NCLB: Monitoring the Regulatory Route (1/11/2008)

On Monday, President Bush was in Chicago urging Congress to revive the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), but not to “weaken the accountability system” or else he will veto the bill. It was such non-negotiable encouragement for Congress that the speech elevated the discussion of an anticipated third course of action: effecting change through regulatory or administrative measures. Prior to the President’s speech in Chicago, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings laid out the contingency plan if Congress fails to act in 2008. “We hope they will [reauthorize the law in 2008]. But if they don't, I'll take administrative steps at the Department, as I have in the last three years, to start to work on some of these matters.” She repeated this position at her Thursday Newsmaker Luncheon speech on the National Press Club. She stated that “Congress has had over a year to consider these reforms, but students and teachers need help now. So if Congress doesn't produce a strong bill quickly, I will move forward.”

The administrative steps Spellings referred to are not clear, but they likely begin with what the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has the authority to do. ED can certainly expedite the expansion of the growth model pilot program since that is already underway and ED could more aggressively monitor implementation, particularly around choice and supplemental educational services provisions, a priority for ED. The range of other administrative actions is limited, practically, by the limited scope of ED’s legal authority to makes changes to the law and by the near certain political resistance ED will encounter to any significant initiatives. Much remains unknown, and we will continue to monitor and analyze these matters as they develop.

Resources:
Maria Glod, “Congress is Urged to Enhance ‘No Child’ Law,” Washington Post, January 8, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010701823.html
“Press Gaggle by Tony Fratto and Secretary Margaret Spellings,” The White House, News & Policies, Office of the Press Secretary, January 7, 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080107.html.
“U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Discusses No Child Left Behind, Priorities for 2008 During Remarks at National Press Club in Washington, DC,” United States Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2008/01/01102008.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Promise Fund

The new focus on high school improvement runs throughout the House’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) discussion draft. Examples include the new Graduation Promise Fund, the College and Work-Ready Standards and Assessments, the emphasis on secondary schools in the improvement and redesign process and the standardization of the graduation rate. Last week’s Update covered the new section 1124, Graduation Rate. This week’s Update takes a closer look at the new Graduation Promise Fund.


The new section 1006, Graduation Promise Fund, serves two basic purposes. First, it is designed to support and replicate effective secondary school reform in “eligible schools” as defined in the discussion draft. Second, it seeks to identify and target support to individual middle school students that are most likely to become high school dropouts.

The program in the discussion draft is either formula funded or is a competitive grant, depending on the level of appropriated funding each fiscal year. If Congress appropriates more than $1 billion, it triggers a formula distribution wherein the state educational agencies (SEAs) must set aside 90% of the funds for sub-grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) that have “eligible secondary schools.” Eligible secondary schools are those with an average graduation rate of 60% or less over three years or a secondary school that has graduation rates below the tenth percentile in the state. Each eligible secondary school receives a minimum of $700 per student and additional funding based on a specified formula that considers enrollment, poverty and graduation data. Grants under this section are for a five-year period.

If Congress appropriates less than $1 billion dollars for this section, the LEAs must apply for the sub-grants to serve only “eligible schools.” The SEA then awards the grants based on school enrollment, graduation rates, poverty rate and the quality of the school improvement plans for the schools to be served.

The SEA’s application must demonstrate how it will support LEAs to reform identified schools. It must demonstrate its process for classifying secondary schools with a graduation rate of 60% or less as a high priority or a high priority redesign school. It must show how it supports the use of school improvement teams, and, critically, the SEA must ensure that the state’s longitudinal data system includes specific middle school data that identifies potential dropouts. Having an operational state longitudinal data system appears to be a prerequisite.

LEAs receiving Graduation Promise Funding must use the funds for four practices. Note how the requirements split the interventions between secondary schools and middle schools. For secondary schools, the LEAs must support only eligible secondary schools according to rank, based on graduation rate, effectiveness of parental involvement and professional development, and the quality of their school improvement plan. The LEAs must also support only eligible secondary schools in developing and implementing their school improvement plans, and they may support the use of school improvement teams.

Regarding middle schools, the LEAs receiving the grants must identify potential dropouts and provide intensive support to such middle school students, but they may not spend more than 15% of their funds in doing so. The LEAs must work with their SEAs to incorporate data into the state wide longitudinal data system that identifies students who are at risk for not graduating schools with a regular diploma. These indicators include, at least: rates of absenteeism, rates of disciplinary action, failure rates and overage students. Once identified, these LEAs must provide intensive support for such students and the draft language goes on to list examples of such support.

The funding does not come without commitment cost. SEAs that receive funding under this section must provide matching funds in an amount equal to 25% of the Graduation Promise funds. LEAs receiving subgrants must provide matching funds in an amount that is not less than 15% of the total LEA sub-grant, although the U.S. Department of Education (ED) may waive the LEA matching funds upon a show of hardship.
The replication of successful school dropout prevention models is important to the Fund. The draft grants ED the authority to reserve 10% of the funds for capacity building. The funds may be used to provide technical assistance, regional training and fund eligible nonprofit entities to replicate and implement effective dropout prevention models.

To be sure, the Graduation Promise Fund is a welcomed first step toward providing more focused interventions to secondary schools with high drop out rates and their middle school feeders. While there will certainly be changes to these provisions, particularly around the required percentage of matching funds, it is consistent with the emerging focus on secondary schools and middle school advocates will assure that their provisions remain intact. We can expect similar provisions in the actual ESEA reauthorization bill that the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor George Miller (D-CA) will introduce before October.

