policies, such as holding longerschool days.xxxviHomeschooling Regulation Burden Level:The homeschooling regulation burden level in-dicates the regulatory requirements parents facewhen homeschooling their children. The HomeSchool Legal Defense Association rates the states’oversight of homeschooling in four categories(none, low, moderate, and high). More than 2 mil-lion students are home schooled each year, withan annual growth rate of approximately 5 per-cent.xxxvii xxxviiiPrivate School Choice: A growing body ofempirical evidence suggests that private schoolpolicies that allow families to choose the bestschool for their children yield positive outcomes,including improved family satisfaction, high-er academic achievement, and improved gradua-tion rates. For this reason, each state is evaluat-ed based on whether it has a private school choiceprogram (such as vouchers or scholarships, tu-ition or scholarship tax credits, or education sav-ings accounts). In addition, states could earn ex-tra credit if they have multiple school choiceprograms. This analysis was based on our ownreview of state’s school choice policies and analy-sis from organization such as the Friedman Foun-dation for Educational Choice and the Alliance forSchool Choice.xxxixTeacher Quality Policies: Grades for wheth-er states are identifying high quality teachers, re-taining effective teachers, and removing inef-fective teachers are obtained from the NationalCouncil on Teacher Quality’s 2011 State TeacherPolicy Yearbook. Academic research shows thatthe greatest determining factor regarding a stu-dent’s academic success within school walls isteacher effectiveness.xlDigital Learning: As education reform con-tinues to march forward across the country, weare seeing the conversation shift to how we canbest customize learning to suit each student’sunique needs, and we expect this conversation toquickly become the main focal point of educationreform. States were graded on two aspects of dig-ital learning.xliThe first policy looks at if the state has multi-district fully online schools. We used resultsfrom “Keeping Pace with K–12 Online Learning:An Annual Review of Policy and Practice” to de-termine which states have these schools, whichserve as the main education providers for theirstudents, who do not need to go to a physicalschool to access any aspect of their education, al-though they may do so. These schools often drawstudents from across an entire state.The second policy for digital learning we ex-amine measures each state’s progress towardachieving the 10 Elements of High Quality Digi-tal Learning. Using the 2011 Digital Learning Re-port Card from Digital Learning Now!, we look atthe accomplishments of each state, as measuredby 72 metrics comprising the 10 Elements. Wethen convert this to a percentage and a subse-quent grade.Overall Policy GradeEach of the policy categories were analyzed in-dividually. For example, Teacher Quality Policieshas four components that determine its catego-ry grade, and Digital Learning has two compo-nents. These two categories were then given equalweighting. We then averaged together all categorygrades to calculate the overall state policy grade.Additional information included in the stateprofiles, such as per-pupil spending, are purelyfor informational purposes and are not includingin the grading or ranking of the states.Is the Investment in State Per-Student PublicEducation Spending Paying Off?Each state’s education reform page also includes asnapshot of the state’s current average per-studentexpenditure for every child enrolled in public
    • 38 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER THREEschool. This figure is drawn from the U.S. CensusBureau’s report.xliiTo provide some context for how well taxpay-ers’ investments in public education are payingoff in terms of students’ academic achievement,each state’s reform page presents an analysis ofhow much each state has spent, on average, by thetime a child reaches fourth grade, along with thepercentage of students scoring “Proficient” on theNAEP reading examination. For example, in thestate of Illinois, taxpayers spend $11,874 per stu-dent, or approximately $47,000 between first andfourth grade. Yet according to the 2011 NAEP,only 32 percent of the state’s fourth graders scored“Proficient” (or are reading on grade level). Thereare about 104,000 fourth graders in the Land ofLincoln who are unable to read despite havingnearly $50,000 spent on their educations.Ranking States on the Performance of Gener-al-Education Low-Income StudentsWe continue to focus on disadvantaged studentswhen ranking each state’s performance. High-in-come children score better, on average, than chil-dren from low-income families. Low-income stu-dents can learn, mind you, but higher-incomechildren tend to learn much more at home, andgenerally enter school with an advantage overtheir peers.When ranking states’ academic performance,we ought not to simply congratulate states withschools that have the good fortune of relative-ly wealthy student bodies. Nor should we casti-gate states for the poverty levels of their students.Instead, our rankings seek to make as much ofan “apples to apples” comparison as possible bygrading states based on similar students.States also vary in the number of childrenidentified for special education services and in thepercentage of students who are not native Eng-lish speakers. In New Mexico, schools have des-ignated more than 18 percent of their students asEnglish Language Learners (ELL) while in WestVirginia less than 1 percent of students are ELL.The fact that New Mexico has a rate of non-nativeEnglish speakers more than 18 times higher thanWest Virginia’s makes a straightforward compari-son of states’ academic performance problematic.In order to maximize comparability, our rank-ing system judges each state based on the NAEPperformance of children eligible for free or re-duced-priced lunches (FRL) based on their familyincome that are not enrolled in either special edu-cation or English Language Learner programs. Bytracking the absolute performance and progress(or lack thereof) of general education programstudents of families with low incomes, we hope tominimize the vast differences between state K–12populations to a relatively common metric.While every state has sizable populations oflow-income students, not all states have a largeenough sample for black, Hispanic, or, in the caseof Washington, D.C., white students.For example, the 2011 NAEP fourth-gradereading exam did not report black-student sub-groups’ scores for Idaho, Maine, Montana, NewHampshire, Utah or Wyoming. The NAEP sim-ply cannot give a solid estimate of black student’sscores in these states because there are too few ofthem in the population, and thus in the sample.Similarly, NAEP gave no Hispanic subgroup re-sults for Maine, Vermont, or West Virginia on thesame exam. At the beginning of our comparison(2003) even more states lacked black and Hispan-ic subgroups.The NAEP does however have reliable scoresfor low-income children in all 50 states and theDistrict of Columbia. In addition to the fact thatlow-income children are ubiquitous, there is alsoless economic variation between such studentsfrom state to state.High-income states, of course, will haveschool systems relatively flush with students farabove the FRL income limits. Both the familyheaded by a modestly successful manual labor-er and that headed by a billionaire will be includ-ed in the “Not Eligible for Free or Reduced-PriceLunch” category. The wider variation, therefore,limits the utility of the non-FRL category for pur-poses of ranking the quality of state education ef-forts. Lower-income children are on average moreacademically reliant on their schools. Higher-in-come children, on the other hand, have greaterprospects to overcome deficits in their educationthrough learning at home or private tutoring.This is not to say that the education of mid-dle-and higher-income children, special educa-tion children, and non-native English speakers isunimportant. Let us be clear: All children mat-ter. For the purposes of this study, we can most
    • www.alec.org 39Education Policy Grades and Academic Performancereadily compare low-income children outsidespecial programs across jurisdictions, and thatsuch children are more reflective of the relativesuccess and/or failure of public policy. We makeno claim that these comparisons are perfect. Infact, we are confident that no perfect comparisonsexist. Rather we merely claim that the compar-isons made here are much more equitable thana simple comparison of state scores. While therewill be variation among mainstream low-incomestudents, the variation will be dramatically low-er than the usual presentation of statewide aver-age scores.Taxpayers in every state provide funds for ageneral diffusion of knowledge and skills, andstates should accomplish this task regardless ofthe ethnicity of the students. Successful inner-cityeducators refuse to use race as an excuse for poorperformance. We will do the same in ranking theperformance of state school systems.Our grade of state academic performanceequally weights the four main NAEP exams(fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathemat-ics) for the entire period all 50 states participated(2003 to 2011). We examine the performance oflow-income children in the general education pro-gram, and weight equally the overall performanceand the gains over time. The District of Columbiafalls in the middle of our rankings, for example,because the District had the largest gains but thelowest overall scores (despite the recent gains).A few caveats regarding NAEP tests applyhere: NAEP is given to random samples of stu-dents with measurable ranges of sampling error(similar to an opinion poll). However, any sam-pling error should be random in nature, thus of-ten canceling itself out (if one test is randomly abit on the high end, it can be mitigated by anothertest being on the low end, and vice-versa).The reader should overall take greater noteof whether their state falls on the high, middleor low end of the rankings, rather than to fixateon an exact numerical ranking. Small changes intest scores can make large differences in rankings,but will not move you to the penthouse from thecellar.Student demographics clearly play a muchstronger role in our rankings than spending perpupil. All of the top ten states have majoritywhite-student populations, most by a wide mar-gin. The average low-income general educationstudent benefit from the favorable end of racialachievement gaps in these states.
    • 40 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER THREE
    • www.alec.org 41STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)34Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010:40Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States ALoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: D+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms0255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%37%14%43%42%14%50%35%9%36%55%45%0%25%50%75%100% 3% 1% 1% 0%200214214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011248254 217226254262243281323214249282262299333D+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72The Cotton StateAlabama4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher64.5% 15.77 $9,721(Rank: 45)$41,924 58,593 28%(Rank: 37)$83,848 57,809 24%(Rank: 42)
    • 42 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)32Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 11Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States AKoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms0255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%12%26%15%40%44%20%43%35%19%38%40%61%0%25%50%75%100% 1% 1% 2% 3%243281323214249282262299333207 213214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011252259 229235273283C-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts FMathematics DCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers FExpanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C+Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 37/72The Last FrontierAlaska4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher70.2% 16.29 $16,990(Rank: 7)$69,196 9,756 27%(Rank: 42)$138,392 9,673 27%(Rank: 36)
    • www.alec.org 43STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 45Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201136n States AZoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333204213214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011252 255 2252342662730255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%14%31%16%44%39%21%47%31%17%38%43%54%0%25%50%75%100% 2% 1% 2% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade AHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program A“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool C-Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers C-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 47/72B+The Grand Canyon StateArizona4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher63.0% 20.75 $9,059(Rank: 47)$38,564 83,793 25%(Rank: 45)$77,128 81,576 27%(Rank: 36)
    • 44 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)n States ARoutperformed45Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 44Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333210 215214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011256 257 2262342662750255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%33%17%42%40%24%47%27%16%42%40%47%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 2%CState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool BIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers C-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 27/72The Natural StateArkansas4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher72.0% 12.9 $10,633(Rank: 37)$39,864 36,345 29%(Rank: 35)$79,728 35,387 27%(Rank: 36)
    • www.alec.org 45STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)n States CAoutperformed30Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 30Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333201212214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011252 256 2242342622720255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%11%30%13%41%45%17%45%37%12%35%51%58%0%25%50%75%100%1% 1% 1% 2%C+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C+Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 14/72The Golden StateCalifornia4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher68.1% 19.8 $10,581(Rank: 40)$45,832 463,904 24%(Rank: 46)$91,664 486,390 22%(Rank: 44)
    • 46 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 17Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States COoutperformed4Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333216222214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011257264 2272412692830255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%33%19%45%34%25%46%27%19%40%37%48%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 3% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers B-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 33/72C+The Centennial StateColorado4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher74.4% 16.97 $10,586(Rank: 39)$44,244 61,058 40%(Rank: 5)$88,488 58,733 32%(Rank: 26)
    • www.alec.org 47STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)n States CToutperformed39Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 29Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333211 216214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011252263223230267 2710255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%34%21%46%32%18%45%37%12%39%47%49%0%25%50%75%100%2% 2% 1% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-Expanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers FExiting Ineffective Teachers C-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 16/72C-The Constitution StateConnecticut4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher71.3% 12.94 $17,573(Rank: 5)$66,120 41,792 42%(Rank: 2)$132,240 43,027 43%(Rank: 1)
    • 48 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)CEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms22Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 19Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States DEoutperformed243281323214249282262299333214 219214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011256 262 2282362672770255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%19%38%20%47%32%23%52%24%16%44%39%41%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool C+Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 20/72The First StateDelaware4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher67.4% 14.68 $14,415(Rank: 12)$57,924 9,521 35%(Rank: 17)$115,848 9,908 31%(Rank: 30)
    • www.alec.org 49STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)n States DCoutperformed24Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 26Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011243281323214249282262299333186199214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 20112362442032182412600255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%9%25%10%34%55%11%39%49%9%30%59%66%0%25%50%75%100%1% 1% 1% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade AHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program D“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers D-Exiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved X/72B-The Federal CityDistrict of Columbia4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher— 11.86 $27,263(Rank: 1)$80,264 4,595 17%(Rank: 51)$160,528 4,540 14%(Rank: 51)
    • 50 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 3Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201112n States FLoutperformed243281323214249282262299333213223214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011254 260 2282372652730255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%21%38%19%44%35%24%52%22%14%41%43%38%0%25%50%75%100%4% 1% 2% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeBDelivering Well Prepared Teachers B-Expanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers C-Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers COnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 41/72BThe Sunshine StateFlorida4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher61.1% 14.33 $9,981(Rank: 44)$46,504 198,129 36%(Rank: 11)$93,008 200,736 32%(Rank: 26)
