2019 Test Results for State Schools Show Little Change in Student Proficiency Levels

Alabama is scheduled to implement its new state education tests this spring. In the meantime, statewide results from the Scantron assessment in 2019 have been released by the Alabama State Department of Education. They show little change from 2018. In both years, less than half of Alabama public school students in grades three through eight scored proficient in reading and math.

For the state as a whole, 47% of students were proficient in math in 2019 and 2018, and 46% were proficient both years in reading.

The overall proficiency rate for science in 2019 was 37%, a very slight decrease from 38% in 2018.

This comes at a time when Alabama’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has dropped.

New State Assessments

2019 is the second year of data from Scantron, which in 2018 replaced ACT Aspire as the primary state assessment used for measuring academic progress in Alabama public schools since 2013-2014. In June 2017, the State Board of Education voted to cancel Alabama’s contract with ACT and move toward developing another set of tests, which are scheduled to be launched in the spring of this school year, 2019-20. In the meantime, the state continued to assess performance in grades three through eight using tests provided by the Scantron testing company.

Scantron Statewide Results for 2019

Comparing Subjects. Selecting the first tab above shows that among the three subjects assessed with Scantron, once again in 2019, math generated the highest percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency (47%) across grades 3-8 combined. Reading was not far behind at 46% proficient. Similarly, from 2014 through 2017 math generated the highest percent proficient among students taking ACT Aspire, though the gap between math and reading was larger.

Under Aspire, math made ongoing progress each year climbing from 40% proficient in 2014 to 48% in 2017. The increase from 40% with Aspire to 47% with Scantron seems about normal.

In contrast, reading proficiency under Aspire showed little change each year rising from 39% in 2014 and to 40% in 2017. The jump for reading from 40% with Aspire to 46% with Scantron was more significant than the change between tests in math.

In 2019, the Scantron science assessment continued to generate the lowest proficiency rate among the three subjects tested, at 37% proficient, as it did in 2018 with 38% proficient.

Comparing Grade Levels. The second and third panels above provide grade level comparisons. Differences in math proficiency by grade for 2019 and 2018 are minimal. Across all grades under Scantron and Aspire, math proficiency levels are at their highest in the third grade, following the trend in which reported proficiency levels drop in the higher grades. This pattern is less substantial when looking at a particular cohort of students moving from grade-to-grade but still applies. With both Scantron and Aspire, math proficiency drops sharply in the seventh grade, though less dramatically under Scantron in both 2019 and 2018.

Third-grade math is the one grade and subject each year in which the majority of students meet or exceed the benchmark for proficiency. In 2019, 58% were proficient in third-grade math, up slightly over 57% in 2018. This level of proficiency is very similar to Aspire’s third-grade math results, which grew from 52% in 2014 to 59% in 2017. After third grade, though, math proficiency drops, winding up at 45 percent of students demonstrating proficiency by 8th grade.

Reading proficiency in 2019, using Scantron, shows a steady drop from 48% proficient in the third grade to 43% in the 8th grade. This reflects very little change from 2018, in which proficiency ranged from 48% in the third grade to 44% in the 8th grade. Though proficiency levels get lower in the higher grades, they are not dramatically lower as found in math. The more dramatic grade-by-grade drop-in math proficiency was evident in Aspire as well, though even more pronounced.

Why are proficiency levels dropping from grade to grade? First, a decrease at the higher grade levels is normal. During the early grades, math and reading are focused on helping young students learn basic skills, but in the higher grades, math becomes more complex and introduces algebra. Reading instruction also becomes more demanding as students move from learning to read to reading for understanding. Attitudes about external state assessments among younger students in the earlier grades could also be different from students in the higher grades.

But why the difference between reading and math? The less dramatic reduction in proficiency levels in reading from grade to grade might suggest that either students are more effective in learning the basics in reading as a foundation for later grades or that the material in math becomes harder to master and teach. Like many places, the demand for math teachers in Alabama far exceeds the supply of available, qualified math teachers. Proficiency scores on the state Aspire math test for tenth graders significantly dropped from earlier grades to as low as 18% proficient in 2016-17, compared to 33% in reading. Tenth-grade proficiency is not assessed under Scantron. Furthermore, high school ACT scores in Alabama for college admission are higher in reading than in math.

Science is a little different. The drop in proficiency among students in the higher grades takes on a different pattern in science. In 2015, Alabama only tested science in the tenth grade, and 21% tested as proficient or above. In 2015 and 2016, grades three through eight and grade ten were tested. Proficiency levels actually increased from grade-to-grade in grades three through six, with the peak level of proficiency in the 6th grade, then began dropping in the 7th grade, reaching the lowest level in the tenth grade. In Aspire’s last year (2016-17), science was tested in grades 5, 7 and 10. Proficiency levels dropped in each higher grade, as would be expected from past performance in these grades. Finally, under Scantron science was tested in grades 5 and 7, dropping from 40% (grade 5) to 35% (grade 7) in 2018, and from 39% to 35% in 2019.

The low scores in science are worthy of concern, for Alabama and the nation. Though reading and math are more fundamentally essential, science relates to problem-solving skills, reasoning, curiosity, critical thinking, good measurement skills, and applied learning. Through science, a student can learn more about the world around them and better prepare for careers in technology, engineering, agriculture, advanced manufacturing, and health services. These are important skills for the workforce of tomorrow in Alabama.

Focus on Third Grade Reading and the Alabama Literacy Act

Early reading is a pivotal predictor of academic success. Children who learn to read in the early years have a foundation that will help them in other subjects. Early brain development and schooling through grade three are extremely important in shaping a person’s education and life chances. The figure above shows the percentage of students in each of the four proficiency categories for third grade reading from 2014 through 2019. Scantron labels used in 2018 and 2019 for the different levels of proficiency are listed below:

Level 1 (Red—Emerging Learner)

Level 2 (Yellow—Developing Learner)

Level 3 (Light Green—Proficient Learner)

Level 4 (Dark Green—Distinguished Learner)

Students who achieve proficiency or above are in Levels 4 and 3 (dark green and light green). Similar to a traffic light, these colors signal “go.” This is followed by yellow (“use caution”) and red (“stop”).