Resources:
“Committee Releases Remaining Titles of Miller-McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft,” House Committee on Education and Labor, http://edlabor.house.gov/.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Rates

The Title I discussion draft contains a new Section 1124, entitled Graduation Rates. It is part of the draft’s considerable new focus on high school accountability. The section defines the graduate rate calculations and the terms used in the definition; the graduation rate reporting requirements; the allowable additional complementary indicators for reporting how to handle data anomalies; the monitoring of data collection; and how schools, districts and states must use the data for accountability under Title I.

According to the discussion draft, the term “graduation rate” includes an adjusted cohort rate and an extra year adjusted cohort rate. The law defines the “exit year” to be the school year at the end of which that cohort would be expected to complete the exit grade, assuming the cohort completes one grade per school year (which would be 4 years most often). The term “extra year” means the school year after the exit year (or, most commonly, 5 years). The draft describes the graduation rate formulas.



The data must be disaggregated by school, local educational agency (LEA) and state educational agency (SEA). It must also be parsed by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migratory status, English proficiency and economic disadvantage status. As it is used for meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP), the data must meet the same “N” size and reporting requirements of Section 1111.

The draft includes two exceptions to the graduation rate formula. First, a state that does not have a state wide longitudinal data system with individual student identifiers may use an interim graduation rate that meets specified requirements until the 2013-2014 school year. Those requirements will compare the number of students in the entry year to the number of students receiving a standard high school diploma in the exit year, will not use dropout data, will disaggregate the data and the data may be used to determine rate of growth toward graduation objectives. The interim plan must be part of the state plan and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Second, state plans may include graduation timeline exceptions for alternative educational settings. The draft defines those settings as programs that are designed for students who have dropped out of secondary schools or are one or more years behind the expected accumulation of credits or courses toward an on time graduation and will receive a regular high school diploma upon completion of the course of study in the setting.

The discussion draft includes specific flexibility for special education students. Up to 1% of students in an LEA or SEA with significant cognitive disabilities, who are assessed using alternative assessments using alternative achievement standards and who receive a regular high school diploma or a state defined alternative diploma in accordance with IDEA, could be counted as a graduate with a regular high school diploma.

Critically, the graduation rate data is required in order for secondary schools and LEAs to make AYP. This is a two part analysis. First, the graduation rate for all subgroups defined in section 1111 must be not less than 90%. Second, the graduation rate must increase an average of 2.5 percentages points or 3 percentage points depending on the chosen baseline. What baseline? There are three baseline options as set by a 2007-2008 school year calculation: the adjusted cohort rate (which requires 2.5 percentage points of growth per year), the extra year adjusted cohort rate (3%) or the alterative expected completion rate (2.5%). The calculation of these rates is illustrated above. Fully meeting the growth target will provide credit for up to 15% of a subgroup’s objectives. The baseline may be adjusted when an SEA moves from an interim rate to an individual student identifier longitudinal data system.

The draft also allows for alternative growth targets upon conditions. The alternative SEA program must be peer reviewed and approved by ED. It must include annual growth targets for all subgroups based on closing the gap between baselines for each subgroup and 100% graduation rate in substantially even increments over time. Finally, it must require that all subgroups will achieve at least 90% graduation rate by 2019-2020.

This new section has been well received, generally. The National Governors Association, which has led the advocacy for uniform graduation rate calculations, applauds the section for its transparency and fair flexibility. Yet, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) does not support the section because the five year graduation rate calculation could provide the incentive to not emphasize the importance of on-time graduation in high schools. Despite ED’s concerns, it is very likely that a reauthorized law will contain these or very similar provisions.

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Update: Huddle Up

Not all is going according to plan for Representative George Miller, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The House discussion draft of Titles I through XI of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has created new allies in criticizing the proposal. As a rule a thumb, a bill that aggravates a wide spectrum of interested parties has a fair chance of success, but that chance diminishes when aggravation slides towards outrage.

In the case of the House discussion draft, that slide is now occurring. Notably, both advocates and critics of the current law have withdrawn their support for the draft bill as released. The Education Trust (Ed Trust), generally a supporter of NCLB, states that the law is moving in the right direction, but is “deeply troubled” by the multiple measures provision that would reduce academic transparency and create an incredibly complex accountability system. Ed Trust has also been very adamant that the draft language extending the time that English Language Learners could be tested in their native language (up to 7 years) would delay their transition in mainstream educational opportunities for too long. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, exemplifying critics of the current law, have also withdrawn support for the current language. They argue that the testing provisions are still too heavily weighted on a single state exam and that, closer to the heart of the unions, the discussion draft is an intrusion on local collective bargaining and an offense to the efforts of states working to recruit and retain quality educators.

Hyperbole and euphemism, of course, are tools of the education policy trade, so there is a lot of inaccurate characterization occurring. While the rhetoric does not add clarity to the discussion draft (quite the opposite), it does illustrate the political obstacles that Miller will have to navigate in the coming weeks.

What, then, will Miller do to stop this slide from manageable aggravation to rhetorical outrage? According to House Education and Labor Committee staff, the Democratic staffers are huddling on their strategy and reviewing the 3,000 comments (and growing) they have received. They have not met with Republican staff on the matter to date but will do so before Chairman Miller introduces the bill and attempts to move it through the House before the close of the month. “I am not sure what the trends are yet,” said one staffer, “other than everyone seems to hate it.” We will continue to monitor the developments with scrutiny in the coming days.

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Republican Positioning

On Monday, September 10, as the nearly seven hour House hearing on the NCLB discussion draft came to a close, the Republican strategy on No Child Left Behind became clearer with the issuance of a letter by the former Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, original author of NCLB and current House Republican Leader John Boehner (OH).

