No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update Illinois State Board of Education September 2004
No Child Left Behind aka… No Principal Left Standing No Attorney Left Unemployed No School Left Open No Chocolate Left Unopened No Child Left Untested What are your favorites…?
You may not like NCLB but remember… • It is the result of a bi-partisan vote in Congress. • It is a federal law based on earlier one. • It has not been amended or changed.
For Those of You Too Young… • What has transpired over the last half century that has led to the No Child Left Behind Act and the standards-based, assessment approach to education? • NCLB was not Phoenix, springing full- blown from the minds of Sec. Paige and/or Pres. Bush… So….some history……
Sputnik… • Led to National Defense Education Act. • First time federal government intervened in public school policy and curriculum by providing funds to improve mathematics and science education citing national security as the reason.
LIFE from March 1958 • Three-part series that identified critical issues in American education. • “They are wretchedly overworked, underpaid and disregarded.” • Not enough time to plan lessons.
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act • Signed into law by President Lyndon • Johnson. • First federal aid to school districts with large percentage of children living in poverty. • Began Head Start, health and nutrition program for three and four-year old children.
Graduation Requirements Curriculum Content Standards/Expectations More Time-day/Year Improve Teaching Hold Leadership Accountable Field Support A Nation At Risk “Our society is being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.”
How Long Will NCLB Be Around? • Enacted in January 2002 • Will be reauthorized in 2006, likelier 2007 • Other laws in the meantime will likely be reauthorized before ESEA is – IDEA, Perkins, Higher Education Act • Pres. Bush called it the “…path to promise in America…” at the RNC … In sum, it will be around long enough to ensure you want to follow what it says now…
First---Ask Yourself • Would you want your child in a school that has a large % of students who do not achieve at proficiency on an assessment in each state? • Would you want your child taught by a teacher who does not have the qualifications required under NCLB’s highly qualified teacher rules?
ESEA into NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND • Intent of areas changed from one law to the other-- • Increase accountability for student performance. • Focus on what works. • Reduce bureaucracy. • Empower parents.
Assessment Standards Achievement Gap Accountability Teacher Quality Parent Options Flexibility Reporting No Child Left Behind Themes
Important Provisions Accountability • States must develop and implement annual assessments of students in mathematics and reading in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006 school year. • States must develop science standards by 2005-2006 and implement assessments by 2007-2008, in 1 grade each in grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12 • Law changed in Illinois in summer 2004…no longer testing writing or social sciences. • Benchmark will be NAEP. • States must meet 100% academic proficiency within 12 years (defined by state). • Adequate yearly progress (AYP) must apply specifically to subgroups and all student data must be disaggregated.
Important Provisions (cont’d) Parental Choice • If child is in a school formally designated as needing improvement, can transfer to another public or charter. • Up to approximately $1000 for private tutoring of a child in that school. Reading First Initiative • Effective, proven methods of reading instruction backed by scientific research. • Funds tripled from Reading Excellence Act to Reading First/NCLB. Teacher Quality • Highly-qualified in every classroom. • May use federal funds for faculty professional development opportunities.
Important Provisions (cont’d) Safe Schools aka persistently dangerous • Victim of crime or attends unsafe school may transfer to a safe public school. • School officials can take reasonable action to maintain order. English Fluency • LEP students tested for reading and language arts in English after attending school in US for three consecutive years. Rural Schools • Greater say in how federal funds are used. • Greater flexibility in reaching the highly qualified teacher rules (2007 rather than 2006).
Ntl Reading Scores and Funding Spending has increased but test scores have not.
July 2004 article from Stateline.org A rebellion against the federal No Child Left Behind Act in more than half the states’ legislatures has fizzled out, for now, with only a handful of Vermont school districts following through on threats to ignore the new law. At the height of this year’s backlash against President Bush’s signature domestic policy initiative, 27 state legislatures drafted 54 bills to protest the costs, penalties and unprecedented federal oversight of school policy under the 2002 act. Secretary Rod Paige and deputies crisscrossed the country on scores of trips to smooth over differences with state legislators and educators.
Stateline.org In the end, only the Democratic governor of Maine and the Republican governors of Utah and Vermont signed bills critical of the act, which is staunchly defended by the Republican Bush administration. The National Education Association had threatened to file suit challenging the law and set out to recruit states to join in. No state answered the call. Fearing election-year fallout, the Education Department made several changes to its rules enforcing the law.
Stateline.org Behind the scenes, at least 40 state agencies currently are negotiating for even greater flexibility in federal rules to try to reduce the number of schools penalized by the act. Since the law was passed, more than a quarter of the nation’s schools have been tagged as “needing improvement.” Among the states that took action to protest No Child Left Behind, Vermont passed a law that gives individual school districts the ability to opt out of the law. But only a few have chosen to do that.
