ACCOUNTABILITY

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Single Accountability Designation for Adequate Yearly Progress

States are required to conduct and report publicly on several different measurements of accountability under NCLB and other federal programs.

Currently, state education agencies (SEAs) are required to measure and designate:

·         Schools and districts In Need of Improvement for failing to make AYP under Title I

·         Schools and districts that do not meet requirements for highly qualified teachers under Title I and Title II(a)

·        Districts that do not meet the state’s AMAO (Annual Measurable Achievement Objective) under Title III

·         Districts in Need of Assistance or Intervention under IDEA

·         Permit states to use Title I criteria alone, including the assessments of student subgroups, to determine when a school or district is “in need of improvement”

Ø      If a school district achieves Adequate Yearly Progress using Title I criteria for all its subgroups in all subjects—mathematics, English language arts and a third, state selected academic indicator (e.g. science or student attendance rate)—and meets the high school graduation rate, the district should not be sanctioned for its performance on any other measure under any other NCLB title or IDEA.

Ø      Accountability measures under NCLB Title III and IDEA should be used only to determine how to meet the additional needs of ELL and LEP students and special education students 

·         Permit schools to report test scores to the public as letter grades that represent bands or ranges of scores rather than as precise numerical scores (e.g. scores ranging from 90.0-100.0 would equal an “A”). Numerical scores would continue to be reported to the SEAs and the U.S. Department of Education.

Using a single set of measures to determine students’ academic performance would promote comprehensive planning, allow for more targeted intervention, and encourage more coordinated use of school and district resources.

Using one accountability measure of academic proficiency for students in English language arts and mathematics would make the system easier for the public to understand and avoid the “list fatigue” that occurs when multiple designations are released over the course of the school year. 

Labeling an entire school in need of improvement and thus triggering school-wide interventions when only one subgroup may be in need of additional assistance is a waste of staff and fiscal resources at the state, district and school levels.

Parents with school age children make decisions about where to live based on the academic performance of students in particular school districts that affect property values and the desirability of communities. Reporting scores as letter grades would create a more equitable opportunity for communities to be selected as desirable places to live.

Growth Models for State Accountability

NCLB requires schools to show increases in the percentage of students reaching proficiency in reading and math toward the goal of having all students performing at their appropriate grade level by 2014. 

States must use a “status model” to measure students’ academic progress. In contrast, a “growth model” measures the scores of the same students over time.  

Recognizing the potential of growth models for state accountability plans under NCLB, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) instituted a growth model pilot project in November 2005 under which it would approve up to 10 proposals. To date, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee have approved projects.

·         States should have the option of using a growth model, a status model, or a combination of both as they develop assessment and reporting systems that can support those options. 

·         Use of a growth model should be permitted as an alternate to or an addition beyond the Safe Harbor provision of NCLB as a means to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress.

·         Growth models should be based on students demonstrating progress toward proficiency in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics for graduation.

The status model does not account for significant progress made by schools and districts with historically low levels of achievement.

The goals of a growth model are to:

Ø         ensure that states, districts, and schools can measure the degree to which students are making progress at a sustained rate so that students will achieve academic proficiency by the time of graduation from high school;

Ø         provide states, districts and schools with information so they can better target resources to the districts, schools, and groups of students within schools that are not on track towards proficiency within an acceptable timeframe and have the most need for remediation assistance;

Ø         ensure that schools and districts in which students may be underperforming but are making appropriate progress towards proficiency are not categorized as poorly performing.

By using both a status model and a growth model, states can better determine which districts and schools need targeted interventions and which can serve as models for moving the most challenged student groups towards proficiency.

Measuring the same group of students from one year to the next indicates how each individual student is performing and progressing academically.

USED should explore conducting a pilot project on “value-added” models for state accountability. A value-added model is a type of growth model that uses a student’s detailed background information and achievement data to predict growth and isolate the primary reason for a student’s academic progress or lack of progress.

Governor Eliot Spitzer has proposed that New York use a growth model by the 2008-09 school year, subject to U.S. Department of Education approval.

Adequate Yearly Progress Methodologies

USED allows states to set an “N” size and use a confidence interval for calculating AYP.

States are permitted to use an index to measure performance so long as the state’s AMO (Annual Measurable Objective) requires all students to be proficient by 2014.

·         Permit states to continue to determine the N size and confidence interval that best balances the dual goals of providing reliable results and holding schools and districts accountable for subgroup performance.

