Chapter 9

Power and Control at State and National Levels

This chapter examines the relationship between federal and state control of schools. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about education; consequently, it is a responsibility given to state governments. State constitutions and laws contain provisions for creating and regulating public schools. However, in recent years the federal government has exercised dramatic control over schools by funding No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Resulting from these laws were highly controversial requirements for testing students, calls for using student test scores to evaluate teachers, the Common Core State Standards, and efforts to create student data systems.

One consequence of federal involvement in local education is the inclusion of education issues in campaigns for federal offices. Even national presidential campaigns address school issues ranging from sex education to the testing of students.

This chapter examines the following issues:

Federal Influence Over Local School Policies

Federal influence over state education and local schools is primarily through categorical aid. Categorical aid is money provided to support specific federal programs and legislation such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Once states or local school districts accept federal money, then they have to accept the regulations and requirements that accompany the funding. Most states and local school systems find it difficult to refuse the money provided by the federal government. Consequently, the federal government has increased its influence over local schools despite the fact that the actual amount of money from federal sources is only a small percentage of the money local schools spend on students.

Figure 9.1

Figure 9.1 Relationship between Federal and State Governments and Local Schools

Since 1989, there has been a decline in the total revenue for public elementary and secondary education from local sources and an increase of funding from the federal government. The state percentage has remained about the same. This shift in funding reflects the growing role of the federal government in local schools. The federal legislation No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top are examples the how the increase in categorical federal aid has impacted local school systems. The Condition of Education 2014 reports: “Federal revenues, traditionally the smallest of the three revenue sources, increased by 106 percent (to $79 billion in 2010–11), and local revenues increased by 20 percent (to $274 billion in 2010–11).” In addition, the 2014 report stated:

State revenues fluctuated between $264 billion and $309 billion during this period, and they were 6 percent higher in 2010–11 than in 2000–01 ($279 billion vs. $264 billion). During this period, federal revenues peaked in 2009–10 at $81 billion, while local revenues peaked in 2008–09 at $279 billion and state revenues peaked in 2007–08 at $309 billion.

Categorical Federal Aid

Beginning in the 1950s, the federal government began using requirements attached to funding to influence local school policies. During the 1950s, there was a debate about whether the federal government should give money to local school systems and let them determine how to use it or whether the federal government should specify how the money should be used. With the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), Congress targeted funds for specific purposes, such as improving mathematics, science, and foreign language instruction. The next major federal educational legislation, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also tied education to national policy objectives; in this case it was the War on Poverty. Funds were targeted for reading and arithmetic programs that would supposedly provide equality of educational opportunity for students from low-income families.

Regulatory control is exemplified by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which applies to federal education legislation. Any school agency receiving federal funds must comply with Title VI, which requires the mandatory withholding of federal funds from institutions practicing racial, religious, or ethnic discrimination. Title VI states that no person, because of race, color, or national origin, can be excluded from or denied the benefits of any program receiving federal financial assistance. Also, any educational agency receiving federal funds must comply with Title IX of the 1972 amendments to the Higher Education Act. Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Assistance.”

The federal government, therefore, exerts considerable indirect influence over education by:

No Child Left Behind

Theoretically, No Child Left Behind balances federal and state power by allowing states to determine their own academic standards and testing programs. But the legislation does require states receiving federal funds to implement a range of activities including creating academic standards and testing programs, requiring public reporting of test scores, identifying and improving schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress, using particular types of reading programs, offering choice plans, and a host of other provisions in the legislation. Throughout the legislation there are requirements placed on state governments receiving funds. For instance, Part I of Title I of the legislation states:

For any State desiring to receive a grant under this part, the State educational agency shall submit to the Secretary [U.S. Secretary of Education] a plan, developed by the State educational agency, in consultation with local educational agencies, teachers, principals, pupil services personnel, administrators (including administrators of programs described in other parts of this title), other staff, and parents.

Besides increasing federal power over local schools, No Child Left Behind contains provisions strengthening state control over local schools. This represents a major change since the founding of public schools in the nineteenth century. The requirements of categorical aid provided by No Child Left Behind expand the involvement of state governments in local school activities. In the early nineteenth century, state departments of education were small and confined their activities to collecting educational statistics, promoting good schools and teacher training, and inspecting local schools. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen turies, states expanded their role with the passage of compulsory education laws and laws requiring specific curriculum content in the schools. Over the years, these curriculum requirements expanded in many states to cover a great deal of the course content offered in local school districts. Teacher certification requirements also increased and became more complex. Because of the enforcement requirements of these laws, state educational bureaucracies grew steadily in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

No Child Left Behind made state governments central to creating high-stakes tests for measuring school quality and creating academic standards. However, Race to the Top attempted to nationalize academic standards through Common Core State Standards.

