ERIC ED505677: How "No Child Left Behind" Threatens Florida's Successful Education Reforms. Backgrounder. No. 2226

1.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

No. 2226
January 7, 2009
How “No Child Left Behind” Threatens
Florida’s Successful Education Reforms
Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., and Dan Lips
For decades, federal policymakers have tried to authority to direct public education in their juris-
implement education reforms to improve opportu- dictions.
nities for disadvantaged students and ethnic-minor-
Florida’s experience with implementing aggres-
ity children. Since 2001, the focus of federal policy
sive education reforms over the past decade sug-
has been the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legisla-
gests that states can improve student learning.
tion—which increased federal funding for K–12
Before No Child Left Behind was enacted, Florida
education programs and created new academic
implemented reforms to establish academic stan-
requirements for states and public schools that
dards, test students annually in core subjects, mea-
receive federal assistance.
sure student progress, and hold public schools and
The focus of the sweeping federal law was students accountable for results. These systemic
accountability reforms that required states to set reforms also included creating new public and pri-
state-level academic standards, test students annu- vate school-choice options, implementing instruc-
ally, and demonstrate that a growing population of tional reforms and intervention strategies to
students was scoring “proficient” on state exams. improve learning in core subjects, and enacting new
Schools that failed to meet state benchmarks are strategies designed to hire and retain effective
required to implement a series of reforms intended school teachers.
to provide better learning opportunities for stu-
After these education reforms were imple-
dents in danger of falling behind in low-perform-
mented, Florida’s students made dramatic progress
ing schools.
on the annual National Assessment of Educational
After seven years, evidence suggests that No Progress. The percentage of students who scored
Child Left Behind, like previous federal interven- “basic” or above on the fourth-grade reading exam
tions, has failed to yield meaningful improvements increased by 32 percent between 1998 and 2007,
in students’ learning. NCLB has also highlighted and these gains did not come at the expense of high-
the limits and unintended consequences of federal achieving students. The percentage of Florida
intervention.
As the 111th Congress considers the reauthori-
zation of NCLB, federal policymakers should review
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at:
this experience and examine other strategies for www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2226.cfm
improving opportunities for disadvantaged stu- Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department
dents and ethnic-minority children. One approach Published by The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
is to give states and local policymakers greater Washington, DC 20002–4999
[phone] (cid:127) heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting
the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to
aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
fourth-graders who scored “proficient” or better As policymakers review No Child Left Behind,
improved by 54 percent, and the number who Congress and the Obama Administration should
scored “advanced” (the highest level) increased by recognize three important lessons:
100 percent.
1. Like previous federal interventions, No Child
The greatest gains have been made by Hispanic Left Behind has failed to deliver meaningful
and black children. After a decade of strong improvement in student learning.
progress, Florida’s Hispanic students now outscore
2. Florida’s experience demonstrates the opportu-
the statewide averages for all students in Alabama,
nity for state-directed education reform.
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Lou-
3. NCLB’s accountability regulations threaten to
isiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Okla-
undermine state accountability reforms.
homa, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
West Virginia on the 2007 fourth-grade reading test. Given these lessons, Members of Congress and
Florida’s black students exceeded the statewide state policymakers should re-evaluate federal and
averages for all students in Louisiana and Missis- state governments’ current approach to improving
sippi on the same exam, and are within striking dis- public education. At the federal level, Congress and
tance of overtaking several other statewide averages. the incoming Administration should limit federal
policymaking authority and transfer greater power
Florida’s experience demonstrates that states can
back to the state and local levels—and they should
succeed in implementing reforms that result in sig-
end perverse incentives for states to weaken state
nificant improvement in student learning. Florida’s
standards. State policymakers should learn from
successful reforms, however, are threatened by per-
Florida’s success and implement systemic educa-
verse incentives created by the No Child Left
tion reform to hold schools and students account-
Behind Act. Since NCLB requires states to demon-
able for results, expand parental choice, and
strate that all students achieve proficiency on state
improve school and teacher effectiveness. This
exams by 2014, Florida and other states have an
combination of federal and state education policies
incentive to lower academic standards or make their
can spur meaningful improvement for children
tests easier to pass by lowering the “pass” thresholds
across the country.
in order to demonstrate artificial progress and avoid
labeling schools as failing and implementing —Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., is Vice President of
required reforms. A review of states’ academic stan- Research at the Goldwater Institute. Dan Lips is Senior
dards over time suggests a national trend of states Policy Analyst in Education at The Heritage Foundation.
lowering academic standards.
