PROMISING PRACTICES:

PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOALS

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL

1998

Lessons

from the States
Governors

Cecil H. Underwood, West Virginia (Chair, 1998)

John Engler, Michigan

Bill Graves, Kansas

James B. Hunt, Jr., North Carolina

Paul E. Patton, Kentucky

Roy Romer, Colorado

Tommy G. Thompson, Wisconsin

Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey

Members of the Administration

Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education

Michael Cohen, Office of Domestic Policy, White House

Members of Congress

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico

U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords, Vermont

U.S. Representative William F. Goodling, Pennsylvania

U.S. Representative Matthew G. Martínez, California

State Legislators

Representative G. Spencer Coggs, Wisconsin

Representative Ron Cowell, Pennsylvania

Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw, Illinois

Representative Douglas R. Jones, Idaho

National Education Goals Panel Staff

Ken Nelson, Executive Director

John W. Barth, Senior Education Associate

Christopher R. Harrington, Education Associate

Leslie A. Lawrence, Senior Education Associate

Cynthia D. Prince, Associate Director for Analysis and Reporting

Emily O. Wurtz, Senior Education Associate

Cynthia M. Dixon, Program Assistant

Sherry J. George, Secretary

John Masaitis, Executive Officer
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOALS

1998

Lessons

from the States
3

December 1998

On behalf of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP), I am pleased to present Promising Practices:

Progress Toward the Goals as a companion volume to the 1998 National Education Goals Report. The Panel

has selected one indicator for each of eight national education goals and asked these questions: Which

states have made the most progress in this area? Which states perform at the highest level? Which states

show the most progress across all the goals and indicators? And why?

Throughout 1998 the NEGP Monthly conducted interviews with policymakers in the states that have

made top improvement and performance on indicators of progress toward the national education goals.

Promising Practices tells their story. State officials—from governors’ offices, legislatures, and state departments of education to those directing especially effective programs—told the story behind the data and

what these officials consider to be the reasons for their success. Although officials were sometimes uncertain themselves what accounted for their state’s success, the information they shared reflects the thinking

of states that have made progress systemwide, either on a specific topic or in education reform in general.

Their stories are intended to help other states contending with similar issues.

The Goals Panel believes there are more stories to be told. More attention needs to be paid to what we

can learn from the “natural experiment” of state educational reform. As these data show, some states are

achieving remarkable statewide improvements. The patterns shown here for North Carolina and Texas

provide lessons for us all. State policymakers can use this Promising Practices to identify successful states

and borrow ideas from the states making the most progress.

Reports of the Goals Panel show how your state performed and what state to benchmark it to. This

publication indicates the policy story behind the successes of the best-performing states. We hope this book

will help states learn from each other.

Sincerely,

Cecil H. Underwood, Chair (1998)

National Education Goals Panel

and Governor of West Virginia
4

Emily Wurtz wrote Promising Practices: Progress Toward the Goals on the basis of articles

written in 1998 by Barbara Pape in the NEGP Monthly, and on the basis of “Exploring the

Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and Texas” specially prepared for the Goals

Panel by David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan of the Rand Corporation. Christopher Harrington and John Barth made significant contributions to the development of this document. The National Education Goals Panel would like to acknowledge the generous

contribution of photographs in this document by the National Education Association, the

North Carolina Division of Archives and History (State Capitol), and the Texas Senate

Media Service.

FORM LEADERSHIP, STANDARDS,

AND ASSESSMENTS

PART A—NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL

SEC. 203. [20 U.S.C. 5823] DUTIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Goals Panel shall—

(1) report to the President, the Secretary, and the Congress regarding the progress the Nation and the States are

making toward achieving the National Education Goals established under title I of this Act, including issuing an annual report;

(2) review voluntary national content standards and voluntary national student performance standards;

(3) report on promising or effective actions being taken

at the national, State, and local levels, and in the public and

private sectors, to achieve the National Education Goals; and

(4) help build a nationwide, bipartisan consensus for the

reforms necessary to achieve the National Education Goals.
5

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Lessons From the States

Goal 1: Ready to Learn 

Indicator: Immunization of Two-Year-Olds

Information From Connecticut, Maine, and Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Goal 2: School Completion 

Indicator: High School Completion Rate

Information From Maryland, Nebraska, and Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Goal 3: Student Achievement 

Indicator: AP Exams

Information From Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Goal 4: Teacher Education 

Indicator: Certificates and Degrees in Teaching Assignment

Information From Oklahoma and Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Goal 5: Mathematics and Science 

Indicator: Math Achievement on NAEP

Information From Connecticut, Texas, and Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Goal 6: Adult Literacy 

Indicator: Post-Secondary Enrollment

Information From Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Goal 7: Safe Schools 

Indicator: Students Carrying a Weapon

Information From North Carolina and Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Goal 8: Parental Participation 

Indicator: Principals’ Report of Parental Involvement

Information From Colorado, Indiana, and California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Progress Across the Goals:

Similarities of Success in North Carolina and Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Resources: For Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6

Promising Practices: Progress Toward the Goals uses

data from the annual report of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) to identify success and

uncover the stories behind it. It tells the stories of

the states that have performed the best or improved

the most on a set of carefully selected indicators. For

example, the 1998 Goals Report shows that six states

significantly increased the percentage of two-yearolds who had been fully immunized against preventable childhood diseases, a Goal 1 indicator.

Promising Practices tells the story about the governor of Missouri sending all new parents a card of

personal congratulations that includes a reminder

of the immunization schedule for their baby.

Using Statewide Progress to

Look for What Works

Every state can learn from those making the most

progress. It is said there is no problem in American

education that is not already solved in some American school. The pressing need is to discover these

success stories and determine how they happened.

The data of the National Education Goals Panel can

help.

Claims based on these data are not self-declared victories. The Panel, a bipartisan group of governors,

state legislators, members of the U.S. Congress, and

White House representatives, upon the advice of

education experts, selected the best available data as

indicators of progress toward the goals. They did

not know what those indicators would show from

year to year. They did agree that this information is

an essential tool in their work to improve education.

Those data show that while national progress may

be slow overall, state performance varies, and some

states are doing well. Fifteen states have achieved a

90 percent high school completion rate, thus reaching Goal 2, and fifty have increased the number of

Advanced Placement (AP) exams receiving a grade

of 3 or higher, an indicator to measure Goal 3.

Much can be learned from these success stories, if

we know where to look and what questions to ask.

As a nation, we need to learn how to use these data

effectively. Promising Practices: Progress Toward the

Goals is one attempt to do so.

Where Did These “Promising

Practices” Come From?

For each national education goal, one NEGP indicator was chosen. For Goal 1, readiness to learn at the

start of school, the indicator was immunization of

two-year-olds. For Goal 2, high school completion,

it was high school completion rates. For Goal 3, student achievement, it was scores on AP exams. For

Goal 4, teacher education, it was a certificate or

degree in teachers’ main teaching assignment. For

Goal 5, math and science achievement, it was 8th

grade math achievement. For Goal 6, adult literacy,

it was post-secondary enrollment. For Goal 7, safe

schools, it was students carrying a weapon at school.

For Goal 8, parent participation, it was principals’

reports of parent participation.

States that performed well or improved a lot on these

indicators were asked how they did it. State officials

were interviewed and asked to what they attributed

the state’s good performance. Officials were sometimes frank to say they were not sure. Nonetheless,

they described the policies and programs that in

their judgment may account for progress.

Education improvement often occurs in multiple

areas at the same time, so the Panel also identified

the two states, North Carolina and Texas, that made

progress on more NEGP indicators than any other

states. In 1997 North Carolina made statistically

significant progress on 14 NEGP measures of

progress toward the goals, and Texas did so 13. Special case studies were commissioned on education

reform in these two states to uncover the stories of
Both developed academic standards, linked the

state assessment to the standards, provided computerized test score feedback to schools, built

accountability systems with financial rewards and

sanctions for results, increased local flexibility,

shifted resources to poor schools, and enjoyed

strong leadership and hands-on involvement of the

business community.

Promising Practices is not comprehensive. Goals

Panel data show other states doing equally well;

other policies may be as effective as those cited

here; and factors not mentioned may one day prove

studies, the availability of data that are comparable

among the states is woefully inadequate.

Nonetheless, the states described in this book have

experienced statewide success, and their practices

reflect what state officials believe caused the success. These practices are not isolated programs of

excellence, but are strategies applied in states with

statewide success on tough measures of education

progress. Promising Practices: Progress Toward the

Goals offers readers food for thought as they develop school improvement efforts in their state or

school district.

7
8

By the year 2000, all children in America 

will start school ready to learn.

Objectives

■ All children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that

help prepare children for school.

■ Every parent in the United States will be a child’s first teacher and devote time each day to helping

such parent’s preschool child learn, and parents will have access to the training and support parents

need.

■ Children will receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care needed to arrive at

school with healthy minds and bodies and to maintain the mental alertness necessary to be prepared

to learn, and the number of low-birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced

prenatal health systems.

Indicator

■ Immunizations: What states increased the percentage of two-year-olds who have been

fully immunized against preventable childhood diseases (based on data from 1994 and

1997)?

Nothing could be more important than the wellbeing of the very young. Unless society meets the

basic needs that enable children to

learn, schools will not succeed in

their efforts to teach. The National

Education Goals Panel seeks a

good way to measure whether children start school ready to learn.

Early childhood specialists have

advised the Panel on the fundamental issue of what it means to be

ready to learn. Advisors recommend that “readiness” involves

many aspects—from physical

health to social and emotional

development, language use, and

general knowledge—and they note

that no current data describe all these aspects of

readiness. Until better information is available, the

advisors recommend reporting

progress toward Goal 1 objectives.

For the health objective, the Panel

reports whether two-year-olds are

up-to-date on their immunizations. For the country as a whole in

1997, 78 percent of two-year-olds

had the recommended shots

against preventable childhood diseases, including polio and measles.

Connecticut and Maine are among

the states with the highest performance and Missouri is among

the states with the most improvement on this indicator.
See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes. 9

Improvement over time

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages of fully immunized 2-year-olds:

(1994) (1997) Change

Michigan 61% 77% +16

West Virginia 66% 82% +16

Missouri 64% 78% +14

Alabama 75% 86% +11

Illinois 68% 76% +8

Most-improved states

Immunizations

Have states1 increased the percentages of 2-year-olds who have been fully immunized against preventable childhood

diseases?

↑ Better 6 states and the U.S.

↔ No Change 45 states

↓ Worse 0 states

Between 1994 and 1997, the U.S. and 6 states (out of 51) increased the percentages of 2-year-olds who had been

fully immunized against preventable childhood diseases:

1. Alabama

2. Illinois

3. Michigan

4. Missouri

5. Washington

6. West Virginia

States with the highest percentages of fully

immunized 2-year-olds:

(1997)

Connecticut 87%

Maine 87%

Massachusetts 87%

Alabama 86%

Vermont 86%

New Hampshire 85%

Rhode Island 84%

North Dakota 83%

U.S. 78%

* States that had a significantly higher percentage

than the U.S. average.

Highest-performing states*

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.
10

Connecticut

In 1997, Connecticut had 87 percent of its two-yearolds immunized, making it among the highestperforming states in the nation on this indicator.

