Home ::

TCTA has reviewed the 435-page draft of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorization bill released by the Chair of the U.S. House committee on Education and Labor on August 29, 2007. The following analysis incorporates information from both the outline provided by the House Committee on Education and Labor, as well as TCTA’s own analysis. (Note, due to the length of the bill, this analysis focuses on provisions of most import to our members and does not contain all of the provisions addressed in the committee outline. See TCTA's testimony to Chairman Miller's draft. )

Qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals

The draft contains only minor changes to these provisions, but Chairman Miller has released more changes addressing teacher quality which TCTA is reviewing (watch the TCTA website for analysis and comments). The draft requires that each state shall have a plan to ensure that all teachers of core academic subjects within the state be highly qualified. The plan shall, among other things:

  • demonstrate that teachers are receiving high quality professional development to enable teachers to meet the highly qualified requirements and become effective classroom teachers;
  • meet the requirements regarding the equitable distribution of highly qualified teachers; and
  • include such measures as the state educational agency determines to be appropriate to increase teacher qualifications and classroom effectiveness.

Multiple indicators

One of the biggest changes the draft makes is to allow states to use indicators other than just the test scores required by the current NCLB in meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). According to the committee outline, the draft allows states to use more than a single test for accountability purposes. States can use multiple, state-developed assessments taken at different points in time to measure AYP and may consider more than reading and math assessments in the final AYP determination. Such additional indicators of school progress include graduation rates, dropout rates, college enrollment rates, percentages of students successfully completing end-of-course exams for college preparatory courses, assessments in history, science, civics and government, and writing, and improvements in the performance of the lowest and highest performing students in the school. Substantial improvement on such indicators may provide credit of up to a total of 15% of elementary schools’ annual measurable objectives and 25% of high schools’ annual measurable objectives.

In our review, we note more details on this. The draft includes language that the state can incorporate data on student learning using different measures of student academic achievement at different points in time during the same school year, provided that such measures shall:

  • be valid, reliable, objective, and consistent with the assessment quality provisions of this paragraph;
  • be aligned with the state’s challenging academic content and achievement standards;
  • be comparable across all local educational agencies, schools, and students;
  • be fully aligned through a rigorous alignment procedure with the state’s challenging academic content and student academic achievement standards;
  • be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (TCTA note: current NCLB uses the term “consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards”);
  • enable itemized score analyses, with descriptions of individual assessment items and the percentage of students answering such questions correctly, to be produced and reported to local educational agencies and schools, so that parents, teachers, principals, and administrators can interpret and address the specific academic needs of students as indicated by the students’ achievement on assessment items.

The draft includes language that any system of multiple indicators shall include at least one of the following indicators:

  1. Growth on state assessments of science, history, civics and government, or writing.
  2. Increases in the percentage of students who move from the below basic level to the basic level and the proficient level to the advanced level, unless such score interpretations are already considered as part of the state’s growth model or performance index used to determine the school’s proficiency rate and as long as the total number of students who are proficient also increases.
  3. Increases in the percentages of students passing rigorous, objective, independent end-of-course exams in core academic subjects such as for Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, QualityCore or another rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in section 401(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, if such courses are available in all schools in the state and such exams are not included in the state assessment system.
  4. Increases in college enrollment rates and percentages of secondary school graduates enrolling in other public or private accredited degree-granting institutions of higher education.
  5. Decreases in dropout rates.

The draft provides that for states using multiple indicators, in determining whether annual measurable objectives are met for each student group, fully meeting the graduation rate targets for that group and fully or partially meeting any of the other indicators for that group may provide credit towards such group’s meeting its annual measurable objectives in reading or language arts and mathematics. In the case of an elementary school, the total credit any group may receive from additional indicators may not exceed 15 percent 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.

