House ESEA Discussion Draft

On Tuesday, August 28, the House Committee on Education and Labor released a “discussion draft” of the amendments to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Committee asks that interested parties review the document and submit comments back to them by September 5th, giving those who are committed over the Labor Day weekend only four days to review the 435 page document. This is, to be sure, a calculated (and cruel) move designed to reduce the commentary.

The reaction, thus far, has been quiet because readers are still digesting the 435 page document and contemplating the implications of the significant changes to the law. Consensus has gathered around the measured statement that this is a “good start,” leaving the door open for any subsequent praise or attack. The Education Trust, however, was the first to take a hard position, calling the new adequate yearly progress (AYP) criteria “confusing” and stating that the proposal would "reverse the federal commitment to ensuring all students can competently read and do math.” We will know if such criticism holds up in the coming week when most will provide their reactions to the discussion draft.

To accelerate the learning curve, the following pages highlight the major changes to the discussion draft. This is a developing analysis that will mature as the implications and details become clearer in the coming weeks.

There are many significant changes in section 1111, the definition and mechanics of AYP. The critical highlights include:

Adequate Yearly Progress Timeline
The discussion draft maintains the expectation that all students in all subgroups must achieve proficiency in reading and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year.

Multiple Indicators
The discussion draft allows states to use multiple, state-developed assessments taken at different points in time to measure AYP and may consider more than reading and math assessments in the final AYP determination. Such additional indicators of school progress include graduation rates, dropout rates, college enrollment rates, percentages of students successfully completing end of course exams for college preparatory courses, assessments in history, science, civics and government, and writing, and improvements in the performance of the lowest and highest performing students in the school.

Substantial improvement on such indicators may provide credit of up to a total of 15% of elementary schools’ Annual Measurable Objectives and 25% of high schools’ Annual Measurable Objectives.

Graduation Rates
In addition to receiving credit under the multiple indicators regimen discussed above, the discussion draft creates section 1124, a provision requiring disaggregated graduation rates and a “rigorous” rate of growth that all schools must meet to make AYP. The document also sets a single definition of graduation rate.

Growth Models
States may integrate measurement of student academic growth into the state’s definition of AYP. The discussion draft lays out principles for growth models with the expectation that all students in each subgroup will be proficient by 2013-2014 or be on a trajectory for proficiency within 3 years and allowing comparable results from grade-to-grade and year-to-year within the definition of AYP.

Performance Index
Adding more levels of academic performance analysis to the AYP determination, the proposal would allow states to use a performance index to determine adequate yearly progress for a school or LEA by granting credit towards their measurable objectives for increasing the numbers of students who move from below basic to basic and proficient to advanced.

Confidence Intervals
The draft bill set a maximum confidence interval of 95% and 75% for Safe Harbor. It prohibits confidence intervals for multiple indicators and growth models.

“N” Size
The "N" size used by states can not be greater than 30, but the Secretary may approve a number greater than 30 but not greater than 40 if the state educational agency (SEA) can justify its reliability or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.

English Language Learners
The discussion draft promotes ambitious accountability requirements for English Language Learners (ELL). States with more than 10% of ELLs who share the same language will be required to create valid and reliable native-language assessments for that language group. That requirement must be “consistent with state law,” and how that will play out remains open to speculation.

The draft provision requires the Secretary to withhold 25% of administration funds from states that do not have in place a valid and reliable system of measuring ELLs within two years from the date of enactment.

It allow states to exclude the assessment results of recently arrived ELLs (those who have been in the country for less than one year) from one administration of the state’s reading or language arts assessment when determining AYP.

It allows states and school districts the flexibility to test ELL students using alternate, valid and reliable assessments, such as native language assessments for up to five years (up from three years in current law), with the option of providing an LEA granted waiver for an additional two years on a case-by-case basis.

It allows ELL students three year residual inclusion in the ELL subgroups after they exit the program for the purposes of AYP.