Boehner’s letter, addressed to the current Chair George Miller (D-CA) and Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), expresses his concern that the draft bill “appears to back away from the key education reform principles of No Child Left Behind” and lays out his conditions of support for a reauthorization bill. Those conditions do not match what is now in the draft language.

They are as follows:
1. Flexibility and local control: Allowing, as Representative McKeon has proposed in HR 2577, states and local school districts to transfer up to 100 percent of their funds among the various federal education funding streams and provide states with additional flexibility in the design of their accountability systems.
2. School choice: Any bill must not restrict current education choices for parents in any way; it should expand such options.
3. No new testing: The emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring the current system by which states measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the tests they are already required to implement is fair and effective in ensuring accountability for student achievement.
4. No loopholes in accountability: Reject any proposal that would amount to a loophole for chronically underachieving schools to evade identification as a school in need of improvement or avoid restructuring.
5. No national test: Such language would be enormously problematic for many members of the House Republican Conference. National standards and national assessments would also be highly problematic and would represent an improper meddling of the federal government into state and local curriculum decisions.
6. Teacher quality: The bill should include reforms that encourage states to establish pay for performance systems that compensate teachers based on their performance in the classroom and how effective they are in helping students learn and succeed.
7. Streamlining federal education programs: The draft legislation circulated by the Committee creates at least three new programs within Title I -- and, if history is any guide, many Members will be lining up to seek the inclusion of many more new programs as the bill moves through the committee process.

The letter’s position was buttressed by Rep. McKeon’s statement on the No Child Left Behind reauthorization hearing in which he also affirmed his support for the law’s core principles of “accountability, flexibility, and parental choice.” “Any proposal that backs away from these principles will be met with my steadfast opposition,” wrote McKeon. Then he assured his constituents of his willingness to resist a bill that does not match Republican objectives. “The concerns we have heard are valid, and I offer my assurances that they will not fall on deaf ears. In the coming weeks…I will redouble my efforts to ensure that any bill reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act adheres to its core principles.”

This press release, in conjunction with the letter from Minority Leader John Boehner, suggests that Mr. Miller will find little support among the Republican Party for the draft discussion as currently written. Given that he may also lack the support of the Unions, as described in the hearing summary above, he will have to proceed in a very calculated manner in the coming weeks.

Resources:
“McKeon Statement on No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Hearing,” Committee on Education and Labor, Republicans, Press Release, September 10, 2007, http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=243.
“Boehner: No Child Left Behind Act Reauthorization Draft Backs Away From Key Education Reform Principles,” Republican Leader John Boehner, September 10, 2007, http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=73491
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Marathon NCLB Hearing

On Monday, September 10, the House Committee on Education and Labor conducted a marathon six hour, forty minute hearing on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft. Over 40 witnesses, making up 6 panels, testified before the committee covering a wide array of topics.

The panel topics included:
• The Big Picture
• High School Reform & College and Career-Readiness
• Civil Rights
• Business, Foundation and Innovation
• Teaching and School Leadership
• State and Local Administrators

The Committee advertised the panel discussions as part of a hearing on the Title I, Part A discussion draft, but the day covered a broader scope of topics that included Title II, III, IV and more. The breadth of coverage diffused the emergence of any clearly dominant themes, but there were notable highlights.

First, there was general support for the Committee’s efforts to broaden the accountability measures under the law using multiple measures. Many panelists supported the idea in theory, but not as drafted. Mike Cohen, President of Achieve, for example, supported the effort to increase variable measures, but stated his belief that it could result is less academic accountability. “It will paint a confusing picture to educators and the public, and set up incentives for states and schools alike to figure out ways to game the system in order to reduce the number of schools that fail to make AYP.” Dan Losen, the Senior Education Law and Policy Associate for the Civil Rights Project, was also encouraged by multiple measures, but he expressed a common concern about retaining the goal of 100% proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. “This uniform deadline assumes that the schools and districts furthest from the goal can make the most extraordinary gains,” he stated. “But the assumption directly contradicts what research tells us about the rates of improvement we can expect from the most successful districts.” In the end, most agreed with the notion of multiple measures but did not agree with the particulars of the discussion draft.

Teacher quality was another notable topic. Most of the panelists who addressed the topic affirmed that excellent teachers are prerequisites for excellent schools. However, pay and distribution of quality teachers sparked considerable debate. Regarding distribution, the Title I discussion draft would require districts to show that the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in the schools is equal to or greater than the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in non-Title I schools. Regarding teacher pay, the Title II discussion draft would provide funding for high-need school districts that choose to apply for performance pay bonuses of up to $10,000 for outstanding teachers (and of up to $12,500 for teachers of math, science, special education and other shortage subjects) and annual bonuses of up to $15,000 to outstanding principals who transfer into the hardest-to-staff schools for four years.

Some panelist liked the proposals. Germaine Brown, a teacher at the Stewart Street Elementary School in Florida applauded the Committee for the inclusion of the program. “I hope that this committee will provide funding for programs to allow more schools and districts to reform their compensation systems for teachers,” she testified. Kristan Van Hook, Senior Vice President at the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, also testified in support of performance pay, tied into the school and districts academic accountability measures and in support of innovation through the Teacher Incentive Fund. She stated that the new demands on teachers and schools should be compensated through performance pay.

The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) disagreed with Ms. Brown and the Committee on these proposals. Reg Weaver, the President of the NEA, testified that the comparability provisions and the pay for performance provisions were an attack on public teachers everywhere. “We are gravely disappointed that the Committee has released language that undermines educators’ collective bargaining rights. This is an unprecedented attack on a particular segment of the labor community—the nation’s educators.”