No. 2226
January 7, 2009
How “No Child Left Behind” Threatens
Florida’s Successful Education Reforms
Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., and Dan Lips
For decades, federal policymakers have tried to
implement education reforms to improve opportuni-
Talking Points
ties for disadvantaged students and ethnic-minority
children. Since 2001, the focus of federal policy has
• Like previous federal education initiatives,
been the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation—
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which increased
which increased federal funding for K–12 education federal authority over schools, has failed to
programs and created new academic requirements for deliver meaningful improvement in America’s
states and public schools that receive federal assistance. public education.
(cid:127) NCLB’s requirement for universal proficiency
NCLB established new requirements for states to
has created a perverse incentive for states to
set educational standards, test students annually on
lower standards in order to avoid federal
core subjects, and to implement reforms in public
sanctions.
schools that fail to demonstrate adequate progress on
(cid:127) Florida’s experience over the past decade
state tests. The combination of testing and reform
shows that state-level education reforms can
interventions was intended to provide better learning deliver meaningful improvement.
opportunities for students in danger of falling behind
(cid:127) Since 1998, Florida has enacted sweeping re-
in low-performing schools. forms to hold schools and students accountable
After seven years, evidence suggests that No Child for results, expand school choice, improve cur-
riculum and instruction, and strengthen teacher
Left Behind, like previous federal interventions, has
quality and effectiveness. The result has been
failed to yield meaningful improvements in students’
dramatic improvement on the National Assess-
learning. NCLB has also highlighted the limits and
ment of Educational Progress, with the greatest
unintended consequences of federal intervention. gains made by Hispanic and black students.
As the 111th Congress considers the reauthoriza- (cid:127) Policymakers should recognize the limits and
tion of NCLB, federal policymakers should review this dangers of increasing federal authority in edu-
cation as well as the promise of greater state
experience and examine other strategies for improving
independence when state leaders commit to
opportunities for disadvantaged students and ethnic-
serious reform.
minority children. One approach is to give states and
local policymakers greater authority to direct public
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at:
education in their jurisdictions. www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2226.cfm
Florida’s experience with implementing aggressive Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department
education reforms over the past decade suggests that Published by The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002–4999
[phone] (cid:127) heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflect-
ing the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt
to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
states can improve student learning. Before No regulations and incentives pose to testing and
Child Left Behind was enacted, Florida imple- accountability systems in Florida and every other
mented reforms to establish academic standards, state. The limits of No Child Left Behind and the
test students annually in core subjects, measure stu- promise of Florida’s success suggest that federal pol-
dent progress, and hold public schools and students icies that give states greater authority to direct edu-
accountable for results. These systemic reforms also cation reform hold promise for improving
included creating new public and private school- education when states and citizens commit to effec-
choice options, implementing instructional reforms tive reforms.
and intervention strategies to improve learning in
No Child Left Behind: The Background
core subjects, and enacting new strategies designed
to hire and retain effective school teachers. The 111th Congress is scheduled to consider the
ninth reauthorization of the Elementary and Sec-
After implementing these education reforms,
ondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). For four
Florida’s students have made dramatic progress on
decades, the federal government has been providing
the annual National Assessment of Educational
funding grants to states through ESEA programs in
Progress (NAEP). The percentage of students who
an effort to improve public education in America.