Students with Disabilities
As with ELL, the draft would require the Secretary to withhold 25% of administration funds from states that do not have in place a valid and reliable system of measuring students with disabilities within two years from the date of enactment.

The draft provision would incorporate the 1% and 2% regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education. One percent of students with disabilities with the most severe cognitive disabilities who meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement based on alternate academic achievement standards may count as proficient when determining AYP. Two percent of students with disabilities who meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement based on alternate academic achievement standards may count as proficient when determining AYP.

The SEA may permit LEAs to include the assessment results of up to 3% (from 2%) of students with disabilities who are assessed against modified achievement standards under certain circumstances.

The draft allows for residual inclusion of these students 3 years after exiting the program.

More Transparency for Approval of State Plans
The transparency of the state plan approval process has been an important issue during the reauthorization discussion. This proposal responds to the criticism for more transparency and would establish a peer review process to assist in the review of state plans that is more timely, transparent and that requires ED to provide continuous feedback, technical assistance, and training to SEAs on the quality of their applications.

Report Cards
The draft would make small changes to state report cards, placing more focus on reporting academic and professional qualification data. LEA report cards would have more focus on opportunities for parent and community involvement and safety, suspension and expulsion data.

School Improvement
Under the proposal, states would reserve 5% of the amount received for school improvement. Of that 5%, 95% would continue to go directly to LEAs. Of the 95%, 70% would go to the newly created “High Priority Schools” and 30% of the funds would go to the newly created “Priority Schools.” The new categories of improvement schools are discussed in more detail below.

Comparison of State Standards
The draft slowly advances the national standards discussion. The draft contains a new 1111 subsection (m) creating a comparison of state standards. The bill requires the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the rigor of academic standards and assessments from state to state. It also directs the Secretary to develop a common scale using the results of the NAS study.

College and Work Ready Standards
The document provides funding for SEAs, at their discretion, to independently or in consortia with other states analyze and revise the standards to ensure that they are vertically aligned and that they include what students need to know to be successful in postsecondary education and the workplace.

Graduation Promise
The focus on high school reform is evident throughout the document. The draft creates a new section 1006 that provides new resources for high schools with the lowest graduation rates. It provides support for school-wide improvement activities, including data-driven decision making, improved curriculum and instruction, personalization of the school environment, staff collaboration and professional development and individualized student supports.

Consequences for Not Making AYP
The draft proposes considerable changes to the mechanics of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and there are even more changes to the resulting consequences.
The law’s current school improvement and corrective action design is revamped in the discussion draft. The proposal scraps the current process of school improvement and corrective action in favor of a school improvement, technical assistance and a redesign program.

The program includes three important phases:
1. School Improvement: Each school that does not make AYP must develop a 3 year school improvement and assistance plan and receives technical assistance.
2. Designation: Schools not making AYP for 2 consecutive years are designated as either “Priority Schools” (PS) or “High Priority Schools” (HPS). These schools must choose from a list of school improvement and technical assistance measures that vary according to the designation, depending on whether the HPS is an elementary or secondary school. Only HPS are required to implement school choice and supplemental educational services. These options remain available for PS, but are not required. Priority Schools would include those schools that miss AYP in one or two subgroups and need only minor interventions; and High Priority Schools would include those schools that:
a. Do not meet AYP and have more than 50% of their students not proficient in reading or math;
b. Do not make AYP and have two or more subgroups in the school that have more than 50% of their students not proficient in reading or math; or
c. Secondary schools that do not meet AYP and have a graduation rate of 60% or less.
3. Redesign: If after 3 years of implementing the school improvement plan, the school has not managed to make AYP for 2 consecutive years or for 2 out of the 3 years, then the LEA may extend the implementation another year if the school can demonstrate progress. If not, and the LEA does not extend the timeline for improvement plan implementation, the LEA must begin a prioritized school redesign process. Under the new redesign subsection:
a. Priority Schools must, under supervision of the district superintendent, institute significant revisions in their instructional and leadership programs and support services provided to the subgroups of students that did not meet proficiency targets and review the performance of the school leadership and all staff serving that subgroup of students.
b. High Priority Schools must close the school, which could be reopened only after a comprehensive redesign of its instructional program and staffing of the school; close the school and reopen it as a charter school; or reconstitute the school’s leadership and staff and significantly revise the instructional program in the subject areas for which the school was identified as not making AYP.

