NCLB Reauthorization and New Title I Rules Keynote MASFPS November, 2008

1. Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965- 3652 www.bruman.com lmanasevit@bruman.com NCLB Reauthorization and New Title I RulesKeynoteMASFPSNovember, 2008

2. 110th Congress: Second Session: ESEA Reauthorization

3. ESEA Background • President Johnson’s legacy: The War on Poverty, announced on January 8, 1964. • Original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Johnson in 1965, • ESEA in 1965 = 32 pages • NCLB of 2001 = 670 pages.

4. ESEA Background • 2001 was a revolutionary change • (Section 1111) Standards, Assessments and AYP; • (Section 1116) School Improvement, choice, SES, corrective action and alternative governance; • Highly Qualified Teachers • Law designed to deliver funding for a small program became a vehicle for system-wide mandated changes in education.

5. ESEA Background • 2001 saw unique political alliances: • Republican leadership in Congress set aside concerns for an expanded federal role in education to support Presidents Bush soon after 9/11; • Democratic leadership set aside concerns over testing and accountability to follow the leadership of Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative George Miller (D-CA); • That unique moment in time has passed.

6. --George Miller (D-CA), one of the original architects of NCLB, in a July 2007 speech on NCLB reauthorization “The American people have a very strong sense that NCLB is not fair. That it is not flexible. And that it is not funded. And they are not wrong.”

7. --Hon. Margaret M. Spellings, Press Conference August, 2006 “I talk about No Child Left Behind like Ivory Soap: It’s 99.9 percent pure or something. There’s not much needed in the way of change.”

8. --Hon. Margaret M. Spellings, July, 2007 to National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals “I think it can be improved.”

9. --Eugene Hickok, former USDE Deputy Secretary, concerning the expanded role of the federal government under NCLB, in a June, 2007 interview. “I had these second thoughts in the back of my mind the whole time. I believe it was a necessary step at the time, but now that it has been in place for a while, it’s important to step back and see if there are other ways to solve the problem.”

10. Congress House education committee’s 435-page “discussion draft”

11. and you thought NCLB was complicated . . . Involved an entire reorganization of assessment and consequences Removed From Committee Website Assessment and Accountability

12. --Hon. Margaret Spellings, US Secretary of Education, reacting to a lack of transparency in the Miller-McKeon NCLB reauthorization proposal, September, 2007 “We could easily lose simple transparency about whether schools are teaching students to read and do math on grade level, and obscure what’s actually going on in schools.”

13. Predictions on Timing??

14. Factors Influencing Reauthorization • Freshmen Democrats • Conservative Republicans • Senate bill • Upcoming Presidential election • New Congress

15. Presidential ElectionNovember, 2008

16. Sen. Barack Obama(Democratic Platform) 18 B. plan – • Support for Teachers Who Take on New Responsibility – Merit Pay - Consultation • Growth Models • Better Assessments – Move from Standardized Tests • Silent on National Standards • Promote Charters with More $ and More Accountability

17. Sen. John McCain • No National Standards • Expanded Transfer Options, Including Private and Virtual Schools • Growth Models • More Rigorous Accountability • Teacher Performance Pay • Platform Block Grants

18. Choice, SES, Corrective Action, and Restructuring Proposed FinalRegulations and Department of Education Pilot Programs

19. Accountability Guidance • LEA and School Improvement • Revised July 21, 2006 (replaces Jan 7, 2004) • www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ schoolimprovementguid.pdf

20. Accountability Guidance • Choice • February 6, 2004 (“draft”) • www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ schoolchoiceguid.pdf • Supplemental Educational Services • June 2005 • www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ suppsvcsguid.pdf

21. PROPOSED FINAL REGULATIONS! • http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2008-2/042308a.html • Announced in Federal Register April 23, 2008 • Comments submitted by June 23, 2008 • Secretary Spellings – underwhelmed by comments • Final October 27, 2008

22. School Improvement 22

23. SI YEAR 1:School Choice

24. Public School Choice Another public school in LEA not identified for school improvement and not “persistently dangerous”

25. Notice and Timing • Not later than first day of school year following assessments • If not, LEA make choice available “as quickly as possible” • In no case wait until next school year • Immediately or second semester • PR Final: At least 14 calendar days before start of school year