Race to the Top

Exemplifying the increasing control of the federal government over local schools is the economic stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. The official Executive Summary of the program states that the $4.35 billion funds allocated for the program was:

designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas.

These reform efforts are specified as:

The goal of Race to the Top funds was to shape state education policies to meet the requirements of federal guidelines. States rushed to write applications that conformed to federal criteria. As reported by New York Times writer Sam Dillon, Colorado used “5,000 hours of staff and volunteer time” to complete the application. Indicative of the conse quences of Race to the Top was a New York Times article on the process entitled “States Mold School Policies to Win New Federal Money.”

When states were granted money under Race to the Top in September 2010, Education Week reporter Alyson Klein reported Secretary Duncan’s comments on federal influence: “What you’ve accomplished in your states collectively is the easy part. … [States will now have] to change behavior from the statehouse to the school and into the classroom.”

Student Privacy and Big Data

A major concern is the possible hacking of data collection required by the Race to the Top’s provision for “Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction.” This part of the national standards, in contrast to individual state standards, would make it possible to link a national data bank of student test scores to individual teachers and eventually to the institutions which trained each teacher. This trend has raised concerns about hacking into massive student data banks that contain not only student test scores but other student characteristics.

These big datasets could be used to create what are called personalized learning, in which past student data are used to adapt instructional materials to meet students’ abilities. The data would also be used to evaluate teachers and teacher education programs. Given student and teacher geographic mobility, the analysis of teacher education programs would not be possible without national standards and testing. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated in a speech on teacher education, “The draft Race to the Top criteria would also reward states that publicly report and link student achievement data to the programs where teachers and principals were credentialed [emphasis in original].” The criteria for selection of state grants under Race to the Top included whether or not states were willing to participate in creating national standards, common tests, and a data bank of student scores to be used to evaluate teachers and support charter school expansion.

Writing for Education Week, Benjamin Herold describes the use of $4.8 million from the National Science Foundation to create a big dataset which would include “learning and behavioral information that students generate when they use digital-learning tools,” including “every mouse click a student makes when using a software program and information demonstrating a student’s thought process when attempting to solve a problem in an online simulation.” These data would be shared with multiple institutions, including third-party and for-profit vendors. Concerns were immediately raised about student privacy with the sharing of these data with outside vendors and the possibility of the data being hacked. There was also concern about who owned the data.

Similar concerns are raised about student privacy regarding the Data Quality Campaign funded by organizations committed to using big data to solve social problems, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. The Data Quality Campaign is creating a system of data sharing between states. In the organization’s publication “Paving the Path to Success: Data for Action 2014,” it describes its objectives as more than collecting student test scores:

The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) is dedicated to helping everyone with a stake in education, including parents, teachers, education leaders, and policymakers, effectively and appropriately understand and use education data. DQC helps parents and educators understand the value of data – why data matter and how they can help students be successful in the classroom and beyond. Data are more than just test scores, and by effectively accessing and using different types of data – such as attendance, grades, and course-taking – teachers, parents, and school and district leaders can help ensure that every student is on a path for success every day, not just at the end of the school year.

The Data Quality Campaign does recognize the problem of protecting student data, but provides no assurance that the data will be protected. Its report “Paving the Path to Success: Data for Action 2014” does state that: “In 2014, many states sought to safeguard student data privacy by introducing legislation. In total, 36 states considered 110 bills directly addressing student data privacy.”

Common Core State Standards

Representing another form of federal influence on state education policies is the adoption of the Common Core State Standards released on June 2, 2010 by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). By 2014, the Common Core State Standards had been adopted by forty-three states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defensive Education Activity. As discussed at the beginning of Chapter 1, there is already a great deal of controversy surrounding the literacy standards in the Common Core State Standards. Controversy occurs whenever one attempts to define an academic field by creating learning standards.

It is impossible in this text to review all of the Common Core State Standards for K-12. However, all the standards are available on the website Common Core State Standards Initiative (http://www.corestandards.org/). The website provides answers to these commonly asked questions about the Standards.

What are educational standards?

Why do we need educational standards?