·         Continue to require states to provide sound statistical justification for these choices

·         Permit states to continue to use an index to measure performance

A single N size or confidence interval cannot reflect each state’s varying circumstances. States need to establish different N sizes and confidence intervals to receive reliable results depending on the size of schools and districts, the way in which assessments are constructed, and the percent of students that must be proficient to meet the AMO.

Performance indices continue to be a useful means of allowing for more nuanced accountability determinations than can be achieved by a system that solely measures whether or not students are proficient.

Additional Time for Special Populations to Meet Graduation Requirements

Except in limited circumstances, students who fail to complete high school with a regular diploma in four years are considered to be non-completers for purposes of NCLB accountability.

·         Allow states to give certain categories of students additional time to meet graduation requirements.

Examples are late arriving Limited English Proficient (LEP students, certain students with disabilities, students participating in programs that result in both a high school diploma and technical certification or associate’s degree after five years, and students who enroll in alternative high schools after being unsuccessful in regular high schools.

There are numerous instances when a school should be deemed to have successfully met its responsibility to ensure that a student has graduated from high school even though the student does not graduate within four years of first entry into ninth grade.

In some instances, such as LEP students who first enroll in a US school in grade 9 and have little formal education, it is reasonable to expect that these students may take longer than their peers to graduate.

Similarly, an alternative high school should not be penalized because a student may not have been successful at a prior high school.

In addition, some programs may be designed so that students take more than four years to graduate but upon graduation receive both a high school diploma and an additional certification or degree.

Academic Achievement Goal

LEAs and SEAs are required to ensure that 100% of students meet state learning standards by 2014. 

·         Provide more flexible goals and deadlines for student achievement based on empirical data trends

·         States and LEAs should be deemed in compliance if they have credible plans, are making a good faith effort to implement them and can demonstrate progress. 

States have implemented unique student identifiers, year by year testing programs and high school exit exams. States are now able to collect more detail about regular and special student populations to make sound educational decisions regarding student achievement.

Sanctions

The law permits withholding of federal funds for failure to comply with requirements and/or meet targets/goals. 

·         NCLB should not allow funds to be withheld from districts and schools for academic failure. Districts and schools should be sanctioned only for refusal to cooperate with SEAs in working toward continuous improvement.

It is counterproductive to withhold funds from LEAs and schools for poor performance. Many poor performing schools are also low income or high need.

It is more effective to provide additional funds for technical assistance and other support to help students in these schools become academically proficient.

ASSESSMENTS OF SPECIAL POPULATIONS

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Assessing English Language Learners (ELLs) and Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

NCLB requires states to administer their English Language Arts (ELA) assessment to ELL/LEP students who as of January 3, 2007 have been enrolled in school in the United States, excluding Puerto Rico, for one year or more.

Revise assessment systems and accountability practices for the ELL/LEP population to:

·         Recognize that ELL/LEP students have differing educational needs

·         Identify specific accountability subgroup populations within the ELL/LEP population, e.g. newly-arrived, native-born and students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) and use appropriate assessments for each designed population within the single ELL/LEP subgroup

·         Provide states the flexibility to determine through research at what point in their education ELL/LEP students would be expected to take the ELA assessment

·         Provide incentives to states to implement programs at the elementary and secondary levels that have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing the achievement level of ELL/LEP students

·         Provide fiscal and programmatic incentives to states to implement best practices that utilize the native language of ELL/LEP students as assets rather than liabilities when increasing their English language skills while at the same time promoting multi-lingual skills for English-speaking students 

·         Provide incentives to states to implement programs at the elementary and secondary levels that have been demonstrated to be effective in increasing the achievement level of LEP/ELL students.

·         Provide adequate funding to support services and programs for ELL/LEP students, including: professional development for teachers, teacher training and recruitment, program development and evaluation, student services and support for school staff and parents

·         Allow ELL/LEP students who enter the country at the high school level more than four years to graduate and still be counted as “on time” graduates for accountability purposes.

US census figures and statistics show that ELLs are the fastest growing subgroup of school age population in the country.

However, under NCLB the LEP/ELL population has made little or no academic progress on state assessments. ELL/LEP students have the highest dropout rate for high school students and the lowest graduation rate in the nation.

States need the flexibility to design and implement testing and accountability policies that result in the identification of targeted intervention strategies to improve ELL/LEP students’ academic performance.

