U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003–020

Overview and Inventory

of State Education

Reforms: 1990 to 2000
U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2003–020

Overview and Inventory

of State Education

Reforms: 1990 to 2000

July 2003

David Hurst

Alexandra Tan

Anne Meek

Jason Sellers

Education Statistics

Services Institute

Edith McArthur

Project Officer

National Center for

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Val Plisko

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting

data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate,

analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish

reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education

agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and

accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department

of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of

audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have

any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please

direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006–5651

July 2003

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms:

1990 to 2000, NCES 2003–020, by David Hurst, Alexandra Tan, Anne Meek, and Jason Sellers. Project Officer: Edith

McArthur. Washington, DC: 2003.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs; or order online at www.edpubs.org

Content Contact:

Edith McArthur

(202) 502–7393

Edith.McArthur@ed.gov
iii

Foreword

In 1992, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the congressionally mandated Overview

and Inventory of State Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance, which described state-level education reform efforts of the 1980s. While many of the reform efforts reviewed in that report continued into the

1990s, states have undertaken a number of new reform initiatives over the past decade. States have made efforts to

define academic standards for all students and create new accountability systems, to revise the way in which public

schools are financed, to set new standards for teacher training, and to provide more parents with choice in where

their children attend school. The purpose of this report is to describe these and other major developments in statelevel education policies that occurred during the 1990s.

The NCES’s antecedent authorizing legislation (Public Law 103-382, Title IV) includes among the Center’s duties,

“compiling and disseminating data on State and local education reform activities” [sec. 404(a)(1)(A)]. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Center has drawn from its own data, but also on the efforts of other organizations to

characterize the extent to which reform efforts have been adopted. The Council of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO), the Education Commission of the States (ECS), and Education Week are some of the sources of information used in this report. As reporting on education reforms continues among the Center’s duties in its recent

reauthorization, future reports will track developments into this decade.

Generally, to be included in this report, a reform effort had to be an area of active state-level policy activity and

have recent, comparable state-level data available. This includes policies that a majority of states have adopted

(e.g., content standards), and, in some instances, those that have not been widely adopted but that have received

considerable debate (e.g., private school voucher programs). While this report inventories state-level reform efforts

of the 1990s, it makes no attempt to evaluate these initiatives. The inclusion or exclusion of a reform in this report

does not imply anything about the quality or effectiveness of the policy.

Covering the 1990s, this report provides a context useful for tracking progress into the current decade. Issues

salient in the 1990s concerning student performance, school accountability, resource adequacy, and parental choice

continue as top policy concerns. Monitoring the impact of key legislative and policy developments requires starting with sound information. We hope this report provides information useful in understanding state-level education reform efforts of the 1990s.

Val Plisko

Associate Commissioner for

Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Statistics

v

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to the production of this report. At NCES,

Edith McArthur provided guidance and substantive and editorial reviews throughout the development and production of the report. John Ralph and Val Plisko provided overall guidance in the volume’s development.

Current and former staff of the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI) provided valuable assistance in the

research and production of the report, including Molly Soule, Katherine Lavanga, Jennifer Champagne, Mary

McLaughlin, Anne Marie Taulane, Mark White, Shannon Blaney, and Alison Leff and Rebecca Smerdon of the

American Institutes for Research.

A number of reviewers strengthened the report. At NCES, Marilyn Seastrom, Martin Orland (formerly with

NCES), Katie Freeman, Lee Hoffman, and William Hussar provided valuable advice and feedback. Karen O’Conor

provided thorough oversight during the report’s review and adjudication. At other offices of the Department of

Education, Jim Fox, Daphne Hardcastle, Jacquelyn Jackson, Claudette Kaba, Jack Klenk, Maggie McNeely,

Marina Walne, and Grover Whitehurst offered valuable comments and suggestions. Outside the Department of

Education, thoughtful reviews were provided by Eva Baker, Kathryn Doherty, and Margaret Goertz. At ESSI,

David Miller, Leslie Scott, and Martin Hahn offered detailed comments that greatly improved the report. Graphic

design and layout was done by Heather Block.

vii

Executive Summary

State governments play a critical role in providing public elementary and secondary education. State constitutional, statutory, and regulatory frameworks provide the legal authority for state governments, local governments,

and school districts to raise revenues for education; they also set conditions for spending these funds. State policies

are associated with nearly every facet of education, typically defining, for instance, when children must be in

school, who may teach them, and what they are expected to learn.

The purpose of this report is to describe developments in state-level education policies that occurred during the

1990s and to use a wide range of sources to characterize these reform efforts at the state level. In doing so, this

report extends an earlier National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, Overview and Inventory of State

Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance (Medrich et al. 1992), which examined state-level reform

efforts during the 1980s. Similar to the first report’s mandate to discuss reform in the 1980s, this report examines

education policy developments of the 1990s.

State Education Reforms in the 1990s

Although public education has long been the subject of debate and reform efforts, the past decade is notable for

the type and volume of state-level education policy activity. In particular, the 1990s continued a trend from the

1980s in which states shifted their focus from educational inputs, such as per-student expenditures on instructional materials, to educational outcomes, such as the percentage of students attaining a score of “proficient” on

a statewide assessment. State governments passed legislation, adopted new procedures and standards, and pursued

policies in a number of areas that reflected a new emphasis on outcomes over inputs. To facilitate discussion of the

diverse set of education policies states adopted during the past decade, this report groups these reform efforts into

four broad categories:

• standards, assessment, and accountability;

• school finance reforms;

• teacher training and school resources; and

• school choice options.

These categories reflect the primary ways in which states have sought to change the provision of education. The

first category—standards, assessments, and accountability—includes those policies that attempt to directly affect

the achievement levels of students by specifying what students should learn and be able to do. The second category—school finance reforms—reflects a long-standing capacity of states to affect education by modifying the

way in which revenues for public education are raised, distributed, and spent. The third category—teacher training

and school resources—includes policies that may have an indirect effect on student achievement by changing, for

example, the way in which teachers are trained. Finally, the fourth category—school choice options—includes

efforts to give parents more choices in where they send their children to school. The following section provides a

more detailed description of these reform areas.
viii

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

Much of the legislative activity related to education in the 1990s focused on raising academic standards and

holding schools accountable for student performance. This section describes four components of these efforts:

content standards, performance standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Content standards define

what students should know and be able to do, while performance standards indicate how well students must

perform to be considered proficient in a given subject area. Statewide assessments measure student progress toward

attaining the goals defined by content and performance standards, and accountability systems are intended to

collect the information necessary to hold schools and school districts responsible for the performance of students.

Surveys conducted by organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) revealed that by

the late 1990s most states had one or more of these components in place. Between 1995 and 2000, for example,

the number of states that had developed English/language arts standards increased from 20 to 49 (CCSSO 2000a).

Increases were found in other subjects as well. The number of states that had developed mathematics standards

grew from 25 to 49, science standards from 23 to 46, and social studies/history standards from 20 to 46. States

also typically specify a set of performance standards that correspond to content standards. These performance

standards often indicate the scores a student must make on a statewide assessment to be considered proficient in a

given area.

Measuring student progress toward attaining the goals defined by content and performance standards is central to

standards-based reform efforts, and statewide testing programs were the focus of much attention during the

1990s. One area of concern has been the degree to which the subject matter and skill level of statewide assessments

are consistent with state content standards. In an effort to align assessments with standards, some states have

diversified their testing programs by adding items or assessments designed to mirror the material covered in the

state’s content standards and by adding performance-based assessment items, such as short answers and openended tasks. As reported in Education Week’s Quality Counts 2001, most states assessed students a number of

times between first and twelfth grade—48 states administered at least one exam in eighth grade and 43 states did

so in fourth grade. While English/language arts and mathematics were the most frequently tested subjects, many

states also regularly assessed student performance in history/social studies and science as well. Nearly all states

included multiple-choice tests in their assessment programs, 38 states included short answer items, 46 used extended-response items in English exams, and 7 states used extended-response questions in assessments of other

subjects.

States have also conveyed the results of assessments and other indicators of student performance to parents and the

public through institutional “report cards.” Institutional report cards generally are issued annually and may be

issued at the state, district, and/or school levels. Publishing these report cards is one way in which states have

sought to hold schools and districts accountable for student performance. In 2000, the CCSSO collected information on the type of reporting conducted by each state. All state education agencies reported having at least one

annual accountability or indicator report as of September 2000: 46 states issued at least one report providing

statistics at the district level, and 40 states and the District of Columbia did so at the school level (CCSSO 2000b).

School Finance Reforms

In order to provide the instruction necessary for students to obtain the high levels of achievement envisioned by

the standards-based reform efforts of the 1990s, schools must have adequate financial resources. This report

examines a number of reforms implemented by states that affect the way they raise revenues, allocate funds among

districts, and allow funds to be used. Three key areas of state education finance reforms are examined: moving

from equity to adequacy, general revenue reforms, and special education financing reforms.
ix

One of the aims of state education finance systems has been to foster equity among the resources available to

school districts within the state (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Recent legal challenges to state financing systems have

shifted to focus on adequacy, seeking to compel states to define and provide a high-quality education for all

children, rather than focusing primarily on reducing resource inequalities across school districts (Ladd and Hansen

1999). States have faced a number of challenges as they have sought to define and provide an adequate education.

Included among these challenges are defining adequacy; determining the cost of obtaining adequacy; inflation;

and adjusting for school, student, and geographic cost differences. The various ways that states have responded to

these challenges are discussed in this report.

A second type of finance reform discussed in this report concerns efforts to make state revenue systems more fair,

efficient, or balanced. Shifts away from local property taxes have had impacts on the mix of revenues used for

financing schools in particular states (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Michigan, for example, passed legislation in 1993

that abolished local school property taxes, despite the state’s traditional heavy reliance on local property taxes as

revenue for education (Courant, Gramlich, and Loeb 1995). These revenues were replaced by an increase in the

state sales tax and the adoption of a statewide property tax, along with other revenue sources.

Finally, reforms in special education finance include changes in the way states distribute funds to districts and new

policies to finance special education services using revenues from multiple sources. Since 1988, Medicaid funds

must be used to reimburse Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)–related medically necessary services

before IDEA funds are used (U.S. General Accounting Office 1999).

Teacher Training and School Resources

The standards-based reform efforts described in this report are intended to ensure that all students attain high

levels of competence in all subject areas. Attaining these goals, however, depends in part on the resources in

schools, including the effectiveness of teachers. During the 1990s, a number of states reexamined the process by

which teachers are trained and certified. Concerns over the academic rigor of teacher training programs, the

strength of the certification process, the match between training programs and teaching assignments, and the type

and availability of professional development opportunities have led many states to consider applying a similar

model of reform to teacher training as they have to student achievement. This model is centered on standards,

testing, and accountability.

This report outlines the general process by which teachers are traditionally certified, which typically includes

taking a prescribed course of study in college, passing one or more competency tests, completing student teaching

requirements, and, once certified, maintaining certification by participating in professional development activities

or taking additional coursework. A nontraditional, alternative certification model, which is intended to move

highly qualified subject matter experts not currently in the teaching profession through preparation and certification more quickly than traditional routes, is outlined as well.

A number of states either established or revised standards for obtaining a teaching license during the 1990s (CCSSO

2000a). According to the CCSSO, “standards for teachers define the knowledge and skills teachers should have to

provide quality instruction to students at given age or grade levels and specific content areas” (CCSSO 1998, p.

26). A CCSSO survey conducted in 2000 found that a majority of states licensed or certified teachers based on

state standards and that most of these states had either developed or revised their statewide teaching standards

since 1990 (CCSSO 2000a). Most state teaching standards specify the type of coursework that a prospective

teacher should complete while in college. While most prospective teachers are expected to complete a core set of

education classes, including classes such as teaching methods, child development, and supervised teaching experience, those wishing to earn a certificate to teach secondary school students may also be required to take a certain

Executive Summary
x

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

number of hours in the subject they plan on teaching, such as mathematics or English. In 1999, according to

Education Week (2000), nearly all states set minimum subject-area coursework requirements for high school

teachers and about half have established such requirements for middle school teachers. Of the few states without

standards, most indicated that they were soon to be in effect or were being developed. In addition to developing

new standards for teacher education and certification, states implemented other measures in the 1990s to modify

school resources, such as funding prekindergarten programs and increasing the number of required high school

credits in core academic subjects. A number of states have adopted policies that are intended to ensure that key

instructional resources such as textbooks are aligned with the state’s content standards. Class size reduction—

including its potentially negative financial implications and effects on teacher supply and quality—also received

attention during the 1990s. The Education Commission of the States (ECS) reported that as of June 1999, 20

states had some sort of initiative to limit the student/teacher ratio to 20 or fewer students per teacher (ECS 1999).

School Choice Options

While states focused attention during the 1990s on reforming education finance systems and increasing the learning resources and academic standards of traditional public schools, they also adopted legislation intended to

provide more parents with choice in where their children attend school. The report discusses four approaches states

have taken toward meeting this goal. Public school choice allows students to attend the public school that they

and their families select, while charter schools give parents the option of sending their children to a public school

that operates largely independently of the local school district. In addition, some states have adopted policies that

provide public support for private education in the form of tax credits, vouchers, or other resources for parents

who send their children to private schools. Homeschooling is now an option in all states (Lines 2001), although

states do not necessarily provide financial or other support for parents who homeschool.

The ECS reports that as of February 2001, 32 states had passed legislation permitting or requiring some form of

public school choice. Throughout the 1990s, the number of states that adopted charter school legislation also

increased, from 1 state (Minnesota) in 1991 to 36 states and the District of Columbia in September 1999. Similarly, the number of charter schools in operation increased during the 1990s. Almost 1,500 charter schools were in

operation as of September 1999, about twice the number of charter schools operating in September 1997 (Nelson

et al. 2000; Berman et al. 1998). Enrollment in charter schools represented about 0.8 percent of all public school

students in the 26 states and the District of Columbia that had charter schools in operation in 1998–99 (Nelson

et al. 2000).

Allowing open enrollment in public schools and enabling the creation of charter schools are both ways in which

states have sought to provide greater choice in public education. Proposals have also been made to increase private

school choice by using public funds to subsidize the cost of private school attendance (Moffit, Garrett, and Smith

2001). Several states, for example, permitted the limited use of public funds to support private education in the

form of transportation, textbooks, and various auxiliary services. Less common were programs that used public

funds to cover part or all of private school tuition. In Vermont and Maine, public funds have been used for many

years to help cover tuition costs at nonsectarian schools for students living in areas in which a public school is not

readily accessible. Since 1989, three states—Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida—have passed legislation enabling the

creation of voucher programs. Another education option available to parents in all 50 states and the District of

Columbia is to homeschool their children. The 1999 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES)

found that 850,000 students nationwide, or 1.7 percent of U.S. students ages 5 to 17, were homeschooled in

spring 1999 (Bielick, Chandler, and Broughman 2001).
xi

Foreword........................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary....................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiv

List of Figures............................................................................................................... xvi

Chapter One: Introduction and Overview .....................................................................1

The Call for Reform and State Responses .............................................................................. 1

Calls for Education Reforms ............................................................................................. 1

State Education Reforms in the 1990s .............................................................................. 2

Context for Reform: Increasing Enrollment and Growing Student Diversity .......................... 3

Purpose and Content of Report ............................................................................................ 4

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability............................................7

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 7

Standards-based Education Reform....................................................................................... 7

Content Standards........................................................................................................... 7

Federal Support for Content Standards ...................................................................... 8

State Implementation Efforts ...................................................................................... 9

Performance Standards.................................................................................................... 9

Assessing Student Achievement ..................................................................................... 11

Accountability ............................................................................................................... 13

Policy Issues in the Implemention of Accountability Systems .................................... 29

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms ......................................................................33

Patterns in Education Finance ............................................................................................. 33

Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................................ 33

Distributing State and Federal Revenues to School Districts .......................................... 34

Education Spending ...................................................................................................... 37

State Reforms in School Finance.......................................................................................... 38

Table of Contents
xii

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

From Equity to Adequacy ................................................................................................... 40

Defining an Adequate Education ................................................................................... 44

Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education........................................................... 45

Inference from Statistical Analysis ............................................................................. 45

Empirical Observation .............................................................................................. 46

Professional Judgment .............................................................................................. 46

Accounting for Student, Resource, and Geographic Differences .................................... 46

Adjusting for Scale and Inflation .................................................................................... 47

State Responses to Court Adequacy Rulings .................................................................. 47

General Revenue Reforms.................................................................................................... 51

Special Education Financing Reforms .................................................................................. 53

State Aid for Special Education ...................................................................................... 54

Other Sources of Revenue for Special Education ............................................................ 57

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59

 Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources...............................................61

State-funded Prekindergarten Programs ............................................................................. 61

Teacher Training ................................................................................................................. 65

Obtaining and Maintaining a Teaching License ............................................................. 65

Obtaining a Teaching License ................................................................................... 65

Maintaining a License ............................................................................................... 70

Instructional Resources ........................................................................................................ 76

Textbook Selection ........................................................................................................ 76

Teacher Perceptions of the Availability of Resources ...................................................... 84

Class Size ....................................................................................................................... 84

Academic Emphasis ....................................................................................................... 84

Coursetaking Requirements in High School .............................................................. 89

Advanced Placement Courses ................................................................................... 89

Instructional Time and Intensity ..................................................................................... 89

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 96

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options..............................................97

Introduction........................................................................................................................ 97

Public School Choice .......................................................................................................... 97

Charter Schools................................................................................................................... 98

Variation in State Charter Laws .................................................................................... 100

Issues of Accountability and the Effect on Traditional Public Schools ........................... 104
xiii

Public Support for Private Education ................................................................................ 106

Homeschooling ................................................................................................................. 107

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 107

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................109

References ...................................................................................................................111

Table of Contents
xiv

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

List of Tables

Table Page

2.1 Status of content standards in academic subjects, by state: 2000 ................................. 10

2.2 Type of student assessments, by grade and academic subject, by state: 2000 .............. 14

2.3 Use of test items and assessments aligned to state standards, by item type, subject,

and school level, by state: 2000 .................................................................................... 15

2.4 Status of high school graduation exam policies and subjects covered, by state: 2000... 17

2.5 Information collected, by states and selected student, professional staff, and

program indicators: 1999 .............................................................................................. 19

2.6 Title of annual accountability report, by level of statistics and state: 2000 .................... 22

2.7 Rewards and sanctions for districts and schools, by state: 2000 .................................... 26

2.8 Basis for school rewards and types and recipients of rewards offered among states

that provide awards: 2000 ............................................................................................ 27

2.9 Types of sanctions and assistance for states with policies regarding school sanctions,

by state: 2000 ............................................................................................................... 28

2.10 Types of information and various procedures used to evaluate schools, by state:

2000 .............................................................................................................................. 31

3.1 Percentage distribution of total revenues for public elementary and secondary

schools, by revenue source and state: 1998–99 ............................................................. 35

3.2 Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary

schools, by state: 1989–90, 1997–98, 1998–99; and total expenditure per pupil in

fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by state: 1999–2000 ........ 39

3.3 School finance litigation, by year, case, and status, by state: 1970–99 .......................... 41

3.4 Selected recent court decisions and state responses for states where the highest

court has ruled the funding system unconstitutional and the case has not been

resolved, and states where final decisions have found the funding system unconstitutional, by state: 2000..................................................................................................... 48

3.5 Constitutional restrictions on legislative tax powers for states with supermajority

requirements, by state: 1998 ......................................................................................... 52

3.6 State special education funding systems used, basis of allocation used, and reform

status: 1994–95 ............................................................................................................. 55

3.7 Other sources of revenue for special education services and percent of revenue

returned to local school districts, by state: 1994–95 ..................................................... 58

4.1 States that support prekindergarten and/or Head Start programs with state

funds: 1998 ................................................................................................................... 63
xv

Table Page

4.2 Criteria for state-funded pre-kindergarten programs, by age and income, by state:

1998 .............................................................................................................................. 64

4.3 Select characteristics of state teaching standards: 2000 ................................................ 66

4.4 Subject-area coursework requirements for middle and high school teachers, by

state: 1999 .................................................................................................................... 68

4.5 Testing requirements for initial certification of teachers, by year and type of test,

by state: 1990 and 1999................................................................................................ 69

4.6 State policies for waiving selected teacher certification requirements: 1999 ................. 71

4.7 Local evaluation of new teachers for states that use local evaluation, by type,

by state: 1999 ............................................................................................................... 75

4.8 Summary of types of teacher certification and licensure, by state: 1998 ....................... 77

4.9 State requirements and purposes for professional development: 2000 .......................... 80

4.10 State textbook selection policies: 2000 .......................................................................... 82

4.11 Percentage distribution of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students whose

reading teachers indicated various levels of instructional resource availability, by

state: 1998 .................................................................................................................... 85

4.12 Percentage distribution of fourth-grade public school students by average reading

class size as reported by their reading teachers, by state: 1994 and 1998 ..................... 86

4.13 Course credit requirements for high school graduation by core academic subjects,

by state: 2000 ............................................................................................................... 90

4.14 Percentage of public high schools offering Advanced Placement courses, by

state: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 91

4.15 Length of school day in minimum hours, by grade level and state: 2000 ...................... 92

4.16 State and district policies regarding year-round schools, and the number of districts

in a state that run year-round schools: 2000 .................................................................. 93

4.17 Compulsory school attendance requirements, by state: 2000........................................ 95

5.1 States with open enrollment laws, by type: 2001 .......................................................... 99

5.2 States with charter school legislation, by year passed: 1991 to 1999........................... 100

5.3 Estimated number of charter schools opened each year from 1992–93 to

September 1999 and the total number of charter schools operating and closed as

of September 1999, among states with charter schools ............................................... 101

5.4 Estimated charter school enrollment among states with charter schools: 1998-99 ....... 102

5.5 Selected characteristics of charter school legislation, by state: 1999 ........................... 103

Table of Contents
xvi

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

List of Figures

Figure Page

3.1 Percentage distribution of revenues for public elementary and secondary schools,

by source of funds: 1989–90 to 1998–99....................................................................... 34

3.2 Current and total expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and

secondary schools: 1989–90 to 2000–01 ....................................................................... 38

5.1 Percentage of states reporting that some or all charter schools are granted various

types of freedoms: 1999 .............................................................................................. 105
1

Chapter One

Introduction and Overview

State governments play a critical role in providing public elementary and secondary education. State constitutional, statutory, and regulatory frameworks provide the legal authority for state governments, local governments,

and school districts to raise revenues for education; they also set conditions for spending these funds. State policies

are associated with nearly every facet of education, typically defining, for instance, when children must be in

school, who may teach them, and what they are expected to learn.

The purpose of this report is to describe major developments in state-level education policies that occurred during

the 1990s, and to use a wide range of sources to indicate the number of states that have adopted these reform

measures. In doing so, this report updates an earlier National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report,

Overview and Inventory of State Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance (Medrich et al. 1992),

which examined state-level reform efforts during the 1980s.

This chapter, Introduction and Overview, provides an introduction to the report, the background for reform, and

an overview of state education reforms. Chapter 2, Standards, Assessment, and Accountability, examines state

efforts to implement standards-based education reform, focusing on content standards, performance standards,

assessments, and accountability systems. Chapter 3, School Finance Reforms, describes recent state reforms in

school finance. Chapter 4, Teacher Training and School Resources, concentrates on state actions intended to

improve resources for learning, for example by improving teacher training or increasing the rigor of the curriculum. Chapter 5, State Support for School Choice Options, describes and inventories choice options such as public

school choice, charter schools, and home schooling. Finally, chapter 6, Summary and Conclusion, summarizes the

report, highlighting key state-level reforms.

The Call for Reform and State Responses

Calls for Education Reforms

Although public education has long been the subject of debate and reform efforts, the past decade is notable for

the type and volume of state-level policy activity. In particular, the 1990s continued a trend from the 1980s in

which states shifted their focus from educational inputs, such as per-student expenditures on instructional materials, to educational outputs, such as the percentage of students attaining a score of “proficient” on a statewide

assessment. This shift toward educational outcomes was prompted in part by concern over the achievement of U.S.

students compared to those in other countries, and the effect that comparatively low levels of achievement might

have on the economy. These concerns were articulated in the 1983 report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, which warned that the skills of the nation’s workforce would have to

improve drastically for the United States to remain internationally competitive. The report mobilized public support for more rigorous standards for students and teachers.

State and local officials worked to implement the recommendations outlined in A Nation at Risk, and these

initiatives became the foundation of the educational excellence reforms of the 1980s. In particular, one of the

more common policy changes states made during the 1980s was to increase the total number of courses, as well as

the number of courses in specific subjects, required for a high school diploma. Another common strategy adopted

by states during the 1980s was to increase the use of statewide testing to assess and evaluate student progress

(Medrich et al. 1992).
2

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

As states were implementing changes prompted in part by A Nation at Risk, new efforts arose that would refine

and extend the reform strategies of the 1980s. In the late 1980s, the National Governors Association served as a

forum for examining the current state of education in the United States and made recommendations for improvements. The governors’ efforts culminated in a meeting with former President George W. Bush at the first National

Education Summit in 1989. The creation of the national education goals and a public discussion as to whether

there should be national or state-level reforms in standards and testing resulted from the summit. The standardsbased, systemic reform strategies emphasized in these efforts are reflected in many of the education policies adopted

by states in the 1990s. These policies are one of the primary focuses of this report.

The efforts also informed federal education policy during the 1990s. Throughout this period, government agencies

and non-governmental organizations worked collaboratively to help implement reform strategies during the 1990s.

In addition, the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was intended to

support the standards-based reform efforts of states. Although it falls outside of the time period covered in this

report, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which again reauthorizes ESEA, further emphasizes the goal of

enabling all children to reach high state standards by strengthening accountability programs and increasing flexibility available to districts and states.

Federal data collection and dissemination efforts have helped to document and monitor education reforms. They

have provided national and state data on schools, students, teachers, parents and families, and achievement.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, NCES began administering several surveys and assessments that produce

state-level estimates in a number of areas. In the late 1980s, NCES began collecting through the Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS) state aggregate data on schools, principals, and teachers (see Gruber et al. 2002 for more

information). Beginning in 1990, states could volunteer to participate in the state National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in order to obtain data about their student academic performance relative to the nation

and other states, over time. The grades and subjects assessed in the state component are a subset of those in the

national component of NAEP. In 2000, state NAEP assessed mathematics and science at grades 4 and 8. Forty-one

states and six jurisdictions participated in the 2000 assessment (see Allen, Donoghue, and Schoeps 2001 for more

information).

State Education Reforms in the 1990s

States played an active role in promoting reform during the 1990s. State governments passed legislation, adopted

new procedures and standards, and pursued policies in a number of areas that reflected a new emphasis on outcomes in addition to inputs. To facilitate discussion of the diverse set of education policies states adopted during

the past decade, this report groups these reform efforts into four broad categories:

• standards, assessment, and accountability;

• school finance reforms;

• teacher training and school resources; and

• school choice options.

These categories reflect the primary ways in which states have sought to change the provision of education. The

first category—standards, assessments, and accountability—includes those policies that attempt to directly affect

the achievement levels of students by specifying what students should learn and be able to do. The second category—school finance reforms—reflects a long-standing capacity of states to influence education policy by modifying the way in which revenues for public education are raised, distributed, and spent. The third category—

teacher training and school resources—includes policies that may have an indirect effect on student achievement,
3

such as teacher training. Finally, the fourth category—school choice options—includes efforts to give more parents

choice in where they send their children to school. The following section provides a more detailed description of

these reform areas.

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. Standards formed the foundation of much education reform in the

1990s. Nearly all states undertook some type of reform effort that centered on setting academic standards (CCSSO

2000a). States have worked to define content and performance standards—what students should know and be

able to do and how well they should perform to be proficient in particular subject areas. They also have revised

statewide assessments and accountability systems to measure student progress toward these goals and to collect

information to hold schools accountable for student performance (Goertz and Duffy 2001).

School Finance Reforms. Standards-based reform efforts are designed to “hold all parts of the educational system

accountable for results” (U.S. Department of Education 1996b). Achieving results, however, depends in part on

having appropriate financial resources and targeting them to obtain the greatest benefits. State efforts to reshape

the education finance systems during the 1990s focused on defining adequacy and developing systems to ensure

adequate funding for achieving high standards (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Other active areas of reform have

focused on more general revenue reforms and special education financing reforms (Ladd and Hansen 1999; Odden

1994; Crampton and Whitney 1996b; Parrish et al. 1997).

Teacher Training and School Resources. Several state-level efforts attempt to increase student achievement by

reorganizing teacher training and school resources. Many of these reform efforts have been reinforced by the

National Education Goals and the overall movement toward increasing standards (National Education Goals

Panel 2001). In particular, they have focused on early childhood education, improving the effectiveness of teachers, the resources available to students and teachers, and the academic climate of schools. Efforts to ensure that all

students have high-quality teachers, for instance, have led a number of states to apply a standards-based reform

model to the training and certification of teachers and have led some states to implement nontraditional certification programs (CCSSO 1998). In doing so, states intend to provide teachers with the skills necessary to enable

their students to attain high academic standards and, especially in the case of the alternative certification model,

intend to recruit candidates from outside the teaching profession who possess significant subject matter expertise

into classrooms (Feistritzer 2002).

School Choice Options. A number of states adopted legislation during the 1990s designed to provide more parents

with choice in the schools their children attend. Many states have enabled the creation of public school choice

programs and charter schools (Ziebarth 2001), both of which are intended to increase the public school options

available to parents. State policies may also provide public support for parents who send their children to private

schools (U.S. Department of Education 2000d), and all states now permit homeschooling (Lines 2001).

Context for Reform: Increasing Enrollment and Growing Student Diversity

States pursued these various reform strategies during a period of rapid growth in enrollments. Public school

enrollment in kindergarten through grade eight rose from 29.9 million students in fall 1990 to an estimated 33.5

million students in fall 2000 (Snyder and Hoffman 2001, p. 5). Enrollment in grades 9 through 12 rose from 11.3

million students in 1990 to 13.5 million students in 2000 (Snyder and Hoffman 2001, p. 5). The increase from

1990 to 2000 was most rapid in the elementary grades, but this pattern is expected to change. As current elementary school students progress through school, enrollments will increase at the secondary school level over the next

decade. Between fall 2000 and fall 2010, public elementary school enrollment is expected to remain fairly stable,

while public secondary school enrollment is expected to rise by 4 percent (Snyder and Hoffman 2001, p. 5). Public

school enrollment is projected to set new records every year until 2005. The proportion of K–12 students in private

Chapter One: Introduction and Overview
4

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

schools has changed little over the past 10 years, remaining around 11 percent of K–12 students, and private

school enrollment is projected to remain around 6.0 million students between 2000 and 2010 (Snyder and Hoffman

2001, p. 5; Gerald and Hussar 2000, p. 3).

In addition to generally increasing enrollment, other changes in the school-age population took place during the

1990s. Slowly increasing numbers and proportions of students are being served in programs for the disabled.

During the 1990–91 school year, 11 percent of K–12 students were served in these programs compared with 13

percent in 1998–99 (Snyder and Hoffman 2001, p. 41).

The racial and ethnic composition of children under the age of 18 has changed as well. The percentage of Hispanic

children under age 18 nearly doubled over the past two decades, from 9 percent in 1980 to 16 percent in 1999

(Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 2000, p. 4). The percentage of children under age 18

who are Asian/Pacific Islander increased from 2 to 4 percent between 1980 and 1999, while the percentages of

Black, non-Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native students have been fairly stable over the period (Federal

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 2000, p. 4). Over the past two decades, the poverty rate for

related children under age 18 has fluctuated: it reached a high of 22 percent in 1993 and has since decreased to 18

percent, a rate comparable to 1980 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 2000, p. 14). It is

within the context of these enrollment and demographic changes that the state-level reform efforts discussed in

this report were undertaken.

Purpose and Content of Report

This report documents the wide array of education reforms that took place at the state level from approximately

1990 to 2000. Thus, it inventories rather than evaluates state reforms. As with any attempt to report on these

reform efforts, decisions had to be made regarding which of the many state-level education policy developments to

include in the report. Regardless of the criteria used for inclusion, there are inevitably reform efforts that fall into

a “gray area”—it is hard to determine whether they meet the criteria for inclusion or not. For example, such

valuable topics around teacher training as incentives for National Board certification, teacher education program

accountability, and professional development funding were considered but ultimately excluded. It is important to

note that inclusion or exclusion from this report does not imply anything about the quality of the reform or the

likelihood that the effort will achieve its intended effect.

In general, to be included in this report, a reform effort had to meet the following two criteria: 1) be an area of

active state-level policy activity; and 2) have recent, comparable state-level data available.

Area of state-level policy activity. The report includes policy areas in which states were active during the 1990s,

either enacting new legislation or policies or changing existing policies. This could include policies that a majority

of states adopted during the 1990s or, in some instances, the policy could have been adopted by only a handful of

states but have received considerable debate. Thus, the report discusses both statewide accountability systems, an

area where nearly all states have been active in implementing reforms, and private school voucher programs, which

have received considerable attention but have been adopted by comparatively few states.

Recent state-level data available. The report documents reforms where recent data have been collected on the

particular reform area. When possible, data documenting changes made during the 1990s have been included in

this report. However, in many sections of the report, the tables inventory policies in effect in the mid- or late1990s, rather than the changes made during the 1990s. In addition, because observers continue to write about the

reform efforts that occurred during the 1990s, there are some references to articles published in 2001 and 2002,

although the focus of the report is on the 1990s and generally tables are limited to data from 2000 or earlier.
5

Chapter One: Introduction and Overview

Although federal and state legislation and policy beyond March 2001 is not included in this report, subsequent

editions of this volume will track developments into the 2000s and emerging issues not covered in this report.

Data are drawn from a variety of sources that provide state-level data and are not limited to NCES data sets. In

fact, the majority of tables are drawn from reports published by a number of organizations, such as the Education

Commission of the States (ECS), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Education Week.

Generally, we did not attempt to verify with states or other data sources the information collected and published

by these organizations. Although the most recent data in this report generally are from 2000, these organizations

and NCES have updated many of the data sources. Each table in this report indicates the original source of the

information. Readers can contact these organizations or visit their web sites listed below to determine if more

recent data are available.

Organization Web site

Council of Chief State School Officers http://www.ccsso.org/

Center for Special Education Finance http://csef.air.org/

Education Commission of the States http://www.ecs.org/

U.S. Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/

Education Week http://www.edweek.com/

Families and Work Institute http://www.familiesandwork.org

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education & Certification http://www.nasdtec.org/

National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/

National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/

These data were collected using many research methods, including a survey of a universe (such as state education

agencies), or of a sample, and compilation of administrative records. In some cases, for example, tables from the

Education Week Quality Counts surveys, the data were gathered through surveys on particular reform efforts

filled out by state officials. In other cases, the data come from organizations that regularly review state policies

and compile data on particular reforms. Readers should take special care when comparing data from different

sources. Differences in procedures, timing, phrasing of questions, interviewer training, and so forth mean that the

results from the different sources may not be strictly comparable.

In addition, these sources vary in how they present state data in tabular form. Some sources present all 50 states

in their tables, whether or not each state had adopted a particular policy; others list only those states that had

adopted the policy. Some organizations collect and report information for the District of Columbia; others do

not. The tables in this report list the states that appear in the original source. Thus, not all tables contain all

states. However, notes identifying missing states or the District of Columbia have been added to tables to assist

the reader.

Similarly, many of the original tables use a check mark, X, or short phrase to indicate that a state had a particular

policy, and a blank cell generally indicates that the state did not have the policy or requirement. When including

these tables, we have again followed the format of the original table. Thus, a blank cell in the tables of this report

indicates that information was not reported in the original source. In some cases, we modified the original tables

by adding additional explanatory notes or only extracting the relevant portion of larger tables.

When interpreting the tables, it is important to keep in mind that, as with all data collection efforts, the data

reported in these tables may contain errors. These errors may arise when respondents interpret questions differently, when respondents must estimate values, or in the processing of the data. In addition, the tables present data

on state policies at a given point in time. States are constantly changing and implementing new education policies

and the number of states that have adopted a particular policy may change rapidly. An organization, for example,

may have collected data in the spring of 1999 and published a table based on the collection in fall 1999, with a
6

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

date given in the table as 1999. If a policy changed between spring and fall 1999, the new policy may not be

reflected in the table, even though the date of the table is 1999.