The Figure above shows that 21% of third-graders read at the lowest level in 2019. Under Aspire, in 2017 that percentage was 39%. It will be interesting to see how this comes out in the new assessment.

To address the high percentage of students not reading with proficiency, in 2019 the Alabama Legislature adopted the Alabama Literacy Act.

The Literacy Act refocuses attention on early reading in kindergarten through third grade, with the expectation that all students should be able to read by the end of the third grade. Beginning in the 2021–22 school year, students falling into the lowest group in reading may be at risk of being retained. Though minority students will be disproportionately affected, research shows that students who are held back and learn to read with intensive reading intervention do better in school than comparable students who are not held back.[1] A key issue relates to the capacity of the state and local systems to provide the intensive assistance as students are held back.

The State Superintendent of Education is convening a standing task force to provide recommendations for comprehensive core reading and reading intervention programs, teacher professional development in the “Science of Reading,” and valid and reliable assessments that can be used for screening, diagnostic, and instructional purposes. Research has identified how skilled reading works, and helping teachers learn the science behind reading can make a difference, as demonstrated in Mississippi.


Comparing Systems and Schools – How Did Your School Do?

The tabs above list the percent proficient in each subject for all local systems and schools. Click on any one of those tabs and look up schools or local systems most important to you and see how they compare to other systems.

Across the state, in both math and reading, 42% of school systems met or exceeded the state average for percent proficient in math and in reading. Fifty-two percent achieved this in science. Clustering occurs where systems and schools perform similarly in all three subjects, especially among the wealthiest and poorest systems. Performance among the top ten and lowest ten in all three subjects is consistent. Still, throughout the state, you can also find variation that shows different local strengths. For example, though Haleyville is ranked 109 in Science (28% proficient), and 103 in reading (36%), it is 53 in math (49% proficient).

It would be useful to learn what is causing differences of this nature and why some systems and schools are stronger in particular subjects than others.

Local Change in Proficiency Over Time

In addition to absolute levels of proficiency in a school system or school, the change occurring over time is another important indicator of performance. This can be an indicator of value added by the school. In schools where students come from family backgrounds in which parents have high income and educational attainment, proficiency levels may already be high, with more limited prospects for change in the school’s proficiency level. In schools where a high percentage come from a background of poverty and low parental educational attainment, students are more likely to enter school less prepared and fall short of their actual potential on assessments. Schools and systems making an effective, concerted effort to improve performance can make a difference. Though absolute scores may still be low, positive growth reflects deliberate improvement, sometimes under very challenging conditions.

The dashboards above list and rank the school systems in the state related to percentage point change in the proficiency rate from 2017-18 to 2018-19 in each subject. The bottom section of each dashboard shows the change in individual schools within each system. PARCA’s analysis below highlights the systems with the highest change in each subject over this period.

Table 1: Percentage Point Change in Proficiency, 2018 to 2019

MathReadingScience
Andalusia City: 11%Andalusia City: 9% Piedmont City: 17%
Perry County: 10%Perry County: 8% Coosa County: 11%
Sumter County: 10%Phenix City: 4%Marengo County: 10%
Leeds City: 6%Lanett City: 3%Tallassee City: 9%
Tallapoosa County: 6%Sumter County: 3%Perry County: 8%
Daleville City: 6%Scottsboro City: 3%*Andalusia City: 7%
Elba City: 7%

*Note that the Macon, Piedmont, Dallas, Butler, Walker, Brewton and Elba also improved reading proficiency by 3 percentage points.

Andalusia City and Perry County were among the most improving systems in all three subjects, and Piemont’s 17 percentage point increase in science is outstanding. Across the state, proficiency levels range in math from +11 to -8%, in reading from +10 to -7%, and in science from +17 to -13%.

Table 2 shows the change in proficiency over 2014-2019, which is complicated by comparing Aspire and Scantron results.

Table 2: Percentage Point Change in Proficiency, 2014 to 2019

Change in Math ProficiencyChange in Reading ProficiencyChange in Science Proficiency
Geneva County 26%Jacksonville City 22%Piedmont City 36%
Saraland City 22%Scottsboro City 21%Saraland City 35%
Dale County 22%Trussville City 21%Etowah City 32%
Marengo County 22%Geneva County 18%Satsuma City 30%
Trussville City 21% Saraland City17% Leeds City 29%
Russell County 20% Dale County 15% Geneva County 28%
Lamar County 20% Brewton City 14% Russell County 27%
Houston County 19% Piedmont City 13% Dale County 26%
Troy City 19% Talladega County 13% Opp City 26%
Clarke County: 19% Perry County 13% Geneva City 26%
Haleyville City: 19%Tuscumbia City 13%Cleburne County 26%
Henry County 26%

Over this longer period, a different set of systems are shown. Perry, Leeds, and Marengo systems again are listed, and Piedmont continues to come out on top with improved science proficiency. Systems with significant improvement in two or more of the subjects include Geneva County, Saraland City, Perry County, Dale County, and Russell County. Across the state, change ranged from +26 to -8% in math, +22 to -5% in reading, and +36 to -5% in science.

Performance of Subgroups in Alabama

In Alabama and across the country, differences in proficiency rates among various subgroups of students continue to be a concern, and the gap between students who are white and students of color is increasing. Proficiency rates for all subgroups changed very little from 2018 to 2019. More positive growth occurred between 2014 to 2019, though comparisons are between Scantron and Aspire assessments.

  • Students who are African-American, English Learners, and those in special education all perform at a lower level than do economically disadvantaged students as a group.
  • A higher percentage of Hispanic students, except those who are English Learners, attain proficiency in math and science than do students who are Black. Those two groups have the same percent proficient in reading. Among all the sub-groups, English Learners appear to struggle the most. They are ranked low in all subjects, especially science and reading, where they fall below all racial groups, economically disadvantaged students, and students in special education.
  • Asian students are the highest performing in all three subjects. Wide gaps continue to exist between African-American students and both Asian and White students, and between Hispanic students and both Asian and White students. Comparing proficiency results in 2014 and 2019, the gap between students who are White and those who are Hispanic or Black is increasing. At the same time, Black students have made significant progress. Math has been a stronger subject for Hispanic students than Black students, though in reading the initial gap between these two groups has been closed.
  • Same as last year, female students in the state performed higher than males in math and significantly higher in reading, while male students scored slightly higher in science.

