|
NEA's Comments on Discussion Draft of Title I
The following comments supplement the letter we submitted to the Committee on September 5, 2007.
Page 1, Line 9 et seq. The state reservation for school improvement activities would be increased to 5 percent of the amount a state receives under Title I-A. Currently, the reservation is 4 percent. Until Title I is adequately funded, the increase has minimal practical effect. Concerns:
Note: Title I, Part A funds are allocated through four separate formulas. All four formulas begin with the number of children from low-income families in each local educational agency (LEA). The statute requires the use of annually updated Census Bureau estimates of the number of children (ages 5 to 17) from low-income families in each LEA. For almost all states, the estimates vary considerably from year to year. Congress should require the U.S. Department of Education to review Census' methodology and should ask the Census Bureau to consider a statistically sound method by which the year-to-year fluctuations can be smoothed to ensure more stable funding levels for states and school districts from year to year. For example, for 2007-08, the Census Bureau's estimate of the number of children in poverty (ages 5 to 17) in Wisconsin increased by 31 percent, while in the prior year the number declined by 0.5 percent. Hawaii's number of children in poverty tumbled by 28 percent in twelve months, whereas in the prior year, the number decreased by 1.5 percent. Starting with school year 2002-03, the first year under NCLB, here are the percentage changes from year to year in Census poverty estimates for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: +21.2 percent, -7.3 percent, -28.8 percent, +9.0 percent, -8.6 percent, and +7.6 percent. Graduation Promise Fund Page 17, Line 18 Provides LEAs with the discretion to immediately identify any secondary school not meeting AYP and which has a low graduation rate as a school in need of High Priority redesign (similar to restructuring). Concern: Need to provide a process whereby the secondary school can challenge the decision to designate it as a High Priority school in need of redesign. Need clarifying language that any such schools would be part of the cap in Section 1116 that school districts can utilize limiting the number of and the percentage of schools in this category. Page 19, Line 16 Requires that LEAs use funds to provide intensive supports to at-risk middle school students. Concern: Ensure that sufficient funding is available to ensure that this commendable task becomes a reality.
Throughout Subpart 1, we request that the term "paraprofessionals" be replaced with the term "paraeducators" to more accurately reflect the job responsibilities of this important category of staff. Page 22, Lines 8-12 We support this provision on public access to state plans. We recommend that it be strengthened by also requiring that the U.S. Department of Education post on its website all submitted state plans, its responses to each state regarding if the plan was approved, or if rejected, the specific reasons why, and then post the approved state plans. We also request that you add a requirement that the Secretary annually submit a report to Congress listing all amendments it approved to state plans, as well as those it rejected (and its reasons why). We believe these changes will significantly strengthen the transparency of the process for these critical state plans. We recommend that similar requirements be applied throughout ESEA wherever state plan submission to the Secretary is required. Page 23, Line 24 Add "higher order, critical thinking skills and skills for the 21st century" after "advanced skills" Page 24, Lines 1-4 Concern: Workforce requirements are not the same as college entrance requirements. A consortium consisting of The Conference Board, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management produced a document called, "Are They Really Ready to Work?" The study surveyed 400 employers and determined that the four top workforce needs were professionalism/work ethic, oral and written communication skills, teamwork/collaboration, and critical thinking/problem solving. Only one of these skills is adequately tested by college entrance examinations. Proposed Solution: The committee should acknowledge the difference between college readiness and workforce readiness throughout the document. Further, we suggest that the committee strike any wording emphasizing college readiness over workforce readiness from this document. This allows states to determine their own expectations for college readiness as well as workforce readiness, both of which have their own valuable place in society. In addition, there appears to be a major inconsistency between Section 1111 (b)(1)(D)(i)(IV) that requires all states to have standards that "are aligned from grade to grade and with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in postsecondary education and the workforce;" and new Section 1111A that says states have the discretion to ensure that its standards "are vertically aligned from grade to grade and with what students should know in order to be successful in postsecondary education and the workplace." While NEA supports higher order standards, a requirement as appears to be the case in Section 1111 (b)(1)(D)(i)(IV) for all states to raise their standards for postsecondary education and workforce readiness will necessitate states likely having to implement new assessments. However, unless there is some extension or relief from the requirement that 100 percent of students score at the proficient or higher level by 2013-14, such a requirement will certainly result in more students failing to reach the proficient level and more schools failing AYP. Some type of timeline extension is warranted for all states if this is indeed a new mandate, or if it is discretionary as in Section 1111A then as a reasonable incentive for states to do so. Page 24, Line 4 Replace "and" with "and/or" Requires that standards be aligned with skills necessary for post secondary education and the workforce, but language should reflect approach that is also compatible with the skills promoted in career and technical education. Page 24, Line 6 et seq. Concern: Currently, the differences in levels of achievement reside not so much in standards that are articulated but in cut scores on tests. If/when other indicators are used such as portfolios and projects, then it might be useful to articulate achievement standards separate from content standards. However, most current content standards read like behavioral objectives and could be considered achievement standards also. If the call for revising standards is included in the legislation, the