the good the bad and the ugly l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27
Download Presentation

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Reauthorizing the Elementary & Secondary Education Act: Getting it Right this time Mary Kusler American Association of School Administrators November 29, 2007

  2. Highlights include: $1.8 billion for Title I $500 million for IDEA $100 million for Teacher Quality REAP is level funded Lowlights include: Title V is ELIMINATED 13.4% cut for Safe and Drug Free Schools Everything else level- funded FY 2008 Education Appropriations • President vetoed the Congressional spending plan. Override vote failed Thursday evening by 1 or 2 votes.. • Education would receive a $3.2 billion increase.

  3. School-based Medicaid Claiming • President Bush’s FY2008 budget proposed elimination of administrative and transportation claiming. • Comment period Sept. 7, 2007 through Nov. 6, 2007 • Moratorium included in SCHIP until January 1, 2010!! • Support efforts to legitimize claiming for school districts. *HR 1017 and S 578* • Expand claiming to 504 Vocational Rehab students. • Support uniform methodology for claiming. • Urge your members of Congress to recognize the role schools play in health care.

  4. House ESEA Reauthorization • House discussion draft issued August 27 • Extensive hearing on it September 10 • 46 witnesses testified, including AASA, no rural specific representative • Discussion Draft of Titles II thru XI posted September 7th . • Politics stalled progress for the rest of this session. Committee plans to take it up again in January. • Waiting for next version of the bill.

  5. Senate ESEA Reauthorization • Senate is also slowly working but work is under tight wraps so we are unsure of what it contains. • Committee released parts of Titles I & II, III, IV, VI, VII & X • Has yet to complete discussions on Title I, Part A and the teacher provisions. • Rumor says they will release their bill in January. • With ESEA not progressing until January, it may not be reauthorized until a new President is inaugurated in 2009.

  6. Function of Accountability: Oversight or Improved Instruction • Information focused on Congressional, media and state officials will: • Provide political and media leaders information that is sufficient to identify problems and justify sanctions against school districts, schools, and educators where progress doesn’t occur. • Not be sufficient or accurate enough to make individual instructional decisions. • Be understandable enough to the public to make federal labels and actions credible.

  7. Function of Accountability: Oversight or Improved Instruction • Information focused on instructional improvement will be: • Sufficient and accurate enough to make individual instructional decisions • Sufficient and accurate information enough to plan and organize instruction, and accurately evaluate system wide progress. • Understandable enough to the public to be credible evaluations of student achievement in schools and school districts

  8. Major Changes in Senate Bill • While most of the bill have not been released, two provisions are troublesome for rural schools. • Safe and Drug Free Schools is changed from a formula grant program to a competitive grant program. • Schools with locale code 6 are eliminated from the Rural and Low-income Schools Program. • Still waiting to see Senate version of Title I.

  9. Chairman Miller’s Non-negotiable List • 100% proficiency • 2013-14 timeline • Disaggregation • Penalties for continued low test scores

  10. ESEA Issues:100% GoalPolitically Untouchable “No goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution. A standard can either be a minimal standard which presents no challenge to typical and advanced students, or it can be a challenging standard which is unachievable by most below-average students. No standard can serve both purposes – this is why we call 'proficiency for all' an oxymoron - but this is what NCLB requires.” • Richard Rothstein, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Tamara Wilder, EPI

  11. Top AASA PrioritiesDiscussion DraftLimits Options • Growth measures permitted butlimited to USED definition. • Value Added - based on single snap shot tests • Multiple measures permitted,but limited to: • Elementary- Another statewide test • Secondary - A statewide test, graduation rate, increases in rates taking AP, IB, QualityCore and other courses and increases in college attendance rates

  12. Computing AYP:Multiple Measures • In the case of an elementary school, the total credit any group may receive from additional indicators may not exceed 15percent of its annual measurable objectives in reading or language arts and mathematics. • In the case of a secondary school, the total credit any group may receive may not exceed 25 percent of its annual measurable objectives in reading or language arts and mathematics.”