It is also important to note that the reforms discussed are at different stages of implementation; some have been

widely implemented by many states, others are only just beginning to be enacted. In cases where the states have

had some experience putting these reforms into place, implementation issues commonly encountered are discussed

in the report. In a few cases, the report provides specific examples of how a reform was enacted in a particular

state.

The majority of the information compiled in this report was obtained from the web sites of the organizations that

originally collected the data. In an effort to capture the reform activities of the 1990s, the tables in this report

reflect the most current available information as of March 2001. The availability of this information over the

Internet reflects a general trend in the way in which education data are collected and disseminated. As described in

chapter 2 of this report, states are using the Internet as one of the primary ways to disseminate information about

schools collected as part of accountability systems.
7

Introduction

Standards formed the foundation of much education reform in the 1990s. While the details vary considerably

from state to state, almost all states have undertaken some type of reform effort that centers on setting academic

standards. Efforts have also involved aligning assessments to standards and developing accountability systems

based in part upon assessments (Linn 2001). This chapter describes four components of these standards-based

reform efforts: content standards, performance standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Content standards define what students should know and be able to do, while performance standards indicate how well

students must perform to be considered proficient in a particular subject area. Statewide assessments measure

student progress toward attaining the goals defined by content and performance standards, and accountability

systems are intended to collect the information necessary to hold schools responsible for the performance of

students. This chapter defines each of these components of standards-based reform efforts and presents information on the number of states that adopted various reform measures.

Standards-based Education Reform

Content Standards

One of the first questions addressed in standards-based reform efforts is What should all students know and be

able to do? Content standards attempt to answer this question by clearly defining the “the subject-specific knowledge and skills that schools are expected to teach and students are expected to learn” (Olson and Goldstein 1997).

Content standards are intended to be challenging and to apply to all students, including, in many instances,

students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency (U.S. Department of Education 1996b).

Determining what students should know and be able to do in various discipline areas is a complex task that may

involve teachers, parents, principals, elected officials, business leaders, scholars, community organizations, and

education administrators, among others. Indeed, one of the goals of setting content standards has been to engage

a diverse group of interested individuals and organizations in a dialogue about what schools should teach and

what students should be expected to learn (U.S. Department of Education 1996b; McLaughlin, Shepard, and

O’Day 1995). The way in which these groups are involved in the standards-setting process is one way states differ

in their approach to creating content standards.

In an analysis of standards-based reform efforts during the early 1990s in nine states, Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe

(1997) note that states such as California relied relatively heavily on education professionals in the early stages of

creating standards, while other states, such as Kentucky, took a more populist approach, beginning with a survey

of state residents. States also differed in the speed with which they created content standards and the scope of their

overall reform efforts. According to these authors, Kentucky, Florida, and California created content standards

and undertook major changes in related areas at the same time, such as restructuring their statewide student

assessment systems. Other states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, reportedly took a more incremental approach, taking more time to create standards documents and making gradual changes to their assessment systems.

Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe (1997) also found that deciding upon the appropriate level of detail was a particularly

sensitive issue confronted by standard-setting efforts. States have sought to define content standards detailed

Chapter Two

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
8

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

enough to provide guidance to teachers and administrators, but not so detailed as to overly restrict the discretion

of local schools. While some states provide detailed standards at every grade level, others have created a set of

standards that apply to a range of grades or to the entire K–12 system. Baker and Linn (1997) note that although

some standards define a few “essential competencies,” others include a wide range of knowledge and skills that

students are expected to learn (pp. 1–8). They also point to differences in the degree to which content standards

specify teaching strategies, the audience to which the standards are directed, and the degree to which the standards

are subject to revision over time.

As an example, New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards (New Jersey Department of Education 1996a)

defined 56 standards across seven content areas.1

 In addition, the state set five “workplace readiness standards”

which cut across all subject areas. In mathematics, for example, one content standard stated that “All students will

develop an understanding of and will use measurement to describe and analyze phenomena” (Standard 4.9). New

Jersey also included more detailed expectations of what students should know and be able to do in specific grades.

These more specific expectations, called “cumulative progress indicators,” were defined for grades 4, 8, and 12.

Under the mathematics content standard listed above, one of the cumulative progress indicators stated that by the

end of eighth grade, students will “convert measurement units from one form to another, and carry out calculations that involve various units of measurement.” By the end of grade 12, students will “use techniques of algebra,

geometry, and trigonometry to measure quantities indirectly” (Progress indicators 13 and 17, Standard 4.9).

The New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards also indicated that the content standards are “intended for

virtually all students,” including “students who are college-bound, career-bound, academically talented, those

whose native language is not English, those with disabilities, students with learning deficits, and students from

diverse socioeconomic (disadvantaged or advantaged) backgrounds” (New Jersey Department of Education 1996b).

However, exceptions were made for children with severe cognitive disabilities.

Several states also have created content standards for career and vocational education. In Georgia, for example,

the Quality Core Curriculum included Technology and Career Education standards (Georgia Department of Education 2000). In addition to a set of Common Core standards for all Technology/Career Education courses, a set

of detailed expectations was listed for specific subject areas, ranging from Automotive Technology to Protective

Services. For grades 9–12, for example, one of the standards in Protective Services required that a student “uses

technology and mathematics to develop an understanding of investigative techniques, and applies them appropriate to a given situation through simulated learning experiences, work-based learning, and culminating activities”

(Georgia Department of Education 2000; Standard 36).

Federal Support for Content Standards

Content standards also have been a major component of federal education legislation, which has sought to support state efforts in this area. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which became law in 1994 and was amended

in 1996, was intended to support comprehensive and coordinated state and local reform efforts, including the

development and implementation of content standards. Content standards were included in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the Improving America’s Schools Act.

Title I of the 1994 ESEA was designed to help states and localities provide supplemental services for low-achieving

students in high-poverty schools and was the largest single source of federal aid to K–12 schools in the 1990s.

Under earlier ESEA legislation, Title I services often were not integrated with other school programs and reform

efforts (U.S. Department of Education 1996a). With the 1994 reauthorization, Title I required that the same state

1 Some of New Jersey’s standards have been revised (see New Jersey Department of Education 2002).
9

content standards be applied to students who receive Title I services as those required for all students in the state.

Title I under the 1994 reauthorization also required states to develop challenging content standards in at least

reading and mathematics.

Federal support for vocational education also included an emphasis on state content standards. In a shift from

previous federal legislation, the 1990 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (Perkins

II) was designed to support efforts to integrate academic and vocational education and was targeted to all students

(U.S. Department of Education 2000a). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998

(Perkins III) and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 share this goal of integrating academic and

vocational education, and are intended to support state efforts to ensure that all students meet state content

standards.

State Implementation Efforts

Since the early 1990s, nearly all states have undertaken efforts to develop content standards in various subject

areas. In 2000, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) found that 49 states had developed content

standards in at least one academic subject (table 2.1). Between 1995 and 2000, the number of states that had

developed English/language arts standards increased from 20 to 49 (CCSSO 2000a). CCSSO also found that the

number of states that had developed mathematics standards grew from 25 to 49, science standards from 23 to 46

states, and from 20 to 46 states for social studies/history standards.

In their efforts, states have frequently drawn on the work of professional organizations that have developed

content standards in specific subject areas. One of the first organizations to develop standards was the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), which released Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School

Mathematics in 1989 and was revised in 2000 as Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM

2000). The National Research Council’s (1996) National Science Education Standards and the Center for Civic

Education’s (1994) National Standards for Civics and Government are among the standards developed by organizations that focus on specific disciplines.

Using criteria such as clarity, specificity, and consistency, several organizations have undertaken the task of analyzing and evaluating the content standards of states and those developed by professional organizations. The American Federation of Teachers (2001), the CCSSO (1997), and the Fordham Foundation (Finn and Petrilli 2000) are

among the organizations that have analyzed content standards. In addition, the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL) has examined technical issues involved with creating standards and maintains a

database of content standards constructed from a wide range of standards documents (Kendall and Marzano

2000). Achieve, Inc., also maintains a database of state and international standards, and assists states in

benchmarking their academic standards, assessments, and accountability policies against others in the nation and

the world (Achieve 2002).

Performance Standards

While content standards specify what students should know and be able to do at a particular point in school,

performance standards “define how students [can] demonstrate their proficiency in the skills and knowledge

framed by states’ content standards” (U.S. Department of Education 1996b). Performance standards indicate

what a student must do and how well he or she must do it to demonstrate a particular level of proficiency in a

given subject area.

In writing, for example, performance standards may describe specific expectations concerning vocabulary, sentence structure, organization, and use of relevant details to define “how good” a student’s essay must be to

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
10

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.1 Status of content standards in academic subjects, by state: 2000

State Content standards complete Content standards under development/revision

Alabama M, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE, Computer App. S

Alaska M, S, E/LA, H, AR, FL, HE, Geog., Govt. & Citizenship

Arizona (1994) M, S, LA, SSt AR, FL, HE

Arkansas H/SSt, AR, FL, HE/PE; M, S, LA (1999) M, E/LA (rev.)

California M, S, E/LA, SSt AR, FL, HE, PE

Colorado M, S, H, LA, Geog., AR, FL, PE

Connecticut M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Delaware M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL HE, PE

Florida M, S, LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE/PE

Georgia M, S, E/LA, SSt (1999) M, S, LA, SSt

Hawaii M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Idaho M, S, LA, SSt, HE (K–12) Humanities (9-12)

Illinois (1998) M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Indiana M, E/LA, SSt (1999) M, S, E/LA , SSt, AR, FL, PE

Iowa

Kansas M, S, LA, SSt, AR, HE, PE

Kentucky M, S, SSt, AR, Prac. Living (inc. HE, PE), Voc. Stud., Writ., Read.

Louisiana M, E/LA; S, SSt (1999) S, SSt

Maine M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Maryland M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL., HE, PE

Massachusetts H/SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE; M, S, E (1999) M, S, E

Michigan M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Minnesota M, S, LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Mississippi M, S, SSt, LA, AR, HE/PE

Missouri M, S, LA, SSt, AR, HE, PE

Montana M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Nebraska M, S, SSt, Reading/Writ (1999) M, S, E/LA, SSt

Nevada M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE, Comp. Sci & Tech.

New Hampshire M, S, E/LA, SSt AR

New Jersey M, S, LA, SSt AR, HE, PE

New Mexico M, S, LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

New York (1996) M/S, E/LA, SSt, HE/PE

North Carolina M, S, E/LA, FL, HE, PE, Voc & Tech ed. SSt, AR (rev.)

North Dakota M, S, E/LA, AR, HE, PE SSt, FL

Ohio M, S, LA, SSt, AR, FL HE, PE

Oklahoma M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Oregon M, S, E, H, AR, FL, Civ., Geog., Eco. PE

Pennsylvania M, E/LA S, H/SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Rhode Island M, S, E/LA, AR, HE

South Carolina M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, HE, FL, PE

South Dakota M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Tennessee M, S, E, SSt, AR, FL, HE,PE

Texas M, S, E/LA, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Utah M, S, E, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE

Vermont M/S, LA, AR, H/SSt

Virginia M, S, E, H/SSt, AR, FL HE, PE

Washington (1998) M, S, LA, SSt, AR, HE

West Virginia M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE E/LA (rev.)

Wisconsin M, S, E/LA. SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE E/LA

Wyoming M, S, E/LA, SSt, FL, HE, PE AR, Career/Voc. Ed.

NOTE: M = Mathematics; S = Science; E = English; LA = Language Arts; H = History; SSt = Social Studies; AR = Arts, Visual & Performing, Fine Arts;

FL = Foreign Language; HE = Health Education; PE = Physical Education. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell

indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.
11

demonstrate a particular level of proficiency. Performance standards may define two or more achievement levels,

such as “partially proficient,” “proficient,” and “advanced,” with descriptions and examples of what a student is

expected to demonstrate for each level of proficiency (Hansche 1998). These levels of proficiency often correspond

with a range of scores on a state assessment. Performance standards for math, for example, might define how well

a student must know algebra and specify a range of scores on the relevant portion of the state assessment that will

place a student in a particular achievement level. In the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, states were required to

have adopted content and performance standards in at least reading and mathematics, and the performance

standards were to include at least three levels of proficiency.

Setting performance standards can be a challenging task for states to undertake. The Institute for the Study of

Educational Policy (1997) notes that “setting performance standards means making judgments about what is

acceptable student performance on a given test and determining the passing score on the test that corresponds to

this judgment.” This process may require, for example, a group of judges to estimate the likelihood of a student at

each previously defined performance level (e.g., Basic, Proficient, and Advanced) correctly answering each item on

the assessment and averaging the estimates across judges. Hambleton (1998) provides a description of the overall

process of setting performance standards, including a discussion of specific methods (e.g., Angoff’s method) and

recent efforts to set standards for performance assessments.

Although terminology may differ somewhat across states, the basic relationship between content and performance

standards is fairly consistent. Content standards are intended to set expectations for what students should know

and be able to do in specific subject areas. Performance standards indicate how well students must perform to

reach a given level of proficiency in the content area. Taken together, content and performance standards are

designed to set clear, challenging academic expectations and goals. Measuring student progress toward attaining

the goals defined by content and performance standards is therefore central to standards-based reform efforts.

Assessing Student Achievement

Educators assess, or measure, the academic performance of students for a variety of purposes. In the classroom,

teachers may use assessments to monitor the progress of individual students, to diagnose and place students, and

to evaluate and improve instructional practices. Teachers often use a wide variety of assessment formats, including

multiple-choice, essay, short answer, laboratory assignments, and group projects to gain knowledge of students’

level of understanding and skill in a particular subject. Most states also administer assessments to all students (or

to a sample of students) in one or more grades to monitor the academic achievement of students at the school,

district, and state level. It is these large-scale achievement tests, administered by the state and intended to measure

student learning in particular subject areas, that have become a focal point in current reform efforts.

Historically, nearly all statewide achievement tests have been standardized, meaning that the administration of the

exam (e.g., the instructions, time limits, and format) and the criteria used to score it are uniform across all students

taking the exam, allowing comparisons to be made within a state and potentially across states (Office of Technology Assessment 1992). Assessments may differ, however, in a number of ways. The content, or the type of knowledge and skills the test is designed to measure, may differ across assessments. While some large-scale tests are

designed to measure a set of basic skills or minimum competencies, others are intended to measure the degree to

which students have attained higher levels of achievement. The format of assessments may also differ considerably.

One of the primary differences is between selected response formats, in which a student picks from a list of possible

answers (e.g., multiple-choice), and constructed responses, in which a student creates an answer or performs a task

(e.g., writing an essay). Finally, an assessment may be norm-referenced or criterion-referenced. A student’s performance on a norm-referenced assessment is compared to the results of other students, usually a nationally representative sample. In contrast, criterion-referenced assessments are intended to measure the degree to which a student

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
12

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

has achieved a set of established academic competencies. The results of a norm-referenced exam, therefore, indicate

where a student stands relative to his or her peers, while the results of a criterion-referenced exam indicate where a

student stands relative to specific skills that are intended to be taught as part of the curriculum (Bond 1996).

Norm-referenced standardized achievement tests have been a part of large-scale testing programs for many years

(Bond, Roeber, Braskamp 1996). These tests allow states to compare the performance of a particular school or

district to the performance of a nationally representative sample of students on the same assessment. During the

late 1970s and early 1980s, another type of assessment, the minimum competency test, was a part of several state

testing programs (Office of Technology Assessment 1992; Linn 2000). Although minimum competency tests also

relied heavily on multiple-choice items, they differed from traditional norm-referenced achievement tests in that

they were intended to measure a specific set of basic skills and knowledge in core academic areas that were deemed

necessary to succeed in work or postsecondary education. Minimum competency tests are therefore considered

criterion-referenced, because a student’s performance is compared to a specific set of academic skills or competencies. In many states, students were required to achieve a passing score to be promoted to the next grade or to

graduate from high school, although they were usually allowed to take the test over if they did not make the

passing score (Office of Technology Assessment 1992).

The rise of standards-based reform efforts led some observers to question whether traditional achievement tests

were adequate measures of students’ progress toward attaining the goals defined in content and performance

standards. In particular, traditional, norm-referenced achievement tests typically reflect broad definitions of what

students should know in a particular subject area and thus may not be closely related to the specific content

standards of a state. Furthermore, minimum competency exams were not intended to cover a wide range of subject

areas and focused on measuring basic skills and knowledge. Thus, one concern has been the degree to which the

subject matter covered in traditional achievement tests is related to the subject matter of a state’s content standards

(Massell, Kirst, Hoppe 1997; Linn and Herman 1997). A second concern has been whether traditional achievement tests measure the type of higher-order thinking that content standards are intended to foster (Noble and

Smith 1994; Haertel 1999), although some observers note that the multiple-choice format favored in many

traditional achievement tests can be designed to elicit higher-order thinking skills (Martinez 1999). These concerns

have led states to re-evaluate their statewide testing systems and make changes intended to better align assessments

with content and performance standards.

For example, states have taken steps to diversify their statewide testing programs. While states typically retain

traditional norm-referenced achievement tests in their statewide systems because they indicate how well students

are doing compared to a national average, states have made efforts to include more criterion-referenced assessments that are intended to mirror the material covered in the state’s content standards. Reflecting the emphasis on

alignment in standards-based reform, Title I of the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required states to have assessments aligned with content and performance standards in at least reading and mathematics. Working with test

publishers, some states have created assessments that include items from a norm-referenced test as well as items

tailored to the state’s content standards, while others administer criterion-referenced assessments in some grades

and norm-referenced exams in others (Goertz and Duffy 2001). Aligning assessments with content standards,

however, is a particularly challenging task, and researchers have identified several dimensions along which alignment can be evaluated. Webb (1999) defines four such dimensions: categorical concurrence, depth-of-knowledge

consistency, range-of-knowledge correspondence, and balance of representation. To be aligned with one another,

not only should the content categories of the assessment and standards be similar, but the depth and breadth of

knowledge expected of students should be consistent, and the balance between depth and breadth should be

similar (see also La Marca, Redfield, and Winter 2000).
13

A number of states have also diversified their testing programs by including more performance-based assessment

items, such as short answers, essays, oral responses, open-ended tasks, demonstrations, experiments, group projects,

and direct observations. Portfolios, which involve collecting and evaluating examples of a student’s work over a

period of time, are also an alternative to multiple-choice formats and have been incorporated in some statewide

assessments. Kane et al. (1997) note that “in assessment reform theory, all performance assessments must require

students to structure the assessment task, apply information, and construct responses, and in many cases, students

must also be able to explain the processes by which they arrive at the answer” (emphasis in original). Proponents

of performance assessments argue that asking students to conduct a scientific experiment or read historical documents and write an essay requires them to draw on their knowledge of the subject and to apply critical thinking

and problem-solving skills to the task. This is not to suggest that performance assessments are the only or best way

of measuring higher-order skills. There is considerable debate concerning the merits of different types of item

format in large-scale testing programs. See Martinez (1999) for a discussion of research on the cognitive demands

of different item formats.

Education Week conducted a survey of states that asked about the frequency and type of assessments they administer. As reported in Education Week’s Quality Counts 2001, most states assessed students a number of times

between first and twelfth grade, with 48 states having administered at least one exam in eighth grade and 43 states

having done so in fourth grade (table 2.2). While English/language arts and mathematics were the most frequently

tested subjects, many states also regularly assess student performance in history/social studies and science as well.

Nearly all states included multiple-choice tests in their assessment programs, 38 states included short answer items,

46 used extended-response items in English exams, and 7 states used extended-response questions in assessments

of other subjects (table 2.3). Two states, Kentucky and Vermont, used portfolios. Table 2.3 also highlights the

efforts of states to align their criterion-referenced assessments to state standards at different school levels. Most

states reported that English and mathematics assessments were aligned to state standards, and many also indicated

that history/social studies and science assessments were aligned to standards. In addition to assessing student

achievement at several points during elementary and secondary school, a number of states also required high

school students to pass a graduation exit exam. Table 2.4, also based upon the Education Week survey, indicates

graduation was contingent upon performance on statewide exit exams in 18 states, with 6 states planning to

adopt similar measures over the next several years. In 15 states, students who fail the exams must receive remediation,

and the state finances remediation in 9 of those states. The results of these assessments typically play a central role

in state accountability systems.

Accountability

In general, accountability systems “collect, evaluate and use data about students and schools to hold educators

and others responsible for results” (Education Commission of the States [ECS] 1998b, p.19). In standards-based

accountability systems, the performance of students is evaluated against the expectations of student learning

defined by content and performance standards. Districts and schools, in turn, are held accountable for the performance of students. Standards-based accountability systems, therefore, tend to focus on the outcomes of education—what students know and are able to do as a result of attending school.

Table 2.5, based on a review of state policies conducted by ECS, summarizes the indicators collected by states as

part of their accountability systems in 1999. The most common information collected by states in 1999 included

assessment scores (41 states), the dropout rate (33 states), student attendance (29 states), expenditures and use of

resources (includes per-pupil expenditures; 27 states), and the graduation rate (18 states).

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
14

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.2 Type of student assessments, by grade and academic subject, by state: 2000

State Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Number of states 1 7 34 43 33 31 26 48 21 34 29 3

Alabama EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS [EMHS] EMHS

Alaska EM EM EM EM EM [EM] 

Arizona EM EM EM EM EM EM EM EM EM [EM] EM

Arkansas EM EMHS EM EMHS EM [M] EMHS [E]

California EM EM EM EM EM EM EM EMHS EMHS EMHS

Colorado E E EM E E EMS E EM 

Connecticut EM EM EM EMS 

Delaware EM HS EM HS EMHS [EM] [HS]

Florida EM EM EM EM EM EM EM [EM] [EM]1

Georgia EMHS EM EMHS EM EMHS [EMHS]

Hawaii EM EM EM EM 

Idaho EMHS EM EMHS EM EMHS EM EMHS EM EM

Illinois EM HS EM HS EM EMHS

Indiana EM EM EM EM [EM] 

Iowa EM EMS EMS

Kansas MS E H MS EH MS EH

Kentucky EM ES M H EM ES M H EM E MHS E

Louisiana EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS [EM] [HS]

Maine EMHS EMHS EMHS

Maryland EM EMHS EM EMHS EM [EM]1 EMHS [EMHS] 

Massachusetts E EM HS M E EMHS [EM] HS 

Michigan EM EHS E EHS EMHS

Minnesota EM EM [EM] [E] 

Mississippi EM EM EM EM EM EM EM MS E [EM] H

Missouri ES MH ES MH MS EH

Montana EMHS EMHS EMHS

Nebraska E E E

Nevada EM EMS EM EMS EMS [EM]

New Hampshire EM EMHS EMHS 

New Jersey EMS EMS [EM]

New Mexico EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS [EMHS] 

New York EMS EMHS [EMHS] 

North Carolina EM EM EM EM EM [EM] EMHS EMS MHS S

North Dakota EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS 

Ohio EMHS EMHS [EMHS] EMHS

Oklahoma EM EMHS EMHS [EH] 

Oregon EM EMS EMS EMS 

Pennsylvania EM E EM E EM

Rhode Island E EM E EM EM E

South Carolina EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS [EM] 

South Dakota EMHS EMHS E EMHS E EMHS

Tennessee EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS [EM] E

Texas EM EM EM EM EM EMHS [EM] 

Utah EM EM EMHS EMS EMHS EMS EMS EMHS EMS EMS EMHS

Vermont E EM E EM EM 

Virginia EMHS EM EMHS EM EMHS [EMHS] EM 

Washington EM EM EM EM S EM EMS 

West Virginia EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS EMHS

Wisconsin E EMHS EMHS EMHS

Wyoming EM EM EM

1Exit exams in these grades are being phased out.

NOTE: E = English/language arts; M = Mathematics; H = History/social studies; S = Science; [ ] = Exit exam or end-of-course exam appears in the first

grade in which it is offered. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that

state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2001, 2001.
15

Table 2.3 Use of test items and assessments aligned to state standards, by item type, subject, and school level, by state: 

Other

State Multiple choice Short answer English subject(s) Portfolio English Mathematics HistoryAlabama ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS HS Alaska ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Arizona ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Arkansas ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS California ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS Colorado ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Connecticut ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Delaware ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EFlorida ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Georgia ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Hawaii ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Idaho ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS Illinois ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EIndiana ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Iowa ES MS HS Kansas ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Kentucky ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ELouisiana ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS MS ES MS HS ES MS HS Maine ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EMaryland ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS EMassachusetts ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EMichigan ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES HS EMinnesota ES MS ES MS ES HS ES ES Mississippi ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Missouri ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EMontana ES MS HS Nebraska ES MS HS ES MS HS Nevada ES MS HS ES ES MS HS ES MS HS ES HS New Hampshire ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS New Jersey ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS ES MS New Mexico ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ENew York ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS North Carolina ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS North Dakota ES MS HS ES Ohio ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EOklahoma ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS EOregon ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Pennsylvania ES MS HS ES MS HS MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Rhode Island ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS South Carolina ES MS HS ES MS ES MS HS ES MS ES MS See footnotes at end of table.

Extended response

Type of test items states use to measure student/school performance

Subjects in which the state uses criterion-referen

state standards
16

Table 2.3 Use of test items and assessments aligned to state standards, by item type, subject, and school level, by state: 

Other

State Multiple choice Short answer English subject(s) Portfolio English Mathematics HistorySouth Dakota ES MS HS ES HS Tennessee ES MS HS ES MS HS HS HS Texas ES MS HS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Utah ES MS HS MS HS MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Vermont ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Virginia ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS EWashington ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS West Virginia ES MS HS ES MS HS Wisconsin ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS Wyoming ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS NOTE: ES = Elementary school level; MS = Middle school level; HS = High school level. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell inresponse for that state was not reported in the original source.SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2001, 2001.

Subjects in which the state uses criterion-referen

state standards

Extended response

Type of test items states use to measure student/school performance
17

Table 2.4 Status of high school graduation exam policies and subjects covered, by state: 2000

Students must State requires Sta

 pass tests that students State finances on 

High school covering 10th who fail exit remediation for 

graduation grade standards exams receive students who s

State exams1 to graduate English Mathematics Social studies Science remediation fail exit exams retaNumber of states 18 5 18 18 5 5 15 9 Alabama xxxx Class of 2003 Class of 2002 x x Alaska Class of 2002 Class of 2002 Class of 2002 Class of 2002 Arizona2 Class of 2002 Class of 2002 Class of 2002 Class of 2004 Arkansas California Class of 2004 Class of 2004 Class of 2004 Class of 2004 Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida x Class of 2003 x x x Georgia xxxxxxxxHawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana x x x x x IowaKansasKentuckyLouisiana x Class of 2003 xxxxx

Maine

Maryland x Class of 2007 x x Class of 2007 Class of 2007 xMassachusetts Class of 2003 Class of 2003 Class of 2003 Class of 2003MichiganMinnesota x x x xMississippi x Class of 2003 x x Class of 2003 Class of 2005MissouriMontanaNebraskaNevada xxxx xxNew HampshireNew Jersey x Class of 2003 x x Class of 2006 Class of 2004 xNew Mexico xxxxxxNew York xxxxxxxx North Carolina x Class of 2003 x x xNorth DakotaOhio x Class of 2005 xxxxxx OklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSee footnotes at end of table.

Exit exam covers the following subjects
18

Table 2.4. Status of high school graduation exam policies and subjects covered, by state: 2000—Continued

Students must State requires Sta

 pass tests that students State finances on 

High school covering 10th who fail exit remediation for 

graduation grade standards exams receive students who s

State exams1 to graduate English Mathematics Social studies Science remediation fail exit exams retaSouth Carolina x Class of 2005 x x Class of 2007 Class of 2006 x x South DakotaTennessee x Class of 2005 x x Class of 2005Texas x Class of 2005 x x Class of 2005 Class of 2005 x x Utah Class of 2005 Class of 2005 Class of 2005VermontVirginia x Class of 2004 x x Class of 2004 Class of 2004 x xWashington Class of 2008 Class of 2008 Class of 2008 Class of 2008 Class of 2008West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming1Graduation is contingent upon performance on statewide exit exams.2Arizona is considering delaying its graduation exam requirement.

NOTE: An “X” indicates the policy was in effect at the time data for this table was collected by the original source; otherwise, the first high school class to whom the 

the time of data collection is given. Only states with a policy at the time of data collection were counted in the “total” row. The District of Columbia was not reported cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2001, 2001.

Exit exam covers the following subjects
19

Table 2.5 Information collected, by states and selected student, professional staff, and program indicators:

1999

Total

states AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO

Student indicators:

Assessment scores 41 xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx x

ACT and/or SAT scores 12 x x x x x

AP courses: Offered 4 x x

AP courses: Scores 3

Attendance 29 x x x x x xxxxxxxx x

Class size 11 x x x x x

Demographics 14 x x x x x x x x

Discipline 10 x x x x x x x

Diversity 8 x x x x

Dropout rate 33 xxxxx x xx xx xxxxxx x

Enrollment 16 x x x x x x x

Expulsion rate 11 x x x x x x

Graduation rate 18 x x x x x x x x

Retention rate 8 x x x x

Student/administrator ratio 4 x x x

Student/teacher ratio 14 x x x x x x

Suspension rate 12 x x x x x

Transition 16 xxxx x x x x x

Truancy 6 x x x

Professional staff indicators:

Attendance 5 x x

Diversity 3 x x

Evaluation 3 x x x

Experience 7 x x x

Leadership 2 x x

Preparation 5 x x

Reduction of class size &

teaching load 2 x x

Salary levels 4 x x

Staff development 6 x x x x

Working in area of certification 4 x x x

Program indicators:

Curriculum 9 x x x x x x

Learning climate 2 x x

Mission and/or goals statement 6 x x

Parental and/or community

involvement 12 x x x x x x

Expenditures and use of resources 27 x x x x x x x x x x x x

See footnotes at end of table.

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
20

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.5 Information collected, by states and selected student, professional staff, and program indicators:

1999—Continued

MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NY NV OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

Student indicators:

Assessment scores x x xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx

ACT and/or SAT scores x x x x x x x

AP courses: Offered x x

AP courses: Scores xxx

Attendance x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx

Class size x x x x x x

Demographics x x x x x x x

Discipline x x x

Diversity x x x x

Dropout rate x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx

Enrollment x x x x x x x x x

Expulsion rate x x x x x

Graduation rate x x x x x x x x x x

Retention rate x x x x

Student/administrator ratio x

Student/teacher ratio x x x x x x x x

Suspension rate x x x x x x x

Transition x x x x x x x

Truancy x x x

Professional staff indicators:

Attendance x x x

Diversity x

Evaluation

Experience x x x x

Leadership

Preparation x x x

Reduction of class size &

teaching load

Salary levels x x

Staff development x x

Working in area of certification x

Program indicators:

Curriculum x x x

Learning climate

Mission and/or goals statement x x x x

Parental and/or community

involvement xxxx x

Expenditures and use of resources x x xxxxxx x xx xxxx

NOTE: Texas data were revised. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. “X” indicates that an affirmative response for that state

was reported in the original source while a blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, ECS StateNotes: Accountability Indicators/Measures, January 1999.
21

States, districts, and schools use the information collected in standards-based accountability systems for a variety

of purposes. ECS (1998a) notes that standards-based accountability systems can be used for the following purposes:

• to monitor, evaluate and publicly report the progress of students, schools and districts toward achievement

of content standards and other established goals;

• to provide information for policy decisions;

• to provide information for program improvement;

• to evaluate the performance of the education system relative to other systems;

• to hold schools and/or districts accountable;

• to allocate resources;

• to certify or promote students;

• to improve individual student performance;

• to select or place students; and

• to plan staff development (pp. 10–11).

One of the more common ways states accomplish the first purpose, which includes monitoring and publicly

reporting the progress of students and schools, is with institutional report cards. Institutional report cards generally are issued annually and may be issued at the state, district and/or school level. Several states also are making

report cards available over the Internet. In 2000, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) collected

information on the type of reporting conducted by each state. Table 2.6 indicates the title of various annual

reports and the level of reporting. All state education agencies reported having at least one annual accountability

or indicator report as of September 2000; 46 states issued at least one report providing statistics at the district

level, and 40 states and the District of Columbia did so at the school level (CCSSO 2000b).

ECS suggests that a complete standards-based accountability system includes rewards and sanctions to encourage

school improvement. School and district report cards or annual reports may in themselves act as incentives by

making performance data public and easily accessible. In addition, some states may publish a list of high- and/or

low-performing schools or offer a symbol of high performance, such as schoolyard flags or trophies (Elmore,

Abelmann, and Fuhrman 1996). Standards-based accountability systems may also offer financial rewards to highperforming schools or, in the case of low-performing schools, allow for administrative takeovers. Table 2.7, drawn

from a review of state policies conducted by ECS in 2000, indicates that 38 states (including Alaska) had adopted

at least one of the four sanction/reward policies, and 3 states (not including Kentucky) had all four policies in

place. More states had policies to sanction districts (29 states) or schools (32 states) than had policies to reward

districts (8 states) or schools (20 states) on the basis of performance (ECS 2000).

Table 2.8, also from the ECS study, indicates that 15 states based rewards on both absolute performance (e.g.,

average school score compared to state standards) and improved performance (e.g., gains made from one year to

the next), while 4 states based rewards on improved performance only and 1 state based them on absolute performance only (Ziebarth 2000a). In 16 states, high-performance schools could receive monetary rewards, and in 11

of these states, schools were permitted to use rewards for bonuses.

Table 2.9 summarizes state policies related to assistance and sanctions for low-performing schools. A majority of

the 32 states that sanction schools based on performance provided some form of assistance to low-performing

schools, including technical assistance, additional funding, or the creation of a school-improvement plan.

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
22

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.6 Title of annual accountability report, by level of statistics and state: 2000

State current reports (annual) Level of statistics reported

Alabama

Alabama State Education Report Card school, district, state

State Superintendent’s Report Card school, school system, state

Alaska

1998-99 Summary of Alaska’s Public School Districts’ Report Cards to the Public district, state

Arizona

School Report Cards school 

Arkansas

School Performance Report school, district, state

California

School Accountability Report Card school

California School Profiles school, district, county, state

Colorado

CDE Student Assessment Index school, district, state

Connecticut

Connecticut Strategic School Profiles school, district

Profiles of Our Schools, Condition of Education in Connecticut, 1997-98 school, district, state

CT Mastery Test school, district, state

CT Academic Performance Test student, school, district, state

Delaware

Fingertip Facts on Education in Delaware district, state

School Profiles school, district, state

District of Columbia

1999 Stanford Achievement Scores school 

Florida

Florida School Indicators Report school, district, state

School Public Accountability Reports (produced by districts) school, district

School Advisory Council Reports school, district, state

Georgia

Georgia Public Education Report Card school, district, state

Hawaii

School Status and Improvement Report school

Superintendent’s Annual Report on School Performance and Improvement district, state

Idaho

Idaho School Profiles district, state

Annual Statistical Report district, state groups1

Illinois

School Report Card school, district, state

State Assessment Summary for the Illinois State Board state 

ISAT Summary of Student Achievement in Illinois state, district

Indiana

Annual Financial Report school

Annual Performance Reports school

Iowa

Annual Condition of Education Report state

Kansas

Kansas School Building Report Card school, state

Assessment Results state

Kansas State Board of Education, Accountability Report state

See footnotes at end of table.
23

Table 2.6 Title of annual accountability report, by level of statistics and state: 2000—Continued

State current reports (annual) Level of statistics reported

Kentucky

District and School Report Card school, district

Interim Accountability Results for Schools and Districts school, district, state

Louisiana

Progress Profiles State Report district, state

Progress Profiles District Composite Reports school, district, state

Progress Profiles School Report Cards school, district, state

Maine

Maine Educational Assessment Scores district, state

Maryland

Maryland School Performance Report, 1999 and 2000 school, district, state

Massachusetts

Spring 1998 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Grade 3 Reading Test district

Massachusetts School and District Profiles district

Michigan

Michigan School Report, 2000 school, district, state

Bulletin 1014: Michigan Public Schools Ranked by Selected Financial Data district, state

Michigan Educational Assessment Program school, district, state

Minnesota

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Results school, district, state

1999 Minnesota Education Yearbook state

School District Profiles district

Mississippi

Annual Report of the State Superintendent of Public Education district, state

Mississippi Report Card school, district, state

Missouri

School Improvement Planning and District Profiles district

Annual Reporting of School Data district

Profiles of Missouri Public Schools district, state

Report of the Public Schools of Missouri district, state

Montana

Montana Public School Enrollment Data school

Montana Statewide Education Profile school, district, state

Montana Statewide Summary, Student Assessment state

Nebraska

Statistics and Facts About Nebraska Schools school, district

Nevada

Analysis of Nevada School Accountability System school

Results of State Wide Terra Nova Testing school, district, state

New Hampshire

Statistical Report district, county, state

New Jersey

School Report Card school, district, DFG2

, state

New Jersey Statewide Assessment Reports school, district, state

New Mexico

Accountability Report district, state

Statewide Articulated Assessment System state

New York

Public School Report Card school, district, state

Annual Report to Governor & Legislature district, state

See footnotes at end of table.

