Report # 04-04 OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A STATE OF MINNESOTA EVALUATION REPORT No Child Left Behind MARCH 2004 PROGRAM EVALUATION DIVISION Centennial Building - Suite 140 658 Cedar Street - St. Paul, MN 55155 Telephone: 651-296-4708 • Fax: 651-296-4712 E-mail: [email protected] • Web Site: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Program Evaluation Division The Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor Auditor. Findings, conclusions, and was established in 1973, replacing the century-old recommendations do not necessarily reflect the Public Examiner’s Office. Its role is to audit and views of the LAC or any of its members. evaluate public programs and ensure accountability for the expenditure of public funds. In 1975, the A list of recent evaluations is on the last page of Legislature created the Program Evaluation this report. A more complete list is available at Division within the auditor’s office. The division’s OLA's website (www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us), as mission, as set forth in law, is to determine the are copies of evaluation reports. degree to which activities and programs entered into or funded by the state are accomplishing their The Office of the Legislative Auditor also includes goals and objectives and utilizing resources a Financial Audit Division, which annually efficiently. conducts a statewide audit of the 25 largest agencies, an audit of federal funds, and Topics for evaluation are approved by the approximately 40 financial and compliance audits Legislative Audit Commission (LAC), a of individual state agencies. The division also 16-member joint, bipartisan commission. The investigates allegations of improper actions by division’s reports, however, are solely the state employees. responsibility of the Office of the Legislative Professional Staff Support Staff James Nobles, Legislative Auditor Denice Malone Barbara Wing Joel Alter Valerie Bombach This document can be made available in alternative David Chein Jody Hauer formats, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape, Adrienne Howard by calling 651-296-8976 Voice, or the Minnesota Daniel Jacobson Relay Service at 651-297-5353 or 1-800-627-3529. Deborah Junod Carrie Meyerhoff e-mail: [email protected] John Patterson Judith Randall Jan Sandberg Reports of the Office of the Legislative Auditor Jo Vo s are available at our Web Site: John Yunker http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Printed on Recycled Paper. Photo Credits: The pho to graph on the No Child Left Behind re port cover was provided by the Minnesota Department of Education. OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR O L A State of Minnesota • James Nobles, Legislative Auditor February 26, 2004 Members Legislative Audit Commission The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act imposes new requirements for states that accept federal money for certain education programs. Some Minnesota policy makers have expressed concerns about NCLB, and the Legislative Audit Commission asked the Office of the Legislative Auditor to examine the law’s impacts on Minnesota schools. We found that local education officials in Minnesota generally embrace NCLB’s goal of helping all children succeed in school, but many told us they think the law is costly, unrealistic, and punitive. We also found that it will be very difficult for schools and school districts to comply with the law’s specific targets for student achievement. Even assuming substantial improvement in student achievement, we estimate that most Minnesota schools will not meet NCLB’s goals for student proficiency by 2014, and many will be subject to significant consequences. Minnesota is still in the early stages of implementing NCLB, and various factors will affect the law’s eventual fiscal impact. However, school districts will face significant new costs to implement NCLB, including new requirements regarding student assessment, staff qualifications, and sanctions and services for underperforming schools. Minnesota policy makers could “opt out” of the NCLB law, but the state would lose a large amount of federal education revenue by taking this action. Alternatively, if Minnesota continues to participate in NCLB, state officials could seek changes in the federal law that would make its goals more achievable. Our report was researched and written by Joel Alter and John Patterson (project co-managers) and Adrienne Howard, with research assistance from the University of Minnesota’s Office of Educational Accountability. We received the full cooperation of the Minnesota Department of Education. Sincerely, /s/ James Nobles