Transcript No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update Illinois State Board of Education

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…?
Background and overview of NCLB
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 fullblown from the minds of Sec. Paige and/or
Pres. Bush…
So….some history……
Sputnik
October 4, 1957
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.
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.”
• Graduation
• More Time-day/Year
Requirements
• Improve Teaching
• Curriculum Content
• Hold Leadership
• Standards/Expectations
Accountable
• Field Support
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?
Who Can’t or Shouldn’t Make It?
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.
No Child Left Behind Themes
•
•
•
•
Assessment
Standards
Achievement Gap
Accountability
•
•
•
•
Teacher Quality
Parent Options
Flexibility
Reporting
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 Percentage of Fourth Graders
Reading Proficiently
100
80
60
40
20
0
1992
1994
1998
2000
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, lowincome 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.
Law changes in Illinois to date
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.
Plan changes and other
recent information
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…Education Trust 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.
The ABCs of “AYP”
“Accountability and AYP will tell us a lot about how our
public schools are doing in meeting the goal of educating
all kids.” stated Kati Haycock, Director of the Education
Trust. “How we respond and act on AYP information will
say a lot about our own beliefs and commitments.”
Education Trust can be accessed at
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust
ISBE Moved Forward with
Enhanced State Assessments
• The State Board of Education authorized State Superintendent of
Education Schiller on 9/2/04 to finalize a contract with an
assessment contractor that will develop and score new tests to be
implemented next school year.
• The RFSP was released last August, and since that time the State
Board has been negotiating with three bidders that would implement
the Illinois Enhanced Assessment System. Schiller will work toward
finalizing a contract with Harcourt Assessment, Inc., which has been
determined to be the most qualified bidder to develop and score the
new tests.
• Changes to state assessment mandated under NCLB made it
necessary to update the ISAT and the PSAE. The mandate provided
the State Board with the opportunity to work with members of the
education community in Illinois and together create the frameworks
for the subjects to be assessed, to improve the reporting of data to
and to enhance the delivery of data to school districts.
Enhanced State Assessments
• “We are confident that the new assessments will represent the
needs of the educational community in Illinois,” Schiller said. “This
has been an involved process with input from many teachers and
administrators in Illinois, especially the people who served on our
Accountability and Assessment Task Force and committed countless
hours of time and effort to ensure that the new assessments will be
a win-win for school districts statewide.”
• In April the State Board of Education and the Assessment and
Accountability Task Force were presented with the proposals by the
three assessment contractors. Last month, the State Board passed
a resolution, which requested input from the Governor’s office before
finalizing a test contract. The State Board determined that recent
substantive changes to state law and budget cuts affecting the
subjects assessed by the state did not result in substantial and
material changes in the RFSP. The Governor’s office agreed in
writing that ISBE should move forward with the contract
negotiations.
Enhanced State Assessments
• The contract is expected to run from the 2005-2006 school year
through the 2007-2008 school year. State Board members were told
that they can expect improvements in the areas of return of Report
Card Information and timelier notifications of AYP status.
• Currently the ISAT measures individual student achievement relative
to the Illinois Learning Standards. The results give parents,
teachers, and schools one measure of student learning and school
performance. In the 2004-2004 school year students in grades 3, 5,
and 8 will take the ISAT in reading and mathematics. Students in
grades 4 and 7 will take the ISAT in science.
• Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year the enhanced ISAT will be
expanded to include assessment of students in grades 3 through 8
in reading and mathematics, while those students in grades 4 and 7
will continue to be assessed in science.
• The PSAE measures the achievement of grade 11 students relative
to the Illinois Learning Standards for reading, mathematics, and
science, and will not be expanded to include additional grades.
Schools In Need of Improvement,
Step-by-Step
School Year
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
By end of 2002-03
By end of 2003-04
Beginning of 2004-05
By end of 2004-05
Beginning of 2005-06
By end of 2005-06
Beginning of 2006-07
School makes AYP –Y/N
N
N
Year 1, SI (choice)
N
Year 2, SI (choice & SES)
N
Choice, SES and CA
Schools In Need of Improvement NOW
•
The total number of Title I schools in School Improvement status is 694,
with some schools entering their first year of restructuring under the No
Child Left Behind Act. Letters were sent to the affected districts on Thursday
regarding these schools. The breakdown of the [duplicated] 694 schools
includes:
– CH=Choice 216
CS=Choice and SES 213
CA=Corrective Action 242
RS=Restructuring Year 123
•
It is important to note the following points in remarks made to your
communities, school boards and the media, on the Preliminary School
Improvement Status issue.