    • www.alec.org 51STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 27Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201127n States GAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333204213214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011249256 2222312572710255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%33%15%49%35%19%49%30%14%42%42%47%0%25%50%75%100%3% 0% 1% 2%B-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers COnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 32/72The Peach StateGeorgia4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher59.3% 14.39 $10,740(Rank: 35)$45,992 127,285 29%(Rank: 35)$91,984 123,857 27%(Rank: 36)
    • 52 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 15Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201113n States HIoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C +Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333206212214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011251257 2222382632790255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%13%30%16%40%43%23%45%29%18%36%43%55%0%25%50%75%100% 2% 1% 3% 3%C-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 27/72The Aloha StateHawaii4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher67.0% 15.71 $14,234(Rank: 13)$51,508 13,739 26%(Rank: 43)$103,016 12,665 22%(Rank: 44)
    • www.alec.org 53STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 22Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201129n States IDoutperformed243281323214249282262299333217 220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011263 265 233 237 277 2820255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%37%21%50%27%24%48%25%20%45%32%43%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 3% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 46/72B-The Gem StateIdaho4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher77.9% 18.18 $8,163(Rank: 50)$34,100 21,450 32%(Rank: 28)$68,200 20,623 33%(Rank: 19)
    • 54 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 38Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms28n States ILoutperformed243281323214249282262299333206213214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 20112542612212302642760255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%14%32%18%47%34%18%47%33%15%44%39%52%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers BOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 23/72CThe Prairie StateIllinois4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher72.4% 15.19 $13,124(Rank: 19)$47,496 152,951 32%(Rank: 28)$94,992 159,272 33%(Rank: 19)
    • www.alec.org 55STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms17Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 13Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States INoutperformed243281323214249282262299333210219214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011256 261 228238273 2780255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%35%19%49%32%28%49%20%17%46%34%45%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 3%4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher70.4% 16.81 $13,374(Rank: 17)$40,160 78,842 32%(Rank: 28)$80,320 80,874 31%(Rank: 30)State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade AHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C+Expanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 41/72B+The Hoosier StateIndiana
    • 56 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C -Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 31Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201131n States IAoutperformed243281323214249282262299333215 218214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011261 264 234240276 2790255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%35%20%45%35%26%49%23%16%46%37%47%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 2%CState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade FHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 24/72The Hawkeye StateIowa4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher82.6% 13.72 $11,264(Rank: 31)$44,504 35,031 34%(Rank: 23)$89,008 35,324 32%(Rank: 26)
    • www.alec.org 57STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 7Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20118n States KSoutperformed243281323214249282262299333212222214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011260 2632342432772840255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%19%35%21%46%32%30%52%15%21%43%32%42%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 3% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade FHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 28/72C-The Sunflower StateKansas4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher77.5% 13.67 $11,566(Rank: 26)$44,036 34,965 35%(Rank: 17)$88,072 34,366 33%(Rank: 19)
    • 58 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 37Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201137n States KYoutperformed243281323214249282262299333212 217214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011260 262 2242352672740255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%38%24%46%29%24%52%23%16%43%39%39%0%25%50%75%100%3% 2% 2% 2%D+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72The Bluegrass StateKentucky4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher71.7% 16.2 $10,238(Rank: 42)$40,304 49,875 36%(Rank: 11)$80,608 49,668 33%(Rank: 19)
    • www.alec.org 59STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)49Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 47Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States LAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333202210214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011249 252 224 2282612700255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%13%32%14%43%43%16%49%34%13%40%46%54%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program A“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers C-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 40/72BThe Pelican StateLouisiana4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher67.1% 13.92 $12,111(Rank: 23)$45,316 57,165 18%(Rank: 50)$90,632 51,910 20%(Rank: 49)
    • 60 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 14Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 2011n States MEoutperformed14Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333219 220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011264 267 2332432742860255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%37%23%45%30%28%47%21%21%43%32%43%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 3% 4%C-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72The Pine Tree StateMaine4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher87.6% 11.59 $14,144(Rank: 15)$50,784 13,860 35%(Rank: 17)$101,568 14,886 35%(Rank: 13)
    • www.alec.org 61STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 20Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201120n States MDoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333202217214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011249 255 2182352612700255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%34%17%45%37%23%50%24%15%38%45%42%0%25%50%75%100%4% 1% 3% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool C+Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 24/72D+The Old Line StateMaryland4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher73.1% 14.51 $15,705(Rank: 9)$60,128 59,512 37%(Rank: 8)$120,256 63,639 36%(Rank: 11)
    • 62 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 2Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20111n States MAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333217226214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011260267 2312472702900255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%22%40%23%46%30%32%48%17%24%43%28%34%0%25%50%75%100%4% 1% 4% 5%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers C+Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 28/72CThe Bay StateMassachusetts4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.8% 13.69 $16,664(Rank: 8)$56,960 70,666 47%(Rank: 1)$113,920 73,170 43%(Rank: 1)
    • www.alec.org 63STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 49Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201146n States MIoutperformed243281323214249282262299333204211214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011251258 2212272632700255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%32%18%46%35%17%47%35%15%39%45%51%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade AHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 37/72B-The Great Lakes StateMichigan4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher71.1% 17.79 $12,081(Rank: 24)$45,780 117,432 30%(Rank: 34)$91,560 123,823 31%(Rank: 30)
    • 64 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B +Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 23Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201118n States MNoutperformed243281323214249282262299333217 218214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011257265 232243281 2850255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%33%21%45%32%30%45%22%22%42%32%49%0%25%50%75%100% 3% 1% 3% 4%C+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics BCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade AHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 47/72The North Star StateMinnesota4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher86.2% 15.84 $12,757(Rank: 21)$47,772 59,822 37%(Rank: 8)$95,544 62,080 38%(Rank: 7)
    • www.alec.org 65STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 46Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201148n States MSoutperformed243281323214249282262299333197206214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011248 249 2172252522620255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%13%31%12%43%44%16%49%35%11%36%52%54%0%25%50%75%100% 2% 0% 1% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade FHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers COnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72C-The Magnolia StateMississippi4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher59.5% 14.88 $9,061(Rank: 46)$34,348 38,159 22%(Rank: 48)$68,696 37,889 19%(Rank: 50)
    • 66 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: A-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 34Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201147n States MOoutperformed243281323214249282262299333211 214214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011258 262 227234269 2740255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%32%20%46%33%25%46%27%16%41%41%48%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 2%CState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 39/72The Show-Me StateMissouri4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.2% 13.54 $10,596(Rank: 38)$44,280 67,620 36%(Rank: 11)$88,560 68,030 34%(Rank: 15)
    • www.alec.org 67STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 9Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201116n States MToutperformed243281323214249282262299333215 220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011265 269 233239 2812890255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%39%28%47%24%30%47%22%26%41%28%39%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 5%DState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeFDelivering Well Prepared Teachers FExpanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 18/72The Treasure StateMontana4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.9% 13.48 $11,359(Rank: 29)$43,764 10,558 35%(Rank: 17)$87,528 10,890 38%(Rank: 7)
    • 68 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: D+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 33Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201142n States NEoutperformed243281323214249282262299333215 219214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011260 263 228234271 2750255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%33%20%47%32%20%48%30%14%44%40%46%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts FMathematics CCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 16/72DThe Cornhusker StateNebraska4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.2% 13.27 $12,353(Rank: 22)$49,148 20,939 35%(Rank: 17)$98,296 20,958 35%(Rank: 13)
    • www.alec.org 69STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 18Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201115n States NVoutperformed243281323214249282262299333201214214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011249257 2232352622750255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%14%30%16%42%41%23%47%29%16%38%44%54%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 2%C+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 32/72The Silver StateNevada4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher50.5% 19.41 $10,054(Rank: 43)$41,508 34,099 24%(Rank: 46)$83,016 34,394 22%(Rank: 44)
    • 70 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 4Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20119n States NHoutperformed243281323214249282262299333218225214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011264 265 2362472782860255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%22%37%22%45%32%35%46%15%23%39%34%38%0%25%50%75%100%4% 1% 4% 4%CState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers D-Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 26/72The Granite StateNew Hampshire4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher80.8% 12.73 $14,221(Rank: 14)$52,028 14,613 41%(Rank: 3)$104,056 15,783 39%(Rank: 6)
    • www.alec.org 71STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 10Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20113n States NJoutperformed243281323214249282262299333207220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011256 261 2262392652840255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%38%19%47%33%25%51%22%20%42%34%39%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers D+Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 24/72CThe Garden StateNew Jersey4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher86.4% 12.11 $18,827(Rank: 4)$75,884 99,242 40%(Rank: 5)$151,768 100,894 42%(Rank: 3)
    • 72 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 48Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201135n States NMoutperformed243281323214249282262299333207 210214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011251257 2252342632750255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%12%31%15%45%39%19%48%31%14%41%44%56%0%25%50%75%100%2% 0% 2% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers C-Retaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers B-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 27/72CThe Land of EnchantmentNew Mexico4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher59.7% 14.72 $10,978(Rank: 33)$43,192 25,119 20%(Rank: 49)$86,384 24,366 22%(Rank: 44)
    • www.alec.org 73STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 5Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201110n States NYoutperformed243281323214249282262299333212222214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011258 264 2292372712780255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%19%34%22%42%34%22%46%29%14%40%43%43%0%25%50%75%100%4% 2% 3% 3%C-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeCDelivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 16/72The Empire StateNew York4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher70.1% 12.88 $20,480(Rank: 2)$72,292 190,067 36%(Rank: 11)$144,584 201,895 33%(Rank: 19)
    • 74 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 41Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20117n States NCoutperformed243281323214249282262299333210218214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 20112512592312392692800255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%35%18%45%37%27%54%18%19%43%36%46%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool D+Identifying Effective Teachers C-Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 22/72CThe Old North StateNorth Carolina4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher66.1% 14.12 $11,507(Rank: 27)$36,180 114,909 32%(Rank: 28)$72,360 111,050 29%(Rank: 33)
    • www.alec.org 75STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: D+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 24Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201133n States NDoutperformed243281323214249282262299333217 220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011266 261235 239 284 2830255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%39%18%51%30%27%51%19%23%44%29%38%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 4%DState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 17/72The Peace Garden StateNorth Dakota 4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher85.2% 11.36 $13,273(Rank: 18)$41,512 6,812 35%(Rank: 17)$83,024 7,364 34%(Rank: 15)
    • 76 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 35Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201121n States OHoutperformed243281323214249282262299333211 216214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011255 260 2262382692790255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%38%20%46%33%27%48%23%20%43%35%43%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 3% 2%BState Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers C-Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 37/72The Buckeye StateOhio4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher72.2% 15.84 $13,531(Rank: 16)$47,928 132,680 36%(Rank: 11)$95,856 137,479 37%(Rank: 9)
