|
|
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) allows for comparison of student performance between the states. The test allows the public to see how well California is doing compared to the national average and states with similar demographics like Texas. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests basic skills in reading, math, science, and a variety of other subject areas at certain grade intervals. In California, NAEP tests students in fourth and eighth grades. NAEP subject exams are not administered every year, but are usually administered every few years on a staggered basis for each subject. Approximately 40 states participate in the NAEP, and the exams are one of the key instruments used to compare the achievement of students across the nation. The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) oversees NAEP and is responsible for determining the content and design of each NAEP subject area assessment. For each subject area, the NAGB develops an assessment framework to describe what students should know and be able to do at grades four, eight, and 12. The NAGB says that the frameworks are not meant to be a national curriculum, but a broadly accepted outline of what a national assessment should test. NAEP uses matrix sampling, which is a testing technique that assembles different assessment documents covering aspects of a subject. These various assessments are administered to different sample sets of students. In other words, on the reading exam not every student answers the same questions. Aggregate scores for all students are then calculated. The major advantage of matrix sampling is that it allows for very wide coverage of subject content in limited testing time. Since NAEP uses matrix sampling, it is impossible to compare scores among students, schools, or school districts. This is unlike the SAT-9 exam, which allows for such comparisons since all students take the same test and answer the same questions. NAEP produces statewide data and allows for comparisons of performances among states. Also, unlike the Stanford-9, which scores students using a percentile ranking compared to a national norm, the raw numerical NAEP scores of students, which are termed “scale scores,” are categorized using performance levels of “advanced,” “proficient,” “basic,” and an implied fourth level of “below basic.” The NAGB says that to be “advanced” a student must display superior performance. To be “proficient,” a student must demonstrate a solid academic performance, i.e. they must demonstrate competency with challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real world situations, and appropriate analytical skills. In contrast, to achieve the “basic” level, a student need display only partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at that grade level. The NAGB believes that all students should be able to achieve a “proficient” rating.
NAEP data explanation:
Source:National Center for Education Statistics State Funding MechanismsCaliforniaAs of 2004, California provides money for education through several grants and entitlements. The largest, often referred to as “revenue limit funding,” supplies general-purpose aid to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The formula for that aid is a modified foundation formula, in which the foundation level varies from district to district based on several factors. The per-pupil base-revenue limit was first established in the 1970s and has been adjusted each year for inflation. The revenue-limit entitlement is met with both state aid and state-controlled local property taxes. About 60 districts in California have local property taxes that exceed their revenue-limit entitlements and so do not receive any state aid for general-purpose funding. General-purpose aid is adjusted for unemployment insurance, employer-retirement costs for classified employees, and additional support for small schools. California had about 50 categorical programs totaling $10 billion in fiscal 2004. The five largest provided support for class-size reduction, transportation, special education, preschool and child-development programs, and the state’s Targeted Instructional Improvement program. Last fall, though, the state consolidated more than 20 of the categorical programs into six block grants. As the result of a lawsuit settled last summer, Williams v. State, the state also passed legislation to increase school facilities funding. TexasIn September 2004, Texas lost a battle in the West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson case: A district court judge ruled that the state’s school finance system was unconstitutional. Texas has one year to revise the school finance system, although the state has announced that it will appeal the decision. Texas allocates money to districts through a foundation formula. The basic cost per student is $2,537 in fiscal 2005, which is determined by the legislature. Local districts are required to contribute a property tax of 86 cents for every $100 in property value to receive state funds. Districts that can generate more than the foundation level in local revenue are not eligible for foundation aid, but still receive at least $375 per pupil from a constitutionally dedicated fund. The formula is adjusted for special education students, English-language learners, geographic cost of living, geographic isolation, small schools, compensatory education, vocational education students, and gifted-and-talented students. The state also provides additional aid to match local tax effort above the required levy, and districts can obtain state aid for help in making bond payments. Texas is one of just a handful of states with “recapture” provisions in their formulas. If a district’s per-pupil adjusted property wealth is greater than $305,000, it must do one of the following: consolidate with another district, share revenue with another district, return revenue to the state, educate students from another district, or consolidate its tax base with another district’s. FloridaFlorida pays for education through the Florida Education Finance Program, or FEFP, a foundation formula with a base per-pupil allocation of $3,670 for fiscal 2005. Under the formula, the base student allocation is multiplied by a weighted student enrollment, which includes adjustments for different grade levels, English-language learners, special education students, and those in vocational education programs. The per-student allocation also is adjusted by a cost-of-living factor to reflect the variations in living expenses across Florida’s 67 school districts. Other adjustments to the formula include additional money for small districts, safe schools, and supplemental academic instruction, such as tutoring and after-school programs. The state also provides money to districts through six categorical programs that are outside the FEFP, which help support transportation, literacy programs, professional development, class-size reduction, technology, and instructional materials. Total spending for categorical programs in fiscal 2004 was about $1.8 billion. Plaintiffs lost a challenge to Florida’s school finance system in 1996 in Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles. A case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida challenging the state’s use of state-financed vouchers to send students to private schools is currently working its way through the courts. New YorkSince the 2000-01 school year, New York has suspended the use of its percentage-equalizing school finance formula used to distribute the majority of unrestricted state aid to districts. Districts now simply receive a percentage increase over the previous year’s allotment. For the 2004-05 school year, districts receive a 1.75 percent increase in funding over the previous year. The state has also continued several other appropriations. For example, additional money is provided to districts based on pupil-transportation costs, capital-construction activity, and services for students with disabilities, among other purposes. New York provides additional state aid to districts through 30 categorical programs, totaling $960 million in fiscal 2004. Those programs provide extra support for literacy and reading initiatives, class-size reduction, professional development, bilingual education, early-childhood education, and technology. New York state’s school finance system was ruled unconstitutional in 2003, in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State. Since then, several adequacy studies have been conducted, with varying results. In December, the state’s highest court accepted a report from a three-member referee panel that found an additional $5.6 billion must be spent on schoolchildren in New York City each year to meet constitutional guarantees for education.
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|