Vincent Sacco, supervisor of the immunization

program at the Connecticut Department of Public

Health, attributed this success to a targeted outreach and referral program. Connecticut used federal funds available through the 1993 Childhood

Immunization Initiative Act to develop infrastructure in 12 municipalities deemed high risk. The

funds allowed the state to develop local infrastructure and to make vaccines available free of charge to

all children in the state. Staff traveled to local communities to perform outreach and referral, expand

immunization clinics, and conduct immunization

assessments of both public and private providers.

Aggressive immunization campaigns arose in local

areas, led by local advisory committees. Sacco

attributes the increase in immunizations to this

grassroots effort that pulled in the local community and tapped related networks.

Sacco also points to a 1994 state law that gave the

commissioner of the Department of Public Health

the authority to establish an immunization registry

and that requires providers to report immunization

information to the state registry. Sacco estimates

that an enhanced registry will be operational by the

end of 1998.

Maine

In 1994, 82 percent of Maine’s two-year-olds were

immunized. State and local efforts helped increase

that figure to 87 percent in 1997. Dora Anne Mills,

director of the Maine Bureau of Health and the

state health officer, says that four years ago, field

staff from the Bureau’s immunization office

embarked on an intensive statewide survey of medical charts housed in the offices of health care

providers who provided childhood immunizations.

The field staff would spend several days in the

physicians’ offices reviewing sample surveys of

medical charts and offering tips on how health care

providers could flag the charts of patients who may

be at risk of missing a shot. They typically targeted

families who missed previous appointments or

were on Medicaid.

The Bureau also engaged in a marketing campaign,

using funds from the Centers for Disease Control.

Public service ads were placed on popular afternoon television programs to reach at-home caregivers. A one-time reminder to immunize was sent

with bills from several power companies.

A less labor-intensive technique, according to Mills,

is an immunization registry. According to Mills,

Maine’s registry will be unique in several respects.

First, it will offer services to all health care

providers, including private practitioners, who

work with childhood vaccines. Currently, most

state registries are provided only to public clinics

and other public health facilities. Maine’s registry,

working in partnership with New Hampshire, will

also be the first multistate registry. And it will be

the first Web-based registry. The program, called

ImPact, contains insurance data and electronic

birth certificates. Besides keeping a complete record

on childhood immunizations and installing a

remind-recall system for physicians, the website

will allow physicians to order and ship vaccines,

To increase two-year-olds’ immunizations, high-performing and high-improving states have found that

grassroots efforts, targeting pockets of need, and developing immunization registries each help raise the

number of two-year-olds who are up-to-date in their shots.
11

and is expected to be fully operational by fall 1998.

Missouri

Missouri is among the states with the greatest

increase in the percentage of two-years-olds immunized. In 1994, only 64 percent of the state’s twoyear-olds were immunized, but this figure jumped

14 percentage points to 78 percent by 1997.

Led by the Kansas City–based Partnership for Children, the governor in 1995 agreed to send every

parent of a newborn child in Missouri a congratulatory card with an immunization reminder. The

Partnership asked the Hallmark greeting card company to design and print the card with a personal

program we’ve done,” said Bryan Norman, director

of Strategic Planning, Policy, and Special Projects at

the Missouri Department of Health.

“The partnership of Hallmark, the governor and

First Lady, and the Health Department demonstrates that childhood immunizations are most

effectively carried out through public-private partnerships,” said Maureen Dempsey, director of the

Missouri Department of Health and former head of

the state’s immunization program. “This direct

communication from Hallmark and the governor

has helped us reach neighborhoods where prior

immunization attempts have failed.”

Lessons Learned

■ Every encounter between a health care provider and a child is an opportunity that should be seized to

update immunizations—either in routine or emergency visits.

■ An immunization registry accessible via the Internet can help centralize records and inform potential

providers what shots a child currently needs.

■ Grassroots endeavors of public-private partnerships or state outreach to educate parents and health

care providers can improve immunization rates dramatically.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/feb3-98.htm.

Connecticut

Vincent Sacco: CT Department of Public Health, 410

Capitol Ave., MS #11MUN, P.O. Box 340308, Hartford, CT

06134-0308; (860) 509-7929

Maine

Jude Walsh: Director of the ME Immunization EPS/DT

Program, 2 Bangor St., Augusta, ME 04333; (207) 287-3746

Missouri

Maureen Dempsey: Director, MO Department of Health;

P.O. Box 570; Jefferson City, MO 65102; (573) 751-6001

Sue Denny: Public Information and Education Specialist,

MO Department of Health, Section of Vaccine—

Preventable and TB Disease Elimination, P.O. Box 570,

Jefferson City, MO 65102; (800) 699-2313 
12

By the year 2000, the high school graduation 

rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

Objectives

■ The nation must dramatically reduce its school dropout rate, and 75 percent of the students who do

drop out will successfully complete a high school degree or its equivalent.

■ The gap in high school graduation rates between American students from minority backgrounds and

their nonminority counterparts will be eliminated.

Indicator

■ High school completion: What states increased the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds

who have a high school credential (based on data from 1990 and 1996)?

High school completion has

become a must for students hoping to find a job and prosper in the

information-based economy. Both

the credential and the knowledge

and skills it represents increase a

student’s chances for a successful

adult life. To measure progress

toward Goal 2, increasing the high

school completion rate to at least

90 percent, the National Education

Goals Panel reports the combined

number of students with a high

school diploma and those earning

an alternative credential. In 1997,

86 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds

nationwide had a high school credential, and 15 states met the goal

of having a 90 percent or higher

state completion rate. Those 15

states were Connecticut, Hawaii,

Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New

York, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Maryland is

among both the highest performing and most improved states;

Nebraska is among the states that

have already met Goal 2; and

Tennessee is one of the most

improved states.
See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes. 13

Improvement over time

Achieved the Goal

Goal 2 states that by the year 2000 the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%. In 1996, 18- to 24-

year-olds in 15 (out of 51) states had already achieved a 90% high school completion rate:

1. Connecticut

2. Hawaii

3. Kansas

4. Maine

5. Maryland

6. Massachusetts

7. Michigan

8. Minnesota

9. Nebraska

10. New Hampshire

11. New York

12. Utah

13. Virginia

14. West Virginia

15. Wisconsin

Highest-performing states* Most-improved states

High School Completion Rates

Have states1 increased the percentages of 18- to 24-year-olds who have a high school credential?

↑ Better 10 states

↔ No Change 37 states and the U.S.

↓ Worse 4 states

States with the highest percentages of 18- to

24-year-olds with a high school credential

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages

of 18- to 24-year-olds with a high school credential:

(1990) (1996) Change*

Maryland 87% 95% +8

Tennessee 77% 84% +8

West Virginia 83% 91% +8

South Carolina 83% 89% +7

New York 88% 94% +6

North Carolina 83% 89% +6

*Differences between the first two columns may differ slightly

from the figures reported in the “change” column due to

rounding.

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

1. California

2. Connecticut

3. Illinois

4. Maryland

5. Michigan

6. New York

7. North Carolina

8. South Carolina

9. Tennessee

10. West Virginia

Between 1990 and 1996, 10 states (out of 51) increased the percentages of 18- to 24-year-olds who have a high

school credential:

(1996)

Maryland 95%

Connecticut 94%

New York 94%

Hawaii 93%

Kansas 92%

Minnesota 92%

Massachusetts 91%

New Hampshire 91%

Utah 91%

(1996)

West Virginia 91%

Maine 90%

Michigan 90%

Wisconsin 90%

Illinois 89%

Ohio 89%

Pennsylvania 88%

U.S. 86%

* States that had a significantly higher percentage

than the U.S. average.
14

Maryland

Maryland increased its high school completion rate

from 87 percent in 1990 to 95 percent in 1996,

making it both one of the highest performing and

one of ten most-improved states on this indicator.

Ron Peiffer, assistant state superintendent, believes

a combination of new programs—many of them

aimed at raising academic standards—had a “positive influence on our high school completion rate.”

First, the Maryland School Performance Program is

a statewide school reform and accountability program that requires dropout data to be reported.

School improvement teams at each school examine

state and local student performance data to develop

school improvement plans. Annual progress data

are issued as “report cards” for the state, local systems, and individual schools. Each school and

school system must report to the public and the

legislature on school attendance and dropout rates,

as well as testing scores and other data, creating

effective incentives for local improvement efforts.

Then, Maryland’s Tomorrow Program targets assistance to students who might not otherwise graduate. It gives year-round, multiyear supplemental

instruction, student support, case management,

and enrichment to more than 7,000 at-risk youth.

The program focuses on school-to-work transition

for high school youth and academic support to stabilize student behaviors in middle school that

interfere with learning. Family and community

support are also provided.

In addition, “Tech Prep” is a set of grade 9–12

courses that help prepare students for post-secondary technical study and entry-level careers. Technical courses are combined with academic courses

emphasizing math, science, and technology. After

high school, students continue technical training at

community colleges, in apprenticeships, or at private career schools. Among other programs that

Peiffer thinks encourage students to complete high

school are those focused on careers, teen pregnancy

prevention, bilingual education, the General Education Development (GED) testing program, adult

diploma programs, and evening high schools.

Nebraska

Nebraska was a high performer in 1990, with a 91

percent high school completion rate, and maintained that performance in 1996 with 92 percent.

Ann Masters, with the Nebraska Department of

Education, believes that the “solid family structure”

of rural Nebraska encourages school completion

among its students. She emphasizes that while

school completion programs are under local control in Nebraska, school districts that apply for state

lottery money or Goals 2000 funds must submit a

school improvement plan addressing high school

completion rates.

Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, has four large high

schools that offer a school-within-a-school program for students at risk of leaving school. Dr.

Marilyn Moore, associate superintendent for

instruction, reports that the school-within-aschool program keeps 80 students with four teachers throughout high school. “The schools create

smaller opportunities within the larger high

school,” she explained. Faculty provide smaller

classes with a rich curriculum clearly connected to

the community and the world of work. Personalized attention and parent involvement are emphasized. There are many varied after-school programs

with teachers and mentors.

Lincoln operates other programs as well, including

an alternative high school that serves about 140 students. A district mentoring program links 7th and

8th grade students with community adults and

requires student participation in community out15

parents are required to take a course on caring for

children and spend one period a day in the child

care center learning to care for their own baby. “We

know that five years from now, these babies will be

our kindergartners,” says Moore.

Tennessee

Tennessee is one of ten most-improved states and

has raised high school completion rates from 77

percent in 1990 to 84 percent in 1996. Scott Owens,

then a school accountability and attendance administrator with the Tennessee Department of Education, attributes this success to improved tracking

and state incentives for local schools to reduce the

dropout rate.

ures, including lowering their dropout rate. Schools

with a dropout rate of less than 10 percent for

grades 9–12 are considered for nomination to the

incentive program. The state’s Department of Education calculates the dropout rates for each school

nominated using data submitted by the local

school. Schools that meet or exceed all the standards, including the dropout rate, are eligible to

share a monetary award of $500,000, authorized by

the state legislature. The incentive program is part

of the state’s 1992 Education Improvement Act.

Tennessee also revokes the driver’s license of any

student 15 years of age or older who withdraws

from school. By law, students under 18 who apply

for a license must prove that they are students or

have finished high school or the equivalent.