Two issues that must be considered when developing a testing policy for ELL/LEP students are that students have not all been in the US the same length of time, and when they enter the school system they arrive with different levels of proficiency in both their native language and English.

The goal must be to provide ELL/LEP students the programs and support they need to enable them to learn English while maintaining and improving their native language skills. Students with multi-language skills will be better equipped to participate in the global community.

Assessing Students with Disabilities

Title I, Part A, Section 1111(b)(3), Academic Assessments, requires states to implement academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts and a third state selected indicator (in New York, science) that will be used as the primary means of determining AYP.

An alternate assessment may be used for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, which is limited to 1% of all students in the grades assessed.

Final regulations released by USED on April 9, 2007 permit an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for an additional 2% of students with disabilities. Assessment must be aligned with general education academic content standards, but may be less difficult than the general education assessment.

Revise assessment systems and accountability practices for the special education population to:

·         Authorize states to develop modified assessments that measure the performance of a student with a disability toward modified state standards at the student’s appropriate instructional level, as designated by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These assessments should be designed to show what students know and to measure their growth over time.

·         Allow certain students with disabilities to participate in general education assessments based on general education learning standards that align with their instructional levels rather than their chronological age. The assessment levels should be determined by the IEP team and may reflect different levels across different content areas.

·         For purposes of determining AYP, establish a lower expected threshold for improvement for students with disabilities or authorize SEAs to establish their own realistic and appropriate benchmark targets for incremental performance improvement to be applied uniformly at the state, district and school levels 

·         Authorize states to establish the threshold on the percent of students with disabilities scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on alternate assessments, including instructional-level assessments, for purposes of determining AYP, provided that justification is given to USED when a state’s threshold exceeds 3% of the total population tested

·         Continue to allow states to include the proficient scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities based on alternate assessments in its calculations of AYP, provided that such scores do not exceed 1% of all students tested in the grades assessed in reading/language arts and math

·         Direct USED to conduct research to identify the characteristics of the alternate assessment population of students based on modified learning standards (e.g., the 2%) to ensure consistency of criteria across IEP teams, school districts and states

·         Permit states to include, as a third indicator, assessments that measure modified learning standards at the high school level reflecting postsecondary goals of competitive employment and independence when a regular high school diploma is not an appropriate outcome given the nature and severity of a student’s specific disability.

NCLB does not ensure appropriate assessment options for the range of instructional levels and abilities of students with disabilities.

Subjecting students at specific chronological ages to grade-level assessments that are measuring skills well beyond their capabilities and that do not reflect content that they have actually been exposed to is not true participation and does not provide meaningful data to measure progress toward the standards.

Holding schools and districts accountable for inappropriate achievement standards does not recognize the true value of a student’s educational program and does not serve to challenge schools to improve results for students with disabilities. As a result, students with disabilities are tested on what they have never been taught instead of being able to demonstrate what they have learned.

USED’s final regulatory language regarding an alternate assessment option for an additional 2% of students is not responsive to this issue, as it requires an assessment based on grade-level content standards and may not preclude the student from receiving a regular diploma.

Students in special education have a wide range of instructional levels, including those who learn at variable rates but can achieve a regular diploma, and those whose disabilities result in a cognitive range that exceeds the alternative assessment levels (1% of the most cognitively disabled), but does not equal their non-disabled peers.

This latter group constitutes students who require modified standards that may focus on career and technical programs leading to competitive employment rather than modified grade-level content that leads to a regular diploma.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Targeted Interventions and Differentiated Consequences for Schools and Districts Identified as In Need of Improvement

States must use a school’s failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years as a determinant that the school is not on track to achieve universal proficiency by the 2014 school year, and thus should be labeled “in need of improvement.”

Schools may be designated in need of improvement if one or more subgroups of students (e.g. Hispanic, students with disabilities, limited English proficient) do not meet targets for improved academic performance or if less than 95 percent of students in a subgroup take an assessment.

The 95 percent participation rate requirement keeps schools from selectively eliminating students (e.g. students with disabilities or limited English proficient) from taking an assessment.

States publicly identify schools in need of improvement. The schools are required to develop and submit a plan outlining a series of reforms designed to lead to improved academic performance. As the years pass, provisions of NCLB are triggered that initiate a series of mandated school choice options and school district interventions.