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
24

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.6 Title of annual accountability report, by level of statistics and state: 2000—Continued

State current reports (annual) Level of statistics reported

North Carolina

State of the State state

Report Card for ABCs of Public Education school, district, state

Statistical Profile district, state

North Dakota

School Finance Facts district, state

School District Profiles district

Ohio

Local Report Card school, district, state

EIMS Ohio School Districts Proficiency Test Data district

Oklahoma

Profiles 1999 District Report district

Profiles 1999 State Report state

Oregon

Oregon Report Card state

Statewide Assessment Results school, district, state

Pennsylvania

School Profiles school, district, state

School-By-School Results (scaled scores and score groups) school

Status Report on Education in Pennsylvania—A Statistical Summary state

Rhode Island

Information Works! Measuring Schools for Change 2000 school, district, state

South Carolina

South Carolina Education Profiles school, district, county, state

Performance Profiles (Web Version Only) school, district, state

What is the Penny Buying for South Carolina? state

Data Update (Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery) district, state

Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test school, district, state

Statewide Results (Terra Nova) state

South Dakota

Education in South Dakota: A Statistical Profile school, district, state

District Profiles school, district

Annual Report of Academic Progress district, state

Tennessee

Report Card school, district, state

Annual Statistical Reports district, state 

Texas

1999-2000 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS reports) school, district, region, state

Texas Accountability Rating System Lists school, district, region, state

1999 Interim Report on Texas Public Schools state

Four Year Ratings Table (Trends) state

Snapshot ’99 district, state

Utah

Superintendent’s Annual Statistical and Financial Report school, district, state

Utah Quality Indicators school, district, state

Core Curriculum Assessment Program school, district, state

Vermont

Summary of the Annual Statistical Report state, district, supervisory union

School Report school, district, state

School Improvement Support Guide student, school

See footnotes at end of table.
25

Table 2.6 Title of annual accountability report, by level of statistics and state: 2000—Continued

State current reports (annual) Level of statistics reported

Virginia

Virginia Department of Education Annual School Report Statistical Summary division, school

School Performance Report Cards school, district, state

Virginia State Assessment Program: 1998 Detail Report district, state

Washington

State Assessment Results building, district, state

Washington Assessment of Student Learning school, district, state

West Virginia

West Virginia Report Cards school, district, state

School District Approval Status and School Accreditation Status school, county, district

County by County Summary county, state

Wisconsin

School Performance Report school, district, state

Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test Results school

Wyoming

Evaluation Report school, district, state

Statistical Series I,II,III school, district, state

Various District Reports district

Statewide Articulated Assessment System state

1Statistics are reported for school district groups according to student membership size.

See http://www.sde.state.id.us/Finance/PUB/AnnualStatRpt00-01.pdf.

2The district factor grouping system (DFG) provides a means of ranking school districts in New Jersey by their socioeconomic status.

See http://www.state.nj.us/njded/schools/dfgdesc.doc.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Accountability Reports and Indicator Reports: Status of Reports Across the States 2000, 2000.

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
26

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.7 Rewards and sanctions for districts and schools, by state: 2000

State rewards districts on State rewards schools on State sanctions districts on State sanctions schools on

State the basis of performance the basis of performance the basis of performance the basis of performance

Alabama No Yes Yes Yes

Alaska No No No Yes1

Arizona No No No No

Arkansas No Yes Yes Yes

California No Yes Yes Yes

Colorado No Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut Yes No Yes Yes

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes

Florida No Yes Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes No Yes

Hawaii No No No No

Idaho No No No No

Illinois No Yes Yes Yes

Indiana No Yes Yes Yes

Iowa No No Yes No

Kansas No Yes Yes Yes

Kentucky No2 Yes No2 Yes

Louisiana No Yes No Yes

Maine No No No No

Maryland No Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts No No Yes Yes

Michigan No No Yes Yes

Minnesota No No No No

Mississippi3 Yes No Yes No

Missouri No No Yes Yes

Montana No No No No

Nebraska Yes No No No

Nevada No Yes No Yes

New Hampshire No No No No

New Jersey Yes No Yes No

New Mexico No Yes Yes Yes

New York No No Yes Yes

North Carolina No Yes Yes Yes

North Dakota No No No No

Ohio No No Yes No

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Yes

Oregon No No No Yes

Pennsylvania No Yes Yes No

Rhode Island No No Yes Yes

South Carolina No Yes Yes Yes

South Dakota No No No No

Tennessee No No Yes Yes

Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes

Utah No No No No

Vermont No No No Yes

Virginia No No No Yes

Washington No No No No

West Virginia No No Yes Yes

Wisconsin No No No No

Wyoming No No Yes Yes

1Alaska is or was to begin sanctioning schools on the basis of performance in August 2002, according to the source.

2Until recently, Kentucky rewarded school districts based on performance. At the time information was originally collected for this table, the Kentucky

Department of Education was revising the performance-based system of rewards for school districts. During this period, Kentucky did not provide

rewards to school districts based on performance.

3Mississippi is in the process of substantially revising its accountability system, and is moving toward a system of rewards and sanctions for schools based

on performance on criterion-referenced assessments.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, Clearinghouse Notes: Rewards and Sanctions for Districts and Schools: August 2000, 2000.
27

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and AccountabilityChapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

Table 2.8 Basis for school rewards and types and recipients of rewards offered among states that provide

awards: 2000

Basis of rewards: Absolute performance, Types of rewards: Monetary rewards, Recipients: School, or

State improved performance, or both non-monetary rewards, or both individual teachers Bonuses

Alabama Both Monetary School No

Arkansas Both Both School Yes

California Both Both School Yes

Colorado Both Monetary School Yes

Delaware Both Both School Yes

Florida Both Both School Yes

Georgia Both Both School Yes

Illinois Both Non-monetary — —

Indiana Improved performance Both School No

Kansas Both Non-monetary — —

Kentucky Both Both School Yes

Louisiana Both Both School No

Maryland Improved performance Monetary School No

Nevada Absolute performance Non-monetary — —

New Mexico Improved performance Monetary School No

North Carolina Improved performance Monetary Teachers Yes

Oklahoma Both Non-monetary — —

Pennsylvania Both Monetary School Yes

South Carolina Both Both School Yes

Texas Both Both School Yes

— Not applicable.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. States not listed did not reward schools on the basis of performance in 2000

according to original source.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, Clearinghouse Notes: Rewards and Sanctions for Districts and Schools: August 2000, 2000.
28

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 2.9 Types of sanctions and assistance for states with policies regarding school sanctions, by state: 2000

Written Place on Remove Withhold Reconstitute Close Take over Technical More Improvement Improvement plan

warning probation accreditation funding school school school assistance funding plan by school by other entity

Alabama No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Alaska No No No No No No No No No Yes No

Arkansas Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

California No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Colorado No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Connecticut No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Delaware No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes

Florida No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Georgia No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Illinois1 No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No

Indiana No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kansas Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No

Kentucky No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No

Louisiana No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Maryland No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes

Michigan No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No

Missouri No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes

Nevada Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No

New York2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

North Carolina No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Oklahoma No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Oregon No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No

Rhode Island No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes

Texas No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Vermont No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

Virginia No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No

West Virginia No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes

Wyoming No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No

1Illinois has enacted legislation that allows the Chicago Public Schools to sanction its low-performing schools. The school district provides technical

assistance to its low-performing schools, requires low-performing schools to create and implement an improvement plan, and requires another entity,

such as the school district, to create an improvement plan for low-performing schools. In addition, the school district has the authority to place a lowperforming school on probation, reconstitute a low-performing school, and close a low-performing school.

2New York has enacted legislation that allows the chancellor of the New York City Public Schools to sanction schools in the school district on the basis of

performance. The chancellor may require that a low-performing school create and implement an improvement plan, may create an improvement plan

for a low-performing school, and has the authority to take over a low-performing school.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. States not listed did not sanction schools on the basis of performance in 2000

according to original source.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, Clearinghouse Notes: Rewards and Sanctions for Districts and Schools: August 2000, 2000.

Sanctions Assistance
29

Chapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and AccountabilityChapter Two: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

2 Additional information on state assessments and accountability systems is available from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education

(CPRE), which has developed an extensive profile of the assessment and accountability systems in each state (CPRE 2000).

Ten states had the authority to close and 15 states had the authority to take over a low-performing school

(Ziebarth 2000a).2

Policy Issues in the Implementation of Accountability Systems

Central to standards-based accountability systems is the academic achievement of students as measured by state

assessments. Under the rewards and sanctions provisions of accountability systems, schools or districts, for example, may be ranked or sorted into performance categories based on test scores. In some states, schools with high

scores may receive cash rewards while schools with low scores run the risk of administrative takeover. The emphasis

placed on comparing schools or districts based on assessment scores raises several issues about how assessment

scores are used and interpreted in accountability systems.

Whether or not to include the test scores of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP) in

accountability systems is one issue states face in designing statewide assessment and accountability systems. Because content and performance standards are intended to apply to all students, it follows that the progress of all

students toward meeting the academic goals should be measured and reported. In addition, Title I of the 1994

reauthorization of ESEA required that state assessment systems assess all students, with reasonable accommodations or adaptations for students with diverse learning needs and those with limited English proficiency.

Generally, accommodations are provided to help ensure that the student has a fair opportunity to demonstrate her

or his knowledge in a specific content area. For example, if the intent of an item is to measure math skills but it

includes a substantial amount of text, then having it read aloud to students with reading disabilities may result in

a more accurate measure of math skills. If, however, reading the item aloud provides an advantage on the item

compared to those who did not have the item read to them, then the accuracy of the test may be undermined (see

Thurlow and Bolt 2001 for a discussion of this and other accommodations often allowed by states). A Department of Education report on the progress of states meeting Title I requirements found that few states met the

inclusion requirements when their assessment plans were first submitted, and that as of January 2001, 13 states

had not met requirements for including LEP students in their assessment and accountability systems, and 10 states

had not met the requirement for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education 2001).

Another issue concerns the precision of test scores. Mean test scores for a given grade level or school reflect both

true student performance and a certain amount of random variation. Kane and Staiger (2001), for example,

note that small sizes (e.g., an elementary school with 60 students per grade level) and one-time factors (e.g., a

disruptive student or unusual noises on the day of the test) can have appreciable effects on the precision of test

scores. Moreover, because “difference scores tend to be less reliable than the scores used to compute differences”

(Linn and Haug 2002, p. 2), apparent increases (or decreases) in mean scores for a grade, school, or district may

not reflect real change in student performance. Because states intend to hold schools accountable for student

performance, one issue states face is how to handle the level of uncertainty that accompanies assessment scores.

One approach states can take is to improve the precision of mean score estimates by combining assessment

results across grades or years, thereby increasing the number of students upon which the estimate is based (Linn

and Haug 2002). At the same time, federal legislation and state policies require that assessment results be

broken out by certain student characteristics, such as disability and poverty status. Average scores for subgroups

may be based on a comparatively few students, which may in turn decrease the accuracy of the estimate. States

can also include information on the accuracy of test scores when reporting mean test scores, as Kentucky has

done by including standard errors of mean test scores on certain assessment reports (Kentucky Department of

Education 2001).
30

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Another policy issue states face when designing accountability systems is whether schools will be evaluated based on

absolute assessment scores (e.g., the percentage of students defined as “proficient”) or on score gains (e.g., the change

in the percentage of students defined as “proficient” from one year to the next) (ECS 1998a). Comparing schools on

the basis of absolute test scores is an intuitive way of indicating which schools are meeting the high standards.

However, because research has consistently found that academic achievement is related to the socioeconomic composition of students in a school (see, e.g., Clotfelter and Ladd 1996), comparing schools on the basis of absolute scores

will often result in a ranking that is strongly related to the socioeconomic status of students in the school. Some

accountability systems address the relationship between socioeconomic status and measured achievement by comparing schools with similar demographic characteristics. For example, several categories might be created based on the

percentage of students in a school eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program. Schools would then be

compared only to other schools with similar concentrations of students from low-income families.

An alternative approach centers on gain scores, which indicate the amount of change in achievement scores from

one time period to the next. For example, fifth-grade mathematics scores from one year might be compared to the

fifth-grade scores of the previous year. Alternatively, fifth-grade scores of one group of students might be compared to the fourth-grade scores of that same group of students. If gain scores are used in an accountability system,

a school with low average assessment scores may still rank high or be compared favorably to other schools if

student performance improves over time by an amount deemed significant. Conversely, schools that historically

have had high average scores might not fare well if there is little improvement in the scores from one year to the

next.3

 As previously mentioned, however, there are concerns about the reliability of gain scores, which serves to

highlight the fact that devising a fair and accurate standards-based accountability system is a challenging task.

Table 2.10, based on the survey conducted by Education Week, indicates that among the 27 states that used

student test scores in rating schools, several used both absolute and gain scores in setting the performance cutoff

for low-performing schools. While 6 states compared schools with each other, 19 compared schools to specific

standards or cutoffs, and 18 compared the gain schools made from one year to the next. North Carolina used all

three comparisons, while Colorado had plans to do so at the time when the survey was conducted. Table 2.10 also

indicates that about half of the states that used student test scores to rate schools also used at least one other

performance measure, such as the attendance rate or coursetaking data.

Summary

This chapter has summarized several reform efforts of the 1990s centered on “standards” and described some of

the challenges that states face when setting standards and developing a system to monitor progress toward those

goals. In particular, this chapter examined four components of standards-based reform efforts: content standards,

performance standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Content standards define what students should

know and be able to do, while performance standards indicate how well students must perform to be considered

proficient in a particular subject area. Assessments measure student progress toward attaining the goals defined by

content standards and accountability systems are designed to monitor progress toward educational goals, often

accompanied by rewards and sanctions. The process of developing and implementing these components has raised

a number of issues, including the challenge of reaching a consensus on content and performance standards, the

challenge of developing a valid and reliable assessment system, and the fairness of accountability systems. The next

section of this report examines policies that affect the financial resources that schools have to support their efforts

to attain the high standards envisioned by current reform efforts.

3 The issues mentioned in this section, along with alignment between assessments and content standards, concern the appropriate uses and

interpretations of assessments. As such, they are central to the concept of test validity. Although a discussion of validity is beyond the scope

of this report, Baker and Linn (forthcoming) provide a thorough treatment of validity in the context of accountability systems.
31

Table 2.10 Types of information and various procedures used to evaluate schools, by state: 2000

Compares Compares Adjusts school 

Dropout/ Compares schools to set schools with expectations 

Student Attendance graduation Coursetaking Site visits or Other schools with standards or past based on 

State test scores rate rate data interviews information each other cutoff performance demographics Number of states 27 10 14 3 5 7 6 19 18 1 Alabama1 x xx Alaska 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Arizona Arkansas 2004 2004 2004 2004 California x x x Colorado x x 2002 2002 Connecticut x x x Delaware1 x xx 

Florida x x x x 

Georgia 2002 2002 2002 Hawaii Idaho Illinois 2002 2002 2002 2002 Indiana1 xxxxxx x x 

Iowa

Kansas xxxxxx x Kentucky x x x x x Louisiana x x x x MaineMaryland x x x x Massachusetts x x x Michigan x x x 2002 MinnesotaMississippi1 2002 2002 2002 

Missouri x x x 

MontanaNebraskaNevada x x x New HampshireNew Jersey1

New Mexico x x x x x x 

New York x x x x North Carolina x x x x x x North DakotaOhio1Oklahoma x x x Oregon x x x x x x See footnotes at end of table.

Information state uses to evaluate schools

How state sets the performance cutoff

for low-performing schools

How state 
32

Table 2.10 Types of information and various procedures used to evaluate schools, by state: 2000—Continued

Compares Compares Adjusts school 

Dropout/ Compares schools to set schools with expectations 

Student Attendance graduation Coursetaking Site visits or Other schools with standards or past based on 

State test scores rate rate data interviews information each other cutoff performance demographics Pennsylvania1

Rhode Island 

South Carolina1 x xx 

South Dakota

Tennessee1 x 2002 x 

Texas1 x x x x 

Utah 2004 Vermont x x x x x x x Virginia x x x WashingtonWest Virginia1 x x x x x x 2004 

Wisconsin x x x 

Wyoming1State has a district accountability system.

NOTE: Texas data were revised. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was n

source. An “X” indicates that a state used the information as part of an evaluation process in 2000. Dates indicate the year in which the state is or was to begin using evaluation process as of 2000, according to the source.SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2001, 2001.

How state 

Information state uses to evaluate schools

How state sets the performance cutoff

for low-performing schools
33

Funding is a key component in the delivery of education. Taxpayers in the United States provided $347 billion in

revenues to fund public elementary and secondary education during 1998–99 (Snyder and Hoffman 2002). Taxes

and other revenues raised by local, state, and federal governments are used to purchase the goods and services that

go into educating American schoolchildren. State and federal revenues are allocated to school districts through

various funding formulas and grant programs. School districts, in turn, spend these funds on teacher salaries,

professional development, classroom supplies, and new technology, among other goods and services.

State governments play a critical role in school financing systems. On average, states provide almost half of

education revenues (Snyder and Hoffman 2002). Most state constitutions contain clauses that require the state to

provide a statewide system of education. In addition, state constitutional, statutory, and regulatory frameworks

provide the legal authority for state governments, local governments, and school districts to levy taxes and raise

other non-tax revenues. State efforts to strengthen their revenue systems—by making them more balanced, stable,

efficient, and fair—have a direct impact on the availability, stability, and level of funds available for education.

State general and categorical aid formulas determine how funds are distributed among districts, and state policies

and regulations often govern how districts may use these funds (Crampton and Whitney 1996a).

To provide a context for understanding state education finance reforms, this chapter starts with a brief overview of

current education financing practices and recent trends in state-level revenue and expenditures. The chapter then

turns to three key areas of state education finance reform activity during the 1990s: moving from equity to

adequacy, general revenue reforms, and special education financing reforms.

Patterns in Education Finance

Education finance systems provide the framework for generating revenue, allocating funds between different levels

of government, and purchasing the inputs used in education. This section briefly describes sources of revenue, how

state and federal funds are distributed to school districts, spending patterns and trends, and how these patterns

have changed between 1989–90 and 1998–99.

Sources of Revenue

Public schools have been funded historically through a mix of local, state, and federal funds. The relative contributions of different levels of government have changed over time due to a variety of factors, including state

reforms, federal policy changes, and changing taxpayer preferences. Figure 3.1 illustrates the changing contributions from the different levels of government for public elementary and secondary education during the 1990s.

The state share of revenues for public elementary and secondary schools fell from 47 to 45 percent between 1989–

90 and 1993–94, while the local share increased. Between 1993–94 and 1998–99, the state share rose to 49

percent while the local share fell. Federal aid contributed approximately 7 percent of revenues, with private funds

making up the balance of 3 percent (Snyder and Hoffman 2002).

The state (and local) share of total revenues varies considerably from state to state. The different funding arrangements among the states reflect historical funding arrangements, as well as recent state reforms. For example,

during 1998–99, New Hampshire relied most heavily on local revenue sources to fund education, with 85 percent

of education revenues coming from local and intermediate sources (table 3.1). In contrast, Hawaii (which has

Chapter Three

School Finance Reforms
34

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

only one school district) relied heavily on state revenue sources to fund education, drawing 88 percent of its

revenue from state sources (Snyder and Hoffman 2002).

In addition to drawing on funds from multiple levels of government, public schools rely on a mix of tax and nontax revenues to fund education. Sales, property, and personal income taxes are the most important of these

revenue sources, together contributing roughly half of total state and local general revenue. Other tax sources

include corporate income taxes, severance taxes, and “sin” taxes (e.g., taxes on alcohol, tobacco). State and local

governments tend to draw revenues for education from different sources. State governments generally rely on sales

and income taxes; local governments tend to rely on property taxes (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

Once revenues are raised, state and federal revenues must be allocated to local school districts. The following

section discusses different procedures used by states for distributing state revenue as well as federal revenue.

Distributing State and Federal Revenues to School Districts

State and federal revenues are distributed to school districts through a variety of programs and funding formulas.

In general, funds raised at the state level are allocated to school districts in two ways: general aid and categorical

aid (Gold, Smith, and Lawton 1995; Sielke and Holmes 2002c). The majority of state funds are distributed as

general aid and are calculated on a per-pupil basis. Funding formulas for distributing general aid are often complex and are usually structured to account for a district’s educational needs (often related to enrollment, with

adjustments made to account for grade levels and student needs in recognition of the different costs associated

with educating different student populations) and ability to pay for these services (usually measured by property

tax base). Many funding formulas seek to improve equity between districts. Some even contain incentives to

ensure that state aid does not replace local revenues raised on behalf of education. States use some combination of

Figure 3.1 Percentage distribution of revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of

funds: 1989–90 to 1998-99

1Local funds include a small amount from nongovernmental private sources (gifts and tuition and transportation fees from patrons). These sources

accounted for 2.5 percent of total revenues in 1998-99.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Statistics of State School Systems; Revenues and Expenditures for Public

Elementary and Secondary Education; and Common Core of Data surveys as published in Digest of Education Statistics 2001, 2002, table 157.

Federal

State

Local1

1989–90 1990–91 1991–92 1992–93 1993–94 1994–95

Years

1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent
35

Table 3.1 Percentage distribution of total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue

source and state: 1998–99

State Federal State Local and intermediate Private1

United States 7.1 48.7 41.7 2.5

Alabama 9.1 61.6 24.1 5.2

Alaska 13.8 61.0 22.5 2.7

Arizona 10.0 43.2 44.1 2.7

Arkansas 10.2 57.8 26.2 5.7

California 8.6 59.3 30.9 1.1

Colorado 5.1 42.5 48.0 4.4

Connecticut 4.0 39.0 54.4 2.7

Delaware 7.4 64.3 27.1 1.2

District of Columbia 16.5 † 83.1 0.4

Florida 7.9 50.3 38.3 3.5

Georgia 6.7 49.1 42.4 1.7

Hawaii 9.8 87.8 0.5 1.8

Idaho 7.1 61.5 29.7 1.7

Illinois 7.2 30.1 60.6 2.2

Indiana 5.0 52.5 39.7 2.8

Iowa 5.6 50.5 38.5 5.4

Kansas 6.1 61.6 29.6 2.7

Kentucky 9.2 61.8 26.6 2.4

Louisiana 11.5 50.4 35.8 2.3

Maine 7.5 45.9 45.5 1.1

Maryland 5.5 39.5 52.0 3.1

Massachusetts 5.0 42.1 51.6 1.4

Michigan 7.1 64.7 26.2 2.1

Minnesota 5.0 57.6 34.3 3.1

Mississippi 14.0 54.9 27.7 3.4

Missouri 6.5 39.0 50.5 4.0

Montana 11.3 44.9 39.5 4.3

Nebraska 6.9 37.1 50.8 5.2

Nevada 4.6 32.4 59.4 3.6

New Hampshire 4.0 8.9 84.7 2.4

New Jersey 3.7 41.3 52.7 2.2

New Mexico 13.4 72.5 11.9 2.1

New York 6.0 42.2 50.9 0.9

North Carolina 6.9 68.7 21.9 2.6

North Dakota 13.0 40.3 41.4 5.3

Ohio 5.8 42.1 48.4 3.8

Oklahoma 9.1 60.2 25.5 5.2

Oregon 7.0 56.8 32.7 3.5

Pennsylvania 6.0 38.2 53.9 1.9

Rhode Island 5.6 41.6 51.5 1.3

South Carolina 8.2 52.1 35.5 4.2

South Dakota 10.5 35.9 50.7 2.9

Tennessee 8.8 47.2 37.0 7.0

Texas 8.5 42.4 46.7 2.5

Utah 7.0 61.1 29.4 2.4

Vermont 5.8 74.4 18.0 1.8

Virginia 5.2 33.8 57.8 3.1

Washington 6.8 64.6 25.3 3.3

West Virginia 8.5 62.7 27.5 1.2

Wisconsin 4.6 53.4 39.8 2.2

Wyoming 7.4 52.3 38.5 1.7

†Not applicable.

1Includes revenues from gifts, and tuition and fees from patrons. 

NOTE: Because of rounding, details may not add to totals.

SOURCE: Common Core of Data survey as published in U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education

Statistics 2001, 2002, table 158.

Percent of total revenues for elementary and secondary education by source

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms
36

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

the following distribution formulas for general aid funds (Gold, Smith, and Lawton 1995; Sielke and Holmes

2002a; Sielke and Holmes 2002c):

1) Full state funding. Excluding federal funds granted to states, Hawaii is the only state that provides full

funding for education. While this option provides for a very equitable distribution of resources, it eliminates the ability of local voters to express preferences for different funding levels of public education.

Washington provided full funding, excluding federal funds, of basic education for grades K–12 (Gold,

Smith, and Lawton 1995; Sielke and Holmes 2002a; Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

2) Flat grants. Flat grants allocate funds based on some measure of the district’s educational need, and do not

take into account the district’s ability to pay. In 1993–94, Delaware and North Carolina used flat grants

(Gold, Smith, and Lawton 1995). In 1998–99, only Delaware used flat grants (Sielke and Holmes 2002a;

Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

3) Foundation funding. Foundation programs take into account both a district’s educational needs and its

ability to pay. States guarantee districts or local governments a minimum or foundation level of funds for

each student. In return, they set a minimum spending level and a uniform qualifying tax rate for all

districts in the state. Foundation aid to any district is the difference between the determined minimum

spending level and the revenues generated by applying the qualifying tax rate against the district’s tax base.

In 1993–94, 40 states used foundation programs (Gold, Smith, and Lawton 1995). In 1998–99, 44 states

funded general aid through foundation programs, with 37 of these states requiring local effort (Sielke and

Holmes 2002a; Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

4) Percentage equalizing programs. Under these aid programs, states provide matching funds for districts at

specified rates, according to fiscal capacity levels. In 1993–94, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and

Pennsylvania had percent equalization programs (Gold, Smith, and Lawton 1995). In 1998–99, New

York used a percentage equalization program (Sielke and Holmes 2002a; Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

5) Guaranteed tax base or guaranteed tax yield programs. These programs promote equity by guaranteeing

that school districts have equal ability to raise revenues, despite the differences in their tax bases. Guaranteed tax base programs allow districts the ability to generate revenues as if they had a state-specified tax

base and guaranteed tax yield programs (also known as district power equalizing programs), guaranteeing

that districts will generate a given revenue for a specified tax rate. In 1993–94 and 1998–99, Georgia,

Indiana, and Wisconsin had guaranteed tax base or guaranteed tax yield programs (Gold, Smith and

Lawton 1995; Rubenstein and Freeman 2002; Sielke and Holmes 2002a; Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

Some states combine features of different funding formulas to create a tiered funding structure. These plans are

designed to promote adequacy and equity by combining components of foundation programs and other programs. Typically, they will set a minimum foundation level to ensure that minimum resources are provided to meet

educational needs. A second tier for aid provides funds through guaranteed tax base or tax yield programs to

promote fiscal equity.

In addition to general aid, some revenue is allocated as categorical, targeted funds that support particular

programs or activities. State categorical aid is used for special education, transportation, compensatory education, and capital outlay, as well as other special programs. Gold, Smith, and Lawton (1995) reported that in

1993–94 compensatory education was funded in 28 states; gifted and talented programs in 40 states; bilingual

education in 30 states. Prekindergarten programs were funded in 36 of 47 states. During the same period, all

states funded transportation programs, with some funding them out of general aid, and others using categorical

aid. Thirty-seven states funded capital outlay projects, including states that fund capital outlay as part of their

basic support program.
37

Between 1993–94 and 1998–99, many states changed their funding systems to roll categorical grants into their

basic aid packages, often by using program weights for these programs in their general aid funding formulas.

Comparisons in the use of state categorical aid between 1993–94 and 1998–99, therefore, should be interpreted with caution. Sielke and Holmes (2002b) reported that in 1998–99, every state indicated funding for

transportation, with some funding using categorical aid, and others using general aid. Twenty-three of 48

states reported categorical funding for compensatory education (not all states reported information for all

categories). An additional 3 states included funds for compensatory education in basic or general aid. Thirty of

48 states had gifted and talented categorical programs (with an additional 6 states funding gifted and talented

education out of basic education, and one (Hawaii) including gifted and talented funding in its compensatory

education program). Bilingual education was funded as a categorical program in 24 of 49 states, and as part of

basic aid in an additional 7 states. Early childhood education programs received categorical funds in 36 states

and funds as part of general aid in 2 of 47 states. Technology programs also received categorical funds in most

states. In 1998–99, 31 of 44 states reported categorical funding in this area. Twenty-nine states funded special

education using either a weighted average daily membership (ADM) and/or including it in base funding. Fourteen states reported no funding for capital outlay (Sielke and Holmes 2002b). In 1998–99, the majority of

federal funds were distributed to districts through categorical programs, such as special education or Title I

compensatory programs.

After revenue is raised and distributed, local districts use these funds to educate children. The next section briefly

describes national spending trends and state spending patterns.

Education Spending

Education spending increased between 1989–90 and 1998–99. Over this period, total expenditures per pupil in

fall enrollment increased from $7,135 to $8,016 in constant 2000–01 dollars.4

 Current expenditures per pupil in

fall enrollment increased from $6,402 to $6,925 in constant 2000-01 dollars (Snyder and Hoffman 2002).5

Average current expenditures per pupil increased slowly during the early 1970s, leveling off during the late 1970s

and early 1980s (Snyder and Hoffman 2002). Average current expenditures began to grow again in 1982–83. As

shown in figure 3.2, average current expenditures per pupil remained steady during the 1990s, rising slightly in the

late 1990s. Total expenditures per pupil in 2000–01 dollars increased at a constant rate between the 1970s and

late 1990s (Data from Snyder and Hoffman 2002).

Average current expenditures per pupil varies considerably by state, reflecting the wide range of revenue raising

capacities and arrangements, as well as regional differences in costs for similar goods and services. Table 3.2

shows current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education per pupil in fall enrollment by state in

1989–90, 1997–98, and 1998–99, and total expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment for 1999–2000. Nationally, in 1998–99 the average for current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment was $6,508. The state with the

highest per pupil spending in 1998–99 was New Jersey with average per pupil spending of $10,145, while the

state with the lowest spending was Utah at $4,210 per pupil (Snyder and Hoffman 2002). Total expenditures per

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

4 Constant dollars are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index computed on a school-year basis.

5 Current expenditures exclude capital outlays and interest on school debt. Researchers typically use current expenditures instead of total

expenditures when comparing education spending between states or across time because current expenditures exclude expenditures for

capital outlay, which tend to have dramatic increases and decreases from year to year. Also, the current expenditures commonly reported are

for public elementary and secondary education only. Many school districts also support community services, adult education, private

education, and other programs, which are included in total expenditures. These programs and the extent to which they are funded by school

districts vary greatly both across states and within states. Finally, these figures use fall enrollment as the student count. Other student counts

(e.g., average daily attendance) are also sometimes used by researchers and educators (Johnson 2002).
38

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

pupil also varies by state. In 1999–2000, average total expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment was $8,032.

Among the states, New Jersey had the highest total expenditures per pupil at $11,471, while the state with the

lowest spending was Utah at $5,278 per pupil (Snyder and Hoffman, 2003).

State Reforms in School Finance

Over the past decade, states have implemented a number of reforms that affect the way they raise revenues,

allocate funds among districts, and allow funds to be used. Given a state’s critical role in education finance, these

changes have had important implications for the adequacy, equity, efficiency, accountability, and the stability of

education funding. Some of these changes have been in response to court orders to overhaul the state financing

system (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Some have imposed taxpayer restrictions on the type or level of available

funding sources, while others have been prompted by legislative or programmatic changes (Ladd and Hansen

1999). These efforts have been influenced by a variety of factors, including the standards movement, changing

student demographics, and taxpayer discontent with the property tax and other taxes (Ladd and Hansen 1999;

Fulton 1997).

The remainder of this chapter discusses recent key state reforms that are reshaping the way schools raise and spend

money. It includes changes in state policies or financing arrangements that affect state and local governments’ methods

for generating education revenue, as well as state efforts to spend resources more efficiently. While certainly not

Years

Per pupil expenditure

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

Total Expenditure (constant 2000–01 dollars)

Current Expenditure (constant 2000–01 dollars)

Current Expenditure (unadjusted dollars)

Total Expenditure (unadjusted dollars)

1989–90 1990–91 1991–92 1992–93 1993–94 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01

Figure 3.2 Current and total expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary

schools: 1989–90 to 2000–01

NOTE: Constant 2000–01 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to

a school-year basis.

SOURCE: Statistics of State School Systems, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, and Common Core of Data surveys

as published in U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001, 2002, table 167.
39

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

Table 3.2 Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by

state: 1989–90, 1997–98, 1998–99; and total expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public

elementary and secondary schools, by state: 1999–2000

State 1989–90 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000

United States $6,016 $6,296 $6,508 $8,032 

Alabama 4,074 4,933 5,188 6,639 

Alaska 9,819 8,414 8,404 10,344 

Arizona 4,817 4,675 4,672 6,878 

Arkansas 4,185 4,790 4,956 5,922 

California 5,835 5,742 5,801 7,284 

Colorado 5,646 5,754 5,923 7,657 

Connecticut 9,671 9,055 9,318 11,196 

Delaware 6,902 7,548 7,706 9,157 

District of Columbia 10,201 8,538 9,650 11,510 

Florida 5,957 5,648 5,790 7,166 

Georgia 5,183 5,745 6,092 7,627 

Hawaii 5,352 5,959 6,081 7,388 

Idaho 3,785 4,803 5,066 6,076 

Illinois 5,858 6,350 6,762 8,513 

Indiana 5,534 6,427 6,772 8,655 

Iowa 5,429 6,102 6,243 7,378 

Kansas 5,559 5,826 6,015 6,950 

Kentucky 4,385 5,303 5,560 6,322 

Louisiana 4,697 5,277 5,548 6,487 

Maine 6,354 6,859 7,155 8,515 

Maryland 7,222 7,156 7,326 8,660 

Massachusetts 7,472 7,913 8,260 9,171 

Michigan 6,596 7,172 7,432 9,564 

Minnesota 6,088 6,498 6,791 8,588 

Mississippi 3,801 4,362 4,565 5,818 

Missouri 5,275 5,662 5,855 7,222 

Montana 5,494 5,823 5,974 6,766 

Nebraska 5,900 6,061 6,256 7,605 

Nevada 4,945 5,387 5,587 7,471 

New Hampshire 6,201 6,263 6,433 7,625 

New Jersey 9,778 9,810 10,145 11,471 

New Mexico 4,465 5,091 5,440 6,786 

New York 9,137 9,005 9,344 10,819 

North Carolina 5,207 5,348 5,656 7,303 

North Dakota 5,053 5,143 5,442 6,455 

Ohio 5,871 6,305 6,627 7,962 

Oklahoma 4,267 5,120 5,303 5,837 

Oregon 6,304 6,530 6,828 8,084 

Pennsylvania 7,435 7,333 7,450 9,160 

Rhode Island 7,656 8,066 8,294 9,254 

South Carolina 4,885 5,412 5,656 7,376 

South Dakota 4,550 4,750 5,259 6,870 

Tennessee 4,412 5,023 5,123 6,321 

Texas 4,969 5,539 5,685 7,743 

Utah 3,339 4,037 4,210 5,278 

Vermont 7,477 7,197 7,541 8,837 

Virginia 6,077 6,170 6,350 7,896 

Washington 5,679 6,145 6,110 7,701 

West Virginia 5,209 6,433 6,677 7,705 

Wisconsin 6,505 7,246 7,527 9,164 

Wyoming 6,789 6,326 6,842 8,281 

1Constant 1998–99 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a

school-year basis. These data do not reflect differences in inflation rates or cost of living from state to state.