Lessons Learned

■ States believe that multiple programs targeted early to students at risk of dropping out should be

offered. Efforts to raise standards of student achievement have not to date increased school dropout

rates.

■ Students stay in schools that offer personal connections with caring adults, connections made possible in

school-within-a-school programs, and with adults involved in community activities.

■ Local districts need to collect, disaggregate, report, and publicize school data on dropouts so they can

appropriately target programs, especially for Hispanic students.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/jul10-98.htm.

Maryland

Ron Peiffer: Assistant State Superintendent, MD State

Department of Education, 200 West Baltimore St., Baltimore, MD 21201; (410) 767-0473

Nebraska

Marilyn Moore: Associate Superintendent for Instruction,

Lincoln Public Schools, 5901 O St., Lincoln, NE 68510;

(402) 436-1625; mmoore@lps.org

Ann Masters: Administrator of Education and Policy

Programs, NE Department of Education, P.O. Box 94987,

Lincoln, NE 68509; (402) 471-4816

Tennessee

James Abermathy: Executive Director, Division of

Accountability, TN Department of Education, Andrew

Johnson Tower, 7th Flr, 710 James Robinson Pkwy,

Nashville, TN 37243; (615) 532-4703
16

By the year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12

having demonstrated competency in challenging subject

matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign

languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history

and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students

learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible

citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s

modern economy.

Objectives

■ The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely

reflect the student population as a whole.

■ The percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially.

■ All students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health,

community service, and personal responsibility.

■ All students will have access to physical education and health education to ensure they are healthy

and fit.

■ The percentage of all students who are competent in more than one language will substantially

increase.

■ All students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this nation and about the

world community.

Indicator

■ Advanced Placement performance: What states

increased the number of Advanced Placement

examinations (per 1,000 11th and 12th graders)

receiving a grade of 3 or higher (based on data

from 1991 and 1998)? [See also Goal 5 for data on

mathematics achievement, pp. 24–27, and section on

North Carolina and Texas, pp. 40–43.]
Raising student academic achievement is the central

goal of education reform. Schools provide students

the knowledge and skills they will need in an economy that will demand higher levels of literacy from all

workers. The Goals Panel measures student mastery

of challenging subject matter on tests that are common among the states and focused on assessing challenging levels of the subjects taught. The Advanced

Placement (AP) exam is such a test. Established to

allow high school students anywhere to earn college

credit, a grade of 3 on an AP exam is a uniform

measure across states. The test measures a challenging level of knowledge that is provided in courses in

an ever-growing number of high schools across the

country. While traditionally taken by college-bound

students, the exams are increasingly accessible to all

high school students willing to work hard to master

challenging subject matter. Between 1991 and 1998,

50 states and the District of Columbia increased the

number of AP exams receiving a grade of 3 or higher per 1,000 11th and 12th graders. Massachusetts

and New Jersey were among the states making the

greatest improvement, and Utah was one of the

states with the highest proportion of AP exams

receiving a grade of at least 3.

17

Highest-performing states* Most-improved states

Advanced Placement Performance

Have states1 increased the number of Advanced Placement examinations receiving a grade of 3 or higher (per 1,000

11th and 12th graders)?

↑ Better 50 states and the U.S.

↔ No Change 0 states

↓ Worse 1 state

States with the highest numbers of

Advanced Placement examinations

receiving a grade of 3 or higher (per

1,000 11th and 12th graders):

(1998)

District of Columbia 235

New York 152

Virginia 149

Connecticut 144

Utah 139

U.S. 88

*Top 11 states

States that made the greatest gains in the numbers of

Advanced Placement examinations receiving a grade of 3 or

higher (per 1,000 11th and 12th graders):

(1991) (1998) Change

Connecticut 83 144 +60 *

District of Columbia 177 235 +58

New Jersey 81 135 +55 *

New York 97 152 +54 *

Massachusetts 82 136 +53 *

*Differences between the first two columns may differ slightly from the

figures reported in the “change” column due to rounding.

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes.

Improvement over time

Between 1991 and 1998, the U.S. and 50 states (out of 51) significantly increased the numbers of Advanced Placement examinations receiving a grade of 3 or higher (per 1,000 11th and 12th graders).
18

Massachusetts

Massachusetts was one of the most improved states

on this indicator. A state grant program, part of the

1993 Education Reform Act, provides dollars to

school districts to start AP courses. AP receives

about $500,000 in the incentive-grant program,

coupled with about $440,000 that is available for

gifted and talented grants, explained Nick Fischer,

then associate commissioner for finance and

accountability for the Massachusetts Department

of Education. It “depends on the districts how AP

and gifted and talented are connected,” he said. In

November 1997 the state Board of Education

decided to award students who earn a 4 or better on

two or more AP exams with a Certificate of Mastery. Certificates of Mastery also could be dispensed

to students who successfully pass an international

baccalaureate program or students who score at a

certain percentile on scholastic achievement tests.

New Jersey

New Jersey is among the most improved states in

increasing the number of AP exams taken with

scores high enough to be eligible for college credit.

New Jersey officials are especially proud that

despite steady increases in AP participation rates,

the mean score of New Jersey students has

remained relatively constant. “In combination, the

increased student participation in the rigorous AP

Program and the sustained levels of success should

be viewed as indicative of educational improvement,” said Ellen Schechter, assistant commissioner

in the New Jersey Department of Education.

Schechter also notes that 85 percent of all secondary schools in the state participate in the AP Program, compared to the nation’s average rate of 53

percent school participation. Local school districts

establish the criteria for who can enroll in AP classes, but Schechter says there has been “much effort

of late...to increase the number of AP courses” in 28

of the state’s most impoverished districts.

Utah

Utah has among the highest rates (139 per 1,000

11th and 12th graders) of AP exams with scores of

3 or better. Much of Utah’s success in getting students to take and pass the AP exams rests on a 1984

law that provides financial incentives to schools

with the highest number of students passing AP

exams with scores of 3 or better each year. Most

schools use the funds to provide teacher training

and purchase classroom materials.

of high school students planning to go to college. Now rigorous academic standards and post-secondary

education are considered important for many more students. The AP Program has grown in all states

accordingly. While local districts determine whether to offer AP courses and which students may take them,

top-performing states encourage participation and provide funding to subsidize test costs for students and

teacher-training costs for schools.
19

gg gg

challenging subject matter by 

■ underwriting all or part of student test fees to take AP exams, 

■ providing teacher training for those preparing to teach an AP course, and

■ encouraging or requiring all high schools to offer AP classes. 

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/mar3-98.htm.

Massachusetts

Carole Thomson: Acting Assoc. Commissioner of Education Improvement, MA Department of Education, 350

Main St., Malden, MA 02148-5023; (781) 388-3300, ext.

438

New Jersey

Ellen Schechter: Assistant Commissioner of the 

Division of Academic and Career Standards, NJ 

Department of Education, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ

08625; (609) 292-1083

Utah

Gary Carlston: Deputy for Education, Office of the Governor, State of Utah, 210 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, UT

84114; (801) 538-1557
Good teaching is the central ingredient in a good

education. Good teacher education and professional development are central ingredients in developing good teaching. But capable individuals with

excellent training may not do well if assigned to

teach an area for which they were not trained.

Therefore the Goals Panel reports two

indicators: the rates at which teachers

are assigned to teach in an area for

which they have a degree, and the

rates at which teachers are assigned to

teach in an area for which they have a

certificate. Unfortunately, eight states

and the U.S. average have declined on

each of these measures, and one state

more declined on both. No state

improved the percentage of teachers with a degree

in their main teaching assignment, and only Oklahoma increased the percentage of teachers with a

certificate in the subject they teach. In many areas

where student population is increasing, especially if

attempts are made to lower class size, pressure is

mounting to lower the standards for

the training of those assigned to

teach. Officials from Oklahoma

describe the legislation they think

encouraged the improvement they

made, and officials from Minnesota

tell why they believe they have the

highest rate of teachers with degrees

in the subject they are assigned to

teach.

20

By the year 2000, the nations teaching force will have

access to programs for the continued improvement of their

professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the

knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all

American students for the next century.

Objectives

■ All teachers will have access to preservice teacher education and continuing professional development

activities that will provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to teach an increasingly diverse

student population with a variety of educational, social, and health needs.

■ All teachers will have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to

teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging methods, forms of assessment, and technologies.

■ States and school districts will create integrated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain, and support the continued professional development of teachers, administrators, and other educators, so that

there is a highly talented workforce of professional educators to teach challenging subject matter.

■ Partnerships will be established, whenever possible, among local educational agencies, institutions of

higher education, parents, and local labor, business, and professional associations to provide and support programs for the professional development of educators.

Indicator

■ Teacher preparation: What states increased teacher preparation, as measured by the percentage of public secondary school teachers who hold

— an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching assignment and

— a teaching certificate in their main teaching assignment (based on data from 1991 and 1994)?
21

Improvement over time

Highest-performing states*

States with the highest percentages of public secondary

school teachers who hold an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching assignment:

(1994)

Minnesota 81%

North Dakota 76%

Rhode Island 76%

Nebraska 75%

New York 75%

Connecticut 74%

District of Columbia 73%

Vermont 73%

Illinois 72%

Maryland 72%

Massachusetts 72%

Pennsylvania 72%

Wyoming 72%

New Hampshire 71%

Indiana 70%

Iowa 70%

U.S. 63%

* States that had a significantly higher percentage than the

U.S. average.

Between 1991 and 1994, no state (out of 51) significantly

increased the percentage of public secondary school teachers who hold an undergraduate or graduate degree in their

main teaching assignment.

Most-improved states

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages of

public secondary school teachers who hold an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching assignment:

No state made a significant improvement between 1991

and 1994. 

Teacher Preparation

■ Academic Degrees 

Have states1 increased the percentages of public

secondary school teachers who hold an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching

assignment?

↑ Better 0 states

↔ No Change 42 states

↓ Worse 9 states and the U.S.

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes.

Highest-performing states*

Teacher Preparation

■ Teaching Certificates 

Have states1 increased the percentages of public

secondary school teachers who hold a teaching

certificate in their main teaching assignment?

↑ Better 1 states

↔ No Change 41 states

↓ Worse 9 states and the U.S. 

Between 1991 and 1994, 1 state (out of 51) significantly

increased the percentage of public secondary school teachers who hold a teaching certificate in their main teaching

assignment:

1. Oklahoma (1991) 98% (1994) 99% Change +1

Most-improved states

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages of

public secondary school teachers who hold a teaching

certificate in their main teaching assignment:

1. Oklahoma

States with the highest percentages of public secondary

school teachers who hold a teaching certificate in their

main teaching assignment:

(1994)

North Dakota 100%

Rhode Island 100%

Connecticut 99%

Kansas 99%

Michigan 99%

Nebraska 99%

Oklahoma 99%

Pennsylvania 99%

West Virginia 99%

Wyoming 99%

Indiana 98%

Iowa 98%

Minnesota 98%

Missouri 98%

Montana 98%

Nevada 98%

South Dakota 98%

(1994)

Tennessee 98%

Vermont 98%

Arkansas 97%

New Jersey 97%

North Carolina 97%

Ohio 97%

Oregon 97%

Utah 97%

Wisconsin 97%

Alabama 96%

Idaho 96%

Illinois 96%

Mississippi 96%

New Hampshire 96%

New Mexico 96%

Texas 96%

Arizona 95%

U.S. 63%

* States that had a significantly higher percentage than the

U.S. average.