The AFT also rejected the draft’s comparability language and pay for performance language, albeit in a less confrontational manner. “The AFT believes that the approach proposed in Title II of the draft would impose a top-down policy that jeopardizes buy-in from the teachers and, ultimately, the success of the program,” stated AFT Executive Vice-President Antonia Cortese. “It also interjects federal law into the collective bargaining process– a matter that is within the purview of state and local law.” The federal government should not be in the business of mandating employment contracts.

The outright rejection of the language by the unions offended Chairman Miller and he let Mr. Weaver and Ms. Cortese know it. “The language you are objecting to is identical to the language in the TEACH Act that you supported…. This is language that was mutually arrived at.” It is the language, he observed, that their organizations negotiated, accepted and promoted over the last few years and the fact that they now rejected it outright was, according to the Chairman, a misrepresentation and a poor negotiating position.

The moments of animosity were also matched by moments of welcomed support for the draft provisions. In particular, the panelist and Chairman agreed wholeheartedly that workforce readiness is an important part of the reauthorization. Janet Bray, the Director for the Association for Career and Technical Education thanked the Committee for including the career and technical educator’s voice as part of the draft discussion. In particular, she applauded the new Graduation Promise Fund for high schools with the lowest graduation rates to support school-wide improvement activities and the new funding in the proposed section 1111A that would provide incentives to states to align their standards vertically and to review what students should know in order to be successful in postsecondary education and the workplace.

“There are distinct purposes and reasons to have both NCLB and Perkins as two separate and distinct laws, but there is much more that can be done to align the two pieces of legislation,” said Bray and, to which, Chairman Miller agreed. “Too often within the beltway CTE [career and technical education] is viewed as the technical education that we grew up with 30 years ago and we do not recognize how complicated it is today,” said the Chairman. “I am quite pleased at the attention [this is] getting.”

The hearing concluded nearly seven hours later with Chairman Miller promising to digest all the comments and make changes to the draft. Committee staffers report that the Chairman may introduce the House version of the revised draft during the week of September 24, but that is merely speculation and subject to change.

Resources:
“Miller/McKeon Discussion Draft of ESEA Reauthorization,” House Committee on Education and Labor, September 10, 2007, http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/fc091007.shtml.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Responses Coming In

Last month, the House Committee on Education and Labor requested comments on its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft of Title I by September 5th. On September 6th, the results largely became public. Given the complexity and breadth of the draft, most of the public comments were targeted to particular issues. Almost all have been very critical of the work. Criticism of the draft was, of course, expected, but the scope of disapproval is notable. The following is a small sampling of the feedback we reviewed (there are many comments that we have not yet seen and that are still being sent):

The American Association of School Administrators, which provided a detailed page-by-page response to the draft, expressed a concern shared by most of the responses, that the draft has too many “onerous new prescriptive mandate[s] that will cause nightmare regulations and drive up the costs of the program beyond the federal investment.”

The National Education Association (NEA) echoed this onerous concern. The NEA, for example, found the multiple measure section “too limited and restrictive,” placing too much weight on current reading and math results and, generally, too focused on test results. Regarding the improvement and redesign sections, it commented that the “options required in the redesign phase are too limited... and are not supported by research that they will improve student learning and close achievement gaps.”

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) expressed similar worries. While it applauded certain parts of the draft, it generally found many problems with the adequate yearly progress indicators and the interventions. The AFT noted that the proposed growth model is “in reality a trajectory model and does not fully give credit for the gains in student achievement that schools are making.” It also expressed concern that the multiple indicators, if allowed, could “simply lead to additional testing on top of the other testing provisions in the bill.” Both the NEA and the AFT disagreed with the comparability provisions of the draft.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) also stated that the draft is too restrictive in many regards. “Achieving our shared education goals will require that we make room for sound education judgment and encourage continuous improvement across the states.” That sound judgment, according to CCSSO, includes allowing states to define the universe of multiple measures, allowing states to define alternative and viable growth models, and providing more discretion to states and local education agencies throughout the school designation and school improvement process.

The Education Trust, a staunch advocate of NCLB over the last five years, stated that the draft bill dumbed down the definitions of student academic progress and school success. “Transparency is a ‘must’ in accountability, but what the committee staff has proposed is a system that’s a statistical fog, obscuring the true picture of achievement in our schools,” said Amy Wilkins, Vice President of The Education Trust.

Yet, the criticisms were expected. Most of the advocacy groups have been, for one reason or another, unhappy with the law since it was signed in 2002 and they now have an incentive to slow the process down in order to better influence the outcome. It was the administration’s criticism of the draft that was most surprising because the administration has strong incentive to pass this as a part of President Bush’s legacy. Yet, even for the administration, the draft was far too complex and it lacked sufficient transparency.

In her September 5th letter to Chairman George Miller, Secretary Spellings outlined five issues of critical concern for the administration. First, the draft is too complex. The approach of multiple measures, growth models and a performance index is “far more complex than the current law,” and that would make it more difficult for parents to understand whether their school are doing a good job. That the US Department of Education (ED) finds this too complex cannot be understated.

Second, the inclusion of non-academic indicators in determination of student progress in reading and math “creates a greater potential for masking student’s and schools’ true performance.” According to ED, it offends the law’s central tenant, which is to close the achievement gap.

Third, the draft would reduce school choice and supplemental educational services, which would “significantly restrict the opportunities for children in schools that fail to make AYP” and schools might never be held accountable for real change or be required to provide real options for parents.

Fourth, the draft’s expanded flexibility for students with disabilities and with limited English proficiency would result in the exclusion of more students from the state accountability system. The practice could “allow them to be held to lower standards.”

Fifth, the draft’s new Graduation Promise Fund expands accountability into high schools, but the administration “believes that this can be best achieved by expanding the existing Title I program rather than creating a costly new high school program.”