differences between the two in terms of how they might be articulated should be clarified while maintaining the appropriate level of state flexibility. Page 24, Line 22 et seq. Requires that the State Plan describe a strategy for ensuring that (1) students have access to rigorous content in subjects not covered by standards based tests and (2) that students are taught the same knowledge and skills and held to the same expectations as are all children. Question: What does this mean in the high school context where there is an extremely broad range of knowledge and skills taught depending upon the level of class students are taking? Page 28, Lines 18-19 Replace "primarily" with "partially" Page 29, Line 3 The language includes a requirement that state plans must demonstrate steps to ensure that all students graduate with a regular diploma. Concern: States have different standards for their diplomas and it is unclear how this language would be operationalized. This could be a particular problem for certain students with disabilities who do not receive a regular diploma. Page 29, Line 19 (C) (iv) should make it clear that measures of school progress must be valid and reliable. It should not be assumed that if a measure is a valid indicator of student progress it is also a valid indicator of school progress. That is not likely to be the case and the standards of the measurement profession require validation of tests for every intended use. That has not been done to date. Page 29, Line 22 Replace "primarily" with "partially" Page 32, Lines 11-20 (this comment also applies to Page 171, Line 8 et seq.) Concern: Current law requires there be one other academic indicator used for AYP, but that such indicator or any additional indicators not be used to increase the number of schools that make AYP. NEA has always opposed this provision and believes that each indicator should also be able to help schools make AYP. While the new multiple indicators in paragraph (E) allow those to provide extra credit, this section would continue to say that this required indicator can still only be used to "hurt" schools. Since the draft further says that graduation rates (the current required other indicator for high schools) can now provide credit toward making AYP, this section will essentially leave elementary and middle schools in a different category than high schools, since the overwhelming majority of states have adopted student attendance as their other indicator. The solution is to say that other indicators, whether those adopted by states under this subsection or under the new paragraph (E), may be utilized to also help schools achieve AYP. Page 32, Line 22 States wishing to use multiple indicators may apply to the Secretary. Page 33, Line 22 Strike "only" and on line 23, insert before the colon "or other indicators proposed by the state, subject to approval by the Secretary" Page 34, Lines 1-3 Question: How does one measure growth on state assessments of science, history, civics, etc.? Each year the subject matter is vastly different. Page 34, Line 20 Question: What is "Quality Core"? Page 35, Line 4 et seq. This indicator should be expanded to include apprenticeship programs. Page 35, Line 10 We suggest adding other indicators, including attendance rates and in-grade retention rates. Page 35, Line 14 et seq. Concern: Process for getting credit for multiple measures seems very cumbersome and difficult to administer. Questions: Can the credit for each indicator be used for both reading and math AYP AMOs? Can a state or district decide how to divide the credit it receives between each subject?
Replace "15" with "50" Page 36, Line 7 Replace "25" with "50" Page 37, Line 1 Add "each" after "percent" Page 37, Lines 15-18 Delete sentence that begins with "For writing exams…" Page 39, Line 14 Replace "10" with "20" Page 40, Lines 3-5 Concern: Having same annual growth target for all students does not make sense for students achieving near the top. They are so near the top that they are not likely to make the same progress as students at the bottom. In addition, most tests used for this purpose have less reliability for students at the high end and do not pick up the variations in their performances. Page 40, Lines 2-24 Question: Would this require a state to decide statewide whether it uses the procedure in (I) or (II) or may it also permit each school district to decide which of the two it uses, or may it allow districts to measure under both methods and utilize whichever method results in a more favorable outcome? Student Growth Page 42, Line 10 et seq. This section is much too restrictive, and is based solely on giving schools credit for which students are proficient or will be within three years. We urge that it be amended to allow states to propose additional types of growth models, such as value tables, that give credit for improvement at all points on the achievement scale. This language also must reflect fundamental realities of progress for students with disabilities. In Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000), the court held that the development of the child with a disability should be measured not in relation to the rest of the regular education class, but rather with respect to the individual student. The court rejected the argument that declining percentile scores on standardized tests represent a lack of educational benefit. The court held that declining percentile scores only show that the child's disability prevents the child from maintaining the same level of academic progress achieved by his non-disabled peers.
Concern: There is no research or evidence that setting standards and testing without major, substantial changes in resources will result in universal proficiency for students. Setting a timeline for achievement without a timeline for opportunity to learn resources to be in place is leaving half of the equation unsolved. At minimum this section should clarify that a school may still meet AYP in the year 2013-14 or beyond utilizing the "safe harbor" provisions of paragraph L. NEA supports the following proposals that were submitted by the Forum on Educational Accountability, of which NEA is a member: Page 47, Line 1 Delete from line 1 through Page 51, line 6 (all of (I), (J) and (L) and replace with new (I) through (M) renumbering subsequent clauses and making other changes as needed beyond those noted in these recommendations to bring other sections into accord with the language in the new (I) through (M): "(I) Each state shall establish a required rate of increase in the proportion of students who reach the proficient level, defined as a positive trend in learning outcomes and to be used in evaluating school and LEA improvement as established in Sec. 1116.