In addition, the following shall apply:

  • Fully meeting the state’s graduation rate growth target shall provide credit for up to 15 percent of a group’s annual measurable objectives and no partial credit may be awarded if the full graduation rate target is not met.
  • Fully meeting an indicator based on passage of end-of-course exams for college preparatory courses in core academic subjects may provide credit for up to 10 percent of a group’s annual measurable objectives.
  • Fully meeting any of the other indicators may provide credit of up to five percent of a group’s annual measurable objectives.
  • Provide that, if any indicator, except the graduation rate growth targets, is partially met, the group may get partial credit based on a proportion of the percentage increase associated with fully meeting the indicator that is equal to the extent to which the annual growth target for the indicator is met.
  • Provide that, for the indicator regarding increases in the percentage of students who move from the below basic level to the basic level and the proficient level to the advanced level, credit may be applied only to the subject for which the increases occurred. For writing exams, credit may be applied only to the annual measurable objectives in reading or language arts.
  • Require that all additional indicators be measured separately for each student group with respect to the number of students that is sufficient to yield statistically reliable information.
  • Require that credit may not be used to help a school meet the 95 percent participation requirement.

For secondary schools, require the state to include as an indicator the graduation rates, except that schools may not make AYP if they do not make the full growth target described in that section and credit from other indicators may not be applied to help a school meet the growth target for such graduation rates.

Set a universal goal for achievement on each indicator that is equal to the average achievement of the highest performing group of students in the highest performing 10 percent of local educational agencies in the state.

For each additional indicator used, excluding graduation rates, establish an average annual growth target that schools and local educational agencies must meet for each group to receive the maximum allowable credit.

The annual growth target shall be the same for all groups of students; shall be substantial and continuous, and shall be based on the average rate of percentage point growth of the top 20 percent of schools in the state that demonstrate the largest gains in performance on the additional indicators used by the state for at least one year prior to the year the state implements the multiple indicators system;

or

The annual growth shall be substantial and continuous; and be based on the difference between the actual performance of each student group on each additional indicator used by the state in the year prior to the year the state implements its system of multiple indicators and the universal goal established over a period of 10 years.

Growth models

Another important change in the draft is that it allows states to use student growth measures in the state’s definition of AYP. This is something that many states have requested and in fact, USDE has allowed some states to pilot such measures. According to the committee outline, the draft allows states to integrate measurement of student academic growth into the state’s definition of AYP. Rather than mandating use of one specific growth model, the bill lays out principles for growth models, thus allowing for flexibility and innovation as new models are developed. Growth model principles include:

• Continuing the expectation that all students in each subgroup will be proficient by 2013-14 or be on a trajectory for proficiency within three years;

• Establishing annual measurable objectives that are based upon the state’s proficient levels and not upon individual student background characteristics;

• Establishing separate, measurable growth targets for mathematics and reading/ language arts;

• Ensuring all students who take the state’s assessment are included in the state’s accountability system;

• Including comparable results from grade-to-grade and year-to-year within the definition of AYP; and

• Including rates of student participation in assessments and academic achievement as separate indicators in determining AYP.

Additionally, the draft requires states to have in place within four years, longitudinal data systems that compare the same group of students each year. These data systems will include certain elements, including:

• An ability to match individual student scores on state academic assessments from year to year;

• A unique student identifier so test scores can be monitored while individual privacy is protected, and a unique teacher identifier that matches student records to the appropriate teacher;

• Enrollment, attendance, demographic and program participation information including individual student membership in subgroups at the school, grade and classroom level;

• Student-level data on the entrance and exit of the education system for each student including first-time grade enrollment, grade level retention, transfer status, and dropout rates.

In TCTA’s review of the draft, we discovered further details about the longitudinal data systems. For example, the draft requires that the state form a committee to design the data system and that the committee include public elementary and secondary school teachers and members of organizations representing teachers, including unions, operating unions that represent teachers, principals and administrators of programs under this Act, representatives of small and large businesses operating or representing businesses, representatives of civil rights organizations, and experts in educational research, statistical analysis and data privacy from institutions of higher education or other research organizations.

The draft also provides that essential elements of the data system include student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information, including information on individual students’ membership in each student group, school, grade, classroom level, enrollment, and attendance, and a unique statewide teacher identifier that remains consistent over time and matches all student records described in this subsection to the appropriate teacher.

