The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it examines the requirement in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that states have all students “proficient” in math and reading by 2013-2014. Second, the article assesses the organizational capacity of eighth-grade programs in Massachusetts to meet that directive. Issues of organizational capacity, system adequacy, and performance accountability frame this discussion. The findings reveal that significant differences persist in the organizational capacity of eighth-grade programs across the state. Moreover, no Massachusetts school has met the NCLB goal of 100% proficiency in either math or reading, calling into question the adequacy of the system or the appropriateness of the policy.
Alexander, N. A. (1998). The impact of curriculum standards on student performance: The case of New York state. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New York at Albany.
2.
Alexander, N. A. (2003). Considering equity and adequacy: An examination of the distribution of student class time as an educational resource in New York state, 1975-1995. Journal of Education Finance, 28(3), 357-381.
3.
Alexander, N. A. (2004). The changing face of adequacy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 81-103.
4.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17, 291-316.
5.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in school funding. Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.
7.
Betts, J. R., & Grogger, J. (2003). The impact of grading standards on student achievement, educational attainment, and entry-level earnings. Economics of Education Review, 22(4), 343-352.
8.
Carnoy, M. (1983). Educational adequacy: Alternative perspectives and their implications for educational finance. Journal of Education Finance, 8(3), 286-299.
9.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1997). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. In E. Cohn (Ed.), Market approaches to education: Vouchers and school choice (pp. 275-303). New York: Elsevier Science.
10.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 3-12.
11.
Davenport, E. (2003). Practicality of an “interesting” idea: NCLB?Informal presentation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
12.
Education Commission of the States. (2003). Continuous growth to 100% proficiency. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://nclb.ecs.org/nclb/rpt_map.asp
13.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (1965).
14.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). Conclusion: The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 274-296). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1995, April). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. Paper presented at the Brookings Institution conference on performance-based approaches to school reform, Washington, DC.
16.
Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
17.
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Fuhrman, S. H., Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2004). “Slow down, you move too fast”: The politics of making changes in high-stakes accountability policies for students. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 245-273). New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer.
20.
Guthrie, J. W. (2001). Constructing new finance models that balance equity, adequacy and efficiency with responsiveness. Education finance in the states: Its past, present, and future (ECS issue paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/28/19/2819.htm
21.
Haller, E. J., Monk, D. H., Bear, A. S., Griffith, J., & Moss, P. (1990). School size and program comprehensiveness: Evidence from high school and beyond. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 109-120.
22.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
23.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14.
24.
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25.
Hirschland, M. J., & Steinmo, S. (2003). Correcting the record: Understanding the history of federal intervention and failure in securing U.S. educational reform. Educational Policy, 17, 343-364.
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications from test-based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on educational policy, 2002 (pp. 235-283). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
Kim, J. (2003). The initial response to the accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act: A case study of Virginia and Georgia. Unpublished manuscript.
29.
Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Perennial.
30.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-16.
31.
Linn, R. L., & Kiplinger, V. L. (1995). Linking statewide tests to the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Stability of results. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(2), 135-155.
32.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). The Massachusetts charter school initiative (state report). Malden, MA: Author.
34.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003). Assessment/Accountability. Available from http://www.doe.mass.edu/
35.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-152.
36.
Monk, D. H., & Haller, E. J. (1993). Predictors of high school academic course offerings: The role of school size. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 3-21.
37.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
39.
Odden, A. R. (2000). The new school finance: Providing adequacy and improving equity. Journal of Education Finance, 25(4), 467-487.
40.
Odden, A. R. & Picus, L. O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving educational adequacy through school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 373-396.
43.
Rothman, R. (2004). Benchmarking and alignment of state standards and assessments. In S. H. Furman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
Schemo, D. J. (2003, August 8). State to monitor Houston schools to ensure reporting of dropouts. The New York Times, p. 10.
45.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
46.
Super teachers: Details needed on pay plan. (2003, October 7). Star Tribune. Available from http://www.startribune.com
47.
Sunderman, G. L. (2003). Implementing a major educational reform: No Child Left Behind and federal-state relationships, first impressions. Unpublished manuscript.
48.
Thorson, G. R., & Edmonson, J. (2000). Making difficult times worse: The impact of per pupil funding formulas on rural Minnesota schools. Paper prepared for the Center for Rural Policy and Development. Available from http://www.mnsu.edu/ruralmn/
49.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). The facts about...state improvement lists. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/accountability/state/improvementlists.html
50.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor state’s scoring of assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
51.
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). Common core data. Retrieved October 6, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/search.asp
52.
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved October 6, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003362.pdf
53.
U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003c). Trends in international mathematics and science study. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/
54.
Willower, D. J., & Licata, J. W. (1997). Values and valuation in the practice of educational administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