    • www.alec.org 77STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 43Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201143n States OKoutperformed243281323214249282262299333212 217214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011259 261 227235268 2740255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%36%19%45%34%23%53%23%15%46%37%45%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeB-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 31/72B+The Sooner StateOklahoma4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher74.3% 15.37 $8,840(Rank: 48)$33,488 47,245 28%(Rank: 37)$66,976 45,149 26%(Rank: 41)
    • 78 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 32Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201140n States ORoutperformed243281323214249282262299333214 219214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011262 262234 236 275 2790255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%31%19%45%35%20%45%33%18%41%38%50%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 2% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D-Expanding the Teaching Pool FIdentifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers D+Exiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 34/72CThe Beaver StateOregon4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher73.5% 20.26 $11,016(Rank: 32)$44,624 43,272 31%(Rank: 32)$89,248 43,339 33%(Rank: 19)
    • www.alec.org 79STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 6Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20115n States PAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333205220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011255 259 2242372642760255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%33%19%43%37%23%48%26%17%38%43%43%0%25%50%75%100%4% 1% 3% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers CExpanding the Teaching Pool C-Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 41/72B-The Keystone StatePennsylvania4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher79.1% 13.64 $15,612(Rank: 10)$54,848 130,592 37%(Rank: 8)$109,696 139,173 40%(Rank: 5)
    • 80 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 25Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20116n States RIoutperformed243281323214249282262299333211220214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011254260 2262382632770255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%35%17%44%38%24%48%26%15%42%42%45%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 2%D+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeB-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72The Ocean StateRhode Island4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher70.7% 12.77 $15,553(Rank: 11)$59,588 9,752 36%(Rank: 11)$119,176 11,422 28%(Rank: 34)
    • www.alec.org 81STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 51Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201150n States SCoutperformed243281323214249282262299333206 210214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011250 253228 2312662720255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%14%32%15%45%39%20%49%30%15%40%43%52%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-Expanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers CRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers C+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 29/72CThe Palmetto StateSouth Carolina4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher58.8% 15.39 $10,820(Rank: 34)$44,512 53,996 28%(Rank: 37)$89,024 53,446 24%(Rank: 42)
    • 82 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C -Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 39Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201138n States SDoutperformed243281323214249282262299333217 216214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011269 264 233 236 280 2830255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%17%35%21%49%29%23%50%25%22%45%30%46%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool C-Identifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 27/72D+The Mount Rushmore StateSouth Dakota4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.8% 13.27 $10,437(Rank: 41)$38,736 9,234 33%(Rank: 24)$77,472 9,446 37%(Rank: 9)
    • www.alec.org 83STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 36Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201144n States TNoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333203209214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011249 253 2192282562660255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%14%33%16%43%40%18%47%34%11%38%49%52%0%25%50%75%100%1% 1% 1% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeB-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers B-Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers CRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 25/72CThe Volunteer StateTennessee4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher74.2% 14.88 $8,618(Rank: 49)$34,984 75,091 28%(Rank: 37)$69,968 72,255 28%(Rank: 34)
    • 84 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 8Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201111n States TXoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333211 215214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011252 2582332392712860255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%36%15%50%34%26%53%20%24%47%26%47%0%25%50%75%100%2% 0% 2% 3%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts A-Mathematics CCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)APrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C+Expanding the Teaching Pool B-Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers C-Exiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 40/72C+The Lone Star StateTexas4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher66.9% 14.56 $10,656(Rank: 36)$42,384 355,578 28%(Rank: 37)$84,768 343,548 27%(Rank: 36)
    • www.alec.org 85STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: BContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 42Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201141n States UToutperformed243281323214249282262299333218 218214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011260 261233239275 2770255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%18%33%20%46%34%25%46%26%16%38%42%47%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 3% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade BHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 49/72B-The Beehive StateUtah4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher78.6% 22.31 $7,743(Rank: 51)$31,024 44,546 31%(Rank: 32)$62,048 40,261 33%(Rank: 19)
    • 86 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 1Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 20112n States VToutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: D+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333217224214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011259271 2332452752880255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%21%36%26%42%30%32%47%18%23%43%30%40%0%25%50%75%100%4% 2% 4% 3%D+State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)DPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program B“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers FRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers FOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 20/72The Green Mountain StateVermont4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher86.6% 10.47 $17,333(Rank: 6)$61,860 6,471 41%(Rank: 3)$123,720 7,004 41%(Rank: 4)
    • www.alec.org 87STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 12Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201126n States VAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333207216214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011255 257 2272352652770255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%15%35%15%46%38%22%53%23%16%42%39%48%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 2%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics CCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade FHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program D“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 44/72C-The Old DominionVirginia4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher71.3% 17.58 $11,805(Rank: 25)$48,120 91,133 38%(Rank: 7)$96,240 92,881 32%(Rank: 26)
    • 88 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 16Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201125n States WAoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: CContains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333216 218214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011259 263 2322392742830255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%32%20%44%34%25%46%27%21%38%38%50%0%25%50%75%100%2% 2% 2% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics CCharter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeC-Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D+Expanding the Teaching Pool C-Identifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers D+Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 46/72C-The Evergreen StateWashington4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher68.7% 19.37 $11,432(Rank: 28)$44,800 77,999 33%(Rank: 24)$89,600 78,902 36%(Rank: 11)
    • www.alec.org 89STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 50Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201151n States WVoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: D+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333215 212214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011257 255229 231268 2700255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%32%15%42%42%19%49%30%12%41%47%50%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 1% 1%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed NoCharter School Law Grade —Home School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)CPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeD+Delivering Well Prepared Teachers C-Expanding the Teaching Pool CIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers COnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School NoDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 21/72D+The Mountain StateWest Virginia4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher71.6% 13.93 $11,269(Rank: 30)$41,364 20,162 26%(Rank: 43)$82,728 21,268 22%(Rank: 44)
    • 90 Report Card on American Education2012 STATE EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY INDEXSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Student NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 21Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201119n States WIoutperformedEducation Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: B-Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanisms243281323214249282262299333212 216214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011253259 2272382662780255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%16%33%16%45%38%24%48%25%17%40%40%49%0%25%50%75%100%2% 1% 2% 2%B-State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade CHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program C“A” Grade or Multiple Programs YesTeacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers DExpanding the Teaching Pool D-Identifying Effective Teachers D-Retaining Effective Teachers CExiting Ineffective Teachers DOnline LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 41/72America’s DairylandWisconsin4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher85.3% 14.93 $12,775(Rank: 20)$49,248 60,319 33%(Rank: 24)$98,496 62,317 34%(Rank: 15)
    • www.alec.org 91STATE SNAPSHOTSSpending Levels and Achievement: 4th- and 8th-Grade NAEP Reading Exams Results and CostsNAEP Scores for Low-Income Children (2003-2011)NAEP Score Distribution (2011)Education Policy GradeALEC Historical Grading 2011: C+Contains scores and grades for policies that allow the state’seducation system to make available high-quality educationthrough accountability, high standards, public- and private-school choice, high-quality teachers, and innovative deliverymechanismsStudent NAEP Performance RankALEC Historical Ranking 2010: 28Measures the overall 2011 scores for low-income students(non-ELL and non-IEP) and their gains/losses on the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics exams from 2003 to 201123n States WYoutperformed243281323214249282262299333221 222214238268BASICPROFICIENTADVANCED4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath2003 2011264 267238 242280 2860255075100At ProficientAt AdvancedAt BasicBelow Basic4th-GradeReading8th-GradeReading4th-GradeMath8th-GradeMath3%20%38%25%48%27%29%49%19%23%44%30%39%0%25%50%75%100%3% 1% 3% 4%State Academic StandardsEnglish and Language Arts B+Mathematics A-Charter SchoolsCharter Schools Allowed YesCharter School Law Grade DHome School Regulation Burden (A=None, B=Low, C=Moderate, D=High)BPrivate School Choice ProgramsPrivate School Choice Program —“A” Grade or Multiple Programs —Teacher Quality and Policies:Overall GradeDDelivering Well Prepared Teachers FExpanding the Teaching Pool DIdentifying Effective Teachers DRetaining Effective Teachers DExiting Ineffective Teachers D-Online LearningMulti-District Full-Time Online School YesDigital Learning Now! Metrics Achieved 49/72CThe Equality StateWyoming4th Grade 8th GradeGraduationRateAverageClass Size2009-2010DataAnnualCost PerStudentCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigherCumulativeInvestmentPer StudentStatewideEnrollmentPercent ofStudents Scoring“Proficient” orHigher73.2% 12.3 $19,510(Rank: 3)$69,912 6,608 33%(Rank: 24)$139,824 6,456 34%(Rank: 15)
    • 92 Report Card on American Education
    • The Global Achievement GapCHAPTER4
    • 94 Report Card on American EducationChapter 2 took a hard look at achieve-ment gaps among American student sub-groups, poor and non-poor, white, black,and so on for the states. In this chapter, we exam-ine a final achievement gap: the global-Americanachievement gap.Like progress on economic and ethnicachievement gaps, available evidence suggeststhat Americans are failing, overall, to close theglobal achievement gap. Similar to the patternseen with economic and racial achievement gaps,however, the data clearly demonstrate that somestates have made far more progress in closing theglobal achievement gap than others.Currently, America rests on the high end of thespending scale but on the low end of achievement.Figure 1 shows cumulative per-pupil spending forages 6 through 15 by mathematics performance onthe Program for International Student Assessment(PISA), administered by the Organization for Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Alarge number of countries, including the Czech Re-public, Hungary, Ireland, South Korea, Poland, andSlovakia achieve higher levels in mathematics thanthe United States, while spending less than half of thedollar amount the United States spends per pupil.Martin West of Brown University and LudgerWoessmann from the University of Munich sta-tistically studied variations in PISA math, science,and reading scores and also cost per pupil. Westand Woessmann noted that private school at-tendance rates vary widely among countries andfound rates for private school attendance as highas 75 percent in the Netherlands. Belgium, Ire-land, and South Korea had more than one-half ofstudents attending privately operated schools.The Global Achievement GapFigure 1 | Relationship Between Performance in Mathematics and Cumulative Expenditure onEducational Institutions Per Student Between the Ages of 6 and 15 Years, in U.S. Dollars, ConvertedUsing Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs)(Source: OECD)60055050045040035010,000 30,000 50,000 70,000 90,000Czech RepublicSlovak RepublicMexicoGreeceHungaryPolandKoreaPortugalSpainIreland GermanyFinlandNetherlandsJapanCanadaItalyAustraliaBelgiumFranceSwedenIcelandDenmarkSwitzerlandAustriaNorwayUnited States0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