James Nobles Legislative Auditor Room 140, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1603 • Tel: 651/296-4708 • Fax: 651/296-4712 E-mail: [email protected] • TDD Relay: 651/297-5353 • Website: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Table of Contents Page SUM MARY ix IN TRO DUC TION 1 1. BACK GROUND 3 Tar geting “Achievement Gaps” Among Students 3 NCLB Re quire ments and Fund Al lo ca tion 5 NCLB Rev e nues 8 2. NCLB’s IM PACT ON MIN NE SOTA'S ED U CA TION AC COUNT ABIL ITY SYS TEM 13 Con sis tency of NCLB with Ex ist ing Min ne sota Pol icy 13 Per cep tions of Ed u ca tion Of fi cials 21 3. COMPLIANCE WITH "AD E QUATE YEARLY PROGRESS" (AYP) RE QUIRE MENTS 29 De ter min ing AYP in Min ne sota 30 AYP De termi na tions for the 2002-03 School Year 33 AYP De ter mi na tions for Fu ture Years 37 Other AYP and Account abil ity Is sues 48 4. FISCAL IMPACTS 57 Back ground 58 Over view of NCLB Costs 60 Costs Related to As sess ment De vel op ment and Ad min is tra tion 63 Costs of NCLB-Prescr ibed Con sequence s for Low Per formanc e 66 Costs Re lated to Teacher and Paraprofessional Qual i fi ca tions 73 Costs Re lated to Cur ric u lum Align ment 78 Other Costs 80 Will NCLB’s New Rev enues Cover Its New Costs? 81 School Distric t Re sponses to NCLB Costs 84 “Opt ing Out” of NCLB 85 Track ing NCLB Costs in the Future 90 SUM MARY OF REC OM MEN DA TIONS 91 FUR THER READ ING 93 AGENCY RESPONSE 97 RE CENT PRO GRAM EVAL U A TIONS 103 List of Tables and Figures Ta bles Page 1.1 Fac tors As so ci ated With School Achieve ment 5 1.2 Sig nif i cant Ti tle I, Part A Re quire ments 6 1.3 Major NCLB Program s and Fund ing 9 2.1 Com par i son of Key NCLB Ac count abil ity Re quire ments with Min ne sota’s Pre-NCLB Re quire ments 17 2.2 Com po nents of “Ad e quate Yearly Prog ress” 19 2.3 NCLB Require ment s for Schools Failing to Make Ade quate Yearly Prog ress 20 2.4 Su per in ten dents’ Per cep tions About Us ing Uni form Stan dards to Mea sure Stu dents’ Ac a demic Pro fi ciency 23 2.5 Su per in ten dents’ Per cep tions About NCLB-Pre scribed Con se quences for Schools Failing to Make Ade quate Yearly Progres s 25 2.6 Su per in ten dents’ Per cep tions About NCLB-Pre scribed As sess ments 27 3.1 Achievement Levels on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) 31 3.2 Calculation of a Minnesota School’s Proficiency Rate 32 3.3 Minnesota’s Annual Proficiency Targets 32 3.4 NCLB’s “Safe Harbor” Provision 33 3.5 Schools Failing to Make Adequate Yearly Progress, by Various Measures, 2002-03 School Year 34 3.6 Schools Held Accountable on Proficiency Measures, by Subgroup, 2002-03 School Year 35 3.7 Schools Failing to Make Adequate Yearly Progress in Proficiency, by Subgroup, 2002-03 School Year 36 3.8 Scenarios Used to Simulate Schools’ Future AYP Status 39 3.9 AYP Status of Minnesota Elementary Schools, 2008 and 2014 42 3.10 Percentage of Elementary Schools Accountable for the Proficiency of Each Subgroup by District Type, 2014 43 3.11 Prof icie ncy Failure by Subgroup, 2014 - Modest Impro vement Sce nario 44 4.1 Fiscal Impact of NCLB-Initiated Activities 61 4.2 Superintendent’s Opinions Regarding Which NCLB Requirements Will be the Most Costly 62 4.3 Minnesota’s Schedule for Initiating Assessments for Performance Reporting 64 4.4 NCLB’s Consequences for Repeated Failure to Make AYP 67 4.5 Estimates of the Percentage of Minnesota Title I Schools Offering School Choice and Supplemental Services, 2008 and 2014 71 4.6 NCLB Teacher and Paraprofessional Qualification Requirements 74 4.7 New ESEA Formula Funding 82 4.8 New Title I, Part A Costs 83 2 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Ta bles Page 4.9 Ways That School Districts Have Funded (or Intend to Fund) New Requirements of the NCLB Act 85 4.10 Changes that School Districts Made (or Will Likely Make) As a Direct Result of NCLB 86 Figures 3.1 Percentage of Elementary Schools Failing to Make AYP in Proficiency 41 Summary Major Findings possible that NCLB’s new costs will exceed the increase in NCLB • The federal No Child Left Behind revenues (pp. 60 and 84). (NCLB) Act imposes rigorous new • However, Minnesota could lose the requirements on Minnesota’s majority of its projected $216 education accountability system million in federal funding for state (pp. 16-21). fiscal year 2005 if it “opts out” of the • While most education officials in accountability provisions of NCLB. Minnesota embrace the underlying While federal NCLB funding is less goals of NCLB, many school district than 4 percent of school districts’ superintendents believe that NCLB operating budgets, relatively few is costly, unrealistic, and punitive school district superintendents favor (pp.