Readers of this book may be teaching a variety of courses and grade levels. The important thing to remember is that you may not agree with the standards for a particular grade and subject. As discussed at the beginning of Chapter 1, these standards are directed at preparing students for work and college. Consequently, the literacy standards discussed in Chapter 1 increase the amount of nonfiction and reduce the amount of fiction read by students. Questions about personal feelings and relationship to the text are avoided. The idea is to prepare students to write corporate memos and college essays.

Federal and State Control Through High-Stakes Tests and Academic Standards

High-stakes testing mandated in No Child Left Behind provides direct control over student learning, particularly if teachers teach to the test. Tests based on the Common Core State Standards represent another form of control of the content of student learning. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandates a schedule, target populations, and reporting procedures for high-stakes testing and academic standards. Test data are used to determine which schools are making adequate yearly progress; those that are not can receive funds for school improvement and educational services, and parents of children at those schools will be allowed school choice. Theoretically, the purpose of test data is to spur school improvement by identifying low-performing schools and motivating teachers and school administrators to achieve state standards. The combination of state report cards for each school district and district report cards for each school results in every level of school administration and all teachers being judged by student performance.

Also, to highlight any possible discrimination of schools and school districts, states must make available to the public a list of elementary and secondary schools receiving funds for school improvement because they have, according to state standards, been failing for two years. This public list must include “the percentage of students in each school from families with incomes below the poverty level.” In addition, the state must report students “by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged.”

The high-stakes testing required under No Child Left Behind has consequences for how teachers and principals are paid, real estate prices, instructional time in the classroom, and profits for corporations making the tests, and contributes to the nationalization of public schools. Student testing affects the evaluation of teachers and administrators. In 2006, the Houston Board of Education approved a $14.5 million program that rewards teachers and administrators according to the scores of their students on standardized tests. Teachers can receive up to $3,000 annually for their students’ improved test scores and administrators up to $25,000 for the improved performance of students in their schools. New York School Chancellor Joel Klein announced near the opening of the 2002/2003 school year that district superintendents would receive bonuses of up to $40,000 – about a quarter of their base salaries – if test scores improved in their districts. School principals were already receiving bonuses for improved scores in their schools. In March 2004, Denver teachers voted 59 to 41 percent for a merit pay system using student achievement test scores. The Denver plan provides several methods for teachers to gain pay raises. The most important method is for pay hikes to be based on student academic growth as measured by test scores. Denver teachers under the plan would also be able to gain salary increases by being evaluated as satisfactory, improving their education, or teaching in high-poverty schools.

High-stakes test scores are now news items that even affect the real estate market. For instance, a July 26, 2006 Education Week headline reveals, “Scores Linked to Home Prices.” In the article, economics professor Donald Haurin reports that “a 20 percent increase in a district’s pass rate on the state tests translated to a 7 percent increase in the home prices in the district.”

Some people worry that testing is taking away from instructional time. “Time Devoted to Testing Surprises New Teacher” is what the editors of Education Week titled a April 5, 2006 letter from Cindy Mulvey of La Quinta, California. Mulvey asks, “Is it true that our students are tested more than 85 out of 180 days?” She explains her experience as a long-term third-grade substitute:

I … spent more time testing my 3rd graders … than I did instructing them. In addition to daily multiplication quizzes, the students took a weekly spelling test, a weekly Houghton Mifflin Reading test, a chapter math test every two weeks, a theme skills test once a month, a unit math test once a month, a writing-prompt test every trimester, several county and state exams, and a physical-fitness test.

Testing is a for-profit industry. McGraw-Hill and Pearson are the two largest producers of tests. An example of the testing industry was presented in a August 28, 2006 article in the popular Newsweek magazine titled “Test Wars: The SAT [Scholastic Assessment Test] vs. the ACT [American College Testing Program].” The article reveals the big business aspect of high-stakes testing in the struggle between SAT and ACT to control the college entrance exam market. High school counselors are advising some students to take both tests but some colleges are dropping both tests as an entrance requirement. In 2005, 1.2 million students took the ACT compared to 1.5 million taking the SAT. The SAT suffered serious public relations problems when in October 2005 its hired, for-profit scoring company, Pearson Educational Measurement, allowed scoring sheets to be damaged by moisture. The result: 4,411 test takers had scores reported to colleges that were lower than they should have been. It was a nightmare for these students when college rejections began to arrive in the mail. Embarrassed by the scoring errors and feeling the competitive heat from the makers of the ACT, the President of the SAT’s College Board, Gaston Capteron, a former business executive and two-term governor of West Virginia, is trying to increase revenue for the College Board, which is technically a nonprofit organization. The College Board is marketing new products including English and math curricula for grades 6 through 12 along with the management of schools. By 2007 it plans to open eleven College Board public schools. In 2006, the College Board reported revenues of $530 million and Caperton’s annual compensation as $639,000 with a $110,000 expense account.

