CAP Looks at Local Control

While the Senate continues its deliberate drafting on Title I Part A and Title II Part A of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, education pundits ponder the future federal role in education. It is all but certain that things will change, but how and when is quite speculative. Congressional Republican and Democratic leadership are both seeking a new approach without compromising the core principles of the law. This balancing act will be difficult and the challenge commands more focus than election year politics may allow. The quality of discussion in Congress, thus far in 2008, has been middling at best.

The discussion has been more interesting off Capitol Hill. For example, the American Enterprise Institute has been hosting many forum discussions of the changing federal role. On March 20th, the Education Sector is hosting a sold out forum on the evolving federal role in education, and, this week, the Center for American Progress released a thoughtful examination of the unique American “obsession with local control” in the new report Nationalize the Schools (… A Little)! It is significant that, despite the political orientation of these organizations, all are coalescing around a more nationalized system of education accountability, an accountability system quite unlike the current NCLB regime.

In Nationalize the Schools, Matt Miller makes his argument by providing the reader with a brief trip through history to identify the roots of local control. “A look at the history of local control as the organizing principle of schooling suggests that an approach that made perfect sense in the 1700s is crippling American education today.” It is crippling, in part, because there are 50 states and 15,000 school districts all setting their own standards and accountability measures, meanwhile the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is trying to coalesce these actions with NCLB’s objectives. It is not working, argues Miller.

In lieu of the current efforts, Miller suggests that the federal role should not be to micromanage the methods of accountability and interventions. ED should, instead, work with states to set rigorous national standards, increase the federal investment and provide a guaranteed baseline for funding per pupil, and to invest in research and development in order to promote innovation in teaching and learning techniques. Miller asserts, generally, that the new federal role must transcend the out-dated tradition of local control. He believes that ED needs to get serious about a new national role in standards and finance that will help the nation meet the challenges of today’s international economy.

The document is brief and, consequently, lacks many critical details, but was not designed for that purpose. Mr. Miller intended it to spark discussion in Washington and capture the attention of Congress. That is happening, albeit slowly, and it is an issue worth tracking in the coming months and years.

Resource:
Matt Miller, Nationalize the Schools (...A Little)! (Center for American Progress: March 2003), http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/nationalize_the_schools.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Still Alive in the Senate (2/22/2008)

The clock continues to run on the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). When the Senate returns to work next week, it will have about three weeks, until the next recess on March 17, to introduce language on the critical pistons of the law: Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A. That is not a hard deadline, but a self-imposed target set by the staff in the Senate education committee. Last year, the Senate released many parts of its bill for public discussion, but the committee did not release those critical sections due to their complexity and, more important, the rancorous political atmosphere that followed the release of the House Discussion Draft. Most expect the Senate language on accountability to be considerably more flexible than was the House draft.

According to Roberto Rodriguez, Education Adviser to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP), Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), the Committee will try to craft language that grants local educational agencies and state educational agencies more authority to use other indicators of academic success beyond the current status model and growth models. Likewise, Rodriguez reports that the subsequent interventions of section 1116 will also incorporate greater differentiation. While the details are currently scarce, the full picture of the reauthorization debate will be more clear in the coming weeks.

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Reauthorizing NCLB (2/1/2008)

The President called on Congress to strengthen and reauthorize his key domestic legacy, NCLB. "No one can deny its results," said Bush during the State of the Union. "Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. And African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs.” Building on this success, the President identified four ways that Congress, with his approval, could strengthen the law. “We must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for States and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, and provide extra help for struggling schools.” Working together, however, will prove challenging in 2008, for a number of reasons.

First, the President has already stated his unwillingness to accept many changes to the law. At the close of last year, he stated his intent to veto any bill that would weaken the law's accountability provisions and he clearly stated his displeasure with the draft proposed by the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, George Miller (D-CA). Second, even if he were more willing to revise the law, there is little consensus over the right way to do it. There is considerable political acrimony among the Democratic and Republican ranks over the law’s general principles and specific details. Between the parties there is even more acrimony, which is magnified by election year politics. Third, as soon as the President completed his pleas to reauthorize NCLB, he launched into a new school choice initiative. This did not facilitate a bipartisan mood.

