1 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
70
Embed
Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street, NW Washington, DC 20007
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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 [email protected](202) 965-3652
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.