Improvement over time
22

Oklahoma

Oklahoma was the only state to improve the percentage of public secondary school teachers with a

certificate in their main teaching assignment. Dr.

Floyd Coppedge, Oklahoma’s secretary of education,

attributes the improvement to a paradigm shift. Led

by the state legislature, state officials realized that

there needed to be a “competency-based approach to

teacher training, rather than a system driven by credit hours and courses,” he said.

The catalyst, he says, was a 1991 report issued by the

legislature’s Task Force on Teacher Preparation,

Preparing Teachers for the Twenty-First Century. The

report called for systemic reform of teacher preparation and resulted in the passage of HB 2246,

which created the Oklahoma Commission for

Teacher Preparation (OCTP) in 1992. In 1994, a second report, Report on Educator Preparation and Professional Development, made key recommendations

regarding recruitment, retention, and reentry; preservice teacher preparation; in-service teacher professional development; administrator preparation;

licensure and certification; trailblazer schools and a

model learning program; assessment; and career

education.

Coppedge pointed out that in 1995, the legislature

passed HB 1549, a law that made OCTP accreditation of teacher preparation programs contingent

upon the program being competency based.

Approval of institutional plans is based on standards

of the National Council for the Accreditation of

Teacher Education (NCATE), the recommendations

in the Commission’s Report on Educator Preparation

and Professional Development, and other standards

established by the OCTP. Oklahoma is the first

NCATE state partnership to have a majority of its

state-reviewed teacher education programs designated for “national recognition” by NCATE.

The law also required development of a new competency-based state assessment for teachers. The

new assessment includes a test of general knowledge, which includes sections on math, science,

social studies, and literature; an assessment of professional education, which includes topics such as

child development and learning styles; and a subject

matter test, explained Royle Vagle, OCTP’s executive

director.

Minnesota

No state in the nation has a higher percentage of

public secondary school teachers who hold a degree

in their main teaching assignment than Minnesota,

at 81 percent. Other states have as few as 50 percent

of their high school teachers with a degree in the

area they teach. No state has made statistically significant improvement, and nine states have declined

in the percentage of public high school teachers

with a degree in what they teach.

In Minnesota, licensing regulations have stipulated

since the early 1970s that teachers must have a

major in their field, according to Dr. Judy Wain,

director of the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Regulations state that “a secondary school classroom

teaching license shall qualify the holder to teach in

al Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and the surprising results of state efforts to test teachers

have heightened interest in this subject. The Goals Panel in 1998 urged top state policymakers to support

good professional development as a linchpin of efforts to raise academic standards in schools. Yet data show

that nationally in 1994 just 63 percent of public secondary school teachers held an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching assignment, and just 93 percent had a certificate in their main teaching

assignment.
23

In assignments that are half time or less during the

school day, teachers can gain a license if they have a

minor in the field they are teaching. However, all

secondary school teachers licensed to teach after

1966, who had completed a minor in the subject or

field in which they were teaching, had to acquire the

“minimum established by the Board of Teaching for

major preparation in order to continue to be

licensed to teach in the subject or field.” According

to the regulations, this had to be done within seven

years of initial licensure.

Don Krukow, director of educational licensing for

the Minnesota Department of Children, Families,

and Learning, reflects that, beyond regulations, “it

has been a pervasive value of the people in the upper

Midwest that they place a high value on educa

young, when these students grow older [and enter

the teaching profession] they bring with them that

passion for learning and discovery.”

Minnesota, like Oklahoma, is beginning to move in a

new direction for teacher training by “revising all

licensure rules for what teachers should know and be

able to do,” according to Wain. The state has adopted

principles of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment

and Support Consortium, which call for a common

core of knowledge and skills for all beginning teachers as the foundation for all teaching licenses. The

new teacher standards also relate to graduation standards for students. Wain holds that the shift to a standards-driven model of training and professional

development will only underscore the need for

teachers to earn a major in their field of teaching.

Lessons Learned

■ Regulations requiring teachers to have a degree or certificate in the area of their main teaching assignment may be useful but they are not sufficient measures.

■ Universities and state officials are attempting to redesign teacher preparation and accreditation to make

them increasingly based on teachers’ knowledge and competency.

■ Existing shortages of qualified teachers and increasing numbers of students are likely to make even

modest progress on these indicators difficult.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/may28-98.htm.

Oklahoma

Floyd Coppedge: Secretary of Education, Office of the

Governor, State Capitol Bldg., Suite 212, Oklahoma City,

OK 73105; (405) 523-4226

Pamela Fly: Director for Program Accreditation, OCTP,

3033 N. Walnut St., Suite 220 E, Oklahoma City, OK

73105; pkfly@octp.org

Minnesota

Michael Tillman: Acting Executive Director, MN 

Board of Teaching, 608 Capitol Square Bldg., 550 Cedar

St., St. Paul, MN 55101; (612) 296-2415

Judy Wain: Licensure Specialist, MN Dept. of Children,

Families, and Learning, 608 Capitol Square Bldg., 550

Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101

Don Krukow: State Director of Personnel Licensing, 

MN State Department of Education, Room 610, Capitol

Square Bldg., 550 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101; (651)

296-2046 
24

By the year 2000, United States students will be first in

the world in mathematics and science achievement.

Objectives

■ Mathematics and science education, including the metric system of measurement, will be strengthened

throughout the system, especially in the early grades.

■ The number of teachers with a substantive background in mathematics and science, including the metric system of measurement, will increase by 50 percent.

■ The number of United States undergraduates and graduate students, especially women and minorities,

who complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly.

Indicator

■ Mathematics achievement: What states increased the percentage of public school students who meet the Goals Panel’s performance standard in mathematics in grade 4

(based on data from 1992 and 1996) and grade 8 (based on data from 1990 and 1996)?

See also section on North Carolina and Texas, pp. 40–43.

Americans increasingly want to benchmark their

performance to the best in the world. In business,

international benchmarking is understood to be

an essential tool to be economically competitive.

In education, especially in science and mathematics education, comparing U.S. performance to

that of other countries is

seen as important. The

findings of the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS) provided such information. In

October 1998 the Goals

Panel issued Mathematics

and Science Achievement

State by State, 1998, which

showed the improvement of

each state over time, how it

compares to other states and countries, and how

subgroups within the state perform in mathematics and science on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). The Panel reports

results in terms of the percentage of students in

each state reaching the two highest levels of

achievement on NAEP.

Among the top-improving

and top-performing of the

states are Connecticut,

Texas, and Wisconsin, who

tell what they think may

account for their success.

Related information on

NAEP math achievement

in North Carolina and

Texas is on pages 40–43.
See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes. 25

Highest-performing states

Most-improved states

Improvement over time

Mathematics Achievement8th grade

The National Education Goals Panel has set its performance standard at the two highest levels of achievement—

Proficient or Advanced—on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Have states1 increased the

percentages of public school 8th graders who meet the Goals Panel’s performance standard in mathematics?

↑ Better 27 states and the U.S.

↔ No Change 19 states

↓ Worse 0 states

Between 1990 and 1996, the U.S. and 27 states (out of

46) significantly increased the percentages of public

school 8th graders who met the Goals Panel’s performance standard in mathematics:

States with the highest percentages of public school

8th graders who met the Goals Panel’s performance

standard in mathematics:

(1996)

Minnesota 34%

North Dakota 33%

Montana 32%

Wisconsin 32%

Connecticut 31%

Iowa 31%

Maine 31%

Nebraska 31%

Alaska 30%

U.S. 24%

* States that had a significantly higher percentage than

the U.S. average.

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages of public school 8th graders who 

met the Goals Panel’s performance standard 

in mathematics:

(1990) (1996) Change

Michigan 16% 28% +12

Minnesota 23% 34% +11

North Carolina 9% 20% +11

Connecticut 22% 31% +9

Wisconsin 23% 32% +9

1. Arizona

2. Arkansas

3. California

4. Colorado

5. Connecticut

6. Delaware

7. Florida

8. Hawaii

9. Indiana

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

Science

On the basis of a study linking state NAEP results to

TIMSS in 8th grade science, 14 states would be expected to perform as well as or better than 40 out of 41

nations, including Canada, England, France, Germany,

Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and the Russian Federation.

Only Singapore would be expected to outperform the

following states:

1. Colorado

2. Connecticut

3. Iowa

4. Maine

5. Massachusetts

6. Minnesota

7. Montana

8. Nebraska

9. North Dakota

10. Oregon

11. Utah

12. Vermont

13. Wisconsin

14. Wyoming

* Data for New Hampshire were collected in 1990 and 1992.

10. Iowa

11. Kentucky

12. Maryland

13. Michigan

14. Minnesota

15. Montana

16. Nebraska

17. New Hampshire*

18. New Mexico

19. New York

20. North Carolina

21. North Dakota

22. Oregon

23. Rhode Island

24. Texas

25. West Virginia

26. Wisconsin

27. Wyoming
26

Connecticut

Connecticut is both a high-performing state and a

most-improved state in student math achievement.

Steve Leinwand, the state’s math consultant, indicates that the average wealth of Connecticut residents and high teacher salaries set the stage for

improving student achievement. “However, community and parental involvement, more rigorous

texts, and a systemwide coherence in the teaching of

math are also critical factors for student achievement in the state,” said Leinwand.

Math curriculum and assessments are aligned in

Connecticut. Leinwand explained that “it doesn’t

work” when the state test does not support the curriculum, and when teachers are not provided with

professional development opportunities aligned

with student standards. Leinwand praised Connecticut’s Project to Increase Mastery of Math and

Science (PIMMS) as the “premier” professional and

leadership development program that has trained

whole cadres of elementary, middle, and high

school teachers. The project, housed at Wesleyan

College and in operation since 1983, sponsors an

intense four-week program for teachers, who learn

to be math and science trainers in their school district. “This teacher-training model strongly promotes student achievement in math,” noted

Leinwand.

Dan Nolan, PIMMS director, explained that content for the teacher-training sessions is derived

from looking at student needs demonstrated on the

Connecticut Mastery Test. For example, low-performing students did not score well on questions

that involved number and operation sense. PIMMS

therefore designed a training session to help teachers better teach these concepts to their students.

Texas

Texas demographics are diverse. One-third of the

state’s school children qualify for Title I, many are

immigrants with limited English, and the state has

the fourth highest percentage of school-aged children living in poverty. Nevertheless, the state’s

fourth-grade students improved more than those

in any other state on the NAEP math exam.

High-stakes testing and a tough accountability system are thought to have helped boost student test

scores in the state. “Texas has been in the accountability business for a long time,” explained Margaret

La Montagne, the governor’s senior education advisor. In 1990, the Texas Education Agency (TEA)

adopted the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(TAAS), a series of annual tests in reading, writing,

and math. Students in grades 3 through 8 and grade

10 take the exams. Schools are rated based on the

percentage of their students passing the TAAS,

along with data on the schools’ dropout and attendance rates.