Addressing the matter of vanishing inner city non-public schools, the President proposed to convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening the supply of these schools so parents of "poor children trapped in failing public schools" could have better options. And to help children access these schools, the President proposed a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. This, at the heels of a request to strengthen NCLB, sparked plenty of snarky cynicism among liberal edu-pundits in Washington still reeling from the lackluster fiscal year 2008 appropriations.
Despite the common sentiment that Congress will not reauthorize the law until after the elections, the Aspen Institute attempted to rekindle momentum for an early 2008 reauthorization by hosting a panel discussion on NCLB on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

The panel, entitled “Improving No Child Left Behind Now: The Cost of Waiting,” made the case for quick action this year, but the sense of urgency was not contagious. Key congressional staff in the House and Senate education committees all stated the intent of their Members to advance language in 2008, but the specter of delay due to election politics did not retreat. “We are still moving ahead,” said Alice Johnson Cain, Congressman George Miller’s senior advisor for K-12 issues, “but let’s be real, with the elections ahead of us this is going to be an uphill battle.”

Resource:
“Improving No Child Left Behind Now: The Cost of Waiting,” Aspen Institute, Panel Discussion, January 31, 2008, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.3837913/k.D129/Commission_Joins_Groups_for_Panel_on_Capitol_Hill.htm.
“State of the Union 2008,” The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/index.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Union (1/28/2008)

In his final State of the Union Address, President Bush laid out a broad domestic agenda that included an emphasis on economic growth, federal fiscal discipline, a request to strengthen and reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and to provide parents with more school choice.

Beginning with the economy, the President urged Congress to pass the economic stimulus package agreed to by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). The package, estimated at about $145 billion, is aimed at putting more money into the hands of American consumers to help stimulate the stagnant U.S. economy. Although the Senate is expected to make additions to the stimulus package, there is currently no language for any school construction funding, which is a priority for education advocates.

The President's willingness to sign off on such an expensive stimulus package means that he will be less agreeable to increased spending during the fiscal year 2009 (FY09) appropriations process. The President will release his FY09 budget proposal on Monday and, like last year, it is likely that there will be many program reductions and an estimated 44 program cuts for the United States Department of Education (ED).

President Bush next announced his disappointment at Congress' failure to reign in the practice of earmarking funding for special projects in members' Congressional districts. The President championed fiscal restraint by announcing an executive order to federal agencies to ignore any future earmarks that are not written specifically into bill language. Under the order, future earmarks would be subject to public scrutiny and votes and he promised to veto any spending bill that does not succeed in cutting earmarks in half from fiscal year 2008 levels.

Focusing on education, the President called on Congress to strengthen and reauthorize his key domestic legacy, NCLB. "No one can deny its results," said Bush. "Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. And African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs." Building on this success, the President identified four ways that Congress, with his approval, could strengthen the law. "We must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for States and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, and provide extra help for struggling schools." Working together, however, will prove challenging in 2008. The President has already stated his intent to veto any bill that would weaken the law's accountability provisions and he has clearly stated his displeasure with the draft proposed by the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, George Miller (D-CA), last summer. The conventional wisdom is that the House and Senate will both introduce draft language in 2008, but a conference and final passage will likely roll over into 2009, after the 2008 elections.

Speaking to his conservative base, the President next addressed school choice. According to the President, inner city non-public schools are disappearing at an alarming rate. To address this, he proposed to convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening the supply of these schools so parents of "poor children trapped in failing public schools" could have better options. To help children access these schools, the President proposed a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. But like last year's proposed Promise Scholarships and Opportunity Scholarships, the Pell Grants for Kids has little chance of success. This idea will not likely gain considerable support in this Democratic Congress.

Finally for education, the President called on Congress to fund his American Competitiveness Initiative. Congress passed H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act last year that authorized over $33 billion over the next three years to support 25,000 new math and science teachers through professional development and graduate education assistance as a part of the President's initiative. Yet, due to the contentious budget battles between the President and Congress much of the funding was not appropriated. The President would now like to see those initiatives funded in order to "ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on earth."

The President's State of the Union truly begins the second session of the 110th Congress. Pundits will review and analyze the speech in the coming days and many of his initiatives will become clearer when the President releases his FY09 budget proposal on Monday, February 4th. We will continue to monitor and analyze the developments as they occur.