"(J) The rates of improvement shall be set separately for reading/language arts and for math, as well as for any other subject area the state chooses. "(K) States will report status and improvement or growth.
"(L) Students shall be allowed accommodations and alternative or out-of-level assessments needed to accurately determine student achievement.
"(M) Schools may summarize data across grades in a school to establish their rate of improvement." Page 49, Line 19 Replace "10" with "5" Page 50, Line 1 et seq. Replace "95" with "90" each place it appears. Also, add a sentence that clarifies that a parent, who exercises a state right to opt his/her child out of testing, shall not result in a penalty to the school or LEA in terms of the participation rate requirement. Page 52, Lines 12-15 Section 1111(b)(2)(N) says that accountability provisions under this Act shall be overseen for charter schools in accordance with State charter school law. Concern: While this is in current law, it should be rewritten to clarify that this provision is limited to the determination of which entity has the responsibility for overseeing the provision of ESEA on a charter school. If a charter school is authorized by a school board, or is part of the school district, there should be NO difference between it and other schools in the district on how ESEA accountability or other provisions apply. If a charter school is a separate school district, then it must still be subject to the same accountability rules in ESEA (indeed the rules for both schools and school districts). The entity for ensuring compliance with the school level rules would be the entity that granted its charter. The state education agency would have authority for the school in its capacity as a school district (as with all other school districts), and should also have authority over the chartering entity to ensure (as it does with school districts) that it is implementing its responsibilities over schools. There is no rationale for any broader waiver or differentiated rules for charters., Page 52, Line 16 et seq. We urge that this provision be deleted. It adds an unnecessary unfunded mandate for all school districts. In many cases the reasons why students switch schools within a district are beyond the control of the district. Page 54, Line 4 Replace "one administration of the State's reading or language arts assessment" with "three administrations of the State's assessments required by this Act." 1% and 2% caps Page 54, Line 18 et seq. NEA appreciates that the proposal focuses on assessing mathematics or reading or language arts for students with disabilities who will be taking alternate assessments. Notwithstanding the comments that follow regarding using a different mechanism for the 1% and 2% caps, we encourage you to eliminate the termination provision that sunsets the authority for State education agencies to grant increases to specific local education agencies for their proportion of alternate assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards in the 2009-2010 school year. Concern: Teachers who administer alternate assessments have experienced significant workload burdens under NCLB. We urge you to add a provision that requires States that develop alternate assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards to evaluate the additional time that these assessments require and to make efforts to reduce the workload burdens on the teachers who administer them. This section requires that LEAs seeking a waiver show that they are complying with specified regulatory requirements governing development and implementation of alternative assessments. Concern: This language is problematic in that the referenced regulations can be amended or repealed and in that it is the state's and not the LEA's responsibility to develop an alternative assessment. Page 59, Line 11 et seq. Requires that if the SEA approves a waiver it must submit the application for final approval to the Department and must be able to show that it has or is developing an alternative assessment. States have the option of developing these assessments and it is unfair to base an LEA's ability to obtain a waiver upon an action that the state is not required to take. Page 60, Lines 10-14 Questions: What is the purpose of this provision? Wouldn't calling for any State-approved increases to be subject to periodic review be preferable to terminating the State's authority to grant the increases? We also recommend that States be allowed to grant waivers for the 1% and 2% caps to local school districts that can show that their school populations include significantly high proportions of students with significant cognitive disabilities or students with disabilities who meet the definition associated with the 2% cap. Many school districts have multiple schools that serve as centers providing specialized services to students with severe or multiple disabilities. The provisions in the current proposal would not allow these school districts to apply for a 1% or 2% waiver. This recommendation would allow the school district IEP teams flexibility to determine the appropriate assessment for each child without an artificially-imposed limit. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that the 1% cap for the alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards and the 2 % cap for the alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards are too rigid. They arbitrarily and unnecessarily limit the availability of assessment options for students with significant cognitive disabilities and students with disabilities who are significantly below grade level. And, they result in an unfortunate scenario that encourages local districts to report to families of students who received proficient scores that their scores are actually being tagged as non-proficient in order to keep the district under the cap. Instead, we suggest that the 1% and 2% caps be replaced with a compliance trigger mechanism that allows states to employ a percentile range of 0 to 4% for either type of alternate assessments, those based on alternate achievement standards or those based on modified achievement standards. Accountability should be at the State level. If a State reports excessive proficient scores on alternate assessments, it will trigger a review by the U.S. Department of Education. The Department review should focus on the State's implementation of the assessment and adequate yearly progress provisions as they relate to appropriately including students with disabilities in the statewide assessment programs. Page 60, Line 21 et seq. We support this provision that exempts LEAs that exclusively serve students who are eligible to take an assessment based on alternate standards from the 1% and 2% caps. We suggest deleting the bracketed phrase on lines 8-10. Instructional Level Assessments Page 63, Line 5 et seq. NEA is disappointed that the proposed bill does not allow for instructional level assessments for students with disabilities who are at least three or more years behind the instructional level of