NCLB Measures vs. Actual Student Achievement

I recently read a very interesting paper from the Center on Education Policy entitled "How Many Schools and Districts Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress?  Four-Year Trends" (available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html).  Aside from the obvious fact that over time more schools and districts are failing to make AYP (inherent in the definition of AYP, which requires equal increments of progress, in all subgroups, toward the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014), the paper contained some fascinating comparisons and illustrated huge discrepancies in NCLB performance among the different states.

But do the differences in NCLB performance really reflect actual comparative student achievement?  In 2009, in Massachusetts, 79% of school districts did not make AYP -- a huge percentage! -- and these districts are thus subject to federal sanctions, which could include replacing principals and teachers, paying for private tutoring for students, and/or transporting students to other schools and districts, all of which are costly.  In addition, the publicity about the NCLB "failure" of Massachusetts schools decreases parental and community trust and support for the schools.  By comparison, in the same year, 2009, in Alabama, only 2% of districts did not make AYP -- thus, only 2% of Alabama districts are subject to federal sanctions and 98% of Alabama districts are regarded as doing well.  Are Alabama schools really that much better than Massachusetts schools?  Well, on the last NAEP testing, Massachusetts schools were 1st in the nation on the 4th and 8th grade math tests, while Alabama schools were 50th. (The other NAEP test results show similar, although less dramatic, differences.)

This comparison raises many questions for me -- among others, why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for failure, criticism, and compliance with expensive and detrimental sanctions when our schools are doing well on the NAEP national tests and are doing better than other states where the schools are not subject to the sanctions? The federal sanctions seem almost designed to be detrimental to good schools (and there are many good schools and districts in Massachusetts that did not make AYP).  There also is no evidence that any of these sanctions is effective in improving schools. So. . .  why are we in Massachusetts setting ourselves up for federal sanctions and loss of local control and support for our schools when other states are not?  Is there a political agenda being served here?  And, if so, whose agenda is it?  I think these are important questions to think about and to answer, before we end up doing serious damage to our public school system. . .