By the close of Thursday, it was apparent that the draft’s criticism spanned the political spectrum and it places Chairman George Miller in a difficult position. He does not have the support of the administration, does not have the support of the unions, lacks key support from the chief state school officers, and certainly lacks the support of Republicans in the House, not to mention the Senate. To be fair, this was a “discussion draft” and it will change over time, but the strong criticism stands in sharp contrast to his claims that he would like to move this language through the House by the end of September. It begs the question, what is his strategy? The answer is not yet clear, but it is evident that this will be a contentious matter and the likelihood of completing this bill by the end of the year is not good.

Regarding the next steps, the House Committee on Education and Labor will hold a hearing on the discussion draft next Monday, September 10. The witnesses have not yet been announced but we know there will be 30 to 40 panelists. What we do not know is how many members will be there, as most members of the Committee have not had the time to review and properly prepare for the event and because the hearing will compete with General Petraeus’s testimony before Congress on the status of the “surge” and his recommendations moving forward in Iraq. After the hearing, Chairman Miller will likely introduce the bill. It will go directly before the full Committee, skipping the subcommittee, and then Chairman Miller has said that he will try to bring it to the House floor on the week of September 24th. Whether this will happen is uncertain and will depend on how Monday’s hearing goes. There is a great deal of skepticism among the education policy advocates and among the Members of Congress regarding the timing and the substance of this discussion draft. However it works out, we will be covering the matter with an unblinking eye.

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

ESEA Discussion Draft: Multiple Measures

While there is disagreement about many provisions of the NCLB discussion draft, it is nearly certain that the reauthorized law will include a system of multiple indicators. It is what many states, advocacy groups, and other organizations requested in the reauthorized law; it is what the Committee tried to deliver (and kudos for the diligent work); and yet, this particular system of multiple measures has been greeted with reservations due to its complexity and the concern that it could be used to mask inequities in academic progress among the law’s subgroups. The final solution, whatever it may be, will be a difficult needle to thread, but the discussion is now well underway and it begins with the language proposed in the discussion draft. As such, it is critical to understand the language in order to understand how it will develop in the coming weeks (maybe many weeks).

How, as provided in the discussion draft, do the multiple measures work? The process is laid out in section 1111. It begins with the foundation of the current status model of measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) that moves all subgroups toward grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year, according to the state’s determined annual measurable objectives (AMO) in, at least, math, reading or language arts and science according to the “academic assessments” provisions of the law. There are also new technical revisions to the measure of AYP such as: 1) an “N” size that must be between 30 and 40 students depending on the state’s agreement with the U.S. Department of Education; 2) a new and complex section of the statute (1124) on the calculation of graduation rates; and 3), caps on confidence intervals. These and other elements will receive more attention in later Updates.

The discussion draft adds a new subparagraph “(E) System of Multiple Indicators” that that allows multiple indicators to contribute to a school’s progress towards making its AYP AMOs. The allowable measures depend on the gradespan of the school. An elementary school may choose from the first two measures listed below and the credit that each subgroup receives by using these scores may not exceed 15% of its AMOs in reading or language arts and mathematics. Secondary schools may choose from the following five measures or fully meet the graduation rate growth targets, established in the new Section 1124. The total credit any secondary school group may receive may not exceed 25%. The graduation growth rate target option, if chosen, may only provide credit for up to 15% of a group’s AMOs. Additional conditions on the available multiple measures are identified below, referencing proposed Section 1111(b)(2)(E)(i).
‘‘(I) Growth on State assessments of science, history, civics and government, or writing.
‘‘(II) Increases in the percentage of students who move from the below basic level to the basic level and the proficient level to the advanced level, unless such score interpretations are already considered as part of the State’s growth model or performance index used to determine the school’s proficiency rate and as long as the total number of students who are proficient also increases.
 The credit may be only applied to the subject for which the increases occurred.
‘‘(III) Increases in the percentages of students passing rigorous, objective, independent end of course exams in core academic subjects such as for Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, QualityCore or another rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in … the Higher Education Act of 1965, if such courses are available in all schools in the state and such exams are not included in the State assessment system.
 This measure may only provide up to 10% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(IV) Increases in college enrollment rates and percentages of secondary school graduates enrolling in other public or private accredited degree granting institution of higher education.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(V) Decreases in dropout rates.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
In exchange for the multiple measures, the Committee’s draft sets aggressive objectives for these measures and growth targets for the measures. (You may want to stop reading at this point and prepare for some dizzying calculations).

Regarding the objectives, the state must set universal goals for achievement on each indicator that is equal to the highest performing subgroup in the highest performing 10% of local education agencies (LEA) in the state. States with only one LEA must set the average achievement of the top 15% of students in the state.

Regarding growth, the target must be the same for all subgroups and the growth targets are based on the average rate of percentage point growth of the top 20% of schools in the state that demonstrate the largest gains of performance for at least one year prior to the year the state implements the multiple indicators system.

Regarding rates over time, the annual growth must be substantial and continuous. It must be based on the difference between actual performance of each subgroup on each additional indicator in the year prior to the year the state implements its multiple indicators system and the universal goal over a 10 year period.

There is also partial credit granted. If there is progress on any indicator, other than the graduation rate growth targets, the group may get partial credit “based on the proportion of the percentage increase associated with fully meeting the indicator that is equal to the extent to which the annual growth target for the indicator is met.”