their non-disabled peers. Instructional level assessments provide an appropriate baseline of what the student knows and doesn't know. Therefore, assessing students at their instructional level yields a more accurate measurement of their skills and progress and is more meaningful for students, their parents, and their teachers. To date, due to limited funding, States have had difficulty making sufficient assessment options available to all students with disabilities in order to meet the breadth of their measurement needs. IEPs teams must pick from what States make available to them. Consequently, many students with disabilities are being assessed inappropriately using grade level assessments that yield little or no meaningful information. Recommendation: Consistent with Section 1111 State Plans (a) (7) which explicitly allows for English language learners to be assessed using measures, such as portfolios, that are valid, reliable, and fully aligned with State standards, we suggest that the proposal explicitly include portfolios as an option for assessing students with disabilities. These assessments could be regular grade level assessments using a portfolio format, alternate assessments based on grade level achievement standards, and/or assessments based on instructional level achievement standards. NEA is pleased that the proposal allows the inclusion of scores for students who stop receiving special education services for up to three years after those students exit special education programs. This provides a positive opportunity to recognize those school districts that are serving students with disabilities well. Assessment System Requirements Page 65, Lines 14-19 NEA is pleased that our recommendation regarding universally designed assessments was incorporated into the provision under (3) (D) (v) that requires assessments to minimize the effect of construct-irrelevant factors that may interfere with the accuracy of the assessment. Page 66, Lines 12-19 NEA recommends that states be given the ability to request a waiver from having to administer these tests each year in each of these grades. States should be able to apply for a waiver if they can demonstrate that their testing systems that assess students in fewer grades but utilizes higher quality and more comprehensive assessments can otherwise meet the goals of the law. Give states the following options for testing schedules:
Page 70, Line 25 NEA supports extending to five years the period in which an ELL student may be assessed in his/her native language. Page 83, Line 19 et seq. For students under 3rd grade, clarify that the yearly English language proficiency assessments do not have to be paper tests. Page 84, Line 19 et seq. Delete the phrase that limits this new flexibility to just the first two years after enactment. We suggest that the Committee consider a broader reform to testing of ELL students. Recommendation: NEA proposes that states be allowed to link together the scores from the reading/language arts content test and the English language proficiency test, and use a weighted score from each to determine whether a student meets the proficiency level. The weights would change by a pre-determined amount for each year the student is in the U.S. and within five years, be based solely on the reading/language arts content test. Page 88, Line 22 et seq. We support this provision incorporating the impact of non-academic factors on student achievement. Page 92, Lines 17-21 NEA recommends that the bill require more than just "involving" the Committee of Practitioners, and that it require that States gather input in a public, transparent process from its Committee of Practitioners when developing their State Plans (for submission to the Department), as well as proposed and final rules and regulations. The Committee of Practitioners shall be given reasonable notice and meaningful opportunities to give input. Page 93, Line 17 Insert after "experts" the following: ", teachers" NEA supports the provision asking States to provide assurances in their state plans regarding development of a comprehensive plan to address the implementation of universal design for learning principles. Page 95 Concern: Peer review section should mandate participation by individuals with expertise concerning students with limited English proficiency and those with disabilities. Page 98, Line 13 Insert after "Secretary." the following: "Any such amended plans shall be promptly posted on the U.S. Department of Education's website." Page 103, Line 7 NEA recommends that the information on average class size be a required element of the report cards. Postsecondary and Workplace Readiness Page 115, Line 9 Replace "and" with "and/or" Page 116, Line 23 et seq. While we support this provision, it should be clarified to make clear that this does not prohibit a school from utilizing a score from more than the first "official" administration of a test for AYP purposes. The U.S. Department of Education through regulations has now allowed that practice and we want to ensure that the law does not inadvertently overturn that regulation. Local Educational Agency Plans Page 120, Line 20 et seq. We support the linkage to Response to Intervention services with LEA Title I plans. Schoolwide Programs Page 149, Line 1 et seq. While NEA is supportive of financial incentives to attract and retain teachers in hard-to-staff schools, we recommend that this provision be subject to the "Construction" clause in Section 1116(l) on Page 251, Lines 3-10. Page 153, Lines 2-5 NEA is pleased that our recommendations calling for coordination between the early intervening and responsiveness to intervention provisions of IDEA 2004 and provisions in Title I requiring schools to provide high quality instruction and interventions were added to the bill. (Also applicable to Page 166, Line 18 et seq.) Page 154, Line 3 Insert ", complete" after "enriched" Concern: The goal is to address a range of course offerings including arts and not simply a core of academic subjects. Remediation should also be offered for students through the extended learning program. Page 156, Line 21 et seq. We support this provision to include teachers in decisions regarding the use of academic assessments. Recommendation: Insert after "teachers" the following: "and provide them necessary training to enable them to be effectively involved in" in order to ensure that teachers receive needed professional development on how to effectively use assessment data to improve instruction. Page 158, Line 2 Insert after "of" the following: "behavior standards, home support and of" Page 161, Line 6 Insert after "teachers," the following: "paraeducators," Page 161, Line 20 Insert after "agency," the following: "teachers and other school employees," Page 162, Lines 7-12 Concerns: a. LEA's should develop comprehensive content standards that are aligned with state's K-3 standards that include language development, literacy, mathematics, science, creative arts, approaches to learning, physical and health development and social and emotional development.
