The opening of the 2003-04 school year is bringing both congratulations and disappointment over test results. Three different testing standards — the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the state ABCs, and the federal No Child Left Behind Act — are creating confusion and frustration over accuracy.

Standards-based school reform

Standards-based school reform, under the banner of the federal No Child Left Behind law, is forcing school officials and parents to deal with multiple achievement standards for North Carolina’s students. Since 1995, the ABCs of Public Education program has reported the progress of the state’s students based mainly on end-of-grade tests and expected academic growth. By North Carolina’s internal standards, about 77 percent of the state’s students are proficient, or “at grade level” this year, according to Gov. Mike Easley.

But NAEP proficiency standards are much higher than North Carolina’s proficiency standards, and use a national benchmark to compare students. A third standard, adequate yearly progress, is calculated on the federal No Child Left Behind benchmark, using North Carolina end-of-grade tests. The AYP benchmark is much higher than North Carolina’s own “expected achievement growth.” As a result, it can be hard to determine whether student achievement in the state is rising, falling, or becoming stagnant.

Preliminary reports indicate that about 53 percent of schools in the state are expected to miss their adequate yearly progress benchmark this year. And only 32 percent of North Carolina’s fourth-graders were NAEP proficient-or-above in reading and writing in 2002.

To make matters more confusing, North Carolina is using the ABC results in-house to rate schools and determine bonuses, and separately, under the federal standard, to determine whether schools make AYP.
Some schools that fail to meet the federal standard will receive ABCs bonuses this year, based on the state formula. But even schools that meet the federal standard may not be recognized under the ABCs. CIS Academy in Durham was the only non-elementary school in Durham last year to make AYP. CIS operated as a school serving an alternative population of students with “serious academic problems,” according to the Durham Herald-Sun.

CIS was able to meet the federal AYP standard under No Child Left Behind’s “safe harbor” rule. That rule can apply if subgroups miss their individual benchmarks, but improve by at least 10 percent over the previous year, and pass an alternative standard.

The State Board of Education closed CIS in June on the recommendation of Durham Superintendent Ann Denlinger. According to the Herald-Sun, Denlinger argued that “those students would be better off in mainstream schools.”

Certified Results

North Carolina education officials are scheduled to confirm the ABCs data in early September. This will also allow them to certify the adequate yearly progress results.

The different tests and standards are creating a public relations nightmare for education officials. State Board Chairman Howard Lee, in an opinion column titled “Different Yardsticks Measure Success,” pleaded in advance for board credibility on the upcoming release of state test scores. Lee and the board are facing an uphill battle, given the conflicting results and inconsistent standards. A June 18, 2003 News & Observer of Raleigh article reported “Test Scores Leaping in N.C.” That article discussed the 2002 NAEP results. A month later, preliminary results of the state ABCs and federal AYP standards appeared amid headlines stating “Braced For Bad Marks,” New Standard Raises Bar,” “More Than Half of Schools Miss Mark,” and “AYP Isn’t as Easy as ABC.”

The latest reports point hopefully to next year’s results. Commenting on adequate yearly progress, Troy Peuler, principal of Vandora Springs Elementary School in Garner said, “It’s a matter of how you disseminate the information. If they know we’ve met 95 percent of our goals, they’ll see it’s all right.”

Durant Road Middle School in Raleigh was chosen as a national “Schools to Watch” model, but failed to meet AYP this year. It will concentrate on helping the English as a Second Language students in reading and math for the next round of tests.

Public perceptions

Early projections about ABCs results created a feeling of buoyancy in the state. Several administrators, including Susan Agruso, assistant superintendent for instructional accountability in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, praised the influence of the federal law. “As you put in accountability, people pay more attention to what the expectations are,” Agruso said. “You’re seeing a lot of things coming together and paying off for kids.”

But disillusionment occurs when reality and expectations collide. Test results will be sending many schools back to the drawing board to give achievement another try, and public support for reforms may be fraying a bit at the edges.

In its report for the Kettering Foundation, “Digging Deeper: Where Does the Public Stand on Standards-Based Education?” the National Dialogue on Standards-based Education, through Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, conducted focus group research on public attitudes toward school reform. The McREL research included public and private school parents, non-parent taxpayers, students, educators, business owners, and policymakers. “Initially, people expressed opinions… in line with recent public opinion polls that have revealed popular support for standards, assessments, and accountability,” the report reads. Eventually, four “key themes” emerged, according to the authors.

Accountability and community

The themes McREL identified were that 1) standards require tests, but accountability requires more than tests; 2) true accountability makes schools more responsive to parents and communities, not outside officials; 3) parents and students are a crucial and often missing part of accountability; and 4) the biggest problems with public schools are not standards or academics.

The McREL focus research found that “most people, including parents, were not familiar with their state standards,” even though almost all believed that standards would be meaningless without testing. Participants were hesitant to judge schools based on a single performance measure.

On another theme, parents said schools and districts were sometimes “unresponsive, impenetrable bureaucracies.” Because accountability now makes schools responsible to federal officials, it “may have the unintended consequence of making schools less answerable to parents and communities,” the report says.

“The biggest problems with schools have little to do with standards or academics,” focus participants reported. The most urgent concerns were worries about safety, violence, discipline, values, and character. “Parents were far more worried about ‘chaos on the playgrounds,’ bullying, or ‘a general lack of control’ in public schools than in test results.”

Will No Child Left Behind address parental concerns about schools? NCLB’s standards-based reforms, to the extent that they fail to address the public’s “deepest concerns about schools,” may cause public support to waver. As McREL’s report states, “…by focusing educators on the technical aspects …and diverting their attention away from the public’s deeper concerns about its schools, it’s possible that standards-based reform could exacerbate what appears to be a growing rift between the public and its schools.”

The rift is larger for urbanites than suburban parents. It reflects a perception that resources for low-income schools are given less willingly than for more affluent ones. And while most support their schools in theory, they were only involved with schools in paying taxes, or in confrontational situations.

Finally, the McREL study suggests that less adult involvement in schools may reflect a decline in local community identity. Fewer family and community ties exist than in the past. “Schools feel more like a government institution than a church. There’s a real disconnect in terms of community involvement,” according to one participant.

McREL’s study suggests the need for two-way communication. The “public mandate to improve public schools” and provide accountability to parents should be done by engaging communities in “ a genuine dialogue about their schools.”

Palasek is assistant editor at Carolina Journal and a policy analyst with the North Carolina Education Alliance.