Impact of Poverty

Students growing up economically disadvantaged are less likely to be read to in the early years, are exposed to fewer words, and are more likely to be exposed to health problems that can affect their capacity to learn in school and perform on tests. The education level and income of a student’s parents becomes a significant predictor of performance on standardized tests such as Scantron.

But some schools are better equipped to help all students learn and exceed expectations.

The scatterplot charts found in this section show the general correlation between proficiency levels and poverty levels. A school system’s proficiency rate determines its vertical position on the chart: the higher on the chart, the higher the proficiency rate. A system’s percent of economically disadvantaged students, measured by the percentage of students qualifying for free meals under the National School Lunch Program, determines the system’s position on the horizontal axis. Systems with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students will appear to the left of the chart and those with a lower percentage will be to the right of the chart.

Exceeding Expectations or Falling Short. The line displayed in the scatterplot is the average proficiency level for a given level of poverty. Those systems and schools above the line are exceeding expectations given their percent of economically disadvantaged students, and those below the line are falling short of expectations. These charts show that systems with similar poverty levels often show very different proficiency levels. In other words, school systems can and do exceed expectations through effective teaching, student support, and school organization and culture.

As an example, consider the chart on Scantron math performance and percent poverty. Saraland is exceeding expectations with 75% of their students scoring math proficient while 37% are economically disadvantaged. In contrast, in Pike Road only 16% of students are economically disadvantaged but only 47% are considered proficient in math. You can learn about the scores of each of these systems by clicking on the circles in the chart.

Conclusion

The Scantron results from 2019 showed very little change from 2018. The gaps that exist between school systems and among student subgroups continue to be an area where more work is needed, especially if Alabama is to fulfill its vision as a state characterized by a vibrant, innovative and relevant workforce.

This is an exciting year in Alabama as the state rolls out its next suite of assessments at the same time that new math standards have been established. Because of the Literacy Act, the state is refocusing attention on early reading. It will be important to establish a baseline and provide feedback on the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the new assessments. Providing accurate, timely, and accessible data can give the state and its schools clarity on progress being made and a strategic sense of how target resources that can make a difference.

This comes at a critical time when NAEP scores in the state have dropped, when the state’s NAEP proficiency rates continue to be very low, and when the state’s ranking in the nation on math and reading has dropped to the bottom of the barrel.

  • Alabama’s 2019 proficiency level in fourth and eighth-grade math was dead last, 52 out of 52 (the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and the Department of Defense schools). In 2017, the state ranked No. 48 in fourth-grade math and 46 in eighth-grade math.
  • In fourth grade reading the state’s proficiency level was ranked 49 out of 52, dropping from 37 in 2017. In eighth grade reading the state’s ranking dropped from 43 to 49.

These national comparisons provide perspective. Alabama’s schools and teachers in high poverty communities face serious challenges, but hope can be found in the progress made by neighboring states and the steps being taken in Alabama to improve literacy and mathematics instruction.

Reference

[1] West, M (2012). Is Retaining Students in the Early Grades Self-Defeating? See https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-retaining-students-in-the-early-grades-self-defeating/


Analysis of Amendment One: Proposing an Appointed State Board of Education

Before each election, PARCA provides an analysis of proposed statewide amendments to the Alabama Constitution.

When voters go to the polls on March 3, they’ll not only be voting in the primary race for President, Vice-President, one U.S. Senate seat, seven U.S. House of Representatives, multiple state Judicial seats, and various other state and county offices, but they will also be asked to vote on one new amendment to the Alabama Constitution of 1901.

The Alabama Constitution is unusual. It is the longest and most amended constitution in the world. There are currently 946 amendments to the Alabama Constitution. Most state and national constitutions lay out broad principles, set the basic structure of the government, and impose limitations on governmental power. Such broad provisions are included in the Alabama Constitution. Alabama’s constitution delves into the minute details of government, requiring constitutional amendments for basic changes that would be made by the Legislature or by local governments in most states. Instead of broad provisions applicable to the whole state, about three-quarters of the amendments to the Alabama Constitution pertain to particular local governments. Amendments establish pay rates of public officials and spell out local property tax rates. An amendment from a few years ago, Amendment 921, granted municipal governments in Baldwin County the power to regulate golf carts on public streets.

Until serious reforms are made, this practice will continue and the Alabama Constitution will continue to swell.

Amendment One

“Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to change the name of the State Board of Education to the Alabama Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education; to provide for the appointment of the members of the commission by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate; to change the name of the State Superintendent of Education to the Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education; to provide for the appointment of the secretary by the commission, subject to confirmation by the Senate; and to authorize the Governor to appoint a team of local educators and other officials to advise the commission on matters relating to the functioning and duties of the State Department of Education.”

Alabamians this March will be voting on an amendment to the Alabama Constitution that would potentially overhaul state education governance and policymaking as it relates to K—12 public schools in the state. The amendment would abolish the elected State Board of Education and the Board-appointed position of State Superintendent of Education. The amendment would create a Governor-appointed Commission, the Alabama Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education. The Commission would appoint a Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education, to replace the existing state Superintendent’s position.

State commissions or boards of education and chief state school officers, whether superintendents or secretaries, are central to state education governance. The process used for their selection has implications for accountability, decision-making, and setting priorities for a state’s K—12 education system.

All but two states (Minnesota and Wisconsin) have a school board or commission. Eleven states have elected school boards (12 if including the District of Columbia). The rest have appointed boards, most of which are appointed by the governor. States with elected school boards or commissions are listed below.

States with Elected Boards

  • Alabama
  • Colorado
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • New Mexico – only an advisory group
  • Nevada – Mixture of elected and appointed members
  • Ohio
  • Texas
  • Utah

The proposal before the voters in Amendment One resembles the governance structure currently in place in 12 states in which the governor appoints the school board and the board appoints the superintendent.

Education Governance

Why does this matter? States have the responsibility for implementing federal education law and developing, implementing, and managing state-level policies. For this to work well, several institutions must work well together.   