Finally, the draft requires that the state’s system of multiple indicators meet some across the board requirements:
 The same additional indicators must be the used for all schools or level of schools;
 The additional indicators must be measured separately for each subgroup;
 The credit may not help a school meet the 95% participation requirement;
 Secondary schools may not make AYP if they do not meet the full growth targets and credit from other indicators may not be applied to help a school meet the graduation rate growth targets;
 The state must report the results for each subgroup in addition to the aggregate AYP determination;
 The statewide data collection system must be capable of collecting valid and reliable data for each indicator; and
 The collection of the data must not delay reporting of AYP determinations;

The draft system of multiple indicators moves NCLB away from the single statewide assessment model, but it comes with a hefty cost. Managing such a system would be complex and the likelihood of unintended consequences is considerable. On Monday, the House will host a hearing on the discussion draft, and the system of multiple indicators will, to be sure, be a hot topic. There is plenty to discuss, assuming that the Members of the Committee have any interest in engaging the panelists at such a detailed level. We will see on Monday.

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Reid To Introduce GRADUATES Act

For the better part of this legislative session, Congress’ education committees have been dominated by work on higher education programs or reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Meanwhile, however, the matter of American competitiveness continues to garner some attention, though remains out of the spotlight. Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) plan to introduce the Getting Retention and Diplomas Up Among Today’s Enrolled Students (GRADUATES) Act.


The GRADUATES Act attempts to take strides toward making sure secondary school students are better prepared to move on to postsecondary education or to enter the workforce. At a time when a high school diploma is considered the minimum qualification necessary to support a good job and family well-being, this bill is intended to help curb the 30% dropout rate across the country. Preparing well-educated and well-trained individuals to enter the workforce is considered the cornerstone of any plan to keep America competitive in the global market. The bill would:
• Provide grants to partnerships between state educational agencies or local educational agencies with institutes of higher education, community based organizations, non-profit organizations, businesses, or school development organizations to create innovative models of reform in our nation’s secondary schools;
• Create evidence-based, systemic and replicable models of reform in secondary schools that improve student achievement and prepare students to succeed in post-secondary education and the 21st century workforce;
• Provide for tight research, evaluation and accountability to ensure that while the legislation would support a wide-range of strategies, federal funding would only be sustained for programs with proven improvement in student achievement; the Secretary would distribute “best practices” based on the research and evaluation;
• Support a variety of strategies for innovation in secondary schools such as multiple pathways, personalization, early college and dual enrollment, career academies, improved transitions and alignment, expanded learning time, post-secondary and work-based learning opportunities, increased autonomy and flexibility at the school level, improved learning opportunities in rural schools, and increasing rigor at all levels of secondary education aligned with post-secondary education and the workforce; and
• Authorize $500 million in competitive grants for five years.
No timetable exists for when the bill will go for markup in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Meanwhile the House and Senate are ready to go to conference on H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, a bill that focuses on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs. The Senate version would double the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget, from $5.6 billion in fiscal 2006 to $11.2 billion by fiscal 2011. The NSF contributes about 20% of all federal money awarded for basic research at U.S. universities. The House version of the bill reauthorizes the NSF at a total of $21 billion through fiscal year 2010. It would also reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the first time in more than a decade at a total of $2.5 billion through fiscal year 2010.

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Negotiations

On Monday, Secretary Spellings continued her charm offensive for the reauthorization for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). She met with the “Big 4” in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, including Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), ranking member Mike Enzi (R-WY), Representative George Miller (D-CA) and ranking member Howard McKeon (R-CA). According to the Washington education intelligentsia, Secretary Spellings continued to advocate for the Administration’s Blueprint, with particular emphasis on the core principles, including:

On Monday, Secretary Spellings continued her charm offensive for the reauthorization for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). She met with the “Big 4” in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, including Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), ranking member Mike Enzi (R-WY), Representative George Miller (D-CA) and ranking member Howard McKeon (R-CA). According to the Washington education intelligentsia, Secretary Spellings continued to advocate for the Administration’s Blueprint, with particular emphasis on the core principles, including:
• All students reading and doing math at or above grade level by 2014;
• Annual assessments and disaggregation of data to close the achievement gap;
• Qualified teachers in core academic subjects in every classroom; and
• Timely information and options for all parents.
The Blueprint advocacy was expected, but it was the unexpected apple-shaped cookies with “NCLB ASAP” icing that won the day. Conversation, we are told, was chirpy but even the cookies may not have impacted political equation. Both parties are in the process of defining themselves for the rapidly coming 2008 elections. The Republican leadership is coalescing around more state based autonomy and their pre-NCLB principles. The Democratic leadership is working to secure a united and effective voting record, showing that they are not a “do-nothing” Congress as many coined their predecessors in the 109th Congress. Neither trend bode well for the bipartisan coalition required to amend and reauthorize the law.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate education committee staff are sifting through the more than 130 NCLB recommendations, vetting their priorities and trying to craft language that strikes a workable balance between greater state autonomy and improved technical accountability requirements, which may take longer than they hoped.
Resources:
Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education: January 2007), http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.html

Next time you are in Washington, DC and visiting us in Georgetown, try Furin’s iced cookies. If reauthorization occurs in 2007, these cookies may be the reason, http://www.furins.com/catering_desserts.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Focuses on Flexibility Under NCLB

Last Thursday, the Committee on Education and Labor’s subcommittee on early childhood and elementary and secondary education held a hearing on the flexibility required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “Many state and local educators have told us that while they strongly support the law’s goals and the discussion about accountability that it has fostered, better flexibility would help them to reach those goals,” said subcommittee chairman Dale Kildee (D-MI).