Finally the draft contains language setting out protections and uses of funds for the system, requiring that the state ensure:

  • Limited use of information in the longitudinal data system by institutions of higher education and state or local educational agencies or institutions to the activities set forth in the draft or state law.
  • Effective data architecture and storage, including standard definitions and formatting, and warehousing, including the ability to link student records over time and across databases and to produce standardized or customized reports for use by local educators and policymakers, that support analyses and research to evaluate the effectiveness of education-related programs and initiatives.
  • Researcher access to the data in such system, consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 1232g).

The draft allows the state to use federal funds received for the data system to develop processes to analyze and disseminate best practices, strategies, and approaches regarding pedagogical advancement that will leverage the data system to enhance teaching and learning, including creating opportunities for individualized instruction.

Testing of special education students

According to the committee outline, the draft provides funding to develop appropriate assessments for students with disabilities. States will have two years to come into compliance with this requirement or face a loss of up to 25% of state administrative funds. The draft also:

• Allows special education students to remain in that group for accountability purposes for three years after they exit those programs (TCTA note: current federal regulations allow two years).

• Maintains the policy that allows the proficient scores of 10% of students with disabilities (1% percent of all students) with the most severe cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based on alternate standards to count as proficient when determining AYP.

• For three years, continues the regulation that allows the proficient scores of 20% of students with disabilities (2% of all students) who take grade-level modified assessments based on modified achievement standards to count as proficient when determining AYP. Requires the Secretary to review key studies and re-regulate the issue based on the results of such studies after three years.

• Allows certain districts with high numbers of students with disabilities to get a waiver of the 2% percent cap, allowing up to 3% of such students to not be counted against the state’s overall cap (TCTA note: this codifies what federal regulations currently allow).

Our review of the draft reveals that much of the language it contains on this topic is really a codification of existing USDE rules. We note that the 1% cap (on the percent of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who can be tested on an alternative test aligned with alternative achievement standards and still be counted as proficient for AYP), and the 2% cap (on the percent of students who are not severely disabled but who have not been able to reach grade level because of disabilities that can be tested on modified achievement standards and still be counted as proficient for AYP) were not contained in the original NCLB Act, but rather, were implemented later via USDE rule. The new draft codifies this rule language. For example, the draft provides that a state may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, define alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, provided those standards—

(i) are aligned with the state’s academic content standards;

(ii) promote access to the general curriculum; and

(iii) reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement standards attainable by those students. (TCTA note: this codifies what federal regulations currently allow).

The draft also appears to incorporate language or concepts from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in this section, when it requires states assessing students on modified achievement standards to provide Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams with clear and appropriate guidelines in determining when a child should be assessed on these standards, including whether the student’s disability has precluded the student from achieving grade-level proficiency, as demonstrated by objective evidence, such as the student’s performance on the state’s regular assessments or on other assessments that can validly demonstrate academic achievement, and whether the student’s progress in response to appropriate instruction, including special education and related services designed to address the student’s individual needs, is such that, even if significant growth occurs, the IEP team is reasonably certain that the student will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the student’s IEP. This progress shall be based on multiple measurements over a period of time that are valid for the subjects being assessed.

However, the draft does add new language not contained in current rule, such as requiring states to ensure that regular and special education teachers and other appropriate staff know how to administer assessments, including making appropriate use of accommodations, for students with disabilities.

It also contains new language requiring states to develop valid and reliable assessments for students with disabilities and ELLs, and in doing so to have a plan that describes how the state will assist school districts in developing or identifying high quality, professional development programs that will help schools implement such curricula effectively and ensure that classroom instruction fully reflects state standards; how the state educational agency will assist each school district and school affected by the state plan in ensuring that teachers and school administrators are adequately trained and prepared to—

  • determine when accommodations on assessments administered to ELLs and students with disabilities are necessary;
  • determine which accommodations are effective in yielding valid and reliable data for each group of students; and
  • incorporate such valid accommodations in their instruction to such students.

and how the state will ensure that a well-rounded curriculum, including all the core academic subjects and physical education, will be taught to all students in the state.

