It’s Time to Give NC Test Scores a Good, Long Look, Part Two

• In September, state education officials touted the newly released math and reading test results with guarded optimism, but a full review of the scores found the optimism to be misplaced
• The scores show little progress in the state’s effort to close achievement gaps, and in some cases, the gaps have grown even greater
• The lack of progress points not to a lack of resources, but rather to a failure of accountability

A previous brief identified some troubling trends in the most recent North Carolina student test scores. A deeper dive into the data reveals test scores by race. For years, education officials have had a stated priority of raising minority test scores and closing the achievement gaps. Millions of tax and private dollars have been dedicated to alleviating those gaps (see here, here and here). Are these efforts working? Are achievement gaps closing?

Racial Achievement Gaps in North Carolina Student Test Scores, 2018–19 and 2023–24

The table above provides math and reading proficiency scores for students by race for 2018–19 (the year before the pandemic) and 2023–24 (the most recent year). If you look at the percentages of students who demonstrate grade level proficiency in math or reading by race, you see that while there have been some very modest gains over the past five years, most of the gaps between races are as big as they have ever been and some are even bigger. Over the period, proficiency levels for all races except Asians declined.

In 2018–19, 29.0 percentage points divided the performance of blacks and whites on eighth grade reading. In 2023–24, that difference was 29.4 percentage points. Regarding Hispanics, the difference between Hispanic and white reading scores in 2018–19 was 24.4 percentage points. By 2024, the difference had grown to 27.4 percentage points.

While it is true that these scores are only for eighth grade, the story — with some modest variation — is largely the same across races, subjects, and years. Despite the investment of millions of dollars, the hoped-for improvements have not materialized. Even with improvements, state test scores remain low, they still trail prepandemic levels, and achievement gaps continue. So how do we remedy a persistent problem?

It is a frustrating topic to discuss. Many students are continuing to fall behind. Making matters worse is that there seem to be so little accountability and outrage over current developments.

Faced with such a problem, it’s natural to point to funding and recommend additional funds targeted to special populations, additional staff, and more training to improve test scores. Before we discuss this option any further, let’s remember that state funding for North Carolina public schools has increased every year since 2011, growing from $7.57 billion in 2010–11 to $12.35 billion in 2023–24. During that same period, per-pupil support has increased from $8,414 to $13,222. Have there been commensurate increases in student outcomes accompanying these funding increases?

Of course, money is not unimportant. Targeted resources can lead to improved outcomes. The challenges have always been in sustaining gains and scaling programs.

Many advocates are calling for “full funding” of public schools. Funding the Comprehensive Remedial Plan under Leandro would result in an infusion of about three-quarters of a billion dollars. Teachers and additional staff would be hired under the plan.

As attractive as that may sound to some, remember that from 2021 to 2024, North Carolina public schools received an additional $6.2 billion in federal funds to address the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath in our schools. A review of how districts spent — or didn’t spend — that money does not inspire confidence. More than half of all funding was spent on salaries (42 percent) and employee benefits (nine percent). Another 10 percent was spent on purchased services, 21 percent on supplies and materials, and 12 percent on capital outlay, and five percent on other expenses. Only about two percent of resources were used for tutoring or tutorial pay.

While the size of the investment suggests improvements in outcomes, the pace and depth of improvement do not match expectations. Complaints continue about how school districts spent or misspent Covid relief funds. For example, almost 76 percent of the $434 million the Wake County Public School System received in Covid funds was spent on employee salaries and benefits. Has the additional funding improved student performance? In 2018–19, 34.6 percent of Wake County students were considered not proficient in math, and 17.7 percent were considered not proficient in reading. In 2022–23, those same groups were 36.9 percent and 39.1 percent, respectively.

The disappointing outcomes, billions of dollars in spending, and media disinterest on school test scores point to a lack of accountability in the public schools. The obvious question is: Who oversees public education in North Carolina? The answer often depends on whom you ask. Some will say the State Superintendent of Public Instruction who heads up the Department of Public Instruction. Some will answer the State Board of Education, which is charged with developing policy and carrying out the directives of the North Carolina General Assembly. Some will say the governor, who appoints members a majority of the members to the State Board of Education and can help set the agenda for education policy in North Carolina. Some will answer the General Assembly, which sets education policy and funds the public schools.

The problem is, there are no clear lines of accountability and responsibility for public education in North Carolina. No one knows who is in charge. A few years back, then–Gov. Bev Perdue established an education czar position at the cabinet level hoping to help answer that question. The North Carolina Supreme Court, however, declared the position unconstitutional. Current problems fester because the current system lacks definition and accountability.

If we’re really interested in improving educational outcomes, we need to address not only the shortcomings in the classroom but also define which actors have the authority to oversee functions and responsibility for educational outcomes. Bringing real clarity to the term “educational accountability” is a good place to start.