Targeted Assistance Programs Page 170, Line 9 Insert after "teachers," the following: "paraeducators," School and LEA Improvement and Assistance Page 176, Line 8 Insert a new clause (vi) as follows: "An analysis of the teaching and working conditions in the school that may have had an impact on the school not making Adequate yearly progress, including class size, school facilities, availability of up-date textbooks and other instructional materials, time for teachers for planning and collaboration, and supports for new teachers." Page 179, Line 6 Insert a new clause (II) and renumber current (II) as (II), "paraeducators, and professional development to improve the ability of such paraeducators to assist teachers in improving student academic achievement." Page 180, Line 10 et seq. NEA is pleased with the differentiation between Priority and High Priority Schools. We also support the proposal allowing states to propose alternative methods of designating high priority schools. Page 187, Line 4 Insert after "principal" the following: "or a majority of the teachers" Page 189, Line 21 Insert after "educators" the following: "classroom teachers" Page 190, Lines 4-8 Concern: While the current language insists on strident qualifications for the principals and teachers on the peer review panel, it demands nothing of the school improvement specialists or any other designee of the state. Rigorous requirements should be required of every member of such an important committee. Page 191, Line 6 Insert after "parents" the following: ", teachers and other school employees," Page 192, Line 4 Insert after "teachers" the following: ", paraeducators," Page 193, Line 17 et seq. NEA strongly supports limiting the designation of schools for improvement status to those schools that fail AYP for the same group of students in the same subject. Page 194, Lines 15-18 NEA supports this provision allowing a targeted assistance school to base AYP only on the students served under Title I. Page 195, Line 8 Insert after "principal" the following: "paraeducators" Page 195, Line 21 et seq. A caring, competent, and qualified teacher is the greatest single determinant of student success. We agree that students should not be taught by out-of-field teachers and teachers should not be required to teach subjects for which they are not qualified. However, there is a question as to how this rule will be implemented, and what its impact will be on the rights that teachers have under existing state or local laws and/or collective bargaining agreements. In addition, the combination of this requirement and the new "comparability" requirements on page 299 will result in the federal government being deeply involved in local school staffing decisions. Recommendation: Delete on Page 195, Line 25 starting with "no" through "and" on Page 196, Line 4. Add language specifying that any changes in teacher assignments shall not be made through involuntary transfers. Also require that in addressing any such disparities that the plan address the teaching and working conditions that result in such disparities. Subject this proviso to the "construction" clause on Page 251. Page 197, Line 8 Add a new "(cc)" as follows: "providing professional development for teachers and paraeducators on how to effectively involve and work with parents in their children's education." Page 197, Line 15 et seq. Line 17 - Replace "(iii) of subparagraph B" with "(ii), and one additional specific measure described in subparagraph (B)" Line 21 - Replace "(iii)" with "(ii)" Priority schools must implement two measures from the menu of options provided in 1116(d)(2)(B) that are not already part of their plan. Accordingly the parental choice options are at the schools' discretion. However, High Priority schools must implement parental choice as one of the three required school improvement and assistance options, along with (i) Evidence-based or proven instructional programs aligned with State standards for all students and (ii) Formative assessments and data based instructional decision-making. Such choice options should be determined by the LEA. Page 198, Line 18 Insert after "curriculum)" the following: "and promote the use of higher order/critical thinking skills by all students" Page 199, Line 4 Insert after "creating" the following: "age appropriate" Concern: If activities are not age appropriate, the instructional time will be wasted. Page 200, Line 11 Insert after "enrolled in the school," the following: "and who are members of the group or groups not meeting proficiency targets that led to the school not making adequate yearly progress." Page 201, Line 10 After "mathematics," insert the following: "or any other core academic subject" Page 202, Line 21 After "including" insert the following: "family literacy and" Page 205, Line 1 et seq. NEA supports the provision that allows a school making AYP in two of the three years it is in school improvement to no longer be identified, and also supports the provision allowing a one year extension of this category for schools that make AYP in the third year. Page 208, Line 16 Priority Insert after "lowest achieving children" the following: "who are members of the group or groups not meeting proficiency targets that led to the school not making adequate yearly progress." Page 210, Line 13 et seq. NEA recommends that LEAs be granted greater discretion to determine the most appropriate use of set aside funds based on the individual needs of specific schools within the LEA. Delete subsections (A) and (B) - that conclude on Page 212, Line 9, and replace with:
Page 216, Line 11 Insert the following new sections:
Page 216, Line 14 Replace current (A) with the following:
Page 216, Line 20 Insert new (C) and renumber following paragraphs accordingly:
