A View from AASA

1. A View from AASA Reauthorizing the Elementary & Secondary Education Act: Getting it Right this time Bruce Hunter VASS Legislative Conference October 18, 2007

2. 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

3. ESEA Reauthorization – It’s MovingTrouble 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).”

4. ESEA Reauthorization – It’s MovingTrouble 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.

5. ESEA Reauthorization – It’s MovingTrouble 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.

6. Congressional Positioning • Chairman Miller’s Non-negotiable List • 100% • 2013-14 • Disaggregation • Penalties for continued low test scores

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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 partshall 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.

21. 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

22. 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.”

23. 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

24. Proposed Computing AYP – A High School Example

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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. 

29. 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.

30. AASA Executive CommitteeProposed 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.

31. Thank You-Any questions?