scored “basic” or above on the fourth-grade reading
exam increased by 32 percent between 1998 and In 2002, President George W. Bush signed legis-
2007, and these gains did not come at the expense lation reauthorizing ESEA, renaming it “No Child
of high-achieving students. The percentage of Flor- Left Behind.” NCLB was the product of a bipartisan
ida fourth-graders who scored “proficient” or better compromise between the Bush Administration and
4
improved by 54 percent, and the number who leading congressional Democrats. The Administra-
scored “advanced” (the highest level) increased by tion sought to reform ESEA by introducing new
100 percent.1 standards and accountability reforms that were
inspired by the new President’s experience as gover-
The greatest gains have been made by Hispanic
nor of Texas. The Administration sought support
and black children. After a decade of strong
from leading congressional Democrats by expand-
progress, Florida’s Hispanic students now out-
ing the federal funding for and authority over edu-
score the statewide averages for all students in
cation. As the legislation was developed on Capitol
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Hill, core components of the Administration’s origi-
Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
nal proposal—including measures such as private-
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia on the
2 school choice and expanded flexibility for states—
2007 4th-grade reading test. Florida’s black stu-
were stripped from the legislation.
dents exceeded the statewide averages for all stu-
dents in Louisiana and Mississippi on the same The final package was the 1,100-page NCLB
exam, and are within striking distance of overtak- that gave the federal government new powers to
ing several other statewide averages.3 regulate public education while significantly
increasing funding authorizations for federal educa-
This paper reviews nationwide education
tion programs.
reforms under No Child Left Behind and state
reforms in Florida—comparing federal and state The centerpiece of NCLB is a set of student
results. The paper examines the danger that federal testing and accountability requirements that were
1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Florida State Profile,” at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp (December 18, 2008).
2. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress,
NAEP Data Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ (December 8, 2008).
3. Ibid.
4. Andrew Rudalevige, “The Politics of No Child Left Behind,” Education Next, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Fall 2003), at http://
www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3346601.html (December 19, 2008).
page 2
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
designed to put all students on course to achieve school governance. Second, expanded federal regu-
proficiency on state examinations by 2014. To lations significantly increased the resources that
meet that objective, NCLB extended the Depart- must be allocated by state and local governments
5
ment of Education’s reach into school administra- simply to comply with federal requirements.
tions. The law requires states to test students
Unintended Consequences. NCLB is designed
annually in grades three through eight, and once
to improve public school accountability and aca-
between grades 10 and 12 and to report student
demic transparency, but it may be having the oppo-
performance (including disaggregated scores for
site effect. NCLB requires states to test students
student subgroups). Schools are measured based
annually and created a menu of penalties for schools
on their progress in increasing the number of stu-
that fail to demonstrate progress on state exams.
dents who score “proficient” or “adequate yearly
States must measure up against a benchmark that
progress” (AYP) on state assessments. Schools that
rises every year so that all students score “proficient”
fail to meet AYP goals are subject to a series of
on state tests by 2014. States establish the content
interventions and reforms, including school
standards and pass/fail thresholds of these tests.
restructuring and offering enrolled students after-
The interaction of these policies has created an
school tutoring and the option to transfer to
incentive for states to lower testing standards in
another public school.
order to avoid federal sanctions. Researchers have
NCLB Seven Years Later: The reported a pattern whereby states lower passing
Consequences of Federal Intervention thresholds and otherwise “dumb down” assess-
ments to boost proficiency scores and avoid federal
As Congress considers reauthorization of No
6
sanctions under NCLB. Absent a change in NCLB,
Child Left Behind, policymakers should review the
the pressure on states to lower their standards will
seven-year experience with the law. Following are
increase as the 2014 deadline approaches. The
the principal lessons that should be drawn from
result could be less transparency for schools’ actual
this experience:
performance.
The Costs of Expanded Federal Authority.