During the first year of identification as in need of improvement, NCLB requires the district to offer students the option of transferring to a public school not identified as in need of improvement. After the second year of a school’s being labeled in need of improvement, low income students must be offered free supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring, in addition to school choice.

NCLB assumes all students in a school designated as in need of improvement need remedial help even though only one subgroup of students may have fallen short of the AYP target. School districts are required to set aside up to 20 percent of their Title I program funding to implement school choice and SES for low-income students.

LEAs do not have to offer SES or school choice beyond what can be supported by that 20 percent and any unused funds can be returned to the general education program.

·         States should not be required to impose school choice and supplemental educational services on schools or districts because of the failure of one or several subgroups of students to meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets.

·         Schools should be able to target interventions based on the nature and extent of their failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress.

·         Schools and districts should have the flexibility to decide when and in which order to offer school choice and supplemental educational services. Schools should be allowed to work with parents to determine which option best meets family and student needs and when to implement it.

·         Additional, targeted funding should be provided to school districts for implementation of school choice and SES. 

Not all schools that fail to make AYP have systemic problems requiring school-wide interventions. Interventions such as school choice and supplemental educational services should be given first to the students who are underperforming academically. For example, if students with disabilities fail to meet AYP targets, resources and remediation should be focused on those students. 

Some school districts, particularly those in inner cities, which must offer school choice have only a few schools or no schools that are not in need of improvement to which to send students.

For example, most of New York’s smaller districts may have only one high school; if it is identified as in need of improvement there is no other place to send the students. Or a small city may have two middle schools; if one is identified, often the other is too. In New York City, there are too many students eligible for school choice and too few schools meeting AYP requirements.   

It would be more efficient and effective to allow school districts to determine whether and how to implement school choice and SES, depending on their circumstances.

There is a distinction between a school district’s failing to make AYP for an inadequate participation rate and failing for students’ academic performance. If a district is cited for an inadequate participation rate, there is no way to determine from this how students are performing academically. Yet, NCLB requires that states impose school-wide interventions for failure to meet the 95 percent participation rate mandate.

School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES)

Section 1116 requires schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years to provide school choice to eligible students and after three years to provide SES.

LEAs are required to set aside up to 20% of Title I program funds to implement these requirements. Funds that are not used can be returned to the general education program.

·         Provide LEAs with the flexibility to decide the order in which and when to offer mandated school choice and SES so they can work with parents to determine which option best meets family and student needs

·         In districts where school choice is not a viable option, LEAs should offer SES after two years of AYP failure

·         If a district has the ability, SES and school choice should be offered simultaneously to students in schools failing to make AYP for two years

·         Provide targeted funds to LEAs above current allocation levels for implementation of mandated school choice and SES

·         Permit LEAs to use SES funds for services to low performing students who have exercised their right to school choice

In too many low performing school districts, school choice is not an available or viable option.

The goal should be to provide schools and parents with the flexibility and options that support student improvement, but by requiring low performing LEAs and schools to set aside funds that would typically support instruction, the law effectively creates a fiscal disincentive to successfully implement school choice and SES and diminishes their potential effectiveness.

Allocating targeted funds for school choice and SES would enable LEAs to more effectively plan their program interventions, including pre- and after-school programs, summer school, professional development, etc.

Providing funds to students who move to new schools under school choice will help bridge performance deficiencies and acculturate them into the new school’s climate.

Response to Intervention (RtI) for All Students

RtI is not in NCLB, but is in Section 614(b)(6) of IDEA.

RtI is a multi-tiered, research based approach to providing services and interventions at increasing levels of intensity to struggling learners.

RTI involves early identification of learning and behavioral needs, close collaboration among general and special education teachers and parents, and a systemic commitment to locating and employing the necessary resources to ensure that students make progress in the general education curriculum. 

·         Add Response to Intervention (RtI) requirements to NCLB to benefit all students 

·         Provide additional funding for use of RtI in general education

Response to Intervention can create a well-integrated system of instruction and intervention guided by student outcome data and frequent progress monitoring.

RtI shows promise for closing the achievement gap and for reducing disproportionality in special education.

RtI increases collaboration across general, remedial and special education and improves communication and collaboration with parents.

Early Intervening Services (EIS) for All Students

EIS is not in NCLB, but in Section 613(f) of IDEA. IDEA was amended in 2004 to authorize the use of Part B funds for early intervening services (EIS) to address the needs of struggling students who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment before referrals to special education are considered or become necessary.