Testing of English language learners

According to the committee outline, the draft:

  • Requires states with more than 10 percent of ELLs who share the same language within the state to develop valid and reliable native language assessments designed specifically for that language group (pg. 82)
  • Provides funding to develop appropriate assessments for ELLs (Title VI).
  • Requires the Secretary to withhold 25 percent of administration funds from states that do not have in place a valid and reliable system (i.e. native language assessments, portfolio assessments, research based and simplified English assessments) of measuring ELLs within two years from the date of enactment (pg. 85)
  • To ensure that ELLs remain in the accountability system while giving states time to develop appropriate assessments and accommodations, allows state to use the English Language Proficiency test for the purpose of determining AYP in reading/language arts for the students with the lowest levels of English proficiency for no more than two years from enactment.
  • Authorizes states to use portfolios and other alternate valid and reliable assessment measures to assess English Language Proficiency of ELL students.
  • Allows states and school districts the flexibility to test ELL students using alternate, valid and reliable assessments, such as native language assessments for up to five years (up from three years in current law), with the option of providing a local educational agency-approved waiver for an additional two years on a case-by-case basis.
  • Allows states to exclude the assessment results of recently arrived ELLs (those who have been in the country for less than one year) when determining AYP (TCTA note: Current federal regulations allow this).
  • Allows ELL students to remain in that group for accountability purposes for three years after they exit the program. (TCTA note: current federal regulations allow two years).

Accountability

The draft includes language that seems to recognize the influence of factors other than academic on student achievement. For example, it provides that each state assessment plan shall include an assessment of the nonacademic factors influencing student achievement, and a description of the state educational agency’s strategy to coordinate and collaborate, to the extent feasible, with agencies providing services to children, youth, and families, to help provide needed services to address major nonacademic factors that have significantly affected the academic achievement of students in the local educational agency or schools served by such agency. Throughout the draft, mention is made of coordinating services with entities such as Even Start and other family literacy services; and coordinate and integrate federal, state and local services and programs, including programs supported under this Act, violence prevention programs, nutrition programs, housing programs, Head Start, adult education, career and technical education, and job training.

We note that the draft offers a kinder and gentler approach to accountability, deleting language contained in the current NCLB that each state accountability system shall “include sanctions and rewards, such as bonuses and recognition, ... to hold local educational agencies and public elementary schools and secondary schools accountable for student achievement and for ensuring that they make adequate yearly progress.”

In fact, the draft eliminates the entire sanction scheme contained in the current NCLB for schools failing to meet AYP and replaces it with one more focused on support and intervention. According to the committee outline, regarding school improvement and assistance, the draft:

  • Creates two separate and distinct school improvement and assistance systems: (1) one for “Priority Schools” that would include those schools that miss AYP in one or two student groups and need only minor interventions; and (2) another for “High Priority Schools” which would include those schools that miss AYP in most, if not all, of their student groups and need more substantial assistance. Schools that are close to reaching AYP will not be subject to the same level of intensity of interventions as schools that are chronically struggling.
  • Removes the requirement that all schools that miss AYP provide students with supplemental educational services and choice and, instead, would limit this requirement to High Priority Schools.
  • Requires all schools that miss AYP to:
    • Provide their teachers with high-quality professional development, including state-of-the-art mentoring for all new teachers. Professional development must be aligned to the state’s standards and the curriculum they are teaching, directly address the student’s academic achievement needs, and incorporate the results of formative assessments;
    • Ensure that students who need the most help are assigned to the teachers best equipped to help them by ensuring that no student in the school is taught for two consecutive years by novice or out-of-field teachers (or, if school capacity does not allow this, publicly reporting on the inequities to parents, the school district and the local community.)
  • Provides a range of proven intervention options for schools: High Priority elementary schools will adopt at least the first three proven interventions listed below, High Priority secondary schools will adopt at least the first four interventions and Priority Schools will choose at least any two of the following proven interventions, targeting them to the subgroup(s) that are struggling:
    • Proven Instructional Programs—schools can revise their instructional programs in order to better align them with the state’s standards. In the case of high schools, this can include improving rigor by ensuring that a full college and work-ready curriculum is available consistent with the Academic Competitiveness Initiative, including increases in AP and similar courses, dual enrollment or early college secondary school opportunities; creating contextual learning opportunities aligned with work-readiness such as high-quality career and technical education; or implementing integrated curriculum;
    • Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision-Making—schools can adopt use of formative assessments that provide teachers with real-time diagnostic information on their students’ progress and can inform their instruction;
    • Parental Options—schools can adopt use of free after-school tutoring for low-income students and public school choice as consistent with state law;
    • Personalized Learning Environments—schools can provide activities that increase student engagement and attendance, including dropout recovery and credit completion programs, smaller schools, and 9th grade transition programs;
    • Extended Learning Time—schools can increase students’ access to after school, summer school and other learning opportunities that go beyond the current typical school day, which may include extra instruction in reading and math;
    • Supervised Intervention Models—schools can use supervised intervention models for low-performing schools (such as Response to Intervention approaches, tiered instructional interventions); and,
    • Specialized Support and Parent and Community Involvement—schools can offer extra help for students with diverse learning needs, such as ELLs and students with disabilities – and additional counselors, social workers, and other supports including activities that link families with support services that help meet students’ nonacademic needs. In the case of high schools, this can include career academies and other student engagement activities.