The Witnesses included:
• Jack Jennings, President of the Center on Education Policy;
• Rick Melme, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Education;
• The Honorable Kathleen Straus, President, Michigan State Board of Education;
• Carol Johnson, Superintendent, Memphis City Schools; and
• Chester E. Finn, Jr., President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The common theme among the panelists was to move the reauthorization toward a new federal and state relationship where the U.S. Department of Education (ED) continues its focus on academic accountability while implementing the law with more deference to state innovation. Secretary Rick Melme posited that “Congress must continue to hold states accountable for improving student achievement and closing the achievement gap, while also providing [states] with the flexibility needed to implement innovative models for accomplishing these vital national goals.” Checker Finn echoed this sentiment with a mantra that has been a cornerstone of the Fordham Foundation for years: to be tight about the ends and loose about the means, strict about academic outcomes, but flexible about the means of delivery.
Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) used the hearing to introduce H.R. 2577, the State and Local Flexibility Improvement Act, a bill that would provide considerable funding flexibility. The bill would allow states and districts to transfer all of their funding from other federal grants, such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, education technology and teacher quality, into Title I. Any money that is transferred would still be subject to Title I requirements. The purpose behind the bill, according to sponsors, is to help ensure that money is not diverted from poor students, a criticism of other Republican proposals. H.R. 2577 would also:
• Allow states to waive some statutory or regulatory requirements, consolidate federal education programs, and use an alternative method for making allocations to local school districts (instead of the current formula), but only if the new proposal targets more money to the highest-poverty schools and districts;
• Lower the poverty threshold for schools to create schoolwide Title I programs; and
• Allow states to develop and use growth models to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP).
The bill exemplifies the shift in Republican policy back to more traditional conservative ideals. Republicans have been shifting their priorities to allow greater flexibility, less federal control, and an emphasis on supplemental education services and school choice. Although the bill will gain a majority of Republican support, it is unlikely to gain much support from Democrats. Democratic leaders, such as Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who were architects of the original legislation, will not support any bill that they believe will take the teeth out of NCLB. As such, this bill will likely only serve as a marker for the Republican’s reauthorization identity. Greater flexibility will be the battle cry for Republicans as reauthorization language is drafted.
Resources:
Sarah Sparks, “McKeon Proposes Transferability Plan,” Education Daily, June 7, 2007.
Author: DAD, SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB: Week In Review

Congress was busy with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) this week. Secretary Spellings sought to distinguish the reauthorization from the Congressional investigations into Reading First and the student loan scandals, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor hosted other members of Congress for a hearing on the reauthorization and bills were introduced that may have a good chance of working their way into reauthorization language. To be sure, the reauthorization momentum grew this week, even if it remains somewhat disjunctive.

Secretary Spellings is very eager to get the process underway in order to complete reauthorization while President Bush is still in office. One day after the contentious oversight hearings on Reading First and student loans, Spellings sent a cordial letter to the House and Senate education committee chairmen and ranking members asking them to make a distinction between their oversight activities and their reauthorization duties, and to discuss the reauthorization over lunch. She wrote:

I acknowledge your committee’s oversight function. I look forward to answering your questions and those of other members, and to meeting with any members who would like to discuss these matters in further detail. […] I am hopeful that the pursuit of oversight will not delay moving forward legislatively on these two important laws. [….]

I believe the coming weeks afford us the opportunity to collaborate to strengthen NCLB and the HEA. So that we may best prepare for this essential work, I offer to convene, at the earliest opportunity, a working luncheon with you and your staff. Together, we can make progress that will benefit America’s students, parents and taxpayers.

While Spellings warm outreach is welcomed, it does not make the work of the chairmen any easier. They must still negotiate the law’s many technical sections and secure political consensus around the changes. The work around Title I’s accountability sections will be the most contentious and this week’s represen­tatives-only hearing in the House Committee on Education and Labor made that clear.

On Wednesday, members of the House Education and Labor Committee held a bipartisan meeting to hear recommendations from other members of Congress on ways to improve the NCLB. Twenty-five members of the House presented their opinions of the law that covered a wide range of topics, mostly regarding Title I accountability. Most supported growth models, but the meaning of a growth model remained uncertain. Most wanted more flexibility for the assessment of limited English proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities, but details were sparse. Many felt that the law is too punitive and expressed concerns about expanding the law’s testing provisions. There were so many varying opinions, in fact, that Education Daily described the task of reauthorization as follows: “If the House education committee’s representatives only hearing is any indication, NCLB reauthorization could be a cat-herding contest at best.”

While consensus on many Title I issues remains complicated, there is emerging clarity around Title II. Chairman Miller is a strong supporter of the existing highly qualified teacher requirements and, for years, he has been trying to supplement them with his Teacher Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act, which he introduced last week. The bill, H.R. 2204, would provide $3.4 billion to improve recruitment, preparation, distribution and retention of public elementary and secondary school teachers and principals. The Washington NCLB intelligentsia believe that the Chairman will fold this bill into a new Title II bill, while retaining many of its existing requirements and allowing for more credentialing flexibility using the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE).

This week also provided hope, if not clarity, for Title II (D), the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Under Republican leadership the program has program has fallen from an investment of $700 million to the current $273 million level of funding, but education appropriations chairmen Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative Obey (D-WI) are considering more funding for the program in fiscal year 2008. Advocates would like to see funding restored to the 2002 level of $700 million, but the chairmen have yet to subject the request to the give-and-take politics of appropriations negotiations. In addition to more funding for FY08, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) is expected to introduce a revamped Title II(D), titled Achievement Thorough Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN). The proposal improves on EETT, including a better acronym, by authorizing $1 billion for fiscal year 2008, of which 40% would go towards rigorous and ongoing professional development and 60% would go towards professional development or technology tools. The bill gives priority to schools in school improvement status with large populations of LEP students or students with disabilities. It would also promote technology literacy by creating a definition of student technology literacy and requiring that states assess technology literacy by the 8^th grade. The bill’s advocates report that the proposal has been very well received and that its language stands a good chance of being incorporated into the reauthorized NCLB Title II (D).