State legislatures must pass effective legislation.

Governors can propose education legislation and have the statutory authority to approve or veto legislation. As the state’s chief executive, the governor carries out the laws passed by the legislature. They can also play an important role in shaping the priorities of a state board when they have the power to appoint. In some states, as in Alabama, the governor serves as president of the school board.

State boards of education are responsible for statewide curriculum standards; high school graduation requirements; qualifications for professional education personnel; state accountability and assessment programs; standards for accreditation of local school districts; preparation programs for teachers and administrators; administration of federal assistance programs; and the development of rules and regulations for the administration of state programs. State boards are often seen as the lay representative of the state’s population and as the liaison between professional educators and policymakers. Boards should play a role as advocates for education and, in some states, have been influential in building consensus on state education policy.[1]  

Finally, state superintendents are responsible for administrative oversight of state education agencies and implementation of state law and board policies. Policy-making can occur as superintendents interpret laws and policies that they are responsible for implementing.

There are four different models used in varying states for how state boards and state superintendents are chosen. The majority of states fall into one of these models. Each model, described below, has implications for how state leaders work together in setting priorities and implementing policies.[2]

Model 1: Governor Appoints Board and Superintendent

In 10 states (Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia), the governor has the most structured power in setting priorities and ensuring they are implemented.

Consequently, the superintendent and board should both be aligned with the governor, though the superintendent may feel more independent of the board than in other models where the board appoints them. The governor is accountable to the voters and can be held more directly accountable for the status and effectiveness of education in the state

Model 2: Governor Appoints Board and Board Appoints Superintendent

The proposed Commission in Alabama fits this model.

In 12 states (Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, and West Virginia), the governor still has power in shaping the education agenda but has less direct control over the implementation of policies through the superintendent’s office, as compared to Model 1. The Board and Superintendent would potentially have a closer relationship than found in Model 1.

Model 3:  Governor Appoints Board while Superintendent is Elected

In 11 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming), voters may see different platforms for education supported by the governor and the superintendent. The governor appoints the board, and this becomes a channel through which policy is formed. The superintendent may exercise more autonomy in interpreting those policies and how they will be implemented in the state.

Model 4:  Board is Elected and Appoints the Superintendent

In Alabama and five other states (Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, and Utah), the governor and the board are both directly accountable to voters. Since the board appoints the superintendent, this increases their power.

In this model, the governor is likely in the weakest position to craft or control the education agenda, compared to the other models. According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), states using this model potentially face stronger challenges aligning and collaborating across state leadership, unless the voting public is clear in its desires. When alignment is not present, states will likely face limitations in pushing for and sustaining ambitious policy changes. At the same time, an elected board will be highly responsive to voters and will seek out their opinion, preferences, and needs.

According to ECS, eleven additional states (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington) function under modified and mixed versions of the above models. Five of these elect their board, though New Mexico’s is only an advisory commission. Two of these states elect their state superintendent. No state elects both their state board and superintendent.

  • In Mississippi, five members of the state board are appointed by the governor, two at-large members are appointed by the lieutenant governor, and two at-large members are selected by the speaker of the house of representatives. The superintendent is appointed by the Board.
  • In South Carolina, board members represent each of the judicial circuits where they are elected by the legislative delegations representing each circuit. The CSSO is elected.
  • In Louisiana, eight members are elected from individual districts, and three are appointed by the governor from the state at large, with consent from the senate.

Elected and Appointed State Boards: Strengths and Weakness

The process for selecting the board and chief state school officer can influence the goals for these officials. Some groups, including the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), emphasize the role of state boards in representing the interests of the lay public in accordance with democratic principles. Whether elected or not, NASBE contends that:

“State boards of education are integral to the governance of public education in the United States. State Boards, operating as a lay body over state education, are intended to serve as an unbiased broker for education decision-making, focusing on the big picture, articulating the long-term vision and needs of public education, and making policy based on the best interests of the public and the young people of America.”

Elected board members are charged with asking important and challenging questions that lead to good policy. The question is whether boards effectively play this role.

Proponents say elected boards are more responsive to the public will. As elected officials, board members have their rightful place and, ideally, are only responsible to the people who elected them. They should be more empowered to oppose what they believe is not in the interests of the state’s schools and children.

At the same time, as elected officials, re-election is an important goal, if not the central goal. Thus elected board members may find themselves where the interests and desires of voters conflict with policies, programs, and practices that best serve children.

Conversely, proponents of appointed boards cite the strength of the vetting process in creating boards with knowledgeable, skilled, effective board members. An appointment process allows the governor to consider the needs of the board and the qualities different candidates would bring. Others cite that governor-appointed boards and appointed superintendents create a more efficient, aligned, and harmonious system for setting and implementing education priorities. Ambitious and substantive changes to a state’s school system are more feasible in a more efficient system that encourages collaboration and strengthens the governor’s capacity to effect change. However, while somewhat insulated, appointed boards are not immune from political pressure. 

Conclusion

The selection process for state school boards and state superintendents is important, and there are reasonable arguments for both elections and appointments. Regardless, the selection process will not remove politics. The nature of the task — setting and implementing the state’s K—12 education policy — means state school boards will likely always be politicized to some degree.

Thus, it is essential to establish both an effective governing structure and qualified leaders committed to strengthening teaching and learning in Alabama.

A quality education is how dreams are realized and the people’s voice is strengthened.

Read the full PDF report here.


References

[1] National Association of State Boards of Education (2019). “State Board of Education Responsibilities”

[2] Education Commission of the States (2017). 50-State Comparison: K-12 Governance Structures.”


Newly released “Education Matters” report assesses the progress of public education in supporting Alabama’s workforce initiative

In 2020, Alabama is in the midst of one of the most significant workforce initiatives in the state’s history. Reports have highlighted the need for 500,000 additional highly skilled workers by 2025 who have earned a high-value, industry-recognized credential.  

The Business Education Alliance of Alabama (BEA) commissioned PARCA, with support from the A+ Education Partnership, to provide research that would bring coherence, clarity, and guidance to the state’s effort to meet these goals. That research report, Education Matters, was released by the BEA in January 2020.