School test results are ranked into one of four categories: exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and lowperforming. To achieve an exemplary rating, at least

90 percent of total students and students in designated ethnic and racial groups must pass each section of the TAAS. A recognized rating means that at

least 80 percent of total students and students in

each group must pass each section of the TAAS.

cess. It is therefore of fundamental importance that 27 states significantly improved the performance of 8th

graders in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and performance in

no state declined significantly. Connecticut and Wisconsin are among nine highest-performing states that

scored significantly higher than the U.S. average; these states and Texas are among the 11 most-improved

states in student math achievement.
27

Each year the TEA releases the ratings at a press

conference, and the names of the schools with their

ranking are published in the state’s major newspapers and on the Internet. Public pressure is intense

to improve student achievement based on TAAS

scores. La Montagne also points to rigorous state

standards, alignment of the standards with TAAS,

and the rewards and sanctions associated with the

public report cards on each school’s performance.

Wisconsin

John Fortier, assistant superintendent for instructional services at the Wisconsin Department of

Education, points to an intense focus on teacher

training and a statewide math assessment as two

factors that may have contributed to Wisconsin’s

high performance in math. The Wisconsin Acade

academies offer intensive staff development programs in math, science, and education technology

with a one-week, 30-hour math seminar, with

simultaneous work in science and technology.

According to Julie Stafford, project director of the

Initiative, teachers review the state’s math and science standards for students; then they study the

curriculum and ways to teach it in their specific

area. Stafford said most teachers know little about

the state standards when they come, but plenty

when they leave. The teachers make presentations

to other teachers in their own schools, demonstrating classroom strategies to teach the standardsbased curriculum. Stafford said the state’s new

performance assessment is aligned with the same

student standards.

Lessons Learned

■ Provide state assessments and teacher training aligned with student achievement standards and a curriculum in math and science.

■ Make information about student achievement public and report scores for specific subgroups (not just

averages) within the state. Set consequences for these reports.

■ Enlist the support of the business community in working with educators and demonstrating the practical importance of math and science.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/apr27-98.htm.

Connecticut

Steven Leinwand: Mathematics Consultant, CT Department of Education, Box 2219, Hartford, CT 06145; (860)

566-5623; fax (860) 566-5623; stevelmath@aol.com

Texas

Margaret La Montagne: Senior Advisor, Office of the

Governor of TX, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, TX 78711; 

(512) 463-2729

Wisconsin

John Fortier: Assistant Superintendent for Instructional

Services, WI Department of Public Instruction, Box 7841,

Madison, WI 52707-7841; (608) 266-3361

Julie Stafford: WI Academy Staff Development Initiative,

140 West Elm St., Chippewa Falls, WI 54729; (715) 723-

1181; fax (715) 723-8554; juliestafford@wetn.pbs.org
28

By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate

and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to

compete in a global economy and exercise the rights 

and responsibilities of citizenship.

Objectives

■ Every major American business will be involved in strengthening the connection between education

and work.

■ All workers will have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, from basic to highly technical, needed to adapt to emerging technologies, work methods, and markets through public and private educational, vocational, technical, workplace, or other programs.

■ The number of quality programs, including those at libraries, that are designed to serve more effectively

the needs of the growing number of part-time and midcareer students will increase substantially.

■ The proportion of qualified students, especially minorities, who enter college, who complete at least

two years, and who complete their degree programs will increase substantially.

■ The proportion of college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems will increase substantially.

■ Schools, in implementing comprehensive parent involvement programs, will offer more adult literacy,

parent-training, and lifelong learning opportunities to improve the ties between home and school and

enhance parents’ work and home lives.

Indicator

■ Participation in higher education: What states increased the percentage of high school

graduates in the state who immediately enroll in two- or four-year colleges in any state

(based on data from 1992 and 1996)?

A good education prepares students

with knowledge and skills to help them

succeed as adults, thereby serving as

society’s pipeline for literate adults.

People increasingly believe that success

will require not only higher levels of

achievement in elementary and secondary school, but continued study

and training after high school. The

Goals Panel reports the percentage of

high school graduates who immediately enroll in two- or four-year colleges as

one indicator of progress toward Goal

6, adult literacy, and lifelong learning.

While states vary in their performance

on this indicator, the rate of immediate

post-secondary enrollment has risen

significantly in 39 states in recent years,

as the experiences of Georgia, Florida,

and Mississippi will illustrate.
See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes. 29

Improvement over time

Highest-performing states* Most-improved states

Participation in Higher Education

Have states1 increased the percentages of high school graduates who immediately enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges in

any state?

↑ Better 39 states 

↔ No Change 1 state

↓ Worse 11 states

Between 1992 and 1997, 39 states (out of 51) significantly increased the percentages of high school graduates who

immediately enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges in any state:

States with the highest percentages of

high school graduates who immediately

enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges in any

state:

(1996)

Massachusetts 73%

New York 71%

North Dakota 71%

Delaware 67%

California 66%

Rhode Island 66%

Indicators are not the same at the national

and state levels.

* Top 6 states

States that made the greatest gains in the percentages of high

school graduates who immediately enrolled in 2- or 4-year

colleges in any state:

(1992) (1996) Change*

District of Columbia 33% 58% +25

California 50% 66% +16

South Carolina 43% 59% +16

Massachusetts 60% 73% +14

Delaware 57% 67% +10

*Differences between the first two columns may differ slightly from the

figures reported in the “change” column due to rounding.

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

1. Alabama

2. Alaska

3. Arizona

4. Arkansas

5. California

6. Colorado

7. Connecticut

8. Delaware

9. District of Columbia

10. Florida

11. Georgia

12. Hawaii

13. Indiana

14. Kansas

15. Kentucky

16. Maine

17. Maryland

18. Massachusetts

19. Michigan

20. Minnesota

21. Mississippi

22. Missouri

23. Montana

24. Nevada

25. New Hampshire

26. New Jersey

27. New Mexico

28. New York

29. North Carolina

30. North Dakota

31. Ohio

32. Pennsylvania

33. Rhode Island

34. South Carolina

35. Tennessee

36. Texas

37. Virginia

38. West Virginia

39. Wyoming
30

Georgia

Sue Sloop, a staff member of the Board of Regents

of the University System of Georgia, reports that

both absolute numbers of students and the proportion of high school graduates enrolling in college

have increased in Georgia—from 54 percent of

high school graduates in 1992 to 56 percent in

1996, according to the Goals Panel data. Sloop

points out a 25 percent increase in community college enrollment alone from 1990 to 1994.

Many attribute Georgia’s increase in post-secondary enrollment to a new scholarship program

passed in 1993. HOPE scholarships are awarded to

any Georgia high school student who earned at

least a B average. They provide free tuition to any

one of the state’s colleges or universities. Ninetyseven percent of this year’s in-state freshmen at the

University of Georgia and at Georgia Tech are said

to pay no tuition or fees because of HOPE. So far,

the program has served more than 250,000 students. The program, which costs about $200 million per year, is funded entirely through the state’s

lottery.

The program was amended in 1995 to offer a “second chance at HOPE.” Under this provision, students who fall below a 3.0 grade point average

(GPA) in their freshman year may continue the

sophomore year at the students’ expense. If they

earn a cumulative 3.0 GPA by the end of their sophomore year, these students will be given a second

chance to receive HOPE funds for their junior year.

A second chance is also available to students who

did not qualify for a HOPE scholarship out of high

school, but who maintain a 3.0 GPA in their freshman and sophomore years in college.

Florida

Florida increased its post-secondary enrollment

from 45 percent in 1992 to 50 percent in 1994. One

reason is the state’s low tuition, according to Annie

Rosier, analyst in the Office of the Governor. For

the past two years, Florida has ranked 49th out of

50 states for tuition charges. Rosier explains that

state policy caps undergraduate tuition increases to

no more than 25 percent of the prior year’s cost.

This year the Florida legislature adopted a program

similar to Georgia’s HOPE scholarship. Called the

Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Act, the program

awards the state’s top students with financial support for their higher education experience. Students

enrolled in a college-preparatory curriculum and

having a 3.0 GPA are eligible for 75 percent remission of tuition and fees at any Florida public or private college or university. Students with a 3.5 GPA

could receive a scholarship for full tuition and fees

plus a book allowance of $600. Like the HOPE program, Bright Futures is paid for with funds from the

state lottery. The program is expected to fund about

43,000 scholarships at a cost of about $75 million.

Mississippi

“We understand that education is the key to the economic success of the state,” said Dr. William McHenry, assistant commissioner of academic affairs,

Mississippi’s Institutions of Higher Learning. “And

economic development begins with education

enhancement at all levels.” Mississippi’s concern with

its economic future may be a key factor in the state’s

increase in post-secondary enrollment from 61 percent in 1992 to 65 percent in 1996. State officials

cation after high school due, many think, to new sources of financial support. Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi are leaders among the states that have recently provided additional scholarship help to students

who maintain acceptable grades in college.
31

McHenry pointed to the William Winter Teacher

Scholar Loan Program as the beginning of a concerted effort in the state to increase enrollment for

those planning to become teachers. The Winter

loan program began in 1989 and was amended in

1991 and 1993. Initially, it targeted only future

math and science teachers, but eventually expanded

to include all teachers. The program currently provides up to $1,000 per academic year to freshmen

and sophomores enrolled in an undergraduate

teacher education program, and up to $3,000 per

year to juniors and seniors seeking a second undergraduate baccalaureate degree or a Class A teaching

certificate. Students must attend an accredited public or private institution of higher learning located

in Mississippi. Entering freshmen must have earned

a cumulative high school GPA of 3.0 and an ACT

Other tuition-assistance programs provide more

general financial support to enter Mississippi colleges and universities. For example, the Mississippi

Resident Tuition Assistance Grant Program, passed

in 1996, offers grants up to $500 per year for freshmen and sophomores, and up to $1,000 for juniors

and seniors. Students can attend either community

colleges or four-year institutions if they maintain at

least a 2.5 GPA. The Mississippi Eminent Scholars

Grant Program, also passed in 1996, provides up to

a $2,500 grant to high-achieving students who are

first-time freshmen attending state-approved and 

-accredited public and nonprofit two-year and

four-year colleges and universities. The HELP

scholarship program helps students from families

earning less than $30,000 per year.

Lessons Learned

■ State and federal financial assistance helps more and more students enroll in post-secondary education.

■ The good economy and rising numbers of college-aged youth are thought to contribute to the growth

in post-secondary school enrollment.

■ Not all of the students enrolling in college are graduating. Other data show that postsecondary enrollment rates are greater than post-secondary completion rates.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/jul27-98.htm.

Georgia

Sue Sloop: Asst. Director of System Policy Research,

Board of Regents, University System of GA, 270 Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334; (404) 656-2213

Florida

Annie Rosier: Senior Governmental Analyst for Public

Four-Year Institutions, Office of the Governor, 1502 The

Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001; (850) 922-5039

Mississippi

William McHenry: Assistant Commissioner of 

Academic Affairs; MS Institutions of Higher Learning,

3825 Ridgewood Rd., Jackson, MS 39211-6453; 

(601) 982-6501
32

By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be

free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of

firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined

environment conducive to learning.