Current test usage places a burden on the testing industry. “All testing companies are overwhelmed by the burdens of writing, scoring, and reporting vastly more federal tests than in the past under No Child Left Behind,” declares the Washington think tank Education Sector in a 2006 report. The report complains that the testing industry is overwhelmed by “trying to test vastly greater numbers of students under very tight timelines and under highly competitive conditions.” In an Education Week article, Vaishali Honawar writes, “watchdogs of the testing indus try – dominated by CTB/McGraw, Harcourt Assessment, and Pearson – warn that errors could become only too common as standardized testing in schools multiplies under federal and state mandates.”

Finally, many argue that if money is going to be invested in education, then there must be some means of measuring its effectiveness. Of course, tests provide the easiest measure to report. Test results can be published in local newspapers or distributed by state agencies. But accountability based on test scores can potentially contribute to greater inequality among school districts. Real estate agents, as I discussed in Chapter 3, are reporting that home buyers are arriving at their offices with lists of school test scores to use in selecting houses. And, as was previously suggested, real estate prices can be correlated with school district test scores. Although there is no proven causal relationship, school districts reporting high test scores may be the most attractive to home buyers with school-age children.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 essentially creates a nationalized school system with variations being allowed in academic standards and the content of state tests. However, these variations are reduced by the requirement that every other year a sample of fourth and eighth graders in each state take national tests administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The results of these national tests are compared to the tests created by each state. In other words, NAEP tests could have a determining effect on the construction of state tests.

What is the controlling power of standards and tests? First, state academic standards determine what will be taught in the classroom. For instance, state science standards establish the content of instruction in science. Second, state high-stakes tests ensure that teachers teach the content specified in the state’s academic standards. The state tests are constructed around the state’s academic standards. If students do poorly on high-stakes tests, then teachers and school administrators are blamed. Consequently, both teachers and administrators are motivated to ensure that classroom instruction complies with academic standards and provides students with the specific knowledge and skills required by the tests.

Federal and State Mandated Tests and Equality of Opportunity

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 opens the door to the high-stakes testing model of equality of opportunity discussed in Chapter 3. Simply put, high-stakes testing means that there are important consequences for students and educators resulting from test performance and also, it appears, for local housing prices. For students, high-stakes tests may determine promotion between grades or graduation from high school. For teachers and school administrators, the results of student test scores can be used to measure their performance or determine their salary increases. For individual schools, test results may determine their continued existence. Low-stakes testing means that there are no significant consequences resulting from student test performance.

There is concern that standardized tests cannot be objective in measuring student learning. There are such things as test skills that can be learned. In fact, many private agencies offer courses in test taking. Also, the wording of questions can reflect particular cultural knowledge. I remember being stumped on a question in a standardized math test because I did not know the meaning of a word. I excelled at math but missed this test item owing tomy limited cultural knowledge. Writing in Education Week, test expert W. James Popham contends:

If you were to review the actual items in a typical standardized achievement test, you’d find many items whose correct answer depends heavily on the socioeconomic status of a child’s family. There are also many items that measure the verbal, quantitative, or spatial aptitudes that children inherit at birth. Such items are better suited to intelligence tests. Clearly items dependent either on the affluence of a student’s family or on a child’s genetic inheritance are not suitable for evaluating schools.

The testing approach shifts the discussion from the conditions of learning to motivation to learn. By conditions of learning, I mean students having well-trained teachers, complete sets of textbooks, small classes, and school buildings in good repair. The threat of failure on high-stakes tests will, it is assumed, overcome any major obstacles to learning. According to this reasoning:

Does Federally Mandated High-Stakes Testing Work? Is there a Lack of Longitudinal Research?

There are important research unanswered questions regarding the effects of mandated testing, particularly tests based on the Common Core State Standards. There are no longitudinal studies on the consequences of mandated testing and the Common Core State Standards. For instance, let us assume that a state education agency adopts the Common Core State Standards in 2012. If a student first experiences the Common Core State Standards in the first grade in 2012, that student would graduate from high school around 2024. This would mean that the consequences of the Common Core State Standards and tests based on those standards could not be fully evaluated and researched until after 2024. Should the Common Core State Standards and related tests have been implemented without longitudinal research into their consequences?