Resources:
"2008 State of the Union Policy Initiatives,"The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/initiatives/index.html
"President Bush's State of the Union Addresses," Washington Post, January 28, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012802536.html?sid=ST2008012802201
State of the Union, http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/
Authors: SAS, DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Road Map for Next Legislative Session (1/18/2008)

The House reconvened this week, and the Senate is expected to come back into session after the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. As Congress gets back into its groove, the first item on the agenda is a $145 billion economic stimulus package, which may
include funding for school construction and repair. The bill seems to have bipartisan support in Congress and in the White House, though the particulars of the bill may prove to be contentious. Once the stimulus package is finished, there are a number of other items Congress is likely to consider this year.

No Child Left Behind

On January 28th, the President is scheduled to give his State of the Union address, which often acts as a springboard for most of the year’s legislative priorities. While the President is expected to focus on Iraq, immigration reform, and other recent, hot-button issues, he is also expected to again call for Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, his landmark K-12 education legislation.

As 2008 is the President’s last year in office, and he begins to consider the legacy his administration leaves behind, he will want to try and end on the seemingly positive note of reauthorizing NCLB, a program that he considers his biggest domestic success over the last eight years.

While he will focus on what the law has done over the past few years, he will also warn Congress not to weaken the law that is intended to have all students in the U.S. performing at proficient levels in math and reading by 2014. However, because the law is a divisive issue in Congress, as well as among the 2008 Presidential candidates, politics will most likely push NCLB into the backseat, until after a new Congress and a new President begin their work in 2009.

Higher Education Act

The Senate passed its reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) last summer, but the House has been dragging its feet, bogged down in a number of other legislative efforts. House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA) did finally pass a reauthorization bill out of committee towards the end of last year, but the House has not moved forward with the committee’s bill.

Senate leaders, chiefly Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA), are calling for the House to bring its bill to the floor as soon as possible so that the two bills can go to conference. The sense of urgency comes from the fact that as soon as Congress gets bogged down in both fiscal year 2009 (FY09) appropriations and the 2008 Congressional elections, time will run out for the HEA to be reauthorized by the 110th Congress.

Farm Bill

The Senate passed its Farm Bill package in December, finally catching up with the House, which passed its bill earlier in the year. While some negotiations have gone on behind the scenes, the bill has yet to go to conference, keeping farmers, agricultural groups, and school nutrition advocates waiting on the largest agricultural bill in the country. School nutrition advocates are looking forward to the proposed expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program (FFVP) into all fifty states.

School nutrition coalitions are advocating for the final bill to include the Senate’s expansion, which calls for $225 million for fiscal year 2008, with each state receiving 1% of the total appropriation. The rest will be divided up among the states based on the total number of students eligible for free and reduced price lunches. Advocates are also calling to include the House’s provision that sets aside 5% of each state’s allocation for administrative purposes.

One item that did not make it into the Farm Bill is Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) amendment that would impose national nutrition standards on all public schools in the United States. Sen. Harkin has made it his personal quest to make these standards part of the law, but chose not to bring it into the Farm Bill, which is already in the middle of tough negotiations.

Harkin worries that even if the House and Senate come to terms on the bill, Congress will not be able to work out a deal with the White House regarding differences over the bill. As such, much of what goes on in conference will include both the differences between the House and the Senate as well as worries from the White House, so that the final version of the bill will have the best possible chance to make it through the veto threat already levied against the bill.

Appropriations

The President will release his FY09 budget proposal on February 4, starting the next appropriations cycle. Experts expect last year’s battle to be repeated again this year. The same forty or more education programs that the President has tried to eliminate in past years will be slated for elimination again this year, accompanied by leaner budget estimates.

The President proved last year that with Democrats in control of Congress, he is willing to stand firm on his proposed numbers, and will veto any bills that go too far above and beyond his requests. His willingness to work on the economic stimulus package will further cause him to be tight with his budget outlook for the rest of the year, and he will continue to have enough Republican support in Congress to sustain a veto.

Last year, The President forced appropriators to bring their total level of spending down to his desired levels, after a lot of posturing and grandstanding. If Congress want to avoid that for FY09, they will have to wait until the next president takes over in January 2009, an option that neither party is happy with. Ignoring the fact that the majority cannot guarantee that its party will win the Presidency, there is also a lot of bad publicity that comes with holding off appropriations until the start of the following year.

