A View from AASA
Reauthorizing the
Elementary & Secondary
Education Act:
Getting it Right this time
Bruce Hunter
VASS Legislative Conference
October 18, 2007
ESEA Reauthorization – It’s Moving
• House Miller/McKeon discussion draft issued August 30 –
hearing on it September 10
• Miller/McKeon planning mark up end of October –
frustration among R’s and D freshmen cloud picture.
• Senate Kennedy/Enzi draft released Oct. 16 – no Title I
though – Mark up scheduled for Oct 31
• Kennedy/Enzi method of development is controversial
with other Senators, so prospects are cloudy
• If ESEA is not reauthorized in 2007, it may not be
reauthorized until a new President is inaugurated in2009.
• AASA is a key player in intensive bipartisan conversations
with crucial staff in both houses
ESEA Reauthorization – It’s Moving
Trouble In Paradise!
Roll Call -Talks Stall on No Child Left Behind
October 11, 2007, By Steven T. Dennis, Roll Call Staff
• “Efforts to reach a bipartisan deal on revamped No Child Left Behind
legislation have broken down, with Republicans charging that House
Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA) has refused to
compromise.”
• “Republicans said Wednesday that Miller has shown little to no
willingness to accommodate their concerns about an erosion of
accountability measures and a host of other issues with the bill and
say that unless Miller shows new flexibility, Republicans will vote en
masse to kill it. “
• “We’re still better off with current law,” said Education and Labor
ranking member Howard McKeon (R-CA).”
ESEA Reauthorization – It’s Moving
Trouble in Paradise!
CQ TODAY, Oct. 12, 2007 7:15 p.m.
Democrats Divided on "No Child" Reauthorization, By Michael
Sandler, CQ Staff
•
•
•
•
•
California Democrat George Miller has clashed publicly with Republicans and the
White House in recent weeks over his vision for renewing a landmark 2002 education
law.
But an equally precarious fight is shaping up within his own caucus.
Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, is hearing negative
feedback behind the scenes from several Democrats. They are troubled by the
discussion draft he circulated in late August that will probably serve as the basis for
the legislation.
Some of the strongest comments have come from Albert R. Wynn, D-Md., who sent
Miller a letter expressing "strong concerns regarding the direction we appear to be
heading in reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act." Wynn outlined four areas in
the draft that did not meet with his approval, including testing requirements that have
become the main area of disagreement over the law.
"If the bill ultimately presented to the House does not reflect significant changes . . . I
will have difficulty supporting its passage," Wynn said in the letter.
ESEA Reauthorization – It’s Moving
Trouble in Paradise!
One key Republican staffer’s reaction to the
Kennedy/Enzi draft
• Well, here’s the first batch of language from Kennedy-Enzi. It is not
the product of a bipartisan process, but it is their first draft of the
minor stuff. Y’all should pay close attention to high schools and
homeless and SDFS.
• New mantra of this reauthorization: More Federal control. More
Federal control. More federal control. No ETA at all on the stuff that
matters, 1111 and 1116. Maybe next week, but wouldn’t hold my
breath. Kennedy staff is now saying October 31 markup, but I
wouldn’t put down any of my own money on that. If it happens that
soon, it won’t be bipartisan and it won’t get out of committee.
• There’s just no way we can get a bill done this congress at this
point. But please look through this ____ and send me (and as many
others as you can) your outrage about all of the federalization of
decision making and the massive expansion of obligations and
mandates under these proposals. It’s depressing.
Congressional Positioning
• Chairman Miller’s Nonnegotiable List
– 100%
– 2013-14
– Disaggregation
– Penalties for continued low test
scores
Miller/McKeon Discussion Draft
• The conceptual core of NCLB remains
– 100%, 2013-14, testing every student every year,
AYP, matrix for evaluation
• The discussion draft addresses many complaints
– Growth model, multiple measures, differentiated
consequences, greater focus on assistance
• There are many new concepts and mandates
– More paperwork
Carry Over from NCLB to the
Discussion Draft
• The discussion draft continued the following
provisions found in NCLB:
• The goal of 100% proficiency by the 2013-14
school year
• The requirement to test at least 95% of the
students in grades 3-8 every year in reading and
math and then once again in high school on
statewide tests based on state standards.
Carry Over from NCLB to the
Discussion Draft
• The requirement that the tests be built
around the concept of grade level.
• The requirement to set a high performance
standard called proficiency for grades 3-8
and 10 as the target for all students.
• The requirement to disaggregate findings
for 8 groups of students and report the
results to parents and the community.
Carry Over from NCLB to the
Discussion Draft
• Testing English language learners on content in
English after one school year.
• The requirement to compute Adequate Yearly
Progress, AYP, based on Annual Measurable
Objectives that lead all students and all groups
of students to 100 percent proficiency by the
2013-14 school year.
• Evaluation of schools and school districts using
a 36 cell matrix of all groups of students where
failure to hit annual measurable objectives for
any group of students was judged to be failure.