There are many questions regarding high-stakes testing. Does it simply mean improved performance on other tests? Any meaningful deter mination would require a longitudinal study of the impact of high-stakes testing on a person’s life. Does high-stakes testing, which often leads to teachers teaching to the test, reduce students’ creativity and their willingness to take risks? It is important to remember that the goal of implementing high-stakes testing is to educate people who can compete in a global labor market. How can this be measured?

There are contradictory research findings about the value of high-stakes testing. In a 2002 study, University of Arizona researchers Audrey Amrein and David Berliner report that high-stakes testing does not improve achievement and may worsen academic performance and increase dropout rates. They find little gain in performance on college entrance examinations by students in high-stakes testing states. Their study was sharply criticized by Stanford researchers Margaret Raymond and Eric Hanushek, who accuse Amrein and Berliner of faulty research methods. Raymond and Hanushek find that the average gain for fourth and eighth graders in mathematics was higher in states using high-stakes testing as compared to states not giving much weight to test scores. The Stanford study measures only performance on tests and not the long-term consequences of an educational system centered on test performance. It could be that where standardized testing is used for promotion between grades or for high school graduation, students pay closer attention to learning better test-taking skills.

Contrary to the Stanford study, a 2004 report by Henry Braun of the Educational Testing Service concludes that “comparisons slightly favor the low-stakes testing states.” Braun’s conclusions were based on a reanalysis of an earlier study by Amrein and Berliner. In other words, students in states with high-stakes testing did not perform any better in college entrance examinations than students in states with low-stakes testing. (Recall that low-stakes testing means that there are no significant consequences resulting from student test performance.)

In a 2005 article by Sharon Nichols, Gene Glass, and David C. Berliner entitled “High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act,” the authors conclude that high-stakes testing disproportionately affects minority students and increases dropouts. Their analysis reveals the following:

None of these conflicting studies examines the issue that caused the movement for high-stakes testing: Does high-stakes testing improve the ability of American workers to compete in the global labor market? It would be difficult to design a research study to answer this question, which includes all possible causal factors. This research problem raises another question: Should politicians impose an educational reform for which there exists no evidence – in fact, there appears to be conflicting evidence – that it will improve the skills of American workers?

Does Federal Testing Policy Promote Unethical Behavior? Is Test Cheating Increasing?

“An astonishing amount of cheating is taking place on the tests … under the federal No Child Left Behind,” asserts W. James Popham, an Emeritus Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA), in a 2006 commentary for Education Week. “And the cheating I’m referring to isn’t coming from the kids,” he continues. Popham identifies the following forms of cheating:

The reasons for the cheating, he argues, are (1) possible embarrassment to school personnel when test scores are reported in local newspapers; (2) fear that the school will not meet AYP standards, and (3) fear that the school will be designated for improvement.

As Popham indicates, cheating is a major problem in any situation using high-stakes exams. For instance, college entrance exams have always been closely monitored to reduce the possibility of cheating. Now pro fes sional staffs are being monitored as high-stakes testing is used to evaluate teachers and school administrators. For example, Texas has been the scene of widespread cheating. Texas administrators and teachers have been accused of erasing student answers and adding the correct answers.

There are many other examples. In 1999, teachers and administrators in thirty-two schools in New York City were accused of erasing wrong answers and doing corrective editing on student answer sheets. A total of forty-seven principals, teachers, and staff members were implicated in the scandal. Examples of cheating included a seventh-grade teacher who left a sheet of answers to a city-wide math test near a pencil sharpener and then urged students to sharpen their pencils while she was out of the room. A fourth-grade teacher discovered an essay question concerning Cubist art on the state English test and then devoted a lecture on Cubism immediately before the test. But these were somewhat minor compared to the corrective editing of tests by teachers and administrators. In 2000, the Houston public schools fired a teacher and reprimanded two principals after test tampering was discovered. In Austin, Texas, school officials were accused of raising state accountability ratings through test tampering. One Austin staff member was forced to resign. An elementary schoolteacher was fired after it was discovered that the teacher had used an answer key to change student answers. In addition, Austin school officials changed student identification numbers so that students with low scores would not be factored into the school system’s accountability ratings.

In Rhode Island, state education officials were forced to cancel the administration of English and mathematics tests for 2000 when it was discovered that many teachers had kept copies of the previous year’s exams to use with students as part of the test preparation. The problem was that both years’ exams contained the same questions. “It became clear that the scope of the breach was extensive,” said Commissioner of Education Peter J. McWalters, “and that the assessment results would be invalid.” Also in 2000, officials at one of the best schools in affluent Potomac, Maryland were accused of cheating – the school’s principal resigned and a teacher was suspended. The principal was accused of allowing students extra time to complete state examinations, coaching them on questions, and changing incorrect answers. In Fairfax County, Virginia, charges were brought against a middle school teacher for improper coaching of students for state examinations.

