No Child Left BehindNo Child Left BehindReauthorization Reauthorization
UpdateUpdate
Presented by Reginald FeltonDirector, Federal Relations
National School Boards Association
October 5, 2007
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors AssociationLegislative ConferenceTrenton, New Jersey
2
NSBA Position
• Current provisions in NCLB would hurt rather than help our schools’ efforts to raise student achievement
• Current accountability framework does not accurately or fairly assess student, school, or school district performance
• Overbroad negative labeling is unproductive
3
• Local school boards remain committed to the original goal of NCLB to improve academic performance of each child
• Goals cannot be achieved without specific changes to the law
• Reauthorization should not be delayed
NSBA Position
4
NSBA Actions To Date
2005• Unveiled draft legislation addressing over
40 recommendations
2006• H.R. 5709 introduced incorporating all
NSBA recommendations• 14 additional bills introduced supporting
NSBA key recommendations
5
NSBA Actions to Date
2007• H.R. 648 introduced incorporating all
NSBA recommendations• S. 348 and S. 1913 introduced
incorporating key NSBA recommendations• 14 additional bills introduced supporting
key NSBA recommendations• Over 500 local school boards pass
resolutions endorsing H.R. 648
6
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007
• Increases the flexibility for states to use additional types of assessments for measuring AYP, including growth models
• Grants states more flexibility in assessing students with disabilities and students not proficient in English for AYP purposes
7
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007
• Targets resources to those student populations who need the most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group fails to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years
• Ensures that students are counted properly in assessment and reporting systems
8
• Allows supplemental services to be offered in the first year of improvement
• Strengthens federal responsibility for funding
• Requires NCLB testing and reporting for non-public schools receiving Title I services
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007
9
House Education & Labor Committee Actions
March – June 2007Series of Hearings• March 13 – Reauthorization• March 21 – AYP• March 23 – English Language Learners• March 29 – Students with Disabilities• April 18 – Flexibility • June 7 – Supplemental Educational Services
10
August 27, 2007• Release of Miller-McKeon discussion draft on
Title I
September 6, 2007• Release of Miller-McKeon discussion draft on
Titles II-XI
September 10, 2007• Hearing held on Miller-McKeon discussion
draft
House Education & Labor Committee Actions
11
Highlights of Discussion Draft
• Focuses most aggressive interventions on schools with greatest need (high priority schools)
• Increases data collection, reporting, and planning requirements for schools/school districts
• Provides more options for determining AYP (e.g. growth, indexing, multiple indicators)
12
• Tightens some AYP factors (e.g. “N” size) and relaxes others (e.g. SWD and LEP)
• Establishes two categories of schools for AYP purposes: Priority and High Priority
Highlights of Discussion Draft
13
Priority Schools
Threshold
• Same group must fail to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years
14
High Priority Schools
• Threshold• H.S.: Overall fails AYP and < 60% graduation
rate• Overall 50% not proficient or fails growth test• Two or more groups < 50% proficient
• State alternative for designation of high priority
• Limit: Lesser of 10% or 50 of an LEA’s schools
15
Requirements for Priority and High Priority Schools
Year 2• Develop 3-year plan• High priority schools must offer
choice/SES
Years 3 & 4• Implement plan/continue choice/SES
Year 5• 1 year extension if made AYP in year 4
16
Requirements for Priority and High Priority Redesign Schools
Year 6• Priority schools become redesign schools
(corrective action) as well as high priority schools (restructuring – but “other” option eliminated)
Years 7 & 8• Implement year 6 redesign school
requirements
17
LEA Improvement Plan
Overall Requirements• Systemic approach• Curriculum and standards/assessments
alignment• Professional development for teachers &
principals• Emphasis
• Targets groups not making AYP• Attention to students with disabilities, LEP
students
18
LEA Improvement Plan
New Requirements• Review teacher assignment, out-of-field
teachers• Add principals to professional development• Use results of formative assessment• Review LEA’s capacity and resources• Project amount of funds for improvement, how