·         Add early intervening services (EIS) requirements to NCLB

·         Allocate additional Title I funds to match the amount of IDEA dollars spent on EIS

Adding comparable language regarding EIS to NCLB would help to ensure that the needs of struggling, diverse learners are met in the general education setting.

Safe Schools for Students and Teachers

The Unsafe Schools Choice Option (USCO), Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532, requires that each state receiving funds have a statewide policy requiring that students attending a persistently dangerous public elementary or secondary school or students who become victims of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds of a public school be allowed to attend a safe public school.

·         Limit the Unsafe School Choice Option to students who are victims of violent crimes and allow LEAs to focus on improving conditions at a student’s current school

·         Replace designating schools as persistently dangerous with a school safety index that would enable SEAs to identify schools that need support and technical assistance to provide a safe learning and teaching environment. SEAs would develop their own school safety index, subject to review and approval by the USED

·         Allow SEAs to provide a blend of sanctions and incentives to encourage LEAs to report violent incidents accurately and analyze and interpret incident data in a way that informs their decisions about the most appropriate interventions to effect improvements in school safety

In many states LEAs cannot implement school choice, or else the number of alternative schools is limited because only the largest LEAs have multiple school buildings at any one level.

A safe and secure learning environment is critically important to students’ educational success. Nationally, there is an uneven use of the persistently dangerous designation. Only a handful of states have established criteria that result in schools being designated as persistently dangerous.

In the absence of federal guidance to help LEAs designate persistently dangerous schools accurately, the public questions the credibility of a system under which more schools in a single school district can be so designated than the total number of schools in an entire neighboring state.

A school safety index based on established criteria would enable SEAs, LEAs and communities to target resources as needed to schools to create safe learning environments.

SCHOOL READINESS

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

·         Reading First

·         Early Reading First

·         Even Start

·         Ready to Learn  (RTL) Television

Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 – Reading First funds reading programs for students in K-3, professional development for teachers, assessments and development of instructional materials.

Title I, Part B, Subpart 2 – Early Reading First funds programs to enhance the early language literacy and pre-reading development of preschool age children, particularly those from low-income families.

Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 – Even Start funds family literacy programs that integrate early childhood education, adult literacy and parenting education.  

Title II, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 2431 – Ready to Learn Television funds the production of public television programs to help very young children develop the cognitive, physical, and psychosocial skills needed for school readiness.

Programs include Dragon Tales, Between the Lions, Clifford, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame Street.

In addition, funds are provided for public television stations to teach adults (parents and care providers) how to use the television programs, along with reading aloud and simple activities, to deepen and expand children’s learning.

·         Build on the success of Reading First,  Early Reading First and Even Start in developing early literacy and family literacy skills by:

Ø      Aligning Early Reading First and Reading First programs and passing funding through SEAs

Ø      Permitting SEAs to network Early Reading and Reading First school districts

·         Increase the proportion of funds for outreach (parent/caregiver education), decrease the proportion of funds for program production, and develop accountability measures for the outreach activities

·         Allow public libraries to be partners in delivering parent/caregiver training

Literacy development must begin with early learners and continue through middle school and high school and into postsecondary education and the workplace.

Scientific research shows that developing reading and literacy skills in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students contributes greatly to their academic success in the early grades.

Public television stations have more than 10 years experience providing outreach services in their communities, but more funding is needed to increase the outreach staff, design effective parent/caregiver education, determine appropriate accountability measures, and collect assessment data.

Public libraries deliver similar parent/caregiver education programs and partnerships between public libraries and public broadcasters would expand the availability of this training.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATON

RATIONALE

Targets for Highly Qualified Teachers

Title I, Part A, Section 1119 requires LEAs and SEAs to have plans to ensure that 100% of teachers of core subjects are highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006. USED extended the deadline to the end of 2006-2007. 

Section 1119 requires Title I LEAs to hire only highly qualified teachers starting in Fall 2002.

·         Instead of a 100% mandate, require continuing effort once a numeric target of 95% has been met and all teachers who are not highly qualified are on track to become highly qualified within three years

States and LEAs should be deemed in compliance if they have credible plans, are making a good faith effort to implement them and can demonstrate progress.