Carry Over from NCLB to the
Discussion Draft
• Penalties are prescribed for schools that fail to
hit annual measurable objectives.
– The penalties levied, in order of progression, include:
• Permitting students in a school that missed AYP to move to
another school of their choice in the district.
• Permitting students to purchase after school tutoring from a
list of tutors supplied by the state
• Reopening the school as a charter school
• Hiring an outside group to run the school, and
• Reconstituting (redesigning) or closing the school
Departures from NCLB in the
Discussion Draft
•
Permitting the states to measure growth in proficiency by looking at scores
of cohorts from year to year. The change in the percentage of students
scoring proficient from year to year is determined to be the value added.
– States are restricted to the definition of growth used by the U.S. Department of
Education under the current regulations. This restrictive definition does not fit the
definition of growth measures used by many psychometricians because it is
based on scores of tests aimed at grade level for groups and not individual
scores based on current achievement level.
•
Permitting states to use multiple measures of achievement beyond the
annual statewide tests. The discussion draft limits options to for both
elementary and secondary schools. The specified options are another
statewide test in elementary schools and graduation rates, rates of college
readiness tests like AP and IB, rates of enrollment in accredited
postsecondary institutions, and scores on a statewide formative
assessment. If the state elects to measure growth and additional factor can
be growth from below basic to basic; basic to proficient; and proficient to
advanced. The multiple measures are allowed to be used to prevent a
school from being identified.
Departures from NCLB in the
Discussion Draft
• Codifying the regulations for assessment of special education
students by including the one percent and two percent rules to
testing special education students and the restriction on the out of
level assessments to within the one percent cap. This changes the
language of the statute but not practices because the regulations
specified practices.
• Testing any group of ELL students who comprise at least 10 percent
of all ELL students in the state in their native language.
• Creating two tiers for schools missing AYP: High Priority and Priority.
High Priority schools have a graduation rate of 60% or less; less
than ½ of students scoring proficient; less than ½ in any
disaggregated group are proficient if the state uses a growth model.
Sanctions are limited to High Priority schools.
• Requiring states to use a standard calculation of graduation rates, to
disaggregate the rates and to use the rates for AYP in a very specific
way.
Departures from NCLB in the
Discussion Draft
• Requiring states to vertically align
standards, which would make measuring
growth more accurate.
• Adding the goals of college and work
place readiness to the state standards.
• Changing the standard for identification for
missing any cell to missing the same cell
two years in a row.
Departures from NCLB in the
Discussion Draft
• Expanding the improvement timeline and
giving schools a second year to improve
before penalties kick in.
• Providing greater oversight of firms and
groups offering tutorial services.
Controversial Changes and
New Provisions
• NEA and AFT have very serious problems
with two new initiatives in the discussion
draft.
– Calculating comparability by comparing the
average teacher salary in high- poverty
schools to the average salary in low-poverty
schools.
– Providing grants for performance pay in Title II
that at all relate to student performance.
Controversial Changes and
New Provisions
• AASA also has serious concerns with new
provisions of the discussion draft including:
– Codifying the regulations regarding assessment of
special education students heightens the conflict
between IDEA and Title I of ESEA regarding student
assessment because of IDEA’s emphasis on
individuals and NCLB’s emphasis on groups.
– The calculation of graduation rates fails to recognize
that special education services are permitted until age
21. The House is working of a fix for that
contradiction that conceptually seems to work but the
proof will be in the text of the chairman’s mark.
Controversial Changes and
New Provisions
– The graduation calculation options will
overstate drop out rates by not including
students in alternative schools and students
who get a diploma through adult education.
– The increased number of studies, plans,
reports and staffing mandates. AASA counted
46 new requirements in the discussion draft
with no additional resources.
Controversial Changes and
New Provisions
– The proposed expansion of services for
homeless students under the McKinney –
Vento Homeless Act alone adds 12 new
requirements.
• Extends school of origin transportation requirement
through high school graduation
• Adds a new IDEA like dispute resolution process
Proposed:
Highly Qualified Teachers
• Each local educational agency receiving
assistance under this part shall ensure that all
teachers hired and teaching in a program supported
with funds under this part are highly qualified
• LOCAL PLAN.—As part of the plan described in
section 1112, each local educational agency
receiving assistance under this part shall develop
a plan to ensure its compliance with the
requirement that all teachers teaching within the
school district served by the local educational
agency are highly qualified.
Proposed:
Highly Qualified Teachers
• HOUSSE provisions eliminated
– Discussion of restoring for special education
teachers
– But no recognition of
• Rural issues
• Math/Science/World Language teacher shortages
Proposed Changes in Penalties
• Differentiated Consequences
– High Priority
• More than ½ students not proficient, Grad rate of 60% or less
– Priority
• Missed AYP
• Third year before penalties kick in
– Caused by same group missing AYP two years in a row
• Address High Priority schools first
• Redesign rather than reconstitution
• ‘‘(5) SUPERVISION BY SUPERINTENDENT.—The
superintendent or chief executive of the local educational
agency shall directly supervise the redesign of each
school being redesigned under this subsection.”