Objectives

■ Every school will implement a firm and fair policy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and

alcohol.

■ Parents, businesses, and governmental and community organizations will work together to ensure the

rights of students to study in a safe and secure environment that is free of drugs and crime, and to

ensure that schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe haven for all children.

■ Every local educational agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are free

of violence and the unauthorized presence of weapons.

■ Every local educational agency will develop a sequential, comprehensive kindergarten-through-12thgrade drug- and alcohol-prevention education program.

■ A drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive health

education.

■ Community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support.

■ Every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment.

Indicator

■ Carrying a weapon: What states reduced the percentage of public high school students

reporting that they carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property

at least once in the last 30 days (based on data from 1993, 1995, and 1997)?

The spectacle of students as young as

12 years old shooting and killing other

students at school in the 1997–98

school year horrified the nation and

has made the subject of school safety

(Goal 7) a top concern of parents, policymakers, and the public. Goals Panel

data vindicate that concern. Only one

indicator showed improvement for

more than one state; most states show

no change on most indicators. The

1998 Goal Report reflects fourteen

states with increased student marijuana use; sixteen states with increased

availability of drugs at school; and 37

states in which the percentage of

teachers reporting that disruptions in

their classrooms interfere with their

teaching have increased. Ironically,

the only state indicator for which

more than one state shows improvement was carrying a weapon at

school. New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and

American Samoa all enjoyed between

a 2 and 5 percentage point reduction

on this indicator.
33

Improvement over time Highest-performing states*

Most-improved states

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

Carrying a Weapon

Have states1 reduced the percentages of public high school students reporting that they carried a weapon such as a

gun, knife, or club on school property at least once during the past 30 days?

↑ Better 4 states

↔ No Change 20 states

↓ Worse 0 states

Between 1993 and 1997, 4 states (out of 24) significantly

reduced the percentages of public high school students

reporting that they carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or

club on school property at least once during the past 30 days:

States with the lowest percentages of

public high school students reporting

that they carried a weapon such as a

gun, knife, or club on school property

at least once during the past 30 days:

(1997)

Wisconsin 5%

Guam 6%

Hawaii 6%

Connecticut 7%

Louisiana 7%

No comparable national data available.

* Top 5 states

States that made the greatest gains in reducing the percentages of public high school students reporting that they carried

a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property at

least once during the past 30 days:

(1993) (1997) Change*

North Carolina** 14% 9% -5

American Samoa 14% 9% -5

South Carolina 14% 10% -4

Wisconsin 9% 5% -4

* Differences between the first two columns may differ slightly from

the figures reported in the “change” column due to rounding.

** Data for North Carolina and New Hampshire were collected in 1993

and 1995.

1. North Carolina*

2. South Carolina

3. Wisconsin

4. American Samoa

See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes.

* Data for New Hampshire and North Carolina were collected

in 1993 and 1995.
34

North Carolina

North Carolina is one of four states and a territory

that reduced the percentage of public high school

students who reported that they carried a weapon

on school property in the last 30 days. Between 1993

and 1995, the proportion decreased by 5 percentage

points, from 14 to 9 percent. “There is no one solution” for reducing the number of students carrying

weapons to school, said Joanne McDaniel, research

director for the Center for the Prevention of School

Violence at North Carolina State University.

According to McDaniel, a combination of proactive

state actions, strong local leadership, and the active

role played by the Center paved the way for

weapons reduction in the schools. The Center was

established in 1993 by executive order of the governor to serve as a primary point of contact for information, programs, and research about preventing

school violence. Initially affiliated with the governor’s Crime Commission, the Center reflects a

partnership between law enforcement and education, and its purpose is to study and advocate for

comprehensive solutions to school violence. Center

staff maintain a library, respond to requests for

information, operate a toll-free information line

(800-299-6054), and manage a website (www.ncsu.

edu/cpsv/) accessible to other states.

The state and the Center offer a variety of activities,

including projects for character education; safe

school planning; alternative education programs

for at-risk youth; and the training of teachers, principals, law enforcement officers, and court officials.

One project involves school resource officers

(SROs), defined as “certified law enforcement officer[s]...permanently assigned to provide coverage

to a school or a set of schools.” SROs are trained to

function as law enforcement officers, law-related

counselors, and law-related education teachers. In

1996, the North Carolina General Assembly funded

an initiative that placed 338 SROs into high schools

in the state. Research has shown a correlation

between the reduction in the number of firearms

reported on school property and increasing numbers of SROs assigned to schools.

McDaniel highlighted the valiant efforts of local

school leaders who adopted zero-tolerance policies,

strictly adhered to at the school level. The combination of strict laws strictly enforced by administrators inhibits students prone to bringing firearms

to school, she added. Other causes, according to

McDaniel, may be legislation at both the federal

and state levels that has increased the penalties for

bringing firearms on school property; intensified

efforts at the school building level by school administrators; and an attitude of zero tolerance that now

permeates schools.

Wisconsin

Mike Thompson, director of Student Services, Prevention, and Wellness with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), attributes the

state’s status as one of the highest-performing states

on this indicator to a “balance between get-tough

policies and programs that help develop caring,

productive citizens.”

A state law passed in 1995 requires mandatory

expulsion for any student who carries a weapon on

school grounds. A 1998 law authorizes random

searches of student lockers, without prior notice or

permission. School districts statewide have adopted

their own zero-tolerance policies for behaviors

able for many of the Panel’s state indicators. The only Panel indicator for states that showed improvement

for more than one state was “carrying a weapon on school property.”
35

tion strategies.” The state funds grants to prevent

alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use and abuse

from the federal Safe- and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities Program and from local sources.

These grants have “assisted schools in developing

multiple strategies to assist children in avoiding

risky behaviors,” notes Thompson.

“In addition to prevention efforts, we are increasingly focusing on what we want children to

become, not solely on what we don’t want them to

do,” said Thompson. The Wisconsin Citizenship

Initiative promotes a core set of community values—courage, honesty, respect, individual responsibility, and civic responsibility.

Wisconsin also sponsors an officer-training program that has led to a stronger police presence in

ate a pipeline for police-school partnership efforts,”

explained Thompson. The partnership led to an

increase of officers assigned to schools and an

increase in the number of police-school liaison

officers.

Among other initiatives, an Act Against Violence

coalition in Wisconsin sponsored a project that

developed and distributed 20,000 “Family Tool

Kits” to elementary school children and their families statewide. The kits give families practical activities to increase family cohesion. In 1997, 100

communities locally sponsored “Safe Night Wisconsin,” an event that highlighted conflictresolution skills. The event was held again in 1998

and expanded to “Safe Night USA” to be broadcast

on PBS in 1999.

Lessons Learned

■ Successful schools and states combine zero tolerance for students caught with weapons at school with

ongoing prevention efforts.

■ Comprehensive prevention efforts can include increased law enforcement presence in schools, a range

of positive activities, and student interaction with caring adults.

■ States can set policies and support community efforts to achieve school safety on the basis of local

needs assessments and community priorities.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at: www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/aug28-98.htm.

North Carolina

Pam Riley: Executive Director, Center for the Prevention

of School Violence, 20 Enterprise St., Suite 2, Raleigh,

NC 27607-7375; (919)515-9397; (800) 299-6054;

www.ncsu.edu/cpsv

Wisconsin

Michael Thompson: Director, Student Services, 

Prevention, and Wellness, WI Department of Public

Instruction, 125 South Webster St., Madison, WI 53702;

(608) 266-3390; www.dpi.state.wi.us
36

By the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships

that will increase involvement and participation in

promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth 

of children.

Objectives

■ Every state will develop policies to assist local schools and local educational agencies to establish programs for increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs of parents and the home, including parents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of children with disabilities.

■ Every school will actively engage parents and families in a partnership that supports the academic work

of children at home and shared educational decision making at school.

■ Parents and families will help to ensure that schools are adequately supported and will hold schools

and teachers to high standards of accountability.

Indicator

■ Parental involvement in schools: What states increased parental involvement in the

schools as measured by a reduction in the percentage of public school principals

reporting that lack of parental involvement in their school was a serious problem

(based on data from 1991 and 1994)?

Parents are a child’s first teachers,

and parents’ involvement can make

an enormous difference in a child’s

education. One Goals Panel indicator of progress toward Goal 8,

parental participation, is the extent

to which public school principals

report that a lack of parental

involvement is a problem for their

schools. Between 1991 and 1994,

principals in most states (46)

reported no significant change in

parental participation. Only the

states of Colorado, Indiana, and

California experienced significant

improvements, each of between 8

and 10 percentage points.
37

Highest-performing states* Most-improved states

Improvement over time

1 The term “state” is used to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.

States with the lowest percentage of

public school principals reporting that

lack of parental involvement in their

schools is a serious problem:

(1994)

North Dakota 3%

Maine 5%

Massachusetts 5%

Minnesota 6%

Nebraska 6%

Vermont 6%

Indicators are not the same at the

national and state levels.

* Top 6 states

States that made the greatest reductions in the percentages of

public school principals reporting that lack of parental involvement in their schools is a serious problem:

(1991) (1994) Change*

Indiana 19% 9% -10

California 20% 11% -8

Colorado 17% 8% -8

* Differences between the first two columns may differ slightly from

the figures reported in the “change” column due to rounding.

Between 1991 and 1994, 3 states (out of 51) significantly reduced the percentages of public school principals reporting that lack of parental involvement in their schools is a serious problem:

1. California 2. Colorado 3. Indiana

Parental Involvement in SchoolsPrincipals Perspective

Have states1 reduced the percentages of public school principals reporting that lack of parental involvement in their

schools is a serious problem?

↑ Better 3 states

↔ No Change 46 states

↓ Worse 2 states

See appendix of the 1998 Goals Report for definitions, sources, and technical notes.
38

Colorado

The percentage of public school principals reporting minimal parental involvement dropped significantly in Colorado from 17 percent in 1991 to 8

percent in 1994. Pamela Durr of Colorado reports

that the school reform movement of the early 1990s

precipitated heavy parental participation in education. Colorado required an accountability committee in each school district to approve, among other

things, school improvement plans. Parents played a

strong role on these committees. The initial

involvement of parents at this level served as a stepping stone to a broader range of parent-school

partnership activities, Durr said.

Policies that promote school-family partnerships in

Colorado are encouraged at the state and school district levels, said Durr. She reports that requirements

for parent involvement in some state and federal programs also helped to increase parental participation

rates. “Title 1 requires a lot of parental involvement,”

said Durr. “So, all Title 1 schools have shown intense

parental involvement in the last five years.”

Parent participation has been encouraged by the

“huge commitment of school-to-career money, and

all the programs mandate business, community,

and parent involvement,” Durr said. Another catalyst was the state’s Goals 2000 Program. Durr

points to two publications from Colorado’s Department of Education that “help parents ask the right

kinds of questions”: Recipe for Success: A Colorado

Parent’s Guide to Improving School Quality and Student Achievement and Moving Ahead Together: A

School-Improvement Tool Kit for Colorado Communities, published also in Spanish. Related workshops were developed by the state Department of

Education in 1995, with more planned for this

school year.