·         Retain current flexibility that enables states to work collaboratively with school districts that fail to meet highly qualified teacher goals to develop credible plans for meeting the goals in the context of the district’s needs and financial condition

The focus should be on credible targets and ongoing progress rather than an unrealistic emphasis on perfection.

It is unlikely that current severe shortages of special education teachers with subject matter competency in middle schools and high schools can be eliminated by 2006-2007.

HOUSSE:  High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation

Title IX, Section 9101 provides guidelines for each state to define its own HOUSSE process as an option that veteran general education teachers, veteran CTE teachers and special education teachers can use to demonstrate subject matter competency.

IDEA and USED guidance also make HOUSSE an option for select new special education teachers and new and veteran rural teachers.

Clarify in statute the continuing availability of HOUSSE for determining if veteran teachers and new special education and rural teachers are highly qualified

USED attempted to eliminate the HOUSSE option without statutory authority. HOUSSE gives states reasonable flexibility to determine whether a teacher has subject matter competency when certification alone is not sufficient.

HOUSSE flexibility is particularly appropriate for special education and CTE teachers because it permits them to demonstrate subject matter competency in ways other than college course work, degrees or state examinations.

Equitable Distribution of Teachers

Title I, Part A, Section 1111(b)(8)(C) requires state plans to demonstrate specifically how the SEA will ensure that Title I schools have highly qualified teachers, including steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than other children.

·         Retain flexibility for states to define inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers

States should have the flexibility to: (1) define inequities based on their own data; and (2) define inexperienced teachers based on their tenure laws and other factors.

States have submitted equity plans to USED and are in the process of implementing those plans. New federal requirements should not preempt ongoing efforts.

Teacher “Effectiveness” Based on Student Achievement

Title I, Part A, Section 1119 requires SEAs to have plans to ensure that teachers are highly qualified and successful.

Regulations refer to “effective” teachers.

·         Do not require states to rate individual teachers in ways that cannot be implemented with professional integrity because of the nature of state assessment systems

·         Provide financial incentives for states to pilot different definitions of teacher effectiveness

·         Provide financial incentives for  implementing comprehensive approaches to enhance teacher effectiveness in high-need schools that include innovative teacher preparation and recruitment, better working conditions, professional time for planning and collaboration and instructional career ladders

New York’s assessment system is not designed to provide valid information linking year-to-year individual student achievement with individual teachers. It is designed to measure student gains for groups of students over 24-30 months that could be associated with groups of teachers. 

School Leaders

Not in NCLB.

·         No change is needed, but financial incentives should be provided to SEAs to pilot definitions and accountability systems for assessing and enhancing the effectiveness of school and district leaders.

States, not the federal government, should define the qualifications for school leaders, although additional federal resources for professional development for school leadership would be valuable.

Accountability/

Sanctions

Title II, Section 2141 outlines sanctions for Title I LEAs that fail to meet highly qualified teacher goals over time.

Current sanctions for LEAs that fail to meet highly qualified teacher goals require SEAs to intervene to determine how local NCLB funds are being used, but do not require funds to be withheld.

·         Current sanctions are reasonable, but SEAs may need more funding to support required interventions

Current law is reasonable if states have the resources to intervene when needed.

Alignment of Reporting Requirements with Higher Education Act (HEA)

Title I requires SEAs to report on the number of core classes not taught by highly qualified teachers.

Title II of the Higher Education Act requires SEAs to report on public school teachers with “waivers” (those who are not certified) by subject area.

·         Align HEA Title II reporting requirements with NCLB reporting requirements so that HEA Title II requires SEAs to report on core classes not taught by highly qualified teachers by subject

Consistent reporting requirements would be more efficient for USED, SEAs and LEAs and would make it easier for policymakers, the P-16 education community and the public to understand teacher quality gaps.

Professional Development for Teachers

·         Ready to Teach

Title IX, Section 9101(34) defines professional development as “… advancing teachers’ understanding of effective instructional strategies …based on scientifically-based research” (emphasis added).

Section 9101(37) defines scientifically-based research as, involving “rigorous data analysis…and…evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs…and… accepted by a peer-reviewed journal…” or the equivalent.

Ready to Teach, Title V, Part D, Subpart 8, Sections 5481-5485, provides competitive grant funds to develop technology-based teacher professional development. PBS TeacherLine has been the primary result.

·         When scientifically-based or evidence-based research, as defined by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES), is not available for a specific professional development need, permit the highest level of available research to be used as the basis for professional development.

