State Action Deserves a Lot of Credit for Better Test Scores

Parents and teachers constantly prod and cajole their children to pick up a new book, to bear down on homework, to spend more time on that science project. Yet we cannot always predict when our children will respond or why they become motivated to learn or be curious about new ideas.

A similar mystery is unfolding as politicians, pundits and educators scramble to explain why California’s students performed better--for the third year in a row--on the state’s uniform gauge of achievement: the Stanford 9 exam. Like confident doctors circling a recovering patient previously written off as terminally ill, they claim to know what medicine or surgical procedure did the trick. Do they?

The results released on Monday reveal that the performance of second- and third-graders is climbing most rapidly, posting 15-point gains in math and eight-point gains in reading over the past three years (on a 100-point scale). In math, California’s average third-grader now outperforms the nation’s average third-grader, while middle and high-school students are doing just a bit better than the national average.

Two precautionary facts are crucial. First, the patient’s recovery is not miraculous; it’s modest and tenuous. Despite the gains displayed by young children, the overall number of California students who surpass the national average has increased just 1% in each of the past three years, combining scores across subject areas.

Second, these gains, while encouraging, may prove to be short-lived. When other states began using the Stanford 9 exam, scores rose for three years, then fell as the predictable effects of preparing students for this kind of test faded.

Those cautions aside, what policy medicines are proving to be so potent in improving California pupils’ scores?

* Small is beautiful. The class-size reduction initiative begun by former Gov. Pete Wilson four years ago undoubtedly is contributing to higher test scores in the early grades. While teacher training and after-school tutoring programs can be spotty and new textbooks often remain in storage closets, 92% of all children statewide in K-3 classrooms now are learning in classes of 20 or fewer students. The new Stanford 9 results show that learning gains are three to four times higher among these youngest students compared with the modest gains experienced by high-school students.

Why not reduce class sizes in all elementary grades? The problem is that the achievement gap between children in rich and poor communities is widening. Effective urban teachers are flocking to suburban school districts that can pay higher salaries. Poor districts are forced to fill vacated posts with rookie teachers, many of whom have yet to earn their credentials. The net effect, according to last month’s evaluation from the Rand Corp., is that learning gains from small classes shrink to just four or five points after taking into account students’ social class.

This also means that teachers working in better-off communities, where class-size reduction is paying off in spades, are more likely to win Gov. Gray Davis’ new salary bonuses--ranging from $1,600 to $25,000--when their pupils’ test scores rise compared to those of pupils in poor neighborhoods.

* Rising preschool support. Enrollments in state preschool programs will quadruple this year compared with four years ago. The state now spends $3.1 billion a year on child-care and preschool programs, primarily aiding working-poor and blue-collar families. This rising investment in early education, like the federal Head Start program, may be yielding sustained effects once children enter elementary school.

* English-only teaching. Two years ago, California voters approved the controversial Proposition 227, cutting back on non-English classroom teaching. Districts have responded in various ways, but the net effect has been to increase the amount of instruction that occurs in English, according to UC researchers Patricia Gandara and Russ Rumberger. And local schools responding effectively to the needs of children with limited English proficiency may yield stronger Stanford 9 scores.

Despite their differing origins and philosophies, all three policy thrusts stem from an activist state government or from voters impatient with incremental change. In turn, state policymakers are eager to echo voters’ cry for strong action, promising that programs crafted in Sacramento will challenge teachers and students to do better. The latest test scores suggest that this renewed faith in state activism is yielding good results inside classrooms. Certainly kids’ learning trajectories would not be rising if not for the ability of local educators to convert Sacramento’s new resources and rules into motivating teaching practices. The fact that Los Angeles children’s reading performance rose more sharply than did those in other urban districts demonstrates that local priorities can make a difference as well. But by targeting public dollars on ambitious reforms that work and galvanizing the political will to expect greater accountability, central state action appears to be a potent force.

Some civic leaders in Los Angeles and elsewhere are promoting elixirs that would further decentralize public authority or weaken state-led reforms, from breaking up the L.A. school district into a confederacy of smaller units to corporate advocacy of school vouchers. But as test scores continue to rise, we can better pinpoint why state government appears to be working more effectively--and predict that its long-term prognosis will grow stronger as well.