– This is a list of Title I schools only that have not made AYP for two or
more consecutive years and are now in school improvement.
– Required to notify schools before the beginning of the school year, and
in order to meet this requirement we were only able to use preliminary
state assessment data.
– The determinations do not include participation rate, attendance rate
and graduation rate.
LIST or LETTER NOW
On August 13, 2004, a letter
was sent to district
superintendents who currently
have schools in school
improvement status. The letter
serves as an "early alert" that
some schools have been
identified as not making AYP
based only on preliminary
2004 state assessment results
and may be required to offer:
– public school choice; or
– public school choice and
supplemental educational
services; or
– public school choice,
supplemental educational
services, and corrective
action; or
– public school choice,
supplemental educational
services, corrective action,
and first year of restructuring.
Schools identified as having to
offer any of the above , except
for restructuring (first year is a
planning year) should be
prepared to implement these
efforts at the beginning of
2004-05 school year.
New information on SES
• The new 61-page publication includes samples of an
announcement flier, enrollment form, parent survey and
progress report from the school districts. Included also
are appendices showing each district's demographics,
the report's methodology for collecting data, and
additional resources for implementing supplemental
educational services.
• Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services
Programs is at
www.ed.gov/admins/comm/suppsvcs/sesprograms/index
.html.
Consequences per State Law
Sec. 2-3.25f. State interventions. (a) A school or
school district must submit the required revised
Improvement Plan pursuant to rules adopted by
ISBE. The ISBE shall provide technical
assistance to assist with the development and
implementation of the improvement plan. School
districts that fail to submit required School
Improvement Plans or fail to obtain approval of
such plans pursuant to rules adopted by ISBE
may have State funds withheld until such plans
are submitted.
Consequences
Schools or school districts that fail to make
reasonable efforts to implement an
approved School Improvement Plan may
suffer loss of State funds by school district,
attendance center, or program as ISBE
deems appropriate. The provisions of this
subsection (a) relating to submission and
approval of School Improvement Plans are
subject to the provisions of Section 23.25k. (b)
Consequences
In addition, if after 2 years following its placement on the
academic watch status list a school district or school remains on
the academic watch status list, the State Board of Education shall
take one of the following actions for the district or school:
ISBE may authorize the State Superintendent of Education to
direct the regional superintendent of schools to remove school
board members pursuant to Section 3-14.28 of this Code.
Prior to such direction ISBE shall permit members of the local
board of education to present written and oral comments to ISBE.
ISBE may direct the State Superintendent of Education to appoint
an Independent Authority that shall exercise such powers and
duties as may be necessary to operate a school or school district
for purposes of improving pupil performance and school
improvement.
Consequences
The State Superintendent of Education shall designate
one member of the Independent Authority to serve as
chairman. The Independent Authority shall serve for a
period of time specified by ISBE upon the
recommendation of the State Superintendent of
Education.
ISBE may (A) change the recognition status of the
school district or school to non-recognized (a) nonrecognize the school district or school, or (B) (b) may
authorize the State Superintendent of Education to direct
the reassignment of pupils or direct the reassignment or
replacement of school district personnel who are
relevant to not meeting AYP criteria and administrative
staff.
Consequences
If a school district is non-recognized in its entirety, it shall
automatically be dissolved on July 1 following that nonrecognition and its territory realigned with another school
district or districts by the regional board of school
trustees in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Section 7-11 of the School Code. The effective date of
the non-recognition of a school shall be July 1 following
the non-recognition.
[alignment with NCLB] All federal requirements apply to
schools and school districts utilizing federal funds under
Title I, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
Is There Any Way Out from CA?
Yes, over two years.
•
•
•
•
•
School Makes AYP (Y/N)
School Year
CA
Beginning of 2006-07
Y
By end of 2006-07
CA
Beginning of 2007-08
Y
By end of 2007-08
No longer in CA
Beginning of 2009-09
Resources
• USDE newsletter, The Achiever:
www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/2004/090104.html#6
• The NCLB Superintendents Hotline opened January 2004 and is
staffed on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. After hours, the Hotline
is available to receive messages. Superintendents can call toll-free
to 1-888-NCLB-SUP (625-2787) or by e-mail at [email protected]
• State legislation at Web site http://www.legis.state.il.us
• State NCLB site at www.isbe.net/nclb
• State AYP site at www.isbe.net/ayp