NOTE: State administration expenditures are excluded. Some data have been revised from previously published figures.

SOURCE: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Statistics of State School Systems and Common Core of Data surveys as

published in U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001, 2002, table 169 and Digest of

Education Statistics 2002, 2003, table 167.

Total expenditures per student

in fall enrollment

Unadjusted dollars

Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment 

In constant 1998–99 dollars1
40

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

exhaustive of the wide range of finance reforms introduced at the state level, the chapter discusses efforts that have

had major impacts on financing systems in many states. They include:

• Reforms to move from equity to adequacy. Over the past decade, many state courts have found that state

education finance systems have failed to live up to their constitutional mandate to deliver an acceptable

level of education services. State remedies have shifted the focus of state policies from requiring equity

across districts to determining and financing educational adequacy (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

• General revenue reforms with direct impacts on education. Several states have changed funding sources for

education—particularly noteworthy are shifts away from local property taxes toward other revenue sources

(Ladd and Hansen 1999; Odden 1994; Crampton and Whitney 1996b).

• Special education financing reforms. Concern, particularly among practitioners, that special education

costs have been increasing, as well as the availability of new federal funding sources, has prompted many

states to consider reforming special education financing arrangements (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

From Equity to Adequacy

Many recent state efforts to restructure the education funding system have focused on finding ways to define and

provide funding for an adequate education (Ladd and Hansen 1999). In many states, these efforts have been

prompted by legal challenges to the state’s education financing system. Although reformers have long sought

education finance reforms through litigation, these efforts mark a significant change in the focus of school finance

litigation and in the nature of state responses.

One of the aims of state education finance systems has been to foster greater equity among the funds available to

school districts within the state (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Disparities in per pupil spending between rich and poor

districts led to many of the legal challenges during the 1970s and early 1980s (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Most

cases challenged the constitutionality of state education finance systems that permitted inequities in spending

across districts, frequently relying on the equal protection clauses of state constitutions. Litigants in these cases

often represented children in property-poor school districts and sought remedies that would promote equity in

education funding across districts, that is, equal or near equal education funding levels among districts (Ladd and

Hansen 1999). Ongoing litigation suggests that school funding continues to be challenged, although the extent of

disparities and the definitions of adequacy or equity used are decisions for the courts. As in other sections of the

report, this section focuses on describing the reform strategies being pursued at the state level, rather than evaluating whether they are addressing true or perceived problems, or whether they are likely to work.

Since 1989, many school finance cases have focused on adequacy, seeking to compel states to define and provide

a high-quality-education for all children, rather than focusing solely on reducing financial inequities across school

districts (Ladd and Hansen 1999). The legal bases of the more recent cases have also tended to differ from earlier

cases. Recent cases assert that states have violated the education clauses of the state constitutions, rather than the

equal protection clauses. Arguments have centered on whether states are meeting their obligations to provide the

quality of education mandated by their constitutions, with litigants arguing that additional resources are needed

in districts that fail to meet the states’ constitutionally mandated standards (Van Slyke, Tan, and Orland 1994).

Table 3.3 summarizes the status of legal challenges to state education finance systems as of July 1999. Between

1970 and 1999, plaintiffs won at the State Supreme Court level or the Supreme Court approved a trial court

decision for plaintiffs in 17 states, while plaintiffs lost at the Supreme Court and no later case was pending in 10

states. Plaintiffs lost at the Supreme Court level but further complaints were either pending or were sustained

without a final determination or settled in 13 states. Finally, the Supreme Court had not rendered a decision on

the school finance system, and no litigation was pending in 10 states (Long 1999; Minorini and Sugarman 1999).
41

Table 3.3 School finance litigation, by year, case, and status, by state: 1970–99

State and year Case

Plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court level or the Supreme Court approved a trial court decision for plaintiffs:

Alabama

1993 Opinion of Justices

1997 Ex Parte James

Arizona

1973 Shofstall v. Hollins

1994 Roosevelt Elem. School Dist. 66 v. Bishop

1997, 1998 HULL V. ALBRECHT

Arkansas

1985 Dupree v. Alma School District

1996 Tucker v. Lake View School Dist. No. 25

California

1971, 1976 Serrano v. Priest

Connecticut

1977, 1985 Horton v. Meskill

Filed 1998 JOHNSON V. ROWLAND

Kentucky

1989 Rose v. Council for Better Education

Massachusetts

1993 McDuffy v. Secretary of Education

Montana

1974 State ex. Rel. Woodahl v. Straub

1989, 1990 Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State

New Hampshire

1993, 1997, 1998 CLAREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOVERNOR

New Jersey

1973 Robinson v. Cahill

1985, 1990, 1994, 1997, 1998 Abbott v. Burke

Ohio

Board of Education v. Walter

1997 DEROLPH V. STATE

Tennessee

1993, 1995 TENNESSEE SMALL SCHOOL SYSTEMS V. MCWHERTER

Texas

1989, 1991, 1995 Edgewood v. Kirby

Vermont

1997 Brigham v. State

Washington

1974 Northshore School District No. 417 v. Kinnear

1978 Seattle School District No. 1 v. State

West Virginia

1979, 1984 Pauley v. Kelly

1988 State ex rel. Boards of Education v. Chafin

1997 TOMBLIN V. GAINER

Wyoming

1980 Washakie v. Hershler

1995 Campbell v. State

See footnotes at end of table.

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms
42

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 3.3 School finance litigation, by year, case, and status, by state: 1970–99—Continued

State and year Case

Plaintiffs lost at Supreme Court level and no later case is pending:

Georgia

1981 McDaniel v. Thomas

Illinois

1996 Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar

Louisiana

1998 Charlet v. Legislature of State of Louisiana (consolidated with)

1998 Minimum Foundation Commission v. State

Maine

1995 School Administrative District No. 1 v. Commissioner

Michigan

1972, 1973 Milliken v. Green

1984 East Jackson Public Schools v. State

Nebraska

1993 Gould v. Orr

North Dakota

1993 Bismark Public Schools v. North Dakota

Oklahoma

1987 Fair School Finance Council of Oklahoma, Inc. v. State

Rhode Island

1995 City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun

Virginia

1994 Scott v. Virginia

Plaintiffs lost at the Supreme Court level, but further complaints are either pending or were sustained without a final

determination or settled:

Alaska

1997 Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska

Filed 1997 KASAYULIE V. STATE

Colorado

1982 Lujan v. State Board of Education

Filed 1998 GIARDINO V. COLORADO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Florida

1996 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, v. Chiles

Filed 1999 HONORE V. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Idaho

1975 Thompson v. Engelking

1993 Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans

Kansas

1976 Knowles v. State Board of Education

1994 Unified School District No. 229 v. State

Filed 1999 ROBINSON V. STATE

Maryland

1983 Hornbeck v. Somerset County

Consent decree 1996 Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education

Minnesota

1993 Skeen v. Minnesota

Filed 1995 MINNEAPOLIS BRANCH, NAACP V. STATE

1999 Independent School District No. 625 v. State

Filed 1998 XIONG V. STATE

See footnotes at end of table.
43

Table 3.3 School finance litigation, by year, case, and status, by state: 1970–99—Continued

State and year Case

Plaintiffs lost at Supreme Court level and no later case is pending:

New York

1982 Board of Education v. Nyquist

1995 Reform Educational Financing Inequities Today v. State

1995 CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY INC. V. STATE OF NEW YORK

North Carolina

1987 North Carolina Britt v. North Carolina State Board of Education

1997 LEANDRO V. STATE

Oregon

1976 Olsen v. Oregon

1991 Coalition for Ed. Equity v. Oregon

1997 WITHERS V. OREGON

Pennsylvania

1979 Dansen v. Casey

1998 Marrero v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

1998 PENNSYLVANIA ASSOC. OF RURAL AND SMALL SCHOOLS V. CASEY

South Carolina

1988 Richland County v. Campbell

1999 ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT V. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Wisconsin

1989 Kukor v. Grover

1998 VINCENT V. VOIGHT

The Supreme Court has not rendered a decision on the school finance system, and no litigation is now pending:

Delaware

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Mississippi

Missouri1

Nevada

New Mexico

South Dakota

Utah

1Procedural ruling issued in 1994 (Committee for Educational Equality v. State of Missouri).

NOTE: Cases pending as of 1999 are listed in capital letters. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Status of School Finance Constitutional Litigation, 1999. Oregon data

from Paul Minori and S. Sugarman, “School Finance Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future” in H.F. Ladd, R.

Chalk, and J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and Adequacy in Education: Issues and Perspectives, 1999.

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms
44

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

In addition to court challenges, moves to ensure adequacy in funding have been influenced by a number of other

forces. First, changing demographics among school-age children and higher expectations for student achievement

have resulted in an increasing disconnect between the needs of schoolchildren and state systems for funding education. Second, slow growth in state aid during the early 1990s gave rise to greater competition among education

and other state functions for limited state revenues. Through this period, local revenues continued to rise, outpacing changes in state aid and leading to wider gaps in spending across districts (Fulton 1997).

State reforms to improve adequacy have differed as much as the state education finance systems that they seek

to remedy. Nevertheless, states working to provide an adequate education have grappled with a similar set of

challenges: defining an adequate education; determining the cost of providing this education; adjusting for

differences in student, resource, and geographic characteristics, as well as for scale economies and inflation

(Ladd and Hansen 1999; Education Partners Project Foundation for State Legislators 1998). The following

section discusses each of these challenges and the different approaches that states have taken when pursuing

adequacy reforms. Some states are charged with restructuring revenue arrangements to provide a more adequate

system of funding. State responses, therefore, vary considerably, with some involving changes to revenue systems, rigorous cost studies to determine the funding necessary for adequacy, and restructuring of aid arrangements, while others involve less comprehensive overhauls. The section on adequacy concludes by reviewing state

responses to state adequacy rulings.

Defining an Adequate Education

Defining what constitutes an adequate education is a challenging proposition. While states have tried to develop

definitions of adequacy that can be tied to funding formulas and spending levels, this is a difficult task. The costs

of education can vary considerably across districts—even within a state (Fowler and Monk 2001). Teacher salaries

are influenced by factors outside the school system, for example, the prevailing labor market conditions within a

district, across districts, and in bordering states (Fowler and Monk 2001). These may differ considerably in states

with both large cities and rural areas. As a result, when defining adequacy, many states have started by developing

definitions that concentrate on the competencies that an “adequate” state educational system should ensure.

These definitions often drive, or are coordinated with, the state efforts to develop content and performance

standards (Education Partners Project Foundation for State Legislatures 1998).

In cases where education funding systems have been ruled unconstitutional by state courts, the courts have varied

in how far they have gone in defining what constitutes educational adequacy. States with early adequacy rulings

included New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia (Robinson v. Cahill, 3030 A.2d 273, Pauley v. Kelly, 255

S.E.2d 859, W. Va. 1979, and Seattle v. State of Washington, 585 P.2d 71, Wash.1978).

The 1989 Kentucky State Supreme Court’s decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.W. 2d 186 (KY.

1989) marked a turning point in school finance litigation. Prior to the Kentucky decision, most state education

finance decisions had focused on equity rather than adequacy. The Kentucky Court clearly articulated guidelines

for an adequate education. According to the Kentucky court, an adequate education would provide students with

the opportunity to develop at capabilities in at least seven areas. These capabilities ranged from “sufficient oral

and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization”

to “sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with

their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics, and in the job market.” The court’s definition also specified

the levels of knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, understanding of governmental processes, selfknowledge and knowledge of a student’s mental and physical wellness, grounding in the arts, and training or

preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields needed for adequacy. Courts in Alabama,

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have relied on the language in the Kentucky decision when issuing their
45

decisions and providing guidelines for the legislature to develop remedies (Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt,

published as an appendix in Opinion of Justices, 624 So.2d 107 Ala. 1993; McDuffy v. Secretary of Education,

615 N.E.2d 516 Mass. 1993; and Claremont School District v. Gregg, 635 A.2d 1375 N.H. 1997).

Courts in other states have developed their own definitions of what is needed for educational adequacy. In

Tennessee, the Supreme Court held in its 1993 decision that “the General Assembly shall maintain and support a

system of free public schools that provides at least the opportunity to acquire general knowledge, develop the

powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally prepare students intellectually for a mature life” (Tennessee

Small School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 Tenn. 1993). In New York, the court specified that the state

had to create and maintain a system that provides “the basic literacy, calculation, and verbal skills necessary to

enable [children] to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury.

. . and minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms . . . to permit children to learn” (Campaign for

Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 86 N.Y.2d 307, N.Y.1995).

In contrast, decisions issued by courts in other states, such as Wyoming and Ohio, have not specified what constitutes an adequate education. Rather, the courts in these states ruled that the systems did not meet the state’s constitutional mandate, but left it to the legislature to determine what was needed (DeRolph v. Ohio, 79 Oh.St.3d 297,

Oh. 1997; Campbell v. State, 907 P.2d 1238, Wyo. 1995; and Washakie v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310, Wyo. 1980).

Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education

Adequacy has been differently defined across states—each has had to develop its own method of associating a cost

of education. Even though state approaches may differ, there are some important similarities. States are looking at

the resource requirements for providing students with the type of education that will achieve adequacy. They are

examining what constitutes a “core education” and what such an education costs (Fulton 1999).

States with early adequacy decisions tended to leave the task of determining the cost of an adequate education to

the legislature. These states left state lawmakers to make allocation decisions, making tradeoffs between education

and other state functions. State appropriation and aid levels were set without specifying the links between educational outcomes and educational inputs (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

Other states have followed various approaches in determining the costs of such an education. A recent National

Research Council report classifies these approaches into four categories: inference from statistical analysis, empirical observation, professional judgment, and inference from whole school designs (Ladd and Hansen 1999; Guthrie

and Rothstein 1999). While analysts argue that some approaches are more technically sound than others, each has

its set of shortcomings (Ladd and Hansen 1999). As a result, states have tackled or considered the problem of

establishing the cost of an adequate education using different approaches, although no state has followed the

fourth approach. The first three strategies are described below.

Inference from Statistical Analysis

Some states have drawn on a large body of research that examines the relationship between educational outcomes

and educational inputs. Research in this area began with efforts to structure state education aid formulas to

account for cost differences within a state. Statistical models take a “black box” approach to determine the

required costs to meet a specified level of achievement—rather than adding up the costs of inputs, they attempt to

associate a level of spending with an acceptable level of achievement. Some models incorporate a measure of

district efficiency, while others use different performance measures. These models have been used to develop cost

estimates for New York and Wisconsin (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Nevertheless, using statistical models to develop

estimates of the cost of providing an adequate education is in its infancy (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms
46

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Empirical Observation

A few states have approached the task of determining the cost of an adequate education by reviewing spending

patterns of high achieving districts within their state. They have determined spending ranges and efficient practices

for different activities based on these reviews. For example, in 1997, Mississippi identified districts that were

performing well and spending near the state average on per-pupil spending. Spending patterns for different activities were reviewed for these districts. Districts with particularly high or low spending in a specific expenditure

category were eliminated from the analysis of spending for that category, and then averages were calculated for

each category. An average total spending figure was calculated from this total (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Ohio also

followed a similar practice when overhauling its education finance system in the spring of 1999 (Ladd and Hansen

1999).

Professional Judgment

Another approach that states have used involves drawing on the professional judgment of educators to develop

cost estimates for providing educational adequacy. In these cases, professional educators, administrators, and/or

public officials have estimated the inputs needed for adequacy. Once these inputs have been determined, a cost

estimate can be calculated. Professional judgment was used as a basis of determining resource cost estimates for

Wyoming. As a result of a Wyoming Supreme Court decision prohibiting cost to be considered in developing a new

funding system, the Wyoming expert team was not asked to balance adequacy against cost constraints. In addition, input from state and national professionals was supplemented by research and the team’s prior experience.

Complex statistical analysis was not used to adjust for resource cost differences within the state to make these

adjustments more transparent and easily understood (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

Accounting for Student, Resource, and Geographic Differences

Most states make adjustments for the costs of educating students that relate to the different educational needs of

students. These adjustments reflect differences in education needs, for example, related to learning disabilities, or

limited English proficiency, as well as those associated with different instructional programs in elementary, middle,

and high schools. Weighting also may be used to adjust for additional costs of education at-risk or gifted students.

In 1993–94, 36 states used weighting procedures to adjust their basic general aid formulas to account for the costs

of educating students with different needs. Some of these adjustments accounted for differences in educational

needs among students, while others provided weights for students of different ages (Gold, Smith, and Lawton

1995). In 1998–99, 32 states used weights to calculate either pupil or instructional units for their basic aid

formulas (Sielke and Holmes 2002c).

Few states, in contrast, make adjustments for differences in resource costs across districts, despite the fact that

school finance experts have developed a number of indices for this purpose (Fowler and Monk 2001). These

adjustments are designed to reflect regional and school-based differences in the cost of providing education that

might be associated with differences in teacher salaries as well as those of other school personnel between urban

and rural areas. Other cost differences include differences in transportation costs, heating costs, or in the costs of

school supplies across the state. The few states that have made these adjustments have not relied on the indices

developed by finance experts, but instead have employed other methods for adjusting costs across districts, such as

state wage indices (Ohio), consumer price indices (Colorado, Florida, Wyoming) or regression analyses based on

state data (Texas) (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

In addition to adjustments for student, resource, and regional differences in cost, a further challenge for states

implementing adequacy reforms is to take into account how school or district size affects the costs of an adequate

education. These adjustments are discussed in the next section.
47

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

Adjusting for Scale and Inflation

Another set of adjustments to adequacy funding levels has less to do with adjusting for the range in costs of

supplies or salaries, but rather, adjusting for other exogenous factors, such as district or school size and inflation.

These adjustments are designed to account for the costs for delivering adequacy in different school settings, and to

ensure that funding levels are not eroded by inflation. School finance formula adjustments for differences in

school or district size vary considerably by state.

Adjustments for inflation update the cost of providing an adequate education as the prices of goods and services

change. Over time, formulas that do not make these adjustments may fail to prevent districts from falling below

the minimum level needed. This was frequently the experience of foundation programs, which were often not

updated to adjust for inflation and, consequently, saw the real minimum spending level erode over time (Ladd and

Hansen 1999).

Determining the cost of adequacy, as well as accounting and adjusting for differences in student, resource, and

regional characteristics, economies (or diseconomies) of scale and inflation, is a complex process. As noted above,

states have pursued different approaches in calculating the costs of adequacy. Determining the cost of providing

adequacy is usually only one step in adequacy reforms, however. States often implement other complementary

reforms, for example, restructuring the reliance on different revenue sources or changing funding formulas. Changes

in states that have adopted reforms in response to judicial prompts are discussed below.

State Responses to Court Adequacy Rulings

Despite similar claims, state responses to judicial adequacy rulings have varied considerably, reflecting not only the

differences in court directives, but also different state political climates. Table 3.4 summarizes recent court rulings

and state responses (West 2000). Some states have succeeded in crafting a remedy that satisfied the courts’ directives. Other states have experienced less success, encountering opposition from taxpayers or teachers. To some

extent, the degree to which states have overhauled their education finance systems has been a function of the

court’s ruling and legislative cooperation, with some state courts requiring more substantive reforms than other

states.

In general, efforts to improve adequacy have raised basic student funding levels, and increased state aid to poor

districts (Fulton 1997). Many states have expanded adjustments for at-risk and early childhood programs, professional development or technology. They have also included elements to improve equity between districts, often

limiting district revenue, expenditures or budget growth, or requiring a minimum local effort to participate in the

state aid program (Fulton 1997).

Kentucky, Alabama, New Jersey, and New Hampshire provide four examples of state responses to court adequacy

decisions. Kentucky has undertaken the most comprehensive overhaul, restructuring the state’s finance system as

well as other key components of the education system. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Rose v.

Council for Better Education declared the entire state education system unconstitutional (Rose v. Council for

Better Education, 790 S.W.2d 186, Ky. 1989). In its ruling, the court charged the legislature with rebuilding the

system within a year. The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), enacted within the year, recreated the entire

education system and included not only finance and governance changes, but also program changes (Carr and

Fuhrman 1999). Current expenditures per student increased 32 percent in constant 1998–99 dollars between

1989–90 and 1998–99 (Snyder and Hoffman 2001). One of the new features of the Kentucky system was the

institution of an accountability program that provides financial rewards for high performance and significant

sanctions for poor performance based on a new assessment system (Ladd and Hansen 1999).
48

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 3.4 Selected recent court decisions and state responses for states where the highest court has ruled the

funding system unconstitutional and the case has not been resolved, and states where final

decisions have found the funding system unconstitutional, by state: 2000

Status or ruling Comments

Selected Court Decisions and State Responses in States Where State’s Highest Court has Ruled the State Funding System

Unconstitutional and the Case Has Not Been Resolved 

Alabama (Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. Hunt)

Arizona (Roosevelt Elementary School District 66 v. Bishop)

In 1993, a trial court ruled the state funding system

unconstitutional, declaring that the system did not

provide an adequate and equitable education.

The state decided not to appeal the “liability” decision, but later appealed the lower court’s

“remedy” decision. In a December 1997 ruling (similar to a January 1997 opinion), the State

Supreme Court affirmed the 1993 decision that the state is responsible for the poor and

inequitable conditions of public schools (liability ruling) and gave the state a “reasonable

time” to fix the schools before further legal intervention. The State Supreme Court, however,

threw out the lower court’s 1993 order that laid out a plan for the state to correct the

funding system (remedy decision). The December ruling remanded the case back to the trial

court and allowed the plaintiffs to reopen the case if the state does not respond in a timely

manner and in compliance with the initial court ruling. In January 2000, the state school

superintendent said he would present a plan to the legislature in March.

The State Supreme Court ruled the funding system

unconstitutional in 1994. The court ruled that the

finance system unconstitutionally created vast

disparities in districts’ ability to afford school

construction, building maintenance and equipment.

After the first plan from state leaders was not accepted

by the superior court, the court set a June 30, 1998,

deadline for an acceptable solution or the state must

stop distributing aid to schools.

In March 1998, the Arizona House approved a funding plan that would end local school

construction bonding and instead provide approximately $400 million in state funding each

year. In addition to eliminating local bonds for capital construction, the state would set

minimum standards for school facilities. The Senate approved the plan, but added an “optout” provision that allowed districts that met the state’s minimum-adequacy requirements for

facilities to continue using local bonds. In June of 1998, the State Supreme Court ruled this

funding plan unconstitutional. The court declared the opt-out provision (along with

differences in access to local tax dollars between districts that decide to opt out and those

that participate in the state plan) created disparities in districts’ ability to build and maintain

buildings. An August 15 deadline was set for the state to present a more acceptable remedy.

During a special 1999 summer session, the legislature revised their most recent plan to

address the court’s concern with the opt-out provision. The new plan allows all districts to

issue bonds if they want to go above and beyond the state’s facility standards. In July 1999,

the State Supreme Court accepted the revised plan. Four districts filed a lawsuit in July of

1999, charging that the state under-funded building renovations for districts by $50 million.

New Hampshire (Claremont School District v. Governor )

In March of 1997, the Ohio State Supreme Court ruled

the funding system unconstitutional, declaring that it

violated the state’s education clause, which mandates a

“thorough and efficient” education. The court

criticized the heavy reliance on local property taxes to

fund schools, reminded the legislature of their

responsibility to support a “statewide” education

system, called for a “systemic overhaul” of the funding

system and gave the legislature a year to develop a

new finance system.

In 1998, state policymakers enacted a funding plan in response to the court decision that

hinged on a one-cent sales tax increase that would have raised $1.1 billion annually for

schools and provided property tax relief. Voters rejected the ballot initiative by an 80 to

20% margin. In 1999, a lower court rejected the state’s second attempt at a solution,

indicating that it did not sufficiently overhaul the finance system or provide an adequate

education. The state appealed the lower court’s decision to the State Supreme Court. Oral

arguments began in November 1999. A decision was expected in February or March of

2000. In September 1999, Governor Bob Taft submitted a plan to the State Supreme Court

to spend $10.2 billion over 12 years on school construction.

In December of 1997, the State Supreme Court ruled

the New Hampshire school finance system

unconstitutional, stating that relying on local property

taxes to fund nearly 90% of the cost of education

places a disproportionate burden on residents in

property-poor towns. The ruling directed the legislature

to set a standard for an “adequate” education that

towns will be required to provide, but did not prevent

towns from funding programs above this level. The

court set an April 1999 deadline for the legislature to

present an acceptable solution.

In April 1999, the governor signed into law a new education funding system that relies on

a statewide property tax and several other taxes to pay for schools. Under the new law, the

state will spend $825 million on education in fiscal year 2000, which will raise the state

contribution from 8% to 62% of education spending. The base funding level was set at

$4,220 per student. In August 1999, five towns challenged the new school finance

system, which established a statewide property tax to pay for schools. The plaintiffs dispute

the system’s constitutionality and claim that the $825 million lawmakers set aside to fund

schools fails to meet the state’s definition of “adequate.” In October 1999, the State

Supreme Court struck down the state’s school finance plan that was enacted in April 1999.

The court stated that the phase-in process of the new statewide property tax was neither

“reasonable nor fair” because it favored rich communities over less affluent ones.

Ohio (DeRolph v. State of Ohio )

See footnotes at end of table.
49

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

Table 3.4 Selected recent court decisions and state responses for states where the highest court has ruled the

funding system unconstitutional and the case has not been resolved, and states where final

decisions have found the funding system unconstitutional, by state: 2000—Continued

Status or ruling Comments

Vermont (Brigham v. Vermont )

In February of 1997, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled

the funding system unconstitutional. The court stated

that the public school finance system, with its

substantial dependence on local property taxes and

resultant wide disparities in available revenue, deprives

children of an equal educational opportunity in

violation of the Vermont Constitution.

In 1997, the legislature passed Act 60, which reforms the school finance, education and

tax systems. Several lawsuits have been filed against Act 60, and most are still pending. The

State Supreme Court did respond to one lawsuit in March 1999, and upheld the “sharing

pool” provision of the new funding system. The plaintiffs, Stowe Citizens for Responsible

Government, argued that the pool was unfair to wealthy towns because local property

taxes have increased as a result. The court will not rule on other aspects of the law until the

new system has been more fully implemented.

Wyoming (Campbell v. State )

A 1995 Wyoming Supreme Court decision ruled the

funding system unconstitutional and required state

leaders to define a basic education (“the education

basket”), cost-out these services and programs, and

design a more equitable funding formula.

During a special session, the legislature passed HB 1001, part of which the governor vetoed.

HB 1001 established a common core of knowledge and skills (the “education basket”) as

well as programs for special needs students. The funding structure is a Cost-based Block

Grant model which establishes per-pupil funding levels by calculating the cost of

instructional and operating components for a “prototypical school” (e.g., elementary school

with 288 students). Adjustments are made for special needs students and district

characteristics (e.g., necessary small schools). In addition, funds were appropriated for K–3

class size reduction, a statewide technology plan, a statewide student assessment plan, and

to study several issues including special education, transportation and school building

needs. In fall of 1997, the Wyoming Education Association and 31 of the 49 school districts

filed a lawsuit claiming that the new school funding plan would not provide adequate

funding to ensure that all students received an equal educational opportunity. In December

1997, a district court judge issued an informal opinion that sided with the plaintiffs. The

judge said that the proposed cost adjustments for schools with fewer than 200 students

was “constitutionally deficient,” but agreed to review the plan again after the legislature has

had time to adjust the funding system. In January of 2000, a district judge ruled the state’s

funding formula for major school construction and maintenance projects is unconstitutional

because it favors wealthy districts. However, the judge upheld the cost-based funding

system, and was expected to rule on other aspects of the formula in February 2000.

Selected Final Court Decisions and State Remedies for Cases in Which Funding Systems Were Ruled Unconstitutional 

Kansas (U. S. D. No. 229 v. State of Kansas )

In a 1991 preliminary opinion, a Kansas district court

took an out-of-the-ordinary approach by declaring that

property tax revenues should be considered state

money, a decision that contradicted the accepted

notion that money raised in a district stays in that

district. The judge also required the state to focus

school funding on children rather than districts.

To respond to the mandate that property tax money is state money, the legislature enacted

a statewide property tax rate of 32 mills and established a single, statewide system for

collecting and distributing taxes for all school districts. It also included a provision allowing

the state to recapture taxes that districts raise above a specified level and redistribute those

revenues to other districts. While districts still can raise some local money for schools, that

amount is capped at 25% above a district’s student spending level. The finance plan also

set a minimum state aid level of $3,600 per pupil (for 1992) and made adjustments for atrisk students, low enrollment, facilities and transportation. In 1994, the State Supreme

Court upheld changes to the funding formula made in 1992. The court upheld the

funding formula, but directed the state to reexamine the district low-enrollment provision

of the funding formula. Within a year, modifications were made to the low-enrollment

factor and accepted by the court.

Kentucky (Rose v. Council for Better Education)

In June 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court handed

down a landmark decision by declaring the entire state

education system unconstitutional. The decision

applied to the statutes creating, implementing and

financing the system and to all regulations.

The legislature was charged with re-creating a new, equitable and adequate education

system. Although the court did not specify a remedy, it did summarize the characteristics of

an efficient system of common schools as: the establishment, maintenance and funding of

common schools are the sole responsibility of the General Assembly; common schools

shall be free and available to all Kentucky children; ... shall be substantially uniform

throughout the state; ... shall provide equal educational opportunities to all Kentucky

children, regardless of place of residence or economic circumstances.

See footnotes at end of table.
50

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 3.4 Selected recent court decisions and state responses for states where the highest court has ruled the

funding system unconstitutional and the case has not been resolved, and states where final

decisions have found the funding system unconstitutional, by state: 2000—Continued 

Status or ruling Comments

Massachusetts (McDuffy v. Secretary of Education )

In mid-1993, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court

ruled the state violated its constitution by neglecting its

responsibility to provide an adequate education for all

students. The court emphasized that the state has

primary responsibility for education, although it said

local money could be part of the funding equation.

Just prior to the court’s decision, the legislature had enacted a new funding system, which

the court accepted as a remedy to the financial inadequacies. Part of a larger education

reform plan, the system sets a per-pupil average of $5,500 to be reached by year 2000,

with additional funds to be provided to districts “faced with challenging education

problems.” The state will play a greater role in making up for differences between wealthy

and poor districts. But, in order to ensure that districts make a reasonable tax effort, the

state specified a minimum amount that local governments must appropriate to participate

in the state’s education funding system.

Missouri (Committee for Educational Equality v. State )

In January 1993, a circuit court judge ruled the state’s

school finance formula failed to provide equal

educational opportunity for children and lacked

adequate funding. Further, the court ruled “the

deviation from equality on a per-student basis in the

distribution of the total resources (both state and local)

among the schools in the Missouri school system

should not be permitted except to provide resources

either (a) to the least advantaged or (b) for specially

identified educational needs.”

The state enacted a broad education reform plan, the Outstanding Schools Act, which

rewrote the school foundation formula and raised new revenue for equity and reform

programs. The new foundation program included a required local tax levy and a holdharmless provision to ensure that no school district receives less money than the prior year.

Additional dollars were provided for transportation, special education, at-risk students, a

teacher career-ladder initiative and other programs. Revenue to fund the act came from

budget cuts, riverboat gambling receipts, limitations on federal income tax deductions and

an increase in the required local tax effort for schools. In response to a legal challenge to

the Outstanding Schools Act, the State Supreme Court unanimously upheld the main

sections of the plan in December 1996.

Montana (Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State)

In 1989, the State Supreme Court found the school

funding system unconstitutional stating that as a result

of failure to fund the Foundation Program adequately,

forcing an over-reliance on property tax levies, the state

failed to provide equal education opportunities to each

student.

The legislature responded by rewriting the funding system during the 1990 session.

However, two plaintiff groups were unsatisfied with the new system and prompted the

legislature to return to the table. During the 1993 session, lawmakers passed a radically

revised finance system that requires all districts to spend between 80 and 100% of an

“optimum” funding level. The plan restricts districts from spending more than the

standard, but prompted property tax increases in many communities to reach the optimum

funding level. The finance system also equalizes school-building funds and includes a

special education component that the state pays to each district.

New Jersey (Abbott v. Burke )

In May of 1997, the State Supreme Court ruled the

revised funding plan unconstitutional because

sufficient funds were not provided and the model used

to set a base funding level was unacceptable. The

court required the department of education to study,

identify, fund and implement programs to address

needs of students in urban districts (which can include

content standards). Also, the court required the

education department to ensure that districts are

spending money efficiently.

In January 1998, a lower court issued a set of recommendations to the State Supreme Court

that would mandate the state to pay $312 million for prekindergarten, extended year and

summer school, and social services for urban districts, and $2.7 billion for new classrooms.

Both sides appealed—plaintiffs were unsatisfied with dollar amount and the state believed the

court overstepped its jurisdiction. In May of 1998, the State Supreme Court issued its final

ruling which supported the governor’s plan to implement “whole-school reform,” expand

preschool programs and address school construction. The court called for a continued

pursuit of parity between the urban and wealthy districts, but concluded that funding levels

should be set by identifiable district needs. The court directed the state to create half-day

programs for 3–4 year-olds and full-day kindergarten for children in the 28 urban districts,

but rejected the other recommendations by the lower court.

Tennessee (Tennessee Small Schools System v. McWherter)

The Tennessee Supreme Court struck down the school

funding system stating that it short-changed small,

rural districts and did not provide equal education

opportunities to all students. The State Supreme Court

sent the case back to the trial court to determine if a

recently enacted new funding system, The Basic

Education Program, provided adequate remedies. The trial

court accepted the state’s new system. In a subsequent

court decision, the State Supreme Court ordered the state

to improve the equalization of teacher salaries.

The Education Improvement Act of 1992 included a number of education reform initiatives

and a new funding formula, the Basic Education Program. The reform programs and

equity improvements were funded through a half-cent sales tax increase. The foundation

program improved equity by specifying and costing-out the essential components for

schools, flowing the majority of money through the equity formula and accounting for the

differing school district fiscal capacities. Dollars per student are calculated through a fairly

specific system (e.g., providing for a school nurse), but districts can decide how to spend

their state aid.

NOTE: In some cases, descriptions have been shortened from original document. Information on cases is as of 2000.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, Clearinghouse Notes: School Finance Litigation, 2000.
51

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

Legislative efforts to respond to judicial directives have generated significant debate, as illustrated by Alabama’s

experience with adequacy reforms. Although the court decisions in Kentucky and Alabama are very similar, the

state responses have been quite different. In Alabama, groups opposed to higher taxes campaigned successfully

against comprehensive reform, and the Alabama Education Association opposed the legislature’s remedy because

of its accountability provisions. As of spring 1999, finance reform had not occurred in Alabama (Ladd and

Hansen 1999).

In New Jersey, in Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990), the court found the financing system unconstitutional for the 29 school districts identified in the case as special needs districts. Opposition to the additional taxes

needed to increase aid for urban districts made it difficult to comply with the court’s ruling, despite repeated

attempts. As of 2002, there continues to be challenges to the state remedies (Johnston 2002).

In New Hampshire, in 1997, the court ruled that reliance on local property taxes for education was unconstitutional (Zehr 1999). Opposition to income taxes made it difficult for legislators to fashion a remedy that was

acceptable to the court. In October 1999, the state system of financing was again ruled unconstitutional. In

November 1999, New Hampshire levied a statewide property tax. This tax was implemented in conjunction with

a statewide tax rebate for low-income families and individuals so as not to favor wealthy communities. This

financing plan was upheld as constitutional in May 2001, in response to legal challenges by “donor towns”—

communities that argued they were subsidizing education in property-poor communities (Viadero 2001).

These examples demonstrate the wide range of experiences that states have had in reforming finance systems to

ensure educational adequacy. In Kentucky, adequacy was the impetus for a major overhaul of the education

system, and included changes to education financing, governance, and program areas. In contrast, there has been

considerable opposition to new taxes and increased accountability in Alabama, and the state has not acted on the

court’s mandate. New Jersey’s experience is also different, with the state reforms focusing only on reforming

financing in selected districts, not the overall state system. In New Hampshire, taxpayer preferences have shaped

the reform possibilities in that state by limiting the types of revenue options available.