Stateline.org In Utah, the Legislature canned a bill to opt out of the law entirely and chose instead to study the cost of the federal mandates, after USDE officials rushed into the state capital to quell outrage. The Maine law started out as a bill to forbid state money from being spent on the federal requirements, but ended up asking the state department of education to study the law’s costs, said a spokesman for the Maine SEA. No state chose to ignore the federal mandates or forfeit federal dollars, but the noise definitely got the attention of USDE, which since December 2003 has made several significant changes to requirements. States now may defer the test scores of LEP students for one year, a greater number of SWD are allowed to take alternative tests and rural districts will have more time to meet federal teacher qualifications rules.
Stateline.org Schools are penalized if they miss the testing targets for two consecutive years, and subgroups of minorities, low-income and disabled children also must meet the benchmarks. Penalties range from allowing students to transfer to higher-scoring schools to providing extra tutoring to facing state takeover. A policy analyst for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, warned that the proposed changes might be undermining the law’s intent of improving the achievement of disadvantaged students. “The art here is to balance the changes so we don’t completely unravel the meaning and effect of [No Child Left Behind],” he said.
Stateline.org Several states have asked the federal education department to loosen the requirement that 95% of the grade levels tested show up for the exams every year, said an education researcher at the Council of Chief State School Officers. Instead, schools could average participation over two or three years, she said. North Carolina has asked to limit the law’s achievement standards to low-income students. Under that proposal, students from middle- and upper-income families would not have to pass state tests. Many states are asking to increase the minimum number of students for a subgroup’s test scores to count against a school’s achievement.
Stateline.org Tennessee is proposing that its schools would have to miss state benchmarks in the same subject for two consecutive years and in the same subgroup to be listed as a low-performing school. School districts would have to fall below state standards in both the same subject at the same grade level for two years to be penalized. Many states also are asking to use statistical cushions, called confidence intervals, for small, rural schools or schools with small numbers of disadvantaged students. With a confidence interval, smaller groups can pass the tests with lower scores or a lower percentage of that group must pass the test.
2002 • Changes in the law regarding public school choice • Requirement of testing students if school is selected for NAEP • Required bilingual notification for families (beyond what had been in place) • Report cards available on web sites (and on paper if requested)
2003 • Changes from the Assessment & Accountability Taskforce re: testing: • Testing every year as of 2006 • Hours of testing expanded • Appeals process and panel established • Accountability process and consequences established
NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004 • HB 6906. Provides that if a school district has an overall shortage of highly qualified teachers, as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, or a shortage of highly qualified teachers in the subject area of mathematics, science, reading, or special education, then the school board must spend at least 40% of the money it receives from Title 2 grants under the Act on recruitment and retention initiatives to assist in recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers. NOW LAW… Effective immediately. • SB 2205. Prohibits the ISBE from testing in writing, social sciences and physical development. NOW LAW…
NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004 • SB 2769. Requires that no student shall receive a regular high school diploma without taking the Prairie State Achievement Exam (and all juniors must be tested). NOW LAW… • HB 3977. Requires that applicants for employment at a school district must undergo a fingerprint-based criminal background check. NOW LAW…Effective immediately.
NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004 • SB 2115. Allows a school or district to deny enrollment to a student 16 years of age or older for one semester for failure to meet minimum academic or attendance standards if certain conditions are met. Requires a district to identify, track, and report on the educational progress and outcomes of reenrolled students (defined as dropouts who have reenrolled full-time) as a subset of the district's required reporting on all enrollments. Provides that a reenrolled student who again drops out must not be counted again against a district's dropout rate performance. NOW LAW…
Other bills passed in 2004 • SB 2918. Increases the compulsory school age from 16 to 17 years of age. Provides that certain provisions that apply to truant officers apply to the regional superintendent of schools or designee in a district that does not have a truant officer. Makes changes concerning the compliance procedure for persons who fail to send a child to school. Establishes, subject to appropriations, the Graduation Incentives Program. NOW LAW… • SB 2940. Provides that health examinations shall include the collection of data relating to obesity, including at a minimum, date of birth, gender, height, weight, blood pressure, waist circumference, and date of exam. Provides that the Department may collect health data from local schools and the State Board of Education relating to obesity on health examination forms. NOW LAW… • SB 3000. Allows the Governor to appoint 7 new ISBE members…NOW LAW…
Other bills passed in 2004 • HB 752. Requires that starting July 2005 students in grades K, 2 and 6 must have dental exams. NOW LAW… • SB 3091. Allows a joint agreement made up of school districts or a regional superintendent of schools on behalf of schools and programs operated by the regional office of education to apply for a waiver or modification of mandates. NOW LAW…
Other bills passed in 2004 • SB 3109. Requires ISBE to establish a system to provide for the accurate tracking of transfer students. Provides that the system shall require that a student be counted as a dropout in the calculation of a school's or district's annual student dropout rate unless the school or district to which the student transferred sends notification to the school or district from which the student transferred documenting that the student has enrolled in the transferee school or district. Provides that the notification must occur within 90 days after the date the student withdraws or the student shall be counted in the calculation of the transferor school's or district's annual student dropout rate. Provides that all records indicating the school or district to which a student transferred are subject to the Illinois School Student Records Act. NOW LAW…
Other bills passed in 2004 • SB 1553. Makes changes regarding certification . Changes concerning out-of-state candidates. An initial teaching certificate shall be automatically extended for one year for all persons who (i) have been issued an initial certificate that expires on June 30, 2004 and (ii) have not met, prior to July 1, 2004, standard certificate requirements. Changes certain requirements in order to receive a standard certificate (including the induction and mentoring requirement, the completion of an advanced degree requirement, and the accumulation of CPDUs), and adds other requirements. Makes changes concerning the process in which standard certificates are issued. Makes changes with regard to the renewal of administrative certificates. Removes the requirement that a certificate holder develop a certificate renewal plan for satisfying continuing professional development requirements.
