No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Update

1
No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Update
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors
AssociationLegislative ConferenceTrenton, New
Jersey

• Presented by Reginald Felton
• Director, Federal Relations
• National School Boards Association
• October 5, 2007

2
NSBA Position

• Current provisions in NCLB would hurt rather than
  help our schools efforts to raise student
  achievement
• Current accountability framework does not
  accurately or fairly assess student, school, or
  school district performance
• Overbroad negative labeling is unproductive

3
NSBA Position

• Local school boards remain committed to the
  original goal of NCLB to improve academic
  performance of each child
• Goals cannot be achieved without specific changes
  to the law
• Reauthorization should not be delayed

4
NSBA Actions To Date

• 2005
• Unveiled draft legislation addressing over 40
  recommendations
• 2006
• H.R. 5709 introduced incorporating all NSBA
  recommendations
• 14 additional bills introduced supporting NSBA
  key recommendations

5
NSBA Actions to Date

• 2007
• H.R. 648 introduced incorporating all NSBA
  recommendations
• S. 348 and S. 1913 introduced incorporating key
  NSBA recommendations
• 14 additional bills introduced supporting key
  NSBA recommendations
• Over 500 local school boards pass resolutions
  endorsing H.R. 648

6
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007

• Increases the flexibility for states to use
  additional types of assessments for measuring
  AYP, including growth models
• Grants states more flexibility in assessing
  students with disabilities and students not
  proficient in English for AYP purposes

7
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007

• Targets resources to those student populations
  who need the most attention by applying sanctions
  only when the same student group fails to make
  AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years
• Ensures that students are counted properly in
  assessment and reporting systems

8
H.R. 648NCLB Improvements Act of 2007

• Allows supplemental services to be offered in the
  first year of improvement
• Strengthens federal responsibility for funding
• Requires NCLB testing and reporting for
  non-public schools receiving Title I services

9
House Education Labor Committee Actions

• March June 2007
• Series of Hearings
• March 13 Reauthorization
• March 21 AYP
• March 23 English Language Learners
• March 29 Students with Disabilities
• April 18 Flexibility
• June 7 Supplemental Educational Services

10
House Education Labor Committee Actions

• August 27, 2007
• Release of Miller-McKeon discussion draft on
  Title I
• September 6, 2007
• Release of Miller-McKeon discussion draft on
• Titles II-XI
• September 10, 2007
• Hearing held on Miller-McKeon discussion draft

11
Highlights of Discussion Draft

• Focuses most aggressive interventions on schools
  with greatest need (high priority schools)
• Increases data collection, reporting, and
  planning requirements for schools/school
  districts
• Provides more options for determining AYP
• (e.g. growth, indexing, multiple indicators)

12
Highlights of Discussion Draft

• Tightens some AYP factors (e.g. N size) and
  relaxes others (e.g. SWD and LEP)
• Establishes two categories of schools for AYP
  purposes Priority and High Priority

13
Priority Schools

• Threshold
• Same group must fail to make AYP in the same
  subject for two consecutive years

14
High Priority Schools

• Threshold
• H.S. Overall fails AYP and lt 60 graduation rate
• Overall 50 not proficient or fails growth test
• Two or more groups lt 50 proficient
• State alternative for designation of high
  priority
• Limit Lesser of 10 or 50 of an LEAs schools

15
Requirements for Priority and High Priority
Schools

• Year 2
• Develop 3-year plan
• High priority schools must offer choice/SES
• Years 3 4
• Implement plan/continue choice/SES
• Year 5
• 1 year extension if made AYP in year 4

16
Requirements for Priority and High Priority
Redesign Schools

• Year 6
• Priority schools become redesign schools
  (corrective action) as well as high priority
  schools (restructuring but other option
  eliminated)
• Years 7 8
• Implement year 6 redesign school requirements

17
LEA Improvement Plan

• Overall Requirements
• Systemic approach
• Curriculum and standards/assessments alignment
• Professional development for teachers
  principals
• Emphasis
• Targets groups not making AYP
• Attention to students with disabilities, LEP
  students

18
LEA Improvement Plan

• New Requirements
• Review teacher assignment, out-of-field teachers
• Add principals to professional development
• Use results of formative assessment
• Review LEAs capacity and resources
• Project amount of funds for improvement, how it
  will be spent
• Require mentoring and induction for new teachers
• Require collaboration between core content
  teachers and others

