Implementing No Child Left Behind in Pennsylvania

1. Implementing No Child Left Behind in Pennsylvania • EPFP 2004 class project: NCLB Team Claudia Balach Kera Gault Daily Ray Horn Barry Nathan Karen Evans Stout Gary Thomas Lee Williams

2. Project Task To recommend programs and policies concerning the implementation of NCLB that will promote the interests of students through implementation flexibility, educational innovation, and fiscal equity.

3. Presentation Format • Background of NCLB • Identified weaknesses in NCLB • Fiscal issues • Non-fiscal programs & policies • Identification of NCLB problem areas • Legislative Actions by other States • Suggested legislative actions

4. 1893 - The Committee of Ten 1918 - The Cardinal Principles 1911-present - The scientific management of schools 1911-present - Progressive education 1965 - ESEA 1967 - NAEP 1983 - A Nation at Risk 1991 - America 2000 1994-present - Beginning of the standards wars 1994 - Goals 2000 1999 - Education Accountability Act 2001 - NCLB; the reauthorization of ESEA Background on Standards Movement

5. The Current Situation • Originally a bi-partisan effort that promoted one type of standards and accountability • Some issues in the current debate over NCLB: • Lack of implementation flexibility • State’s Constitutional right to govern education • Inclusion of special education students • Inadequate funding for implementation • Use of a standardized test to determine accountability

6. Weaknesses of NCLB • Costs associated with yearly testing of every child • Reliability and validity of a single high-stakes test • Testing children with identified disabilities • AYP of children whose first language is not English • Sacrifice of curriculum not tested; teaching methods not aligned with bubble-in testing

7. Fiscal Issues related to NCLB

8. Non-Fiscal Considerations • Support at federal, state, and local levels • Leadership conferences and symposia • Extensive resource material • Leadership approaches • Principal as instructional leader • Principal as change agent • Lens through which NCLB is viewed

9. Legislative Responses to NCLB – “Opting-out” These states that considered, or are considering, bills or resolutions to “opt out” of NCLB: Arizona Hawaii (2003 House Resolution – passed) Minnesota New Mexico Utah Wyoming

10. Legislative Responses to NCLB – Holding back state funding These states are considering bills that would prohibit the state from spending state funds to comply or state that they will comply only in areas fully funded by the federal government: Maine New Hampshire (2003 – failed) Utah Vermont (2003 – passed)

11. Legislative Responses to NCLB – Waiver/flexibility requests These states are considering resolutions or memorial requesting Congress and/or the President to provide waivers or other means of flexibility and/or additional money to cover its mandates: Alaska Indiana Oklahoma Virginia Arizona Iowa Tennessee Washington Connecticut Minnesota Utah Wyoming New Mexico Idaho Vermont

12. Legislative Responses to NCLB – Requests for cost analysis These states are doing, or have done, studies to determine the costs associated with NCLB: Connecticut Vermont Hawaii North Dakota Indiana Ohio Maine Utah Minnesota New Hampshire

13. Legislative Recommendations 1. Send a clear message to the federal government that Pennsylvania will expect exemptions from NCLB without the critical fiscal support necessary to make it work. 2. Request revised language in NCLB to ensure: • Alternative guidelines for children with disabilities • Alternative guidelines for English Language Learners (ESL students) 3. Provide fiscal support to PDE to ensure: • State assessments are aligned with State Standards • All teachers have sufficient training in the alignment of standards, curriculum, and assessments