    • www.alec.org 95The Global Achievement GapGreece, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Nor-way, Poland, Sweden, and Turkey have just be-low 5 percent of students attending privately runschools. Note that in Figure 1, Italy and Nor-way are the nations closest to the United Statesin the combined high-cost/low-achievementzone. Slightly more than 6 percent of American15-year-olds sampled by the PISA data used byWest and Woessmann attend private schools.They found a robust relationship betweenPISA reading, math, and science scores relat-ed to private school attendance after statisticallycontrolling for a variety of other factors. The au-thors also found a statistically significant relation-ship between the rate of private school attendanceand cost per pupil. Specifically, the authors foundthat a 10 percent increase in the number of stu-dents attending privately run schools is associat-ed with more than a 5 percent decrease in per-pu-pil costs.xliiiThe relatively low rate of students attend-ing privately run schools seems to help explainU.S. costs and academic problems, but it is hard-ly the only explanation. Poland, for instance, hasa similar percentage of students attending pub-lic schools, spends a fraction of what we do inAmerica, and scores better achievement results.One should infer from this that the United Statesshould seek improvement from any and all rea-sonable strategies. As we will see, the UnitedStates performs below the OECD average and hasbeen improving at only an average rate. Absent se-rious intervention, American students will sufferfrom a global achievement gap indefinitely.This chapter examines the global achieve-ment gap both in terms of spending and achieve-ment. We examine how the United States findsitself so high on the spending side compared toother countries, then we will examine both thenational rate of progress over time in the UnitedStates vis-à-vis other nations, and finally we ex-amine the rates of state progress over time in in-ternational context.AMERICAN K–12 COSTS GREW FARFASTER THAN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTFigure 1 shows that the United States spendslike wealthy Switzerland but scores worse thanmuch lower spending nations of the former So-viet bloc. American schooling costs, in fact, havebeen notably defying a trend for goods and servic-es to become less expensive and of higher quality.In short, in a world full of improved quality andefficiency, American K–12 scores stick out like asore thumb.American Enterprise Institute economistMark J. Perry recently took a page out of a 1964Sears catalog showing the image and price of atelevision set, which cost, at the time, $749. Thoseold enough to be around when those televisionswere in use will recall them as large wooden piec-es of furniture with about 12 channels and no re-mote control. Adjusting for inflation, Perry foundthe cost of that television to be the equivalent of$5,300 in 2010 dollars.He then posed the question as to what elec-tronics one could buy today for the equivalent ofthe 1964 television set. For starters, you couldbuy a far superior flat-screen television with apractically unlimited number of channels and aremote control for about $700 in 2010 and have$4,600 left over.Perry then found that you could use the re-maining $4,600 to buy 16 other electronic prod-ucts in addition to the vastly superior televisionset, including a washer, dryer, refrigerator, sepa-rate freezer, microwave oven, smart phone, glob-al positioning system, digital camera, and Blu-rayDisc player. Most of those products were unavail-able at any price in 1964, but today they are notonly available, they are getting less expensive tobuy.xlivThe phenomenon of products and services im-proving in quality and cost exists outside of elec-tronics, as shown in Figure 1. Citing Bureau ofEconomic Analysis figures, Perry notes that thepercentage of personal consumption expendi-tures going to buy food, cars, clothing, and house-hold furnishings had dropped to about 16 percentin 2010, from about 45 percent in 1950.xlvProgress, in terms of cost and quality, rep-resents a defining characteristic of modern life.American education, however, has failed to keeppace and, as we will demonstrate, has moved inprecisely the opposite direction on the cost sideof the ledger.Education is a labor-intensive activity—justas agriculture once was. Unlike agriculture,which has grown enormously more efficient inrecent decades, American educators have failed
    • 96 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER Fourto make the key transition seen in agricultureand other fields—a successful substitution oftechnology for labor. If the soil were still plowedby a mule, Americans would have less food andmuch higher food prices. The United States ex-penditures on food as a share of disposable in-come declined from about 24 percent in 1929 toa mere 9.4 percent in 2010.xlviInstead, Figure 3shows that the percentage of food expendituresas a share of disposable income has declined fordecades.We hasten to note that, while experiments areongoing with regards to school models that blendtechnology and labor, the search for highly pro-ductive models shows promise but remains in anearly stage.xlviiA correct understanding of the pastrequires recognition of the fact that the labor-in-tensive, basic model of schooling left itself vulner-able to a natural form of cost increase, which hasbeen greatly enhanced by politics.AMERICAN K–12 AND “BAUMOL’S” DISEASEAmerican education has suffered from whatscholars call “Baumol’s” cost disease. Paul Hilland Marguerite Roza, of the Center on Reinvent-ing Public Education at the University of Wash-ington, explained it in 2010:In fact, nearly all schools look much the sametoday as they did fifty years ago. Even af-ter waves of reform, including class-size re-ductions, new curricula, the introduction offorms of school choice, and the implementa-tion of standards and accountability mecha-nisms through No Child Left Behind (NCLB),the basic structure of education is unchanged.Despite huge advances in computing and com-munications in other sectors, the core technol-ogy of education has remained virtually intact:schools are dominated by a cadre of teach-ers who guide a group of same-aged childrenthrough curricula delivered in nine-monthsegments. Schools are highly labor intensiveand getting more so, due to pressures for classsize reduction and increasing use of specialistteachers. Yet, on average, schools are produc-ing at best only slightly better results than atearlier times; thus, given increased costs, theyare literally becoming less productive.Hill and Roza then explained what they see asthe cause for this decline in productivity:Is this inevitable? Some claim so, due to Bau-mol’s disease: the tendency of labor-inten-sive organizations to become more expensiveover time but not any more productive. In the1960s, economist William Baumol observedthat productivity (defined as the quantity ofproduct per dollar expended) in the labor-in-tensive services sector lags behind manufac-turing. Because labor-intensive services mustcompete with other parts of the economy forworkers, yet cannot cut staffing without reduc-ing output, costs rise constantly. This phenom-enon of rising costs without commensurate in-creases in output has been labeled Baumol’scost disease.Baumol’s prime exemplar was the string quar-tet, which produces the same music from thetime it is first assembled until the players allretire, yet experiences higher costs as the play-ers receive salary increases to keep up withthe wages earned by others. There are com-pelling indicators that K–12 education suffersfrom the same disease. The combination of ris-ing costs and stagnant productivity are majorproblems in an environment where many chil-dren are not learning the skills they need, andeducation is now not likely to receive sustainedincreases in public funding.xlviiiThe hiring of teachers and administratorscosts more on a per-employee basis, but this isonly part of the story. The major driver of costsFigure 2 | Pupils per Employee in thePublic School System(Source: Digest of Education Statistics)1950 200719.37.9
    • www.alec.org 97The Global Achievement Gapin the American public school system owes to avast increase in the number of public school em-ployees per pupil. Data on school staffing andstudent performance from the National Centeron Education Statistics illustrate the phenome-non in Figure 2.The most striking thing about the change instaffing ratios shown in Figure 3 has been the tru-ly mind-boggling increase in the number of non-teachers in the American public school system.In 1950, teachers outnumbered non-teachers bymore than 3-to-1. In 2007, non-teaching employ-ees had nearly closed the gap with teachers in thepublic school system, despite a vast increase inthe number of teachers.American schools have unremarkable teach-er-to-pupil ratios when compared to other OECDnations. Several OECD nations get better PISAscores with higher pupil-per-teacher ratios (mostnotably South Korea) but are near OECD averagesfor both primary and secondary education.This vast increase in spending and staffingmay have been worthwhile had it resulted invastly improved student learning in Americanschools. Sadly, this didn’t happen.During the period of 1973-2008, we saw onlyvery small academic gains for students. Figure 4is the National Assessment of Educational Prog-ress (NAEP) long-term Mathematics trend data.Notice that 17-year-olds—students at the cuspof graduation—show a two-point gain on a 500scale point test since 1973. This minuscule gaincomes despite a vast increase in spending andstaffing. The NAEP shows similarly small gainsfor 17-year-old students in reading.The data make it abundantly clear why Amer-ican schools spend on the high side in relationto other nations in Figure 1. We have vastlyFigure 3 | Teachers and Non-Teachers in theAmerican Public School System, 1950 and 2007(Source: Digest of Education Statistics)1950 20071,300,0313,178,142386,3603,047,493Teachers Non-Teachers1950 2007Figure 4 | Long-Term Trend NAEP Math Scores, 1973-20082002503003501973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008Age 17 Age 13 Age 9304300 298302305 307 307 307 308 305 306266 264269 269 270274 274 274 276 279 281219 219 219 222230 231 231 231 232239243
    • 98 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER Fourincreased the amount of spending and staffingper pupil—especially among non-teachers. Wesit on the low end in terms of achievement be-cause this vast increase in staffing did not resultin strong levels of academic growth for the nationas a whole.Financial statistics from the OECD, however,put America’s Baumol experience into perspec-tive: Teacher salary spending per student in theUnited States is remarkably close to the OECDaverage. America’s total cost per student, howev-er, is firmly on the far upper end of the OECDscale, behind only tiny Luxembourg. Although anumber of reasons doubtlessly contribute to thisexplanation, Figure 3 points straight to the ele-phant in the room: the vast increase in non-teach-ing staff in the American public school system.xlixWhy did this happen? The complete answer tothat lies outside the scope of this book, aside fromsaying it happened because it could. The publicschool system operates under multiple layers ofdemocratic control and influence, starting at thelocal district level, going up to the state, and ulti-mately the federal government. One can imagineconfronting officials from all three levels of gov-ernance simply to have them all point fingers atthe other two classes of officials and claim: “Theydid it!”U.S. public education, in short, is a high-spending and underachieving mess. For now,however, we must keep our focus on academicachievement, as the problem is not equally dis-tributed. American states vary widely in terms ofacademic achievement and academic gains. NoAmerican state reaches the very top ranks of glob-al achievement, but the achievement problem isfar worse in some states than in others, as we willexamine.STATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ININTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVEA team of academics from Harvard, Stanford, andthe University of Munich employed an equatingprocedure to allow comparisons between state ac-ademic achievement on the NAEP and nationalperformance on the PISA.Figure 5 shows that the United States as a na-tion scored 32nd overall in eighth-grade mathe-matics, but there was also a substantial amount ofvariation in achievement among American states.The information conveyed in Figure 5 is notuniformly bad news. Unfortunately, a close ex-amination of the mathematics achievement datashows that only the most demographically un-representative states (wealthy and predominantlywhite) achieve at respectable international levels.Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dako-ta, and Vermont all score about as well or betterthan most Western European countries. Giventhe wealth, spending, and nationally unrepresen-tative demographic profile of these states, howev-er, it would be alarming if they did not achieve atleast such status.Note, however, that West Virginia scores bare-ly above Turkey, while Mississippi shows a levelof proficiency similar to Uruguay. Thailand andMexico bookend District of Columbia scores—despite student spending at almost $30,000 perpupil in Washington, D.C.lMexico, on the oth-er hand, spends less than $2,500 per pupil toachieve a similar level in eighth-grade mathemat-ics. Mexico, moreover, would be happy to swappoverty problems with the District of Columbia.liAnd Mexico also has about twice as many stu-dents per teacher in primary education as theAmerican average.liiFigure 6 presents international readingachievement data, along with American statereading levels.Notice that the American states either aboveor near the U.S. average are among the most de-mographically advantaged: All have predomi-nantly white student bodies, with many relative-ly wealthy compared to the U.S. average. (This iseven more pronounced if compared to the OECDaverage for family incomes.) There is no room forcomplacency in these charts, even at the highend of achievement. Massachusetts, for instance,scores highest in both mathematics and readingachievement, which is great. Given that Massa-chusetts vastly outspends the countries that per-form better and has an average family of four in-come in the six-figures, leads one to ask: Shouldn’tMassachusetts beat a country like South Korea orFinland by a wide margin?The shameful failure of America to educateminority students anywhere close to an interna-tionally decent education level looms large in thepatterns displayed in figures 5 and 6. As we not-ed in Chapter 2, an equating study performed
    • www.alec.org 99The Global Achievement Gapby the U.S. Department of Education with PISAand NAEP data shows levels of academic achieve-ment for American black and Hispanic studentscomparable to the average in Mexico. School su-perintendents in Mexico would gladly exchangefunding levels and/or poverty problems with anyAmerican jurisdiction.STATE ACADEMIC GAINS ININTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVEWriting for the Harvard Program on Educa-tion Policy and Governance, researchers EricHanushek, from Stanford, Ludger Woess-mann, from the University of Munich, and Har-vard political scientist Paul Peterson publishedFigure 5 | State Mathematics Performance inInternational Perspective: PISA and NAEPEquated, Percent of Students ProficientFigure 6 | State Reading Performance inInternational Perspective: PISA and NAEPEquated, Percent of Students Proficient0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%AzerbaijanIndonesiaKyrgyzstanPeruTunisiaAlbaniaThailandJordanPanamaKazakhstanColombiaMontenegroMexicoRomaniaArgentinaQatarBrazilSerbiaUruguayChileTrinidad & TobagoD.C.BulgariaRussiaTurkeyNew MexicoMississippiLithuaniaLouisianaHawaiiCroatiaMacaoDubaiLatviaAlabamaCaliforniaNevadaSpainSlovakiaWest VirginiaCzech RepublicAustriaLuxembourgArizonaSouth CarolinaGreeceSloveniaPortugalArkansasTennseeeGeorgiaOklahomaIsraelDenmarkItalyAlaskaRhode IslandTaipeiTexasKentuckyNorth CarolinaFloridaMichiganEstoniaHungaryUnited KingdomIllinoisIrelandLiechtensteinUtahSwedenPolandDelawareMissouriIndianaUnited States AverageIcelandNorwayGermanyIdahoSwitzerlandNorth DakotaNew YorkFranceMarylandWyomingWisconsinVirginiaOregonWashingtonNetherlandsColoradoNebraskaKansasIowaOhioPennsylvaniaMinnesotaSouth DakotaMaineBelgiumConnecticutNew HampshireAustraliaMontanaNew JerseyCanadaJapanNew ZealandVermontSingaporeMassachusettsHong KongFinlandKoreaShanghai0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%KyrgyzstanIndonesiaTunisiaPanamaColombiaPeruJordanAlbaniaBrazilMontenegroAzerbaijanArgentinaKazakhstanQatarMexicoD.C.ThailandChileRomaniaTrinidad & TobagoUruguayMississippiBulgariaSerbiaNew MexicoAlabamaTurkeyWest VirginiaLouisianaHawaiiOklahomaCroatiaIsraelRussiaDubaiNevadaTennseeeGreeceCaliforniaArkansasGeorgiaArizonaKentuckyLithuaniaFloridaLatviaRhode IslandMichiganMissouriNew YorkIllinoisSpainItalyDelawareSouth CarolinaIrelandUnited States AverageAlaskaUtahPortugalUnited KingdomIdahoCzech RepublicMaineHungaryNorth CarolinaNebraskaTexasPolandConnecticutOregonIndianaIowaLuxembourgOhioSwedenNorwayWashingtonWyomingSlovakiaMarylandWisconsinColoradoVirginiaMontanaAustriaNew HampshirePennsylvaniaDenmarkSloveniaFranceSouth DakotaKansasNew JerseyIcelandNorth DakotaEstoniaVermontMinnesotaAustraliaGermanyNew ZealandBelgiumMacaoNetherlandsCanadaJapanMassachusettsSwitzerlandLiechtensteinTaipeiFinlandKoreaHong KongSingaporeShanghai
    • 100 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER FourAchievement Growth: International and U.S. StateTrends in Student Performance in 2012. This teammeasured the academic progress of Americanstates versus other countries by using compari-sons between the NAEP and the PISA, adminis-tered by the OECD.liiiThe authors focused their analysis on fourth-grade reading, finding that the United States ismaking progress only at the international aver-age for nations participating in PISA. The UnitedStates, in fact, is making gains at less than half thepace of Latvia and Chile, who lead the pack de-spite spending a mere fraction per pupil of whatAmerican schools receive. The current rate ofAmerican progress is not fast enough to close thegap with the highest performing nations.livThe authors, however, found enormous vari-ations in the rate of progress among Americanstates. Figure 8 shows that the slowest gainingstate, Iowa, had gains approximately one-sixththe size of leaders Maryland and Florida.They also examined trends in mathematicsprogress among states based upon the amountof inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending increas-es seen during this period. Although the authorsavoid noting that, they fail to find a relationshipbetween spending and academic progress, Figure4 conveys much more beyond that.First, note the context provided by the chartswhen considering Figure 1, The United States isa nation with low international scores, very highspending by international standards, and averageFigure 7 | American Academic Progress is Only Average(Source: Hanushek, Woessmann and Peterson)-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5SwedenBulgariaThailandSlovak Rep.Czech Rep.RomaniaNorwayIrelandFranceZEROArgentinaTunisiaNetherlandsJapanIcelandSpainAustriaIndonesiaRussian Fed.JordanAustraliaCyprusCanadaBelgiumTaiwan (Chinese Taipei)United StatesIranHungaryKorea, Rep.DenmarkNew ZealandItalyFindlandIsraelMexicoGreeceSwitzerlandSingaporeUnited KingdomLithuaniaColombiaSloveniaLiechtensteinPolandGermanyHong KongPortugalBrazilChileLatvia