In 2006, when former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) decided to punt the spending bills until 2007, he was lambasted by both parties in each chamber of Congress. The Democrats may not want to risk the public backlash from delaying appropriations so late for two consecutive years, meaning it is possible that they could give in to the President’s request a little earlier this year. Needless to say, appropriations will, as always, be a tough process this year.

Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Chairman Kennedy First Off the Blocks (1/11/2008)

This Tuesday was the sixth anniversary of the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and it received considerable attention in Washington. In an effort to get his message out before others could this week, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) published an editorial in the Washington Post on the reauthorization of the law. In “How to Fix ‘No Child,’” Kennedy made the point that he will navigate the law’s fate in 2008 and that the law will not disappear while he is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

“We in Congress,” wrote the Chairman, “have an obligation to parents, to teachers and, most of all, to schoolchildren across America to draw the right lessons from these past six years with the No Child Left Behind Act and put school reform on a stronger path for the future.” Kennedy, of course, did not clarify what this path would be, but he did identify some top priorities including the use of multiple measures to determine the status of schools, dealing with the “drop out crisis,” parental involvement, better teacher training and mentoring and adequate funding for school reform.

Most interesting, Sen. Kennedy evoked his brother Robert Kennedy to support the continuing work on the reauthorization of NCLB. This, to be sure, is something that he does not do lightly and it is another reminder that genuine legislative education activity is not on the campaign trail in 2008, but it is occurring within the offices of the House and Senate education committees. The next President will simply be the beneficiary of their 2007 and 2008 work. (Note, however, the distinction between legislative activity and regulatory activity that is discussed below).

Resource:
Edward Kennedy, “How to Fix ‘No Child,’” Washington Post, Columns, January 7, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010601828.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Forum on Teacher Quality

On Tuesday, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) held a forum on teacher quality. The panelist included:



• Beatrice Briman, Managing Research Scientist at AIR;
• Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor at the University of Washington;
• Susan Moore Johnson, the Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr. Professor of Teaching and Learning at Harvard University;
• Michele Rhee, the Chancellor for the District of Columbia Public Schools;
• Brad Thomas, Professional Staff Member for the House Committee on Education and Labor; and
• Alice Johnson Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor to Chairman George Miller in the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Lynn Olson, the Managing Editor of Special Projects at Education Week moderated the discussion.

The conversation made two issues clear. The first point was that human capital is critical, but the federal effort to improve teacher quality has not proven particularly successful. According to research conducted by Professor Dan Goldhaber, it is clear that state certification is not a reliable measure of teacher effectiveness as measured by student academic outcomes. Often teachers who have failed their certification exams have produced tremendous student academic outcomes, while teachers who have passed their certification exams have produced awful results, Goldhaber found. The current proxy for teacher quality and effectiveness, most agreed, needs to be more sophisticated.

The second point of clarity was the disagreement on the proper federal role in this debate. Alice Johnson Cain made a strong defense of George Miller’s Teach Act. The bill, which Chairman Miller partially incorporated into the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) House Discussion Draft, seeks to improve the recruitment, professional development and career development of teachers through a variety of innovative approaches such as merit pay and teacher career academies. But the economist (and Republicans) in the room cringed at the prescriptive approach and the researchers lamented about the lack of reliable research and data underlying such plans. They argued that the current and proposed federal policies, intended to serve as an assurance of basic quality instruction, have the detrimental effect of focusing educators on compliance and not academic outcomes.

The most evident consensus of the event was that those working on teacher quality policy have ample obstacles to tackle as Congress works on the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Resources:
American Institutes for Research, http://www.air.org/.
Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor of Public Affairs, http://evans.washington.edu/fac/Goldhaber/
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Four more years!

Four years after it was due for reauthorization, the Head Start Act is finally on the President’s desk for signature. Congress presented the bill to the President on December 5th and he has 10 business days to sign it into law. Unlike the appropriation bills heading his way this December, this will be signed by the President. There is no veto threat.

The bill, HR 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, makes a number of changes and clarifications to the current law including a renewed focus on the quality of teachers, increased eligibility thresholds, more funding to expand programs for younger children, migrant and Native American students, and more. For additional details please refer to the summary attached to the November 16th Federal Update.
These changes took difficult negotiations, but they are nothing compared to the scope of work that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will require; and the treacherous politics will make it more difficult. So, if Head Start took four years what does that mean for ESEA? That is a popular question in Washington these days.