Indiana

Indiana decreased the percentage of public school

principals reporting minimal parent involvement

from 19 percent in 1991 to just 9 percent in 1994.

Larry Grau, the governor’s executive assistant for

education, attributes the state’s success to a series of

education reform proposals that mandated parent

participation. State efforts to raise student standards culminated in a standards task force that

included strong representation of parents, said

Grau. Parent organizations at every level were

included in discussions over curriculum changes

and standard-setting practices.

The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)

indicates that Indiana’s mandatory school improvement plans must include efforts to increase

parental involvement. Schools must allow parents

to examine evaluations or surveys of certain student beliefs or practices.

While the state “set the tone and agenda in a loud

and public way” for making parental participation

an essential element of school reform, local initiative remains the driving force behind parental

involvement, reports Grau. One example is a parent

newsletter developed by a nonprofit group initially

to cover changes in education financing that

occurred during the early 1990s. The newsletter

eventually evolved into an informative, statewide

publication that, in many ways, “has helped a lot to

energize parents,” said Grau. It now has become the

“lifeblood of the school system,” explaining issues

to parents in an informative and comprehensive

manner.

ing the percentage of public school principals who report that a lack of parental involvement in their school

was a serious problem.
39

team-building apparatus of public school reform.

Technology, according to Grau, has enhanced the

ability of parents to become and remain involved in

education decision making.

California

A survey of principals found that the percentage of

California public schools with minimal parental

involvement decreased from 20 percent in 1991 to

11 percent in 1994. Susan Thompson of the California Department of Education (Family and

Community Partnerships Office) notes that the

department strongly encouraged local districts to

involve parents and families as partners of the

schools. Head Start and Title 1 programs have also

encouraged parent involvement. The state department of education has broadly disseminated material about family-school compacts and how to

launch them at the local level. “Although parent

our strategy now,” Thompson said.

The effects of these state efforts were magnified at

the local level by the PTA of the Foothill Elementary School in Corona, California, which received

the 1998 Outstanding Unit Award by the National

PTA. The honor was awarded for the association’s

successful efforts to make Foothill Elementary a

year-round school. The PTA created the HomeSchool Communications Project, which sends

home weekly folders containing information for

parents; reformatted the PTA monthly newsletter

for families that are not in school to inform them of

school events; and created a 24-hour PTA information hotline and PTA website that provide immediate access to PTA and school information. Parents

were pleased with these services, according to a survey conducted halfway through the year. Ninetynine percent of the parents attended the annual

parent-teacher conference day.

Lessons Learned

■ Program requirements to involve parents in decision-making committees for Title 1 or local school

improvement councils have effectively increased parent participation.

■ States have launched efforts to communicate with parents about school improvement efforts. Local

PTAs can make such efforts especially effective.

■ Increasing the public’s interest in education and awareness of the importance of education reform

tends to increase parent interest and involvement among receptive schools.

For more information...

Visit the Goals Panel’s website at www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/sep28-98.htm.

Colorado

Pamela Durr: Education Consultant, 130 Pearl #1604,

Denver, CO 80203; (303) 722-6614

Indiana

Larry Grau: Executive Assistant for Education, Office of

the Governor, 206 State House, Indianapolis, IN 46204;

(317) 232-1972

California

Susan Thompson: Administrator, Family and Community

Partnerships Office, CA Department of Education, 721

Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 653-3768
40

Progress toward the national education goals does

not happen one goal at a time, indicator by indicator. States usually work on a combination of activities to improve their entire education system, and

they address the central issue of student achievement through a set of interrelated policies. To

uncover the stories of states with significant

systemwide success across topics, the Goals Panel

sought to identify the states that improved significantly on the most NEGP indicators.

North Carolina and Texas stood out. Data in the

1997 Goals Report showed these two states

improved on more measures of progress toward the

goals than any other states (see boxes). Data from

other sources show a similar pattern. North Carolina and Texas lead all states in the combined gains in

math and reading achievement on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

between 1990 and 1996. The achievement gains are

significant and sustained. They are reflected on

both NAEP scores and the states’ own assessments.

They applied to all students. Large achievement

gains are occurring for white, black, and Hispanic

students in Texas and North Carolina. How did

they do it?

Similarities of Success in North Carolina 

and Texas

Progress Across the Goals: North Carolina

The 1997 Goals Report showed that North Carolina made statistically significant improvement during the

1990s on the following 14 measures of progress toward the Goals:

Children’s Health Index

Early Prenatal Care

Preschool Programs for Children With Disabilities

High School Completion

Math Achievement in Both Grades 4 and 8

Advanced Placement Exams

Teacher Support: Mentoring New Teachers

Mathematics and Science Degrees—

For All Students, Females, and Minorities

Voter Registration and Voting

Carrying a Weapon

To understand how Texas and North Carolina

improved so much, the Goals Panel commissioned

David Grissmer of the Rand Corporation to undertake a special study. He found that factors often

considered important did not explain the gains.

Real per pupil spending, the teacher-pupil ratio, the

percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, and

the years of teachers’ experience in North Carolina

and Texas did not explain the gains. Both states are

below the national average in real per pupil spending and in the advanced degrees and years of experience their teachers have had. Both are near the

national average in pupil-teacher ratio. If spending,

class size, and teacher degrees or experiences did

not account for achievement gains, what did?

Interviews with education leaders and policymakers in both states uncovered striking and unexpectedly similar stories. A fuller account of what

happened is in the complete study, “Exploring the

Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and
41

According to Grissmer, the 1983 report, A Nation at

Risk, focused the attention of policymakers and the

public in both states on the need to improve education. The economies of both states were in recession, and education was seen as an ingredient of

economic competitiveness. Better schools were

seen as the pipeline to a more literate workforce.

The business community became an important

participant in education improvement efforts. In

Texas and North Carolina, business helped keep

education in the public eye and develop the political context that sustained reforms over time. Seven

similarities stood out in how the stories unfolded in

these states.

■ Leadership From the

Business Community

In both North Carolina and Texas, the business

community played a critical role in developing and

sustaining reform. Business leaders helped form the

strategic plan for improvement, forging compromises with the education interests and enabling passage of the necessary legislation. In North Carolina,

this began in 1984 with the Commission on Education for Economic Growth and was continued in

1988 with the release of a strategic plan, Thinking

for a Living: a Blueprint for

Educational Growth, issued by

the North Carolina Public

School Forum. In Texas in the

early 1980s reform began with

the Perot Commission and was

continued later by the Texas

Business-Education Coalition

(TBEC) and Friends of Texas

Education, both funded by the

business community. The

strategic plans in both states

emphasized the need to define

clear results and advocated

These reforms were initially opposed by coalitions

of education interests, including representatives of

school boards, principals, and teachers. In both

states, the business community formed and funded

new organizations representing the business, education, and policymaking communities: the North

Carolina Public School Forum and TBEC. These

coalitions provided a forum to discuss education

reform issues and forge compromises among the

concerned groups to allow them to cooperate in

support of subsequent legislation. Individual business leaders in each state became deeply informed

about education issues and became adept at presenting the business perspective in ways that lowered the concerns of educators. Developing these

systems in both states was a long and arduous

process. In both states, business played a pivotal

role in designing and supporting policies that

proved effective and were sustained through subsequent electoral cycles.

■ Statewide Standards by

Grade for Clear Teaching

Objectives

Statewide academic standards were developed and

adopted in both states in the late 1980s and early

1990s and were supported consistently thereafter.

These standards were set for

each grade and in several subjects. Mathematics standards

in both states were influenced

by the standards of the

National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics (NCTM).

Teachers in all grades were

given clear objectives for what

students should know. In both

states, efforts were made to

align textbooks and curricula

with the statewide standards.

North Carolina State Capitol
42

Both states emphasize that their academic standards apply to all students. Disadvantaged students

are held to the same standards as advantaged students.

■ Statewide Assessments

Closely Linked to

Academic Standards

New statewide assessment tests were developed in

both states to reflect the academic standards for

each grade. Assessment in both states is done in 3rd

through 8th grade in reading and math. Statewide

testing to these standards began in Texas in

1993–94 and in North Carolina in 1992–93. The

standards and assessments have remained substantially unchanged since that time.

■ Computerized Feedback

Systems, Data for

Continuous Improvement

Scores on the test are provided to students, parents,

teachers, schools, and school districts. Both states

have a well-designed computerized system for storing the testing information and provide access to it

in various ways for teachers, principals, and school

districts. Tests are graded centrally in Texas and in

regional locations in North Carolina. Access to

school-level results is provided on the Internet in

both states. Both states have developed varied formats for reporting test results by sets of questions

related to key learning objectives. Teachers in both

states have access to summaries and individual tests

of students entering their classes each year. In both

states test items are made available to the public

after each test to counter criticism of bias in test

items.

■ Increasing Flexibility for

Administrators and

Teachers

The strategic plans developed in each state in the

late 1980s and early 1990s acknowledged that

teachers and administrators could not be held

accountable unless they were given authority and

flexibility to determine locally how to meet the

standards. In both states, unnecessarily restrictive

statutes governing schools and teaching were

repealed. Constraints placed on district superintendents and principals for how money is spent

were reduced. The policy objective was to allow

schools to vary locally the approaches they could

take to achieve the standards.

The 1997 Goals Report showed that Texas made statistically significant improvements during the 1990s

on the following 13 measures of progress toward the Goals:

*NEGP recently learned that Texas reports state dropout data on the basis of a definition that is not comparable with the one used by NEGP and NCES to report other states. Therefore, NEGP did not report data for Texas

on this indicator in the 1998 Goals Report.

Children’s Health Index

Early Prenatal Care

Preschool Programs for Children With Disabilities

High School Dropout Rates*

Math Achievement in Both Grades 4 and 8

Advanced Placement Exams

Teacher Support: Mentoring New Teachers

Mathematics and Science Degrees—

For All Students, Females, and Minorities

Voting

Influence of Parent Associations
43

Both states rate schools and provide monetary

rewards based on their performance on the state

tests. Both states reward schools financially for

improved performance and have the power to disenfranchise school districts and remove principals

based on sustained levels of poor performance. The

two state systems take into account both absolute

test scores and gain scores. Schools are rated

according to a scale ranging from exemplary to

poor performing. The gain score is used as the primary ranking mechanism, but schools can be

penalized if they do not have a specified proportion

of students reaching a minimum proficiency level.

Both state systems show awareness of factors that

could provide unfair advantage to certain schools,

including the social and economic advantages of

the school community. Care is taken in both states

to take account of incoming students during the

year and to adjust beginning gain scores to the

actual students in the schools at the beginning of

the year. Both states keep close scrutiny of the students not taking tests. Thus the procedures—

although not perfect—are designed to take account

of schools with higher student turnover or large

numbers of new students with low or high test

scores, and to protect against manipulation by

teachers or principals.

■ Shifting

Resources 

to Schools

With More

Disadvantaged

Students

Both states gradually shifted

resources to schools with

more disadvantaged students.

This shift was partially the

result of judicial decisions

and equitable by teachers and administrators. The

acceptance, endurance, and effectiveness of these

policies may rest upon the perception that the distribution of resources among schools and school

districts is fair and equitable.

