CEP Report Causes a Stir

On Tuesday, June 5, the non partisan Center on Education Policy (CEP) released its first of three major reports on the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? This report asked two critical questions across all 50 states. First, has student achievement in reading and math increased since NCLB was enacted? Second, have achievement gaps between different subgroups of students narrowed since NCLB?

CEP arrived at five main conclusions using the limited data they compiled, three of which are answers and two of which are important qualifiers. In the answer category:
1. In most states with three or more years of comparable test data, student achievement in reading and math has gone up since 2002.
2. There is more evidence of achievement gaps between groups of students narrowing since 2002 than of gaps widening, but the magnitude of the gaps is often substantial.
3. In 9 of the 13 states with sufficient data to determine pre- and post-NCLB trends, average yearly gains in test scores were greater after NCLB took effect than before.
Yet, the report found considerable trouble in data reliability, use and access:
4. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which these trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB. Since 2002, states, school districts, and schools have simultaneously implemented many different but interconnected policies to raise achievement.
5. Although NCLB emphasizes public reporting of state test data, the data necessary to reach definitive conclusions about achievement were sometimes hard to find or unavailable, or had holes or discrepancies. More attention should be given to issues of the quality and transparency of state test data.
Despite CEP's qualifications, the results of its report quickly entered the political spin zone. U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, for example, said that: “This study confirms that No Child Left Behind has struck a chord of success with our nation's schools and students. We know the law is working, so now is the time to reauthorize.” Others, such as Mike Pertrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, used the study to challenge the validity and consistency of state exams. “Even if students are making progress on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn’t mean much. We don’t need a national curriculum, but we certainly should have national standards for reading and math.”
The report triggered many news articles on the application of the report to particular states, but the most useful perspective on the matter may have come from Andrew Rotherham of the Education Sector and Ric Hess of the American Enterprise Institute (and a member of a panel that advised the report’s authors). They made the point that the law is a framework and not a program. As such, the week's “does-it-work-or-not-work” analysis is likely an inappropriate method of analysis.
Resources:
Amit Paley, “Scores Up Since 'No Child' Was Signed,” Washington Post, June 6, 2007.
Tamar Lewin, “State School Standards Vary Widely in Study,” New York Times, June 7, 2007.
Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? (Center on Education Policy: June 2007), http://www.cep-dc.org/.
Andrew Rotherham, “NCLB: The Needle Moves, Damage Done?,” EduWonk.com, June 5, 2007. Alexander Russo, “Lots Of New Details, Not So Many New Ideas,” This Week in Education, June 6, 2007.
Author: DAD