NTF Issue Paper: EdMon11.  1-04.
NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS FOR FREEDOM ISSUE PAPER:
BOGUS STATE REPORT CARD ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: 2003.

BACKGROUND.  The NE Dept. of Education (NDE) produced its third state report card on student achievement in NE public schools.  The objective meant to offer the public a condensed view by using statewide and national statistics.  The report card boasts pride for our schools and for high student achievement levels.  The department boasts that teachers and administrators have exceeded expectations and that higher achievement will allow our youth to stay competitive with peers.  However, many scores have dropped over several years, and it is impossible to compare school districts, as many used different criteria to evaluate test scores.1  Because not every school curriculum is aligned with state standards, not all students will have the same background to meet test challenges.  People subscribing to a daily newspaper in the state received a copy of this report card as an insert. 

STUDENT ASSESSMENT.  The Ed Dept. designed the assessment tests, so that there is no accountability.  Sec. 79-760 of NE Statutes states that one purpose of the assessment system is to determine how well public schools are performing.  However, one cannot compare school districts or schools.  School districts may choose from among several available tests or create their own tests and use their own test standards approved by the Ed Dept.  Districts could test all students, students in higher level math classes, or current math students on only a few standards, as options on high school math tests.  For example, Westside Schools assessed all 11^th Graders, Papillion tested only those enrolled in junior level math classes and tested only on standards applicable to their classes, and OP$ tested only students who had taken the math classes that offered background knowledge on state standards.  Deleting from testing underachievers has allowed school districts in other states to handily manipulate results.  Districts that test all students may appear academically worse than those excusing specific students.  Westside Schools conscientiously believes that all students should receive math instruction that would pertain to state standards.  Only 48% of OPS 11^th Graders took the math test in 2002, 57% from Papillion-La Vista.  The state ed dept. warns that districts or school buildings that report on fewer than 75% of math standards in grades 4,8, or 11, or that if fewer than 75% of students in an assessed grade level are in the assessment, the rating assigned is “conditional.”  However, the dept. penalizes no district for earning a conditional rating.  The point of assessment is to identify which pupils are lagging academically, no matter if they have not mastered material or have not become exposed to it.  Parents expect their children to learn material tested by state standards.  It does no good to test students on materials they have not studied.   

ASSESSMENT COST.  In its haste to establish standards, the Ed Dept. mandated that local school districts pay heavy costs for implementation.  OPS spent $1.9 million to fund multiple assessments.2  Districts must pay professionals to compile data, and some school districts hire people annually to grade assessment tests.  The Ed Dept. has refused to track the costs of assessment tests at the district level.   

TEST SCORES.  In state writing standards, only 74.76% of 4^th Graders met or exceeded expectations; over 25% failed to meet standards.  Grade 4 students fell below the national norm by 1 point, 8^th Graders by 4 points. Subjective evaluations of writing tests varied among districts. Different numbers and percentages of students in each district took the state writing tests, using different local tests, so it is impossible to directly compare grades among different school districts.  Also, children in different school districts did not all experience the same background subject teaching that would prepare them equally to understand the subject matter on these state standardized tests.  Examining state reading standards assessments, only 78.7% of 4^th Graders met or exceeded standards.  The figures were 76.7% for 8^th Graders and 77.2% for 11^th Graders.  Examining national standardized math tests, only 68% of 3^rd-5^th Graders, 64.5% of 7^th-8^th Graders, and 66.62% of 10-12^th Graders scored above median3 national average.  The number of 3^rd-4^th Graders whose performance fell below national average dropped from 2001 but increased in the 7th^-8^th and 10^th-12^th Grades.  The number of 7th & 8^th Graders whose performance climbed above national average rose from 2001 but decreased for Grades 3-5 and 10-12.  In national standardized reading tests, only 64.6% of 3^rd-4^th Graders, 61.2% of 7^th-8^th Graders, and 63.1% of 10^th-12^th Graders reached percentages above national average. 64% of Lexington District students fell below the median.  Mean ACT scores, which dropped in 2001-02 by 1/10^th of 1%, dropped another 1/10^th of 1% in 2002-03.  In 2000, 74% of NE high school students took this test, but the recent report card offered no new figure for comparison. Our research found that, in 2002, only 72% of graduating students took the test.  1% fewer core course completers took the test in 2002.1  In percentile scoring, the above scores in the 60s earn a “D” grade.  Yet, state education Commissioner Doug Christensen said, “Our students and their teachers continue to demonstrate the quality of Nebraska’s public schools.”  