General Revenue Reforms

General revenue reforms make up a second category of state education finance reforms. These efforts differ from

adequacy reforms because they are not driven primarily by student outcome concerns (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

These state reforms have often broadened the revenue base for a particular tax, shifted the balance among tax

sources, or altered the mix of state and local revenues which fund schools. Some have focused on addressing

structural issues such as projected long-term deficits that arise from disconnects between state revenue systems and

projected needs. Others have been prompted by taxpayer discontent. When tax systems are restructured, education

is often affected since it constitutes a large proportion of most state budgets.

Most states make adjustments to their revenue systems every year. During the late 1990s, many states cut taxes,

reflecting strong state economies. Another important development during the 1990s was the passage of new

constraints on states’ taxing abilities. As shown in table 3.5, during the 1990s, nine states passed requirements or

constitutional restrictions requiring a legislative supermajority to levy tax increases (Mackey 1999). In these states,

the proportion of legislators needed to pass tax increases is higher than that needed for other legislation. This

section discusses general state revenue reforms that have direct ties to financing schools, particularly shifts away

from local property taxes. These reforms have had major effects on the mix of revenues used for financing schools

in particular states.

Many school districts have traditionally relied on local property taxes to fund schools. On average, local governments—towns, townships, municipalities, cities, school districts, and other local governments—raised nearly
52

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 3.5 Constitutional restrictions on legislative tax powers for states with supermajority requirements, by

state: 1998

State Adopted Referendum (R) or voter initiative (I) Legislative majority required Applies to

Arizona 1992 I 2/3 All taxes

Arkansas 1934 R 3/4 All taxes except sales and alcohol

California 1979 I 2/3 All taxes

Colorado 1992 I 2/3 All taxes1

Delaware 1980 R 3/5 All taxes

Florida 1971 R 3/5 Corporate income tax2

Louisiana 1966 R 2/3 All taxes

Michigan 1994 R 3/5 State property tax

Mississippi 1970 R 3/5 All taxes

Missouri 1996 R 2/3 All taxes3

Nevada 1996 I 2/3 All taxes

Oklahoma 1992 I 3/4 All taxes

Oregon 1996 R 3/5 All taxes

South Dakota 1978 I 2/3 Sales and income tax

1996 R 2/3 All taxes

Washington 1993 I 2/3 All taxes4

1Tax increases automatically sunset (phase out) unless approved by the voters in the next election.

2The constitution limits the corporate income tax rate to 5 percent; a 3/5 vote is needed to increase it beyond 5 percent.

3The constitution requires voter approval for significant tax increases. In emergencies, the legislature can increase taxes with a 2/3 vote.

4Tax increases that produce revenues that do not exceed the spending limit must be approved by a 2/3 legislative vote; tax increases that produce

revenue over the limit must be approved by a 2/3 legislative majority and by the voters.

SOURCE: National Conference of State Legislators, The Appropriate Role of User Charges in State and Local Finance, 1999.

75 percent of their total tax revenues from the property tax (Ladd and Hansen 1999). Among independent school

districts, property taxes play an even more significant role, accounting for 96 percent of school district tax revenue

in fiscal year 1994-95. Only in three states—Kentucky, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania—do local school districts

generate more than 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than the property tax (Ladd and Hansen 1999).

Taxpayers in many states have expressed frustration with high property tax bills (Ladd and Hansen 1999). This

frustration has sometimes led to direct taxpayer action to roll back, cap, or abolish property taxes. In other cases,

taxpayer opposition to high rates has prompted state policymakers to take steps to reduce these taxes (Odden

1994, Crampton and Whitney 1996b).

During the 1990s, several states dealt with statewide initiatives to contain property taxes. While some of these

actions were motivated by public discontent with the property tax, each of these efforts forced state policymakers

to grapple with developing alternative funding mechanisms for education. The experiences of Michigan and

Wisconsin, discussed below, illustrate how changes in the property tax have required states to identify other

sources of revenue to fund education.

Michigan

Michigan’s move to reduce its reliance on the local property tax as a revenue source for education resulted in a

major restructuring of its funding system. In the early 1990s, Michigan school districts received two-thirds of their

funding from local property taxes.

The state’s dependence on local property taxes produced a number of serious concerns. First, disparities in the

property tax base resulted in rich and poor districts. Second, public support for local property taxes had eroded, as

evidenced by ten statewide ballot initiatives to cut property taxes between 1973 and 1993. Finally, there were
53

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

concerns that high property tax rates would discourage business investment (The Finance Project 1997; Courant,

Gramlich, and Loeb 1995).

In response to these concerns, the Michigan legislature abolished local school property taxes in 1993, then scheduled a referendum on how to replace the money. The new system of finance approved in 1994 drew on other

sources of revenue for funding education. In particular, the state sales tax was increased from 4 to 6 percent, a

statewide property tax was enacted, the tax on cigarettes was increased, and real estate transfer taxes were imposed. In addition, a new system of assessing property was enacted, and a state foundation grant formula for

distributing funds was put in place (The Finance Project 1997; Courant, Gramlich, and Loeb 1995).

Wisconsin

In 1993, the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation which provided local property tax relief, imposed revenue

caps on all of its school districts, and increased state aid. Under the law, the state agreed to pay for two-thirds of

the cost for educating public school children. This represented a significant shift in the mix between state and local

funds for education as the state share had been 42 percent in previous years. The plan froze the amount that could

be raised through general aid and froze property taxes at 1992–93 levels. Since the new law required the state to

pay two-thirds of the costs of education, these actions were designed to guarantee that the state could pay its share

of the bill by limiting the revenue that local districts could raise (Blair 1999). Annual salary and benefit increases

for teachers were limited to 3.8 percent (Blair 1999).

By 1998, 64 percent of 314 superintendents within the state reported that revenue caps were hurting their districts.

Nearly a quarter—24 percent—indicated that the revenue caps had a neutral effect on their districts and had

neither helped nor hurt them. Twelve percent said that the caps had a positive effect (Blair 1999). A 2000 State

Supreme Court decision upheld the funding system as constitutional (Blair 2000).

Although the experiences of Michigan and Wisconsin differed in many ways, the shifts from local property taxes

changed revenue sources for education in each state. In both cases, this involved shifting the reliance on local

property taxes to different state taxes.

Special Education Financing Reforms

The third group of state reforms involves restructuring the way special education dollars are raised and spent. This

set of reforms involves both changes in funding arrangements and in revenue sources.

Over the past two decades, substantial growth in student enrollment in special education has led to heightened

scrutiny over spending on special education by state and federal policymakers, legislators, and the public. The

percentage of children ages 0 to 21 served by federally funded special education programs for children has increased over the last 20 years. In 1976–77, federally supported programs for the disabled served 8 percent of total

enrollment in public schools, (kindergarten through 12th grade, including a relatively small number of prekindergarten

students); in 1998–99, they served 13 percent (U.S. Department of Education 2000c). Other policy issues also

have encouraged state policymakers to reexamine the incentives built into the system for funding special education. For example, efforts to integrate students into regular education classrooms and those aimed at providing

greater local flexibility have also acted as catalysts for change during the 1990s (Parrish 1996).

Special education is financed through a combination of federal, state, and local funds. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) guaranteed a free, appropriate education for all students

with disabilities. The statute was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-476) (U.S. Department of Education 2000c).
54

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Under IDEA, school districts must determine whether a child has a disability. For each child with a disability, the

school must put together an individualized education program (IEP) that describes the education and supportive

services that the child will receive, and then provide these services. In addition to education services, the school

must provide related services that permit a child with disabilities to benefit from special education. These services

include transportation, speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical and

occupational therapy, counseling, and medical services. Assistive services may also be required. IDEA services can

be provided in settings other than the school (e.g., hospital or clinic) if necessary to provide a free, appropriate

education (U.S. General Accounting Office 1999).

IDEA offers federal grants to all participating states. The 50 states and the District of Columbia participate in the

program. Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, federal funds were allocated to states based on the number

of children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21. Under the 1997 amendments, grants to states continued to be

based on child counts until fiscal year 2000—the fiscal year in which the federal appropriation for Part B, Section

611 exceeded $4.9 billion. Since then, funds have been allocated using a more complex formula, with states

receiving a base allocation equal to their funding levels in fiscal year 1999. Eighty-five percent of remaining

program funds are distributed to states based on the age ranges for which states mandate services, and 15 percent

based on the number of children in the state living in poverty in those age ranges (U.S. Department of Education

1998c; U.S. Department of Education 2000c).

This section focuses on state reforms for distributing state aid for special education prior to the 1997 reauthorization, as well as state policies for using resources from other areas as well.

State Aid for Special Education

Each state has a different set of policies and procedures for funding special education aid. Funding systems can

be divided into four categories: pupil weights, resource-based, percentage reimbursement, or flat grant (Parrish

et al. 1997).

Pupil weight systems are used by states to allocate special education funds on a per student basis, with the funding

amounts usually expressed as a multiple of regular education aid. Weights usually differ according to the basis of

student placement, or the type of disability, or some combination of these elements.

Resource-based systems distribute special education funds based on specific education resources, for example,

teachers or classroom units. Classroom units are calculated using prescribed staff/student ratios for each disabling

condition or type of placement.

Percent reimbursement funding arrangements provide state funding for a given percent of allowable or actual

special education expenditures. Districts may be reimbursed for the full costs incurred for educating children with

disabilities, or for some specified percentage.

Flat grants distribute state education aid based on a fixed amount per student or per unit. Census-based funding

systems determine state aid using the number of total students within a district and are considered a variant of flat

grant systems.

A 1997 Center for Special Education Finance report (Parrish et al. 1997) classifies states by type of special

education funding system used in 1994–95, and indicates the basis of allocation used (table 3.6). During 1994–

95, pupil weight systems were the most widely used for allocating special education dollars, with 19 states using

these systems. Percent reimbursement systems were the second most popular method and were used in 11 states.

Ten states funded special education through flat grant systems, and the remaining 10 states used resource-based

funding arrangements. Table 3.6 also indicates which states direct their special education dollars to the target
55

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

Table 3.6 State special education funding systems used, basis of allocation used, and reform status: 1994–95

State special education Implemented

Current funding for target reform between Considering

State funding formula1 Basis of allocation2 population only3 1990 and 1995 major reform

Alabama Flat grant Special ed. enrollment x x x

Alaska Pupil weights Type of placement x

Arizona4 Pupil weights Disabling condition x

Arkansas Pupil weights Type of placement x x

California Resource-based Classroom unit x x

Colorado Flat grant Special ed. enrollment x x

Connecticut % reimbursement Actual expenditures x

Delaware Resource-based Classroom unit x x

Florida Pupil weights Disabling condition x

Georgia Pupil weights Disabling condition For 90% of funds x

Hawaii Pupil weights Placement & condition

Idaho % reimbursement Actual expenditures x x

Illinois Resource-based Allowable costs x x

Indiana Pupil weights Disabling condition x

Iowa Pupil weights Type of placement x

Kansas Resource-based No. of special ed. staff x

Kentucky Pupil weights Disabling condition x

Louisiana % reimbursement Actual expenditures x x x

Maine % reimbursement Allowable costs x x

Maryland Flat grant Special ed. enrollment x

Massachusetts Flat grant Total district enrollment x

Michigan % reimbursement Allowable costs x x

Minnesota % reimbursement Actual expenditures x x

Mississippi Resource-based No. of special ed. staff x

Missouri Resource-based No. of special ed. staff x x x

Montana Flat grant Total district enrollment x

Nebraska % reimbursement Allowable costs x x

Nevada Resource-based Classroom unit x

New Hampshire Pupil weights Type of placement x

New Jersey Pupil weights Placement & condition

New Mexico Pupil weights Services received x

New York Pupil weights Type of placement x x

North Carolina Flat grant Special ed. enrollment x x

North Dakota Flat grant Total district enrollment x

Ohio Resource-based Classroom unit x

Oklahoma Pupil weights Disabling condition

Oregon Pupil weights Special ed. enrollment x

Pennsylvania Flat grant Total district enrollment x

Rhode Island % reimbursement Actual expenditures x

South Carolina Pupil weights Disabling condition For 85% of funds

South Dakota % reimbursement Allowable costs x x

Tennessee Resource-based Classroom unit x

Texas Pupil weights Type of placement x x

Utah5 Pupil weights Type of placement x x

Vermont6 Flat grant Total district enrollment x

Virginia Resource-based Classroom unit

See footnotes at end of table.
56

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 3.6 State special education funding systems used, basis of allocation used, and reform status:

1994–95—Continued

State special education Implemented

Current funding for target reform between Considering

State funding formula1 Basis of allocation2 population only3 1990 and 1995 major reform

Washington Pupil weights Special ed. enrollment x x

West Virginia Flat grant Special ed. enrollment x

Wisconsin % reimbursement Allowable costs x

Wyoming % reimbursement Actual expenditures x

1State special education formulas are classified into one of the following four broad categories:

Flat grant: A fixed funding amount per student or per unit.

% reimbursement: Funding based on a percentage of allowable or actual expenditures.

Pupil weight: Funding allocated on a per student basis, with the amount(s) based on a multiple(s) of regular education aid.

Resource-based: Funding based on allocation of specific education resources (e.g., teacher or classroom units). Classrooms are derived from

prescribed staff/student ratios by disabling condition or type of placement.

2Primary factors used in allocating aid (see report for additional details):

Actual expenditures: Allocation is based on actual special education expenditures.

Allowable costs: Reimbursement can only be claimed for allowable costs, as defined, reviewed, and approved by the state.

Classroom unit: Districts generate funds based on a number of authorized units. A unit of funding may incorporate part or all of the estimated cost of

a teacher, and a teacher and an aide.

Disability category: The nature of each student’s disability (e.g., learning disability, serious emotional disturbance, profound mental retardation) is the

basis for allocation. The allocation generally increases as a function of standardized estimates of the cost of the service required for children within

each disability category.

Number of special education staff: Allocation is based on the state numbers of various types of authorized staff (e.g., teachers, aides, therapists).

Services received: Allocation for each child is determined from unit rates associated with the mix and quantity of individual services received (e.g.,

instruction, therapy, transportation).

Special education enrollment: The number of children identified as eligible for special education services and for which Individual Education Programs

(IEPs) are in place is the basis for allocation.

Total district enrollment: Funding is based on the total number of students in the district. A percentage of this total district enrollment is assumed to

represent the special education population. Also referred to as “census-based” funding, this uniform identification rate serves as the basis for

allocation.

Type of placement: Student placement (e.g., in a regular education classroom, a resource room, a special day class, a residential program) is the basis

for allocation. The allocation generally increases as a function of some standardized estimate of the cost of the service or placement.

3An affirmative response indicates 100 percent of state special education funds are for target population. The percentages indicate the values specified.

4Formula also contains a substantial flat grant allocation for selected disabling conditions.

5Formula amounts are now frozen and are based on allocations in prior years.

6Vermont’s special education funding formula also contains a substantial percent reimbursement component.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. “X” indicates an affirmative response in the original source, while a blank cell

indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Center for Special Education Finance, State Special Education Finance Systems 1994–95, 1997.
57

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

population only. Finally, the table documents the considerable interest in reform during the 1990s. Sixteen

states implemented reforms in the 5 years prior to the 1994–95 school year, and over half considered major

finance reform in this area during the 1994–95 school year (Parrish et al. 1997).

Other Sources of Revenue for Special Education

States also tap other sources of revenue to provide special education services to children with disabilities. These

programs can provide additional funding sources for providing the wide array of services that may be required for

educating special education students.

In recognition of the wide scope of services that may be provided to special education students, one of the IDEA

requirements is that educational entities coordinate their services with other agencies and programs. In particular,

the state must provide services to locate and evaluate all children with disabilities who need special education

services. The state must also establish responsibility for providing services. This is often done through an interagency agreement, although other mechanisms are used as well. Interagency agreements or other mechanisms cover

financing arrangements, conditions for reimbursement, procedures for resolving disputes, and policies for coordinating services (U.S. General Accounting Office 1999).

Table 3.7 lists other sources of revenue used by 42 states that reported data in 1994–95. Sources of additional

funds for special education services included Medicaid, state mental health funds, and private medical insurance.

Some states chose to return these funds to the districts, while in others the money was placed in the state’s general

fund. Fourteen states reported that 100 percent of these revenues was returned to local districts (Parrish et al.

1997).

Medicaid is a source of funds used by many states for special education. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program

that provides health services for low-income individuals, one-half of whom are children. Children who qualify for

IDEA may also be eligible for Medicaid services. Medicaid is an entitlement program, so states and the federal

government are required to fund all covered services for eligible individuals. Medicaid is traditionally the payer of

last resort; however, since 1988, Medicaid funds must be used to reimburse IDEA-related medically necessary

services before IDEA funds are spent (U.S. General Accounting Office 1999).

In general, the federal government shares Medicaid costs in two categories: health services and administrative

services. Health services range from providing contracted service work to a school-based health clinic. In addition,

Medicaid covers such services as occupational, physical, and speech therapies. The administrative services covered

by Medicaid range from providing information resources to assisting schools with application procedures (e.g.,

informational outreach and arranging health services).

In 1994–95, 11 of 42 reporting states were able to report estimates of Medicaid revenue. Connecticut, Kansas,

Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and

Virginia were able to report Medicaid revenue. In all but three of these states, Medicaid reimbursements accounted

for 1 percent or less of all state special education expenditures. Louisiana claimed Medicaid reimbursement for 16

percent of its state allocation for special education, while Rhode Island and Michigan claimed 2 and 3 percent,

respectively. In some states, individual districts or consortia of districts applied for these reimbursements directly,

so the state may not actually know the extent to which Medicaid funds supplement state special education funds

(Parrish et al. 1997).
58

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Other sources of special education revenue

Table 3.7 Other sources of revenue for special education services and percent of revenue returned to local

school districts, by state: 1994–95

Percent returned to 

State Medicaid Student mental health funds Private medical insurance local districts

Alabama x x —

Alaska x x —

Arizona x —

Arkansas x 100%

California x x x —

Connecticut x x —

Delaware x 30%

Florida x x x 100%

Idaho x —

Illinois x 100%

Indiana x x —

Kansas x 100%

Kentucky x x —

Louisiana x x x 100%

Maryland x x 100%

Massachusetts x —

Michigan x 50%

Mississippi x —

Missouri x x —

Montana x x 100%

Nebraska x —

Nevada x x —

New Hampshire x 100%

New Jersey x 15%

New Mexico x x x —

New York x 50%

North Carolina x —

North Dakota x x 100%

Ohio x —

Oklahoma x x x —

Oregon x 100%

Pennsylvania x —

Rhode Island x 100%

South Carolina x —

South Dakota x 100%

Tennessee x x x —

Texas x 100%

Utah x x x —

Vermont x x 50%

Virginia x 100%

Washington x 20%

West Virginia x —

—Not available. State did not provide data.

NOTE: States not listed and the District of Columbia did not report using other sources of revenue to provide special education services to school-age

children with disabilities. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Center for Special Education Finance, State Special Education Finance Systems, 1994–95, 1997.
59

Summary

School financing systems are complex, relying on a mix of federal, state, and local revenues to fund elementary

and secondary education. State governments play a pivotal role in these systems. Accordingly, state reforms affect

the way state and local revenues are generated, intergovernmental transfers are made, and education funds are

spent. State policies affect financing of general education as well as specific program areas, like special education.

When reforming school finance systems, state policymakers seek to balance a number of objectives, including

efficiency, equity, adequacy, accountability and stability. This section discussed three key state reforms that have

had an impact on school financing: adequacy reforms, general revenue reforms, and special education financing

reforms.

State efforts to define and provide funding for an adequate education have been an area of reform for education

finance in the last decade. States across the nation have faced similar challenges: defining adequacy; determining

the cost of obtaining adequacy; and adjusting these costs for student, resource, and geographic differences, economies of scale, as well as inflation. Given the wide variation in state approaches to dealing with each of these

challenges, as well as state political climates, state adequacy reforms have differed. While considerable research still

needs to be done to learn about the relationship between costs and outcomes, state efforts to tackle this challenging issue represent a major shift in focus in education finance.

The second group of reforms, general revenue reforms, is not tied as directly to education finance reform. Reforms

in this group are often prompted by taxpayer discontent, unbalanced revenue systems, or taxpayer-imposed spending

or revenue constraints. These reforms do have implications for school funding, however. Property tax reforms have

tended to broaden the revenue base for education, placing more responsibility on state governments. Finally, state

reforms in special education finance make up the third group of education finance reforms discussed in the chapter. They include changes in the way states distribute funds to districts, and new policies to finance special education services using revenues from multiple sources. Since 1988, Medicaid funds have become an additional source

of special education funds, as Medicaid funds must be used to reimburse IDEA-related medically necessary services

before IDEA funds are used.

Chapter Three: School Finance Reforms

61

Over the past decade, states have adopted legislation intended to raise student achievement through the creation

of content and performance standards, large-scale testing programs, and accountability systems. As described in

previous chapters, these standards-based reform efforts are intended to ensure that all students attain high levels of

competence in all subject areas. Obtaining these goals, however, also depends on factors such as early childhood

education, the effectiveness of teachers, the resources available to students and teachers, and academic climate of

schools. Over the past decade, states have adopted policies intended to maximize these resources.

State-funded Prekindergarten Programs

State-funded prekindergarten programs are state initiatives that prepare children ages five and younger who have

not yet entered kindergarten to enter school. The recent development and expansion of state-funded prekindergarten

programs arose amidst a generally increasing interest in early childhood care and education (Schultz, Lopez, and

Hochberg 1996). Prekindergarten programs are typically only one of several strategies within a state’s overall early

childhood policy framework; other components, such as tax credits, family leave policies, and health care access,

are beyond the scope of this report (Schultz, Lopez, and Hochberg 1996).

Recent changes in federal legislation have increased states’ authority and flexibility to create and implement

prekindergarten programs by merging categorical funding streams into social services block grants (National Governors Association [NGA] 1997). An example of such legislation is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193); this act has allowed states to completely redesign their welfare

programs and has increased federal funds, available through block grants, that are used to subsidize child care for

low-income families.

While various pieces of legislation have increased states’ ability to implement programs for preschoolers, research

has demonstrated the importance of experiences in the early years of life on later school performance and lifelong

outcomes. For example, a National Research Council (2001) report outlines the importance that early experiences

have on the development of the brain. According to the report, from birth to the age of 5, children’s foundational

capacities develop rapidly, and it is this foundation on which their subsequent development builds. It has been

advocated that education begin before kindergarten because disparities between children’s knowledge and actual

skills are evident prior to this age. These differences are associated with later economic and social circumstances

and can predict later academic performance (National Research Council 2001).

High-quality prekindergarten programs may be especially beneficial for children from disadvantaged families.

Some studies have documented positive short- and long-term effects of intensive preschool intervention programs

on cognitive and academic outcomes as well as on social outcomes and delinquency (see Currie 2000 and

Schweinhart 2001 for a review of the research). Research suggests that economically disadvantaged participants in

certain high-quality preschool programs are less likely than disadvantaged students who did not participate in

such programs to be assigned to special education classes later in school, held back in a grade, involved in crime, or

drop out of school (see Karoly et al. 1998 for a review of the research on programs).

It is important to note, however, that a number of observers have highlighted the limitations of existing studies

and of prekindergarten programs, and some research has raised questions about the efficacy and implementation

of these programs (see, e.g., Ravitch 1998, Zigler and Styfco 1994, Goodson et al. 2000, and U.S. General

Chapter Four

Teacher Training and School Resources
62

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Accounting Office 1997 for discussions). Building on a body of research about the Head Start program, a comprehensive childhood development program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

intended to improve school readiness of young children in low-income families, Currie (2001) discussed a number

of issues and their political consequences. She noted that policymakers have become more dissatisfied with the

program and that during the most recent Head Start reauthorization in October 1998, Congress required that the

Department of Health and Human Services address problems such as uneven quality across centers, insufficient

attention to pre-literacy skills, and lack of accountability in demonstrating improvements in child outcomes by

mandating the adoption of performance standards related to children’s literacy skills and school readiness, expanding the monitoring of child outcomes, and improving the quality of Head Start teachers.

Most state-funded prekindergarten programs are funded through state budget appropriations to a state agency,

such as the state education department. These funds are used to administer a defined program for direct operation

by school districts or other community entities. A smaller number of programs are funded through traditional

education funding mechanisms in which school districts enroll children younger than five, count them in average

daily attendance reports, and receive state aid for them.

According to a 1998 publication by the Families and Work Institute (Mitchell, Ripple, and Chanana 1998), 39

states fund at least one kind of prekindergarten program and/or the federal Head Start program, with 11 of these

states funding both (table 4.1). Of these 39 states, 37 appropriate state funds for a prekindergarten program, and

13 use state funds to supplement the federal Head Start program within the state. Two states (Alaska and New

Hampshire) do not have their own state prekindergarten programs, but direct state funds to support Head Start.

While 7 states limit their funding to public schools, 30 states allow other programs or entities such as the Head

Start program, child care programs, and community-based organizations to receive funds directly or through their

local public school district (not shown in tables; Mitchell, Ripple, and Chanana 1998). Among the states, funding

for these programs ranges from $1 million to well over $200 million annually. The number of students served by

these programs also varies widely by state, from a few hundred to over 40,000 children annually (Mitchell, Ripple,

and Chanana 1998).

Student eligibility criteria for these prekindergarten programs vary from state to state as well. All states use child

age as an eligibility criterion, with 14 states limiting entry to four-year-olds and 13 states allowing both three- and

four-year-olds (table 4.2). Five states include five-year-olds who are deemed not yet ready for kindergarten in

addition to three- and four-year olds; three states allow children from birth through the required age for kindergarten entry; and two enroll children from three years of age (Mitchell, Ripple, and Chanana 1998).

Ten states also consider family income as a criterion for child eligibility with five states using the federal poverty

level as a criterion (table 4.2). Because this criterion of family income at or below the federal poverty level is the

same as that used by the federal Head Start program to enroll children, the 13 states that have chosen to supplement federal Head Start funds as part of their prekindergarten initiative use it as well (Mitchell, Ripple, and

Chanana 1998).
63

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.1 States that support prekindergarten and/or Head Start programs with state funds: 1998

State State funding for Pre-K programs State funding for Head Start No state funds for Pre-K or Head Start

Total 37 13 11

Alabama x

Alaska x

Arizona x

Arkansas x

California x

Colorado x

Connecticut x x

Delaware x

Florida x

Georgia x

Hawaii x x

Idaho x

Illinois x

Indiana x

Iowa x

Kansas x

Kentucky x

Louisiana x

Maine x x

Maryland x

Massachusetts x x

Michigan x

Minnesota x x

Mississippi x

Missouri x

Montana x

Nebraska x

Nevada x

New Hampshire x

New Jersey x x

New Mexico x

New York x

North Carolina x

North Dakota x

Ohio x x

Oklahoma x x

Oregon x

Pennsylvania x

Rhode Island x x

South Carolina x

South Dakota x

Tennessee x

Texas x

Utah x

Vermont x

Virginia x

Washington x x

West Virginia x

Wisconsin x x

Wyoming x

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. “X” indicates that an affirmative response for that state was reported in the

original source while a blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported.

SOURCE: Families and Work Institute, Prekindergarten Programs Funded by the States: Essential Elements for Policy Makers, 1998.
64

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.2 Criteria for state-funded prekindergarten programs, by age and income, by state: 1998

Income level criterion

Birth to 5 years 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds 3-year-olds (i.e., percent specific

 (to K entry) 3- and 4-year-olds (to K entry) to 3rd grade 4-year-olds income level required)1

Total 3 13 5 2 14 10

Arizona x

Arkansas x

California x

Colorado x

Connecticut x

Delaware x 100 FPL

Florida x

Georgia x

Hawaii x 75 SMI

Illinois x

Iowa x 130 FPL

Kentucky x 133 FPL

Louisiana x

Maine x

Maryland x

Massachusetts x 100 SMI

Michigan x

Minnesota x

Missouri x

Nebraska x

New Jersey x

New Mexico x

New York x

North Carolina x

Ohio x 185 FPL

Oklahoma x

Oregon x 100 FPL

Pennsylvania x

Rhode Island x

South Carolina x

Tennessee x 100 FPL

Texas x

Vermont x

Virginia x 100 FPL

Washington x 100 FPL

West Virginia x

Wisconsin x

1FPL = Federal Poverty Level; SMI = State Median Income.

NOTE: States not listed and the District of Columbia were not reported in the original source. “X” indicates an affirmative response by that state for the

age criterion was reported in the original source while a blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original

source.

SOURCE: Families and Work Institute, Prekindergarten Programs Funded by the States: Essential Elements for Policy for Policy Makers, 1998.

Age criteria
65

Teacher Training

In recent years, many states have changed the process through which teachers are trained and certified. Concerns

over the academic rigor of traditional teacher training programs, the strength of the certification process, the

match between training programs and teaching assignments, and professional development opportunities have led

many states to consider applying a similar model of reform to teacher training as they have to student achievement. This model is centered on standards, testing, and accountability (Dilworth and Imig 1995). Another model,

the nontraditional alternative certification model, addresses these concerns through streamlined preparation and

certification requirements in order to bring qualified professionals into classrooms quickly (U.S. Department of

Education 2002).6

 In addition, a relatively new federal law, passed by Congress in 1998, reauthorized Title II of

the Higher Education Act (P.L. 105-244). The reauthorization added new accountability measures, which require

states to report annually on specific indicators of the quality of their teacher preparation programs and certification and licensure requirements. The following sections outline the steps that teachers must take to fulfill state

requirements for obtaining and maintaining a teaching license.

Obtaining and Maintaining a Teaching License7

The basic process of becoming a licensed teacher is similar across states, although the details vary considerably.

Prospective teachers generally must complete various coursework requirements and earn at least a bachelor’s degree

from an accredited institution. To be granted a teaching certificate, an individual typically must also pass one or

more competency tests, which may cover basic skills, pedagogical skills, and subject matter knowledge, depending

on the state. Once licensed, the performance of new teachers may be assessed, and teachers are expected to complete a certain amount of professional development activities to maintain their teaching license. Finally, in many

states there are two or three levels of certification, with each successive level requiring additional experience,

education, and assessments.

This section describes state policies that define this process of earning and maintaining a teaching certificate. The

data presented in the tables are drawn from a variety of sources, including: the National Association of State

Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) Manual on the Preparation and Certification of

Educational Personnel (NASDTEC 2000), The Initial Report of the Secretary on the Quality of Teacher Preparation (U.S. Department of Education 1999), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education (CCSSO 1998, 2000a), and Education Week (Education Week 2000, 2001).

Obtaining a Teaching License

According to the CCSSO, “Standards for teachers define the knowledge and skills teachers should have to provide

quality instruction to students at given age or grade levels and specific content areas” (CCSSO 1998, p. 26). A

CCSSO survey conducted in 2000 found that a majority of states licensed or certified teachers based on state

standards, and that most of these states have either developed or revised their statewide teaching standards since

1990 (table 4.3). Of the few states without standards, most indicated that they were soon to be in effect or were

being developed.

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

6 For an extensive discussion about the divergent approaches to teacher certification reform, characterized here as “traditional” and

“nontraditional” models, see Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001).

7 Given the variations from state to state in the definitions of the terms “certificate” and “license,” these terms are used interchangeably in

this report.
66

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.3 Select characteristics of state teaching standards: 2000

Teacher standards/date Standards apply Based on 

State approved by state board to all fields Standards specific to fields1 INTASC standards2

Alabama Jan-97 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O Yes

Alaska 1994 Yes Yes

Arizona No standards in place † † †

Arkansas Developing

California Various dates by field Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O No

Colorado Jan-00 Yes O No

Connecticut Effective July-03 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O Yes

Delaware Jan-98 Yes Yes

Florida July-00 Yes

Georgia 1999 Yes Early childhood education., M Ed Yes

Hawaii 2000 Yes O Yes

Idaho Sep-00 Yes Yes

Illinois (1998) Developing Yes Core standards and teaching fields Yes

Indiana 1999; Effective 2002 Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed Yes

Iowa Fall 1998; Effective 2001 Early childhood Yes

Kansas Developing Yes Yes

Kentucky Revised May-99 Yes ISTE standard for technology Yes

Louisiana Standards in place Yes Apply to all fields; E/LA & M (under rev.) Yes

Maine Standards in place Yes Consistent

Maryland Nov-95 Yes Yes

Massachusetts October 2000 vote Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O No

Michigan 1999-2000 Yes E/LA, M, M Ed, O Yes

Minnesota Apr-99 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O Yes

Mississippi 1997 Yes No

Missouri Feb-97 Yes Yes

Montana Sep-00 Yes

Nebraska May-99 Yes Rule 24: specific fields No

Nevada No standards in place † † †

New Hampshire Revised every 3 years No E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O No

New Jersey 1985 Yes No

New Mexico Jul-00 alternative licensure Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O Yes

New York No standards in place † † †

North Carolina May-98 Yes All teaching fields Yes

North Dakota For teacher education Apply to teacher education Yes

Ohio Approved 1996; Implemented 1998 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, M Ed, O Yes

Oklahoma 1997 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O Yes

Oregon Jan-99 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O No

Pennsylvania 2000 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, O No

Rhode Island Oct-99 Yes Middle grades education No

South Carolina3 No standards in place † † †

South Dakota Sep-00 No E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed Yes

Tennessee For teacher education Yes Yes

Texas May-00 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, El Ed, M Ed (AR & FL rev) Yes

Utah Jul-00 Yes NCATE & INTASC Yes

Vermont Revised 1999 Yes Yes

Virginia Proposed standards by Fall ‘02 Yes SSt No

Washington (1998) 1997-1998 Yes Yes

West Virginia Jan-00 Yes E/LA, M, SSt, S, AR, FL, El Ed, M Ed, O No

Wisconsin Jan-00 Yes Yes

Wyoming 1988 Yes No

† Not applicable.

1E/LA = English/Language arts; FL = Foreign language; M = Mathematics; El Ed = Elementary education; SSt = Social studies; M Ed = Middle grades

education; S = Science; AR = Art; O = Other.

2INTASC: Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.

3Based on information obtained from the South Carolina Department of Education, South Carolina does not have state teacher standards as defined by

CCSSO; however, the state’s teacher induction and evaluation program for new teachers is based on INTASC standards.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that a relevant response for that state was not reported in

the original source.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.
67

In order to keep track of state standards for teachers, many states have professional standards boards that are

responsible for the development and oversight of these standards. Sixteen states have an autonomous standards

board that establishes and upholds state teacher standards and three states have semi-autonomous boards that

make decisions. Finally, 23 states have advisory boards that make suggestions but do not have the authority to

make decisions (not shown in tables; Christie 2000).

Most state teaching standards specify the type of coursework that a prospective teacher should complete while in

college. Coursework requirements generally vary by the level of students the prospective teacher expects to be

teaching. While most prospective teachers are expected to complete a core set of education classes, including classes

such as teaching methods, child development, and supervised teaching experience, those wishing to earn a certificate to teach secondary school students may also be required to take a certain number of hours in the subject they

plan on teaching, such as mathematics or English.

In recent years, “out-of-field” teaching—teaching assignments that do not match teacher training or education—

has been a concern. Licensing policies in most states address this issue by specifying the amount of coursework in

a particular subject that a prospective teacher must have in order to teach that subject in either middle or high

school. Table 4.4, based on a survey conducted by Education Week (2000), indicates that in 1999, nearly all states

set minimum subject-area coursework requirements for high school teachers and about half have established such

requirements for middle school teachers.

In addition to various coursework requirements, most states also require prospective teachers to complete one or

more assessments before a teaching license or certificate is issued. Written assessments may cover basic skills,

professional knowledge of teaching, subject area or content knowledge pedagogy, and include other specialized

examinations (U.S. Department of Education 1999). Most states use teacher certification tests developed by the

Educational Testing Service (ETS), which produces a series of tests known as Praxis, or by the National Evaluation

Systems (NES), which develops customized tests for participating states. The number of states requiring specific

written assessments as part of the initial teacher certification or licensure process increased in the 1990s (table 4.5).

For example, the number of states, including the District of Columbia, requiring a basic skills exam grew from 26

in 1990 to 41 in 1999. During this same period, the number of states requiring a subject matter test increased from

24 to 31, and the number of states requiring a knowledge of teaching exam increased from 24 to 26.