The report outlines the state’s system for workforce development. It provides data on key performance measures of the education-to-workforce pipeline. And it takes a close look at career and technical education as part of a larger focus on college and career readiness in Alabama.

Through this analysis, the report highlights challenges that need to be addressed.

  • Improving basic math and literacy instruction: Alabama’s performance on the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and math are falling short of neighboring states and the nation. 
  • Closing the gap between high school graduation and college and career readiness: While 90 percent of students are graduating from high school, only 75 percent are identified as college and career ready (CCR). 
  • Accurately measuring college and career readiness: Authentic college and career readiness requires a solid foundation in English, reading, and math, applied cognitive skills, soft skills, and occupation-specific skills. Are the current indicators of college and career readiness in the state accurately reflecting these skills?
  • Promoting quality credentials: Data indicate that in some cases high schools are driving up the number of career and technical education certifications earned without attention to whether the certificates are rigorous or in alignment with state needs. 
  • Systematically collecting and analyzing education and workforce data: Alabama’s planned longitudinal database continues to be delayed. While there are technical challenges, the primary obstacles are political—rooted in the state’s longstanding resistance to data transparency. While the lack of transparency satisfies some, it is not in the best interest of the economy, the workforce, or the Alabamians served by the state.

To meet the state’s needs and goals, more collaboration needs to occur between business, high school career and technical education, and postsecondary education.

Read all of PARCA’s findings in the full Education Matters report here.


ACT WorkKeys – An Assessment of Workforce Readiness Among High School Graduates in Alabama

The WorkKeys Assessment is a standardized test given to 12th graders in Alabama public schools. The assessment is meant to measure skills relevant to many of today’s work environments.

In 2018:

  • 64 percent of Alabama high school graduates in 2018 were deemed workforce ready as measured by the ACT WorkKeys assessment, a year over year improvement of a half percent.
  • At 94 percent, Hartselle had the highest percentage of workforce ready graduates, as measured by WorkKeys.
  • High fluctuations occurred among the different certificate levels, with Platinum (highest level) and Gold dramatically increasing, but Silver decreasing. Bronze (below workforce ready) increased, though the percent not earning a certificate decreased.

What is WorkKeys?

The WorkKeys assessments are meant to provide a meaningful assessment of applied cognitive skills useful in contemporary work settings. It is also one of the components of Alabama’s College and Career Ready measure.

The assessments do not measure a student’s attitudes about work, dependability, interpersonal skills, teamwork, communication skills, or instincts for creativity, innovation, or leadership. They also do not provide insight about a student’s competency for a job requiring specialized knowledge and skills.

The Assessments. The assessments consist of three tests of applied cognitive skills which are relevant, according to ACT’s research, to over 20,000 occupations:

  • The Applied Math test measures critical thinking, mathematical reasoning, and problem-solving techniques for situations in today’s workplace.
  • The Graphic Literacy test measures the skill needed to locate, synthesize, and use information from charts and graphs. 
  • The Workplace Documents test measures the skills needed to read and understand written text such as memos, letters, directions, signs, notices, bulletins, policies, and regulations on the job.

Students are awarded a National Career Readiness Certification in they score a Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Bronze score on the WorkKeys.

Platinum: These are students with the highest level of applied cognitive skills.  According to ACT, students at this level have demonstrated applied foundational skills for 96 percent of the occupations in the ACT jobs dataset.

Gold: Those earning a Gold level certificate should have the applied foundational skills for 90 percent of jobs in the database.

Silver: Students scoring at the Silver level should have the applied foundational skills for 71 percent of jobs in the ACT database.

Bronze: Students earning a Bronze certificate are judged to be ready for 16 percent of jobs.

In Alabama students earning a Silver certificate or above are considered career ready.

2018 Assessment Results

The following charts show the percent of graduates in Alabama who demonstrated workforce readiness on WorkKeys assessments at the state, local system, and school level.

Percent Workforce Ready Remained the Same. The first chart shows that in 2018 64 percent of high school graduates in the state were deemed workforce ready as measured by WorkKeys. The percent steadily increased from 58.8 percent in 2015 to 60.8 percent in 2016 and 63.5 percent in 2017. The increase from 2017 to 2018 was comparatively small, with both years rounding at 64 percent workforce ready.

Workforce Ready at the System Level  

Listed below are the top ranked systems based on workforce readiness assessed through WorkKeys:

  • Hartselle City – 94 percent of students
  • Mountain Brook – 91 percent of students
  • Cullman – 88 percent of students
  • Oneonta – 86 percent of students
  • Guntersville -85 percent of students

There does appear to be some correlation between performance on the WorkKeys and the ACT exam, but not an exact one-to-one match. For example, some systems achieved a comparable state ranking on both sets of assessments:

  • Mountain Brook was number 1 on the ACT and 2 on WorkKeys
  • Shelby County was 8th on the ACT and 8th on WorkKeys.

However, other systems saw a larger separation.

  • Vestavia Hills was 2nd on the ACT and 16th on WorkKeys.
  • Madison City ranked 4th on the ACT and 18th on WorkKeys.
  • Trussville was 6 and 25, respectively.

All of the systems in the top 10 on the ACT are in the top 25 on WorkKeys, except Auburn.

At the same time, a number of less affluent systems demonstrated progress on the WorkKeys assessment over the previous year. Those systems showing the most improvement over 2017 included:

  • Perry County – 28 percent increase
  • Elba – 27 percent increase
  • Alexander City – 25 percent increase
  • Thomasville – 21 percent increase
  • Sheffield – 18 percent increase

Change in Certificate Levels

Significant Growth in Platinum and Gold Certificates. Students are deemed workforce ready if they achieve certification at the Platinum, Gold, or Silver levels. The charts show that the percent at each of these levels from 2015 through 2017 increased moderately each year and the distribution of students across the different levels remained about the same.  However, ACT’s decision to change one of the tests for a new one apparently led to dramatic changes in the scoring of the WorkKeys test, producing far more Gold and Platinum level certificates:

  • Platinum certificates dramatically increased from essentially zero percent all three previous years to 10 percent of students in 2018. 
  • Gold certificates, remaining fairly stable around 15 percent in the previous three years also showed a more significant increase to 19 percent in 2018.
  • Silver certificates dropped to 35 percent in 2018 after increasing to from 43 percent in 2015 to 48 percent in 2017.

