Thomas B. Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence

The Fordham Report 2006: How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children?

November 1, 2006

The Fordham Report 2006: How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children? appraises each state according to thirty indicators across three major categories: student achievement for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic students; achievement trends for these same groups over the last 10-15 years; and the state's track record in implementing bold education reforms. It finds that just eight states can claim even moderate success over the past 15 years at boosting the percentage of their poor or minority students who are at or above proficient in reading, math or science. In addition, most states making significant achievement gains--including California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas--are national leaders in education reform, indicating that solid standards, tough accountability, and greater school choice can yield better classroom results.

View the press release for this report

Contents

Nebraska

 


 


 

Being a Maverick Is Not Enough

When it comes to public education in Nebraska, the state education department is very much hands-off. That suits local school administrators just fine-but for minority and low-income students, it spells disaster.

Disadvantaged young Nebraskans with ambitions beyond the state's thriving cattle and agricultural industries have little reason to expect their K-12 system will prepare them well for life after high school-assuming they even graduate. African-American and Hispanic students have among the worst dropout rates in the nation. And their performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is truly abysmal-among the very worst in the nation.

Part of the problem arises from the state's shoddy academic standards, which score an unsatisfactory D+. But that fact matters less than this one: Nebraska mandates no curricular requirements, leaving it up to districts to decide what subjects are taught.

It is not that state leaders are unaware of their students' achievement problems. But fixing these problems, many contend, requires overhauling a system rooted in local control and led by people unwilling to relinquish their authority. "The state has been wrapped up in organizational issues for the past couple of years," says an official with the Unicameral (state legislature). "If you don't have a good underlying structure, it's hard to get to the reform. This is a huge distraction, and we're trying to work our way past it."

So instead of attacking achievement problems head-on by implementing better standards or introducing charter schools, the state has elected, instead, to deal with systems and structures first. The reforms have focused on two issues-Omaha Public Schools' highly segregated, low-performing K-12 district, and school consolidation.

With 46,000 students, Omaha Public Schools (OPS) is the state's largest district. It also educates 70 percent of young African-American Nebraskans and has long struggled to do this well. For years, the lack of integration was deemed the problem. So in 1989 the legislature passed the option enrollment program, granting every student in the state the right to apply to attend any school in Nebraska. Those who qualified for free lunch would receive transportation up to three miles across district lines. The hope was that African-American students in Omaha would move to the higher-performing schools in nearby suburbs. But this did not happen; nearly everyone opted to stay closer to their home schools.

The state's newest gambit to improve minority achievement in Omaha schools is also an administrative fix: OPS has been divided into three districts, called learning communities, largely along racial lines. Each is run by a coordinating council, which has the authority to oversee diversity and integration, and some authority to levy taxes to support the schools.

These learning communities are supposed to focus on achievement. For example, high-needs coordinators are being hired to evaluate the districts' resources and develop a plan for channeling more of them to students most at risk of academic failure. OPS also plans to bring three more-affluent suburban districts into the OPS district, giving OPS students more choices among schools. That plan, however, has angered suburban parents and split the state's Republican party.

One might well ask this question: If the state is so determined to provide students with choice, why not permit charter schools into the mix? Education leaders contend that option enrollment eliminates the need for charters. This explains why no charter legislation has been considered in seven years. But that could change as a result of recent state efforts to consolidate districts.

In a move aimed at reforming the state's archaic district system, with its unusually large number of districts (477 pre-consolidation, among the most per capita in the nation), the Unicameral in 2005 reduced the number of districts to 254, primarily at the expense of so-called Class I districts (which offer only K-8) and Class VI districts (which offer only high school).

The move has not been well received by rural communities, which are beginning to push for charters as a way to maintain authority over local schools. "It's been discussed quite a bit," said Mike Nolles, president of Class I's United, an advocacy group representing Class I districts. But state officials respond frostily to any mention of charters. "As best we know," says Betty Van De Venter, spokesperson for the State Department of Education, "the development of charter schools in Nebraska is not being discussed." 

To date, however, the state's efforts have precious little to show in the way of better student achievement scores. Asked how Nebraska intends to correct this problem, state officials always point to the assessment system, known as the Student-Based Teacher-Led Assessment and Reporting System (STARS), which first reported results in 2000. Characteristically, this system permits each district to administer its own assessments, which may or may not be aligned with state standards. The results are then evaluated by the state according to six criteria: assessments reflect state or local standards; students have an opportunity to learn the content; tests are free from bias; the level is developmentally appropriate for students; there is consistency in scoring; and mastery levels are appropriate. 

Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, of course, every state is supposed to implement a statewide test.  But in 2003 State Superintendent Douglas D. Christensen rejected this requirement, insisting that the STARS system was all Nebraska needed. Washington rejected that petition, but has since agreed to accept the state's STARS system. 

Student assessment, in fact, is not the only difference Nebraska has had with the U.S. Department of Education over NCLB.  The state also initially refused to comply with the statutory requirement that new teachers pass a test of their knowledge and teaching skills. In May 2006, however, the federal agency announced that Nebraska was one of nine states facing the loss of federal aid due to noncompliance with this provision.  Nebraska backed down, and this year new elementary school teachers will take the test.

"We couldn't fight the good fight any longer," said Marge Harouff, a state administrator for teacher education. "They're threatening to take away money."  Local control may be cherished in Nebraska, but in education, as in most things, money talks. If only that money were paying off by boosting the achievement of the state's neediest children.

 

back to top

< Previous  Next >

© Copyright 2003-2010 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. All Rights Reserved.