1

Michigan Association of State and Federal Program Specialists

“NCLB Reauthorization: What is on the Horizon?”

Traverse City, MichiganNovember, 2007

Leigh ManasevitBrustein & Manasevit3105 South Street, NWWashington, DC 20007lmanasevit@bruman.com(202) 965-3652

2

January 4, 2007 110th Congress

Senate 51 Democrats 49 Republicans

House 233 Democrats 202 Republicans

November 2008: Presidential Election

3

Aspen Institute

Beyond NCLB…-Report on NCLB: Bipartisan

Committee

Site:

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/NCLB_Book.pdf

4

Measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

5

Measure of AYP:Increased Autonomy for States/Locals

Consistent with nearly all non-administration proposals

6

Measure of AYP:Multiple measures beyond assessments

State Flexibility Multiple Measures of Student /

School Performance Validity & Reliability of Existing

Tests

7

Measure of AYP:Growth Models

ED Pilot Limitations

General Support NEA and General Union

Opposition Barack Obama raises “merit pay”

8

Measure of AYP:Growth Models

9 Approved

North Carolina

Florida Arkansas Arizona Alaska

Tennessee Ohio Delaware Iowa

9

Measure of AYP:N Numbers

Uniformity – Subgroups Minimum # National Uniformity

10

Measure of AYP:Increased focus on HS

More assessment at HS Alignment to Higher Ed Focus on college and

workplace readiness Standardize Graduation Rate

Calculation in Law (NGA Recommendation)

11

Measure of AYP:National Standards?

Possible – Unlikely NAEP – Wider reporting

12

Consequences of Failure to make AYP

13

Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Increased Autonomy for States/locals

CEP – Reframe “Consequences” as “Opportunities”

14

Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Differential Consequences

Utilization of existing – in different order

New consequences Allowability of more focus on

failing subgroup

15

Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Increased Resources

Targeted to Failing Schools – Subgroups

Flexibility in Allocation

16

SES - Choice

17

SES-Choice:SES Eligibility

Proposals

Expansion of High Income – Low Achieving

Restriction to Low Achieving

18

SES-Choice:Sequence

Flip - Pilot Project – Extended to 07-08

Both Choice and SES First Year

Up to 7 LEA / per State

19

Highly Qualified Teachers

20

Highly Qualified Teachers:Increased autonomy for State/locals

More Exceptions Allowable - Possible

21

Highly Qualified Teachers: Effectiveness in addition to credential

Less focus only on credentials-more on qualityyears of experience

History of results

22

Highly Qualified Teachers: Equity

Equity plans in statute Distribution generally of more

experienced teachers Comparability in Title I

loophole???

23

Highly Qualified Teachers: HOUSSE – esp. rural, special education

Multi-subject Teachers Teacher Shortage, esp. Special

Education

24

Students with Disabilities

25

Students with Disabilities

Are they SWD in General EdOR

General Ed students with disabilities?

Policy issue to be determined

26

Students with Disabilities

Large N numbers for this group – Leave unmeasured SWD?

27

Students with Disabilities:Modified standards of assessment

1% Rule 2% Proposed Rule

KeepExpandEliminate

Debate as to support for these particular numbers

More autonomy for IEP teams possible

28

Students with Disabilities:Better NCLB-IDEA coordination

Assessments Utility for District – State or

National Comparison

29

English Language Learners

30

English Language Learners:

Coordinate Title I and Title III Standards

Both have achievement standards requirements

31

English Language Learners: Resources to Meet Growing Population

Regular classroom participation

SpecialistsEsp. short in rural areas

32

English Language Learners: Flexibility on testing in English

Measure ability, NOT years in the US – Or increase initial years

English acquisition as part of AYP

33

English Language Learners:

Residual Inclusion

34

Resources

High Cost Issues All Teachers HQT Statewide Standards / Assessments SWD, ELL Administrative Costs

35

Private school vouchers/scholarships are not politically viable.

If vouchers were not politically viable when Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress back in 2001, it is a forgone conclusion that not much political capital will be spent trying to push vouchers through the 110th Congress

35

Unlikely to pass…

36

Emerging Language on NCLB

Reauthorization – House Education and Labor Committee - StaffDiscussion Draft OnlyCurrently Under Revision

37

Greater Flexibility in AYP

Multiple Indicators Allow in addition to statewide assessment Application to Secretary 5 indicators allowed May increase number of schools making - AYP

1. Growth in…A. ScienceB. HistoryC. Civics or GovernmentD. Writing Assessments

2. Increase percentage of students in below basic to basic, proficient to advanced provided total students proficient increases

38

Greater Flexibility in AYP (cont.)