·         Permit professional development grant funds to LEAs to be used for PBS TeacherLine and Ready to Teach products

There is not enough professional development research that meets the criteria for scientifically-based research and current statutory restrictions provide little opportunity for innovation.

Evidence-based strategies have been acceptable in other policy areas and USED has recognized the value of “promising practices”.

PBS TeacherLine currently has developed more than 90 online courses in math, language arts, science, and technology integration, but NCLB does not encourage LEAs to use these federally funded resources. By listing Ready to Teach products as an acceptable use of federal funds, more districts would use the courses and the federal investment would be leveraged.

FUNDING

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATON

RATIONALE

Overall Funding 

Appropriations have not matched authorization levels and have been insufficient to fund the law’s mandated activities.

·         Fully fund NCLB to support all eligible students and all mandated activities, including those that require additional administrative and monitoring responsibilities

·         Provide targeted funds to SEAs for development and alignment of data systems, including up-to-date teacher quality systems, that will enhance data collection and analysis and improve accountability and reporting systems

·         Provide additional, designated funding to ensure that LEAs develop student-level and teacher-level data systems sufficient to meet data reporting and accountability requirements

Current funding levels do not meet students’ needs or teacher quality goals and unfunded mandates have effectively eroded the ability of SEAs and LEAs to implement needed programs and support systems designed to make all students proficient.

Targeted funds will enable SEAs to improve data collection and reporting in order to meet required accountability timelines. New York will need at least $2.5 million over 2 to 3 years to modernize its data system.

Lack of funding is forcing LEAs to take resources from essential academic programs to use for data systems and collection, but that funding still is not sufficient to ensure that valid data is being used for accountability decisions or to inform local policy choices.

Funding Set-asides

The set-aside for school improvement funds is four percent of the state’s allocation, however, SEA’s can only use up to five percent of the four percent, which amounts to just two-tenths of one percent of a state’s total grant. The remaining 95 percent must be allocated to the lowest performing LEAs/schools.

LEAs are required to set-aside up to 20 percent of Title I funds for school choice and supplemental education services.

Provisions that permit LEAs in good academic standing to transfer up to 50 percent of their federal funds among NCLB Titles and into Title I limit the transferability percentage to 30 percent for LEAs that are identified as “in need of improvement.”

·         Permit SEAs and LEAs additional flexibility to maximize the effect of limited funds by directing them to where they are most needed

SEAs and LEAs need flexibility to drive resources where they are needed most to meet performance goals.

At the LEA level, the highly qualified teacher requirement, supplemental education services and school choice set-asides coupled with greater compliance mandates are eroding local programming capacity for the lowest performing districts and schools in New York. 

Title I:

Funding for Disadvantaged Students

·         Reading First

·         Early Reading First

·         Even Start

Between FY 2002 and FY2007, appropriations for Title I have been nearly 40 percent less than the amount authorized, which amounts to a gap of close to $45 billion. The gap for New York amounts to more than $4 billion.

The gap also impacts efforts to enhance teacher quality, which is funded in part through Title I, Part A, Section 1002.  

Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 - funds reading programs for students in K-3, professional development, assessments and development of instructional materials.

Title I, Part B, Subpart 2 – funds programs to enhance the early language literacy and pre-reading development of preschool age children, particularly those from low-income families.

Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 – funds family literacy programs that integrate early childhood education, adult literacy and parenting education.  

·         Provide sufficient funding to ensure that all eligible children are served and to ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers

·         Maintain funding for Reading First

·         Authorizing additional funding under Early Reading First specifically for public and school libraries

·         Restore funding for Even Start to at least the FY 2003 level

Nationwide, approximately 40 percent of eligible students are not being served due to funding deficiencies. In New York City, as many as 25 percent of Title I eligible students are not being served due to funding limitations – a scenario that is common across the state, most typically in other large cities. 

Current funding formulas for Title I, Part A have significantly diminished SEAs’ ability to construct and sustain regional capacity-building networks to support local school improvement initiatives and mandated activities.

State sponsored regional networks have proven to be a cost effective means of delivering professional development to help teachers meet the highly qualified teacher requirement. They help LEAs with low performing schools develop and implement school improvement plans and help low performing LEAs and schools collect and manage data to drive improvement.

Economic studies show a significant return on investment in the form of future earning power when young children are taught reading and literacy skills.

