Michigan Association of State and Federal Program
Download
Report
Transcript Michigan Association of State and Federal Program
Michigan Association of State and Federal Program
Specialists
“NCLB Reauthorization: What is on the Horizon?”
Traverse City, Michigan
November, 2007
Leigh Manasevit
Brustein & Manasevit
3105 South Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
[email protected]
(202) 965-3652
1
January 4, 2007
110th Congress
Senate
House
51 Democrats
49 Republicans
233 Democrats
202 Republicans
November 2008: Presidential
Election
2
Aspen Institute
Beyond NCLB…
-Report on NCLB: Bipartisan
Committee
Site:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf
/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F848DF23CA704F5%7D/NCLB_Book.pd
f
3
Measure of Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP)
4
Measure of AYP:
Increased Autonomy for States/Locals
Consistent
with nearly all
non-administration proposals
5
Measure of AYP:
Multiple measures beyond assessments
State Flexibility
Multiple Measures of Student /
School Performance
Validity & Reliability of Existing
Tests
6
Measure of AYP:
Growth Models
ED Pilot
Limitations
General Support
NEA and General Union
Opposition
Barack Obama raises “merit pay”
7
Measure of AYP:
Growth Models
9 Approved
North
Carolina
Florida
Arkansas
Arizona
Alaska
Tennessee
Ohio
Delaware
Iowa
8
Measure of AYP:
N Numbers
Uniformity – Subgroups
Minimum #
National Uniformity
9
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)
10
Measure of AYP:
National Standards?
Possible – Unlikely
NAEP – Wider reporting
11
Consequences of
Failure to make AYP
12
Consequences of Failure
to make AYP:
Increased Autonomy for
States/locals
CEP –
Reframe “Consequences” as
“Opportunities”
13
Consequences of Failure to make AYP:
Differential Consequences
Utilization
of existing –
in different order
New consequences
Allowability of more focus on
failing subgroup
14
Consequences of Failure to make AYP:
Increased Resources
Targeted to Failing Schools –
Subgroups
Flexibility in Allocation
15
SES - Choice
16
SES-Choice:
SES Eligibility
Proposals
Expansion of High Income –
Low Achieving
Restriction to Low Achieving
17
SES-Choice:
Sequence
Flip - Pilot Project –
Extended to 07-08
Both Choice and SES First
Year
Up to 7 LEA / per State
18
Highly Qualified Teachers
19
Highly Qualified Teachers:
Increased autonomy for State/locals
More Exceptions Allowable - Possible
20
Highly Qualified Teachers:
Effectiveness in addition to credential
Less focus only on credentials more on quality
years of experience
History of results
21
Highly Qualified Teachers:
Equity
Equity plans in statute
Distribution generally of more
experienced teachers
Comparability in Title I
loophole???
22
Highly Qualified Teachers: HOUSSE –
esp. rural, special education
Multi-subject Teachers
Teacher Shortage, esp. Special
Education
23
Students with
Disabilities
24
Students with Disabilities
Are they SWD in General Ed
OR
General Ed students with
disabilities?
Policy issue to be determined
25
Students with Disabilities
Large N numbers for this group
– Leave unmeasured SWD?
26
Students with Disabilities:
Modified standards of assessment
1% Rule
2% Proposed Rule
Keep
Expand
Eliminate
Debate as to support for these
particular numbers
More autonomy for IEP teams possible
27
Students with Disabilities:
Better NCLB-IDEA coordination
Assessments
Utility for District – State or
National Comparison
28
English Language Learners
29
English Language Learners:
Coordinate Title I and Title III
Standards
Both have achievement
standards requirements
30
English Language Learners: Resources to
Meet Growing Population
Regular classroom participation
Specialists
Esp. short in rural areas
31
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
32
English Language Learners:
Residual Inclusion
33
Resources
High Cost Issues
All Teachers HQT
Statewide Standards / Assessments
SWD, ELL
Administrative Costs
34
Unlikely to pass…
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
35
Emerging Language
on NCLB
Reauthorization – House
Education and Labor Committee Staff
Discussion Draft Only
Currently Under Revision
36
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…
Science
B. History
C. Civics or Government
D. Writing Assessments
Increase percentage of students in
below basic to basic, proficient to
advanced provided total students
proficient increases
A.
2.
37
Greater Flexibility in AYP (cont.)
3.
4.
5.
Increase in percentage passing
rigorous exams in high level
courses
Increase in percentage to
higher ed
Decrease in dropout rates
38
Multiple Indicators
CREDIT:
ELEMENTARY: 15% PER
DISAGGREGATED GROUP
SECONDARY: 25% PER
DISAGGREGATED GROUP
39
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
40
Longitudinal Data System
Within 4 years of enactment 100M
41
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”
42
Uniform N Number
30
But USED Secretary May Approve 40
43
Special Education
1%
Rule
2% Rule
Residual inclusion 3 years
USED “waiver” for LEA to 3%
modified achievement standards
44
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
45
Low Performing Schools
•
•
State setaside from 4 to 5%
$ (authorized) for grants to
improve graduation rates in
schools under 60%
46
High School Accountability
State May Analyze & Revise Standards for Alignment
to Post Secondary and/or Workplace
Disaggregate graduation rate
• Economic disadvantage
• Major race and economic group
• Special Ed
• LEP
Uniform and reliable method for rate calculation
Targets 90%
Part of AYP
47
Report Cards
•
•
State and Local
Retains basic requirements
with some additions
48
Local Assessments
Pilot – 15 States
• LEA’s use Local Assessments
in addition to State
Assessment
•
49
Peer Review
Additional Transparency
50
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 site
LEA informs providers
51
LEA, ImprovementChange: Timing Corrective Action
No Major Change in Content
52
Parental Rights and Right to
Know
Retains Current Law
53
Private Schools
Retains
Current Law
Codifies Setaside Guidance
Minor Changes
54
Teacher Accountability
Retains All Core Teachers HQ
Retains Equity Rule
55
Comparability “Loophole”
Use Teacher Salaries Only
Include Differentials!!
56
Paraprofessionals-
Retains Current Law
57
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
•
58
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
59
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
60
School Improvement and Corrective
Action and Restructuring (cont…)
Transfer or SES
High priority schools only – and in
1st year
61
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
62
Redesign (cont…)
High Priority-
CLOSE SCHOOL!
REOPEN ONLY AFTER comprehensive
redesign
REOPEN : CHARTER
RECONSTITUTE Leadership and staff an
significantly redesign instruction
63
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
64
Funding - Formula
Retains current law
65
House Education and Labor – DRAFT
Response:
Secretary Margaret Spellings
September 5, 2007
“Pleased”
and
“Deeply Troubled”
66
House Education and Labor –
DRAFT
Response: Secretary Margaret Spellings
September 5, 2007
“Pleased” and “Deeply Troubled”
“Pleased”:
All children above grade level math and
reading 2013-2014
Disaggregation by subgroups
67
House Education and Labor –
DRAFT
Response: Secretary Margaret Spellings
September 5, 2007
“Pleased” and “Deeply Troubled”
*Not Pleased
“Deeply Troubled”:
Too Complex, No Clear Picture of Progress
Low Performing Schools Escape Accountability
Too Many Ways to Make AYP
Not Strict Enough Interventions
Confusing and Burdensome Process
Burdensome and Costly for States
Restricts SES, Transfer
SWD – ELL
Lowers Standards
68
QUESTIONS??
69
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.
70