Finally, in 2004, the famed Bracey Report gave its annual Gold Apple award to Steve Orel, who discovered that schools in Birmingham, Alabama, when “threatened with a state takeover, had ‘administratively withdrawn’ 522 students just before the state tests were administered. The district acknowledged Orel’s keen powers of observation by firing him.”

“There’s no way to tell how much cheating there actually is,” claims Monty Neill, Director of FairTest, a private education group opposed to the use of standardized tests, “but I get the sense nobody is looking too hard for abuses.” Neill believes that, because of high-stakes testing, “Schools are turning into test coaching centers, caught up in this frenzy of trying to look their best.”

The future of high-stakes testing depends on the resolution of the problems associated with the cost, the effect on students from low-income families, the increasing residential segregation based on test scores, the increasing classroom time devoted to test preparation and test taking, the emphasis on lower-order thinking, the evaluation of teachers and school administrators, and cheating. These are not minor problems. In addition, there is now in place a testing industry that depends on schools using high-stakes testing for accountability. The testing industry is a major lobbyist for state and national testing. The final resolution of the issues raised by high-stakes testing will depend on the actions of politicians, school officials, and the testing industry.

Conclusion

State and federal politicians are increasingly involved in issues of curriculum, methods of instruction, testing, and teacher certification. The trend is for more federal and state involvement in these areas. Should there be a nationalized system of schooling? A pressing issue for the future is deciding whether there should be limits to political involvement in public schooling. Should federal and state politicians determine the content and methods of instruction? What will be the long-term effect of testing based on the Common Core State Standards?

Suggested Readings and Works Cited in Chapter

Amrein, A.L., and D.C. Berliner. The Impact of High-Stakes Tests on Student Academic Performance: An Analysis of NAEP Results in States with High-Stakes Tests and ACT, SAT, and AP Test Results in States with High School Graduation Exams. Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Education Policy Research Unit, 2002. http://www.edpolicylab.org. This study shows little gain in performance on college entrance examination by students in high-stakes-testing states.

Archer, Jeff. “R.I. Halts Exams in Wake of Wide-Scale Security Breaches.” Education Week (March 17, 2000). http://www.edweek.org. A discussion of the Rhode Island scandal over cheating on standardized tests.

Arenson, Karen W. “For SAT Maker, a Broader Push to the Classroom.” The New York Times (August 16, 2006). http://www.nytimes.com. This article describes the effort by the SAT maker to increase revenues and expand into other educational services.

Belluck, Pam. “Students Accused of Plotting Mass Slaying.” The New York Times (November 17, 1998). http://www.nytimes.com. The story of the plot in Burlington, Wisconsin to kill students and the principal.

Blumenthal, Ralph. “Houston Ties Teachers’ Pay to Test Scores.” The New York Times (January 13, 2006). http://www.nytimes.com. This article reports on policies in Houston and other school districts to link teachers’ and administrators’ pay to student scores on high-stakes tests.

Bracey, Gerald. “The 14th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2004): 149–167. Bracey gives an insightful report on annual events in education. Here, the Gold Apple award is given to a whistle-blower who pointed out that school administrators in Birmingham, Alabama cheated on state tests.

Braun, Henry. “Reconsidering the Impact of High-Stakes Testing.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 12, no. 1 (January 5, 2004). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1. This study finds that students in states with high-stakes testing do not perform any better than students in states with low-stakes testing on college admission examinations.

Cavanagh, Sean. “Testing Officials Again Tackle Accommodations and Exclusions for Special Student Populations.” Education Week (July 16, 2008). http://www.edweek.org. Discusses the wide variations between states and cities on the accommodation of English learners and students with disabilities in tests mandated by No Child Left Behind.

Clines, Francis. “Cheating Report Renews Debate over Use of Tests to Evaluate Schools.” The New York Times (June 12, 2000). http://www.nytimes.com. A national report on the effect of cheating on the use of high-stakes tests.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org/. This website provides the Common Core standards for subjects and grades.

Data Quality Campaign. “Paving the Path to Success: Data for Action 2014.” http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/DataForAction2014.pdf. Report on efforts to create a central student data bank between states.

Dillon, Sam. “States Mold School Policies to Win New Federal Money.” The New York Times (November 11, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com. Describes how states shape their educational policies to meet federal demands.