  13. Proposed Graduation Rate Calculations • Creates a national calculation of graduation rate. • Allows for a 4 or 5 year graduation cohort. • 1 percent of students with disabilities excluded from calculation. • 90 percent of all students from each of the disaggregated subgroups must meet graduation requirements. • Or there must be growth/ improvement in those categories.

  14. Special Education Assessment • Concern: “1 percent” rule for alternate assessments—“not scientifically defensible.”* • Discussion draft codifies USED 1% and 2% special education testing rules. • The draft allows for a waiver of the 2% rule to 3% but there is limited opportunity for the 1% • Out of level testing is NOT in discussion draft • Staff is dubious about out of level testing. • Disability community is having a large impact. • USED regulations only allow it in the 1%. *Reid Lyon, in the Title I Monitor, May 2005

  15. Proposed ELL Assessment • New reliance on native language assessments. • States required to develop native language assessments for any group that makes up 10% of the student population. • Can use for up to 5 years, with 2 additional years possible. • Questions about validity of native language assessments.

  16. Proposed ELL Assessment • Still have not addressed concerns of new immigrants to the country. • Only exempted from reading and language content exams for the first year in the US. • Will require schools to be held accountable for students comprehension of content before they even understand English.

  17. Proposed Changes in Penalties • New focus on school improvement. • 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.”

  18. 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.

  19. Proposed: COMPARABLILITYThe Unions Object • ‘‘(A) COMPARABLE FUNDING IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), a local educational agency may receive funds under this part only if the average expenditure per pupil, of State and local funds for teacher salaries, in the schools served under this part is equal to or greater than the average expenditure per pupil, of State and local funds on teacher salaries, in schools that are not receiving funds under this part.

  20. Pay for PerformanceTitle II- The Unions Object • Provide higher salaries to principals and teachers with at least 3 years of experience, including teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, if the principal or teacher agrees to serve full-time for a period of 4 consecutive school years at a public high-need elementary school or a public high-need secondary school.

  21. Proposed State Use of FundsTitle II- The Unions Object • Developing or assisting local educational agencies in developing performance pay programs or programs that reward teachers who teach in schools that have acute learning needs …, if such activities have the demonstrated support of teachers in such local educational agencies and that such programs are not based primarily on student test scores. • Developing or assisting local educational agencies in developing teacher advancement initiatives that promote multiple career paths for teachers (such as becoming a career teacher, mentor teacher, or master teacher).

  22. 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

  23. Promise or Problem?New Programs in Discussion Draft • Creation of a New High School Improvement formula. Purposes include: • ‘‘(1) to ensure all students graduate from secondary school with the education and skills necessary to compete in a global economy; • ‘‘(2) to support comprehensive and effective secondary school reform in secondary schools designated as high priority or high priority redesign; • ‘‘(3) to end the dropout crisis through early intervention and support to at risk students in middle and secondary school.

  24. Promise or Problem?New Programs in Discussion Draft • Major pressure to create a new middle school formula program. • What will that do to our push for Title I funding? • Creation of a host of new competitive grant programs. • Environmental education. • Community schools.

  25. Reauthorization of REAP • Some changes need to be made to improve REAP in the coming reauthorization. • Specifically, a number of districts are no longer receiving a financial benefit from the program despite qualifying. • Allow districts to choose which program to apply under. • Raise the sliding scale from $20,000 - $60,000 to $25,000 - $70,000. • For the Rural & Low-income program, use free and reduced lunch instead of census. • Update Locale codes.

  26. Next Steps: A Call to Action • With bills being proposed in both houses, make sure your voice is heard. • Superintendents must activate on ESEA. • They will make these decisions with or without you. • Better outcomes happen when you are involved. • Get involved, make a call, don’t assume that someone else will do it! • Be sure to get to know the Education LA in DC!

  27. Any questions? Mary KuslerAssistant Director, Government Relations American Association of School Administrators801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 700Arlington, VA 22203(703) 875-