    • www.alec.org 101The Global Achievement Gapacademic gains. Therefore, as a policymaker, youwant to be well above the American average forprogress. After all, if Latvia and Chile can do it,why can’t we?Second, note that the size of some of the per-pupil increases in American states comfortablyexceeds the total amount spent per pupil in agreat many nations measured on the PISA. NewYork and Wyoming, for instance, increased per-pupil spending by $6,000 from 1990 to 2009 inreal dollars. This increase is well above twice the2008 total spending per pupil of OECD mem-bers Chile and Mexico ($2,635 per pupil in Chile,$2,284 in Mexico) and approximately equal to thetotal per-pupil spending in the Czech Republic,Hungary, and Israel. The total per-pupil spendingin high-spending states like New York and Wyo-ming simply dwarfs spending in most OECD na-tions. For 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau put totalper-pupil spending at $20,480 in New York and$19,510 in Wyoming.The top four states in terms of NAEP gains inFigure 9 are (in order): Maryland, Florida, Del-aware, and Massachusetts.lvTake note of theper-pupil increase in spending for each state:Maryland ($4,500), Florida ($1,000), Delaware($3,000), and Massachusetts ($5,000). Floridaclearly achieves the biggest bang for the buck,while simultaneously holding the lowest increasein spending and notching the second largest over-all gain.New York and Wyoming, meanwhile, tie for thelargest increase in per-pupil spending and realizeonly average and below-average academic gains,respectively. A number of states, in fact, exceededthe national average in terms of increased spend-ing, while underperforming the (modest) nation-al average of improvement, including Minnesota,North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Vir-ginia, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island,in addition to New York and Wyoming.CONCLUSION: DEEPER REFORMS ARENEEDED TO CLOSE THE GLOBALACHIEVEMENT GAPFormer Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice andformer Chancellor of New York City Schools JoelKlein—a Republican and a Democrat, respec-tively—led a team that produced a report for theCouncil on Foreign Relations in March 2012 andpulled no punches in describing the dire natureof America’s education crisis.lviThe bipartisan re-port notes that:• More than 25 percent of students fail to gradu-ate from high school in four years; for African-American and Hispanic students, this number isapproaching 40 percent.Figure 8 | States Vary Considerably in Academic Gains on NAEP, 1992-2011(Source: Hanushek, Woessmann and Peterson)00.511.522.533.5IAMEOKWINEWVNDMIUTNMAZCTINRIMOMNIDWYNHTNALNYCOTXCAPAOHGAMSNCHINJARKYSCLAVAMAFLDEMD
    • 102 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER Four• In civics, only a quarter of U.S. students are profi-cient or better on the National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress.• Although the United States is a nation of immi-grants, roughly eight in ten Americans speak onlyEnglish and a decreasing number of schools areteaching foreign languages.• A recent report by ACT, the not-for-profit testingorganization, found that only 22 percent of U.S.high school students met “college ready” stan-dards in all of their core subjects; these figures areeven lower for African-American and Hispanicstudents.• The College Board reported that even among col-lege-bound seniors, only 43 percent met college-ready standards, meaning that more college stu-dents need to take remedial courses.lviiRice and Klein sounded the alarm on Ameri-ca’s underperforming schools loud and clear:It is not hyperbole to say that the state of edu-cation in our country is a challenge to our na-tional security. Human capital has never beenmore important for success in our increasinglycompetitive world economy. Yet, although theUnited States invests more in education thanalmost any other developed nation, its studentsrank in the middle of the pack in reading andtoward the bottom in math and science. On av-erage, U.S. students have fallen behind peersin Korea and China, Poland and Canada andNew Zealand. This puts us on a trajectory to-ward massive failure.Our schools simply must do better. It is es-sential, too, that we provide a base of knowl-edge for our students in order to produce citi-zens who can serve in the Foreign Service, theintelligence community and the armed forces.The State Department is struggling to recruitenough foreign language speakers, U.S. gener-als are cautioning that enlistees cannot readtraining manuals for sophisticated equipment,and a report from the XVIII Airborne Corpsin Iraq found that out of 250 intelligence per-sonnel, fewer than five had the “aptitude to putpieces together to form a conclusion.”Finally, we must also foster a deeper under-standing of America’s core institutions and val-ues. Successfully educating our young peopleFigure 9 | State Improvement on NAEP and Real Increase in Spending per Pupil, 1990-20113.5%3.02.52.01.51.00.5MDMALANJHIDEARKYSCVAMSOHGAPANYALNH WYRIMNMOCTNMWVNDNEMEIAWIFLNCTXCOCATNIDINAZMI UTOK1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Increase in Expenditure per pupil, 1990-2009 (2009 Dollars)** Expenditure increments are adjusted for inflationAnnualtest-scoregainsbetween1992and2011(percentofstandarddeviation)
    • www.alec.org 103The Global Achievement Gapabout our country, its governmental institu-tions and values—what is sometimes called“civics”—is crucial to our coherence as a pop-ulation and for informed citizenry.lviiiThe United States suffers from a costly and in-effective system of K–12 schooling—a disadvan-tage that we can scarcely afford in an increasinglycompetitive world. A small handful of the wealth-iest states do reasonably well in internationalcomparisons, but not one is a world contender.Florida, a racially diverse state that spendsless than the national average, has exceeded thenational educational improvement rate by ap-proximately 50 percent since the early 1990s.The most reform-minded state during this pe-riod, it remains a modest performer in inter-national comparisons, despite its faster rate ofimprovement. However, if the rest of the na-tion had improved at the same rate as the high-est growth states, the global achievement gapwould have narrowed measurably during thepast two decades.Instead, the United States made only aver-age academic improvement, despite high levelsof spending. The current pace keeps the globalachievement gap firmly in place. Rice and Kleinsounded a bipartisan call for greater reform: high-er academic standards, greater educational choice,and greater transparency and accountability.ALEC and many other reform-minded groupsshare these priorities. The weight of internation-al data draws one to the conclusion that the bold-est state reform efforts taken to date should beviewed as a floor for future efforts, not the ceilingthat it serves as today.ENDNOTESi“The Year of School Choice. No fewer than 13 states have passed major education reforms,” The Wall Street Journal, June 5,2011, available online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576420330972531442.html.iiHeiten, Liana, “States Continue Push to Toughen Teacher Policies: Changes afoot for evaluation, tenure, and collective bar-gaining” Education Week, July 12, 2011, available online at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/13/36teacher.h30.html.iiiClinton, William Jefferson, “1998 State of the Union Address,” Congressional Record, Jan. 27, 1998, p. 106, video availableonline at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/98605-1.ivMcCombs, Jennifer Sloan, and Shelia Nataraj Kirby, “Ending Social Promotion Without Leaving Children Behind. TheCase of New York City,” RAND Corporation, p. 189, available online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG894.pdf, and Greene, Jay P. and Marcus A. Winters, “Getting Farther Ahead by Staying Behind: A Second-YearEvaluation of Florida’s Policy to end Social Promotion.” Manhattan Institute Civic Report No. 49, 2006, available onlineat http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_49.htm.vHebert, Bob, “Failing Teachers,” The New York Times, Oct. 24, 2003, available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/opinion/failing-teachers.html.viIbid.vii“The Case Against Quality-Blind Teacher Layoffs,” The New Teacher Project, 2011, available online at http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_Case_Against_Quality_Blind_Layoffs_Feb2011.pdf?files/TNTP_Case_Against_Quality_Blind_Layoffs_Feb2011.pdf.viii“The Sheepskin Effect and Student Achievement De-emphasizing the Role of Master’s Degrees in Teacher Compensa-tion,” The Center for American Progress, 2012, available online at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/07/17/11934/the–sheepskin–effect–and–student–achievement.ixSass, Tim, “Certification Requirements and Teacher Quality: A Comparison of Alternative Routes to Teaching,” GeorgiaState University, 2011, available online at http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/Alternative%20Certification%20and%20Teach-er%20Quality%2011.pdf.xNadler, Daniel and Paul E. Peterson, “What Happens When States Have Genuine Alternative Certification? We Get MoreMinority Teachers and Test Scores Rise,” Education Next, Winter 2009, available online at http://educationnext.org/what–happens–when–states–have–genuine–alternative–certification/.xiMathews, Jay, “Vouchers Work, But So What?” The Washington Post blog CLASS STRUGGLE, March 25, 2011, available online
    • 104 Report Card on American EducationCHAPTER Fourat http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class–struggle/post/vouchers–work–but–so–what/2011/03/24/ABNNgrPB_blog.html.xiiIbid.xiiiIbid.xivMooney, Kevin. “Louisiana Voucher Applications Roll Forward Despite Union Lawsuits,” The Pelican Post, July 2, 2012, avail-able online at http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2012/07/02/louisiana-voucher-applications-roll-forward-despite-union-lawsuits/.xvBritt, Bill, “School Choice is Under Attack by Systematic Lies,” Alabama Political Reporter, available online at: http://www.alreporter.com/editorials-2/169-bill-britt/1770-school-choice-is-under-attack-by-systematic-lies.html.xviGreene, Jay, “Top Performing School Districts-2009 International Math Percentile,” Updated October 15, 2012, availableonline at http://globalreportcard.org/docs/Top-Performing-School-Districts-Math-in-the-United-States.pdf.xvii“Fast Facts: Charter Schools,” National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, available online at http://nces.ed.gov/fast-facts/display.asp?id=30.xviiiAbdulkarido, Attilla, Joshua D. Angrist, Susan M. Narski, Thomas J. Kane and Parag A. Pathak, “Accountability and Flex-ibility in Public Schools-Evidence from Boston’s Charters and Pilots,” available online at http://economics.mit.edu/files/6335.xixHoxby, Caroline M. and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Findings from the City of the Big Shoulders,” Education Next, Fall 2005, availableonline at http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20054_52.pdf.xxHoxby, Caroline M., Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang, “How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement,” The NewYork City Charter Schools Evaluation Project, September 2009, available online at http://users.nber.org/~schools/char-terschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_affect_achievement_sept2009.pdf.xxiGleason, Phillip, Melissa Clark, Christina Clark Tuttle, and Emily Dwoyer, “The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts,” 2010,available online at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104029.pdf.xxiiKoller, Daphne, 2012 presentation to TED.com, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FvJ6jMGHU&feature=player_embedded.xxiiiStedman quoted in Fuller, Howard “The Real Evidence: An Honest Update on School Choice Experiments,” WisconsinInterest (Fall/Winter 1997), p. 19.xxivFood and Nutrition Service Income Guidelines, United States Department of Agriculture, available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs09–10.pdf.xxvPublic spending on education, OECD, PF1.2: available online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf.xxvi“The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools,” McKinsey & Company, 2009, available online athttp://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/images/page_images/offices/socialsector/pdf/achievement_gap_report.pdf.xxviiKress, Alexander B., “Let’s Not Kill Off NCLB,” Education Week, June 11, 2009, available online at http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/11/35kress.h28.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/11/35kress.h28.html&levelId=1000.xxviiiCurrent trends are almost certain not to be maintained over a long period of time, almost inevitably either progressingor regressing over time. These estimates are provided for purposes of illustration only.xxix“Twenty-Five Years of Education Students with Disabilities,” American Youth Policy Forum and Center on EducationPolicy, 2002, available online at http://www.aypf.org/publications/special_ed.pdf.xxxFinn, Jr. Chester E., Andrew J. Rotherham, and Charles R. Hokanson, Jr., “Conclusions and Principles for Reform,” Progres-sive Policy Institute, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2001, available online at http://www.dlc.org/documents/Speci-alEd_conclusions.pdf.xxxiLadner, Matthew and Christopher Hammons, “Special but unequal: Race and special education,” Rethinking Special Edu-cation for a New Century, 2001, pages 259-287. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the ProgressivePolicy Institute, available online at http://www.ppionline.org/documents/SpecialEd_ch12.pdf.xxxiiMathews, Jay. 2001. “When Special Education Falls Short,” The Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2001.xxxiiiScull, Janie and Amber Winkler “Shifting Trends in Special Education,” 2011, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, availableonline at http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110525_ShiftingTrendsinSpecialEducation/Shifting-TrendsinSpecialEducation.pdf.xxxivFor an extensive discussion of NAEP inclusion standards and how they influence subgroup rankings, see ALEC ReportCard on American Education: Ranking State Performance, Progress and Reform, 17th edition by Matthew Ladner and DanLips, pages 30–31, available online at http://www.alec.org/publications/report–card–on–american–education/.
    • www.alec.org 105The Global Achievement GapxxxvGreene, Jay P. and Marcus A. Winters, “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: EvidenceFrom Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,” Manhattan Institute Civic Report Number 52, 2008, available online athttp://www.manhattan–institute.org/html/cr_52.htm.xxxvi“Charter School Laws,” The Center for Education Reform, available online at http://www.edreform.com/issues/choi-cecharter-schools/laws-legislation/.xxxviiFor information on homeschooling laws by state see http://www.hslda.org/hs/default.asp.xxxviiiRay, Brian D., “Research Facts on Homeschooling,” 2011, available online at http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html.xxxixAs of publication, this source has yet to be released. Friedman Foundation.xlState Teacher Policy Yearbook, National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011, available online at http://www.nctq.org/stpy-11Home.do.xli“Nation’s 2011 Digital Learning Report Card,” Digital Learning Now! available online at http://www.digitallearningnow.com/nations-reportcard/.xliiDixon, Mark, Public Education Finances: 2010, Government Divisions Report, June 2012, available online at http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/10f33pub.pdf.xliiiWest, Martin and Ludger Woessmann, “School Choice International: Higher private school share boosts national testscores,” Education Next, 2009, available online at http://educationnext.org/school-choice-international/.xlivPerry, Mark J., “The Magic and Miracle of the Marketplace: Christmas 1964 vs. 2011-There’s No Comparison,” Dec. 22, 2011,available online at http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/magic-and-miracle-of-marketplace.html.xlvPerry, Mark J., “The Miracle of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector,” 2011, available online at http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/miracle-of-us-manufacturing-sector.html.xlviPerry, Mark J., “As a Share of Household Spending, U.S. Has Most Affordable Food in World & It’s Never Been Better,” July1, 2012, available online at http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/07/as-share-of-income-americans-have-most_01.html.xlviiSee Ladner, Matthew and Dan Lips. 2011. Report Card on American Education, 17th Edition, Chapter 5.xlviiHill, Paul and Marguerite Roza, “Curing Baumol’s Disease: In Search of Productivity Gains in K-12 Schooling,” Centeron Reinventing Public Education White Paper, 2010, available online at http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/Lecture_Series/20120427_Roza/Baumols_Disease.pdf.xlixSee OECD at http://www.oecd.org/edu/highereducationandadultlearning/48631046.pdf. Cato Institute scholar AndrewCoulson calculated a figure in excess of $29,000 per pupil by dividing the total expenditures of the District of ColumbiaPublic Schools by the total enrollment using Census Bureau data. See Coulson, Andrew Census Bureau Confirms: DCSpends $29,409 / pupil at http://wwwCheck-at-liberty.org/census-bureau-confirms-dcspends-29409-pupil/ and thesource data at http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/10f33pub.pdf.li“Education At a Glance: Financial and Human Resources Invested in Education,” OECD, 2011, available online at http://www.oecd.org/education/highereducationandadultlearning/48630868.pdf, Table 1 on Page 1.liiOrganization of Economic Development and Cooperation, 2011, Education at a Glance, Table D2.2, Ratio of students toteaching staff in educational institutions (2009), available online at http://www.oecd.org/edu/highereducationan-dadultlearning/48631582.pdf, page 403.liiiHanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann, “Achievement Growth: International and U.S. State Trends inStudent Performance,” 2012, available online at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-03_Catchin-gUp.pdf.livIbid, pages 4-5.lvThe gains are expressed as an average annual percentage of a standard deviation for the 1992-2011 period, which is a con-sistent measure across states.lviA copy of the Council on Foreign Relations Report can be found online at http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618.lviiRice, Condoleezza and Joel Klein, “Rice, Klein: Education keeps America safe,” 2012, available online at http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/rice-klein-education/index.html.