19
School Improvement Plan

• Review LEA-related causes for missing AYP
• Review teacher assignment/out-of-field
• Add principals to professional development
• Use results of formative assessments
• Review school capacity to address problems
• Require collaboration between core content
  teachers and others

20
Determining AYP

• N size 30
• Students with Disabilities
• Credit for up to three years when student leaves
  group
• 1 extra allowance for 2 rule
• English Language Learners
• Two year ELP option for AYP (for state to develop
  native language assessment)
• Credit for up to three years when student leaves
  group
• Assessment in native language for five years plus
  two on case-by-case basis

21
Determining AYP

• Growth model with three year trajectory to
  proficiency
• Indexing with greater weight for making
  proficient than advanced
• Multiple indicators can be included in
  determining AYP for language arts and math

22
Multiple Indicators

• States can use any of the following
• Growth on a) science, civics, history and
  government or b) writing
• Indexing Increased of students moving to
  proficient and advanced
• Increased of students passing core subject test
  for college prep
• Increased going to a degree-granting higher
  education institution
• Decreased dropout rate

23
Multiple Indicators

• End of course test must apply statewide (not
  state assess test)
• Upper 10 of LEAs to determine 10-year target
• Upper 20 of schools to determine annual growth
  rate
• Points given for making each indicator
• Point limits 15 elementary/25 secondary
• Partial credit/except graduation rate

24
Supplemental Education Services(SES)

• SES limited to high priority schools
• Option Portion of set-aside for extended day
  programs
• 20 set aside by school not school district

25
Graduation Rates

• Standard definition (to be developed)
• Disaggregate data for AYP
• 2.5 annual growth up to 90
• 5 year students can count toward meeting graduate
  rate goal
• Close gap 2019-20
• 15 points other indicator credit for AYP if
  group meets target

26
Highly Qualified Teachers

• Codifies flexibility for rural / multi-subject
  teachers (science)
• No new flexibility for special education teachers
• Eliminates HOUSSE

27
Incentives on Teacher Quality(Title II)

• Closing Teacher Equity Gap Via Incentives
• Premium pay for top principals/teachers in
  high-need schools
• Career ladders in high-need schools
• Teacher residency program
• Professional development/teacher centers

28
Closing Teacher Equity Gap(Title II)

• Teacher quality state grants linked to equity
• State assurance on measuring equitable access
• LEA needs assessment within one year
• Heavy focus on professional development

29
Teacher Effectiveness

• Must equalize teacher salaries between Title I
  and non-Title I schools
• The equalization requirement does not supersede
  collective bargaining agreements
• Federal financial assistance to promote equalized
  teacher assignment
• No student can be taught for two consecutive
  years by a novice / out-of-field teacher
• Enforcement Not clear

30
Other Features

• State incentives to develop college/work
  readiness standards with aligned assessments
• States must have longitudinal data systems in
  four years
• 15-state pilot to develop and implement local
  assessments

31
NSBA Issues Not Addressed

• AYP
• Larger N size for LEAs
• Reduced safe harbor threshold
• ELL
• At least three years for academic proficiency
• Capacity to develop native language assessments
• Students with Disabilities
• IEP team evaluation rather than being tied to 1
  2 definition

32
NSBA Issues Not Addressed

• Participation rate flexibility when excess number
  of students make AYP
• Retesting students for AYP
• Sanctions
• Students in multiple groups
• Targeting choice/SES sanctions
• SES oversight
• Testing/Accountability for non-public schools
• Funding triggers

33
Political Issues To Be Resolved

• Equalization/Comparability
• Multiple measures of academic achievement beyond
  the single test
• Progress measures for ELLs and students with
  disabilities
• 2014 target date for 100 proficiency

34
Political Issues To Be Resolved

• Data collection and reporting requirements
• Supplemental educational services providers
• Funding
• Graduation rates (students with
  disabilities/alternative high school programs)

35
Contact Information

• Reginald Felton
• Director, Federal Relations
• 703-838-6782
• rfelton_at_nsba.org
• www.nsba.org/advocacy

Excellence and Equity in Public Education through
School Board Leadership