STATISTICAL DECEPTIONS.  Statistical analysts state that one can prove whatever one wants to prove by manipulating statistical data.  The report card authors distorted figures admirably.  In several achievement sections, charts showing scores on standardized tests conveniently lack specific percentile scores.  Thus, we cannot know how well our students scored on a percentile basis from 0-100%.  We see only a relative comparison.  The tract brags that NE students consistently outscored peers nationally on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, a tagging of student achievement in reading and math by state comparison.  Not every state mandates that its students take this test.    NE 8^th Grade math scores are higher than national average but lower than in 1996.  4^th Grade math scores tied the national average but still were lower than 4 years previously.  We need to see the scores from other grades tested in other curricula for comparison to the national average.   

RATIONALE FOR BEGGING.  The report attitude begs for additional ed funding.  The brochure shows that over 32.4% of NE students are eligible for free and reduced price lunches.  Congressional liberals have hiked the qualification line to include many middle class families, and there is no mandate to serve pre-K children.  Over 14% of NE schoolchildren receive special ed services, says the report.  Over the years, children with even minor learning disabilities and behavior problems school districts have qualified for special ed, which entitles them to increased state and federal aid.  We have heard from parents who resist placement of their children in special education classes, citing non-necessity of such.  Almost 3/4ths of students reside in districts where spending stands at or above the U.S. average.  In 2000-01, NE spent $8,156 per student, more than 38 other states.2 

GRADUATION RATE.  The report gave the 2001-02 graduation rate, based on 12^th Grade enrollment, at 93.18%, having dropped continually since 1999-2000, and not counting how many students dropped out during their freshman, sophomore, and junior years.  The year old dropout rate figure of 2.9%, which included children not enrolled in school, misleads readers into believing that this figure denotes a high graduation rate.  The figure is .5 points higher than in 1992-93. 

ATTENDANCE.  The 2000-01 report card indicated that NE students attended school 95% of the time during the last decade.  However, the new report card showed the attendance rate dropping somewhat. 

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS.   The rosy report shows high percentages of NE high school classes taught by teachers who majored in subjects they teach, ranging from 96.2% in math to 86.3% in science.  Subject endorsements do not necessarily equate with teaching competence or excellence.  These figures belie school districts squawking about critical shortages of teachers in basic curricula.  The report indicates that over 1/3 of Nebraska teachers have an MA or higher level of education, a lower number than in 2001-02, but does not indicate if the masters degrees are in fields related to their teaching or how many credits they have earned towards a masters degree.  Future teachers must pass only a basic skills test for certification. The department does not require written testing in subject knowledge for beginner teaching licenses.  The NDE does not require teacher evaluations tied to student performance or achievement.  

TEACHER PAY.  The report pegs NE public school teacher salary at $37,881 for the 2002-2003 school year.  However, this figure does not include fringe benefits, which may equal 10% of a teacher salary.  Many teachers pay no co-payment for their health insurance.  Nebraskans need not feel embarrassed about what our school districts pay our teachers.  If one divides a NE average teacher salary of $37,881 by 37 weeks of work and multiplies that figure by 52 weeks of the year, the salary really = $53,238! 

ACCOUNTABILITY.  Only 49 of about 550+ NE school districts met federal accountability standards in curriculum testing and assessment quality. Only 379 districts met state accountability standards. 