Dillon, Sam “McCain Calls for Limited U.S. Role in Schools.” The New York Times (September 10, 2008). http://www.nytimes.com. Republican presidential candidate John McCain believes that education is more a state and local responsibility than a federal responsibility.

Education Week. http://www.edweek.org. This weekly newspaper is one of the best sources of information on national educational politics.

Goodman, Ken. “Ten Alarming Facts about No Child Left Behind” (accessed July 26, 2004). http://www.sosvoice.org. The father of the whole-language movement attacks No Child Left Behind, particularly for imposing national methods for teaching reading and math.

Goodnough, Abby. “If Test Scores of Students Swell, So May Superintendents’ Wallets.” The New York Times (September 25, 2002). http://www.nytimes.com. Goodnough describes a bonus system for school superintendents based on student test scores.

Haney, Walt. “The Texas Miracle in Education.” Education Policy Analysis Archives: Center for Education, Research, Analysis, and Innovation (August 21, 2000). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41.

Hartocollis, Anemona. “9 Educators Accused of Encouraging Students to Cheat.” The New York Times (May 3, 2000). http://www.nytimes.com. This article reports on the New York City cheating scandal.

Herold, Benjamin. “‘Big Data’ Research Effort Faces Student-Privacy Questions.” Education Week (October 21, 2014). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09learnsphere.h34.html. Article discusses concern about the collection of big data about student behaviors.

Honawar, Vaishall. “SAT Glitches Prompt Broader Testing Worries.” Education Week (March 22, 2006). http://www.edweek.org. After the incorrect scoring of SAT tests in 2005 and other mishaps in the testing industry, this article reports on the continuing concerns about the ability of companies to handle the demands placed on schools to use high-stakes tests.

Hu, Winnie. “9 Fired and 11 Others Face Dismissal in Cheating Scandal.” The New York Times (December 12, 1999). http://www.nytimes.com. This article reports on the New York City testing scandal.

Johnston, Robert. “Texas Presses Districts in Alleged Test-Tampering Cases.” Education Week (March 15, 2000). http://www.edweek.org. Johnston discusses the testing scandal in Texas.

Kaufman, Phillip et al. “Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2000.” Education Statistics Quarterly (February 2001). Indicators of school crime.

Kaufman, Phillip Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2001. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. NCES 2002–113/NCJ–190075. Washington, DC, 2001. A recent survey of school crime and violence.

Keller, Bess. “Next Pay-Plan Decision up to Denver Voters.” Education Week (March 31, 2004). http://www.edweek.org. Denver teachers vote for merit pay plan based on student test scores.

Klein, Alyson. “Race to the Top Winners, Meeting in D.C., See Challenges Ahead.” Education Week (September 1, 2010). http://www.edweek.org. Quotes U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s remarks to winners of the Race to the Top.

Lawton, Millicent. “Facing Deadline, Calif. Is Locked in Battle over How to Teach Math.” Education Week (March 12, 1997). http://www.edweek.org. This article discusses California’s political battle over the best method for teaching math.

Lessinger, Leon. Every Kid a Winner: Accountability in Education. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates College Division, 1970. Lessinger presents the classic justification for accountability standards in American education.

Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “Limitations on Approved Topics for Reading Sessions Rile Teacher Trainers.” Education Week (November 5, 1997). http://www.edweek.org. A discussion of the California state law restricting the use of whole-language methods to teach reading.

Mathews, Jay. “Test Wars: The SAT vs. The ACT.” Newsweek (August 28, 2006): 78–80. This article describes the struggle between SAT and ACT to control the college entrance examination market.

Mulvey, Cindy. “Time Devoted to Testing Surprises New Teacher.” Education Week (April 5, 2006). http://www.edweek.org. In a letter to the editor, a third-grade teacher complains about the amount of the school year devoted to testing.

National Center for Education Statistics. “Indicator 33: Public School; Revenue Sources.” The Condition of Education 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 54. Provides information on percentages of revenue supporting local schools from the federal, state, and local governments.

National Center for Education Statistics Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996–97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998. A sweeping survey of violence in U.S. schools.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. The report that launched the current standards and testing movement to prepare American workers for a global workforce.

Nichols, Sharon, Gene Glass, and David Berliner. “High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act.” Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies Laboratory (September 2005). http://edpolicylab.org.