Proposed New Reports, Plans,
Studies and Staffing Mandates
•
•
•
14 new reports, studies, plans and staffing
mandates required in Title I of the
discussion draft
32 new reports, studies, plans and staffing
mandates required in Titles II-XI of the
discussion Draft
The Grand Champion of New Mandates is
the Stuart McKinney Education for
Homeless Children and Youth Act with 12
new requirements
Proposed Computing AYP –
A High School Example
English
95%
Math
All Students
AMO
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian
White
LEP
Poverty
IEP
AMO
95%
H.S. Grad Rate
AMO to 100%
compensatory
up to 25%
AP/IB/%
% increase
AASA Executive Committee
Positioning AASA 10-06-07
AASA views ESEA as an important instrument to promote social justice through its
focus on equal educational opportunities for low income and minority students.
Unfortunately the policies and practices contained in the Miller/McKeon
discussion draft are not sufficient to improve achievement among low income
and minority students.
AASA is completely dismayed by the top down, command and control structure
governing decisions about teaching and learning. The many complex decisions
related to educating individual children are too far removed from Washington
and too tempered by family and neighborhood conditions to control through
federal policy. Further there is little evidence that rigid, prescriptive federal
policy improves achievement. The down side of a top down, command and
control structure also includes lost opportunities for improved achievement
through individualized policies and practices for specific students that are
forbidden by a rigid, one size fits all law.
Therefore AASA will withhold support for the discussion draft until sufficient
changes, additions and deletions have been made to produce the desired
results.
AASA Executive Committee
Positioning AASA 10-06-07
•
Adding both a clear promise to fully fund Title I of ESEA and Part
B of IDEA and a clear path to full funding for Title I and IDEA.
Adding real, valid, reliable and standards based measures that
accurately measure each student's actual starting point and
growth over time. The value added model in the discussion draft
is a slight improvement on the once a year snap shot tests, but is
too weak to provide the rich diagnostic data on each individual
student needed to bring all students to proficiency.
Settling the continuing conflict between IDEA and Title I of ESEA
in favor of the individualized instruction and assessment required
by IDEA in the following ways:
•
•
–
–
Eliminate the arbitrary caps (1% and 2%) on student assessment and
add developmentally appropriate measures and assessments called
for in the student’s IEP;
Include the IDEA mandate for services to high school graduation or
age 21 (up to 26 in some states) in the calculation of graduation
rates.
AASA Executive Committee
Positioning AASA 10-06-07
•
•
•
Permitting states to determine appropriate measures
and assessments for English language learners based
on state approves tests and the professional judgment
of teachers and administrators.
Permitting local school districts to implement formative
and adaptive assessments that provide instant
feedback to students, teachers, administrators and
parents to guide individual instructional decisions, and
include the local measures in the accountability
system.
Eliminating all plans, reports, audits and staffing
mandates that are not fully funded and not critical to
improved achievement for low income students.
AASA Executive Committee
Positioning AASA 10-06-07
• Permitting states greater latitude in selecting measures
of achievement and program strength beyond the limited
multiple measures options in the Miller/McKeon
discussion draft.
• Adding a requirement for complete and immediate
transparency for all state and federal plans, requests,
guidance, policy letters and responses to state requests,
and plans; eliminate sweetheart deals with some states
and school districts; and eliminate violations of the
Department of Education Organization Act through better
and more regular Congressional oversight.
• Sharpening the targeting of funds to school districts and
schools where poverty is concentrated based on the
percentage of such students.
AASA Executive Committee
Positioning AASA 10-06-07
• Adding more assistance and support for schools and school districts
that miss Annual Measurable Objectives, AMOs, rather than
punishments that do not improve student outcomes.
• Eliminating the comparability requirement for equal per pupil
spending on teachers. The comparability calculation mistakenly
equates salary with teacher quality. Because this is a new
calculation, the cost spent gathering and analyzing data will be
massive. This will generate a lot of new paperwork with no benefit to
student achievement because there is little connection between
teacher salary and student achievement.
• Either eliminating all teacher, administrator and paraprofessional
credentialing requirements or restoring the HOUSSE provisions in
current law. Rural school districts have a particularly difficult time
attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers and nearly all
school districts have difficulty finding teachers in some areas,
particularly special education, math, science and world languages.
AASA Executive Committee
Proposed Additions- Region 5
• Eliminating the proposed extension of school of origin to
high school graduation, and the proposed dispute
resolution procedure.
• Clarifying the high school graduation rate calculation to
include:
– special education students up to age 21 based on their transition
plan developed as part of their IEP at age 16,
– students in alternative high schools who graduate from high
school even though it may take them longer,
– students who achieve a high school diploma through an adult
education class, and
– students who have serious health problems or other issues that
remove them from school for extended periods.
Thank YouAny questions?