Other bills passed in 2004 • SB 1553 (continued) Removes some of the requirements that participation in CPD activities must meet. Provides that participation in Illinois Administrators' Academy courses must total a minimum of 30 (now, 36) CPD hours, and removes the documentation requirement. Requires the certificate holder to complete a verification form developed by ISBE and certify that 100 hours of continuing professional development activities and 5 Administrators' Academy courses have been completed. With regard to certain certificate holders, provides that certificate holders who evaluate certified staff must complete a 2-day teacher evaluation course.
Other bills passed in 2004 • SB 1553 (continued) Provides that a teacher holding an early childhood, elementary, high school, or special certificate may substitute teach for a period not to exceed 120 paid days or 600 paid hours in any one LEA in any one school term (now, only through 2003-2004). Makes changes concerning what a master certificate holder in an area of science or social science is eligible to teach. Provides that an initial teaching certificate is renewable every 4 years until the person completes 4 years of teaching (now, nonrenewable), and allows a person who has completed 4 years of teaching but has not completed the professional development requirements to have his or her certificate reinstated for one year. Makes changes concerning what a standard or master certificate holder needs to do to satisfy the CPD requirements, and makes changes concerning the renewal process. NOW LAW and in effective…
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS • AYP formula. • Highly qualified teacher rules. • Disaggregated groups • Disabilities. • LEP. • Funding • Timing with state deficits.
Approved Changes in the State Plan • Multi-racial. In response to concerns raised by Illinois students, parents, and school personnel, Illinois has added a multi-racial/ethnic group to the State’s major racial/ethnic groups for both accountability and reporting purposes. • Identification of Schools and Districts for Improvement. Illinois will identify schools and districts for improvement on the basis of not making AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area. • Assessment and Accountability for LEP students. Illinois adopts the flexibility allowed relative to limited English proficient students for assessment and accountability purposes for no testing in Year 1.
Approved Changes in the State Plan • Alternate Assessments. Illinois will use the final regulation concerning the 1.0 percent cap, ensuring that the "number of proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate achievement standards" does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed at the State level. • Participation Rate. Illinois adopts the new flexibility regarding multi-year averaging of participation rate. Illinois will also adopt the new flexibility regarding students who have significant medical emergencies during the testing window and its affect on a school's participation rate.
Suggested Changes in NCLB?Education Week, 8/11/04 • Identify schools for SI etc only if the same subgroup misses its targets in the same subject for two years in a row. • Target choice and SES to students in the subgroup that missed the target, not all. • Move beyond test scores as the sole, or even the primary, measure for judging schools.
The ABCs of “AYP” Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt: We Can Do This (Education Trust) The first report updates last year’s, ABCs of ‘AYP’ – incorporating new rules for limited-English proficient students, students with disabilities, and participation rates. The report also covers myths, misconceptions, and common questions. As states begin to release their 2003-04 student achievement data, there is still significant confusion about the accountability provisions in NCLB, and doubt about whether states can actually meet the requirements and the goals…EducationTrust released two documents in June 2004 explaining the accountability and public reporting provisions in addition to a data presentation analyzing some recently released student achievement results.
The ABCs of “AYP” “Everyone recognizes the need to close achievement gaps and ensure that every student counts, but accountability systems prior to AYP did not adequately focus on these priorities…By one important measure, then, AYP is already having a positive effect: there are no more invisible students when it comes to accountability, and the public discussion about education is squarely focused on achievement gap issues.” Mississippi State Superintendent Johnson believes that the AYP data reporting tool is highlighting what needs to be improved in Mississippi’s education system. He stated “…We expect too little of our kids and ourselves, and that's a hard paradigm shift to make. If you have high standards, kids will learn what you teach them. The goal is for 100% of students to be proficient. AYP data will let us know whether we’re on track to meet that goal…"
The ABCs of “AYP” It’s important to remember that AYP and accountability aren’t reforms; they are intended to cause reforms. “An important goal of NCLB was to encourage states and districts to focus more attention and resources on the students who are furthest behind,” […Education Trust], “and early returns are showing us that their efforts are beginning to bear fruit. Educators are reporting greater focus on curriculum and instruction and, so far, the states that have reported their data have reported narrowing achievement gaps, in some areas significantly.”
The ABCs of “AYP” This second document – Questions to ask about state AYP reports – provides a guide to information that should be publicly available. By providing reporters, parents, and community members with unprecedented information about student achievement, AYP allows community members to begin to ask questions and take actions that will help to change schools.