Page 219, Lines 20-21 Add after "...laws." the following: "Supplemental education service providers are deemed recipients of federal funds for purposes of determining applicability of such laws." This statement is necessary because the U. S. Department of Education has ruled that SES providers are not recipients of federal funds and thus generally are not covered by civil rights laws. Page 219, Lines 22-24 Insert a second sentence as follows: "A supplemental service provider shall not limit its employment of personnel to members of any specific religious denomination or belief." Page 219, after Line 24 Insert a new (E) as follows and renumber following paragraphs accordingly:
Page 224, after Line 19 Insert a new (iv) as follows: "(iv) and utilizes only highly qualified teachers to deliver instruction." With regard to supplemental service providers, Section 1116(g)(4) requires the SEA to make reasonable efforts to ensure that English language learners and students with disabilities will have access to a choice of providers. Section 1116(g)(6)(B) also recognizes that the costs associated with providing tutoring services to these populations may be greater, and authorizes up to 200% of the amount allowed for general education students. NEA appreciates the progress this draft represents over current law. However, NEA recommends that the SEA require as a condition of approval that every provider be accessible to all eligible students. Section 1116(g)(4)(E) requires SEAs to develop plans to monitor the quality and effectiveness of SES, and measure the impact on student academic achievement, while section 1116(g)(14) authorizes the reservation of 1% of amounts payable to any provider to fund this monitoring and evaluation. NEA applauds this important addition to the program. NEA suggests that providers should also be monitored for compliance with civil rights and health and safety requirements. Criteria for providers [1116(g)(5)] NEA is pleased with the additional criteria designed to increase accountability, but reiterates its recommendation that providers be required to demonstrate that they are able to provide services to all eligible children without discrimination. The draft requires LEAs with one or more HP schools to allocate 10% of funds for professional development ((d)(2)(A)(ii) page 195), and 20% for SES and transportation, up to 1% of which can be used for parent outreach. LEA's may use up to half of the 20% for extended learning time. 1. We suggest eliminating these specific set-asides, since the LEA is in the best position to evaluate what measures will best address the individual needs of each school. 2. Another option for funding of supplemental services and school choice would be to utilize funds from the school improvement program as opposed to funding them through a set-aside from the district's and schools' Title I allocations. Funding SES and choice transportation with a separate funding stream will prevent a dilution of classroom services to students in those schools. In addition, a separate funding stream of additional funds for High Priority schools, would not result in LEAs reducing the Title I funds available for school improvement and assistance needed at schools that are merely Priority. Page 226 With regard to High Priority School Redesign, NEA recommends the inclusion of additional options other than measures that focus exclusively on what entity controls and runs the school or replacing all the staff, as these are not supported by research that they will improve student learning and close achievement gaps. See options recommended for Priority School Redesign referenced at Page 228. Page 227, Line 4 This section is unclear as to the timing of the redesign phase. What does it mean to redesign the school over a period of two years? We recommend this be clarified to say that if a priority or high priority school fails to make the AYP requirements in (d)(3) then in the succeeding school year, the LEA shall prepare to redesign the school, and then over the next succeeding two years implement the redesign options. Page 227, Line 12 Delete "including reopened as a charter school,". Since in most states charter schools have failed AYP at higher rates than regular public schools, this option does not make educational sense. Page 227, Line 17 Delete "all or some of the school's leadership and staff" and insert "those members of the school's leadership and staff whose performance can be directly linked to the failure of a group or group of students to fail to meet proficiency standards". Page 227, Line 21 Replace "." with "; or" Page 227, Lines 22-24 Delete subsection (c) authorizing contracting with an undefined "intermediary." Page 228, Line 12 Prior to "; and" insert "which may include initiatives to:
Page 229, Line 6 Replace current (B) with new "(B) The local education agency may limit the number of schools designated for High Priority Redesign to one school where a local education agency includes fewer than 10 schools." Page 230, Line 14 Delete subsection (i) Rule of Construction that permits a local education agency to designate a school for redesign after it has failed to make adequate yearly progress for only two years, bypassing two years of the school improvement phase. Page 248, Line 3 Replace current (iii) with
Page 238, Line 2 Insert after "teachers," the following: "paraeducators," Page 241, Line 9 Insert a new clause (IX) as follows: "An analysis of the teaching and working conditions in the schools in the agency that may have had an impact on the agency not making adequate yearly progress, including class size, school facilities, availability of up-to-date textbooks and other instructional materials, time for teachers for planning and collaboration, and supports for new teachers." Page 244, Line 4 Insert "paraeducators" after "principals" Page 245, Line 18 Insert after "teacher" the following: ", paraeducators," Page 248, Lines 7-14 Concern: NEA opposes state takeover of public schools and school districts. School boards of public school districts undergoing a program improvement process should maintain their authority as duly elected officials of the school district. Employees of schools and districts undergoing program improvement should remain bargaining unit members, and due process