During the 1990s, a number of states established routes to teacher certification that did not include all the requirements described above. These alternative routes to certification are intended to move, in part, highly-qualified

teacher candidates through the preparation and licensure process quicker than the traditional process, and their

development reflects skepticism by some about traditional methods of teacher certification (U.S. Department of

Education 2002). Like traditional licensure programs and requirements, alternative routes vary by state, but

generally these alternatives shorten or eliminate certain requirements, such as coursework in education philosophy,

pedagogy, or practice teaching, while requiring successful completion of the same licensure exams as their traditional counterparts (U.S. Department of Education 2002). By 2001, 44 states and the District of Columbia

offered alternative routes to teacher certification, and between 1996 and 2001, 20 states created new alternative

routes by either expanding existing programs or passing new legislation (not shown in tables; U.S. Department of

Education 2002).

Distinct from alternative routes to teacher certification, prospective teachers in many states can gain a waiver for

some requirements under special circumstances and often for a limited time only. One common reason a state may

grant a waiver is to fill teaching needs in a particular geographic area or subject area experiencing a critical

teaching shortage. In some states, waivers have been granted to ease the strain caused by other state policy changes.

Education Week (2000) reported that California’s class-size reduction initiative caused an immediate need for

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources
68

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.4 Subject-area coursework requirements for middle and high school teachers, by state: 1999

Coursework amount Coursework amount

State Degree1 (in semester hours) Other2 Degree1 (in semester hours) Other2

Alabama Program Program

Alaska Program

Arizona 

Arkansas 183 21

California Major3 Major3 30–454

Colorado Major Major

Connecticut Major3 24 Major 30–39

Delaware 24 math, 39 science Program in math Major 36 Program

Florida Major 18 Major 30

Georgia Major 55–75 (quarter hours) Program

Hawaii Major 30–36

Idaho Major and minor 45

Illinois 18 32

Indiana Minor Minor

Iowa 30

Kansas Program

Kentucky Program Program

Louisiana 20–33

Maine Major 36

Maryland 36

Massachusetts Major3 Major3 24

Michigan Major3 and minor Major and minor

Minnesota Major3 and minor Major and minor3

Mississippi Major

Missouri 21 30–40

Montana Minor

Nebraska 18 Minor 30–60

Nevada Minor

New Hampshire Program

New Jersey Major Major

New Mexico 243 24

New York 36 36

North Carolina Program Program

North Dakota Minor

Ohio 30 Major

Oklahoma 12 Major

Oregon

Pennsylvania Program

Rhode Island 30 30–36

South Carolina 21 Major 30–36

South Dakota 12 Major 18–24

Tennessee Major3 Major

Texas 183 Program 243 Program

Utah Minor Major and minor

Vermont Major3 and minor Major

Virginia Major3 21 Major 32–51 Program

Washington 16

West Virginia Program Program

Wisconsin Major

Wyoming Minor

1“Major” indicates either requiring a declared undergraduate major for certification or requiring at least 30 semester hours in one subject for certification.

“Major and minor” indicates that the state requires teachers to earn both a major and a minor, resulting in certification in two academic subjects.

2“Program” indicates subject-area coursework requirements set by teacher-preparation programs rather than by the state.

3State requires subject-area degree or coursework but certification need not be in that subject area.

4Coursework is waived if candidate passes subject-area tests.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported

in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2000, 2000.

Subject-area requirements

Minimum options for middle school Minimum options for high school
69

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.5 Testing requirements for initial certification of teachers, by year and type of test, by state: 1990 and

1999

Knowledge Assessment General Knowledge Assessment

Basic skills Subject of teaching of teaching Basic skills Subject knowledge of teaching of teaching

State exam matter exam exam performance exam matter exam exam exam performance

Total 26 24 24 18 41 31 14 26 14

Alabama (1) (2) (2) x

Alaska x

Arizona x x x x x x

Arkansas x x x x x

California x x (3) x

Colorado x x x x x x

Connecticut x x x x x

Delaware x x

District of Columbia x x x x x

Florida xxxxxx xx

Georgia x x x x

Hawaii x x x x x x x

Idaho x x

Illinois x x x x

Indiana x x x x x x x

Iowa xxxx

Kansas x x x x

Kentucky4 x (1) x

Louisiana x x x x x x x x

Maine xxxx xx

Maryland x x x x x x x

Massachusetts5

Michigan x x (6)

Minnesota x x

Mississippi xxxxxx x

Missouri x (1) x

Montana x x x

Nebraska x x

Nevada x x x x x x

New Hampshire x x x

New Jersey x x (7) x

New Mexico x x x x x x

New York x x x x

North Carolina x (1) x x

North Dakota (1) x x

Ohio8 xx xx x

Oklahoma x x x x x x

Oregon x x x x x x x (9)

Pennsylvania x x x x x x x

Rhode Island x x x x x x

South Carolina xxxx xx

South Dakota xx x

Tennessee x x x x

Texas10 xx x x

Utah

Vermont

Virginia xxxxxx

See footnotes at end of table.

Assessment for certification, 1990 Assessment for certification, 1999
70

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

more teachers, requiring California to issue emergency permits and waivers for passing the basic-skills assessment

and some of the other requirements for earning a license. Nearly every state had similar policies in 1999 permitting

waivers of requirements such as basic-skills tests, subject-area tests, and subject-area courses for the purpose of

granting emergency licensure under special circumstances (table 4.6).

Once teachers are certified and in the classroom, many states require either the school principal or a committee to

assess the performance of new teachers. In a small number of states, classroom performance assessments of new

teachers are administered by the state. Education Week (2000) reported that in 1999, 26 states required the

principal (or some other individual) to assess the performance of new teachers through observation (table 4.7).

One state, Texas, required observation and a review of student achievement, and in four states the principal along

with a committee must evaluate the performance of new teachers.

Maintaining a License

A state typically issues an initial teaching license for a limited period of time, ranging from 1 to 8 years, with 5

years being the most common duration (U.S. Department of Education 1999). Depending on the state, teachers

holding an initial license may need to complete additional requirements in order to maintain their license, or to

advance to a second stage of licensure. These requirements could include coursework, 1 or 2 years of teaching

experience, additional assessments, and/or participation in professional development activities (see NASDTEC

2000, table D-1 for a detailed list of requirements for each state).

A growing number of states are moving from a two-stage licensing system toward a three-stage system (U.S.

Department of Education 1999). The initial stage, which some states do not utilize, is a provisional status granted

to beginning teachers for a limited period. It recognizes that the teacher has met initial licensing requirements. The

Table 4.5 Testing requirements for initial certification of teachers, by year and type of test, by state: 1990 and

1999—Continued

Knowledge Assessment General Knowledge Assessment

Basic skills Subject of teaching of teaching Basic skills Subject knowledge of teaching of teaching

State exam matter exam exam performance exam matter exam exam exam performance

Washington x (1)

West Virginia11 xx xxx xx

Wisconsin x x

Wyoming

1For admission to teacher education program.

2Institution’s exit exam.

3Subject matter exam or completion of an approved subject matter program.

4Fingerprint check is required for employment.

5In 1990, test required for foreign language, bilingual, and English as a Second Language. In 1999, two-part exam covers communication and literacy

skills and the subject matter knowledge for the certificate.

6Elementary certificate exam (subject-area exam).

7For elementary education.

8Test requirements in 1990 set by school districts.

9For Oregon graduates.

10Screening for admission to a teacher preparation program includes college level skills in reading, oral and written communication, critical thinking, and

mathematics.

11Required for individuals entering West Virginia-approved education programs as of fall 1985.

NOTE: “X” indicates that an affirmative response for that state was reported in the original source while a blank cell indicates that an affirmative response

for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, “State Education Indicators, 1990,” and National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education

and Certification, “The NASDTEC Manual 2000: Manual on Certification & Preparation of Educational Personnel in the United States & Canada” in U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2001, 2002, table 156.

Assessment for certification, 1990 Assessment for certification, 1999
71

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.6 State policies for waiving selected teacher certification requirements: 1999

Number of Percent with

Basic- Subject- Subject- teachers with certification Maximum

State and Name skills test area tests area courses this certification (of all teachers) time limit

Alabama

Emergency Certificate Yes † Yes 732 2.8 1 year

Alternative Baccalaureate-Level Yes † Yes Unknown <1 None

Preliminary Certificate Yes † Yes Unknown <1 None

Alaska

Emergency Certificate Yes † Yes 5 Unknown 1 year

Arizona

Emergency Teaching Certificate Yes Yes † Unknown Unknown None

Deficiency Yes † Unknown Unknown 1 year

Arkansas

Provisional Certificate Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 1 or 3 years

California

District Waiver Yes Yes Yes 6,599 Unknown None

Emergency Teaching Permit Yes Yes 30,519 11.0 5 years

Colorado

Type III Emergency Authorization Yes Yes Yes 809 2.1 None

Type V Substitute Authorization Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Connecticut

Substitute Teacher Authorization Yes Yes Yes 7 0.0 1 year

Durational Shortage Area Permit Yes Yes 100 0.2 3 years

Temporary Authorization for Minor Assignment Yes 49 0.1 2 years

Delaware

Limited Standard License—Test (LS-T) Yes † 349 4.5 2 years

License—Shortage (LS-S) Yes † Unknown Unknown 3 years

Temporary License—Non-Renewable (Substandard) Yes † Yes 94 1.2 1 year

Limited Standard License—Coursework (LS-C) † Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Partial Teaching Assignment † Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

Florida

Chapter 6A- 1.0503 † † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Georgia

Permit Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

Emergency Certificate Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

Probationary License Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Hawaii

Credential (with teacher training) Yes 275 2.5 3 years

Credential (without teacher training) Yes 239 2.3 3 years

Credential (with teacher training) Yes 404 3.3 3 years

Credential (without teacher training) Yes 287 2.3 3 years

Credential Yes 309 2.5 3 years

Idaho

Letter of Authorization (LOA) Certificate Approval † † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Misassignment † † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Illinois

Temporary Employment Authorization Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 4 years

Indiana

Limited License Yes Yes Yes 1,100 2.0 None or 1 year

Iowa

Conditional License † † Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

See footnotes at end of table.

Requirements that may be waived
72

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.6 State policies for waiving selected teacher certification requirements: 1999—Continued

Number of Percent with

Basic- Subject- Subject- teachers with certification Maximum

State and Name skills test area tests area courses this certification (of all teachers) time limit

Kansas

Nonrenewable Certificate Yes 168 0.5 1 year

Emergency Substitute Teacher Certificate Yes † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Waiver from SBR 91-31-19(b)(1) † Yes 250 0.7 None

Kentucky

Adjunct Instructor Certificate Yes 398 1.0 None

Emergency Yes Yes Yes 36 0.1 None

Probationary Certificate Yes Yes 505 1.3 None

Louisiana

Interim Emergency Policy Yes Yes Yes 2,398 4.0 5 years

Temporary Teaching Assignment Authorization Yes Yes 2,462 5.0 None

Maine

Conditional Certificate Yes † Unknown 0.7 None

Transitional Endorsement † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Maryland

Provisional Certificate Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 2 or 4 years

Massachusetts

Waiver Yes Yes Yes 378 Unknown None

Michigan

Full-Year Special Permit Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Emergency Permit Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Varies

Minnesota

Limited License Yes † Unknown Unknown None

Provisional License † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Letter of Approval † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Mississippi

Special Emergency Educator License Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Non-Licensed Teaching Personnel Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Missouri

Special Assignment Certificate Yes Yes Yes Unknown 0.1 3 years

Provisional Certificate Yes Yes Unknown 9.0 2 years

Montana

Class 5 Provisional Certificate Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Emergency Authorization of Employment Yes † Yes Unknown 0.1 None

Nebraska

One Year Temporary Certificate Affidavit Yes † 252 1.3 1 year

Provisional Commitment Teaching Certificate Yes (Included in above) (Included in above) 3 years

Nevada

Limited Endorsement for Elementary Teaching Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Emergency Substitute Teacher Endorsement Yes Yes Yes 10 Unknown None

Three-Year Nonrenewable License Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Substitute Teacher Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Exception Yes Unknown Unknown 2 years

New Hampshire

Individualized Professional Development Plan Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

Exception Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

New Jersey

NONE † ††

See footnotes at end of table.

Requirements that may be waived
73

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.6 State policies for waiving selected teacher certification requirements: 1999—Continued

Number of Percent with

Basic- Subject- Subject- teachers with certification Maximum

State and Name skills test area tests area courses this certification (of all teachers) time limit

New Mexico

Emergency License Yes † Yes 1,994 6.0 1 year

Waiver Yes † Yes (Included in above) (Included in above) None

New York

Temporary License Yes † 10,200 5.1 4 years

Incidental Teaching † Yes 2,423 1.3 None

North Carolina

Temporary Permit Yes Yes Yes Unknown 13.0 5 years

Provisional License for Out-of-Field Assignments Yes Yes Unknown 6.5 5 years

Lateral Entry License Yes Yes Unknown 4.0 5 years

Emergency Credential Yes Unknown Unknown 1 year

North Dakota

Interim Certificate † † Yes 7 0.1 None

Ohio

Long Term Substitute License † Yes Yes Unknown Unknown None

Temporary License † Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 5 years

Oklahoma

Emergency Certificate Yes Yes 340 Unknown 90 days

Oregon

Transitional Certificate Yes Yes † 1,860 7.1 3 years

Pennsylvania

Emergency Certificate Yes Yes Yes 300 1 2 years

Rhode Island

Special Provisional Certificate Yes † 50 0.5 None

Emergency Certificate † Yes 150 1.4 None

South Carolina

Out-of-Field Permit Yes Yes 766 1.8 3 years

South Dakota

Authority to Act † † Yes 446 21.0 None

Long-Term Substitutes † † Yes 54 5.0 None

Tennessee

Interim Probationary ‘A’ Teacher License Yes Yes Unknown 0.1 3 years

Interim Probationary ‘B’ Teacher License Yes Yes Unknown 0.1 3 years

Permit Yes Yes Yes 900 0.1 3 years

Waiver Yes 500 0.1 None

Texas

Non-Renewable Permit (NRP) † Yes 1,857 1.0 1 year

School District Teaching Permit † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Waiver of Certification Law † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Temporary Classroom Assignment Permit (TCAP) † Yes Yes Unknown 33.0 1 1/2 years

Temporary Exemption Permit † Yes 65 0.0 1 year

Hardship Approval † Yes Unknown Unknown 3 1/2 years

Emergency Permit † Yes 12,800 5.0 3 1/2 years

Utah

Letter of Authorization (Temporary Provisional License) † † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Vermont

Waiver † † Yes Unknown 1.7 None

Virginia

Provisional License Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown 3 years

See footnotes at end of table.

Requirements that may be waived
74

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Requirements that may be waived

Table 4.6 State policies for waiving selected teacher certification requirements: 1999—Continued

Number of Percent with

Basic- Subject- Subject- teachers with certification Maximum

State and Name skills test area tests area courses this certification (of all teachers) time limit

Washington

Conditional Certificate † † Yes 231 Unknown None

Emergency Substitute Teacher † † Yes 424 Unknown 1 year

West Virginia

Permit Yes Yes Yes 744 3.2 1 year

Out-of-Field Authorization Yes Yes 245 1.0 None

Wisconsin

 [Colleges may waive requirement.] Yes † Unknown Unknown None

Emergency License † Yes Unknown Unknown None

Wyoming

Temporary Permit † † Yes 7 0.0 None

† Not applicable. State does not have a requirement.

NOTE: Numbers and percentages are teachers out of total workforce. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell

indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2000, 2000.
75

Table 4.7 Local evaluation of new teachers for states that use local evaluation, by type, by state: 1999

Principal (or other individual) Principal observation, plus Principal, plus other team Number of

State observes novice teacher student achievement members evaluate novice teacher other team members

Total 26 1 4

Alabama x

Alaska x

Arizona 

Arkansas

California x

Colorado

Connecticut x

Delaware x

Florida x

Georgia x

Hawaii x

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana x

Iowa x

Kansas x

Kentucky x 3

Louisiana x 2

Maine

Maryland x

Massachusetts x

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri x

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey x

New Mexico x

New York

North Carolina x

North Dakota x

Ohio x

Oklahoma x 3

Oregon x

Pennsylvania x

Rhode Island

South Carolina x 3

South Dakota

Tennessee x

Texas x

Utah x

Vermont x

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia x

Wisconsin x

Wyoming

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. “X” indicates an affirmative response for that state was reported in the original

source while a blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2000, 2000.

Local evaluation

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources
76

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

second stage, sometimes called a “standard” license, indicates that the state recognizes the teacher as fully qualified and competent. The states that have a third, or advanced stage, require or allow teachers to earn a higher

credential based on experience and performance. One form of this third stage is certification by the National

Board for Professional Teaching Standards (see U.S. Department of Education 1999). Table 4.8 indicates that 14

states had three stages of certification or licensure in 1998 excluding emergency or temporary certification.

Professional development activities, defined as “any coursework, experience, training or renewal activity required

by a state to keep a certificate in force” (U.S. Department of Education 1999, p. 3), have become a common

requirement set by states for maintaining a license. In line with the reforms affecting preparation and initial

certification of teachers, professional development activities have been the focus of legislation. Requirements vary

from state to state and may include seminars or workshops on new teaching methods, use of technology in the

classroom, further study in a particular subject, or addressing the needs of students with disabilities or from diverse

cultural backgrounds (Lewis et al. 1999). In 2000, such activities were required by 44 states and the District of

Columbia, up from 39 states and the District of Columbia in 1994 (table 4.9).

Instructional Resources

State content and performance standards represent challenging expectations for the academic achievement of

students. Such expectations imply that the instructional resources necessary for this attainment will be available to

teachers and students. Measuring the results of school efforts to provide instructional resources—materials and

equipment used by both teachers and students for instructional purposes—is complicated. There are several jurisdictional layers of decision making for acquiring resources, and there are varied policies and practices within the

jurisdictions (Bauman 1996).

Local school districts typically follow their own policies and procedures for the selection of instructional materials

and equipment. These range from highly centralized, where school resources are largely determined at the district

level, to decentralized processes, where the schools themselves make the choices; in some cases, centralized and

decentralized processes may be combined. Further, the availability of instructional resources is often enhanced by

contributions of funds or of actual materials and equipment by local parent groups, classroom teachers, and

corporations and associations. Even more difficult than measuring availability of instructional resources in schools

is the measurement of the quality of available resources and their actual use in learning activities. With these

caveats, this discussion focuses on the selection of textbooks and the availability and use of selected resources as

reported by teachers and students.

Textbook Selection

Textbooks are basic resources that are used by teachers for instruction and for enhanced learning on the part of the

student. According to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO 2000a), states vary widely in their

policies for selecting textbooks. In some states, state policy mandates that the state must select the textbooks or

curriculum to be used. In others, the state is required to recommend textbooks or materials. Still other states leave

textbook selection up to local school boards, and others have no policy at all. In 2000, CCSSO found that 21

states reported having a state policy on textbook selection (table 4.10). Typically, these policies govern textbook

selection for grades K–12. Twenty states use content standards to guide their textbook selection and recommendation processes.
77

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.8 Summary of types of teacher certification and licensure, by state: 1998

State and initial certificate or license Standard certificate or license Advanced certificate or license Emergency/temporary certification

Alabama

Alternative Baccalaureate-level Certificate Class B Certificate Class A Certificate Emergency Certificate

Special Alternative Certificate

Alaska

Provisional Certificate Type A Teacher Certificate Temporary Certificate

Arizona

Provisional Teacher Certificate Standard Certificate Temporary Certificate

Emergency Teaching Certificate

Arkansas

Provisional License Standard License National Board of Professional

Teaching Standards Certification

California

Preliminary Credential Preliminary Clear Credential University Internship Credential

District Internship

Pre-Internship Certificate

Emergency Permit

Colorado

Provisional Teacher License Professional License Temporary Authorization (Type VI)

Emergency Authorization (Type III)

Connecticut

Initial Educator Certificate Provisional Educator Certificate Professional Educator Certificate Interim Educator Certificate

Delaware

Initial Standard License Standard License Professional Status Certificate Limited Standard License

Temporary License

District of Columbia

Florida

Temporary Certificate Professional Certificate Out-of-Field Assignment

Georgia

Professional Conditional Certificate Clear Renewable Certificate Emergency Certificate

Provisional/Conditional Certificate Probationary Certificate

Hawaii

Teacher License Permanent Certification Teacher Credential: Code W, Code 5

Idaho

Basic Education Teaching Letter of Authorization Approval

 Certificate Consultant Specialist Letter of Approval

Missassignment Letter of Approval

Alternate Route Program Letter of

 Permission

Transitional Letter of Permission

Illinois

Standard Certificate Provisional Certificate

Substitute Certificate Temp. Provisional Vocational Certificate

General Certificate Certificate

Transitional Bilingual Certificate Part-Time Provisional Certificate

Indiana

Standard License Limited License

Iowa

Provisional License Educational License Professional Teacher License One-Year Conditional License

Substitute License 

Exchange License

Kansas

Initial Kansas Certificate Three-Year Standard Certificate Five-Year Standard Certificate One-Year Nonrenewable Certificate

Substitute Certificate 

Kentucky

Provisional Certificate Standard Certificate Professional Certificate Full Emergency Certificate

See footnotes at end of table.
78

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.8 Summary of types of teacher certification and licensure, by state: 1998—Continued

State and initial certificate or license Standard certificate or license Advanced certificate or license Emergency/temporary certification

Louisiana

Temporary Certificate Type C Certificate

Provisional Certificate

Emergency Permit

Temporary Employment Permit

Maine

Provisional Certificate Teaching Certificate Temporary Waiver

Maryland

Provisional Certificate Standard Professional Advanced Professional Certificate Resident Teacher Certificate (1 year)

 Certificate I & II

Extended SPC

Massachusetts

Provisional Certificate Standard Certificate Temporary Waiver

Provisional Certificate with Advanced

 Standing

Michigan

Provisional Certificate Professional Education Certificate Emergency Permit

Full-Year Permit

Minnesota

Initial License (1 year) Five Year License Limited License (1 year)

Entrance License (2 years) Variance; Waiver

Mississippi

Standard Educator License Standard Educator License Special Emergency Educator License

 (Class A) (Class AA, AAA, AAAA)

Missouri

Provisional Certificate Professional Certificate I & II Continuous Professional Certificate Special Assignment Certification

Montana

Provisional Certificate (Class 5) Standard Certificate (Class 2) Professional Certificate (Class 1) Emergency Authorization of

 Employment

Nebraska

Initial Teaching Certificate Standard Teaching Certificate Professional Teaching Certificate Temporary Teaching Certificate

Provisional Teaching Certificate Conditional Permit

Nevada

Limited Elementary Endorsement Elementary License Professional Elementary License Emergency Relief from Regulations

Secondary License Professional Secondary License

New Hampshire

Beginning Educator Certificate Experienced Educator Certificate Interim License

 (1 year, renewable twice)

New Jersey

Provisional License Standard License Emergency License (1 year)

New Mexico

Level I License Level II License Level III License Emergency License

 (1 year, renewable)

New York

Provisional Certificate Permanent Certificate Temporary License

 (1 year, renewable 5 times)

North Carolina

Initial License Continuing License Temporary License (1 year)

North Dakota

Two-Year Entrance Certificate Professional Certificate Interim Certificate

Ohio

Provisional License Professional License Temporary Certificate

Oklahoma

Licensed Beginning Educator Standard Certificate Emergency Certificate

Provisional Certificate

See footnotes at end of table.
79

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.8 Summary of types of teacher certification and licensure, by state: 1998—Continued

State and initial certificate or license Standard certificate or license Advanced certificate or license Emergency/temporary certification

Oregon

Initial Basic Teaching License Standard Teaching License Limited Teaching License

Transitional Teaching License

Pennsylvania

Instructional Level I Certificate Instructional Level II Certificate Emergency Certificate

Act 97 Waiver Certificate

Rhode Island

Provisional Teacher Certificate Professional Teacher Certificate Emergency Certificate (1 year)

South Carolina

Statement of Eligibility Professional Certificate Temporary Certificate (1 year)

(Critical Needs Program)

South Dakota

Two-Year Nonrenewable Certificate Five-Year Certificate Authority to Act

One-Year Certificate

Tennessee

Apprentice Teacher License Professional License Interim Type A Teacher License

 (2 years, renewable twice)

Interim Type B Teacher License

 (1 year, 1 renewal)

Texas

Provisional Teacher Certificate Professional Teacher Certificate Temporary Teacher Certificate

Emergency Certificate

Utah

Basic Certificate Standard Certificate Provisional Certificate (2 years)

Letter of Authorization (1 year)

Vermont

Level I License Level II License

Virginia

Provisional License Professional License

Washington

Initial Teaching Certificate Continuing Certificate Emergency Certificate

Conditional Certificate

West Virginia

Provisional Teaching License Professional Teaching License Permanent Professional Certificate Out-of-Field Authorization (1 year)

NBPTS Certification Temporary Certificate Permit (1 year)

Wisconsin

 Minor Deficiencies License Regular License One-Year License

Special License Permit

Wyoming

Standard Teaching Certificate Temporary Employment Permit

 (1 year, non renewable)

Transitional Endorsement

 (1 year, renewable twice)

NOTE: A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Initial Report of the Secretary on the Quality of Teacher

Preparation, 1999.
80

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.9 State requirements and purposes for professional development: 2000

State issues a Professional development

permanent requirements to renew the Validity Continued

State 1994 1997 2000 or life certificate second-stage certificate of credit employment Both

Total2 40 42 44 5 32 42 33 29

Alabama Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Alaska Yes Yes Yes (3) Yes Yes Yes

Arizona Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes No (4) Yes Yes Yes

California Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Colorado Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes No (5) Yes Yes Yes

Delaware No No No Yes(6) (7)

District of Columbia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Florida Yes Yes Yes No (8) Yes Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hawaii No No No No

Idaho Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Illinois No No Yes (9) Yes Yes Yes

Indiana Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes No (10) Yes No No

Kansas Yes Yes Yes No (11) Yes Yes Yes

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes (12) No

Maine Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Maryland No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Massachusetts No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Michigan Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Mississippi Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Missouri Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Montana Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nebraska No No No No No No Yes No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Hampshire Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey No No Yes Yes No

New Mexico No No No No No

New York No No No Yes No

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ohio Yes Yes Yes (13) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Oregon No No (14) No (14) No Yes No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes No (15) Yes Yes Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes No (16) Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

Texas No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Utah Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vermont Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Virginia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

See footnotes at end of table.

Purpose of the professional development

State has professional requirement:

development1
81

Table 4.9 State requirements and purposes for professional development: 2000—Continued

State issues a Professional development

permanent requirements to renew the Validity Continued

State 1994 1997 2000 or life certificate second-stage certificate of credit employment Both

Washington Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes (17) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes No (18) Yes Yes Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

1Professional development is defined as “any course work, experience, training or renewal activity required by a state to keep a certificate in force.” See

source for additional details.

2Totals include only those states for which an affirmative “yes” response was reported in the original source.

3Retired teacher certificate issued for life. Can be used for certified substitute teaching only.

4Issues only a single-stage certificate.

5Three stages of certification. Professional development required to continue third-stage certification.

6After July 1, 1991, there will be no renewal for anyone outside the Delaware Public School System. Teachers within and entering the public school

system will need 6 semester hours of refresher college credits if they did not teach 3 years out of the 5 years in the area to be renewed.

7Seventy-five clock hours are required for nurses; other professionals who are state licensed must show such licensure at time of renewal.

8The professional certificate is the initial regular, renewable certificate. The statement of eligibility and the temporary certificate allow individuals to be

employed and complete requirements for the professional certificate.

9Recent legislation, which creates a multi-tier certificate structure, also requires continual professional development for certificate renewal. Rules for

continual professional development are currently being written.

10Renewal units or professional development units must be related to an endorsement area, held as part of a planned degree program, or part of a

program to add an additional endorsement.

11The holder of a certificate and a bachelor’s degree must complete 8 semester hours of credit, or 4 semester hours of credit and 80 Kansas in-service

points each 5 years. The holder of the certificate and a master’s degree must complete 120 Kansas in-service credits or 6 semester hours each 5 years.

12The second-stage certificate remains valid provided the holder teaches one semester every 5 years.

13The permanent is a third-stage certificate earned only after many years of teaching and a master’s degree. This certificate will no longer be issued after

2003.

14Requirement was to become effective 2002.

15The second-stage professional certificate is renewable on the basis of 6 semester units, or 120 hours’ staff development, or 90 hours’ in-service.

16Renewal of an initial certificate requires 6 semester hours in the applicant’s field of study or work toward another endorsement and/or degree.

17The third-stage certificate (permanent certificate) is valid for life. It is issued on basis of a master’s degree and 5 years experience or second renewal of

the professional certificate.

18Single-stage certificate only, renewable with 6 semester hours, or their equivalent, every 5 years. Thirty pre-approved clock hours is the equivalent of 1

credit.

NOTE: A blank cell indicates that a relevant response for that state was not reported in the original source. Texas data were revised.

SOURCE: Adapted from National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education & Certification (NASDTEC), The NASDTEC Manual on the

Preparation and Certification of Education Personnel, 2000.

Purpose of the professional development

State has professional requirement:

development1

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources
82

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.10 State textbook selection policies: 2000

State State policy1 Use state content standards Subject areas2 Grades

Alabama3 Select/Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Alaska Local Board

Arizona

Arkansas Yes Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, HE, PE, Fine Arts

California4 Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE K–8

Colorado No

Connecticut No

Delaware No

Florida Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE, Voc. areas K–12 (all)

Georgia

Hawaii5 Other

Idaho Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Illinois (1998)6 Select

Indiana Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE 1–2, 7–12 (FL)

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky Yes Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE/PE, Voc. Ed. Pre-K–12

Louisiana Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt Varies by subject

Maine No

Maryland No

Massachusetts No

Michigan No

Minnesota No

Mississippi Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Missouri No

Montana No

Nebraska No

Nevada State review Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE K–12

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Local decision

New Mexico Select/Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

New York

North Carolina Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE K–12

North Dakota No

Ohio No

Oklahoma7 Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12, 1–12

Oregon8 Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE Varies by subject

Pennsylvania No

Rhode Island No

South Carolina Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

South Dakota No

Tennessee9 Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Texas Select Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Utah Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12, 7–12

Vermont No

Virginia Recommend Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, FL K–12

See footnotes at end of table.
83

Table 4.10 State textbook selection policies: 2000—Continued

State State policy1 Use state content standards Subject areas2 Grades

Washington (1998) No

West Virginia Recommended Yes E/LA, M, S, SSt, AR, FL, HE, PE K–12

Wisconsin No

Wyoming No

1State officials were asked whether their state has a policy by which the state selects textbooks or curriculum materials, or recommends textbooks or

curriculum materials. Select = State SELECTS texts/materials; Recommend = State RECOMMENDS texts/materials.

2E/LA = English/Language arts; AR = Arts; FL = Foreign language; M = Mathematics; S = Science; HE = Health education; SSt = Social studies/History;

PE = Physical education; Voc. Ed. = Vocational education.

3Alabama: Multiple choices for local selection.

4California: “Select list” means evaluation criteria based on the content standards/frameworks are used to “select” what materials will be adopted by the

State Board of Education and recommended to school districts.

5Hawaii: School selections must meet learning needs of students.

6Illinois: Secular Textbook Loan Program: If a school district receives program funds it must purchase materials from a list compiled by the State Board of

Education.

7Oklahoma: State Textbook List, from which 80% of allocated textbook funds must be spent.

8Oregon: Social studies/ History = Economics, Civics, Geography.

9Tennessee: State adopts an approved list, then local board may choose from approved list in order to get state funds.

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative response for that state was not reported

in the original source.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources
84

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Teacher Perceptions of the Availability of Resources

State-level information on the availability of resources for teaching can be found in various data sets from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The 1998 reading assessment asked teachers about the

availability of instructional materials and other resources they needed to teach. The percentage of fourth- and

eighth-grade students whose reading teachers indicated that they had all of the resources they needed ranged across

participating states from 4 to 31 percent for both fourth and eighth grades (Donahue et al. 1999) (table 4.11).

Class Size

A number of studies have examined the relationship between class size and student achievement. The issue frequently enters education policy debates in part because some of these studies have shown that smaller classes may

lead to higher student achievement (see, e.g., Mayer, Mullens, and Moore 2000; Finn and Achilles 1999; Mosteller

1995).

Some studies, on the other hand, have shown that smaller classes may not lead to higher student achievement and

that practical problems may hamper class size reduction efforts (see, e.g., Hanushek 1999, Pong and Pallas 2001).

As mentioned above, for example, California’s immediate need for more teachers following a class-size reduction

initiative, which required California to issue emergency permits and waivers for passing the basic-skills assessment

and some of the other requirements for earning a teaching license, highlights some complications arising from class

size reduction initiatives. In addition to the potential for reduced teacher quality, other significant implementation considerations like limited classroom facilities and high cost, and its attendant opportunity cost (e.g., diverting funds from other expenditures like purchasing computers, increasing after-school programs, or increasing

electives), have led some researchers to question whether the benefits are worth the cost (Brewer et al. 1999).

Despite these possible complications, the increased attention to this issue has led to efforts to limit class sizes

(Brewer et al. 1999). Federal legislation like the Class-Size Reduction Program (P.L. 106-113) exemplified this

movement at the national level. In the states, the Education Commission of the States (ECS 1999) reported on

initiatives that states had taken to limit the student/teacher ratio to 20 or fewer students per teacher. According to

the ECS, 20 states had some sort of plan in place to limit class size. These initiatives varied from state legislation,

to establishing centers to study the effects of class size, to voluntary grants intended to encourage the reduction of

class size. There is also variation in the targeted grade level, with most states targeting grades K-3, though not all

states specify a target grade level. Results from the 1998 NAEP reading assessment indicated that in 22 out of 40

participating states, at least 25 percent of fourth-grade students were in reading classes that had 1 to 20 students

(Donahue et al. 1999) (table 4.12).

Academic Emphasis

One of the key components of school climate, the social atmosphere of a setting or learning environment in which

students have different experiences depending upon the protocols set up by the teachers and administrators (Moos

1979), is academic emphasis, a term used to define the extent to which a school demonstrates a commitment to

student learning and student achievement. Although states may adopt policies intended to affect the academic

emphasis at all grade levels, particular emphasis has been placed on the coursework of secondary students. Several

indicators can be used to measure academic emphasis, including coursetaking requirements in high school, and

numbers of students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) courses (Thompson 1994).
85

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.11 Percentage distribution of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students whose reading teachers

indicated various levels of instructional resource availability, by state: 1998

State All Most Some None All Most Some None 

Alabama 13 55 32 # 13 52 35 #

Arizona 12 57 30 # 13 49 38 1

Arkansas 21 49 30 # 17 53 29 #

California 13 53 32 2 13 49 37 1

Colorado 14 63 23 1 10 61 28 1

Connecticut 15 61 24 # 12 51 36 1

Delaware 7 57 35 1 13 48 36 2

District of Columbia 6 31 59 4 4 41 45 10

Florida 14 53 32 1 13 57 30 #

Georgia 21 56 23 # 21 52 27 #

Hawaii 7 56 37 1 4 41 54 1

Iowa 15 63 22 # — — — —

Kansas 24 55 20 1 25 49 26 #

Kentucky 15 66 19 # 30 55 15 #

Louisiana 18 52 30 # 11 55 33 #

Maine 10 54 37 # 11 55 34 #

Maryland 12 59 28 # 12 48 38 2

Massachusetts 16 54 29 1 7 57 32 4

Michigan 10 48 41 1 — — — —

Minnesota 8 57 35 # 16 55 29 1

Mississippi 23 56 21 # 26 50 23 1

Missouri 12 62 26 # 19 55 26 1

Montana 15 63 22 # 15 51 34 #

Nevada 14 54 31 # 31 43 25 1

New Hampshire 9 58 33 # — — — —

New Mexico 8 48 42 2 8 42 48 2

New York 16 48 35 # 23 45 29 3

North Carolina 10 61 30 # 15 51 33 1

Oklahoma 11 59 29 1 21 53 25 1

Oregon 8 54 38 # 9 49 40 2

Rhode Island 4 44 50 2 6 45 47 2

South Carolina 25 58 16 # 20 56 24 #

Tennessee 12 52 36 # 17 44 38 #

Texas 31 55 14 # 23 58 18 1

Utah 7 62 31 1 11 58 31 #

Virginia 13 61 26 # 20 52 28 #

Washington 11 53 36 # 8 52 39 1

West Virginia 20 54 26 # 16 49 34 #

Wisconsin 17 60 23 # 15 48 37 1

Wyoming 13 59 27 1 15 53 31 #

# Rounds to zero.

— Not available. State’s data for that grade level was not reported in the original source.