    • 106 Report Card on American EducationAPPENDIX A | METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING THE STATESRank Jurisdiction1 Massachusetts2 Vermont3 New Jersey4 Colorado5 Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island7 North Carolina8 Kansas9 New Hampshire10 New York11 Texas12 Florida13 Hawaii14 Maine15 Nevada16 Montana17 Indiana18 Minnesota19 Wisconsin20 Maryland21 Ohio22 Delaware23 Wyoming24 District of Columbia25 Washington26 Virginia27 Georgia28 Illinois29 Idaho30 California31 Iowa32 Alaska33 North Dakota34 Alabama35 New Mexico36 Arizona37 Kentucky38 South Dakota39 Connecticut40 Oregon41 Utah42 Nebraska43 Oklahoma44 Tennessee45 Arkansas46 Michigan47 Missouri48 Mississippi49 Louisiana50 South Carolina51 West VirginiaTABLE 3 | Ranking States by Achievement and Gainsof Free and Reduced-Price Lunch-Eligible GeneralPopulation Students on the NAEP 4th- and 8th-Grade Reading and Math Exams, 2003-2011 TABLE 4 | State Education Policy GradesGrade Jurisdiction Numeric ScoreB+ Indiana 3.49B+ Arizona 3.19B+ Oklahoma 3.17B Florida 3.11B Ohio 2.98B Louisiana 2.88B- Michigan 2.81B- Wisconsin 2.77B- Utah 2.76B- Georgia 2.73B- Pennsylvania 2.66B- District of Columbia 2.58B- Idaho 2.52C+ Minnesota 2.36C+ Texas 2.27C+ Colorado 2.24C+ California 2.20C+ Nevada 2.18C Tennessee 2.14C New Mexico 2.10C North Carolina 2.07C Illinois 2.02C South Carolina 2.00C New Hampshire 1.98C Wyoming 1.98C Missouri 1.93C New Jersey 1.92C Massachusetts 1.88C Arkansas 1.88C Iowa 1.86C Oregon 1.85C Delaware 1.84C- Maine 1.81C- Connecticut 1.77C- Mississippi 1.75C- Kansas 1.71C- Virginia 1.70C- New York 1.66C- Hawaii 1.65C- Washington 1.60C- Alaska 1.59D+ Alabama 1.48D+ Rhode Island 1.48D+ Vermont 1.45D+ Kentucky 1.42D+ Maryland 1.42D+ West Virginia 1.24D+ South Dakota 1.21D Montana 1.17D North Dakota 1.00D Nebraska 0.85
    • www.alec.org 107APPENDIX A |METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING THE STATESTABLE 5 | 2011 NAEP Scores for Low-Income Students(Non-IEP, Non-ELL) Average scores (0-500) and rank (1-51)Jurisdiction4th-GradeReading Score Rank4th-GradeMath Score Rank8th-GradeReading Score Rank8th-GradeMath Score RankAlabama 214 35 226 49 254 46 262 50Alaska 213 40 235 33 259 33 283 14Arizona 213 39 234 37 255 43 273 38Arkansas 215 34 234 35 257 39 275 33California 212 42 234 39 256 41 272 41Colorado 222 7 241 8 264 11 283 12Connecticut 216 31 230 44 263 13 271 43Delaware 219 16 236 27 262 20 277 25District of Columbia 199 51 218 51 244 51 260 51Florida 223 4 237 22 260 27 273 39Georgia 213 38 231 41 256 42 271 42Hawaii 212 44 238 21 257 38 279 18Idaho 220 15 237 24 265 7 282 16Illinois 213 41 230 45 261 26 276 30Indiana 219 19 238 17 261 23 278 22Iowa 218 24 240 9 264 10 279 19Kansas 222 8 243 5 263 15 284 9Kentucky 217 25 235 32 262 18 274 35Louisiana 210 47 228 46 252 49 270 45Maine 220 10 243 4 267 5 286 5Maryland 217 27 235 34 255 44 270 47Massachusetts 226 1 247 2 267 4 290 1Michigan 211 45 227 48 258 35 270 44Minnesota 218 23 243 6 265 6 285 8Mississippi 206 50 225 50 249 50 262 49Missouri 214 37 234 40 262 19 274 37Montana 220 14 239 11 269 2 289 2National Public 216 235 259 276Nebraska 219 17 234 38 263 16 275 34Nevada 214 36 235 30 257 36 275 31New Hampshire 225 2 247 1 265 8 286 7New Jersey 220 12 239 15 261 22 284 10New Mexico 210 46 234 36 257 37 275 32New York 222 6 237 25 264 9 278 24North Carolina 218 21 239 13 259 30 280 17North Dakota 220 9 239 16 261 24 283 11Ohio 216 32 238 19 260 29 279 21Oklahoma 217 26 235 31 261 25 274 36Oregon 219 18 236 28 262 17 279 20Pennsylvania 220 13 237 23 259 31 276 29Rhode Island 220 11 238 18 260 28 277 28South Carolina 210 48 231 42 253 48 272 40South Dakota 216 30 236 26 264 12 283 13Tennessee 209 49 228 47 253 47 266 48Texas 215 33 239 12 258 34 286 4Utah 218 20 239 10 261 21 277 26Vermont 224 3 245 3 271 1 288 3Virginia 216 29 235 29 257 40 277 27Washington 218 22 239 14 263 14 283 15West Virginia 212 43 231 43 255 45 270 46Wisconsin 216 28 238 20 259 32 278 23Wyoming 222 5 242 7 267 3 286 6
    • 108 Report Card on American EducationAPPENDIX A | METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING THE STATESTABLE 6 | Change in NAEP Scores for Low-Income Students from 2003 to 2011(Non-IEP, Non-ELL) Average scores (0-500) and rank (1-51)JurisdictionChange in 4th-GradeReading ScoresImprovementRankChange in 4th-GradeMath ScoresImprovementRankAlabama 14.4 3 8.8 25Alaska 5.7 26 5.3 43Arizona 8.7 15 9.7 18Arkansas 4.7 32 8.8 27California 11.2 7 9.9 17Colorado 5.2 29 13.9 5Connecticut 5.3 28 7.1 35Delaware 5.5 27 7.6 33District of Columbia 12.6 5 14.8 4Florida 10.2 8 9.7 20Georgia 9.1 13 8.9 23Hawaii 6.0 25 15.6 3Idaho 2.8 42 4.2 45Illinois 6.7 23 8.8 24Indiana 8.5 16 9.9 16Iowa 2.1 44 6.2 39Kansas 9.7 10 8.3 30Kentucky 5.0 31 11.3 12Louisiana 8.4 17 4.4 44Maine 1.4 46 9.7 19Maryland 14.7 2 16.9 1Massachusetts 9.6 11 15.9 2Michigan 7.3 20 6.1 40Minnesota 1.1 48 10.5 15Mississippi 8.4 18 8.6 28Missouri 2.3 43 7.1 34Montana 4.4 35 6.3 38National public 7.9 9.0Nebraska 4.3 36 5.4 42Nevada 12.7 4 12.3 8New Hampshire 7.0 21 10.9 14New Jersey 12.3 6 12.4 7New Mexico 3.6 40 9.0 21New York 10.1 9 7.6 32North Carolina 7.9 19 7.9 31North Dakota 3.3 41 3.7 47Ohio 5.2 30 11.6 11Oklahoma 4.2 38 8.6 29Oregon 4.6 34 1.2 51Pennsylvania 15.3 1 13.6 6Rhode Island 9.3 12 12.3 9South Carolina 4.2 37 2.7 49South Dakota -1.5 50 3.2 48Tennessee 6.8 22 8.9 22Texas 4.6 33 6.0 41Utah -0.7 49 6.4 37Vermont 6.1 24 11.9 10Virginia 9.1 14 8.8 26Washington 1.7 45 7.1 36West Virginia -2.3 51 1.8 50Wisconsin 3.9 39 10.9 13Wyoming 1.3 47 3.8 46
    • www.alec.org 109JurisdictionChange in 8th-GradeReading ScoresImprovementRankChange in 8th-GradeMath ScoresImprovementRankAlabama 5.6 22 7.6 31Alaska 6.7 9 9.7 23Arizona 3.4 32 7.5 32Arkansas 0.4 48 8.8 26California 3.6 30 9.7 22Colorado 6.6 10 13.5 9Connecticut 11.1 2 4.0 44Delaware 5.4 23 10.1 21District of Columbia 7.4 7 19.7 2Florida 6.2 19 8.1 29Georgia 6.1 20 13.9 6Hawaii 6.2 18 16.6 4Idaho 1.6 44 5.3 41Illinois 6.5 11 12.0 15Indiana 5.1 24 5.8 39Iowa 3.2 33 2.9 47Kansas 3.0 36 7.7 30Kentucky 1.7 43 7.0 35Louisiana 3.1 34 8.6 27Maine 2.3 38 12.0 13Maryland 6.3 16 9.0 24Massachusetts 6.7 8 20.5 1Michigan 7.5 6 7.5 33Minnesota 8.2 4 3.7 45Mississippi 1.3 45 10.4 19Missouri 3.7 29 4.4 42Montana 4.5 25 7.4 34National public 4.9 10.1Nebraska 2.3 39 3.1 46Nevada 7.9 5 12.6 10New Hampshire 0.6 46 8.1 28New Jersey 5.7 21 18.7 3New Mexico 6.3 15 11.8 16New York 6.4 12 6.7 36North Carolina 8.3 3 11.0 17North Dakota -4.9 50 -0.4 51Ohio 4.3 26 10.6 18Oklahoma 1.8 41 6.5 37Oregon 0.5 47 4.2 43Pennsylvania 4.0 27 12.0 14Rhode Island 6.3 14 13.8 7South Carolina 2.9 37 6.2 38South Dakota -4.9 51 2.7 48Tennessee 3.7 28 10.3 20Texas 6.3 17 15.5 5Utah 1.9 40 1.9 49Vermont 11.5 1 13.6 8Virginia 1.8 42 12.1 12Washington 3.6 31 8.8 25West Virginia -1.9 49 1.3 50Wisconsin 6.4 13 12.6 11Wyoming 3.0 35 5.6 40APPENDIX A | METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING THE STATES
    • 110 Report Card on American EducationJurisdictionState Academic Standards CharterSchoolLawCharterSchoolGradeHome-schoolRegulationBurdenPrivateSchoolChoice"A" GradeorMultipleProgramsEnglish andLanguage ArtsMathematicsAlabama B+ A- No BAlaska F D Yes D AArizona B+ A- Yes A B Yes AArkansas B+ A- Yes D CCalifornia B+ A- Yes B BColorado B+ A- Yes B CConnecticut B+ A- Yes D ADelaware B+ A- Yes C BDistrict of Columbia B+ A- Yes A C DFlorida B+ A- Yes B C Yes BGeorgia B+ A- Yes C C Yes BHawaii B+ A- Yes D CIdaho B+ A- Yes B AIllinois B+ A- Yes C AIndiana B+ A- Yes A A Yes BIowa B+ A- Yes F C CKansas B+ A- Yes F BKentucky B+ A- No BLouisiana B+ A- Yes B C Yes AMaine B+ A- Yes C C CMaryland B+ A- Yes D CMassachusetts B+ A- Yes C DMichigan B+ A- Yes A AMinnesota B+ B Yes A CMississippi B+ A- Yes F B CMissouri B+ A- Yes B AMontana B+ A- No BNebraska F C No BNevada B+ A- Yes C BNew Hampshire B+ A- Yes D C CNew Jersey B+ A- Yes C ANew Mexico B+ A- Yes C BNew York B+ A- Yes B DNorth Carolina B+ A- Yes C C BNorth Dakota B+ A- No DOhio B+ A- Yes B C Yes COklahoma B+ A- Yes C A Yes BOregon B+ A- Yes C CPennsylvania B+ A- Yes B D Yes CRhode Island B+ A- Yes D DSouth Carolina B+ A- Yes C CSouth Dakota B+ A- No CTennessee B+ A- Yes C CTexas A- C Yes C AUtah B+ A- Yes B B CVermont B+ A- No D BVirginia B+ C Yes F C DWashington B+ C No CWest Virginia B+ A- No CWisconsin B+ A- Yes C B Yes CWyoming B+ A- Yes D BAPPENDIX B | METHODOLOGY FOR Grading THE STATESTABLE 7 | Education Policy Grade Components
    • www.alec.org 111APPENDIX B | METHODOLOGY FOR Grading THE STATESJurisdictionOverall Teacher Quality andPolicies GradeMulti-District Full-TimeOnline SchoolDigital learning Now!Report Card 2011Alabama C- No 25Alaska D Yes 37Arizona D+ Yes 47Arkansas C Yes 27California D+ Yes 14Colorado C Yes 33Connecticut C- No 16Delaware C No 20District of Columbia D YesFlorida B Yes 41Georgia C Yes 32Hawaii D- Yes 27Idaho D+ Yes 46Illinois C No 23Indiana C+ Yes 41Iowa D Yes 24Kansas D Yes 28Kentucky D+ No 25Louisiana C- Yes 40Maine D- No 25Maryland D+ No 24Massachusetts C Yes 28Michigan C+ Yes 37Minnesota C- Yes 47Mississippi D+ No 25Missouri D No 39Montana F No 18Nebraska D- No 16Nevada C- Yes 32New Hampshire D- Yes 26New Jersey D+ No 24New Mexico D+ Yes 27New York C No 16North Carolina D+ No 22North Dakota D No 17Ohio C+ Yes 37Oklahoma B- Yes 31Oregon D- Yes 34Pennsylvania D+ Yes 41Rhode Island B- No 25South Carolina C- Yes 29South Dakota D No 27Tennessee B- Yes 25Texas C- Yes 40Utah C- Yes 49Vermont D- No 20Virginia D+ Yes 44Washington C- Yes 46West Virginia D+ No 21Wisconsin D Yes 41Wyoming D Yes 49
    • 112 Report Card on American EducationAPPENDIX C | INDEX OF FIGURESChapter Figure Page Title1 Figure 1 3 Jurisdictions with Literacy-Based Promotion Policies1 Figure 2 5 States that Have Banned “Last-In, First-Out” Policies as of August 20121 Table 1 6 Characteristics of Teachers by Certification Route1 Figure 3 9 States with One or More Private School Choice Programs, 20121 Figure 4 10 Total Charter Schools, 2000-20111 Figure 5 12 States With A- or B- graded Charter School Laws, according to Center for EducationReform 2012 Rankings1 Figure 6 13 JURISDICTIONS ADOPTING A-through-F LETTER GRADES FOR SCHOOL TRANSPARENCY2 Figure 1 19 PISA Combined Literacy Scores for 15-year-olds by School Affluence (Percentage of Stu-dents at American Schools Qualifying for a Free or Reduced Lunch)2 Figure 2 20 PISA Combined Literacy Scores for 15-year-olds—American scores by Race and Ethnicity2 Figure 3 21 White-Black Achievement Gap by NAEP Subject, 2003 and 20112 Figure 4 22 Trends in the Combined NAEP White-Black Achievement Gap, 2003 to 20112 Figure 5 23 Combined NAEP Achievement Gaps (4th and 8th Grade Reading and Math) by Jurisdiction, 20112 Figure 6 24 Declines in the White-Black Achievement Gap on the Combined NAEP exams for Stateswith Average or Above White Academic Progress, 2003 to 20112 Figure 7 24 National White-Hispanic Achievement Gaps by NAEP Subject, 2003-20112 Figure 8 25 Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap Trend, 2003-20112 Figure 9 26 Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap in NAEP Scale Points, 20112 Figure 10 27 Combined NAEP White-Hispanic Achievement Gap Closing for States Making an Averageor Above-Average Progress for White Students, 2003-20112 Figure 11 27 The National NAEP Family Income Achievement Gap (Non FRL eligible minus FRL eligible)by Subject, 2003 and 20092 Figure 12 28 2011 Combined NAEP Income Achievement Gap by State—Non- Poor minus Poor scoreson the four main NAEP exams2 Figure 13 29 Trend in the Combined NAEP Non-Poor/Poor Achievement Gap Trend, 2003-20112 Figure 14 30 Decline in the Combined NAEP Economic Achievement Gap for States Making Average orBetter Progress Among Middle-/High Income Students, 2003-20112 Figure 15 31 The National NAEP Disability Achievement Gap by Subject, 2003 and 20112 Figure 16 31 Trends in the Combined NAEP Disability Achievement Gap, 2003-20112 Figure 17 32 The Combined NAEP Disability Achievement Gap, 20112 Figure 18 33 States Closing the Disability Achievement Gap without Below-Average Performanceamong Non-Disabled Students, 2003-20113 Table 2 36 Letter Grade Key4 Figure 1 94 Relationship Between Performance in Mathematics and Cumulative Expenditure on Edu-cational Institutions Per Student Between the Ages of 6 and 15 Years, in U.S. Dollars, Con-verted Using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs)4 Figure 2 96 Pupils per Employee in thePublic School System4 Figure 3 97 Teachers and Non-Teachers in the American Public School System, 1950 and 20074 Figure 4 97 Long-Term Trend NAEP Math Scores, 1973-20084 Figure 5 99 State Mathematics Performance in International Perspective: PISA and NAEP Equated,Percent of Students Proficient4 Figure 6 99 State Reading Performance in International Perspective: PISA and NAEP Equated, Percentof Students Proficient4 Figure 7 100 American Academic Progress is Only Average4 Figure 8 101 States Vary Considerably in Academic Gains on NAEP, 1992-20114 Figure 9 102 State Improvement on NAEP and Real Increase in Spending per Pupil, 1990-2011