Because of the severity of the HPS redesign, LEAs must limit the number to the lesser of 10% of schools in the district or 50 schools. High Priority Redesign Schools that exceed the 10% cap will fall into the Priority Redesign Schools category. Whether this, practically, creates a third class of school redesign will likely be a matter of considerable debate.

LEAs with one or more HPS would have to set aside and spend 20% of its allocation for Title I to pay the transportation costs for those students that choose to transfer to a high-performing public school and enroll in SES. Of the 20%, an LEA may use 10% of the funding to operate extended learning time programs. The LEA may rollover any unspent funds in the set-aside if the State educational agency approves the request based on an SEA review of the LEA’s program compliance and parental notification activities.

After two years of draconian HPS redesign, the school is considered, for the purposes of the law, to be a “new school” and the process begins anew. If a PS in redesign fails to make AYP, it then becomes a High Priority Redesign School on route to becoming a new school for the purposes of this act after two years of redesign implementation.

Academic Achievement Awards
In order to better reward successful schools and replicate successful programs, section 1117 of the discussion draft now includes an academic achievement awards program to identify and reward school districts that have made the greatest gains in closing the achievement gap so that they may serve as models and provide support for other school districts. As a reward prerequisite, the LEA or school must demonstrate that it has established a partnership with the private sector and will provide matching funds in order to bring the results to scale.

Parental Involvement
The discussion draft requires more formalized communication and involvement between parents and the LEA, and it focuses on the academic goals of the school and the academic achievement of its students inside and outside of the classroom. Schools must show how they will receive and process parent feedback on their parental involvement policies and schools will be encouraged to use multiple forms of communication to provide parents the information they need about school and parent programs, meetings and other activities.

Teacher Qualifications
The Title I, Part A teacher accountability standards remains largely the same. Yet, this may be because the House and Senate are now working on revising Title II of the law and that may influence the language of section 1119 in the near future. The discussion draft would require state plans to demonstrate that they are meeting the equitable distribution of highly qualified teacher requirements and it would require local plans to ensure its compliance with the requirement that all teachers teaching within the school district served by the local educational agency are highly qualified.

Comparability
The discussion draft significantly alters the existing comparability of services requirement to focus only on teacher salaries. Districts may receive funds under this part only if the average per pupil expenditure in the schools is equal to or greater than the average per pupil expenditure in schools that are not receiving funds under this part (the average per pupil expenditure of State and local funds for teacher salaries including staff salary differentials).

Longitudinal Data Systems
The discussion draft creates a new section 1123. It would require SEAs to develop and implement a longitudinal data system within 4 years of the passage of this bill. The draft lists the requirements for such a data system, including a unique statewide student identifier, interoperability data elements and, critically for the development of performance pay, a unique statewide teacher identifier.

Pilot Program to Include Locally Developed Measures
The discussion draft would create a pilot program under which up to 15 States may include, as part of the assessment system, and in addition to State assessments, locally developed, classroom-embedded assessments. Such assessments may be different across local educational agencies and such assessment systems may be used for the purposes of determining AYP.

Participation of Children Enrolled in Private Schools
The draft clarifies that, if an LEA reserves funds to provide instructional and related activities for public elementary or secondary school students under the law at the district level, it must also provide from those funds for equitable services to eligible private school children, except that this requirement shall not apply to funds reserved for school improvement activities. The draft requires SEAs to identify a private school ombudsman to advocate for private schools and to monitor and enforce requirements. It also requires local educational agencies, under certain circumstances, to explain why consensus was not reached during the consultation process.

Resources:
"Committee Releases Miller-McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft," House Committee on Education and Labor, August 28, 2007, http://edworkforce.house.gov/.
Author: DAD