NOTE: Due to rounding, rows for each state by grade many not sum to 100. States not listed were not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), NAEP Data Tool,

Summary Data Tables, Retrieved June 25, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

Availability of instructional materials and other resources the teacher needs to teach

Grade 4 Grade 8
86

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Average reading class size

Table 4.12 Percentage distribution of fourth-grade public school students by average reading class size as

reported by their reading teachers, by state: 1994 and 1998

State and year 1–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36+

U.S.

1994 20 39 32 8 1

1998 22 42 29 7 #

Alabama

1994 22 34 34 8 1

1998 27 48 22 3 #

Arizona

1994 14 34 42 10 #

1998 14 35 44 7 #

Arkansas

1994 27 48 24 1 #

1998 31 47 21 # #

California

1994 9 5 44 41 1

1998 7 14 41 37 1

Colorado

1994 17 39 39 5 #

1998 17 43 39 2 #

Connecticut

1994 43 42 15 # #

1998 31 61 7 # #

Delaware

1994 23 35 36 6 #

1998 21 35 35 9 #

District of Columbia

1994 42 42 15 1 #

1998 36 42 20 1 #

Florida

1994 16 22 44 16 2

1998 19 27 35 18 1

Georgia

1994 30 37 31 2 1

1998 27 40 30 2 #

Hawaii

1994 15 32 44 9 #

1998 10 33 48 10 #

Iowa

1994 29 49 21 # #

1998 28 56 16 # #

Kansas

1994 — — — — —

1998 36 58 6 # 1

Kentucky

1994 26 43 31 1 #

1998 25 48 27 # 1

Louisiana

1994 16 38 38 7 1

1998 23 46 23 8 #

See footnotes at end of table.
87

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Average reading class size

Table 4.12 Percentage distribution of fourth-grade public school students by average reading class size as

reported by their reading teachers, by state: 1994 and 1998—Continued

State and year 1–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36+

Maine

1994 52 43 5 # #

1998 58 40 3 # #

Maryland

1994 17 35 35 11 2

1998 17 35 40 7 #

Massachusetts

1994 31 48 19 2 #

1998 30 52 18 # #

Michigan

1994 — — — — —

1998 11 40 44 4 #

Minnesota

1994 15 41 40 4 #

1998 17 49 30 4 #

Mississippi

1994 22 49 29 1 #

1998 17 57 26 # #

Missouri

1994 22 44 32 1 #

1998 24 54 20 1 #

Montana

1994 33 39 28 # #

1998 33 44 22 1 #

Nevada

1994 — — — — —

1998 13 22 41 22 2

New Hampshire

1994 27 49 24 1 #

1998 33 48 19 # #

New Mexico

1994 18 42 35 3 1

1998 40 54 5 1 #

New York

1994 23 30 32 14 1

1998 20 42 22 15 1

North Carolina

1994 18 46 35 2 #

1998 19 44 36 1 #

Oklahoma

1994 — — — — —

1998 49 44 6 # 1

Oregon 

1994 — — — — —

1998 16 36 44 3 #

Rhode Island

1994 15 62 23 # #

1998 26 58 16 # #

See footnotes at end of table.
88

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Average reading class size

Table 4.12 Percentage distribution of fourth-grade public school students by average reading class size as

reported by their reading teachers, by state: 1994 and 1998—Continued

State and year 1–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36+

South Carolina

1994 27 43 30 1 #

1998 25 56 19 # #

Tennessee

1994 35 37 24 3 #

1998 29 50 19 2 #

Texas

1994 61 39 # # #

1998 60 37 2 # #

Utah

1994 8 17 52 22 2

1998 14 25 54 7 #

Virginia

1994 29 50 21 # #

1998 33 49 15 3 #

Washington

1994 13 38 47 2 #

1998 18 33 47 3 #

West Virginia

1994 31 54 15 # #

1998 42 47 11 # #

Wisconsin

1994 24 53 22 1 #

1998 24 55 19 3 #

Wyoming

1994 30 58 10 1 1

1998 44 47 9 # #

# Rounds to zero.

— Not available. State’s data for that grade level was not reported in the original source.

NOTE: Due to rounding, rows for each state by grade many not sum to 100. States not listed were not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), NAEP Data Tool,

Summary Data Tables, Retrieved June 25, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
89

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Coursetaking Requirements in High School

States may promote an academic emphasis by setting overall high school coursetaking requirements, including

both the total number of courses and the number of courses in specific subject areas that students must pass to

graduate from high school. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education presented its report, A

Nation at Risk, which recommended that all high school students be required to study five “New Basics”: 4 years

of English, 3 years each of mathematics, science, and social studies, and one-half year of computer science. Since

then, several states have revised their high school coursetaking requirements. CCSSO reports that in 2000, 36

states required students to earn 4 credits, or 4 years in English; 24 states required 3 or more credits in mathematics,

19 states required 3 or more credits in science, and 31 states required 3 or more credits in social studies (table

4.13). In several states, the local school board determines course credit requirements for high school graduation.

CCSSO reports that between 1987 and 2000, 13 states raised their mathematics requirements by one or more

credits, and 14 states did so in science (CCSSO 2000a).

Advanced Placement Courses

Some educators also consider the number of advanced placement (AP) courses offered in high school to be an

indicator of academic climate (Thompson 1994). In response to concerns that AP courses may not be offered

equally in schools where there are economically disadvantaged or racial/ethnic minority students, a handful of

states have implemented policies to mandate course offerings or to otherwise encourage advanced course offerings

(Dounay 2000). Four states (Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia) have mandated that all secondary

schools offer AP courses for students who are qualified to take them. Other states have provided financial incentives, accountability incentives, and have set up other programs to encourage both course offerings and students to

take the courses. An Education Week (2001) survey found that the percentage of public high schools within a state

offering AP courses ranged from 8 to 100 percent across states, with the U.S. average being 60 percent (table 4.14).

Instructional Time and Intensity

Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, which called for longer school days and a longer school year,

state reforms have often focused on “time on task.” Table 4.15, based on a survey conducted by CCSSO in 2000,

indicates that 2 states required a 7-hour school day for grades 9 through 12. A number of states have also adopted

legislation that permits schools to operate on a year-round basis, prompted in part over concerns that students

may have to “catch up” in the fall after a long summer break. The CCSSO reports that 16 states have adopted

state policies regarding year-round schooling and 34 states had districts with year-round schools. The number of

districts within a state that had year-round schools varied from state to state; California had the largest number of

districts—180—with year-round schools (CCSSO 2000a, table 4.16).

Some states have revised their policies regarding compulsory attendance requirements. Table 4.17 summarizes

state policies regarding compulsory school attendance and special education services for students. In 2000, attendance policies generally required students to attend school from age 5, 6, 7, or 8 until age 16, 17, or 18. Between

1992 and 1997, 11 states changed their compulsory attendance requirements (Snyder and Hoffman 2000). Ten

states increased their requirements by at least one year, while one state, Arkansas, decreased its compulsory attendance requirements by one year. For special education services, states mandated students to receive services from

birth or age 3 to age 19, 20, 21 or, in one state, Michigan, age 25. In 2000, all states and the District of Columbia

set their kindergarten entrance age at 5 years old, with the exception of six states (table 4.17). Four of these six

states—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania—allowed their local education agencies to

adopt their own policies on kindergarten entrance, and California was in the process of developing policies regarding kindergarten entrance.
90

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.13 Course credit requirements for high school graduation by core academic subjects, by state: 2000

Total credits

State Math Science English Social Studies Arts (core subj. & elec.)

Alabama 4 4 4 4 0.5 24

Alaska 2 2 4 3 † 21

Arizona (1994) 2 2 4 2.5 † 20

Arkansas 3 3 4 3 0.5 21

California 2 2 3 3 1 or foreign language 13 & L

Colorado L L L L † L

Connecticut 3 2 4 3 1 20

Delaware 3 3 4 3 † 22

Florida 3 3 4 3 0.5 24

Georgia 3 3 4 3 1 19

Hawaii 3 3 4 4 † 22

Idaho 4 4 4 2.5 1 21

Illinois (1998) 2 1 3 2 1 or foreign language 10.25

Indiana 4 4 4 4 † 22

Iowa L L L 1.5 † 1.5 & L

Kansas 2 2 4 3 † 21

Kentucky 3 3 4 3 1 22

Louisiana 3 3 4 3 † 23

Maine 2 2 4 2 1 16

Maryland 3 3 4 3 1 21

Massachusetts L L L 1 1 L

Michigan L L L 0.5 L L

Minnesota1

Mississippi 3 2 4 3 1 20

Missouri 2 2 3 2 1 22

Montana 2 2 4 2 1 20

Nebraska L L L L L L

Nevada 3 2 4 2 1 22.5

New Hampshire 2 2 4 2.5 0.5 19.75

New Jersey 3 3 4 3 1 22

New Mexico 3 2 4 3 † 23

New York (1996) 2 2 4 4 † 12

North Carolina 3 3 4 3 † 20

North Dakota 3 4 4 3 † 17

Ohio 2 1 3 2 † 18

Oklahoma2 2 2 4 2 2 23

Oregon 2 2 3 3 1 or foreign language 22

Pennsylvania3

Rhode Island 2 2 4 2 † 16

South Carolina 4 3 4 3 † 24

South Dakota 2 2 4 3 0.5 20

Tennessee 3 3 4 3 † 20

Texas 3 2 4 2.5 † 18.5

Utah 2 2 3 3 † 24

Vermont (1996) 5 combined 4 3 1 12

Virginia 3 3 4 3 1 22

Washington 2 2 3 2.5 1 19

West Virginia 3 3 4 3 1 24

Wisconsin 2 2 4 3 † 13 & L

Wyoming 3 3 4 3 † 13 & L

† Not applicable. State did not have a requirement in this category.

L Decision is made by a local education agency.

1Standards-based reform.

2New legislation increased graduation requirements for 2002-03 graduates.

3Requirements under revision.

NOTE: Parenthetical years indicate the latest year for which information was obtained.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.

Number of credits for a regular diploma
91

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.14 Percentage of public high schools offering Advanced Placement courses, by state: 2000

State Percentage of public high schools offering Advanced Placement courses 

United States 60

Alabama 38

Alaska 12

Arizona 51

Arkansas 32

California 83

Colorado 49

Connecticut 97

Delaware 100

Florida 82

Georgia 80

Hawaii 81

Idaho 42

Illinois 54

Indiana 77

Iowa 31

Kansas 23

Kentucky 68

Louisiana 20

Maine 76

Maryland 93

Massachusetts 91

Michigan 62

Minnesota 45

Mississippi 38

Missouri 27

Montana 36

Nebraska 18

Nevada 42

New Hampshire 89

New Jersey 97

New Mexico 47

New York 83

North Carolina 87

North Dakota 8

Ohio 64

Oklahoma 37

Oregon 52

Pennsylvania 73

Rhode Island 73

South Carolina 92

South Dakota 17

Tennessee 50

Texas 66

Utah 80

Vermont 88

Virginia 86

Washington 60

West Virginia 64

Wisconsin 75

Wyoming 36

NOTE: The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Education Week, Quality Counts 2001, 2001.
92

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.15 Length of school day in minimum hours, by grade level and state: 2000

Half-day Full day

State Pre-K kindergarten kindergarten Grades 1–3 Grades 4–6 Grades 7–8 Grades 9–12

Alabama † † 66666

Alaska † < 4 > 44 5 5 5

Arizona (1994) 1.2 2 † 4–5 4–5 6 †

Arkansas † † 66666

California † 3.3 † 4.7 5 5 6

Colorado †††††††

Connecticut †††††††

Delaware † 2.5 † 6666

Florida † † † 5555

Georgia 4.5 † 4.5 4.5 5 and 5.51 5.5 5.5

Hawaii 6666666

Idaho † 2.5 44444

Illinois (1998) † 245555

Indiana † 2.5 † 5566

Iowa † † † 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Kansas † 2.5 56666

Kentucky † 366666

Louisiana 6 † 66666

Maine † 2.5 2.5 5555

Maryland † † † 6 6 6 6.5

Massachusetts †††††††

Michigan †††††††

Minnesota †††††††

Mississippi 5.5 † 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Missouri † 1.5 3–7 3–7 3–7 3–7 3–7

Montana2

Nebraska †††††††

Nevada † † 2 5 5 5.5 5.5

New Hampshire † 2.5 † 6666

New Jersey 2.5 2.5 66666

New Mexico † 2.5 † 5.5 5.5 6 6

New York (1996) † 2.5 5 5 5 5.5 5.5

North Carolina3

North Dakota † 2.75 5.5 5.5 5.5 6 6

Ohio † 2.5 † 5 5 5.5 5.5

Oklahoma 2.5 2.5 66666

Oregon † † † 6 6.5 6.5 7

Pennsylvania None 2.5 5 5 5 5.5 5.5

Rhode Island 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 5-5.5 5.5

South Carolina 2.5 2.5 56666

South Dakota4

Tennessee 5.5 4 4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

Texas † † 77777

Utah † 2 † 4444

Vermont † 2 † 4 and 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.56

Virginia † 3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

Washington (1998) † 244555

West Virginia † † 5.25 5.25 5.25 and 5.57 5.5 5.75

Wisconsin8

Wyoming † 2.5 55566

† Not applicable. State did not have a requirement in this category.

1Grades 4–5: 5. Grade 6: 5.5.

2Annual aggregated hours requirement.

3One thousand hours for whole school year.

4No minimum hourly requirement in law.

5Grades 1–2: 4. Grade 3: 5.5.

6Grades 9–10.

7Grade 4: 5.25. Grades 5–6: 5.5.

8No minimum length.

NOTE: Parenthetical years indicate the latest year for which information was obtained. The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Adapted from Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.
93

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Table 4.16 State and district policies regarding year-round schools, and the number of districts in a state that

run year-round schools: 2000

State has policy regarding State has districts with Number of districts with

State year-round school year-round schools year-round schools

Alabama Yes Yes (1)

Alaska No Yes (1)

Arizona (1994) No Yes —

Arkansas Yes Yes 4

California Yes Yes 180

Colorado No Yes 4

Connecticut No No †

Delaware No No †

Florida Yes Yes 10

Georgia No Yes —

Hawaii Yes Yes —

Idaho No Yes 4

Illinois (1998) Yes Yes 5

Indiana No Yes 62

Iowa Yes Yes 5

Kansas No No †

Kentucky Yes Yes 27

Louisiana No Yes 2

Maine No Yes 2

Maryland No Yes 1

Massachusetts No No †

Michigan No No †

Minnesota Yes Yes 10

Mississippi No No †

Missouri No Yes 13

Montana No No †

Nebraska No No †

Nevada Yes Yes 6

New Hampshire No No †

New Jersey No Yes (4)

New Mexico No Yes 2

New York (1996) No No †

North Carolina Yes Yes 325

North Dakota No No †

Ohio No Yes -

Oklahoma Yes No †

Oregon No Yes 3 or 4

Pennsylvania Yes Yes 4

Rhode Island No No †

South Carolina No Yes —

South Dakota No No †

Tennessee No Yes 82

Texas Yes Yes 52

Utah Yes Yes 76

Vermont No No †

Virginia No Yes 37

See footnotes at end of table.
94

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 4.16 State and district policies regarding year-round schools, and the number of districts in a state that

run year-round schools: 2000

State has policy regarding State has districts with Number of districts with

State year-round school year-round schools year-round schools

Washington (1998) No Yes 2

West Virginia Yes Yes 2

Wisconsin No Yes 2

Wyoming No No †

— Data not available.

1“A few” was reported in the original source.

2Select schools in these districts have year-round schedules.

3Only elementary schools in this district have year-round schedules.

4Schools in every district decide.

5Twelve additional charter schools not included in the district total have year-round schedules.

6Schools in these districts decide.

7Five schools in these districts have year-round schedules.

State definition of year round school:

Arkansas: 12-month school with no more than 6 weeks vacation.

California: No more than 8 weeks vacation.

Florida: 11-, 12-month calendar offering at least 180 days of instruction with staggered vacation period throughout the year.

Hawaii: No more than 8 weeks vacation.

Louisiana: Breakup of 3-month vacation of traditional calendar; school in smaller instructional blocks with each followed by short vacation breaks.

New Jersey: Greater than 180 days/year; instruction during traditional vacation time.

New Mexico: 10-, 11-, 12-month calendar permitting attendance on a staggered schedule.

Oklahoma: 11- or 12-month year in excess of 200 school days, of at least 6 hrs. each day.

Oregon: 12-month class schedule.

Pennsylvania: School year is extended to August 15 for students whose 180 days of instruction continue into summer months.

NOTE: States not listed and the District of Columbia were not reported in the original source. Parenthetical years indicate the latest year for which

information was obtained.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.
95

Chapter Four: Teacher Training and School Resources

Kindergarten entrance

Table 4.17 Compulsory school attendance requirements, by state: 2000

State Age Cut-off date Age students must enter school Age students must remain in school

Alabama 5 9/1 7 16

Alaska 5 8/15 7 16

Arizona (1994) 5 9/1 6 16 or gr. 10

Arkansas 5 9/15 5 17 by 10/1

California1 †† † †

Colorado † † † †

Connecticut 5 1/1 7 16

Delaware 5 8/31 5 by 8/31 16

Florida 5 9/1 6 18 (pilot program)

Georgia 5 9/1 6 16

Hawaii 5 12/31 6 18

Idaho 5 9/1 7 16

Illinois (1998) 5 9/1 7 16

Indiana 5 6/1 7 16

Iowa 5 9/15 6 16 by 9/15

Kansas 5 8/31 7 18 or waiver at 16

Kentucky 5 10/1 6 by 10/1 16

Louisiana 5 9/30 7 17

Maine 5 10/15 7 17

Maryland 5 12/31 5 16

Massachusetts2 † † 6 16

Michigan 5 12/1 6 16

Minnesota 5 9/1 7 18 or waiver

Mississippi 5 9/1 6 17

Missouri 5 8/1 7 16

Montana 5 9/10 7 16 & complete gr. 8

Nebraska 5 10/15 7 16

Nevada 5 9/30 7 17

New Hampshire2 † † 6 16

New Jersey2 † † 6 16

New Mexico 5 9/1 5 18

New York (1996) 5 12/1 6 16 & complete sch. year

North Carolina 5 10/16 7 16

North Dakota 5 8/31 7 16

Ohio 5 9/30 6 18

Oklahoma 5 9/1 5 18

Oregon 5 9/1 7 18

Pennsylvania2 † † 8 17

Rhode Island 5 12/31 6 16

South Carolina 5 9/1 5 16

South Dakota 5 9/1 6 16

Tennessee 5 9/30 6 17

Texas 5 9/1 6 18

Utah 5 9/2 6 18

Vermont 5 1/1 7 16

Virginia 5 9/30 5 18

Washington (1998) 5 8/31 8 18 or waiver

West Virginia 5 9/1 6 16

Wisconsin 5 9/1 6 18

Wyoming 5 9/15 6 16 or complete gr. 10

† Not applicable. State did not have a requirement in this category.

1Legislation pending.

2Local education agency option.

NOTE : The District of Columbia was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: 2000, 2000.
96

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Summary

As illustrated in this chapter, there is variation in state policies affecting schools, teachers, and classroom resources.

For teachers to obtain a license or certificate, they must follow a set of state-established guidelines for required

courses and exams. The levels of licensure or certification vary from state to state, and the requirements for

maintaining that license also vary. In addition, many states have created nontraditional, alternative certification

models, which are intended to move highly-qualified subject matter experts through preparation and certification

quicker than traditional models.

Instructional resources, such as textbooks, are provided to schools in different ways. Some states have state-level

mandates on how textbooks will be chosen and allocated, while others allow district and/or local level school

boards to decide. As shown in this chapter, variation exists nationwide in teachers’ perceptions of the resources

available to them and the actual availability of resources.

Like instructional resources, school climate varies from school to school. Each school has its own climate based on

its students, its teachers, and many other variables. However, state policies can affect a number of aspects related

to school climate, including class size, states’ course requirements, AP courses offered, and instructional time.
97

Introduction

Traditionally, students attending public schools have been assigned to a specific school based on the location of

their residence. For some parents or guardians wishing to send their children to a school other than the one in their

neighborhood, the options have been limited. Parents with the resources to do so can move their families to

communities with public schools that they think might be best for their children or may enroll their children in a

private school. In special cases, some families may gain permission to enroll their children in another public school

(e.g., if attending a neighborhood school presents a significant hardship for a family). But, in general, families that

wish to keep their children in public schools have had few if any choices outside of their local public school. In

recent years, several states have adopted legislation that is intended to provide more parents with choice in where

their children attend school. States have taken a variety of approaches to meet this goal. Public school choice

allows students to attend the public school that they and their families select, while charter schools give parents

the option of sending their children to a public school that operates largely independently of the local school

district. In addition, some states have adopted policies that provide public support for private education in the

form of tax credits, vouchers, or other resources for parents who send their children to private schools. Homeschooling

is now an option in all states (Lines 2001), although states do not necessarily provide financial or other support

for parents who homeschool. Each of these options is discussed below.

Public School Choice

Public school choice policies are intended to give parents the option of selecting the public schools their children

attend rather than being required to send their children to schools assigned on the basis of residence. Current

policies, which often allow parents to send their children to a wide range of public schools, are predated by magnet

school policies. First created as part of the desegregation efforts in several states and school districts, magnet

schools have offered some students and their families alternatives to neighborhood public schools since the 1970s.

Magnet schools are public schools that focus on particular subject areas or instructional philosophies and are open

to students who live outside of the neighborhood in which the school is located.

Although magnet schools represent choice in public education for some children, it was not until the late 1980s

that a number of states began extending public school choice to more families. These polices, typically known as

public school choice or open enrollment, allow students to attend the public schools that they and their families

select without having to pay tuition.8

 In some states, students are allowed to attend any public school in the state

while other states limit choice to those schools in a student’s district of residence (typically subject to space availability). For example, a summary of the purpose and operation of the open enrollment program in Connecticut is

found in Public School Choice in Connecticut: A Guide for Parents, Guardians and Primary Caregivers:

Open Choice is an interdistrict public school program which is intended to improve academic

achievement; reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation; and provide a choice of educational

programs for public school students. ... The Open Choice program allows urban students to attend public schools in nearby suburban towns. It also allows suburban and rural students to

Chapter Five

State Support for School Choice Options

8

 Some states have allowed students to pay tuition to attend an out-of-district public school on a space-available basis.
98

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

attend public schools in a nearby urban center. Enrollments are offered by school districts on a

space-available basis in Grades K–12. Lotteries are used to place students when there are more

applicants than spaces available. The program currently operates in Hartford, New Haven and

Bridgeport and their surrounding towns. The General Assembly plans to expand the program over

time. ... The state pays a grant of $2,000 per student enrolled in the program to the receiving

districts. There is no tuition cost to parents. ... Transportation costs are paid by the state. Arrangements are made by the regional educational service center serving the area (Connecticut Department of Education 1999, p. 6).

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) reports that as of February 2001, 32 states had passed legislation

permitting or requiring some form of public school choice (table 5.1). Open enrollment laws can be grouped into

two main types: intradistrict, which allows choice of public schools within district boundaries, and interdistrict,

which permits choice across (and within) districts. A distinction can also be made as to whether the programs are

voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary programs allow districts to choose whether to participate, given space availability in the district, while mandatory programs require districts within a state to participate in the program,

given space availability in the district. In 2001, 2 states had mandatory intradistrict policies, 17 states had mandatory interdistrict policies, and 14 had voluntary interdistrict policies. Results from the National Household Education Survey (NHES) indicate that in 1999, 14 percent of students in grades 3 to 12 attended public schools that

their families had chosen, and that between 1993 and 1999, the percentage of students in grades 3 to 12 attending

an assigned public school dropped from 80 to 77 percent (Wirt et al. 2001).

While public school choice legislation increases the number of public schools students and parents can choose

from, it does not generally affect the operation of the schools. A second type of legislation adopted by many states

during the 1990s, however, allows the creation of public schools that operate largely independently of local school

districts and state education agencies. The greater autonomy of these schools, known as charter schools, provides

parents with an alternative to traditional public schools. The following section describes charter school legislation

and the rapid growth of this new form of public school.

Charter Schools

As of 1999, 36 states and the District of Columbia had adopted legislation that enabled parents, teachers, community members and, in some instances, private corporations to create and operate public schools (Nelson et al.

2000). These charter schools are intended to offer parents and students alternatives to traditional public schools

and operate with varying degrees of independence from local school districts and state education agencies. States

often give charter schools the authority to make decisions concerning curriculum, instructional practices, staffing,

and budgeting, while requiring them to comply with health and safety regulations and nondiscrimination laws. In

exchange for this autonomy, charter schools are held accountable for student performance. Schools are chartered

for a limited time, typically 3 to 5 years, and their charter specifies the educational goals the school is expected to

meet. If these goals are not met, the charter may be terminated.
99

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options

Table 5.1 States with open enrollment laws, by type: 2001

Open enrollment law Type of open enrollment

Total 32

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Arkansas X Interdistrict/Mandatory

California X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Colorado X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Connecticut1 X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Delaware X Interdistrict/Mandatory

District of Columbia

Florida X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Illinois

Indiana2 X Intradistrict/Mandatory and Interdistrict/Voluntary

Iowa X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Maine X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Maryland

Massachusetts X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Michigan X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Minnesota X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Mississippi

Missouri X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Montana

Nebraska X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Nevada

New Hampshire X Interdistrict/Voluntary

New Jersey X Interdistrict/Voluntary

New Mexico X Interdistrict/Voluntary

New York X Interdistrict/Voluntary

North Carolina

North Dakota X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Ohio X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Oklahoma X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Tennessee X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Texas X Interdistrict/Voluntary

Utah X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Vermont

Virginia

Washington X Interdistrict/Mandatory

West Virginia X Intradistrict/Mandatory

Wisconsin X Interdistrict/Mandatory

Wyoming X Interdistrict/Voluntary

1In the 1998–99 school year, Connecticut began phasing in an open enrollment program. By the 2001–02 school year, the program was expected to

be in operation in every priority school district in the state, as well as in those school districts in the area of a priority school district as determined by the

regional educational service center.

2Indiana law requires the Indianapolis school district to offer a parental choice program that allows parents the opportunity to choose the school within

the school district that the parents’ child will attend.

NOTE: The Education Commission of the States (ECS), which compiled and first published the information in this table, notes that most states have

enacted laws that accommodate the attendance needs of students. In this table, however, ECS indicates that they only included those states with laws

as of February 2001 that encourage and support enrollment in public schools of choice. “Interdistrict” programs allow choice of public schools across

and within district boundaries. “Intradistrict” programs allow choice of public schools within district boundaries. “Mandatory” programs require districts

within a state to participate in the program, given that space is available in the district. “Voluntary” programs allow districts to choose whether to

participate, given that space is available in the district. “X” indicates that an affirmative response for that state was reported in the original source, while a

blank cell indicates that a relevant response for that state was not reported.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States, State Notes: School Choice: State Actions, February 2001.
100

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 5.2 States with charter school legislation, by year passed: 1991 to 1999

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Minnesota California Colorado Arizona Alaska Connecticut Mississippi Idaho New York

Georgia Hawaii Arkansas District of Columbia Nevada Missouri Oklahoma

Massachusetts Kansas Delaware Florida Ohio Utah Oregon

Michigan New Hampshire Illinois Pennsylvania Virginia

New Mexico Louisiana New Jersey

Wisconsin Rhode Island North Carolina

Wyoming South Carolina

Texas

NOTE: States not listed were not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The State of Charter Schools: Fourth-year Report, 2000.

Variation in State Charter Laws

Throughout the 1990s, the number of states that adopted charter school legislation increased, from 1 state

(Minnesota) in 1991 to 36 states and the District of Columbia in September 1999 (table 5.2). Similarly, the

number of charter schools in operation also increased during the 1990s. Table 5.3 provides information on the

total number of charter schools opened each year in each state from school year 1992–93 to September 1999 and

the total number of schools that had closed as of September 1999. Almost 1,500 charter schools were in operation

as of September 1999, about twice the number of charter schools operating in September 1997 (Nelson et al.

2000; Berman et al. 1998). On average, enrollment in charter schools represented about 0.8 percent of all public

school students in the 26 states and the District of Columbia that had charter schools in operation in 1998–99

(table 5.4). Charter school enrollment was 1 percent or higher in 8 states, and in the District of Columbia

4.4 percent of public school students were enrolled in charter schools.

State legislation enabling the creation of charter schools varies considerably among the states. State law, for

example, defines which public agencies have the authority to grant charters. Local school boards, the state board

of education, and colleges and universities are some of the agencies that the state may allow to grant charters. As

of September 1999, 14 states allowed only the local school board to grant charters, 7 states permitted only a statelevel agency to grant charters, and the remaining states allowed more than one agency to grant charters (table 5.5).

In all states, charters are granted for a specific time period, after which the school must apply for a renewal. In

31 states, the length of the charter ranged between 3 and 5 years. One state and the District of Columbia have

charter terms of 15 years, although both of these require a review at the end of 5 years. While all states with charter

legislation allow existing public schools to convert to charter schools, the majority of states do not allow private

schools to convert to charter schools. In the 1998–99 academic year, 72 percent of all charter schools were newly

created, while 18 percent were converted public schools, and 10 percent were converted private schools (Nelson et

al. 2000).
101

Table 5.3 Estimated number of charter schools opened each year from 1992–93 to September 1999 and the

total number of charter schools operating and closed as of September 1999, among states with

charter schools

Total schools New Total schools

closed as schools as operating

State 1992–93 1993–94 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 of Sept. 1999* of Sept. 1999 Sept. 1999

Total 2 34 64 154 178 289 401 59 421 1,484

Minnesota 2 5 7 3 3 8 12 3 17 54

California 28 36 30 21 19 29 9 56 210

Colorado 1 13 10 8 19 10 1 8 68

Michigan 2 41 33 36 24 5 15 146

New Mexico 4 0 1 0 0 3 1 3

Wisconsin 2 3 6 7 12 1 11 40

Arizona 47 58 45 44 16 44 222

Georgia 3 9 9 7 1 4 31

Hawaii 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Massachusetts 15 7 3 10 1 5 39

Alaska 2 13 2 1 2 18

Delaware 2 1 1 0 1 5

District of Columbia 2 1 17 2 10 28

Florida 5 28 42 4 38 109

Illinois 1 7 6 1 7 20

Louisiana 3 3 5 0 7 18

Texas 17 21 71 5 64 168

Connecticut 12 4 1 2 17

Kansas 1 14 0 0 15

New Jersey 13 17 0 19 49

North Carolina 34 26 5 23 78

Pennsylvania 6 25 0 17 48

Rhode Island 1 1 0 0 2

South Carolina 2 3 0 5 10

Idaho 20 6 8

Mississippi 10 0 1

Nevada 10 0 1

Ohio 15 0 31 46

New York 5 5

Missouri 15 15

Utah 6 6

Oklahoma 2 2

*Reflects the cumulative number of charter schools closed since 1992.

NOTE: The Study [The National Study of Charter Schools, see “SOURCE”] reports the number of charters given to individual entities, though some

charters may use space within another school or be connected to another school by another arrangement. The number of charters shown above does

not include the total number of school sites operating under a charter. Some charters, particularly in Arizona, run similar programs in several sites. In

those cases, the Study only counts the charter once. Several charters in California were awarded to districts or complexes of schools. Since previously

each school within the group was a separate school, the Study counts each school as a separate charter school. Taking into account multiple school

sites operating under one charter (121), the Study estimates that the total number of school sites operating under charters was 1,605 (1,484+121) as

of September 1999. Charter school enrollment includes data for 1,010 charter schools and is based on responses from all 975 open charter schools that

responded to the survey, supplemented with data from state departments of education. The Study contacted officials at each state department of

education and supplemented their information from a variety of sources, including the Common Core of Data Survey (1997–98), charter school

directories, and state charter school resource centers. States not listed were not reported in the original source. A blank cell indicates that an affirmative

response for that state was not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The State of Charter Schools: Fourth-year Report, 2000.

Charter schools as of September 1999

Number of charter schools starting each year

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options
102

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Table 5.4 Estimated charter school enrollment among states with charter schools: 1998–99

State Charter school enrollment, 1998–99 Percent of public school students in charter schools

Total 252,009 0.81

Alaska 2,047 1.6

Arizona 32,209 4.0

California 73,905 1.3

Colorado 13,911 2.0

Connecticut 1,613 0.3

Delaware 988 0.9

District of Columbia 3,364 4.4

Florida 10,561 0.5

Georgia 18,611 1.4

Hawaii 790 0.4

Idaho 57 0.1

Illinois 3,333 0.2

Kansas 1,545 0.3

Louisiana 1,589 0.2

Massachusetts 9,673 1.0

Michigan 25,294 1.5

Minnesota 4,670 0.6

Mississippi 340 0.1

New Jersey 4,001 0.3

New Mexico 4,601 1.4

North Carolina 9,513 0.8

Ohio 2,509 0.1

Pennsylvania 5,474 0.3

Rhode Island 397 0.3

South Carolina 364 0.1

Texas 18,590 0.5

Wisconsin 2,060 0.2

1This estimate is the percentage of public school students who were enrolled in charter schools in the 26 states and the District of Columbia that had

charter schools in operation in 1998–99.

NOTE: Charter school enrollment includes data for 1,010 charter schools and is based on responses from all 975 open charter schools that responded

to the survey, supplemented with data from state departments of education. States not listed were not reported in the original source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The State of Charter Schools: Fourth-year Report, 2000.
103

Schools eligible

Table 5.5 Selected characteristics of charter school legislation, by state: 1999

Number of

Newly Pre-existing Pre-existing charter schools Duration of

State Who can grant charter created public private allowed charter term

Alaska Local boards Yes Yes No 30 Up to 5 years

Arizona Local boards, State board, and State charter board Yes Yes Yes No limit 15 years

Arkansas State board Yes Yes No No limit 3 Years

California Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No 100 annually 5 Years

Colorado Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No No limit 5 Years

Connecticut State board Yes Yes No 24 5 Years

Delaware Local boards for conversions and State board for newly created Yes Yes No No limit 3 Years

District of Columbia Local boards, State board, and State charter board + appeals Yes Yes Yes 20 annually 15 Years

Florida Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No1 Other limits2 3 years

Georgia State board Yes Yes No No limit 5 years

Hawaii State board Yes Yes No 25 4 years

Idaho Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No 603 Up to 5 years

Illinois Local boards with State board review + appeals Yes Yes No4 45 3–5 years

Kansas Local boards Yes Yes No 15 3 years

Louisiana Local boards and State board + appeals Yes Yes No 42 5 years

Massachusetts Local boards for conversions and State board for newly created Yes Yes No 50 5 years

Michigan Local boards and IHEs Yes Yes Yes No limit Up to 10 years

Minnesota Local boards and IHEs + appeals Yes Yes Yes No limit 3 years

Mississippi Local boards and State board No Yes No 6 4–6 years

Missouri Local boards, IHEs, and community colleges5 Yes Yes Yes Other limits6 5–10 years

Nevada Both Local boards and State board Yes Yes No Other limits7 3 years

New Hampshire Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No 10 annually8 5 years

New Jersey State Commissioner Yes Yes No 1359 4 years

New Mexico Local boards and State board Yes Yes No 20 annually10 5 years

New York Local boards, state board, SUNY board of trustees Yes Yes No 100 new; 5 years

unlimited public

conversion

North Carolina Local boards, State board, and IHEs Yes Yes Yes 100 5 years

Ohio Local boards and State board Yes Yes No No limit Up to 5 years

Oklahoma Local boards + appeals Yes Yes No Other limits11 3 years

Oregon Local boards and State board Yes Yes No Other limits12 Up to 5 years

Pennsylvania Local boards Yes Yes Yes No limit 3–5 years

Rhode Island State board Yes Yes No 20 Up to 5 years

South Carolina Local boards + appeals Yes Yes Yes No limit 3 years

Texas Local boards for conversions and State board for new created Yes Yes Yes No limit13 Specified

in charter

Utah State board Yes Yes No 8 3 years

Virginia Local boards Yes Yes No 2 per district 3 years

Wisconsin Local boards Yes Yes Yes14 No limit Up to 5 years

Wyoming Local boards Yes Yes No No limit Up to 5 years

1Although Florida’s legislation does not allow private schools to apply directly for charter status, the state allows private schools to convert to charter

status if they disband, reincorporate as a new organization with a new board, and enroll students in a public lottery.