Stable Policies and Infrastructure

for Continuing Improvement

Interviews indicate that educators in both states

initially expressed opposition to these reform policies, but that over time, their opposition diminished. Educators whose experience may initially

have suggested that “this too shall pass” have succeeded in improving their students’ achievement.

The growing acceptance is largely rooted in this

success. Strategic planning, business involvement,

and consistent support of the reforms over time all

contributed to the states’ success. Despite changes

of governors and legislators in Texas and North

Carolina, current incumbents have chosen to keep

and build upon the reform agenda that began earlier. Research and evaluation data are used to refine

prior efforts. An infrastructure of policy and

research organizations, public-private partnerships, and private-sector education services has

developed, and this infrastructure contributes to

the effectiveness and stability of the improvement

efforts. Perhaps the most

important part of this infrastructure is the trust that

evolved among educators,

policymakers, and business.

Success has bolstered that

trust and made it more likely

that in Texas and North Carolina the infrastructure can

sustain continuous improvement of education.

Texas State Capitol
44

Goal 1: Ready to Learn

Early Childhood Care and Education: An Investment

That Works. (January 1997). Smith, S.; Fairchild,

M.; and Groginsky, S. National Conference of State

Legislatures, Book Order Department, 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202; (303)830-2054;

www.ncsl.org 

Missed Opportunities for Childhood Vaccinations in

Office Practices and the Effect on Vaccination Status.

(January 1993). Szilag, P.; Rodewald, L.; Humiston,

S.; Raubertas, R.; Cove, L.; Doane, C.; Lind, P.;

Tobin, M.; Roghmann, K., and Hall, C. PEDIATRICS. American Academy of Pediatrics, 601 13th

Street NW, Suite 400N, Washington, DC 20005;

(202)347-8600; www.aap.org 

Missed Opportunities to Vaccinate Children: A Preventable Crisis for America’s Children. (1998). Children NOW, 1212 Broadway, Suite 530, Oakland, CA

94612; (510)763-2444; www.childrennow.org

Special Early Childhood Report 1997. National Education Goals Panel, 1255 22nd Street NW, Suite

502, Washington, DC 20037; (202)724-0015;

www.negp.gov

Starting Points. (August 1994). Carnegie Corporation of New York, 437 Madison Avenue, New York,

NY 10022; (212)371-3200; www.carnegie.org

State Opportunities for Improving Childhood Immunizations. National Governors’ Association, Hall of

the States, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-1512; (202)624-5300; www.nga.org

Vaccines for Children: Reexamination of Program

Goals and Implementation Needed to Ensure Vaccination. (PEMD-95-22). (June 1995). United States

General Accounting Office, 700 Fourth Street NW,

Room 1100, Washington, DC 20548; (202)512-

6000; www.gao.gov

Goal 2: School Completion

Educational Attainment in the United States: March

1997. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, 4401 Suitland Road, Room 2705, FOB 3,

Suitland, MD 20746; (301)457-3030; www.census.

gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 and

First Follow-up Study, 1990. U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW, Room 600, Washington, DC 20001; (202)219-1828; www.

ed.gov

No More Excuses: The Final Report of the Hispanic

Dropout Project. U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, 330 C Street SW, Room 5082, Washington, DC 20202; (202)205-8737; www.ed.gov/

offices/obemla 

Who Took the GED?: GED 1996 Statistical Report.

GED Testing Service at the American Council on

Education, One Dupont Circle NW, Washington,

DC 20036-1163; (202)939-9490; www.acenet.edu

may be of help to state policymakers. While it is not a comprehensive bibliography, it indicates

how interested officials can secure publications and contact organizations relevant to state education efforts.
45

Special Issue). (1995). Wade Curry. The College

Board Review, 45 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY

10023-6992; (212)713-8000; www.collegeboard.org 

Advanced Placement Yearbook 1997. The College

Board, 45 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10023-

6992; (212)713-8000; www.collegeboard.org

African American Data Book: The Transition From

School to College and School to Work (vol. 3). Frederick Patterson Research Institute, 8260 Willow

Oaks Corporate Drive, P.O. Box 10444, Fairfax, VA

22031-4511; (703)205-3570; www.patterson-uncf.

org

Aspiration, Performance, Reward: The Advanced

Placement Program at 40. (nos. 176-177, Special

Issue). (1995). Eric Rothschild. The College Board

Review, 45 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY

10023-6992; (212)713-8000; www.collegeboard.org

High Standards, American Style. (Spring 1996).

American Educator, vol. 20, no. 1. American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20001; (202)879-4400.

Goal 4: Teacher Education 

Filling a Crack in the Middle: The Need for Staff

Development in the Middle Grades. (December

1997). National Staff Development Council, P.O.

Box 240, Oxford, OH 45056; (800)727-7288 or

(513)523-6029; www.nsdc.org 

Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The

Mathematics Reform in California. (1998). David

Cohen and Heather Hill. Consortium for Policy

Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania,

3440 Market Street, Suite 560, Philadelphia, PA

19104; (215)573-0700; www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre

Professional Teacher Development and the Reform

Agenda. (June 1995). Mary Dilworth and David

Imig. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and

(202)293-2450; www.aacte.org

Raising the Standard. (1997). Dennis Doyle and

Susan Pimentel. A Standards Work Project of the

Coalition for Goals 2000. Corwin Press, Inc. 2455

Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320; (805)499-

9774; www.sagepub.com

Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers

Need to Know and Be Able to Do. Linda DarlingHammond and Deborah Ball. National Education

Goals Panel, 1255 22nd Street NW, Suite 502,

Washington, DC 20037; (202)724-0015; www.

negp.gov

What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future.

(September 1996). Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 117, 525

West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027; (888)492-

1241; www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcom

For Further Information:

* Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium, Council of Chief State School Officers, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20001-1431; (202)336-7048;

www.ccsso.org 

* Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium,

One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001; (202)336-7038.

* National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2655 Evergreen Road, Suite 400, Southfield,

Michigan 48076; (248)351-4444; www.nbpts.org

* National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite

500, Washington, DC 20036-1023; (202)466-7496;

www.ncate.org
46

Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School

Mathematics. (1989). Assessment Standards for

School Mathematics. (1995). Professional Standards

for Teaching Mathematics. (1991). National Council

of Teachers of Mathematics, 1906 Association

Drive, Reston, VA 20191; (703)620-9840;

www.nctm.org

Determining Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education. (January 1997). Norman Webb. National Institute for

Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W. Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706;

(608)263-2950; www.niseinfo@macc.wisc.edu

Equity 2000. The College Board, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036;

(202)822-5900; www.collegeboard.org/equity/

html/indx001.html

Improving Mathematics in Middle School: Lessons

From TIMSS and Related Research. (1998). National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey

Avenue NW, Room 600, Washington, DC 20001.

(202)219-1333; www.ed.gov/inits.html#2

Making Standards Matter: An Annual Fifty-State

Report on Efforts to Raise Academic Standards. (July

1997). American Federation of Teachers, 555 New

Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001;

(202)879-4400. www.aft.org

A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science

and Mathematics Education. (1997). Schmidt, W.;

McKnight, C.; Raizen, S. National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW, Room

600, Washington, DC 20001; (202)219-1828;

1-800-edpubs; www.ed.gov/NCES/timss

State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education. (1997). Council of Chief State School Officers,

One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001-1431; (202)408-5505; www.

ccsso.org

of Community College Trends and Statistics. (1998).

American Association of Community Colleges,

One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 410, Washington,

DC 20036-1176; (202)728-0200; www.aacc.

nche.edu

The Employer’s Role in Linking School and Work.

(June 1998). Committee for Economic Development, 2000 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036;

(202)296-5860; www.ced.org

The Freshmen Are Coming, the Freshmen Are Coming. (October 1996). Barbara McKenna. AFT On

Campus. American Federation of Teachers, 555

New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001;

(202)879-4400; www.aft.org

Prosperity: The Coming Twenty-Year Boom and

What It Means to You. (1998). Bob Davis and David

Wessel. Random House, New York, New York.

For Further Information: 

* American Council of Education, One Dupont

Circle NW, Washington, DC 20046; (292)939-9300;

www.acenet.edu

* Southern Regional Education Board, 592 Tenth

Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30318-5790; (404)875-

9211; www.peach.net/SREB

Goal 7: Safe Schools

Safe Schools, Safe Students: A Guide to Violence Prevention Strategies. Drug Strategies, 2445 M Street

NW, Suite 480, Washington, DC 20037; (202)663-

6090; www.drugstrategies.com

Turning Around Low-Performing Schools. U.S.

Department of Education, 600 Independence

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202; (800)USALEARN; www.ed.gov 
47

Plainview, NY 11803-0760; (800)99-YOUTH.

* Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,

University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box

442, Boulder, CO 80309-0442; (303)492-1032;

www.colorado.edu/cspv

* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Violence Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway

NW, MS/K60, Atlanta, GA 30341; (770)488-4362;

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/dvp

* Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. U.S.

Department of Education, 600 Independence

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202; (800)USALEARN; www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Goal 8: Parental Participation

Family Involvement in Education: A National Portrait. U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20202;

(800)USA-LEARN; www.ed.gov

National Standards for Parent/ Family Involvement

Programs. (May 1998). National Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA), 330 N. Wabash Avenue,

Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60611-3690; (312)670-

6782; www.pta.org

A New Generation of Evidence: The Family Is Critical to Student Achievement. (1994). Anne T. Henderson and Nancy Berla. Center for Law and

Education, 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite

510, Washington, DC 20009; (202)986-3000.

Questions Parents Ask About Schools. (1998). U.S.

Department of Education, 600 Independence

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202; (800)USALEARN; www.ed.gov

1215, 20 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116; (617)542-

6500; www.familyeducation.com

* National Association of Partners in Education,

901 North Pitt Street, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA

22314; (703)836-4880; www.partnerineducation.

org

* National Black Child Development Institute, 1463

Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005;

(202)387-1281; www.nbcdi.org

* National Head Start Association, 1651 Prince

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703)739-0875;

www.nhsa.org

* Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc., 1001 76

Corporate Square Drive, Suite 230, St. Louis, MO

63132; (314)432-4330; www.patnc.org

Progress Across the Goals

Exploring Rapid Achievement in North Carolina

and Texas (November 1998). David Grismer and

Ann Flanagan, National Education Goals Panel,

1255 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037;

(202)724-0015; www.negp.gov
Information about specific states is on the following pages:

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 26, 27

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 35, 40–43

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 40–43

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 34, 35

Information about the parts played by specific role groups is on the following pages:

Governors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 26, 34, 38

State legislators 

(and state laws) . . . . .10, 14, 15, 18, 22, 30, 34, 35, 40–43

State departments of education . . . . . . .14, 15, 18, 22, 38, 39

Business leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 40–43
National Education Goals Panel

1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 502

Washington, DC 20037

202–724–0015 ● fax 202–632–0957

http://www.negp.gov

E-mail: NEGP@ed.gov

READY TO LEARN

SCHOOL COMPLETION

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND CITIZENSHIP

TEACHER EDUCATION

AND PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

MATHEMATICS

AND SCIENCE

ADULT LITERACY AND

LIFELONG LEARNING

SAFE SCHOOLS, DISCIPLINED

AND ALCOHOL- AND

DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

PARENTAL

PARTICIPATION