Redesign – The bill would create two separate and distinct redesign systems: one for “Priority Schools” and another for “High Priority Schools”.

  • Requires “Priority Redesign Schools” to institute significant revisions in their instructional and leadership programs and support services provided to the groups of students that did not meet proficiency targets and review the performance of the school leadership and all staff serving that group of students.
  • Requires “High Priority Redesign Schools” to close the school, which could be reopened only after a comprehensive redesign of its instructional program and the staffing of the school; close the school and reopen it as a charter school; or reconstitute the school’s leadership and staff and significantly revise the instructional program in the subject areas for which the school was identified as not making AYP (pg. 248)
  • Requires school districts to limit the number of “High Priority Redesign Schools” to 10 percent or 50 schools, whichever is less. Schools that exceed the 10 percent cap will implement the measures specified for “Priority Redesign Schools” and other interventions to improve the academic achievement of its non-proficient students.

In our review of these provisions, we found much to like. For example, the draft requires that in order to help low-achieving children meet challenging achievement academic standards, each school district shall have a plan that includes:

  • a description of how the local educational agency will use the results of the assessments to provide research-based instruction and interventions;
  • a description of how the local educational agency will create an early childhood education team of staff within such agency with responsibility for curricula, assessment, professional development, and after-school programs, special education, ELLs, and other pupil services for children below grade four, in order to create ongoing channels of communication on shared expectations of learning and knowledge of developmentally, age, culturally, and linguistically appropriate practices;
  • a description of the actions the school district will pursue to ensure that high quality, highly qualified teachers take positions in, and remain in, schools served under this part; and
  • assurances that the local educational agency will provide that the instructional materials are aligned with current state academic content standards and prepare students to meet current state academic achievement standards.

The draft also requires that certain schools not making AYP develop a comprehensive school improvement and assistance plan in consultation with, among others, principals, teachers and other school staff, including those with expertise in working with students with diverse learning needs, including ELLs and students with disabilities. The plan shall include a review and analysis of the systemic causes for the school not making AYP, including review of students not meeting proficiency targets and the specific subjects and student groups that account for the school not making AYP and achievement data for students not meeting proficiency, including—

  • an analysis of teacher assignment and teacher expertise by grade, subject and group of students;
  • an analysis of practices concerning the school’s core academic instructional program that have caused the achievement differences and reforms that have the greatest likelihood of improving teacher performance.

The plan shall include a review and analysis of current and prospective strategies, policies, and practices that will directly address the systemic causes for the school not making AYP, including—

  • current teacher assignments that include a review of out-of-field teaching and data from the local educational agency’s needs assessment to determine whether students who are not proficient are assigned to teachers who are highly qualified and who are best equipped to help them attain proficiency and how changes to teacher assignments could address causes for the school not making AYP;
  • current professional development activities for teachers and principals to determine how changes to professional development practices or instructional practices, such as common lesson-planning, instructional coaching, and evidence-based interventions could address causes for the school not making AYP;
  • current amount of instructional time (including learning time before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year and through tutoring options) to determine how changes to the amount of instructional time could address causes for the school not making AYP.