3. Increase in percentage passing rigorous exams in high level courses

4. Increase in percentage to higher ed

5. Decrease in dropout rates

39

Multiple Indicators

CREDIT:

ELEMENTARY: 15% PER DISAGGREGATED GROUP

SECONDARY: 25% PER DISAGGREGATED GROUP

40

Growth Models

Allowed – Requirements established by the Secretary

Consistent with underlying goals NCLB Incorporate into AYP 13-14 Proficient or 3 year trajectory!! All included Approved assessments, in use 2 years at

least Track individual students – longitudinal

tracking

41

Longitudinal Data System

Within 4 years of enactment 100M

42

State Standards and Assessments

Sufficient rigor for success in the workplace and/or

higher ed $ for States that undertake to

“dramatically improve standards and assessments”

43

Uniform N Number

30But USED Secretary May Approve 40

44

Special Education

1% Rule2% RuleResidual inclusion 3 yearsUSED “waiver” for LEA to 3%

modified achievement standards

45

ELL• Native Language Testing to 5 years plus 2

options• Codify “newly arrived” regs• Residual inclusion 3 years (up from 2)• 10% of state ELL population –particular

language-native language assessment• Portfolio and other alternate assessments

• Note clarification re population

46

Low Performing Schools

• State setaside from 4 to 5%• $ (authorized) for grants to

improve graduation rates in schools under 60%

47

High School Accountability

State May Analyze & Revise Standards for Alignment to Post Secondary and/or WorkplaceDisaggregate graduation rate

• Economic disadvantage• Major race and economic group• Special Ed• LEP

Uniform and reliable method for rate calculation Targets 90% Part of AYP

48

Report Cards

• State and Local• Retains basic requirements

with some additions

49

Local Assessments

• Pilot – 15 States• LEA’s use Local Assessments in addition to State Assessment

50

Peer Review

Additional Transparency

51

Choice - SES

LEA in High Priority School 20% Transfer and SES? Returns No Capacity Consideration Of this 10% for extended learning

Rollover in setaside provided SEA approves

LEA informed families, at least 30 day notice

LEA approves SES on siteLEA informs providers

52

LEA, Improvement-

Change: Timing Corrective ActionNo Major Change in Content

53

Parental Rights and Right to KnowRetains Current Law

54

Private Schools

Retains Current LawCodifies Setaside GuidanceMinor Changes

55

Teacher Accountability-

Retains All Core Teachers HQ Retains Equity Rule

56

Comparability “Loophole”

Use Teacher Salaries Only Include Differentials!!

57

Paraprofessionals-

Retains Current Law

58

School Improvement and Corrective Action and Restructuring –Complete Makeover!

• Phase 1: School Improvement and Assistance

• 2 Tiers:• Priority Schools – Miss AYP in 1-2

subgroups – minor intervention• High Priority Schools – Miss AYP in

most –all subgroups –major intervention

59

School Improvement and Corrective Action and Restructuring (cont…)

High Priority Schools Include: 50% or more students not proficient in reading or math

2 or more subgroups in 50% or more / students not proficient

HS fails AYP and under 60% graduation rate

60

School Improvement and Corrective Action and Restructuring (cont…)

Priority Schools 3 year comprehensive plan after 1 year of

failing AYP At least 2 improvement measures Target subgroups failing AYP

High Priority 3 year comprehensive plan after 1 year or

failing AYP Must: HQ Professional Development Must: Evidence based data driven

instructional programs Must: Data driven decision making

61

School Improvement and Corrective Action and Restructuring (cont…)

Transfer or SESHigh priority schools only – and in 1st year

62

Redesign – Phase 2

2 Redesign Systems Priority Schools – Miss AYP 1 or 2 Subgroups High Priority Schools-

Fail AYP and over 50% not proficient Fail AYP and 2 or more subgroups over

50% not proficient H.S. Fail AYP and less 60% Grad.

Priority Significant revisions in instruction,

leadership and support to failing subgroups 2 years no AYP –High Priority

63

Redesign (cont…)

High Priority-- CLOSE SCHOOL! REOPEN ONLY AFTER comprehensive

redesign REOPEN : CHARTER RECONSTITUTE Leadership and staff an

significantly redesign instruction

64

Redesign (cont…)

High Priority Limit to 10% of eligible schools Balance use priority redesign Choice – to all SES only if received while in 1st phase

65

Funding - Formula

Retains current law

66

House Education and Labor – DRAFTResponse: Secretary Margaret SpellingsSeptember 5, 2007

“Pleased” and“Deeply Troubled”

67

House Education and Labor – DRAFT

Response: Secretary Margaret SpellingsSeptember 5, 2007

“Pleased” and “Deeply Troubled”“Pleased”:

All children above grade level math and reading 2013-2014

Disaggregation by subgroups

68

House Education and Labor – DRAFTResponse: Secretary Margaret Spellings

September 5, 2007“Pleased” and “Deeply Troubled”

*Not Pleased“Deeply Troubled”:

Too Complex, No Clear Picture of Progress Confusing and Burdensome Process Burdensome and Costly for States

Low Performing Schools Escape Accountability Too Many Ways to Make AYP

Not Strict Enough Interventions Restricts SES, Transfer

SWD – ELL Lowers Standards

69

QUESTIONS??

70

This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.