Education pundits are hedging their bets from 2009 to 2011. Those leaning toward 2009 realize that politics has to give way to practical needs, and soon. While this law is too important not to be a rhetorical centerpiece of the 2008 elections, the fact that thousands of schools are cascading along the sanctions of section 1116 imposes a practical urgency on the reauthorization. A set of “Washington Insiders” made such a prediction in January and it looks like that estimate remains valid. (Disclosure: Brustein & Manasevit was part of that insider survey). Those leaning closer to 2011 have likely been in Washington much longer than the rest of us and have seen the political polarization accentuate the sclerosis of such large and technical bills. Four years of rancor is not unforeseeable.

Yet, as noted in previous Updates, the time line must not breed complacency. The language that will emerge in 2009 is a product of today’s advocacy and, considering the debate that surrounds the current House Discussion Draft, much advocacy and analysis remains ahead.

Resource:
Crystal Apple: Education Insiders’ Predictions for No Child Left Behind’s Reauthorization (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation: January 8, 2007) January 4, 2007, http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=365.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Report Shows States Circumventing NCLB Policies

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will not happen this year. Senator Kennedy (D-MA), The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pension (HELP), removed the matter from the Senate’s overbooked 2007 end of the year agenda. This allows advocates and Congressional staff to take time to consider the law’s next reiteration, so the advocacy that happens from now until the beginning of next year will likely play an important role in informing that deliberation.

One of the first reports to fill that space comes from Kevin Carey of the Education Sector, the Pangloss Index: How States Game the No Child Left Behind Act. The report, named after the character in Voltaire’s Candide who insisted that we live in the best of all possible worlds, is a damming chronology of how, according to Carey, the Alabama Department of Education, with illustrative examples from Birmingham City Schools, was able to secure waivers from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that eviscerated the law’s intent. The report takes the reader from 2001 to 2007 and details the waivers granted by ED.

These waivers, claims Carey, allowed Alabama to demonstrate academic progress under NCLB, but the reality was very different. Despite the well-publicized statements of progress made by the state superintendent and the Birmingham City School Board, their test scores were not praise worthy. The state was not truly improving in its academic achievement and Birmingham City Schools’ population continued to decline because parents sought better schools for their children. Alabama was merely successfully gaming the system, and ED was a conspirator because it granted the waivers.

In response, Carey recommends that Congress require ED to grant less waivers and make the process more manageable, that the reauthorized law be more specific about acceptable statistical behavior, and that the reauthorized law promote shared standards in order to reduce the profusion of state by state accountability gaming. The report argues that the law’s mechanisms and approach are correct -- but that it runs counter to the sentiment now emerging in Washington.

The more fashionable opinion, a judgment based on unscientific and personal discussions, is that the law has been trying to do too much all at once and that it is a Rube Goldberg structure that combined the political civil rights moralism of the 60s with unrealistic goals and ineffective behavior modification tools. As such, it is not working and, if it is to succeed, Congress will have to restructure the law completely. Small tweaks, the kind argued for by Carey, will not do. Yet, this debate, between tweaking and fundamental revision, rages on and it gives Members of Congress and their staff plenty to think about over Thanksgiving and well into the next year(s).

Resources:
Kevin Carey, The Pangloss Index: How States Game the No Child Left behind Act (Education Sector: November 2007), http://www.educationsector.org.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Done For the Year, Though Not Forgotten

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) took some strategic turns this week. On Sunday, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) confirmed what cynical political pundits claimed in January: that the reauthorization would not occur in 2007. “It's going to tip over to next year,” said Sen. Kennedy, but that too may be optimistic.

2008 is an election year and both parties have much to gain from having federal education on their platform. The Democrats stand to reclaim education as their party’s initiative. Republicans stand to rediscover their federalist roots and swing the power pendulum back to state departments of education. Together, the political incentives make 2009 more likely than 2008. Political prognostication, however, is notably unreliable and the fact that so many schools tripping into later stages of corrective action and restructuring makes it evident that something, if not the full reauthorization, must be done in 2008. The question is, what?