rights must be maintained throughout the process. Page 248, Line 15 et seq. Delete subsection (vi). This is impractical, costly, and does nothing to improve the designated local education agency. Page 251, Lines 3-10 NEA strongly supports the inclusion of this "construction" clause. We recommend amending it by inserting before the period, "including their right to engage in good-faith bargaining with their employer over all terms and conditions of employment, including, but not limited to, assignments, evaluations, transfers, compensation, or dismissal." We also propose that this clause be moved to the general provisions section (new Part K) and made applicable to all of Title I. School Support, Recognition of Success and Bringing Success to Scale Page 259, Line 3 Question: Are there federal funds for these state teams? Page 261, Line 21 Replace "evaluate" with "review" Concern: Some members of the teams will not be experts and should not be evaluating teachers. There must be agreed upon criteria for the school that are developed by the entire school and not only team members. Page 264, Line 20 Question: What is meant by the term "high quality teacher"? Is this intended to mean "highly qualified" teacher or some new category? We propose changing this to "highly qualified". We have the same question regarding the term "outstanding" teacher on page 265, Line 10. Page 266, Lines 8-9 Question: What are "school management organizations"? Page 267, Lines 24-25 Delete "to modify instruction" and insert "assess student progress and plan instruction" Page 282, Line 13 Insert after "teachers" the following: "teaching in core academic subjects" so that this provision will be consistent with that in subsection (2). Page 285, Line 22 Insert, after "assessment" the following: "which need not be a written assessment" in order to codify an existing Department of Education rule. Comparability of Services Page 299 et seq. While we acknowledge the need to ensure that schools receive comparable services, key factors are not being addressed by the mandates in this language. Language requiring certain basics be provided in a comparable fashion -- instructional materials, textbooks, etc. -- are not addressed. Also not adequately addressed in the discussion draft are the factors that lead to improved teaching and learning conditions that would lead qualified teachers to go to and remain in hard-to-staff schools-such as school modernization, smaller class sizes, supportive leadership environment in the school, etc. Until there is more focus on these kinds of factors that affect the daily lives of students and teachers, we do not believe this provision will remedy the problem. In addition, we believe additional data and analyses are needed to determine what the impact of this provision will be before such a statutory change is made. How many school districts will be impacted? What will be the fiscal impact? What will be the impact on hiring and transfers of teachers? At minimum, if this provision is maintained, we strongly urge that it be subject to the construction clause on Page 251, which we propose be made applicable to all of Title I. Data Systems and Requirements Page 308, Lines 20-23 Delete "(7) A unique statewide teacher identifier that remains consistent over time and matches all student records described in this subsection to the appropriate teacher." Concerns: This language would link all student test results to particular teachers and shreds all the safeguards that some states fought for in an effort to ensure that any statewide teacher database was separate and apart from any student database. This would require the linking of those databases into a single system. Furthermore, although there are safeguards and limitations concerning the disclosure of personally identifiable information for students, there are no protections for teachers . The decision on whether or not to include a unique teacher identifier, which is not a necessary element of a student data system or a longitudinal growth model system, should be determined by each state. The use of the data should be limited by statute to identifying teachers for additional professional development and for use by individual teachers to improve instructional practices. There must be a limitation that the teacher data may not be used for evaluating teachers or determining their compensation. As we have proposed with other sections that may impact on teachers' terms and conditions of employment, if the teacher ID is maintained, this section must also be subject to the "construction" clause. Graduation Rates Page 323, Line 6 et seq. In addition to this special rule for certain students with disabilities, there should also be a special rule for late entrant ELL students who may need more than 4 or 5 years to graduate. Page 330, Line 3 et seq. Question: The percentages applied to adjusted cohort rate and extra-year adjusted cohort rate do not appear to be constituted on reliable evidence. How were the percentages derived? Local Assessment Pilot Page 333 et seq. NEA strongly supports this local pilot program and urges its t retention. We suggest clarification of the provision that says the local assessments may be used in determining AYP. May they be used in lieu of state assessments? Must they be used in conjunction with state assessments? We suggest that each state have the authority to use both state and local assessments in AYP and the authority to determine the weighting given each assessment in determining whether a student is considered proficient. Page 333, Lines 16-18 The requirements for the peer review should be spelled out. The peer review process should require that the peer reviewers be objective and have expertise in assessments and/or classroom instruction. The process should be required to be open and transparent, with the names of peer reviewers made pubic, all applications be public and posted on the Department's website, and all decision by the Department on state applications also be made public and be posted.
