No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Update

1. New Jersey Principals and Supervisors AssociationLegislative ConferenceTrenton, New Jersey No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Update 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 < 60% graduation rate • Overall 50% not proficient or fails growth test • Two or more groups < 50% proficient • State alternative for designation of high priority • Limit: Lesser of 10% or 50 of an LEA’s 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 LEA’s 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@nsba.org www.nsba.org/advocacy Excellence and Equity in Public Education through School Board Leadership