No Child Left Behind and Beyond: The Lay of the Federal Policy Land & Finding the MIDDLE GROUND

1. No Child Left Behind and Beyond: The Lay of the Federal Policy Land & Finding the MIDDLE GROUND EPLC Annual Conference March 14, 2008 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

2. Arnold F. Fege, Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy Public Education Network; and President, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK) afege@publiceducation.org Also, sign up PEN’s Weekly NewsBlast At www.PublicEducation.org

3. PEN’s Members • 80 domestic members in 34 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico • 17 of the top 25 cities are represented • All in high poverty school districts with primary focus of community engagement and school reform

6. Lay of the Federal Land • The Big Ticket Items for 2008 • Budget and Appropriations • Reauthorization of NCLB • Higher Education Act • High School Reform • Slide From NCLB to Competiveness • Elections, Elections, Elections • Where is EDUCATION in Campaign 2008?????

7. Public Education Environment Economic Security Health Defense Democracy

8. Markets Create Wealth and Poverty:Purposeful Public Policy Creates a Strong Middle Class

9. . FEDERAL FUNDING AND INCOME/OPPORTUNITY REDISTRIBUTION Federal 2009 Budget

12. What Are the Major Domestic Discretionary Programs? • The largest domestic discretionary programs • (in order of size) are: • education, • highways and other ground transportation, • housing assistance, • biomedical research, • federal law enforcement, • public health services, • air traffic and related transportation, and • space flight

16. Reversing the Harmful Decline Federal Government's Commitment to Education Investment Percent Change in Discretionary Budget Authority From Previous Fiscal Year 20.00% 18.2% 15.00% 10.00% 6.4% 5.3% 4.8% 5.00% 2.7% 1.6% 0.00% -1.1% -5.00% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* * Conference Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill HR 3043 Source: U.S. Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget Rounded to nearest tenth of a percent

17. NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDFUNDING • When compared to aggregate K-12 funding (@ $500 billion /yr), the “historic” increases in federal funding brought about since NCLB enactment amount to: • Title I funding-an increase of 1% in K-12. • NCLB programs-an increase of 1.1% in K-12. • K-12 programs-an increase of 2% in aggregate K-12 funding

18. “Historic” Increases in Federal Appropriations? Estimated Impact of NCLB on Aggregated K-12 Spending • Change in aggregate K-12 funding as a result of 1st year bump to NCLB=+ $5 B or 1.1% increase in overall K-12 funding • Each additional $1 Billion federal increase = .22% increase in overall K-12 funding: = ¼ of 1%! • Federal appropriations in K-12 as % of aggregate expenditures: 2000-2001: 7.0% (Before NCLB) 2001-2005: 7.9% (After NCLB) • The net change from increased federal funding on K-12 education between FY 2001 and 2006 equals an increase of nearly $8 billion. That is an increase in federal approps of about 30% • But that $8 billion equals an increase in total K-12 funding of about 1.6%!

19. NCLB ReauthorizationA Law in Limbo: The Perfect Storm and the Negative Coalition:Developing a new bill that receives the majority vote of the committees, conference, and approval of White House

20. PEN NCLB Public Hearings • EPLC Partner • Hear about local capacity to implement the law • Educate and mobilize the public regarding public education • Create a record of the public’s opinion of NCLB

21. No Child Left Behind is … • NCLB Law is over 1,000 Pages • Over 1,500 pages of regulations & 10,000 pages of guidance • Comprises 10 Titles, over 40 programs • Affects every public school district in the country • Requires Every Child to Score Proficient by the School Year 2013-2014.

22. NCLB: The Good • Provided a platform for national discussion of issues of equity and quality • NCLB articulated the problem, sharpens the focus on the achievement gap. • Laudatory goals of holding schools accountable for performance • Riveted national attention on low performing schools and strategies for improvement • Began a system of data-based collection and improvement

23. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND • “Reaching agreement on NCLB is like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle the size of three football fields. We have the margins assembled, but not the center.” Alice Cain, Majority House Education & Labor Committee Education Counsel, January 15, 2008 • “The law fails to supply the essential resources that schools desperately need. We can’t achieve progress for all students on the cheap. Struggling schools can only do so much on a tin-cup budget” Senate HELP Committee chair, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), January 17, 2008 • “If its {NCLB} not reauthorized, then I have instructed our secretary to move forward on some reforms that she can move through the administrative process.” President George W. Bush, January 8, 2008 • “No Child Left Behind may be the most negative brand in America.” House Education & Labor Committee chair, Representative George Miller (D-CA), January 7, 2008 • “NCLB is 99.9 percent pure.” US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings • “Some have described reauthorization as creating a bill that has the support of the White House and the NEA.” Marc Egan, Director of Governmental Relations, National School Boards Association, December 17, 2007

24. 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

25. The Lay of the NCLB Legislative Land • NCLB expired September 30, 2007, but automatically extended • US House Education and Labor Committee & HELP Committee have held over 40 hearings in 2006 & 2007 • When will reauthorization be completed: 2008? 2009? • Miller/Kennedy say they want bill in 2008 • Others say not possible: wait until 2009