This week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, introduced a bill that provides a glimpse of what Congress may pursue, in lieu of a full reauthorization, in 2008. The bill, the State Student Achievement Contract Act would create a pilot project for 12 states to trade most of No Child Left Behind's requirements in exchange for developing and implementing rigorous states' standards, and devising a clear accountability system and a statewide system of interventions.

As stated by Sen. Alexander when introducing the bill: “In other words, instead of saying: ‘Do it exactly this way' to the states, the federal government would be saying: ‘Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.’” Twelve states would compete for the flexibility. Each applicant must have:

· Developed rigorous college and work-ready standards that are aligned across K-12 and have been developed in cooperation with the state educational agency (SEA), institutions of higher education and representative of the businesses community; or

Be at least as rigorous as national or international education standards and objectives measuring long-term trends and students’ academic achievement standards and objectives;

· Assurance about the quality and scope of the state assessment system;

· Provided an explanation of the state’s accountability system that includes a description of its:

o Single statewide accountability system;

o Statewide annual measurable objectives;

o Uniform system of identifying schools;

o Uniform and comprehensive interventions (which must include public school choice and supplemental educational service providers, among others);

· An explanation of the state's trajectory that is in place for meeting proficiency targets by 2014 or in up to 3 years and upon graduation from secondary school;

· Assurances of rigorous teacher quality standards;

· A demonstration that the state has an effective data system capable of reporting classroom level data; and

· Assurances that the contract was developed in consultation with either the Governor or the state legislature or both.

Secretary Spellings voiced her support for the pilot. “This legislation is a reasonable and responsible step forward as Congress moves toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind,” stated Secretary Spellings. “I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Alexander and his colleagues as they develop a law that's in the best interest of America's children.” We will continue to monitor its progress and potential impact as the bill matures in Congress.

Resources:
“Statement by Secretary Spellings on Legislation Proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander,” United States Department of Education, Press Release, November 6, 2007, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/11/11062007.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

OIG Issues Report on NCLB Reauthorization

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report, entitled “An OIG Perspective on Improving Accountability and Integrity in ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] Programs.” Based on its audits of ESEA programs and topics related to the ESEA over the last seven years, OIG identified five main weaknesses or deficiencies that led to noncompliance:


1. Essential, Clear, and Consistent Requirements. The OIG’s report criticizes ESEA’s lack of specificity in stating how an LEA or SEA can demonstrate compliance. It notes that grantees are forced to rely on ED-issued non-regulatory guidance. In addition, OIG observes, certain requirements in NCLB are inconsistent between programs — for example, caps on administrative costs and carryover limitations vary between NCLB programs. The report points out that such inconsistent requirements cause confusion, make compliance more difficult, and may not be based on objective criteria.
2. Data Quality. Valid and reliable data are imperative because academic assessments and accountability data are critical to the implementation of the ESEA. OIG is concerned about the reliability and accuracy of data that SEAs and districts use to determine student achievement and program effectiveness as well as weak state controls over collecting and reporting performance data and scoring state assessments. OIG specifically pointed out that federal funds may have been spent improperly because of poor quality data related to counting migrant children.
3. Weak Monitoring and Oversight. OIG has identified deficiencies in ED’s monitor¬ing of SEAs and in the states’ monitoring of their districts. OIG posited that these weaknesses were particularly apparent in the school choice and SES programs as well as charter schools program.
4. Improprieties in State and Local Programs. The report points out several in¬stances of corruption, embezzlement and other misappropriation of federal funds by state and local officials. It also says conflicts of inter¬est often arise at the district and school levels and that such conflicts may lead to misuse of federal funds. OIG suggests that the ED and Congress consider taking specific actions to (1) enhance transparency in decisionmaking by deterring conflicts of interest at the State and local levels; (2) ensure States identify and provide additional oversight of high-risk subgrantees; (3) establish a reporting requirement for suspected fraud and other criminal misconduct, waste, and abuse; and (4) ensure whistleblower protection for State and local employees and contractors.
5. Program-Specific Issues. The report pointed out that OIG has identified provisions of the ESEA that have yet to be addressed. Therefore, OIG recommended that the Department and Congress consider incorporating the following: (1) Changes to the definition of “weapon” in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communi¬ties Act; (2) More specificity regarding the criteria SEAs use to identify persistently dangerous schools; (3) Alternate approaches to defining SES eligibility; and (4) Clarification of whether Reading First pro¬grams must have scientific evidence of effective-ness to be eligible for funding.