The draft also requires schools needing improvement to offer ongoing, high-quality professional development for the school’s principal and teachers, mentoring and induction for all new teachers and suggests that schools provide regular opportunities for teachers of core academic subjects to collaborate with both subject area and interdisciplinary groups to review student achievement data and plan instruction; and to implement a schoolwide literacy or mathematics plan that includes hiring literacy coaches or mathematics coaches.

College readiness standards

The committee’s outline of the draft provides incentives to states that have not already done so to review their standards in light of national and international benchmarks and collaborate with the business and higher education community in the state to develop standards that are aligned to the skills and knowledge necessary for success in college and the workforce. States that choose to revise their standards would, as part of this process, fully align their state assessments to the new standards within two years, ensure that assessments measure critical skills such as problem-solving and application of knowledge and meet high technical quality standards.

However, in our review of the draft, in addition to these provisions, we note that the draft also requires states wishing to receive Title I funds to submit a state plan that demonstrates that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards. The draft also adds new language that the content standards are aligned from grade to grade and with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in postsecondary education and the workforce.

We also note that the draft contains language requiring state accountability systems to be of sufficient rigor as to ensure that students graduate from secondary school with the problem-solving skills and critical thinking capacities necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and the workplace.

Clearly, there is an expectation that states will ensure that students graduate from high school with the skills necessary for college and work.

Graduation

The draft strongly emphasizes the importance of graduation from high school. For example, the committee outline describes the Graduation Promise Fund contained in the draft as follows: Establishes new resources for high schools with the lowest graduation rates to support schoolwide improvement activities, including data-driven decision making, improved curriculum and instruction, personalization of the school environment, staff collaboration and professional development, and individualized student supports. Establishes, identifies and provides services to middle school students who are most at risk of dropping out. Provides counseling services to students at risk of dropping out.

According to the committee outline, the draft sets a single definition of graduation rate to be used across states. The rate includes the option for a four or five year rate.

• Graduation rates AYP: Ensures real accountability for graduation rates disaggregation of data and by requiring a rigorous, but reasonable, rate of growth that all schools must meet to make AYP. States will either require schools to meet an average growth target of 2.5 percentage points per year to make AYP (three percentage points if a five-year rate is used) or may develop an alternate system that is equally rigorous and results in closing the achievement gap between subgroups by 2019-20.

• Credit for meeting full graduation rate requirements: If schools meet the full state growth target for specific groups of students, they can get credit of up to 15% of their annual measurable objectives in determining AYP for that group. Creates a single measure for reporting and requires high schools to meet benchmarks for increasing graduation rates with an end goal of a 90% rate. Requires disaggregation of graduation rate data. Allows students who graduate in five years to count towards the school’s definition of graduation rate.

In our review of the bill, we noted that the draft amends the current NCLB to require that each state accountability system shall not only be based on the academic standards and assessments already required by the Act but also “progress toward graduating all students.” Regarding AYP, the draft introduces new language that each state plan shall demonstrate what constitutes AYP of the state toward enabling all public elementary school and secondary school students to meet the state’s student academic achievement standards and to graduate with a regular high school diploma.

Measurable objectives

When Texas submitted its AYP Plan to USDE in 2006, it requested several changes in the "safe harbor" process of the Act, which is a provision meant to protect schools that have low scores but are improving rapidly. TEA wanted to give schools more ways to argue that their scores are improving. One of the requested changes would have allowed schools appealing AYP ratings because of low scores to qualify if those scores fell within a "confidence interval" – in other words, if there was a decent chance the school could have scored better if its students were tested again. USDE rejected the plan. However, other state plans using confidence intervals were approved, and Chairman Miller apparently agrees with the concept because the draft contains language allowing states to use confidence intervals in establishing statewide measurable objectives for AYP (except that no confidence interval may exceed 95 percent and no confidence interval may be applied to a growth model or to certain indicators).

Participation rate

The draft allows states to exempt students from the required 95% participation rate if a student cannot take the assessment during the entire testing window because of a documented medical emergency.