26. NCLB UNDER ATTACK

27. Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education

28. Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education

29. States whose Representative or Senator have sponsored a bill in the U.S. Congress to amend NCLB Data from NEA, January 2006

30. Status of Reauthorization: The House • Key Chairs: Rep. George Miller (D-CA) & Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) • Key Committee: Education and Labor Committee • Congress Wanted to Pass NCLB in 2007, But Could Not Find Votes • Committee released “discussion drafts in August-September, 2007 • Received over 1500 comments • First “real” hearing was September 10, 2007: 44 witnesses

31. Status of Reauthorization: The Senate • HELP staff are busily preparing a draft bill and say they will introduce in March/April 2008 • HELP was behind House/now ahead of House in bill drafting • Focus on: • Growth models/multiple measures • Community/parent involvement • State/local flexibility • Incentives • Teacher quality • Differentiated sanctions

32. Reauthorization Options…………THERE WILL BE CHANGES!! • Abandon the law • Completely restructure the law • Make minimal changes to the law (USED, BRT, Chamber of Commerce, Education Trust) • Keep the law, but reduce federal mandates and oversight • Keep the law, but strengthen it with greater federal mandates

33. NCLB Re-Authorization Issues • One size does not fit all—not enough local flexibility • Changing AYP proficiency measure* • Growth model* • Multiple measures/Will they weaken accountability?* • Increased funding • Adding middle School and high school reform initiatives* • Strengthening community and parent engagement • Teacher performance pay

34. NCLB Re-Authorization Issues • Requiring ELL Children to take grade level tests when they do not speak English* • IDEA and NCLB: which takes precedence • Law is too punitive/beats up on schools, rather than helps them* • School districts don’t enforce parental involvement provisions • Reducing punitive measures/increasing incentives* • National testing and standards??* • Transfer and tutoring provisions don’t work

35. No Child Left Behind How do we Approach Reauthorization? • In choosing a vehicle for K-12 reform, which vehicle has been chosen to get us where we need to go? and… • Will it get us there? and… • What does the policy look like that will assure a quality public education for all children

36. Reauthorizing ESEA Strategy and Tactics • All the controversy has promoted change • It’s going into the second year of the process • Some powerful senators don’t want to do it until 2009 • Kennedy tenacity probably will produce a bill in 2008 • Doubtful a NCLB agreement can be reached in 2008 • Committees and members seeking input from the grassroots • We need to establish broad themes, but the devil is in the details • NCLB is a start, but we need to get beyond NCLB. There has to be far more at the table • It’s the specifics that are holding up reauthorization • Let’s drive specifics from the grassroots as the process unfolds • Themes: equity, fairness, global competiviness, whole child, individualized instruction, partnerships • Don’t let NCLB drive agenda • Determine federal interest vs. state and local roles: this is huge • Relationship between USED and state/locals needs polishing

37. NARROWING OF CURRICULUM

38. NARROWING OF CURRICULUM • Low performing districts are increasing the time devoted to reading (3 hours per week) and math (1 ½ hours per week) • Social studies & science cut by 1 ½ hours each; art and music and physical education by an hour each & recess by another hour Study of 349 school districts by the Center for Education Policy, 2007

39. MULTIPLE MEASURES THAT ASSURE COMPREHENSIVE EQUITY • Basic Academic Skills • Critical thinking and problem solving • Social skills and work ethic • Readiness for citizenship and responsibility • Foundation for life long physical health • Foundation for life long emotional health • Appreciation for the arts and literature • Preparation for skilled work for those not going on to college From Campaign for Educational Equity, 2007

40. . PROFICIENCY & DIFFERENTIATED SCHOOL INDENTIFICATION

41. NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDPROFICIENCY California AYP Projections: Single-Year Percent of Schools Below Target 98% 99% 97% 93% 87% 83% 76% 67% 65% 62% 50% 48% 45% Start Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 11 Yr 12

42. Minnesota AYP Failure Rate THE NCSL TASK FORCE ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND % of Elementary Schools No Improvement Scenario Modest Improvement Scenario High Improvement Scenario

43. NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Or- Portrait of a Non-Performing School?

44. NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Portrait of a Non-Performing School?

45. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Adequate Yearly Progress: The Centerpiece of NCLB • AYP gives schools 40 ways to fail and only one way to pass. (Must meet all conditions to pass, and one deficient condition means failure.) • State accountability systems are used to diagnose problems and focus resources, AYP is designed to identify failure and to punish • AYP does not account for significant academic improvement of students who fall short of absolute grade level proficiency. (Growth)

46. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND PROFICIENCY RATES Proficiency Projection Studies: AYP Failure Rates Projected for 2014 • Connecticut: 93% • Massachusetts: 74% • Louisiana: 75% • Pennsylvania: 77% • Florida: 90% • Illinois: 96% • Indiana: 94%

47. . SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (SES) & PARENTAL CHOICE

48. SES AND PARENTAL CHOICE • Less than 2% of eligible parents take advantage (Center for Education Policy, 2007) • Have SES kick in first followed by choice • For SES, assurance of quality staff, programs, and research-based outcomes

49. Thank You For additional information contact: Arnold F. Fege, Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy Public Education Network 601 13th Street, NW Suite 710S Washington, DC 20005 202-628-7460 email: afege@publiceducation.org