Overall, this resulted in roughly the same percent workforce ready, but with a positive trend toward higher certification levels.  Furthermore, while the percent of Bronze certificates increased, the percent with no certificate decreased. This is a positive trend with more students edging toward the readiness threshold.  

Change in Certificate Levels at the System Level

Platinum: None of the systems decreased at the Platinum level. While a fair number showed no growth, the vast majority increased. In 2017, Sheffield generated the highest percent of Platinum level students of any system in the state at only two percent of its students. All other systems were at zero or one percent. In 2018, Mountain Brook increased from one percent to 41 percent, followed by Homewood, which increased from one percent to 29 percent.  Each of the remaining schools in the 2018 top ten increased from one percent or less to 20-29 percent.  Sheffield increased from two to 11 percent. 

Gold: Cullman generated the highest percentage of Gold Certificates, followed by Hartselle. The percentage receiving Gold increased for most systems, though not at the level of change experienced for Platinum. Fourteen systems generated fewer Gold Certificates in 2018, including some of the top academic systems. Supposedly more of their high performing students moved into the Platinum level. Statewide, Thomasville generated the highest increase in Gold Certificates, moving them into the top five in overall state rankings.

Silver: Finally, most systems decreased in the percentage of students receiving Silver Certificates, the threshold for being considered workforce ready. The highest gains were in Perry County and Elba.  The highest decreases were in Mountain Brook, Jasper, Cullman, Marion County, and Brewton. Rounding this out, the percent of students receiving Bronze Certificates increased in the majority of systems, while the majority of systems have a lower percentage of students who did not receive a certificate.

Possible Causes for the Change

A variety of explanations can be considered for the changes in WorkKeys results:

  • Changes in the WorkKeys assessments;
  • Stronger alignment between WorkKeys teacher training, test preparation, and test questions; and
  • Stronger concerted efforts in schools to prepare students for the assessments.

In 2018 WorkKeys underwent a number of changes, though the only test section that involved significant content change was the Locating Information test, which is now called Graphic Literacy. The names used for the other two assessments were changed to their current titles, Applied Math and Workplace Documents, though apparently no significant content changes occurred in these assessments. 

Changes in an assessment often lead to scoring changes and other issues that can affect results. The new Graphic Literacy test may account for the leap in higher certificates at the Platinum and Gold levels, but the new test is supposed to be more rigorous. While higher rigor would usually not be associated with higher scores, higher relevance in an improved test could produce better scores.

Aligned with the changes in the actual assessments are changes in teacher training and student prep tools, including practice exams. These are potentially a better fit with the formal assessments being rolled out than was available in preparation for the prior assessment.

More systems may also be using the ACT WorkKeys Curriculum, which is aligned with the WorkKeys assessments. The courses are delivered through a mobile-based learning management system. It provides students and teachers with a customized study schedule and detailed instructional content. While the curriculum can improve test performance, it is primarily designed to develop workplace-ready skills in students.

Subgroup Analysis

Analysis of WorkKeys results for student subgroup performance shows continuing disparity between subgroups. Use the filters to see how systems differ in subgroup performance. Some schools may be better at assisting struggling groups than others.

In looking at trends, all racial groups are showing progress from year to year, especially Asians, Native Americans, and black students. The gap between Asian students and all other races is growing. The gap between white and Hispanic students is also growing, while the gap between white and black students has remained about the same – but not closing. Black students are gradually closing the gap with Hispanic students.


College and Career Readiness in Alabama

In 2012, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted Plan 2020, which embraced a vision for the state education system led by the motto: “Every child a graduate. Every graduate prepared.” The plan called for raising Alabama’s high school graduation rate to 90 percent, while at the same time producing graduates who are better prepared for college and the workplace. Since that time, significant progress occurred in raising the graduation rate from 72 percent in 2011 to 90 percent in 2018.

While the high graduation rate is laudable, state education leaders have raised concerns about the gap between the percent graduating and the percent prepared for college or work. The other half of the motto — “Every graduate prepared” — came under question.

The following chart shows Alabama high schools are closing the gap between the percentage of students graduating and the percentage of seniors demonstrating they are ready for college and the workforce.

According to yet-to-be finalized data from the Alabama State Department of Education, significant progress has been made over the past three years. Final and complete data are expected to be published later this year:

  • In 2016, Alabama graduated 87 percent of its students, though only 66 percent were college and career ready. 
  • In 2017, the gap closed, with 89 percent graduating and 71 percent college and career ready. 
  • In 2018, improvement continued with 90 percent graduating and 75 percent college and career ready. 

Though the gap is still large, it is improving.

Continuing to close that gap is vital. The state has a goal of adding 500,000 highly-skilled workers to the workforce by 2025. To meet that goal, virtually all high school graduates will need to be prepared for education beyond high school or prepared to enter the workforce directly after high school.

The 2018 CCR data shows:

  • Career Technical Education (CTE) certificates are the fastest-growing means for classifying students as college and career ready.
  • Qualifying scores on the ACT and WorkKeys assessments are the two most common measures used to classify students as college and career ready.
  • Systems and schools leverage different strategies for preparing students – reflecting varying strengths, resources, and goals for education.
  • Some systems are very strong in particular areas and weak in others, which may not meet the needs of all students.
  • Disparities in performance exist across schools and student subgroups that may go beyond poverty.

Alabama’s College and Career Readiness Measure

The Alabama College and Career Strategic Plan (a component of Plan 2020) articulated a vision in which all Alabama students graduate high school college and career ready. The plan defines college and career readiness as:  

“…a high school graduate [that] has the English and mathematics knowledge and skills necessary to either (1) qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses without the need for remedial coursework, or (2) qualify for and succeed in the postsecondary job training and/or education necessary for their chosen career (i.e. technical/vocational program, community college, apprenticeship or significant on-the-job training).”