The Limits of Federal Intervention. The past
While the federal government provides only 9 per-
seven years have also highlighted the limits of the
cent of the funding for public education, NCLB
federal government’s power to force states to imple-
greatly expanded its policymaking authority by
ment various interventions—especially interven-
overseeing education governance at the state and
tions meant to empower parents, not public school
local levels. NCLB gave the federal government the
bureaucracy. For example, less than 1 percent of stu-
power to regulate policies that had previously been
dents in lower performing schools who were eligible
the purview of governors, state legislators, and local
to transfer to an alternative public school benefited
leaders—ranging from school teachers’ expected
7
from public school choice in 2004–2005. Less than
qualifications to the types of test assessments that
19 percent benefited from the limited-choice option
must be administered to students in certain grades.
8
of supplemental educational services.
This new federal authority has imposed signifi-
Evidence suggests that poor implementation by
cant costs on states. First, greater federal authority
school districts has contributed to the low student
has stripped states of considerable autonomy in
5. For example, the Office of Management and Budget reports that NCLB increased the cost of complying with federal
program requirements by 6.7 million hours annually, or by $141 million. See Dan Lips and Evan Feinberg, “The
Administrative Burden of No Child Left Behind,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1406, March 23, 2007, at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/upload/wm_1406.pdf.
6. For more information, see Eugene Hickok and Matthew Ladner, “Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind: Federal
Management or Citizen Ownership of K–12 Education?” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2047, June 27, 2007,
at http://www.heritage.org/research/education/bg2047.cfm.
page 3
No. 2226 January 7, 2009

participation. The Department of Education reports est advances in fourth- and eighth-grade reading
that a survey of parents in eight school districts and math. In mathematics, there has been some
found that only 27 percent of the parents of eligible progress since the early 1990s, but dividing that
students were notified of the public-school transfer period into a pre-NCLB era (1990 to 2003) and
option. Among those who were notified, the infor- post-NCLB era (2003 to 2007) shows very similar
mation often arrived after the school year had rates of gradual improvement in each. Modest
started and, in some cases, included language that progress was made in fourth-grade reading during
was confusing or even discouraged parents from the post-NCLB era, but nationwide eighth-grade
9
taking advantage of the transfer option. reading scores have been perfectly flat since NCLB
was enacted.
Beyond parent-centered reforms, other strate-
gies promoted by NCLB appear to also have a Some supporters of NCLB may contend that
limited impact. While NCLB sought to improve NCLB is responsible for the modest improvements
teacher effectiveness by requiring that instruction that have occurred over the past seven years. But
be grounded in research-based methods through the gradual improvement that American students
the Reading First program, a 2008 Department of have been making since the early 1990s suggests
Education study evaluating Reading First found that it is just as likely that we are seeing an unre-
that the program had not produced a statistically lated trend of modest improvement. Moreover, any
significant improvement in reading-comprehension recent gains in student test scores could obviously
10
test scores. be due to other factors including state, not fed-
eral, reforms.
Federal Funds for Education Spent Ineffi-
ciently. Since the passage of NCLB, the federal In Florida, the significant education reforms to
government’s budget for the Department of Edu- increase school accountability and parental choice
cation has continued to fund programs that are began years before No Child Left Behind. This sug-
ineffective or unnecessary. The Bush Administra- gests that academic progress should be attributed to
tion recognized that there was ample room for state reform efforts rather than No Child Left
savings: Its budget request for 2009 included a Behind. NAEP data, in fact, demonstrate that the
proposal to terminate 47 programs identified for change in the trend line for Florida’s scores occurred
elimination through the federal government’s Pro- between 1998 and 2002. If any of the improvement
gram Assessment Rating Tool. The projected bud- after 2002 could be attributed to NCLB, the ques-
get savings from terminating these programs was tion arises: Why so little progress in other states?
11
approximately $3.3 billion. As of the publica-
Florida: A Decade of K–12
tion of this paper, these programs have not been
Education Reforms
terminated.