it will be spent• Require mentoring and induction for new
teachers• Require collaboration between core content
teachers and others
19
School Improvement Plan
• Review LEA-related causes for missing AYP• Review teacher assignment/out-of-field• Add principals to professional development• Use results of formative assessments• Review school capacity to address problems• Require collaboration between core content
teachers and others
20
Determining AYP
N size = 30Students with Disabilities• Credit for up to three years when student leaves
group• 1% extra allowance for 2% rule
English Language Learners• Two year ELP option for AYP (for state to develop
native language assessment)• Credit for up to three years when student leaves
group• Assessment in native language for five years
plus two on case-by-case basis
21
Determining AYP
• Growth model with three year trajectory to proficiency
• Indexing with greater weight for making proficient than advanced
• Multiple indicators can be included in determining AYP for language arts and math
22
Multiple Indicators
States can use any of the following:• Growth on: a) science, civics, history and
government; or b) writing• Indexing: Increased % of students moving
to proficient and advanced• Increased % of students passing core
subject test for college prep• Increased % going to a degree-granting
higher education institution• Decreased dropout rate
23
Multiple Indicators
• End of course test must apply statewide (not state assess test)
• Upper 10% of LEAs to determine 10-year target
• Upper 20% of schools to determine annual growth rate
• Points given for making each indicator• Point limits: 15% elementary/25%
secondary• Partial credit/except graduation rate
24
Supplemental Education Services
(SES)
• SES limited to high priority schools
• Option: Portion of set-aside for extended
day programs
• 20% set aside by school not school district
25
Graduation Rates
• Standard definition (to be developed)• Disaggregate data for AYP• 2.5% annual growth up to 90%• 5 year students can count toward meeting
graduate rate goal• Close gap 2019-20• 15 points “other indicator” credit for AYP if
group meets target
26
Highly Qualified Teachers
• Codifies flexibility for rural / multi-subject teachers (science)
• No new flexibility for special education teachers
• Eliminates HOUSSE
27
Incentives on Teacher Quality(Title II)
Closing “Teacher Equity” Gap Via Incentives
• Premium pay for top principals/teachers in high-need schools
• Career ladders in high-need schools• Teacher residency program• Professional development/teacher centers
28
Closing Teacher Equity Gap(Title II)
• Teacher quality state grants linked to equity
• State assurance on measuring equitable access
• LEA needs assessment within one year
• Heavy focus on professional development
29
Teacher Effectiveness
• Must equalize teacher salaries between Title I and non-Title I schools
• The equalization requirement does not supersede collective bargaining agreements
• Federal financial assistance to promote equalized teacher assignment
• No student can be taught for two consecutive years by a novice / out-of-field teacher
• Enforcement: Not clear
30
Other Features
• State incentives to develop college/work readiness standards with aligned assessments
• States must have longitudinal data systems in four years
• 15-state pilot to develop and implement local assessments
31
NSBA Issues Not Addressed
AYP• Larger N size for LEAs• Reduced safe harbor threshold
ELL• At least three years for academic proficiency• Capacity to develop native language
assessments
Students with Disabilities• IEP team evaluation rather than being tied to
1% & 2% definition
32
NSBA Issues Not Addressed
• Participation rate flexibility when excess number of students make AYP
• Retesting students for AYP• Sanctions
• Students in multiple groups• Targeting choice/SES sanctions• SES oversight
• Testing/Accountability for non-public schools
• Funding triggers
33
Political Issues To Be Resolved
• Equalization/Comparability
• Multiple measures of academic achievement: beyond the single test
• Progress measures for ELLs and students with disabilities
• 2014 target date for 100% proficiency
34
• Data collection and reporting requirements
• Supplemental educational services providers
• Funding
• Graduation rates (students with disabilities/alternative high school programs)
Political Issues To Be Resolved
35
Reginald FeltonDirector, Federal
Relations703-838-6782
[email protected]/advocacy
Contact Information
Excellence and Equity in Public Education through School Board Leadership
Top Related