    • www.alec.org 113Listed below are summaries for relevant pieces of ALEC model legislation.For more information on these or other bills, or for the full text of thesebills, contact a staff member for ALEC’s Education Task Force.A-Plus Literacy ActThe A-Plus Literacy Act is inspired by a comprehensive set of K–12 reforms implemented by Floridalawmakers in 1999, and supplemented over the next decade. The chapters of this bill are: School andDistrict Report Cards and Grades; School Recognition Program; Opportunity Scholarship Program;Special Needs Scholarship Program Act; Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act; Alternative TeacherCertification Act; Student Promotion to a Higher Grade; and School and Teacher Bonuses for AdvancedPlacement Exam Success.Alternative Certification ActTeacher quality is crucial to the improvement of instruction and student performance. However, cer-tification requirements that correspond to state-approved education programs in most states preventmany individuals from entering the teaching profession. To obtain an education degree, students mustoften complete requirements in educational methods, theory, and style rather than in-depth study ina chosen subject area. Comprehensive alternative certification programs improve teacher quality byopening up the profession to well-educated, qualified, and mature individuals. States should enact al-ternative teacher certification programs to prepare persons with subject area expertise and life expe-rience to become teachers through a demonstration of competency and a comprehensive mentoringprogram.Autism Scholarship ActThe Autism Scholarship Program Act would create a scholarship program that provides students with au-tism the option to attend the public or private elementary or secondary school of their parents’ choice.Career Ladder Opportunities ActThe Career Ladder Opportunity Act requires school districts to adopt extraordinary performance payplans for elementary and secondary public school teachers who demonstrate success in the classroom.The local school district must design the plan in consultation with teachers and administrators. Be-cause reward systems in the past have often failed because of premature abandonment, the districtmust keep the plan for three years and make improvements on it when necessary.Charter School Growth with Quality ActThe Charter School Growth with Quality Act intends to expand quality public education opportunities forall children by establishing a state public charter school commission to serve as an independent state-wide charter authorizer.APPENDIX D | MODEL LEGISLATION FOR K-12 EDUCATION
    • 114 Report Card on American EducationEducation Savings Account ActThe Education Savings Account Act allows parents to use the funds that would have been allocated totheir child at their resident school district for an education program of the parents’ choosing.Family Education Tax Credit Program ActThe Family Education Tax Credit Program Act would create a family education tax credit for payment oftuition, fees, and certain other educational expenses and a tax credit for individual and corporate con-tributions to organizations that provide educational scholarships to eligible students so they can attendthe public or private schools of their parents’ choice.Foster Child Scholarship Program ActThe Foster Child Scholarship Program Act would create a scholarship program that provides childrenwho have been placed in foster care the option to attend the public or private elementary or secondaryschool of their guardians’ choice.Great Schools Tax Credit ActThe Great Schools Tax Credit Act would authorize a tax credit for individual and corporate contributionsto organizations that provide educational scholarships to eligible students so they can attend qualify-ing public or private schools of their parents’ choice.Great Teachers and Leaders ActThe Great Teachers and Leaders Act reforms the practice of tenure, known as nonprobationary status insome states. Teachers can earn tenure after 3 years of sufficient student academic growth; tenure is re-vocable following 2 consecutive years of insufficient growth. The Act requires principals to be evaluat-ed annually with 50 percent of the evaluation based on student achievement and their ability to devel-op teachers in their buildings and increase their effectiveness. The Act eliminates the practice of forcedteacher placement and replaces it with mutual consent hiring. The Act allows school districts to makereduction in force decisions based on teacher performance rather than on seniority.Indiana Education Reform PackageThe Indiana Education Reform Package is inspired by their comprehensive set of K–12 education reformsadopted by the Indiana Legislature in the spring of 2011 and signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels. This actincorporates several of the key reforms the Indiana Legislature passed, including Charter Schools Act,School Scholarships Act, Teacher Evaluations and Licensing Act, Teacher Collective Bargaining Act,Turnaround Academies Act, Early Graduation Scholarship Act, and Textbooks and Other CurricularMaterial Act.Longitudinal Student Growth ActThe Longitudinal Student Growth Act would require the state department of education to implementa state data management system for collecting and reporting student assessment data and identifiesthe duties and responsibilities of the state department of education and the school districts in imple-menting the data management system. The legislation instructs the state board of education to adopta mixed-effects statistical model to diagnostically calculate students’ annual academic growth over theperiods between the administration of the statewide assessments, based on the students’ assessmentscores. The legislation next requires the department to provide to each school district and each charterschool an academic growth information report for each student enrolled in the school district or char-ter school, and requires the school district or charter school to adopt a policy for using the informationin the report and communicating the information in the report to students and their parents.APPENDIX D | MODEL LEGISLATION FOR K-12 EDUCATION
    • www.alec.org 115Next Generation Charter Schools ActThe Next Generation Charter Schools Act recognizes charters schools are a necessity to improve the op-portunities of all families and that charter schools serve a distinct purpose in supporting innovationsand best practices that can be adopted among all public schools. Further, this act recognizes that theremust be a variety of public institutions that can authorize the establishment of charter schools as de-fined by law, and recognizes that independent but publicly accountable multiple authorizing author-ities, such as independent state commissions or universities, contribute to the health and growth ofstrong public charter schools. This act establishes that existing or new public entities may be created toapprove and monitor charter schools in addition to public school district boards. This act also removesprocedural and funding barriers to charter school success.Online Learning Clearinghouse ActThe Online Learning Clearinghouse Act creates a clearinghouse through which school districts may offertheir computer-based courses to students of other school districts.Open Enrollment ActThe Open Enrollment Act stipulates that a student may, with the assistance of the state, attend any pub-lic school in the state. The legislation allows the parents of the student to apply for attendance in anynonresident school. The nonresident school district would advise the parent within an established timewhether the application was accepted or rejected. The nonresident school district would be obligated toadopt standards for consideration of such applications. State aid follows the transferring student fromthe resident to the nonresident district. State funds are thus used to facilitate the expansion of educa-tional choice available to the student and the parent.Parent Trigger ActThe Parent Trigger Act places democratic control into the hands of parents at school level. Parents can,with a simple majority, opt to usher in one of three choice-based options of reform: (1) transformingtheir school into a charter school, (2) supplying students from that school with a 75 percent per pupilcost voucher, or (3) closing the school.Parental Choice Scholarship Program ActThe Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act creates a scholarship program that provides all children theoption to attend the public or private elementary or secondary school of their parents’ choice.Public School Financial Transparency ActThe Public School Financial Transparency Act would require each local education provider in the stateto create and maintain a searchable expenditure and revenue Web site database that includes detaileddata of revenues and expenditures. It also would require each local education provider to maintain thedata in a format that is easily accessible, searchable, and downloadable.Resolution Adopting the 10 Elements of High-Quality Digital Learning for K-12This resolution adopts Digital Learning Now’s 10 Elements of High-Quality Digital Learning.This states the 10 Elements should be incorporated as necessary through future legislation as well asimmediate state regulation, strategic planning, guidelines and/or procedures on the part of the state ed-ucation agency, local education agencies, and any other relevant public or private bodies.Special Needs Scholarship Program ActThe Special Needs Scholarship Program Act creates a scholarship program that provides students withspecial needs the option to attend the public or private elementary or secondary school of their par-ents’ choice.APPENDIX D | MODEL LEGISLATION FOR K-12 EDUCATION
    • 116 Report Card on American EducationAPPENDIX D | MODEL LEGISLATION FOR K-12 EDUCATIONStatewide Online Education ActThis Statewide Online Education Act creates a statewide program that provides high school students withaccess to online learning options regardless of where the student lives. The options are designed to behigh quality and allow for maximized learning potential by focusing on student mastery of subject attheir own pace and own time, instead of the traditional seat-time learning requirements.Student-Centered Funding ActThe Student-Centered Funding Act would create a student-centered finance model based on a weightedstudent formula in which money “follows” a child to his or her school. Funds follow students to which-ever public school they attend, both district and charter, which better ensures that funding can be moreaccurately adjusted to meet the real costs to schools of all sizes and locations of educating various stu-dents based on their unique characteristics. Parents, regardless of income or address, have a greater ar-ray of education options for their children based on their unique, individual needs.Teacher Choice Compensation ActThe Teacher Choice Compensation Act would create a program where by teachers may be eligible for per-formance-based salary stipends if they opt out of their permanent contract and meet measurable stu-dent performance goals based on a value-added test instrument developed by the state department ofeducation.Teacher Quality and Recognition Demonstration ActThe need for quality teachers in improving student achievement is generally recognized as one of themost crucial elements of state reform efforts. A primary concern in the quality of the performance ofteachers is the forecast for an increasing need for more teachers. This bill is directed toward creat-ing a new structure of the current teaching system that will promote the retention and reward of goodteachers and attract new talent to the profession. This bill establishes teacher quality demonstrationprojects wherein local education agencies are exempt from education rules and regulations regardingteacher certification, tenure, recruitment, and compensation, and are granted funding for the purposeof creating new models of teacher hiring, professional growth and development, compensation andrecruitment.Virtual Public Schools ActThe Virtual Public Schools Act would allow the use of computer- and Internet-based instruction for stu-dents in a virtual or remote setting.