In 1999, Florida Governor Jeb Bush entered
Modest National Improvement in Student
office promising to implement a series of aggressive
Learning. On the National Assessment of Educa-
education reforms if elected. Governor Bush imme-
tional Progress, American students have made mod-
7. Author calculations derived from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, “National Assessment of Title I: Final Report,” NCEE 2008-4012, October 2007, at http://ies.ed.gov/
ncee/pdf/20084012_rev.pdf (December 18, 2008).
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Reading First Impact
Study: Final Report, NCEE 2009-4039, November 2008, at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20094039.pdf (December 18, 2008).
11. Many of these proposed programs for termination are authorized through the NCLB legislation. For more information, see
U.S. Department of Education, “Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary–February 4, 2008,” at http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget09/summary/edlite-section3.html (December 18, 2008).
page 4
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
diately pursued a dual-track strategy of education requiring that students pass the FCAT before mov-
reform: standards and accountability for public ing on to fourth grade. Remedial instruction was
schools, and new choice options for students to provided to students who were denied promotion.
improve learning opportunities. In the years that
School-Choice Options. The A+ Plan also
followed, these reforms were complemented by
established new school choice options for families.
additional reforms, including instruction-based
Students attending any school with two F’s in four
reforms, the curtailing of social promotion for stu-
years became eligible to receive vouchers to attend
dents who fail to master grade-level work, and new
another school, public or private. This program
strategies for hiring and compensating effective
would later be ended by a Florida state Supreme
public school teachers. The following is an over-
Court decision. But Florida created a broad range of
12
view of Florida’s sweeping education reforms:
public or private school options during this period:
Academic Standards and Testing. The founda-
• Private school choice: Since 2000, Florida has
tion of Florida’s K–12 education reforms was the
offered private-school tuition scholarships to
1999 “A+ Accountability Plan,” which required that
children with disabilities through the McKay
students in grades three through 10 be tested annu-
Scholarship program. During the 2007–2008
ally in reading and math through the Florida Com-
school year, 19,852 students received scholar-
prehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT 13
ship through the McKay program. The average
incorporated both norm-referenced and criterion- 14
scholarship amount was $7,295. Since 2001,
referenced measures. Together, these measures eval-
Florida has also offered corporations a dollar-for-
uate a student’s performance compared to peers
dollar tax credit for contributions to non-profit
across the nation and compared to state standards.
groups that fund private school scholarships for
This system was developed to allow the tracking of
disadvantaged children. During 2007–2008,
students’ progress each year.
21,493 students received scholarships worth an
Holding Schools and Students Accountable. average of $3,750.15
The state also created a new accountability system
(cid:127) Charter schools: Florida has one of the stron-
based on FCAT. Both schools and students were
gest charter-school laws in the nation. Charter
held accountable for their performance. Annual
schools are publicly funded schools that agree to
state report cards ranked public schools on a scale
meet certain performance standards required by
from A to F based on students’ performance each
their charter agreement. They are otherwise free
year. Schools that earned high marks received fund-
of the rules and regulations that govern public
ing bonuses and greater autonomy. The state
schools. Thus, charter schools offer families a
required schools that received an F twice in a four-
choice within the public school system. In the
year period to implement state-sanctioned reforms.
2007–2008 academic year, 105,329 students
Students were also held accountable for their per-
were enrolled in the state’s 358 public char-
formance: The A+ Plan ended social promotion by 16
ter schools.
12. For a detailed overview of the Florida’s education reforms, see Dan Lips and Matthew Ladner, “Demography Defeated:
Florida’s K–12 Reforms and Their Lessons for the Nation,” Goldwater Institute Policy Report No. 227, The Goldwater Institute,
September 30, 2008, at http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/Demography%20Defeated.pdf (December 19, 2008).
13. Florida Department of Education, Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice, “John M. McKay Scholarships for
Students with Disabilities Program,” August 2008, at http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/files/
Fast_Facts_McKay.pdf (December 19, 2008).
14. Ibid.
15. Florida Department of Education, Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice, “Corporate Scholarship Tax
Credit Program,” August 2008, at http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/CTC/files/ctc_fast_facts.pdf (December 19, 2008).