High school graduates are classified as college and career ready (CCR) if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

  1. Score college ready in at least one subject on the ACT
  2. Score at the silver level or above on the WorkKeys Assessment
  3. Earn a passing score on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate Exam (college-level courses delivered in high schools)
  4. Successfully earn a Career Technical Education credential
  5. Earn dual enrollment credit at a college or university
  6. Successfully enlist in the military

Some of these measures are more aligned with college preparation and others with career preparation.

The state now provides data on the overall CCR rate and data on the individual metrics that create the measure. Detailed analysis is found in the interactive charts below, which allow users to explore college and career readiness percentages for high school seniors in 2018 at the state, school system, and high school level.

Graduation and CCR Rates

The first chart shows the percentage of students graduating, followed by the percentage of seniors who are college and career ready, followed by the percentage achieving readiness on the various performance measures that compose the CCR rate.  While preset for the state in 2018, the filters can be used to produce the same chart for individual school systems in 2017.

Statewide, the percentage of seniors testing “ready” is highest for the WorkKeys assessment, followed closely by ACT. Those are the two main channels through which a CCR rating is achieved, though a growing number of students are deemed CCR by earning a credential in a Career Technical Education (CTE) field.  Earning college credit or a qualifying score on an AP exam are also used by a smaller percentage of students. A very low percentage of seniors achieve a CCR rating by getting a passing score on an International Baccalaureate exam or successfully enlisting in the military.  Exploring these measures at the system and school level suggests the use of different strategies across school systems reflects different goals for education, local needs and strengths, and characteristics of the community.  

Graduation – CCR Gap by Local System

Chart 2 shows the graduation rate, CCR rate, and gap between these two rates in each system. They are listed in the order of CCR rate from highest to lowest. The Piedmont City School System is No. 1 in the state for CCR — the only system where 100 percent of seniors are classified as college and career ready. The system also graduates close to 100 percent of its students.

Some systems actually have negative gaps where the percent of seniors who are college and career ready exceeds the percent who graduate after four years in high school. This includes the Coffee County System, and city systems in Opp, Arab, Satsuma, and Piedmont. 

On the other end of the spectrum, systems with the lowest CCR rates tend to have the highest gaps between graduation and CCR rates, though not always. 

Graduation – CCR Gap by School

Individual schools are showing similar trends, with wide disparity between high and low performing schools.

  • Keith Middle-High School in Dallas County graduates 90 percent of its students, matching the state average, but only 19 percent of its seniors are measured to be college and career ready.
  • Barbour County High School graduates 77 percent of its students, but only 12.5 percent of seniors are measured as college and career ready.

Having both high graduation rates and CCR rates indicates that the diplomas issued by those schools have credibility and value. Where graduation rates are high but CCR rates are low, there is cause for concern.

Individual Components of CCR by System and School

The remaining charts in this section display individual components of college and career readiness by system and school. The final chart shows the percent change in CCR rates from 2017 to 2018.

Overall for the state, the largest change occurred in the percent of students earning career technical education credentials, increasing from 22 to 29 percent. The state and individual systems have put an increased focus on providing career-related coursework in high school, and the increases here may reflect that emphasis. At the same time, it is important for policy-makers to monitor what career credentials students are earning. For this to be a meaningful measure of career readiness, those credentials need to be recognized and valued by employers and should be in a field in which a student is likely to obtain work or more advanced training.

Other increases occurred in students earning college credit (10% to 13%), and in WorkKeys readiness (55% to 57%).

As cited earlier, when looking at individual systems and schools, it becomes apparent that different places achieve college and career readiness through different strategies.

  • Mountain Brook is No. 1 in ACT, WorkKeys, and AP, but lower on college credit and career technical credentials.
  • Vestavia is second on ACT readiness, among the top schools on the AP exam, and in the top 25 percent in career technical credentials, but much lower on WorkKeys and dual enrollment.
  • Opp City exceeds the state average on all measures of CCR but is especially high-achieving in students earning college credit, where they are No. 1 in the state, and in career technical credentials, where they are No. 5. 
  • The system with the highest CCR rating, Piedmont City Schools, is at the state average on ACT and WorkKeys, but far and above other systems in credentials.

Are schools meeting the needs of all students? One concern this analysis raises is that some systems may not be meeting the varying needs of all students. Those systems scoring high or at least moderately high on a balance of college and career measures are providing a breadth of services that can help students shine where they show interest and potential. The lack of balance in some systems or schools may reflect an intentional emphasis on what they value most: college preparation or career readiness. It is important for schools to assess whether they are providing options that fit the needs and interests of the diverse array of students they serve.

Conclusion

As a composite of various academic and career indicators, Alabama’s College and Career Ready metric reflects three important concepts.

  • Every student needs either a post-secondary education or credible career-focused training in high school.
  • Post-secondary education need not be a traditional four-year college degree.
  • There are many different pathways for students.

The gap between Alabama’s graduation rate and the number of graduates deemed college and career ready has been a concern, but one with optimism given progress in closing that gap.

Career Technical Education certificates are the fastest-growing measure through which students are earning the CCR marker. These credentialing programs are meant to prepare students for workforce opportunities in high-demand fields right out of high school.  They combine academics with work-based learning as a strategy to address the widening gap between job applicants’ skills and the skills employers need. The state will need to continuously ensure that all courses and concentrations are of high quality and relevant to the workforce needs in the state and in local communities.  

Beyond preparing students with skills for specific jobs, an array of academic, extracurricular, and work-based learning opportunities can develop the student as a whole person capable of thoughtful decision-making and meet the unique needs and preferences of each student. Academics, career training, life skills, and the cultivation of passions and interests can all come together to support college, career, and life readiness.

Alabama is assessing progress on part of this, but not all. The state has made a good faith effort to evaluate college and career readiness through a variety of measures such as the ACT, college dual enrollment, WorkKeys, and Career and Technical Education (CTE) certification. Still, this is a changing and growing field. Skills and attributes needed in various careers are continually changing. Alabama should remain alert to more rigorous and authentic measures of college and career readiness that may emerge.


How Do States Choose State Boards of Education and State Superintendents?

The Alabama Legislature is currently considering a bill that would potentially overhaul state education governance and policymaking as it relates to K—12 public schools in the state. The bill, which has already passed the Senate, would abolish the elected State Board of Education and the Board-appointed position of State Superintendent of Education. The bill would create a Governor-appointed Commission, the Alabama Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education. The Commission would appoint a Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education to be approved by the Senate. If approved by the Legislature, the proposal will be placed on the statewide ballot as an amendment to the Alabama Constitution.  