OIG’s purpose in authoring the report was to inform the reauthorization process by providing its perspective on improving accountability and integrity in ESEA programs. OIG stated that it will continue to provide comments, when requested, on specific ED or Congressional legislative proposals.

You can view the report at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/s09h0007.pdf.

Author: CWP

Read More...

Summary only...

ESEA Growth Model Language

Growth models are central to the reauthorization discussion. Many consider them a vast improvement over the law’s status model for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is conducting a pilot program that allows States to use growth models to measure AYP. As of July 2007, nine states are operating approved pilot programs. Yet, the low national participation rate and the variability among the kinds of models indicate what most already know: these models can be complicated and difficult to operate. Borrowing an old saw: the devils (plural) are in the details.

How Congress would manage the details was a matter of considerable debate in the spring and summer, and the House discussion draft now offers their first cut at the issue. The draft model, currently, follows the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative and narrows the scope of allowable growth models by establishing strict program parameters. According to the law, States could “incorporate” student academic growth into the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) so long as they meet some minimum requirements.

Allowable growth models must:
• Establish individual student growth objectives that are not based on individual student background characteristics;
• Establish separate, measurable objectives for the assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts;
• Include all students in the State’s assessment and accountability system; and
• Require that all groups meet the 2013–2014 target for 100% grade level proficiency or be on trajectory to meet or exceed grade level proficiency within 3 years.
In addition, approval would require States to include the results of assessments in their definition of AYP that:
• Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading or language arts (3 through 8, and in secondary school);
• Track student progress through a State-developed longitudinal data system that meets the requirements of section 1123 and that has been in use by the State for at least two years; and
• Include, as separate academic indicators, the rate of student participation in assessments under paragraph (3); and other academic indicators as described in the law.

The discussion draft’s growth model parameters have sparked considerable debate because it maintains the goal of 100% grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. This, some argue, potentially guts the benefit of an individual or school growth model, which is designed to measure unique academic progress according to unique starting points. Customized trajectory and 100% proficiency by 2014 do not blend well, and this remains an active debate in the House and Senate education committees.

Two closing notes: Congressional Research Service produced an excellent report on the status of the growth models this summer, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act. Those states that are now conducting growth model programs include:
1. North Carolina (approved in May 2006)
2. Tennessee (May 2006)
3. Delaware (November 2006)
4. Arkansas (November 2006)
5. Florida (June 2007)
6. Iowa (May 2007)
7. Ohio (Conditional, May 2007)
8. Alaska (July 2007)
9. Arizona (July 2007)

Resource:
Miller and McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft, Title I, House Committee on Education and Labor (August 2007), http://edworkforce.house.gov/ (the documents are no longer posted on the committee’s site).
See Wayne Riddle, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act (Congressional Research Service: August 2007).
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Releases Partial NCLB Draft

On Wednesday, October 17, the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) released the first set of their No Child Left Behind Reauthorization drafts. The drafts do not include the pistons of the law, which are the accountability and intervention sections of Title IA. The drafts also do not include Title IIA.

That the Senate did not release the most critical sections of the law may indicate real trouble with the House discussion draft. According to Democratic staff in the House Committee on Education and Labor, they have reviewed the comments to the draft, revised many sections and have sent it to the Legislative Counsel for drafting. Yet, they note, there remain challenges within the Democratic caucus and with the Republican members of the House. Challenges may be a well-chosen euphemism. The Republican staff is less measured in their statements. They note that contentions remain over the choice and SES provisions as well as the multiple measure provisions. It is getting edgy and the Senate education staffers are, no doubt, watching the political theater in the House with great interest.

The Senate drafts do include most of the subsequent titles and we have begun to review the material and will begin to deliver analysis shortly. The Senate’s released draft titles are:
• TITLE I
o Migrant Education
o Advanced Placement
o High Schools, including High School Improvement Grants and Secondary School Innovation Fund
o Mathematics, including Math Now and Math Skills
• TITLE II
o Math and Science Partnerships
o Innovation for Teacher Quality, including Transition to Teaching and National Writing Project
o Education Technology, including Grants to States, National Activities, and Ready to Learn
o American History and Civics, including Traditional American History, Presidential and Congressional History, Civic Education, National History Day, and Close Up
• TITLE III
o Language Instruction for English language learners and Immigrant students
• TITLE IV- and- TITLE V
o Safe and Drug Free Schools
o 21st Century Community Learning Centers
o Summer Term Education Programs
o Public Charter Schools
o Voluntary Public School Choice
o Magnet Schools
o Fund for the Improvement of Education
• TITLE VI -and- TITLE VII
o Rural Education
o Indian Education
• TITLE X of the McKinney-Vento Act
o Homeless Education