EXTERNAL CRITICISM.  Education Week, a prominent education periodical, annually publishes a special report on the state of education in each state.  Its January, 2004 report gave Nebraska educational standards and accountability a grade of “D,” based on adoption of state standards in core subjects. NE does not require exams based on state content standards in science, math, or social studies. No rewards for high-performing or improving schools.  We have no timelines in which to improve our testing standards. We earned this low score for many reasons, including allowing 50% of our teachers to take advantage of the opportunity to retire within 5 years.1  Our state report card no longer offers precise statistics comparing our students with those in other states, according to National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) figures, probably to avoid embarrassment.  Only 32% of 4^th Graders and 35% of 8^th Graders scored at or above proficiency in reading.  Only 17% for black 4^th Graders and 10% for black 8^th Graders.  Only 34% of 4^th Graders and 32% of 8^th Graders scored at or above proficiency in math. Only 7% for black 4^th & 8^th Graders.  Only 27% of 4^th Graders and 32% of 8^th Graders scored at or above proficiency in writing.   Our educational system is creating an underclass. School learning climate earned a “C+.”  Only 61% of NE H.S. students took upper-level math classes in 2002; only 38% took upper-level science classes.  NE earned a “C” in teacher qualifications, our 74% lower than the Arkansas percentage.2   

OUR FURTHER FINDINGS.  NE does not permit charter schools.  The NDE does not hold teacher-training programs accountable by publishing pass/fail rankings of teacher education colleges.  The NDE does not provide parental notification of out of field teachers teaching their kids.  42% of NE middle school students learn from teachers having NO major or minor in subject taught.  51% of NE middle school students learn from teachers having no major OR certification in subject taught.  12% of NE high schoolers learn from teachers having NO major or minor in subject taught; 21% learn from teachers having no major OR certification in subject taught.3   The dept. does not require remediation for pupils failing promotion.  The NDE does not require alternative routes for students failing end of course tests.  The dept. accountability system does not include sanctions, school reconstitution, student transfer, or withholding of funds from failing schools.  The NDE does not evaluate schools by site visits or reviews or student test scores.  The dept. identifies NO individual schools as underperforming and does not rate schools.  The NDE implements NO criterion-referenced tests (scores 0-100% compared to “norm” testing that lumps scorers together in comparison groupings) aligned to state standards in math, science, or history.   

CONCLUSION.  Some of the statistics in this report derive from the 2001-2002 school year and others from the 2002-2003 school year, which detracts from the conclusions of the report.  This NE State Report Card is a political puff piece engineered to propagandize NE taxpayers into believing that public schools do such a fine job of educating our children that we should spend more taxpayer dollars on education.  Assessment tests must focus on state law requirements, include all core curricula, maintain a uniform means of measurement, and test the same percentage of students in all schools in the same grades.  There now are too many varieties of multiple assessment tests, thus one cannot compare student results in one against others.  The writing test contains different content each year, so one cannot compare scores from year to year.  The money that school districts now spend on teacher training for tests better could hire one expert to write and norm  tests for the entire state.  Then, one could compare district-to-district and school-to-school.  We believe a statute change necessary to permit the governor to appoint the head of the state ed dept., whereas now a mostly rubber stamp state board of education appoints the commissioner.  525,000 copies of this propaganda piece cost thousands to formulate, print, and distribute to Nebraska taxpayers.  The Omaha World-Herald, a champion of public education, printed and distributed the state report card at cost.  Communication Design of Lincoln, NE. designed, formatted, and created the material for production.  We urge taxpaying citizens to completely ignore this flawed study and instead concentrate on lobbying  individual school districts to more efficiently use our tax monies to educate our children and youth better in basic learning skills.   

Research and analysis for this issue paper done by Doug Kagan and Teal Morris.  This material copyrighted by Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, with express prior permission for its use by Taxwatchers, Inc., Citizens for Local Control, Cherry County Taxpayers, Dawes County Taxpayers, and other groups in the Tax Freedom Network.   1-04.  C