Which states have led on K-12 NAEP improvement over the past 10 years?

Last month, the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores were released amidst little fanfare and much handwringing. With an overall decline in student performance in both reading and math, the scores were hardly a cause for celebration. Yet in a recent report for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we looked at the gains in student achievement broken down by state and discovered that several states were indeed making strides in the positive direction. Most notable were the District of Columbia and Hawaii, who led the nation in overall gains between 2005 and 2015.

Below are two tables that show the top 10 and bottom 10 states based on aggregate improvement in fourth- and eighth-grade statewide performance on the NAEP test. To gauge performance, we simply combined the fourth- and eighth-grade gains. While this methodology is in an imperfect way to calculate achievement, it nonetheless provides a measure of comparison in a simple and straightforward manner.

[[{“fid”:”111061″,”view_mode”:”teaser”,”fields”:{“format”:”teaser”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:””,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:””,”field_url[und][0][value]”:””,”field_folder[und]”:”1″,”field_free_html[und][0][value]”:””,”field_free_html[und][0][format]”:”full_html”,”style”:””},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{}}]]

[[{“fid”:”111063″,”view_mode”:”teaser”,”fields”:{“format”:”teaser”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:””,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:””,”field_url[und][0][value]”:””,”field_folder[und]”:”1″,”field_free_html[und][0][value]”:””,”field_free_html[und][0][format]”:”full_html”,”style”:””},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{}}]]

These two charts feature an interesting mix of states. The top 10 list contains a few states that are often heralded as reform leaders (Tennessee, D.C. and Rhode Island) as well as those who less frequently gain attention (Alabama, Arizona and Mississippi). Meanwhile, the bottom 10 list includes states that have seen a net decline over the past decade.

As D.C. and Hawaii are the top two performers, we took a closer look to see what prompted their gains. And in talking to stakeholders from each state, what became clear is that there is no recipe approach to improvement.

{mosads}In 2005, D.C. and Hawaii had both been near the bottom in NAEP performance. Only 7 percent of D.C. eighth graders were proficient in math and Hawaii was ranked 46th according to Education Week’s 2006 “Quality Counts” report. Although both states are relatively small in size and operate as one district, they each took vastly different approaches to reform. The District of Columbia enacted several policy changes that restructured the district office and overhauled the teacher evaluation system. At the same time, the charter school system grew rapidly, accounting for nearly half of public school enrollment in the 2013-2014 school year. Hawaii’s reforms, however, were not policy-concentrated and rather reflected its island culture. The reforms focused on collaboration and partnerships, creating an education system that works in tandem across schools and along the education continuum from pre-K all the way to the university system.

While it’s tough to definitively point to one thing that contributed to either success, some people may argue that a portion of D.C.’s improvement is a result of demographic changes within the nation’s capital. These changes, however, can’t yet account for D.C.’s rapid gains. As Kaya Henderson, chancellor of D.C. Public Schools (DCPS), said, “One of the things people get wrong is that they think it’s all demographic changes. That’s just wrong. The vast majority of demographic changes have occurred at pre-K level, and haven’t hit our testing cohort yet. We also see significant growth across lots of different groups. For the people who say that the only reason DCPS is improving is because the demographics are changing, well, that is not the reason for our success.”

Similarly, Hawaii, as an island state, has little influx of new people, whether students or teachers. Hawaii’s improvement therefore can only be attributed to what happened within its insular culture. As Tammi Chun, assistant superintendent at the Hawaii Department of Education, put it, “We knew that we would not be able to easily attract teachers or leaders across district or state borders because of our geographic isolation. We knew that human capital challenge of having great teachers and leaders was going to be addressed within by working together and developing our own people.”

Though perhaps no one can confidently determine the exact reason for D.C. or Hawaii’s gains, what is clear is their commitment to the long-term game. Both states exhibited a steadfastness to staying the course, whatever their method of reform was and continues to be. The District of Columbia, for all its initial policy shake-ups, now exhibits a faithfulness in carrying out the new policies. Even with the transition of leadership personnel, D.C. continues to build on its initial plan to focus on human capital in ensuring student success. Hawaii, too, displays this same stability, illustrating the ways in which it’s not so much which reform you pick, but whether or not you stick to it. 

The District of Columbia and Hawaii’s NAEP scores are still far from perfect, but their improvement shows that change is indeed possible.

Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and DuPre, research associate at AEI, are the authors of the new U.S. Chamber of Commerce report “Laggards to Leaders” and were compensated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for their work.