16. Florida Department of Education, Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice, “Florida’s Charter Schools,” August
2008, at http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/charter_schools/files/fast_facts_charter_schools.pdf (December 19, 2008).
page 5
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
(cid:127) Virtual education: Florida offers students the An example of this performance-pay approach
ability to learn online through virtual education. was a program to encourage greater participation in
The state-funded Florida Virtual School cur- Advanced Placement (AP) classes. Governor Jeb
rently offers more than 90 courses (ranging from Bush pushed the One Florida Initiative, which
GED to Advanced Placement Courses). Middle sought to replace race-based affirmative action with
and high school students anywhere in Florida more effective instruction: better preparation
can participate in these courses for free. The state instead of lowered standards. The results have been
projects that 134,400 courses will be completed impressive. Working in partnership with the Col-
17
during the 2008–2009 school year. lege Board beginning in the year 2000, One Florida
sought to increase the academic achievement of
Curriculum and Instructional Reform. A
Florida’s students, who are particularly underrepre-
major focus of Florida’s curriculum reforms over the
sented in Florida’s universities. The comprehensive
past decade has been on improving reading instruc-
plan included professional development for teach-
tion. In 2002, the state implemented “Just Read,
ers and counselors and free Pre-SAT exams for stu-
Florida” to improve reading instruction. This initia-
dents. Florida officials created AP Potential—a
tive included a program to create new reading acad-
Web-based tool to identify promising students for
emies to train teachers in reading instruction and
AP coursework.
hire 2,000 reading coaches in public schools across
the state. Students in grades six through 12 who The program relied heavily on incentives, creat-
demonstrated insufficient reading skills received ing an AP Teacher Bonus of $50 for every passing
remedial instruction. score per student, up to $2,000 per year, and paying
the school an additional bonus of $650 per student
Hiring and Compensating Effective Teachers.
who passes an AP exam. Florida officials worded
Teacher quality is a leading factor affecting student
this bonus in the funding formula very precisely so
performance. Over the past decade, Florida enacted
that it is paid to the individual school, not to the
new policies for attracting and rewarding high-qual-
school district.
ity teachers. First, Florida established policies to
allow alternative paths to teacher certification to Florida’s A+ reform plan assigns letter grades to
attract teachers to the classroom who otherwise schools based on student performance. The One
would not consider teaching as a profession, given Florida plan provided an additional school bonus
the barriers created by teacher-certification require- of $500 per student attending a D- or F-rated
ments. The state opened “Educator Preparation school that passes an AP exam. The idea was to set
Institutes” to facilitate the transition to teaching. high expectations and to reward success. The
School districts are also allowed to offer their own National Math and Science Initiative recently
forms of alternative certification. Today, about half collected data on the number of students who pass
of all new teachers in Florida are coming to the pro- AP exams, broken down by ethnicity. Florida leads
fession through alternative certification programs. the nation in Hispanics, and does so at a rate nearly
8 times greater than that of the lowest performer
Florida also offers performance pay for teachers.
(Arizona).
In 2007, Florida’s performance-pay system offered a
total of $147 million in state aid to school districts Do schools respond to incentives? The evidence
to pay performance bonuses to teachers. Bonuses speaks for itself: Between 1999 and 2007, the num-
can reach up to 10 percent of a teacher’s pay. ber of Florida students that passed AP tests
Through this program, schools are awarded funds increased by 154 percent. Meanwhile, the number
to provide bonuses to personnel who contribute to of Hispanic and black students in Florida that
measurable improvement in students’ academic passed an AP exam more than tripled.
achievement.
