New School Improvement and Assistance Section

No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) accountability and intervention sections are the law’s pistons. If they do not run well, the law will not perform well, which is why policy makers are so closely scrutinizing the new sections 1111 and 1116 of the House discussion draft. A previous Update examined the multiple measures of discussion draft section 1111. This Update reviews the critical provisions of the new school and local educational agency (LEA) improvement and assistance provisions of section 1116.

A common criticism of NCLB’s sanctions in section 1116 is that they are too rigid. The current law requires that LEAs implement a series of cascading consequences to school according to the number of consecutive years that schools have failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). It does not consider that some schools need a great deal of help while others do not. As a result, the reauthorization clamor has been to grant state educational agencies (SEA) and LEAs more discretion to target their interventions according to the nature and the extent of the failure.

Recognizing the law’s limitations, the House discussion draft attempts to do just that. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, the discussion draft would allow LEAs the discretion to differentiate between those schools that require different levels of interventions. Instead of a seven-year cascade ending with school restructuring, the new section 1116 proffers a new six- to seven-year timeline that focuses on high need schools. Figure 1 depicts the timeline, which is described in more detail below.
Figure 1:

Year 1: When a school does not make AYP, during the course of the following year the school must develop a comprehensive school improvement and assistance plan. The discussion draft details:
• Who must be consulted when making this plan,
• That it must cover a three-year period; and
• Specific and required elements of the plan.
These elements have been criticized because they read like the summary of a school leadership manual. The elements of the improvement and assistance go on for seven pages and include:
• A retrospective review and analysis of the causes for not making AYP, including an analysis of teacher assignment and expertise;
• A forward looking analysis of strategies and policies that will help remedy the identified causes;
• An analysis of the school’s capacity to carry out the identified strategies;
• An analysis of responsibilities among the school, LEA and SEA required to carry out these plans;
• An identification project timelines, student academic objectives and other benchmarks of success for the project.

Year 2: If the school fails to make AYP for a second consecutive year, it must implement the LEA-approved three-year plan. At this time, the LEA must also designate every school that has not made AYP for 2 consecutive years as either a Priority School or a High Priority School. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, this designation is crucial because it is a direct response to the common complaint that the current seven-year cascading consequences do not distinguish between those schools that need a lot of help and those that need only a little.

This draft focuses on those schools that need a lot of help, the High Priority Schools. Priority Schools are simply those that do not qualify for High Priority Status. An LEA designates a High Priority Schools if it is in improvement and:
• It is a secondary school that has a graduation rate of 60% or less.
• The over 50% rule: More than half of the students in the school are not proficient, or in the case of a State approved for use of growth models, did not meet the growth target in reading or language arts or mathematics.
• The 2 groups or more and less than 50% rule: For more than one of the groups in the school, fewer than half of the students in the group are proficient or not meeting their growth targets in mathematics and in reading or language arts.

There are two important caveats to the rules of High Priority School identification. First, LEAs do not designate High Priority Schools on the basis of the percentage of students in any group who are proficient in reading or language arts or mathematics if such percentage meets or exceeds the State’s relevant annual measurable objective. Second, an LEA may use an alternative identification model if the SEA applies to and receives approval from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to run an alternative model. It is uncertain how this second caveat will play out, if it makes it into law, but it will certainly be a very popular one.

Years 2- 4 or 5: As the LEA completes the designation, all schools that did not make AYP for 2 consecutive years must implement the three-year plan they developed the year before. Note that the LEA may extend a High Priority School’s three-year plan to four years if the school can demonstrate that the implementation of the plan has resulted in continuous and substantial progress on indicators used to determine AYP. To keep the focus on those schools that need a lot of help, High Priority Schools are granted priority access to LEA and SEA technical assistance and resources and the LEA must provide them extensive technical support.

As a part of the improvement and assistance plan deployment, all identified school must also provide ongoing professional development based on the review and analysis undergirding the improvement plan, with particular attention paid to teacher and principal effectiveness. The section does not define the meaning of effectiveness, but provides a listing of sample activities that could advance effectiveness.

In addition to the school plan and the professional development, the schools must also choose from a list of specific measures that vary depending on grade level and school designation. If the school is a High Priority School it must choose options (i), (ii), and (iii). High Priority secondary schools must also choose (vii). Priority Schools only have to choose two or more from the menu, as long as they are not already doing it in their school improvement plan.

Like the elements of the improvement and assistance plan, these options go on for several pages and also read like a school leadership manual. Briefly, they are:

i. Evidence-based or proven instructional programs aligned with State standards for all students, including students with diverse learning needs. Examples include implementing post secondary and work ready curriculum and individualize student support;
ii. Formative assessments and data based instructional decision-making, based on the school's needs analysis for the improvement plan;
iii. Parental choice options that include supplemental educational services and option for students enrolled in the school to transfer to another public school served by the LEA that has not been identified for school improvement;
iv. Extended learning time programs, including extended day, extended week, and extended year programs;
v. Supervised or centrally developed intervention models or strategies for low performing schools;
vi. Improved supports including specialized instructional services family supports and parental involvement;
vii. Activities that serve to personalize the secondary school experience, increase student engagement, attendance, effort, and enable the school to provide the level and intensity of student support needed.

A school may exit the improvement and assistance regimen if it manages to make AYP for two consecutive years or for two out of the three years, or four in the case of an improvement plan extension for a High Priority School.

Years 5 to 6 (or 6 to 7, with extension): If after three years of implementing the school improvement and assistance plan (or four if granted an extension) the school is still unable to exit improvement and assistance status, then the LEA beings a two-year redesign process. The process is considerable for High Priority Schools and light for Priority Schools.

High Priority Schools, over a period of two years, 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; and
• Enter into a formal contract with an intermediary who will have the authority to administer the school; or
• Require the school to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit entity with demonstrated experience and effectiveness in whole school reform.

Because of the severity of the redesign, LEAs must limit the number to the lesser of (1) 10% of schools in the district or (2) 50 schools. High Priority Redesign Schools that exceed the 10% cap will fall into the Priority Redesign Schools category.

The Priority School redesign procedure is considerably less severe, so much so that it would likely have little to no impact on the school improvement plan the school would be deploying. It only requires a revision of the instructional and leadership and support program and a performance review of the school leadership and staff.

To be sure, the discussion draft makes a considerable effort to grant LEAs more discretion to target their interventions according to the nature and the extent of the failure. There is heavy focus on the worst performing schools, almost to the exclusion of all others, and this has created a new set of political problems. The Republicans in Congress do not like that school choice is only required for High Priority Schools and they argue that the draft weakens accountability for too many schools, but it is a provision many requested from this reauthorization.

Currently, the House Committee on Education and Labor continues to receive and digest the many comments submitted to them on the draft, and it is certain that many address the new section 1116. This section will, no doubt, change in the next reiteration of the draft, but it is very likely to retain the basic schema described above. We will continue, of course, to track and analyze the draft as it evolves.

Author: DAD