    • www.alec.org 117Alliance for School Choicewww.allianceforschoolchoice.orgThe Alliance for School Choice is a national lead-er in promoting school vouchers and scholarshiptax credit programs. The Alliance works to im-prove K-12 education by advancing public policythat empowers parents, particularly those in low-income families, to choose the education they de-termine is best for their children.American Board for Certificationof Teacher Excellencewww.abcte.orgThe American Board for Certification of TeacherExcellence recruits, prepares, certifies, and sup-ports dedicated professionals to improve studentachievement through quality teaching.American Enterprise Institutewww.aei.orgThe American Enterprise Institute for Public Pol-icy Research is a private, nonpartisan, nonprof-it institution dedicated to research and educationon issues of government, politics, economics, andsocial welfare.Black Alliance for Educational Optionswww.baeo.orgThe Black Alliance for Educational Options worksto increase access to high-quality educational op-tions for Black children by actively supporting pa-rental choice policies and programs that empow-er low-income and working-class Black families.Cato Institutewww.cato.orgThe Cato Institute’s education research is found-ed on the principle that parents are best suitedto make important decisions regarding the careand education of their children. Cato’s research-ers seek to shift the terms of public debate in favorof the fundamental right of parents.Center for Digital Educationwww.centerdigitaled.comThe Center for Digital Education is a resourceon K-12 and higher education technologies. TheCenter provides dynamic and diverse opportuni-ties for private- and public-sector leaders to suc-ceed in 21st century education.Center for Education Reformwww.edreform.comThe Center for Education Reform drives the cre-ation of better educational opportunities for allchildren by leading parents, policymakers andthe media in boldly advocating for school choice,advancing the charter school movement, andchallenging the education establishment.Center on Reinventing Public Educationwww.crpe.orgThe Center on Reinventing Public Education en-gages in independent research and policy analysison a range of K-12 public education reform issues,including choice and charters, finance and pro-ductivity, teachers, urban district reform, leader-ship, and state and federal reform.Digital Learning Now!www.digitallearningnow.comDigital Learning Now! is a national campaignto advance policies that will create a high quali-ty digital learning environment to better preparestudents with the knowledge and skills to succeedin college and careers.Education|Evolvingwww.educationevolving.orgEducation|Evolving is a kind of “design shop”working to help public education with the dif-ficult process of change. Education|Evolving isinvolved with the architecture and redesign ofschooling.Evergreen Education Groupwww.evergreenedgroup.comThe Evergreen Education Group seeks to under-stand the national landscape of K-12 online learn-ing and apply its understanding to the challengesthat schools, agencies, legislators, and others face.Foundation for Excellence in Educationwww.excelined.orgThe mission of the Foundation for Excellence inEducation is answer the pivotal questions of whatmotivates students to exceed expectations, whatare the secrets to successful teaching, and how dowe replicate academic achievement?APPENDIX E | EDUCATION REFORM ORGANIZATIONS
    • 118 Report Card on American EducationThe Freedom Foundationwww.myfreedomfoundation.comThe Freedom Foundation’s mission is to advanceindividual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, ac-countable government. Its primary research areasare budget and taxes, education, labor, elections,and citizenship and governance.Friedman Foundation for Educational Choicewww.edchoice.orgThe Friedman Foundation for Educational Choiceplays a critical and unique role in the schoolchoice movement. As the only national organi-zation dedicated solely to advancing Milton andRose Friedman’s vision of an education systemwhere all parents are free to choose, the Founda-tion brings an unsurpassed clarity of purpose tothe education reform debate.Goldwater Institutewww.goldwaterinstitute.orgThe Goldwater Institute is an independent gov-ernment watchdog supported by people who arecommitted to expanding free enterprise and lib-erty. The Institute develops innovative, princi-pled solutions to pressing issues facing the statesand enforces constitutionally limited governmentthrough litigation.Heartland Institutewww.heartland.orgHeartland’s mission is to discover, develop, andpromote free-market solutions to social and eco-nomic problems. Such solutions include parentalchoice in education, choice and personal respon-sibility in health care, privatization of public ser-vices, and deregulation in areas where propertyrights and markets do a better job than govern-ment bureaucracies.Heritage Foundationwww.heritage.orgThe Heritage Foundation is the nation’s mostbroadly supported public policy research insti-tute. Heritage works to formulate and promoteconservative public policies based on the princi-ples of free enterprise, limited government, indi-vidual freedom, traditional American values, anda strong national defense.Hispanic Council for Reformand Educational Optionswww.hcreo.comThe Hispanic Council for Reform and Educa-tional Options works to improve educationaloutcomes for Hispanic children by empoweringfamilies through parental choice. It achieves thisby providing parents with free information andresources.Home School Legal Defense Associationwww.hslda.orgThe Home School Legal Defense Association isa nonprofit advocacy organization established todefend and advance the constitutional right ofparents to direct the education of their childrenand to protect family freedoms.Hoover Institutionwww.hoover.orgThe Hoover Institution seeks to secure and safe-guard peace, improve the human condition, andlimit government intrusion into the lives of in-dividuals by collecting knowledge, generatingideas, and disseminating both.Insight Schoolswww.insightschools.netInsight Schools works to ensure online learningis delivering significant improvements in our ed-ucational system: helping to reduce the nation’shigh school dropout rate; bringing students backinto public schools; providing new opportunitiesfor students; and helping prepare them for collegeand life after high school.Independence Institutewww.i2i.orgThe Independence Institute is established uponthe eternal truths of the Declaration of Indepen-dence dedicated to providing timely informationto concerned citizens, government officials, andpublic opinion leaders.APPENDIX E | EDUCATION REFORM ORGANIZATIONS
    • www.alec.org 119Institute for Justicewww.ij.orgThe Institute for Justice challenges the govern-ment when it stands in the way of people tryingto earn an honest living, when it unconstitution-ally takes away individuals’ property, when bu-reaucrats instead of parents dictate the educationof children, and when government stifles speech.International Association forK-12 Online Learning (iNACOL)www.inacol.orgThe International Association for K-12 OnlineLearning works to ensure all students have accessto world-class education and quality online learn-ing opportunities that prepare them for a lifetimeof success.Innosight Institutewww.innosightinstitute.orgInnosight Institute is a not-for-profit, non-parti-san think tank whose mission is to apply Har-vard Business School Professor Clayton M. Chris-tensen’s theories of disruptive innovation todevelop and promote solutions to the most vexingproblems in the social sector.James Madison Institutewww.jamesmadison.orgThe James Madison Institute is a Florida-basedresearch and educational organizationengaged inthe battle of ideas. The Institute’s ideas are rootedin a belief in the U.S. Constitution and such time-less ideals as limited government, economic free-dom, federalism, and individual liberty coupledwith individual responsibility.John Locke Foundationwww.johnlocke.orgThe John Locke Foundation employs research,journalism, and outreach programs to transformgovernment through competition, innovation,personal freedom, and personal responsibility.The Foundation seeks a better balance betweenthe public sector and private institutions of fami-ly, faith, community, and enterprise.K12, Inc.www.k12.comK¹², Inc.’s mission is to provide any child access toexceptional curriculum and tools that enable himor her to maximize his or her success in life, re-gardless of geographic, financial, or demograph-ic circumstance.Mackinac Center for Public Policywww.mackinac.orgThe Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a non-partisan research and educational institute thatpromotes sound solutions to Michigan’s state andlocal policy questions. The Center assists policy-makers, business people, the media, and the pub-lic by providing objective analysis of Michiganissues.Maine Heritage Policy Centerwww.mainepolicy.orgThe Maine Heritage Policy Center is a researchand educational organization whose mission is toformulate and promote conservative public pol-icies based on the principles of free enterprise;limited, constitutional government; individualfreedom; and traditional American values.National Alliance for Public Charter Schoolswww.publiccharters.orgThe National Alliance for Public Charter Schoolsworks to increase the number of high-qualitycharter schools available to all families, particu-larly in disadvantaged communities that lack ac-cess to quality public schools.National Coalition for Public School Optionswww.publicschooloptions.orgThe National Coalition for Public School Optionsis an alliance of parents that supports and defendsparents’ rights to access the best public school op-tions for their children. The Coalition supportscharter schools, online schools, magnet schools,open enrollment policies, and other innovativeeducation programs.APPENDIX E | EDUCATION REFORM ORGANIZATIONS
    • 120 Report Card on American EducationAPPENDIX E | EDUCATION REFORM ORGANIZATIONSNational Council on Teacher Qualitywww.nctq.orgThe National Council on Teacher Quality is a non-partisan research and advocacy group committedto restructuring the teaching profession, led by itsvision that every child deserves effective teachers.National Heritage Academieswww.heritageacademies.comNational Heritage Academies works with schoolboards that are looking to bring parents in theircommunity another educational option for theirchildren. NHA invests resources into its schoolsto ensure that in every classroom, in every school,it is challenging each child to achieve.Oklahoma Council of Public Affairswww.ocpathink.orgOklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) wasfounded in 1993 as a public policy research organi-zation focused primarily on state-level issues.OCPA has been part of an emerging, national trendof free-market, state-based think tanks. Through-out its 16 years of existence, OCPA has conductedresearch and analysis of public issues in Oklahomafrom a perspective of limited government, individ-ual liberty and a free-market economy.Pacific Research Institutewww.pacificresearch.orgThe Pacific Research Institute champions free-dom, opportunity, and personal responsibility forall individuals by advancing free-market policysolutions. The Institute’s activities include publi-cations, legislative testimony, and communityoutreach.State Policy Networkwww.spn.orgThe State Policy Network is dedicated solely toimproving the practical effectiveness of indepen-dent, nonprofit, market-oriented, state-focusedthink tanks. SPN’s programs enable these orga-nizations to better educate local citizens, policymakers and opinion leaders about market-orient-ed alternatives to state and local policy challenges.StudentsFirstwww.studentsfirst.orgStudentsFirst formed in 2010 in response to anincreasing demand for a better education systemin America. Our grassroots movement is designedto mobilize parents, teachers, students, adminis-trators, and citizens throughout country, and tochannel their energy to produce meaningful re-sults on both the local and national level.Texas Public Policy Foundationwww.texaspolicy.comThe Texas Public Policy Foundation’s mission isto promote and defend liberty, personal respon-sibility, and free enterprise in Texas by educatingand affecting policymakers and the Texas publicpolicy debate with academically sound researchand outreach.Thomas B. Fordham Institutewww.edexcellence.netThe Thomas B. Fordham Institute believes allchildren deserve a high quality K-12 education atthe school of their choice. The Institute strives toclose America’s vexing achievement gaps by rais-ing standards, strengthening accountability, andexpanding education options for parents andfamilies.Washington Policy Centerwww.washingtonpolicy.orgWashington Policy Center improves the lives ofWashington citizens by providing accurate, high-quality research for policymakers, the media, andthe public. The Center provides innovative rec-ommendations for improving education.
    • CIVIL JUSTICETo promote systematic fairness in the courts bydiscouraging frivolous lawsuits, fairly balancingjudicial and legislative authority, treating defen-dants and plaintiffs in a consistent manner, andinstalling transparency and accountability in thetrial system.COMMERCE, INSURANCE,AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTTo enhance economic competitiveness, to pro-mote employment and economic prosperity, toencourage innovation, and to limit governmentregulation imposed upon business.EDUCATIONTo promote excellence in the nation’s education-al system, to advance reforms through parentalchoice, to support efficiency, accountability, andtransparency in all educational institutions, andto ensure America’s youth are given the opportu-nity to succeed.ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND AGRICULTURETo operate under the principles of free-marketenvironmentalism, that is to promote the mu-tually beneficial link between a robust economyand a healthy environment, to unleash the cre-ative powers of the free market for environmentalstewardship, and to enhance the quality and useof our natural and agricultural resources for thebenefit of human health and well-being.HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESTo reduce governmental involvement in healthcare, to support a consumer-driven health caresystem, and to promote free-market, pro-patienthealth care reforms at the state level.INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSTo promote the core ALEC principles of free mar-kets and limited government beyond our shores,to support final ratification of free trade agree-ments that create American jobs and grow oureconomy, and to protect the intellectual propertyrights of U.S. companies doing business overseas.PUBLIC SAFETY AND ELECTIONSTo develop model policies that reduce crimeand violence in our cities and neighborhoods,while also developing policies to ensure integri-ty and efficiency in our elections and systems ofgovernment.TAX AND FISCAL POLICYTo reduce excessive government spending, tolower the overall tax burden, to enhance trans-parency of government operations, and to devel-op sound, free-market tax and fiscal policy.TELECOMMUNICATIONSAND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYTo advance consumer choice in the dynamic andconverging areas of telecommunications and in-formation technology by furthering public poli-cies that preserve free-market principles, promotecompetitive federalism, uphold deregulation ef-forts, and keep industries free from new burden-some regulations.About the American Legislative Exchange CouncilThe American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest, nonpartisan, individualmembership association of state legislators. With 2,000 members, ALEC’s mission is to advance theJeffersonian principles of limited government, federalism, and individual liberty through a nonparti-san public-private partnership of state legislators, the business community, the federal government,and the general public.Founded in 1973, ALEC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that promotes free-market principlesthrough model legislation, developed by its public- and private-sector members in nine Task Forces:
    • 122 Report Card on American Education