Parental Involvement and Reauthorization of ESEANCLB

1
Parental Involvement and Reauthorization of
ESEA-NCLB
Dominic W. Holt, MSW, MFA Public Policy
Analyst National PTA Arnold F. Fege,
Director Public Engagement and Advocacy Public
Education Network

• 2009 National PTA Legislative Conference

2
Todays Agenda

• Welcome (Dominic Holt, NPTA)
• Context Intro to ESEA-NCLB Reauthorization
  (Arnold Fege, PEN)
• Key Parental Involvement Provisions in ESEA-NCLB
  (Dominic Holt, NPTA)
• Barriers to Implementing PI (Arnold Fege, PEN)
• National PTA Recommendations
• (Dominic Holt, NPTA)
• Discussion and QA

3
Public Education Network (PEN) Members

• 80 domestic members in 34 states, plus DC, Puerto
  Rico, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa, and
  Brazil
• 17 of the biggest 25 cities are represented
• All in high poverty school districts with primary
  focus of community engagement and school reform

4
The Context Intro to ESEA-NCLB
Reauthorization
5
No Child Left Behind is

• NCLB is over 1,000 pages
• Over 1,500 pages of regulations 10,000 pages of
  guidance
• 490 pages of new regulations November 2008
• Comprises 10 titles, over 40 programs
• Affects every public school in the country
• Requires Every Child to Score Proficient by
  2013-2014.

6
NCLB ReauthorizationA Law in Limbo The Perfect
Storm and the Negative Coalition
CHALLENGE developing a new bill that receives
the majority vote of the committees, conference,
pressure groups, and approval of White House
7
The Dynamics and the Players

• Original 2002 NCLB coalition broke splintered
• White House and ED
• New 2006 Senate/House members
• Freshman members on Education Committee
• The public (parents, community, non-organized)
• Educators
• Governors, state legislators, and state DOEs
• Some want law as is (Education Trust, BRT,
  Chamber)
• Conservatives
• Liberals
• Media
• Washington-based organizations

8
General Title I Information

• Title I of NCLB, derived from 1965 ESEA
• Formula driven via states to LEAs
• Usually based on educed/free lunch or other
  low-income stats and low achievement
• Funding used for reading, literacy, language
  arts, and math
• School-wide vs. targeted assistance (TAP)

8
9
Title I Information Statistics
Students/Schools Served

• 47,600 Title I schools or 58 of all public
  schools receive Title I assistance
• 67 of all elementary schools
• 29 of all secondary schools
• 14.9 million children receive Title I assistance
• 96 of highest poverty schools get Title I
  assistance
• From National Center for Educational Statistics,
  2007

10
Status of Reauthorization What to Expect

• Who will take the lead White House or Congress
  Bipartisan or Unilateral?
• Probably Committees will Start Drafting
  Legislation, But No One Expects to Pass in 2009
• Key Committees House Education and Labor and
  Senate Health, Education, Pensions and Labor
• This is a strategic time Hill looking for
  input/ideas
• Bill will get new name, but will it get changes?

11
The Debates Will Center on BIG ISSUE

• ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
• Testing, Testing Testing
• Definition of AYP
• Multiple Measures vs. Single High Stakes Test
• Growth Model Measuring Progress and Not Targets
• NATIONAL STANDARDS
• Requiring ELL Children to Take Grade Level Tests
  When They Do Not Speak English

12
The Other Debates Will Center on

• One size does not fit allnot enough local
  flexibility
• Teacher Quality
• Increased Funding
• Narrows Curriculum
• Growing Poverty of Public School Student Body
• Adding Middle School and High School Reform
  Initiatives
• Reducing Punitive Measures/Increasing Incentives
• Teacher Quality

13
The evolving Obama education agenda

• 15 billion Incentive Grants in Stimulus
• National standards
• Poverty is not an excuse
• Quality assessments
• Incentives
• Teacher performance pay
• Charter schools
• Teacher quality
• Innovative ideas taken to scale for struggling
  schools
• Expanded time
• Redistribution of teachers
• From Obama and Duncan speeches since January 20,
  2009

13
14
Key Parental Involvement Provisions in ESEA-NCLB
15
Parental Involvement (PI) in Education

• Improves academic achievement, behavior,
  attendance, understanding of diverse viewpoints,
  planning for future, and emotional/physical
  well-being.1
• Regardless of parents education level,
  ethnicity, or socioeconomic background.2
• Schools would need to increase spending by gt
  1000 per pupil for same results.3
• --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  -----------------
• Ferguson, C., Ramos, M., Rudo, Z., and Wood, L.
  (June 16, 2008). The School Family Connection
  Looking at the Larger Picture a Review of
  Current Literature. National Center for Family
  and Community Connections with Schools. SEDL. p.
  2.
• Henderson, A. and Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of
  Evidence the Impact of School, Family and
  Community Connections on Student Achievement.
  SEDL. Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., and
  Weiss, H. (2007). Family Involvement in School
  and Low-Income Childrens Literacy Performance
  Longitudinal Associations between and within
  Families. Journal of Educational Psychology,
  98(4), pp. 653-64.
• Houtenville, A. and Conway, K. (2008). Parental
  Effort, School Resources, and Student
  Achievement. Journal of Human Resources, XLIII,
  2. pp. 437-53.