Finally, this week also saw the introduction of a bill that could influence community and parental participation in reauthorization. On Tuesday, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) introduced H.R. 2323, the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2007, a bill to award grants for the support of full-service community schools, which are defined as schools that participate in a community-based effort to coordinate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships and that provide access for students, families, and the community to such services. The bill would authorize $200 million for FY2008, of which 20 percent would go to state educational agencies that collaborate with at least two other state agencies for purposes of planning, coordinating and expanding full-service community schools. Five percent would go to technical assistance, training, data collection and evaluation. Daniel Cardinali, the President of Communities In Schools, Inc. and an architect of the bill, considers it a complement to the law’s current parental involvement requirements and hopes that it will make it as a stand-alone bill or become a part of the reauthorized NCLB. But its fate, he acknowledged, lies with the chairmen of the education committees and the politics of reauthorization ahead.

Resources:
“Secretary Spellings Invites House and Senate Education to Convene on No Child Left Behind,” US Department of Education, Press Release, http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2007/05/05112007a.html
Sarah Sparks, “House cires Usual Suspects for Reauthorization,” Education Daily, May 18, 2007.
David Hoff, “Miller Signals Openness to ‘Substantial Changes' to NCLB in Reauthorization,” Education Week, May 17, 2007.
“Education and Labor Committee Hears from Members of Congress on Ways to Improve No Child Left Behind,” House Committee on Education and Labor, Press Release, May 16, 2007, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/RelMay16NCLB.html
Coalition for Community Schools, http://communityschools.org/HOyerleg.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

McKeon Introduces SES Legislation

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Education and Labor introduced a bill revealing a top Republican NCLB reauthorization priority. On Tuesday, McKeon introduced H.R. 2203, the Improving Supplemental Education by Ensuring Parental Awareness Act, a bill designed to increase student access and participation in supplemental educational services (SES).
The bill’s notable provisions include:


• Allowing students attending public schools that do not make AYP for two years to take advantage of the law’s SES services provision;
• Requiring LEAs to document parental awareness that free tutoring options exist for their children or, alternatively, have certain policies in place which have been found to lead to greater participation in SES programs;
• Requiring LEAs to roll over unused SES funds into an SES program account to be used during the following school year(s);
• Allowing school districts to reserve up to one percent of their SES and public school choice transportation funding for activities directly related to the implementation of tutoring programs for eligible students;
• Expanding the current state administrative cap under NCLB to allow additional funds to be used for the sole purpose of improving implementation and oversight of SES programs; and
• Requiring that key data pertaining to these programs be included in the report cards currently provided to parents.

Of those provisions, the first, that SES is available in the first year of school improvement, is the most likely to emerge in a reauthorization bill, but the value of the bill is more political than substantive. It suggests that the Republicans on the Committee are taking a traditional Republican approach to SES, which is to bolster the SES market by expanding the range of available providers, assuring that LEAs do not restrict the funding to the providers and providing parents and the community more information about the services.

Extrapolating that traditional Republican position to the reauthorization, it suggests that the Republicans will likely slow the process in order to challenge the expanded role of the federal government in education. This party, after all, sought to eliminate ED just 9 years ago. If that is true, then an on-time 2007 reauthorization just became less likely.
Resources:

“McKeon Introduces Bill to Strengthen Free Tutoring Options under NCLB,” Committee on Education and Labor, Republicans, Press Release, May 8, 2007, http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=132.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Miller and Kennedy Introduce TEACH Act

On Tuesday, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2204 and its companion S.1339, the Teacher Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act. The $3.4 billion bill is designed to improve recruitment, preparation, distribution and retention of public elementary and secondary school teachers and principals.


The bill serves four major functions. First, it addresses the recruitment of excellent teachers by providing institutions of higher education incentives to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, foreign languages, special education and English language learners and by providing aspiring teachers with tuition and loan support.

Second, the bill would assure that high poverty students have equitable access to quality teachers by providing local educational agencies the funding to distribute annual bonuses for exemplary teachers and by assuring equitable distribution of excellent teachers by making ESEA funding contingent on meeting the law’s teacher equity provisions.

Third, the bill would reward teacher quality by using robust data systems to recognize exceptional teachers, by funding the establishment of fiscally rewarding career advancement ladders, by requiring schools of education to track the results of their graduates, and by requiring the Secretary of Education to study the validity of teacher certification exams.

Finally, it would try to reduce professional turnover by developing teacher induction programs, peer mentoring and review programs, principal certification and professional development and tax relief for teachers and principles in high needs schools.

What does the bill mean for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)? The chairmen’s introduction of the bills is a clear indication that the Democrats will focus their efforts on teacher quality issues. Yet, this is not new for George Miller who was an original architect of the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB. It also provides a framework for debate and legislative language on this topic. Notably, the bill provides a compromise on the pending debate on measuring teacher effectiveness. The Aspen Institute’s Commission on NCLB recommends tying a teacher effectiveness rating to student test scores, but the push-back has been strong because standardized assessments are, currently, blunt instruments and using them to assess teacher quality raises legitimate political and technical concerns. Yet, the Commission and Miller seem to agree that the technical capacity of school instructional management systems will continue to evolve and will, eventually, provide school leaders with powerful analytical tools capable of cross-analyzing teacher quality and student academic progress. How, exactly, that analysis should play out remains in contention, but that it will play out is nearly certain.
Resources:

“Miller, Kennedy Introduce Comprehensive Bill to Promote Excellence in Teaching,” Committee on Education and Labor, May 8, 2007, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/rel050807.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...