Executive Summary
 

While the President and members of Congress engage in lofty rhetoric about high standards, strong accountability and “leaving no child behind,” the devil remains in the details – in this case the details of implementation of the 1994 amendments to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

            This school year marks the end of a six-year phase-in of the major institutional changes required by the 1994 law – the adoption by the 50 states of high standards, fair and inclusive assessments, and accountability systems designed to hold educators responsible for student progress.  The final deadline by which all states were to have implemented these measures is upon us – the 2000-01 school year.

As the Citizens’ Commission reported in its 1999 study, Title I in Midstream:  The Fight to Improve Schools for Poor Kids, the Clinton Administration until 1998 was lax in holding the State to their responsibilities.  As we now report in Closing the Deal, federal oversight improved during the last 18 months of the Clinton Administration, as the Department of Education provided more guidance to states and began to demand that states comply with important federal requirements and safeguards for Title I assessments.

 

 But, as we also report, with a few exceptions, the states are still far behind in establishing systems that will provide tangible benefits to children.  Although states had six years to develop the six assessments called for under the 1994 law, by January 2001, only eleven states fully met important Title I requirements for alignment with standards, technical quality, full inclusion of all students, and disaggregation of results by race, gender and other categories.  For example:

 

*  California, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and other states rely on norm-referenced tests that are not matched to the state’s standards

 

*  Texas failed to include half its disabled students in its assessment system, prompting the Department of Education’s determination that the “rate of exclusion is excessive.”

 

* Nevada excluded 58% and North Carolina and Wisconsin each excluded at least 40% of their students with limited English proficiency from state assessments.

 

* California excluded over 900,000 students from its accountability system, including many students with limited English proficiency and those attending charter schools and small schools, and others.

Moreover, there is no evidence yet that the Bush Administration is seizing the reins to move the process forward.  To the contrary, the assessment-compliance process begun under the previous administration has been halted, and no steps have been taken, to the Citizens’ Commission’s knowledge, to review state’s final accountability plans.  The Citizens’ Commission challenges the Bush administration to move forward promptly and vigorously to secure compliance with the 1994 law.   Otherwise, its proposals for new reforms may be an empty promise for many children.