Title II –

Funding For Teacher Quality

·         Subgrants to LEAs

·         Innovation for Teacher Quality

·         Ready To Learn Television

Appropriations for Title II, Part A, Section 2103 have not matched authorization levels. Title II, Part A was authorized at $3.2 billion beginning in 2002. The FY 2006 appropriation was $2.9 billion.

Title II, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 2121 requires SEAs to allocate funds to LEAs based on specific formula criteria.

Title II, Part C supports innovation for teacher quality in two programs, Troops to Teachers and Transition to Teaching. Both programs help individuals change from other careers to teaching careers.

Title II, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 2431 - Ready to Learn Television funds the production of public television programs to help very young children develop the cognitive, physical and psychosocial skills needed for school readiness.

·         Provide at least authorized funding levels for Title II, Part A teacher quality programs

·         Change the formula to enable SEAs to target funds to LEAs furthest from meeting teacher quality targets:

Ø      Retain factors for population and poverty

Ø      Eliminate the “hold harmless” requirement 

Ø      Add a “rural” factor to enable states to target funds to sparsely populated rural areas that have difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers

Ø      Permit states to determine the relative weights of each of the factors in the formulas

·         Increase funding levels for Title II, Part C programs.

·         Continue to provide funds for Ready to Learn Television

Current funding is inadequate for meeting teacher quality goals. 

The two programs for which the “hold harmless” requirement applies, the former Class Size Reduction program and the former Eisenhower program, have been out of existence since 2001 and conditions have changed since then. The programs did not align with the current teacher quality focus of Title II, Part A.

Both Title II, Part C programs help LEAs hire the highly qualified teachers they need. The Transition to Teaching competitive grant program is particularly helpful as seed money. Additional funding is needed to support programs in other subject areas and geographic regions.

The library of programs funded by Ready To Learn (RTL) is extensive and these programs, which include Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street, are broadcast by all public television stations.

Title IV –

Funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

(SDFSCA)

Title IV – 21^st Century Schools, Part A – Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

The FY03 level was $469 million and the FY06 level was $347 million.

There has been a 20-25 percent decrease in funding over the last two years.

·         Restore funding for SDFSCA to at least the FY 2003 level

·         Provide SEAs with a designated percentage of funding for schools that need support

·         Provide SEAs with additional funds to assist schools whose school safety index falls below an established threshold (see SDFSCA above)

The reduction in SDFSCA funds has hindered both the introduction of new intervention programs, such as bullying prevention, and the ability of school districts to provide the quantity and intensity of instruction required to produce desired results.

SEAs should be required to work with schools with the greatest safety challenges, but require additional funding to achieve long-term improvement.

Title V, Part D – Fund for the Improvement of Education  – Ready to Teach

Title V, Part D, Subpart 8, Sections 5481-5485 – Ready to Teach provides competitive grant funds to develop technology-based teacher professional development. PBS TeacherLine has been the primary result.

·         Provide additional funds to renew or develop online courses, with priorities for courses in high-need content areas, such as for general education teachers with students with disabilities in their classrooms, for general education teachers with a high proportion of LEP/ELL in their classrooms and for paraprofessionals

PBS TeacherLine currently has developed more than 90 high quality, highly effective online courses in math, language arts, science, and technology integration. Additional courses in high need areas would contribute significantly to professional development in these critical areas. 

DUE PROCESS

ISSUE

CURRENT LAW

RECOMMENDATION

RATIONALE

Lead Time

None

·         Statute should ensure that LEAs and SEAs have at least six months to respond to USED requests for data reports, plans, etc.

USED does not define specific reporting requirements until 4 to 8 weeks before reports are due.

LEAs and SEAs cannot always respond to requests within the short time frames, but USED has imposed financial penalties for failure to report on time.

Public Disclosure

None

·         Statute should ensure that USED is required to post online all determinations it makes, and once peer reviews are completed, the names and affiliations of reviewers.

USED and its advisors should meet basic public disclosure standards. 

Review of Findings and Appeals of Determinations

Unclear

·         Statute should provide SEAs with the opportunity to provide factual corrections to USED’s preliminary determinations before final determinations are made.

·         Statute should clarify the SEAs’ right to hearings to appeal final determinations involving financial penalties per the federal General Education Provisions Act.

Factual corrections would ensure that all USED determinations are made with complete and accurate information.

Right to hearings needs to be clarified to avoid arbitrary decisions by USED.