Access Quality Education: Costing-Out Studies

Costing-Out Home | Overview | A Primer | State Fact Sheets | Policy Brief

Minnesota NCLB Fact Sheet

Related News

The report summarized here is not a typical cost study. Rather, it presents analyses of several aspects of NCLB in Minnesota, including the relationship between NCLB and existing Minnesota law, perceptions of NCLB by superintendents, and certain fiscal impacts of NCLB (see report on full study, especially the high failure rates forced by NCLB).

Study Title:	Evaluation Report: No Child Left Behind

Date Completed:	March 2004

Scope of the Study:	The scope of the analysis of the fiscal impact of NCLB in the report is narrow. The authors state that they do not estimate the cost of most NCLB provisions because these costs are speculative. The only dollar amounts that the study does estimate are the annual cost of additional assessments and the annual cost of transfers and SES (supplemental educational services). Although the authors discuss other NCLB provisions, they do not attach specific dollar amounts to them. 100% Proficiency The authors declare that it is too difficult to assess the cost of educating 100 percent of students to meet the test score targets NCLB requires. They further claim that it is extremely doubtful that 100 percent of students will achieve the target test scores by 2013-14: there will always be students whose disabilities impair performance and students who are just learning English and therefore will not reach the goals.

Estimated Costs:	The authors asked the state Department of Education (DOE) and nine sample districts to estimate state and district costs in seven broad areas: administering NCLB's general provisions; establishing academic content standards and aligning curricula; assessing student proficiency; monitoring and reporting school and school district performance; sanctioning low-performing schools, i.e., transfers and SES; improving teacher and paraprofessional qualifications; and increasing parental involvement. The report provides dollar amounts only for: Transfers and SES : $20 million annually New Assessments : $19 million annually In calculating the cost of assessments, the authors used the median of the district-level costs, after eliminating the highest and lowest. The authors stress that the other estimates by DOE and the districts are informative, but not definitive. The report notes that the existing data systems are inadequate to assess NCLB costs and to differentiate the costs of NCLB-related activities from other costs, for many of the NCLB-related activities will take place in the future. Therefore, the authors disregard some estimates made by the DOE and the districts.

Future Costs of NCLB:	The authors conclude that the costs of NCLB will most likely outpace federal allocation because a large majority of Minnesota 's schools will not reach the goals, as described below, and will therefore incur the costs of sanctions. The report also notes that, if Minnesota were to opt out of NCLB, it would lose at least $216 million annually, but the exact amount is unclear because the federal government has provided little guidance on this issue. Thus, the authors conclude, it is difficult to determine whether or not the savings by opting out of NCLB would exceed the loss of federal funds.

Simulation:	The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) worked with the Educational Accountability Office at the University of Minnesota to conduct a simulation to determine how many schools could reach NCLB's extreme test score goals. The team used three scenarios and found that the percentage of Minnesota schools not reaching NCLB's goals by 2013-14 would be: (1) with no future improvement in test scores, 99.9%; (2) with modest improvement in test scores, 99.8%; and (3) with high improvement in test scores, 82.3%. Based on Minnesota 's experience, the team concluded that the modest improvement scenario was the most probable.

Major Recommendations:	Federal level : The authors suggest changes in NCLB so that schools will have a realistic chance of complying with the student test score goals. State Level: Because Minnesota law mandates developing a growth model for student assessments, the authors conclude that DOE should provide the legislature with a plan for incorporating growth measures into NCLB's “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) determinations. The authors also deem an assessment of the overall reliability and validity of Minnesota 's educational accountability system necessary. In addition, the authors urge the legislature to require DOE to report annually on school district expenditures related to NCLB sanctions (transfers, SES and others) and to specify how it will monitor the quality and effectiveness of SES providers.

Implementation:	DOE Response: The Department of Education responded that it is working on incorporating a growth model, strengthening reliability and validity of accountability and implementing a system of monitoring SES providers. It declined to report annually on the cost of sanctions, stating that the additional burden would fall on the districts. Legislative Response: The Legislature has debated opting out of NCLB. In 2005, the state Senate passed a bill calling for the DOE to request certain waivers from the federal government, such as: (1) allowing the state to use multiple measures including a growth model; (2) allowing the state to determine the percentage of students with disabilities to test out-of-level; and (3) allowing the state not to exclude from sanctions a school whose only failure to make AYP was its students with disabilities subgroup. The bill further stated that if the federal government declined to grant the waivers requested, the commissioner of finance was to report on the amount of federal funds that would be withheld if Minnesota opted out of NCLB. The bill was not passed in the state House of Representatives.

Legislative Response:	The Legislature has debated opting out of NCLB. In 2005, the state Senate passed a bill calling for the DOE to request certain waivers from the federal government, such as: (1) allowing the state to use multiple measures including a growth model; (2) allowing the state to determine the percentage of students with disabilities to test out-of-level; and (3) allowing the state to exclude from sanctions a school whose only failure to make AYP was its students with disabilities subgroup. The bill further stated that if the federal government declined to grant the waivers requested, the commissioner of finance was to report on the amount of federal funds that would be withheld if Minnesota opted out of NCLB. The bill was not passed in the state House of Representatives.

Prepared for:	State of Minnesota's Legislative Audit Commission

Prepared by:	Joel Alter, John Patterson and Adrienne Howard, Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota and University of Minnesota, Office of Educational Accountability (Simulation)