17. Florida Department of Education, Office of Independent Education and Parental Choice, “Florida Virtual School,” August
2008, at http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/virtual_schools/files/Virtual_Fast_Facts.pdf (December 19, 2008).
page 6
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
The Results: Florida’s Academic Success
Beyond these remarkable gains in AP achieve- Reading Improvement
ment rates, Florida students have made remarkable
progress since 1998. One critical measure of student Percentage Increase in NAEP Reading Scores,
1998–2007
learning is fourth-grade reading scores. Early child-
hood literacy represents the foundation for all subse- 4th Grade
quent learning. Students who do not learn to read
All Students Florida 8.74%
in the early grades tend to fall farther and farther National 3.29%
behind each passing year. Literally unable to com- White Florida 6.91%
prehend their middle school textbooks, these stu- National 3.14%
dents often become disruptive and drop out of Black Florida 11.83%
National 5.73%
school as early as the 8th grade. Chart 1 demon-
Hispanic Florida 10.10%
strates the progress made by Florida fourth-grade
National 6.25%
students on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) exam between 1998 and 2007. 8th Grade
An analysis of NAEP test scores over the past All Students Florida 1.96%
National 0.00%
decade shows that Florida’s fourth- and eighth-
grade students have made greater progress than the White Florida 1.52%
National 0.75%
national average. Florida’s greatest progress has
Black Florida 3.39%
been made by ethnic-minority children.
National 0.83%
For fourth-grade reading, Florida’s gains were Hispanic Florida 4.92%
more than twice as large as the national average. (See National 2.07%
Chart 2.) Although eighth-grade reading improve- Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
ments were more difficult to achieve for both Florida Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
naepdata (January 5, 2009).
and the nation, Florida’s eighth-grade reading gains
were more than twice as large as the national average Chart 1 • B 2226 heritage.org
for whites, more than eight times larger than the
national average for black students, and about three
in the California numbers—including all of the
times larger for Hispanics. (See Chart 3.) Florida’s
state’s wealthy children.
students also produced above-average gains in both
The dramatic progress of Florida’s minority stu-
fourth- and eighth-grade math.
dents also becomes clear when comparing the
Florida vs. Other States. The scope of Florida’s
progress made by Florida’s low-income, minority
progress becomes clear by comparing its students’
children with the statewide average of all students
performance on the NAEP exam with that of chil-
in California. The average student in California has
dren in other states. For example, Chart 4 compares
a socio-economic advantage over a low-income stu-
the performance of students in Florida with stu-
dent living in Florida. For example, the median
dents in California. As the chart demonstrates, Flor-
family income for a family of four in California was
ida’s low-income students now outperform the 18
$74,801 in 2006. The maximum income for a
statewide average of all students in California.
family of four eligible for the federal free and
In 1998, Florida’s low-income students were far reduced-price school lunch program is $39,200.
behind California’s statewide average. This was not
Despite the tremendous advantages that Califor-
unexpected, given what is known about student
nia students have in this comparison, Florida’s low-
demographics and educational performance. The
income Hispanic students surpassed the statewide
entire sample of fourth-grade students is contained
18. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income—Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months by Family Size,” 2006, at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html (December 19, 2008).
page 7
No. 2226 January 7, 2009
Comparing Florida’s
All White
4th-Grade Reading to
100% 100%
the U.S. Average
90% 90%
Florida’s 4th-grade reading levels
exceeded U.S. averages, particularly 80% 80% BASIC
among Hispanics, blacks, and
low-income children. 70% 70%
BASIC
60% 60%
KEY
Florida 50% 50%
U.S. average
PROF.
40% 40%
BASIC At or above basic
PROF. At or above proficient PROF.
30% 30%
ADV. Advanced
20% 20%
10% 10% ADV.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National ADV.
Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data
Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ 0% 0%
naepdata (January 5, 2009). 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
Black Hispanic Low-Income*
100% 100% 100%
90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70%
BASIC
60% 60% 60%
BASIC
50% BASIC 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
PROF.
20% 20% 20% PROF.
PROF.
10% 10% 10%
ADV. ADV. ADV.
0% 0% 0%
1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007
Note: 4th-graders in Florida were not tested in 2000. * Defined as those eligible for the national lunch program.
Chart 2 • B 2226 heritage.org
page 8