Standards-Based Reform and Accountability Analysis of Two States — North Carolina and Texas

A Forum — July 30, 1999

Is there evidence that standards and accountability are working to improve learning outcomes? Are disadvantaged students being helped by these strategies or are they being left further behind? What other actions should states take to support standards-based reform? Presenters John Barth of the National Education Goals Panel and David Grissmer of RAND addressed these questions at the forum.

In 1998, David Grissmer was commissioned by the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) to conduct an analysis of states that showed marked improvements on a significant number of Panel indicators and to determine the factors that accounted for their progress or lack thereof. Grissmer’s research analyzed both National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores and state test data, and conducted case studies to identify reasons for improvement. Initial findings show that a significant part of state-by-state variation in NAEP scores is due to family and demographic characteristics which include: parental education level, family income, family size, age of mother at child’s birth, single/two parent family, mother working/not working and race/ethnicity. Per pupil expenditures seem unrelated to variation in state performance.

The study concluded that several factors that explain test score gains are found in the policy environment seen in such states as Texas and North Carolina. Both states have built a substantial infrastructure for supporting a process of sustained improvement in education. Both have been able to successfully raise test scores for minority students by looking beyond the school and the school district for help, focusing on different audiences such as parents, businesses and the community. Their reform policies include clear academic standards by grades, holding all students to the same standard, linking standards to state-wide assessments, demanding accountability for results, decentralizing decisionmaking, allowing for local flexibility in use of funding, and shifting more resources to disadvantaged students and to those in the lower grades.

Both states realized and acted on the critical role of the business community. Businesses became models to follow because they work with clear objectives, are decentralized, and demand measurement of progress and accountability. Learning from the business community has become a long-term commitment, and the two states rely on the continuity of the strong involvement of a few business leaders who are committed to reform of public education.

Business leaders took the time to learn about education issues and were able to serve in key positions in the reform effort for each state. They helped establish and fund key organizations, helped develop a strategic plan, pushed for a "data-driven" system, emphasized research-based change and were able to sustain their involvement. The business community also provided key support for legislation by organizing political support, providing funds and by helping the reform movement overcome strong opposition from education groups. Education policies are now strategic and legislative rather than tactical and local.

In both states, the behavior of school faculty and administration slowly began to change. Teachers became more focused on standards, began to utilize scores for diagnostic purposes, focused on marginal students more and began to use a wider set of teaching strategies and different resources. Principals and superintendents began to change their hiring and retention decisions, used scores to assess teachers and staff (principals) and utilized a variety of resources.

In Texas, since 1996, average reading scores across grades have grown the most among African-American students. In math, average test scores for black students, across grades, have matched and then exceeded white students’ scores by 1998. In North Carolina, average math scores for black students rose to match those of their white classmates’ by 1997. And, since 1993, average reading scores for black students, across grades, have tracked closely to those of white students.

Preliminary conclusions from both state scores focus on three major points. First, the primary reason for score differentials is due to family and demographic characteristics. Raw scores do not reveal much about the effectiveness of the educational system—value-added indicators are needed. Second, some characteristics of state educational systems matter, such as: the pupil to teacher ratio, pre-kindergarten programs and characteristics of assessment and accountability systems. Third, impact of smaller class size is relative to the type of family from which the student comes. For instance, little effect from smaller class size was seen in children from higher income families while lower income family children showed significant effects.

In conclusion, David Grissmer warned that statewide educational policies can help, but they have limits. The lessons learned from Texas and North Carolina show that deep changes take time to become established system-wide. "There are no easy, dramatic, short-term solutions. It is easy to lose focus and be diverted by fads." Grissmer offered a few points to consider. He urged that states should be selective in which classes to reduce in size. It is important, he said, to integrate standards, assessment and a balanced accountability system. Early childhood programs need to be fostered. There needs to be more focus on multiple risk children. Where teachers are concerned, states would do well to overhaul teacher preparation, continuing education and the compensation system. Grissmer warned that test scores, although a necessity, are a limited measure of what we want schools to accomplish. Educators should prepare for the future because research and development in education will improve dramatically—"We will not be doing the same things in schools in 15 years as we have for the last 100."

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org