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

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

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB Reauthorization Dims

A month ago, a 2007 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization became less likely. The President held a reauthorization event at the White House Rose Garden where he emphasized the administration’s key goals. They are, not surprisingly, nearly identical to the objectives of the House Republicans which House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) laid out in a September 10 letter to George Miller (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Education. In that letter, Boehner expressed the Republican dissatisfaction with the current discussion draft and laid out the party’s conditions for reauthorization. Those conditions include:

1. Flexibility and local control: Allowing 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: Not restricting current education choices for parents in any way.
3. No new testing.
4. No loopholes in accountability: Rejecting any loophole for chronically underachieving schools to evade identification as a school in need of improvement or avoid restructuring.
5. No national test: 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: 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. Streamline federal education programs and do not create any new programs.

The confluence of the President’s statement with Boehner’s requirements may have been an important signal because, later in the week, Howard “Buck” McKeon, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, stated that the conversations on the discussion draft were falling apart because Miller was not willing to make major concessions on these Republican points. Unless Miller makes significant changes, said McKeon, he would have to pass his bill without bipartisan support. “We’re still better off with current law,” concluded the Raking Member.

So what if Miller tries just that, passing his committee’s bill without the Republicans? It would be difficult. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and, in the 110th Congress, 232 are Democrats, 202 are Republican and one seat is vacant. Miller would have to secure 218 seats for a majority. That means Miller cannot lose more than 16 Democrats on the issue. Yet, of the 232 Democrats 40 are freshman Democrats, many of which campaigned against NCLB in 2006. Given that the unions are strongly against the current discussion draft and that they will play an important part in the reelection of many of the Freshman Democrats, a passage on Democratic votes alone would be difficult; and, the forecast is even more difficult in the Senate.

The Senate is nearly split with 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats. If anything is to move in the Senate, it has to have bipartisan support because the Senate requires 60 votes for cloture to cut off debate on a matter in order to vote. Like the House, the votes do not favor the passage of a partisan ESEA bill in 2007.

Resources:
Steven Dennis, “Talks Stall on No Child Left Behind,” Roll Call, Oct. 11, 2007.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Congressional Staffers Discuss NCLB High School Proposals

Thursday, October 4, the Alliance for Excellent Education hosted a forum where local, state, and national education leaders convened to discuss federal strategies for improving the achievement of the nation’s struggling high school students. The first session of the forum involved a discussion regarding High Schools and No Child Left Behind.

Panelists included:
• Jill Morningstar, House Education and Labor Committee – Majority Staff;
• Kirsten Duncan, House Education and Labor Committee – Minority Staff;
• Melissa Rohrbach, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee – Majority Staff; and
• Lindsay Hunsicker, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee – Minority Staff.

According to the Senate staff members, a Senate draft will likely include a second¬ary-school program modeled after Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) Graduation Promise Act, which will direct $2.5 billion for low-per¬forming high schools to implement comprehen¬sive improvement strategies. The Senate is also contemplat¬ing an investment parallel to Title I, specifically directed to secondary schools. In addition, the Senate may be looking at teacher preparation and profes¬sional development as a possible answer to rais¬ing high school curriculum to a level that’s more applicable to college and the workforce.

On the House side, majority policy adviser Jill Morningstar delivered good news to middle school advocates, saying the com¬mittee is looking forward to receiving Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s (D-AZ) Success in the Middle Act, H.R. 3406, as an amendment to the draft NCLB bill, once the committee moves forward with a mark up. Morningstar said the legislation will provide resources to the middle schools that feed into some of the lowest-performing high schools around the country. She was unable to provide a specific schedule for when House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) would finally move forward with the bill, but hinted that a markup may be held sooner than later.

Resources:
Kris Kitto, “Senate Eyes High School Reform in New Law,” Education Daily, October 5, 2007.
Author: SAS

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...