Popham, W. James. “Educator Cheating on No Child Left Behind Tests: Can We Stop It.” Education Week (April 19, 2006). http://www.edweek.org. Popham argues that tests that impact teacher and administrator salaries and affect calculations of adequate yearly progress tempt teachers and school administrators to cheat in both giving tests and reporting test scores.

Popham, W. James “Standardized Achievement Tests: Misnamed and Misleading.” Education Week (September 19, 2001). http://www.edweek.org. A leading expert on test making, Popham criticizes the idea that standardized tests measure only achievement.

Portner, Jessica. “Clinton Releases Findings of School Violence Survey.” Education Week (March 25, 1998). http://www.edweek.org. President Clinton’s comments on school violence are reported.

Public Law 107–110, 107th Congress, January 8, 2002 [H.R. 1]. “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. This federal legislation deals with high-stakes testing, reading, and school violence, among other issues.

Raymond, Margaret, and Eric Hanushek. “High-Stakes Research: The Campaign Against Accountability Brought Forth a Tide of Negative Anecdotes and Deeply Flawed Research.” Education Next (summer 2003). http://www.educationnext.org. This article disputes the findings of Amrein and Berliner that found little gain in performance on college entrance examinations by students in high-stakes-testing states.

Report of the Platform Committee. Renewing America’s Promise. Washington, DC: Democractic National Committee, 2008. Contains education planks of the Democratic platform.

Report Roundup. “Test Scores Linked to Home Prices.” Education Week (July 26, 2006). http://www.edweek.org. Economist finds that a 20 percent increase in test scores in a district results in a 7 percent increase in housing prices in that district.

Richardson, Lynda. “Time-Zone Caper: Suspect Is Arrested in Testing Scheme.” The New York Times (October 29, 1996): 1, B17. Richardson reports on an example of one cheating scheme on high-stakes tests.

Spring, Joel. Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge, 2005. A concise guide to the educational platforms of the major political organizations in the United States.

Spring, Joel Conflict of Interests: The Politics of American Education, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. This book provides an analysis of educational politics in the United States.

Toch, Thomas. Margins of Error: The Testing Industry in No Child Left Behind ERQ. Washington, DC: Education Sector Reports, 2006. http://www.educationsector.org. Report on problems facing testing industry.

U.S. Department of Education. “Race to the Top Fund—Executive Summary Notice; Notice of Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria” (July 29, 2009): 1. Criteria for Race to the Top. Retrieved on September 24, 2009 from http://www/ed/gov/programs/racetotop/executive-summary.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education “Modified Academic Achievement Standards: Non-Regulatory Guidance” (July 20, 2007). http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc.

U.S. Department of Education “Spellings Announces New Special Education Guideline, Details Workable, ‘Common-Sense’ Policy to Help States Implement No Child Left Behind.” U.S. Department of Education Press Release (May 10, 2005). http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/05/05102005.html. The guidelines for testing students with disabilities under the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

U.S. Department of Education “Statistics of State School Systems; Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education; and Common Core of Data Surveys” (May 2001). A historical review of the proportion of revenues from local, state, and federal sources.

U.S. Department of Education The Condition of Education 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Of Education, 2012. This publication provides information on sources of school revenues.

Viadoro, Debra. “Economist Links Test Scores to Home Values.” Education Week (July 19, 2006). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/07/19/43report_web2.h25.html?qs=Haurin. Economist Donald Haurin claims that raising a school’s test scores increases property values.

Wilgorin, Jodi. “National Study Examines Reasons Why Pupils Excel.” The New York Times (July 26, 2000). http://www.nytimes.com. A report on the Rand Corporation study on factors that contribute to high performance on high-stakes examinations.

Yardley, Jim. “Critics Say a Focus on Test Scores Is Overshadowing Education in Texas.” The New York Times (October 30, 2000). http://www.nytimes.com. A summary of criticisms of the Texas government’s emphasis on test scores as a method of improving education.

Zehr, Mary Ann. “New Era for Testing English-Learners Begins.” Education Week (July 12, 2006). http://www.edweek.org. A report on forty-four states that have developed English proficiency tests aligned with state English language proficiency standards. These tests are required under No Child Left Behind.

Zehr, Mary Ann “U.S. Cites Problems in California Testing.” Education Week (November 9, 2005). http://www.edweek.org. Zehr reports on the U.S. Department of Education’s criticism of California for accommodating English language learners in the state’s testing program.

Zehr, Mary Ann “State Testing of English-Language Learners.” Education Week (June 15, 2005). http://www.edweek.org. Zehr reports the complaints by school districts about states not providing tests in students’ native languages and the effect on calculating adequate yearly progress.