16
ESEA-NCLB Parental Involvement

• ESEA-NCLB Offers Many Roles for Parents
• We Will Focus on Title I (Primary PI Provisions)
  and Title V (PIRCs)
• Title I Terminology

17
ESEA-NCLB Title I Improving the Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged 

•  Part A Improving Basic Programs Operated by
  Local Educational Agencies
• Subpart 1 -- Basic Program Requirements
• Section 1111. State Plans
• Section 1112. Local Educational Agency Plans
• Section 1113. Eligible School Attendance Areas
• Section 1114. School-wide Programs
• Section 1115. Targeted Assistance Schools
• Section 1116. Academic Assessment and LEA and
  School Improvement
• Includes Public School Choice and SES
• Section 1117. School Support and Recognition
• Section 1118. Parental Involvement
•  
• Subpart 2 -- Allocations
•  

18
ESEA-NCLB PI Responsibilities Across All Levels

• Federal
• State
• Local
• School District
• School

19
ESEA-NCLB PI Responsibilities Across All Levels

• Federal Level
• NCLB Purpose
• Funding Title I and PIRCs
• Regulations/Guidance
• Monitoring

20
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• State Level
• Collection and Dissemination of PI Best Practices
• Technical Assistance to Districts and Schools
• State Report Card
• Review Title I District Plans, Policies and
  Practices
• School Support Teams
• Committee of Practitioners

21
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School District Level
• All Districts Annual Report Cards
• Title I District Plans Strategies and
  Descriptions
• Title I District Outreach to LEP Families

22
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School District Level (continued)
• Review of Schools PI Activities
• Technical Assistance to Schools in Need of
  Improvement
• District-Wide Improvement Plans
• Public School Choice and SES
• A Word on In Need of Improvement

23
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School District Level (continued)
• District-wide Written PI Policies
• PI Capacity Building
• Parents
• School Personnel
• Integrating with Other Programs
• Other Supports As Requested
• Optional Capacity Building Activities

24
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School District Level (continued)
• Inform Regarding PIRCs
• Opportunities for Full Participation of LEP,
  Migrant or Disabled Parents
• Support School, Family and Community partnerships
• 1 Set-Aside for PI and 95 to Title I Schools

25
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School District Level (continued)
• Technical Assistance to Title I Schools on PI
• Parents in Developing Improvement Plans
• Evaluation/Review Districts Own PI
• Teacher and Principal Training on PI

26
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School Level
• Parent's Right to Know
• Title I School-wide Programs
• PI Title I Schools in Need of Improvement
• Notifying Parents
• School Improvement Plans

27
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School Level (continued)
• Written Parental Involvement Policies
• Sending Information to Parents
• Annual Meetings
• Engaging Parents in PI Program Development

28
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School Level (continued)
• PI Capacity Building
• Inform Parents about PIRCs
• Opportunities for Full Participation of LEP,
  Migrant or Disabled Parents

29
ESEA-NCLB PI Requirements

• Local School Level (continued)
• School-Parent Compacts
• Each partys responsibility to meet state
  standards and support learning
• Ongoing, effective parent-teacher communication

30
In ESEA-NCLB Title V Parental Information and
Resource Centers (PIRCs)

• Federal, Competitive Grants for School-linked or
  School-based Centers
• Provide Training, Information and Support for
  Implementing Effective PI Policies, Programs and
  activities
• Required to
• Serve Both Rural and Urban Areas.
• At Least Half of Grant to Serve Areas with High
  Concentrations of Low-Income Children.
• At Least 30 of Grant for Early Childhood Parent
  Programs.

31
PIRCs New Quality Framework

• Moving Away from Implementing Individual Programs
  
• Moving Toward Statewide Leadership, Capacity
  Building, Technical Assistance and Training on PI
  
• Collaborating with States and Districts to Foster
  Implementation of Title I Parent Information
  Requirements
• Assisting Schools and Districts to Address Title
  I Family Engagement Requirements
• Providing Accurate, Timely and Understandable
  Information to Stakeholders on Important ESEA-
  NCLB Provisions

32
In ESEA-NCLB Title V Local Family Information
Centers (LFICs)

• LFICs Never Funded
• PIRCs Appropriations Never Reached 50 Million
  Trigger
• If It Did, ED Would Be ALLOWED (Not Required) to
  Award Half of Exceeding Amount to Local Nonprofit
  Parent Organizations to Operate Local Centers
• Ensure Parents Have Training, Information and
  Support to Effectively Participate in Child's
  Education
• Help Their Child Meet State Academic Content and
  Student Academic Achievement Standards