26. SI YEAR 2:Supplemental Educational Services

27. Supplemental Educational Services (“SES”) • Eligible enrolled students receive tutoring or other extra educational services from an SEA-approved and parent-selected provider

28. Timing Issues • At beginning of SY following assessments • May establish deadline for parents • Give sufficient time (not 2 weeks)

29. PR Final:SES Notice Must: • Include explanation of benefits of SES • Be clear and concise • Be clearly distinguishable from other information sent to parents on school improvement – Need not be separate

30. PR final: More info to parents: • LEA must prominently display on website: • For the 2007-08 year and beyond, the number of students: • eligible for choice • participating in choice • Eligible for SES • Participating in SES

31. PR FINAL: More info to parents: • For current SY, list of SES providers approved by SEA and location of services • Ability to serve LEP and SWDs • For current SY, list schools eligible to receive students through choice

32. Who is “eligible”? • Low income student • Among eligible, prioritize lowest achieving – Academic measure • Do not assume limited resources before notifying parents – • Notify all eligible families • Only after getting parent response, consider priority

33. Who may be a provider? • Any for-profit or nonprofit entities (including religiously-affiliated) meeting state criteria • LEA • Not ID for improvement (unless waived) • Individual (if non-profit or for-profit corp)

34. Distance learning providers FBOs not required to give up religious character Need not remove religious icons Cannot discriminate against recipients

35. What are State responsibilities? • Send annual notice to potential providers • Develop list • Establish criteria • Record of effectiveness • Fiscally sound • Cannot require “highly qualified” staff • Monitor!!

36. PR FINAL: SEA approval process: • Entity must give evidence that instruction aligned with standards. • Consider whether entity removed from other states’ provider lists • Parent recommendations or survey results • Evaluate whether instructional program has improved student achievement

37. State Monitoring of Providers • Ensure, through approval and monitoring, high-quality services delivered • Develop and implement standards and techniques • Publicly report stands, tech., & findings • If no improvement after 2 yrs, remove

38. PR FINAL: SEAs monitoring Providers: • Review evidence that instructional program was: • Consistent with instruction provided by LEA and SEA • Addresses students’ individual needs • Contributed to increasing proficiency • Aligned with state standards • Parent recommendations, surveys

39. State Monitoring of LEAs • “Should be part of regular Title I monitoring” • Also, “consider other tools” to monitor throughout year • LEA submit to SEA: • parental notification letters • Updates during year on # of eligible students, # signed up, # attending, amount of $ spent

40. LEAs CANNOT: • Establish own provider list • Set program design criteria • ONLY – “administrative or operational rules” that are imposed on all contractors • Background checks, liability insurance • But see Philadelphia Rule • 80 % hours for 90% students by Spring • ED – OK

41. Funds for Choice Transportation and SES • Amount equal to 20% of LEA allocation (unless lesser amount needed) • To pay choice transportation • To satisfy all requests for SES services • Both

42. If no SES, then 20% on choice • If no choice, then 20% on SES • If both, then minimum of 5% for choice, 5% for supp services, and 10% for either

43. Choice:Transportation Costing Methodology • Calculate cost per mile Total Transportation Costs Pupil Miles Transported • Calculate Additional Pupil Miles Transported for Choice Y • X times Y Cost of Choice Transportation X

44. Admin/ SES Transportation • 20% cannot include administration (for choice or SES) or SES transportation • Allowable Title I, but not in 20%

45. PR FINAL: “Parent Outreach” • Allow limited amount of funds for “parent outreach” to count toward 20% • Capped at 0.2% of LEA Part A grant • May spend more for outreach, but only 0.2% counts toward 20% • EX – $1 million LEA grant; • 20% = $200,000 • 0.2% = $2,000 can count toward $200,000

46. Off the top of LEA allocation From individual school allocations Both If use Title I Funds, from where?

47. BUT. . . • For schools in corrective action and restructuring, cannot reduce Title I allocation by more than 15%.

48. Two methods: • Prior Year: Set floor at 85% of prior year • Current Year, Run Twice: • “Pre-20% reservation” run (before 20% but after other reservations) • For CA and restructured schools, calculate 85% of pre-reservation amount

49. Creates an exception Doesn’t it violate the “ranking and serving” rules?

50. Use 20% “unless a lesser amount is needed”How do you know if less is needed?