2While Florida’s legislation does not specify a statewide limit on the number of charter schools; the legislation does restrict the number of charters

granted in each district based on district size. The effective cap for the state is 974 schools.

3Idaho’s legislation limits the annual number of new charters to 12 with a statewide limit of 60.

4Illinois’ legislation stipulates that a private school must cease operation as a private school before applying for charter status.

5Missouri’s legislation limits charter schools to St. Louis and Kansas City with those districts, colleges and universities, and community colleges authorized

to grant charters only in St. Louis and Kansas City.

6Missouri’s legislation states that no more than 5 percent of the buildings used for instruction in a district may be converted to charter schools.

7Nevada’s legislation limits the number of charters granted in each district based on district size, creating an effective cap of about 17 schools, with an

exception for schools focusing on at-risk students.

8New Hampshire’s legislation allows 10 new charters annually until the year 2000.

9Charter legislation in New Jersey requires a legislative review (including a review of the number of charter schools allowed) in 2000.

10New Mexico’s legislation allows up to 20 new schools annually up to a maximum of 100 schools.

11Oklahoma’s legislation only allows charter schools in districts enrolling 5,000 or more students.

12Oregon’s legislation limits charter school enrollment to 10 percent of the total number of students enrolled in public schools in the district.

13Texas’ legislation does not limit campus charters (schools that were previously district public schools) but limits open-enrollment charters (newly

created schools or previously private schools) to 100 with no limit for charters serving at-risk students.

14Wisconsin’s legislation allows the conversion of private schools only in Milwaukee.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The State of Charter Schools: Fourth-year Report, 2000.

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options
104

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Issues of Accountability and the Effect on Traditional Public Schools

Proponents of charter schools suggest that these institutions are likely to improve student achievement because

they are free to experiment with alternative curricula and new instructional practices (McGree 1995). Successful

strategies might also be incorporated into other public schools, thus benefiting students beyond the charter school.

Manno et al. (1997) suggest that in this way charter schools may serve as “research and development” centers in

which new ideas are tried out and evaluated. Because charter schools provide parents with additional options in

public education, proponents also suggest that they may improve educational quality by introducing competition

among public schools. Charter schools are also intended to contribute to the professional development of teachers,

enabling them to learn and experiment with new ideas and instructional practices (McGree 1995).

Some observers of charter schools, however, have noted the difficulty of measuring the educational outcomes that

charter schools are intended to meet in the trade of “autonomy for accountability” (Rothstein 1998). States, for

example, intend charter schools to be directly accountable for student achievement. If a charter school meets the

academic achievement expectations and other goals set forth in its charter, then its charter is likely to be renewed.

However, if the school fails to meet those expectations, then the agency that granted the charter may refuse to

renew it. One issue that states have faced when drafting charter school legislation is how academic achievement

will be defined and measured in charter schools. As described in chapter 2 of this report, the majority of states are

developing content and performance standards that set high expectations for student achievement. States are also

revising statewide assessment programs and implementing standards-based accountability systems. Determining

just what “accountability” means for charter schools, and whether to require charter schools to use the same

assessments and be included in state accountability systems, is an issue that states must address when drafting

charter school legislation (see, e.g., Manno et al. 1997; Schnailberg 1998; AFT 1996; and Hill et al. 2001 for

discussions of charter school accountability).

As part of an evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Public Charter Schools Program, state charter

school coordinators were asked whether charter schools were subject to certain state regulations (U.S. Department of Education 2000b). The report concluded that, “In general, state charter school policies do not exempt

charter schools from state student assessment or budgeting auditing requirements” (p. 40). While 60 percent of

participating states, for example, reported that charter schools were free from state teacher certification and

credentialing requirements, 14 percent reported that charter schools did not have to adhere to student assessment regulations (figure 5.1). It was summarized that, “In general, states reported that charter schools are held

to the same student outcome measures as other public schools, particularly with respect to state testing requirements” (p. 43).

Observers of charter schools are also paying close attention to the degree to which enrollments in charter schools

reflect the social and economic diversity of the area from which the schools draw students (Nelson et al. 2000).

Because the charter school movement is relatively new, much of the research concerning the characteristics of

charter schools and the students who attend them can be considered tentative. Thus far, research suggests that

charter schools generally enroll a student population similar to all public schools in terms of social and economic

diversity. In an analysis of charter schools operating in the 1998–99 school year, for example, the authors of The

State of Charter Schools (Nelson et al. 2000, p. 2) highlight several of their findings related to student diversity in

charter schools compared with traditional schools:

• Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar demographic characteristics to students in all public

schools. However, charter schools in some states serve significantly higher percentages of minority or economically disadvantaged students.
105

• White students made up about 48 percent of charter school enrollment in 1998 compared to about 59

percent of public school enrollment in 1997–98. The percentage of white students in charter schools is

slightly lower than reported in 1997–98.

• Charter schools in several states—Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas—enroll a much higher percentage of students of color than all

public schools in those states. Charter schools in Alaska, California, and Georgia serve a higher proportion

of white students than do all public schools in those states.

• Nearly 7 of 10 charter schools have a student racial/ethnic composition that is similar (i.e., within 20

percent) to their surrounding district. About 17 percent of charter schools serve a higher percentage of

students of color than their surrounding district while about 14 percent have a lower percentage of students of color.

• Charter schools enroll a slightly higher percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch than

do all public schools in the 27 charter states.

• The estimated percentage of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students in charter schools is about 10 percent, which is about the same as for all public schools in the 27 charter states. The percentage of LEP

students is about the same as reported for 1997–98.

• Without regard to differences across states, the reported percentage of students with disabilities at charter

schools is about 8 percent, which is lower than the 11 percent for all public schools in these states.

However, using a different methodology than Nelson et al. (2000), Cobb and Glass (1999) compared the ethnic

composition of charter schools in Arizona to adjacent traditional schools and found that the charter schools they

studied “not only contained a substantially greater proportion of White students, but when comparable nearby

Figure 5.1 Percentage of states reporting that some or all charter schools are granted various types of

freedoms: 1999

*Seven states reported that collective bargaining was not an issue because they had no collective bargaining requirements.

NOTE: This figure is based upon 37 states surveyed as part of the evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation Report, 2000.

Percent of states

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10

72

60

14

14

Freedom from collective bargaining

 requirements*

Freedom from state teacher certification

 and credentialing requirements

Freedom from state budgeting

 and audit requirements

Freedom from student assessments

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options
106

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

traditional public schools were used for comparison, the charters were typically 20 percentage points higher in

White enrollment than the other publics.” Additional research may suggest the conditions under which the racial

and ethnic composition of charter schools might differ from that of traditional public schools.

In addition to the academic achievement and diversity of students who attend charter schools, research is also

beginning to examine several other dimensions of charter schools, including the impact that charter schools have

on traditional public schools. In a study of 10 California school districts, for example, the UCLA Charter School

Study (1998), “found few direct effects of charter schools on the ways in which nearby public schools operated

and educated children” (p. 55). However, in a 1997 study of 25 school districts in 8 states, Rofes (1998) found

that about half of the districts had experienced what Rofes characterized as a “strong” or “moderate” impact, and

about a quarter had “responded energetically to the advent of charters and significantly altered their educational

programs” (pp. 1–2). In addition, a recent Center for Education Reform report cites evidence of charter schools

having a range of effects on regular public schools (Center for Education Reform 2000). It should be noted,

however, that charter schools are relatively new, and some of the predicted effects on regular public schools may

not be apparent for several years.

Public Support for Private Education

Allowing open enrollment in public schools and enabling the creation of charter schools are both ways in which

states have sought to provide greater choice in public education. Proposals have also been made to increase private

school choice by using public funds to subsidize the cost of private school attendance (Moffit, Garrett, and Smith

2001). Because about 78 percent of private schools have a religious affiliation (Broughman and Colaciello 1999),

issues concerning the separation of church and state frequently arise over laws that permit the use of public funds

to support private schools. Consequently, state laws have been shaped by a number of Supreme Court decisions

concerning the provision of public assistance to private schools and private school children. The U.S. Department

of Education report, State Regulation of Private Schools (U.S. Department of Education 2000d), summarizes a

number of court decisions that have had an effect on the provision of public support for private education, from

a 1947 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute that made transportation equally

available to both public and private school children, to a 1997 decision that upheld placement of public school

teachers in parochial schools to provide remedial educational services under a federal program. Reflecting U.S.

Supreme Court decisions, several states currently permit the limited use of public funds to support private education in the form of transportation, textbooks, and various auxiliary services. See State Regulation of Private

Schools (U.S. Department of Education 2000d) for a summary of state policies in these areas.

Less common are programs that use public funds to cover part or all of private school tuition. Although programs

and proposals vary considerably, most involve either a state tax credit or a voucher that parents or guardians use

to offset the cost of sending their child to a private school. Proponents argue that vouchers and tax credits will

bring about a number of positive outcomes, such as allowing parents with limited resources to send their children

to private schools, raising academic achievement, increasing competition among schools, and resulting in schools

with greater economic and social diversity (see Ziebarth 2000b for a summary of the debate and research on

vouchers). But in addition to concerns about the separation of church and state, opponents argue that vouchers

and tax credits will drain resources and the best students away from public schools, resulting in greater inequality

and benefiting few at the expense of many (see Ziebarth 2000b).

In Vermont and Maine, public funds have been used for many years to help cover tuition costs at nonsectarian

(i.e., not affiliated with a religious body) schools for students living in areas in which a public school is not readily

accessible. Since 1993, Georgia has funded a voluntary program that covers the cost of sending four-year-olds to

prekindergarten programs in public schools or private providers of preschool services on a space-available basis
107

(Georgia Department of Education 2003). Three states—Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida—have passed legislation

enabling the creation of voucher programs. In 1989, the Wisconsin legislature adopted legislation that allows

eligible students from low-income families who reside in the city of Milwaukee to attend any participating private

school located in the city at no charge. In 1995, the Ohio legislature authorized a pilot voucher program that

provides up to $2,250 in tuition scholarships for students of low-income families residing in the Cleveland school

district. In 1999, Florida became the first state to create a statewide program that provides private school vouchers

for students attending public schools that fail to attain certain performance levels in the state’s school accountability system. Legal challenges in these states have focused primarily on the use of vouchers for sectarian schools, and

in some instances their legal status remains somewhat uncertain (see McCarthy 2000 and Ziebarth 2000b for a

discussion of legal activity).9

Homeschooling

Another education option available to parents in all 50 states and the District of Columbia is to homeschool their

children. Although some states support homeschooling by requiring, for example, that public schools admit

students on a part-time basis (Lines 2001), in this section “support” refers to the fact that states enable parents to

have this option. The 1999 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) found that 850,000 students nationwide, or 1.7 percent of U.S. students ages 5 to 17, were homeschooled in spring 1999 (Bielick,

Chandler, and Broughman 2001). Students were considered to be homeschooled if their parents reported them

being schooled at home instead of at a public or private school, if their enrollment in public or private schools did

not exceed 25 hours a week, and if they were not being homeschooled solely because of a temporary illness.

Parents may choose to homeschool for a number of reasons, including religious beliefs, concern over school safety,

or because they believe their child will receive a better education at home. Although homeschooling is legal in all

states (Lines 2001), the laws and regulations affecting homeschooling vary considerably across states. According

to an analysis of state laws conducted by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) in August 1998,

7 states required homeschool parents to hold a high school diploma or GED, 2 states required a diploma or GED

along with additional requirements (such as requiring parents’ education to stay 4 years ahead of the student), and

41 states did not require parents to have specific education credentials. The HSLDA analysis also found that 26

states required standardized testing or evaluation of homeschooled children, with 10 states requiring standardized

testing only, and 16 states providing an alternative to testing, such as a review of the student by a certified teacher

(Klicka 1998).

Summary

Offering parents greater choice in where their children attend school has been a theme of the reform efforts of the

1990s. By the end of the decade, more than half the states and the District of Columbia had adopted legislation

intended to give parents more public school options. Some parents may now choose to enroll their children in a

traditional public school outside their district of residence, while others may opt to send their children to a newly

created charter school. Some parents who have chosen to enroll their children in private schools receive public

support, such as publicly subsidized textbooks, while public support in the form of vouchers and tax credits is

available in a few jurisdictions. Finally, homeschooling remains an option for parents, and a number of states have

enacted legislation that regulates certain aspects of educating children in the home, such as the administration of

standardized testing.

Chapter Five: State Support for School Choice Options

9 Although this report focuses on the 1990s, it should be noted that in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Ohio’s Pilot

Project Scholarship Program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

109

This report describes some of the developments in state-level education policies that occurred during the

1990s and indicates the degree to which states have adopted these reform measures. In doing so, this report

updated an earlier National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, Overview and Inventory of

State Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance (Medrich et al. 1992), which examined statelevel reform efforts during the 1980s.

This report groups reform efforts into four broad reform areas that reflect the primary ways in which states

have sought to change the provision of education:

Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. Nearly all states undertook some type of reform effort that

centered on setting high academic standards. States have worked to define content and performance standards—what students should know and be able to do and how well they should perform to be proficient in

particular subject areas. They are also developing statewide assessments and accountability systems to measure student progress toward these goals and to collect information to hold schools responsible for student

performance.

School Finance Reforms. State efforts to reshape education finance systems during the 1990s focused on

defining adequacy and developing systems to ensure appropriate funding for achieving high standards.

Other active areas of reform focused on general revenue reforms and special education financing reforms.

Teacher Training and School Resources. Other state reform efforts have focused on early childhood education, the effectiveness of teachers, the resources available to students and teachers, and the academic climate

of schools. Efforts to ensure that all students have high-quality teachers, for instance, have led a number of

states to apply a standards-based reform model to the training and certification of teachers. In doing so,

states intend to provide teachers with the skills necessary to enable their students to attain high academic

standards.

School Choice Options. A number of states adopted legislation intended to provide more parents with

choice in where their children attend school. Many states have enabled the creation of public school choice

programs and charter schools, both of which are intended to increase the public school options available to

parents. State policies may also provide public support for parents who send their children to private schools,

and all states now permit home schooling.

It remains to be seen whether these reform efforts will achieve their goals of raising student achievement.

While efforts are under way to evaluate the effectiveness of specific policy changes, such as class size reduction and voucher programs, assessing the overall impact of the reforms of the past decade is difficult for

several reasons. First, the current reform efforts outlined in this report are in some ways extensions of earlier

efforts, making it difficult to establish a specific point in time when a particular reform effort began.

Second, states may implement components of a reform effort on an incremental basis or provide sporadic

support, both of which limit the ability to specify clearly the intensity with which reform was implemented.

Third, states may implement a number of reforms simultaneously, while at the same time local schools and

districts may be implementing additional reforms. Implementation of state regulations and statutes also

may not be consistent across districts, schools, or classrooms. Fourth, student populations have changed

Chapter Six

Summary and Conclusion
110

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

significantly in several states, complicating attempts to link a specific reform to student outcomes. Finally, many

states did not initiate these reform efforts until the last couple of years. It may be the case that not enough time has

passed to determine the effect of a particular policy. Consequently, it is difficult to isolate the effect of a specific

state reform effort on a specific student outcome.

The information collected as part of accountability systems along with careful studies of reform implementation

and effects, however, may provide the data from which the impact of some of these reforms can be assessed. The

Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), for example, has examined the process of creating and

implementing reform efforts in a number of states and districts (e.g., Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe 1997), and the

effects of specific reforms on student achievement have been analyzed for particular communities (e.g., Clotfelter

and Ladd 1996). But given variations in the comprehensiveness of reform efforts and the speed with which they

are implemented, it may be several years before the impact of these changes can be fully assessed.

In addition to the changes states have made as a result of the reforms of the 1990s, states are now working to

implement the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110). This legislation affects each of the policy areas

discussed in this report, including standards, assessments, and accountability; finance; school resources; and school

choice. Although the details of the most recent reform efforts may differ from those of the 1990s, they share a

common goal of improving the academic achievement of the nation’s students.
111

Note: The date following entries with web links to electronic publications indicates when the publication was last retrieved.

Achieve, Inc. (2002). Achieve Initiatives. Available: http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/initiatives?openform [July

9, 2002]

Allen, N.L., Donoghue, J.R., and Schoeps, T.L. (2001). The NAEP 1998 Technical Report (NCES 2001–509).

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

American Federation of Teachers. (1996). Charter School Laws: Do They Measure Up? Washington, DC: Author.

Available: http://www.aft.org/edissues/chartrep.htm [June 14, 2001].

American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Making Standards Matter 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

Baker, E.L., and Linn, R.L. (forthcoming). Validity Issues for Accountability Systems. In R. Elmore and S. Fuhrman

(eds.) Redesigning Accountability.

Baker, E.L., and Linn, R.L. (1997). From the Directors: Revisiting Issues of Standards and Title I. The CRESST

Line, Spring 1997, 8–10.

Bauman, P.C. (1996). Governing Education: Public Sector Reform or Privatization. Denver, CO: Allyn and Bacon.

Berman, P., Nelson, B., Ericson, J., Perry, R., and Silverman, D. (1998). A National Study of Charter Schools:

Second Year Report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bielick, S., Chandler, K., and Broughman, S.P. (2001). Homeschooling in the United States: 1999 (NCES 2001-

033). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Blair, J. (1999). Wisconsin Districts Chafe Under State’s Revenue Limits. Education Week, 18(20): 1.

Blair, J. (2000). Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds School Finance System. Education Week, 19(43): 25.

Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm- and Criterion-Reference Testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(2).

Available: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=5&n=2 [May 5, 2000].

Bond, L., Roeber, E., and Braskamp, D. (1996). Trends in State Student Assessment Programs Fall 1996. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Brewer, D.J, Krop, C., Gill, B.P., and Reichardt, R. (1999). Estimating the Cost of National Class Size Reductions

Under Different Policy Alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2): 179–92.

Broughman, S.P., and Colaciello, L.A. (1999). Private School Universe Survey, 1997–98 (NCES 1999–319). U.S.

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Carr, M.C., and Fuhrman, S.H. (1999). The Politics of School Finance in the 1990s. In H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and

J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 136–174). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

References
112

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Center for Civic Education. (1994). National Standards for Civics and Government. Calabasas, CA: Author.

Center for Education Reform. (2000). Charter Schools Today: Changing the Face of American Education. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://edreform.com/charter_schools/today/index.html [June 13, 2001].

Christie, K. (2000). Professional Standards Boards—State Level. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Available: http://www.ecs.org./clearinghouse/18/25/1825.htm [June 13, 2001].

Clotfelter, C.T., and Ladd, H.F. (1996). Recognizing and Rewarding Success in Public Schools. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.),

Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education (pp. 23–63). Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution.

Cobb, C.D., and Glass, G.V. (1999). Ethnic Segregation in Arizona Charter Schools. Education Policy Analysis

Archives 7 (1). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n1/ [July 11, 2002].

Cochran-Smith, M., and Fries, M.K. (2001). Sticks, Stones, and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in Teacher

Education. Educational Researcher 30(8): 3–15.

Connecticut Department of Education. (1999). Public School Choice in Connecticut: A Guide for Parents, Guardians

and Primary Caregivers. Hartford, CT: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1997). Mathematics and Science Content Standards and Curriculum

Frameworks. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: Standards,

Graduation, Assessment, Teacher Licensure, Time and Attendance, 1998. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000a). Key State Education Policies on K–12 Education: Time and

Attendance, Graduation Requirements, Content Standards, Teacher Licensure, School Leader Licensure, Student Assessment: 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000b). State Education Accountability Reports and Indicator Reports:

Status of Reports Across the States—2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Courant, P.N., Gramlich, E.M., and Loeb, S. (1995). Michigan’s Recent School Finance Reforms: A Preliminary

Report. American Economic Review 85(2): 372–77.

Crampton, F., and Whitney, T. (1996a). Principles of a Sound State School Finance System. Foundation for State

Legislatures, Education Partners Project. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Crampton, T., and Whitney, F. (1996b). Taxation and Revenues for Education. Working paper 3. Foundation for

State Legislatures, Education Partners Project. Denver, CO: National Conference for State Legislatures.

Currie, J. (2000). Early Childhood Intervention Programs: What Do We Know? Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty

Research.

Currie, J. (2001). A Fresh Start for Head Start? Brookings Policy Brief, No. 5. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Dilworth, M.E., and Imig, D.G. (1995). Professional Teacher Development. The ERIC Review, 3(3): 5–11.

Donahue, P.L., Voelkl, K.E., Campbell, J.R., and Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the

Nations and States (NCES 1999–500). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.
113

Dounay, J. (2000). Advanced Placement Courses and Examinations – State-Level Policies. Denver, CO: Education

Commission of the States. Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/15/04/1504.htm [June 13, 2001].

Education Commission of the States. (1998a). Designing and Implementing Standards-Based Accountability

Systems. Denver, CO: Author.

Education Commission of the States. (1998b). The Progress of Education Reform: 1997. Denver, CO: Author.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). State Class-Size Reduction Measures. Denver, CO: Author. Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/16/1316.htm [June 13, 2001].

Education Commission of the States. (2000). Accountability–Rewards and Sanctions. Denver, CO: Author.

Education Partners Project Foundation for State Legislatures. (1998). Educational Adequacy: Building an Adequate School Finance System. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Education Week. (2000). Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach?, 19(18).

Education Week. (2001). Quality Counts 2001: A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to Succeed,

20(17).

Elmore, E., Abelmann, C., and Fuhrman, S. (1996). The New Accountability in State Education Reform: From

Process to Performance. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2000). America’s Children: Key Indicators of WellBeing, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Feistritzer, E. (2002). Alternative Teacher Certification: A State by State Analysis: 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

The Finance Project. (1997). Money Matters: A Guide to Financing Quality Education and Other Children’s

Services. Washington, DC: Author.

Finn, C., and Petrilli, M. (Eds.). (2000). The State of State Standards 2000. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham

Foundation.

Finn, J.D., and Achilles, C.M. (1999). Tennessee’s Class Size Study: Findings, Implications, Misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-110.

Fowler, W.J., and Monk, D.H. (2001). A Primer for Making Cost Adjustments in Education (NCES 2001–323).

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Fulton, M. (1997). State School Finance System Changes. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/14/95/1495.htm [June 13, 2001].

Fulton, M. (1999). Determining the Cost of a Basic or Core Education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of

the States. Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/18/1318.htm [June 13, 2001].

Georgia Department of Education. (2000). Grade 9–12: Technology & Career Education. Atlanta, GA: Georgia

Learning Connections. Available: http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/homepg.htm [June 13, 2001].

References
114

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Georgia Department of Education. (2003). Georgia Pre-K Program. Atlanta, GA: Office of School Readiness.

Available: http://www.osr.state.ga.us/whatisprek.html [January 3, 2003].

Gerald, D.E., and Hussar, W.J. (2000). Projections of Education Statistics to 2010 (NCES 2000–071). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Goertz, M.E., and Duffy, M.C. (2001). Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000

(CPRE Research Report Series RR-046). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Gold, S.D., Smith, D.M., and Lawton, S.B. (Eds.). (1995). Public School Finance Programs of the United States

and Canada, 1993-1994. Vol. 1. Albany, NY: American Education Finance Association and the Nelson A.

Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Goodson, B.D., Layzer, J.I., St. Pierre, R.G., Bernstein L.S., and Lopez, M. (2000). Effectiveness of a Comprehensive, Five-year Family Support Program for Low-income Families: Findings from the Comprehensive Child

Development Program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1): 5–39.

Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizek, G.A., and Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and Staffing

Survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs

Elementary and Secondary Schools (NCES 2002–313). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Guthrie, J.W., and Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling “Adequacy” to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy Into

State School Finance Distribution Arrangements. In H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and

Adequacy in Education: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 209–259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Available: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309065631/html/ [June 13, 2001].

Haertel, E. (1999). Performance Assessment and Education Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9): 662-666.

Hambleton, R.K. (1998). “Setting Performance Standards on Achievement Tests: Meeting the Requirements of

Title I” in Handbook for the Development of Performance Standards: Meeting the Requirements of Title I (pp.

87-106), by Linda N. Hansche. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Hansche, L.N. (1998). Meeting the Requirements of Title I: Handbook for the Development of Performance

Standards. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Hanuschek, E.A. (1999). Some Findings From an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment

and From Other Investigations of Class Size Effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2): 143–

63.

Hill, P., Lake, R., Celio, M.B., Campbell, C., Herdman, P., Bulkley, K. (2001) A Study of Charter School Accountability. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Institute for the Study of Educational Policy. (1997). Setting Performance Standards in Student Assessment. CSL

Policy Briefs: Information on Standards and Assessment from the Commission on Student Learning. Seattle,

WA: University of Washington.

Johnson, F. (2002) Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year

1999-2000 (NCES 2002-367). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
115

Johnston, R.C. (2002). State Policy Updates: New Jersey. Education Week, 21(17): 136–137.

Kane, M.B., Khattri, N., Reeve, A.L., and Adamson, R.J. (1997). Assessment of Student Performance: Studies of

Education Reform. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/ASP/stude.html [June 13, 2001].

Kane, T.J., and Staiger, D.O. (2001). Improving School Accountability Measures. NBER Working Paper Series

number 8156. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Karoly, L.A., Greeenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and

Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Costs and Benefits of

Early Childhood Interventions. Washington, DC: Rand Corporation.

Kendall, J., and Marzano, R. (2000). Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K–

12 Education, 3rd Edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Available:

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/ [July 9, 2002].

Kentucky Department of Education (2001). Interpretive Guide for the Commonwealth Accountability Testing

System Spring 2001. Available: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/oaa/implement/CATS_link_page.asp [June 6, 2002].

Klicka, C.J. (1998). Home Schooling in the United States: A Legal Analysis. Purcellville, VA: Home School Legal

Defense Association.

Ladd, H.F., and Hansen, J.S. (Eds.). (1999). Making Money Matter: Financing America’s Schools. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309065283/html/ [June 11, 2001].

La Marca, P.M, Redfield, D., and Winter, P.C. (2000). State Standards and State Assessment Systems: A Guide to

Alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., and Farris, E. (1999). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation

and Qualification of Public School Teachers (NCES 1999–080). U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lines, P.M. (2001). Homeschooling. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Management (ERIC Digest 151 EDO-EA-01-08).

Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and Accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2): 4–16.

Linn, R.L. (2001). The Design and Evaluation of Educational Assessment and Accountability Systems (CSE

Technical Report 539). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student

Testing (CRESST).

Linn, R.L., and Haug, C. (2002). Stability of School Building Accountability Scores and Gains (CSE Technical

Report 561). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Linn, R.L., and Herman, J.L. (1997). Standards-Led Assessment: Technical and Policy Issues in Measuring School

and Student Progress (CSE Technical Report 426). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Long, D. (1999). School Finance Litigation Case Citations. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Education Finance Statistics Center. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/Litigation/Contents.asp [June

11, 2001].

References
116

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Mackey, S. (1999). The Appropriate Role of User Charges in State and Local Finance. Denver, CO: Foundation

Fiscal Partners and National Conference of State Legislatures.

Manno, B.V., Finn, C.E., J., Bierlein, L.A., and Vanourek, G. (1997). Charter Schools in Action Project: Final

Report, 1997. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.

Martinez, M.E. (1999). Cognition and the Question of Test Item Format. Educational Psychologist 34 (4): 207–

219.

Massell, D., Kirst, M., and Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and Change: Standards-Based Reform in Nine States.

Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Mayer, D., Mullens, J., and Moore, M. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001-

030). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

McCarthy, M.M. (2000). What is the Verdict on School Vouchers? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 371–378.

McGree, K.M. (1995). Charter Schools: Early Learnings. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory.

McLaughlin, M.W., Shepard, L.A., and O’Day, J.A. (1995). Improving Education Through Standards-Based

Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform.

Medrich, E.A., Brown, C.L., Henke, R.H., Ross, L., and McArthur, E. (1992). Overview and Inventory of State

Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance (NCES 92–663). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Minorini, P.A., and Sugarman, S.D. (1999). Educational Adequacy and the Courts: The Promise and Problems of

Moving to a New Paradigm. In H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives (pp.175–208). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Mitchell, A., Ripple, C., and Chanana, N. (1998). Prekindergarten Programs Funded by the States: Essential Elements

for Policy Makers. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute. Available: http://www.familiesandwork.org/

announce/prek.html [June 11, 2001].

Moffit, R.E., Garrett, J.J., and Smith, J.A. (Eds.) (2001). School Choice 2001: What’s Happening in the States.

Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children, 5(2):

113–127.

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. (2000). Requirements for Professional Development 2000. Mashpee, MA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.

Washington, DC: Author.

National Education Goals Panel. (2001). Goals Work! Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.negp.gov/

page1-5.htm [June 14, 2001].

National Governors Association. (1997). Learning From State and Local Initiatives for Young Children.

Washington, DC: Author.
117

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Early Childhood Development and Learning: New Knowledge for Policy.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available: http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000338/html/ [June 11,

2001].

Nelson, B., Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman, D., and Solomon, D. (2000). The State of

Charter Schools 2000: Fourth-Year Report. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4thyear/ [June 11, 2001].

New Jersey Department of Education. (1996a). New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. Trenton, NJ:

Author. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/1996.htm [July 8, 2002].

New Jersey Department of Education. (1996b). New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards: Issues of Implementation. Trenton, NJ: Author. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/01introissues.html [July 8, 2002].

New Jersey Department of Education. (2002). New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. Trenton, NJ:

Author. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/02/ [July 8, 2002].

Noble, A.J., and Smith, M.L. (1994). Old and New Beliefs About Measurement-Driven Reform: “The More

Things Change, The More They Stay The Same” (CSE Technical Report 373). Los Angeles, CA: National

Center for Research and Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Odden, A. (1994). Including School Finance in Systemic Reform Strategies: A Commentary. Philadelphia, PA:

Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions. U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Olson, J.F., and Goldstein, A.A. (1997) The Inclusion of Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficient

Students in Large-Scale Assessments: A Summary of Recent Progress (NCES 97-482). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Parrish, T.B. (1996). Special Education Finance: Past, Present, and Future (Policy Paper Number 8). Palo Alto,

CA: Center for Special Education Finance. Available: http://csef.air.org/pubs_dload.html#PolPaps [June 11,

2001].

Parrish, T., O’Reilly, F., Duenas, I.E., and Wolman, J. (1997). State Special Education Finance Systems, 1994–

1995. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance. Available: http://csef.air.org/

pubs_dload.html#PolPaps [June 11, 2001].

Pong, S., and Pallas, A. (2001). Class Size and Eighth-Grade Math Achievement in the United States and Abroad.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3): 251–73.

Ravitch, D. (1998). Is Head Start Smart? The New Democrat, July/August.

Rofes, E. (1998). How Are School Districts Responding to Charter Laws and Charter Schools? A Study of Eight

States and the District of Columbia. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Rothstein, R. (1998). Charter Conundrum. The American Prospect, 9(39): 46–60. Available: http://www.prospect.org/

print/V9/39/rothstein-r.html [June 12, 2001].

References
118

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

Rubenstein, R., and Freeman, C. (2002). Do Local Sales Taxes for Education Increase Inequities? The Case of

Georgia’s ESPLOST. Georgia State University, Fiscal Research Program Report No. 72.

Schnailberg, L. (1998). Charter Schools Struggle With Accountability. Education Week, 17(39): 1.

Schultz, T., Lopez, E., and Hochberg, M. (1996). Early Childhood Reform in Seven Communities: Front-Line

Practice, Agency Management, and Public Policy. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Schweinhart, L.J. (2001). Recent Evidence on Preschool Programs. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (EDO-PS-01-9)

Sielke, C.C., and Holmes, T. (2002a). Highlights of Basic Support Programs and the Significant Changes in

Programs Since 1993-94. In American Education Finance Association, Public School Finance Programs of

the United States and Canada: 1998-99 (pp. 209–259). American Education Finance Association. Available

http://www.ed.sc.edu/aefa/reports/nces_rpt.html/ [April 5, 2002].

Sielke, C.C., and Holmes, T. (2002b). Highlights of Categorical Support Programs and the Significant Changes

in Programs Since 1993-94. In American Education Finance Association, Public School Finance Programs of

the United States and Canada: 1998-99 (pp. 209–259). American Education Finance Association. Available

http://www.ed.sc.edu/aefa/reports/nces_rpt.html/ [April 5, 2002].

Sielke, C.C., and Holmes, T. (2002c). Overview of Approaches to State School Funding. In American Education

Finance Association, Public School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada: 1998-99 (pp. 209–

259). American Education Finance Association. Available http://www.ed.sc.edu/aefa/reports/nces_rpt.html/

[April 5, 2002].

Snyder, T., and Hoffman, C.M. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999 (NCES 2000–031). U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Snyder, T., and Hoffman, C.M. (2001). Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 (NCES 2001–034). U.S. Department

of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Snyder, T., and Hoffman, C.M. (2002). Digest of Education Statistics, 2001 (NCES 2002–130). U.S. Department

of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Snyder, T., and Hoffman, C.M. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

State of Alabama. (1993). Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt (624 S.2d 107).

State of Kentucky. (1989). Rose v. Council for Better Education (790 S.W.2d 186).

State of Massachusetts. (1993). McDuffy v. Secretary of Education (615 N.E.2d 516).

State of New Hampshire. (1997). Claremont School District v. Gregg (635 A.2d 1375).

State of Ohio. (1997). DeRolph v. Ohio, (79 Ohio St. 3d 297).

State of New Jersey. (1990). Abbott v. Burke (575 A.2d 359).

State of New York. (1995). Campaign for Fiscal Equality v. State of New York (86 N.Y.2d 307).

State of Tennessee. (1993). Claremont School District v. Gregg (635 A.2d 1375).
119

State of Wyoming. (1980) Washakie v. Herschler (606 P.2d 310).

State of Wyoming. (1995). Campbell v. State (907 P.2d 1238).

Thompson, L. (1994). Academic Development in the Effective School: A Review of the Literature. Toronto:

Beacon.

Thurlow, M., and Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical Support for Accommodations Most Often Allowed in State Policy

(Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Available: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html [April 9, 2002].

UCLA Charter School Study. (1998). Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California

School Districts. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Available: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/gseisdoc/docs.shtml [June 14,

2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (1996a). Mapping Out the National Assessment of Title I: The Interim Report.

Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAssess/intro.html [June 12, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (1996b). Improving America’s Schools: A Newsletter on Issues in School Reform,

Spring. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/newsletters/standards/pt1.html [June 13, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (1998c). Twentieth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). The Initial Report of the Secretary on the Quality of Teacher Preparation.

Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/News/

teacherprep/ [June 12, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (2000a). Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/VocEd/InfoBoard/legis.html [June 12, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (2000b). Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year One Evaluation

Report (Doc #2001-06). Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.

Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/chartschools/ [June 12, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (2000c). Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000d). State Regulation of Private Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/ [June 12, 2001].

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment

of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization. Washington, DC: Office of the Under

Secretary.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary

Education.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of Current

Program (HEHS-97-59). Washington, DC: Author.

References
120

Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Medicaid and Special Education: Coordination of Services for Children

with Disabilities is Evolving (GAO/HEHS-00-20). Washington, DC: Author.

Van Slyke, D., Tan, A., and Orland, M. (1994). School Finance Litigation: A Review of Key Cases. Washington

DC: The Finance Project. Available: http://www.financeproject.org/litigation.html [June 12, 2001].

Viadero, D. (2001). New Hampshire Court Upholds Schools Tax as Funding Debate Rages. Education Week,

20(34): 22.

Webb, N.L. (1999). Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States (Research

Monograph No. 18). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

West, A. (2000). School Finance Litigation. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Wirt, J., Choy, S., Gerald, D., Provasnik, S., Rooney, P., Watanabe, S., Tobin, R., Glander, M. (2001). The Condition of Education 2001 (NCES 2001-072). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zehr, M.A. (1999). At Long Last, New Hampshire Passes School Finance Plan. Education Week, 18(34): 18.

Ziebarth, T. (2000a). Rewards and Sanctions for Districts and Schools. Denver, CO: Education Commission of

the States. Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/18/24/1824.htm [June 13, 2001].

Ziebarth, T. (2000b). Vouchers, Tax Credits and Tax Deductions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the

States. Available: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/14/44/1444.htm [June 13, 2001].

Ziebarth, T. (2001). School Choice: State Actions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available:

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/75/1375.htm [June 6, 2002].

Zigler, E., and Styfco, S.J. (1994). Head Start: Criticisms in Constructive Context. American Psychologist, 49(2):

127–32.