33
Challenges in developing and implementing federal
ESEA/NCLB Parental Involvement Provisions

• wwwed.gov/sasa
• wwwPublicEducation.org

34
NCLB Includes Rights for Parents

• Parents Have Rights Under the NCLB Law!!!!!
• Parents mentioned over 200 times
• PROBLEM Law Not Enforceable

35
The Issues of Parental Involvement

• Key parental involvement provisions not being
  implemented or enforced
• Parents not getting sufficient information and in
  a language they can understand
• Choice and SES are not working confused with
  parental involvement
• Why is PI a federal Role and what is PI?
• Parents are confused by report card data
• Parents not consistently involved in local school
  improvement teams

36
White House and Hill Lay of the Land

• White House and Congress often confused about
  what parent involvement IS
• Often want to assign parents tasks, rather than
  involving them as true partners
• Need to realign parent relationships with school
  districtsHead Start and Special Education are
  examples
• Need for parental and family standards
• Educators frequently dont see parental
  involvement as a priority
• See ED SASA Monitoring Report

37
SASA Title I Summary FindingsParent Notification
and RTK

• Letter to parents, did not include all components
• Information not provided in other languages
• Parent not notified about Para qualifications

• Parents not notified about unqualified teacher
  teaching more than 4 consecutive weeks
• Insufficient time to makes decisions about SES
  and choice

c
38
SASA Title I Summary FindingsDistrict/School
Policies

• Policies not current or include required elements
• Did not create of inform about compacts
• Parents not involved in policy/compact evaluation

• Parents not aware of district/school policies
• Teachers/principals not aware of policies
• SEAs did not review policies to determine if
  requirements met

c
38
39
SASA Title I Summary FindingsState/District/Schoo
l Planning

• Lack of parents on State Committee of
  Practitioners
• Required annual meeting did not include areas of
  PI
• Parents not included in the development, review
  and implementation of SIPs

• Parents not involved in decisions about PI
  set-aside funding
• Lack of district using Title I funding to build
  capacity of parents
• Parents did not get info about AYP, choice, SES,
  the group their children were in

c
39
40
PEN NCLB Public Hearings-2007

• Communications
• Information
• Implementation
• Support
• Evaluation
• Lack of school interest
• Funding

41
2006
FindingsWhat We Heard from the Public

• The public supports accountability, but believes
  the existing NCLB system is too thin it rejects
  school identification based on a single test.
• Primary responsibility lies with the school, but
  schools cant succeed alone accountability must
  be shared across the community
• Community abandons low-performing schools
• Information fails to get out
• Parent and community involvement provisions are
  ignored

• School are held accountable on the backs of
  students
• Academic supports are inadequate and offer false
  promises (resources, transfer options, teacher
  qualifications, SES)
• Lack of district and state capacity
• Continued agreement on the goals of NCLB
• Public appreciated the opportunity to speak

42
Parents Feel They Are On the Sidelines

• Public Gets Assigned Tasks from Schools
• Participation not Valued by Professionals
• Communication is not in a Language Understood
• Current reforms have no plans for meaningful work
  by citizens
• Asked to do things that did not seem to make a
  real difference
• Voting was not enough public frustrated when
  elected officials don't produce
• Were not asked to shore up schools in trouble

43
National PTA Recommendations to Congress
Parental Involvement ESEA-NCLB
Reauthorization
44
National PTA Recommendations to Congress

• Add Incentives for PI
• Put GAO on the Case
• Improve PI Definition with Guiding Framework
• Require ED to Establish Policies and Procedures
  to Help States, Districts and Schools Implement
  and Evaluate PI
• Require ED to Publicize Proposed PI Standards and
  Hold a Comment Period to Improve Them
• Double the Amount Districts Must Set Aside for PI

45
National PTA Recommendations to Congress

• Change Law to Reflect PIRCs' Expanded Role
• Increase PIRC Funding
• Create Local Pilot Program
• Require teachers'/principals' recruitment and
  training to include effective PI
• Require States to Better Plan for Building Pl
  Capacity
• Improve Compacts Nix Zero-Tolerance/Suspension
• Create Office for School, Family and Community
  Engagement in ED Office of Deputy Secretary

46
U.S. Department of Education Coordinating
Structure
47
Discussion and QA
48

• Arnold F. Fege,
• Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy
• Public Education Network
• 601 13th Street, NW Suite 710S
• Washington, DC 20005
• [phone]
• afege_at_publiceducation.org
• Also, sign up for PENs Weekly NewsBlast At
  www.PublicEducation.org

• Dominic W. Holt, MSW, MFA
• Public Policy Analyst
• PTA National Office of
• Programs and Public Policy
• 1400 L St., NW, Suite 300
• Washington, DC 20005
•  [phone]
• dholt_at_pta.org
• www.pta.org