State commissions or boards of education and chief executive officers, whether they be superintendents or secretaries are central to state education governance. The process used for their selection has implications for accountability, decision-making, and setting priorities for a state’s K—12 education system.

All but two states (Minnesota and Missouri) have a school board or commission. Eleven states have elected school boards (12 if including the district of Columbia). The rest have appointed boards, most of which are appointed by the governor. States with elected school boards or commissions are listed below.

States with Elected Boards

  • Alabama
  • Colorado
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • New Mexico – only an advisory group
  • Nevada – Mixture of elected and appointed members
  • Ohio
  • Texas
  • Utah

The proposal before the Legislature resembles the governance structure currently in place in 12 states in which the governor appoints the school board and the board appoints the superintendent.

Education Governance

Why does this matter? States have the responsibility for implementing federal education law and developing, implementing, and managing state-level policies. For this to work well, several institutions must work well together.   

State legislatures must pass effective legislation.

Governors can propose education legislation and have the statutory authority to approve or veto legislation. As the state’s chief executive, the governor carries out the laws passed by the legislature. They can also play an important role in shaping the priorities of a state board when they have the power to appoint. In some states, as in Alabama, the governor serves as president of the school board.

State boards of education are responsible for statewide curriculum standards; high school graduation requirements; qualifications for professional education personnel; state accountability and assessment programs; standards for accreditation of local school districts; preparation programs for teachers and administrators; administration of federal assistance programs; and the development of rules and regulations for the administration of state programs. State boards are often seen as the lay representative of the state’s population and as the liaison between professional educators and policymakers. Boards should play a role as advocates for education and, in some states, have been influential in building consensus on state education policy.[1]  

Finally, state superintendents are responsible for administrative oversight of state education agencies and implementation of state law and board policies. Policy making can occur as superintendents interpret laws and policies they are responsible for implementing.

A report issued by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) outlines how state boards and state superintendents are chosen in varying states, and how the majority of states fall into one of four models. These models, described below, have implications for how state leaders work together in setting priorities and implementing policies.[2]

Model 1: Governor Appoints Board and Superintendent

In 10 states (Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia), the governor has the most power in setting priorities and ensuring they are implemented.

Consequently, the superintendent and board should both be aligned with the governor, though the superintendent may feel more independent of the board than in other models where the board appoints them. The governor is accountable to the voters and can be held more directly accountable for the status and effectiveness of education in the state

Model 2: Governor Appoints Board and Board Appoints Superintendent

In 12 states (Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, and West Virginia), the governor still has power in shaping the education agenda but has less direct control over the implementation of policies through the superintendent’s office, as compared to Model 1. The Board and Superintendent would potentially have a closer relationship than found in Model 1. The proposed Commission in Alabama fits this model.

Model 3:  Governor Appoints Board while Superintendent is Elected

In 10 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming), voters may see different platforms for education supported by the governor and the superintendent. The governor appoints the board, and this becomes a channel through which policy is formed. The superintendent may exercise more autonomy in interpreting those policies and how they will be implemented in the state.

Model 4:  Board is Elected and Appoints the Superintendent

In Alabama and five other states (Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, and Utah), the governor and the board are both directly accountable to voters. Since the board appoints the superintendent, this increases their power. In this model, the governor is likely in the weakest position to craft or control the education agenda, compared to the other models. According to ECS, states using this model potentially face stronger challenges aligning and collaborating across state leadership, unless the voting public is clear in its desires. When alignment is not present, states will likely face limitations in pushing for ambitious policy changes. At the same time, an elected board will be highly responsive to voters and will seek out their opinion, preferences, and needs.

According to ECS, twelve additional states (Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin function under modified versions of the above models. Five of these elect their board, though New Mexico’s is only an advisory commission. Two of these states elect their state superintendent. No state elects both their state board and superintendent.

Elected and Appointed State Boards: Strengths and Weakness

The process for selecting the board and superintendent can influence the goals for these officials. Some groups, including the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), emphasize the role of state boards in representing the interests of the lay public in accordance with democratic principles. Whether elected or not, NASBE contends that:

“State boards of education are integral to the governance of public education in the United States. State Boards, operating as a lay body over state education, are intended to serve as an unbiased broker for education decision-making, focusing on the big picture, articulating the long-term vision and needs of public education, and making policy based on the best interests of the public and the young people of America.”

Elected board members are charged with asking important and challenging questions that lead to good policy. The question is whether boards effectively play this role.

Proponents say elected boards are more responsive to the public will. As elected officials, board members have their rightful place and, ideally, are only responsible to the people who elected them. They should be more empowered to oppose what they believe is not in the interests of the state’s schools and children.

At the same time, as elected officials, re-election is an important goal, if not the central goal. Thus elected board members may find themselves where the interests and desires of voters conflict with policies, programs, and practices that best serve children.

Conversely, proponents of appointed boards cite the strength of the vetting process in creating boards with knowledgeable, skilled, effective board members. An appointment process allows the governor to consider the needs of the board and the qualities different candidates would bring. Others cite that governor-appointed boards and appointed superintendents create a more efficient, aligned, and harmonious system for setting and implementing education priorities. Ambitious and substantive changes to a state’s school system are more feasible in a more efficient system that encourages collaboration and strengthens the governor’s capacity to effect change. However, while somewhat insulated, appointed boards are not immune from political pressure. 

Conclusion

The selection process for state school boards and state superintendents is important, and there are reasonable arguments for both elections and appointments. Regardless, the selection process will not remove politics. The nature of the task — setting and implementing the state’s K—12 education policy — means state school boards will likely always be politicized to some degree.

Thus, it is essential to establish both an effective governing structure and qualified leaders committed to strengthening teaching and learning in Alabama.

A quality education is how dreams are realized and the people’s voice is strengthened.


References

[1] National Association of State Boards of Education (2019). “State Board of Education Responsibilities”

[2] Education Commission of the States (2017). 50-State Comparison: K-12 Governance Structures.”