Group sizes

According to the committee outline, under NCLB, states are required to set a minimum subgroup size, or “n size,” for both reporting and accountability purposes. Since passage of NCLB, a number of reports have surfaced that show large “n sizes” as approved by the USDE mean that nearly two million students, mainly disadvantaged students, are not being counted when schools report AYP by student groups. The discussion draft closes this loophole by setting a maximum “n size” of 30, which will yield statistically reliable information without producing personally-identifiable information about individual students.

It is our understanding that the definition of minimum subgroup size that Texas has used is 50 or more students in the student group (summed across all grades) for the subject and the student group comprises at least 10% of all test takers in the subject OR test results for 200 or more students in the student group, even if the group represents less than 10% of all tests takers in the group. So this will cause a change for Texas.

Test score results

The draft contains language that the state will ensure that the results of the state assessments will be promptly provided to local educational agencies, schools, and teachers in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, but not later than 30 days before the beginning of the next school year.

Reporting

The draft contains language requiring states to include in their State Report Cards, information, disaggregated by the highest and lowest achieving deciles of public schools (based on statewide standardized assessments), on—

  • the proportion of teachers in core academic subjects who are highly qualified;
  • the proportion of school principals (and other school level administrators) certified under an applicable state or national program;
  • the proportion of secondary school students enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum;
  • the average class size and range of class sizes;
  • the ratio of students to computers; and
  • the average starting teacher salary.

TCTA notes that the current NCLB does not require reports of average class size per grade but makes it optional.

The draft also requires schools to report:

  • information on suspension and expulsion rates, disaggregated by student groups; and
  • opportunities for community and parent involvement in the school, and community resources available to parents through the school.

Expanded Learning Time Demonstration Program

According to the committee outline, Title I, Part J includes a new program to provide funds to states and local educational agencies to expand learning time aimed at improving student achievement and engagement. Funds could be used to expand learning time at elementary and secondary schools to spur innovation, redesign and improve educational programs, improve instruction and teacher collaboration, and improve the academic achievement of all students in participating schools. The Secretary of Education would carry out an evaluation of the program and offer technical assistance to those states and schools participating in the program.

In our review of the bill, we found that the draft provides that the purpose of these five-year grants is to develop expanded learning time schools and encourage the participation of teachers and teacher union representatives in school redesign efforts associated with expanded learning time in order to create the most effective redesign efforts. Another stated purpose of the grant is to provide educators in participating schools with increased opportunities to work collaboratively and to participate in professional planning to improve instruction and student achievement. The draft also provides that states that demonstrate a higher correlation between student results on NAEP and the state-administered achievement test will be given priority for the grant.

The draft also requires that a qualifying expanded learning time and school redesign implementation plan contain, among other things:

  • the requirement for each participating school to add no less than the equivalent of two hours per day to the school schedule that is standard for the participating local education agency;
  • an increase in instructional time on core academics and enrichment, and more time for teacher planning and professional planning;
  • a comprehensive restructuring of the entire school day and/or year to maximize the use of the additional learning time and improve student achievement;
  • an assurance that core academic subjects shall be taught by qualified, certified teachers while other academic and enrichment programs may be taught by certified teachers, or other qualified personnel;
  • evidence of an agreement between the governing body of a participating local education agency and employees, including teachers, at participating schools or their legal representatives to work the expanded schedule.

Pilot program to include locally developed measures

According to the committee outline, the draft establishes a 15-state pilot project where, in addition to statewide assessments, states can include a system of high quality, comparable local assessments that are rigorously aligned with state standards to augment the AYP determination. The state shall establish a rigorous quality control system and in an ongoing way ensure that districts with high percentages of poor and minority students are held to the same high standards. States will have to conduct an independent evaluation to ensure the validity and reliability of their system and that assessments measure the same high standards across districts. Potentially, based on the results of the evaluation, states might have to suspend or amend their systems. If the pilot yields effective models, after three years, the Secretary can expand the pilot to more states.

Comparing state standards

The draft directs the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study how best to compare standards across states and directs the Secretary to develop a common scale using the results of the NAS study and report to Congress every two years regarding how states compare.

Web posted: 09/05/07