Page 369, Lines 20-21 Replace current (2) with "(2) indicate the capacity and willingness to work with schools to develop improvement plans; and" Insert new (3) as follows: "(3) indicate the capacity and willingness to continuously evaluate the program based on research regarding effective schools (particularly effective schools serving at-risk populations) and adjust the program accordingly." Concern: The current language implies that only pre-packaged programs will be funded while research suggests that programs developed by the school are as successful and even more so in some cases. Furthermore, the ongoing nature of school improvement through the participation of all stakeholders at the local school site should be emphasized. Part G-AP and IB Programs Page 373, Line 8 et seq. Concern: In order to really make this program work, there would need to be small class sizes and lots of extra tutoring and support for the students who are being pushed into AP without the standard preparation in earlier years. Page 380, Line 3 et seq. Add to list of "permissive activities" reducing AP/IB class size and providing teacher-directed tutorials to small groups of students (these things are an important part of program effectiveness). Page 381, Lines 10-12 Replace "courses in …; or" with "courses; or" All AP/IB teachers should be eligible regardless of subject matter. In addition, the bonus should be based on the teacher becoming qualified to teach AP/IB courses, with bonus money for the additional professional development, and the entire provision should be subject to the "construction" clause on page 251. Page 381, Lines 13-17 Delete (ii) Question/Concern: How do you determine which teachers are responsible for increasing the number of students taking and passing AP/IB? It could be a content person (math, science, language), but it could likely be a guidance counselor. If this language is not deleted, we recommend that the bonus be provided to entire high needs schools that increase the numbers of students who take and pass AP/IB exams. Part H-School Dropout Prevention Pages 386-387 Concern: The section references both graduation rate and dropout rate; however, a graduation rate is not a dropout rate. The focus of the section should be on one or the other, or the title of the section should be changed to reflect both concepts. States may confuse the concepts and focus their policy analyses, data gathering, and program development on graduation topics rather than dropouts. Concern: The competitive nature of the grants is troubling. The focus of the grants should be on need. Needs are often concentrated and larger richer states will be more likely to have the resources for better grants. The result is obvious and the competitive nature of the grants is thus misguided. Concern:The amount of work that is being asked of states in a five-year period is a cause for concern. Not only is defining "dropout" a serious task -- a longitudinal data gathering system, done correctly, is a time and energy intensive exercise. Concern: States' use of grant funds to develop longitudinal data systems with the five year grant may leave them without the data they need to fully meet the goals of the grant: strengthen and develop state policies that will raise graduation rates and reduce dropout rates during the five year grant period. Page 388, Lines 16-18 Replace current (D) with "(D) A description of how the State will ensure that all students have access to a college preparatory curriculum, career education curriculum, workforce readiness programs, 21st century technology, and 21st century technology skills as a regular part of the curriculum." Concern: The language calls for states to "ensure that all students have access to college preparatory curriculum" but fails to mention other curriculum that would prepare students for work immediately after high school despite the draft referencing skills to succeed in higher education and work. Concern: The language fails to talk about students' access to 21st century technology and tech skills-both of which are vital to work and college readiness. NEA recommends step 5 of our Twelve Dropout Action Steps that states provide all students with access to 21st century technology and that they integrate 21st century skills into the curriculum. Page 389, Line 6 Insert after "rates" "(as defined in section 1124)" The language in (G) references the definition of high school diploma in Section 1124, but does not reference the definitions in Section 1124 of graduation rate. Page 390, Line 10 et seq. Concern: The analysis envisioned in the draft language is not comprehensive enough. As a result, we recommend adding to the list beginning on Line 20:
Page 391, Lines 20-24 Insert after "including" on Line 21 the following "partnerships with colleges in career and technical fields" Page 394, Lines 13-16 Concern: The language now mentions "other measures, such as percent of students who are making sufficient progress toward graduating secondary school in the standard number of years" after consistently talking about graduation rates and dropout rates. This vague language sounds like a reference to "exit grade" and "interim rate" in Section 1124, but it is unclear. Recommendation is to make the language more explicit so it coincides with Section 1124. Part I-Core Curriculum Development The effort to strengthen a range of content areas as part of comprehensive education reform is highly commendable. Page 395, Lines 12-13 Question: Can these funds be used to extend the day? Page 395, Line 15 Insert "environmental education" after "geography" Page 396, Line 15 Insert after "appropriate" the following: ", and that employs universal design for learning principles" Page 396, Line 18 Insert after "appropriate" the following: ", and that employ universal design for learning principles" Page 398, Line 21 Insert after "associations" the following: "and teacher organizations and teacher unions" Part J-Expanded Learning Time Demonstration Program Page 399, Line 12 et seq. This program is an excellent means of providing substantive support, rather than punishment, to schools serving students in danger of not succeeding academically. Concern: Integrate into the program necessary student services (transportation personnel and services, nutrition personnel and services) not currently referenced, but that would definitely be critical to the success of such a program. Page 406, Lines 13-17 (same comment for Page 413, Lines 9-13) Concern: We recommend that programs be eligible if they are targeted just to a particular group of students (such as rising middle school students or rising high school freshmen) who may need extra assistance, or perhaps students who could benefit from a specific type of extended learning, such as summer school. Page 429, Lines 1-3 While the evaluation portion of the program requires a discussion of the contractual changes that are necessary for teachers, custodians and others, the application process does not include an analysis of these needs at the beginning. This would enhance the planning process for such a program. We also believe that this program should be subject to the "construction" clause on page 251, as it directly impacts on terms and conditions of employment of education employees. Part K, General Provisions Add a construction clause that makes clear that nothing in the Act shall be construed to require additional testing beyond that which is required by Title I.
-- Donna Harris-Aikens, ESEA Policy Advisor
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 Printer friendly
|
 E-mail
|
 Subscribe
|
|||||||||||||||
help contact us change your address sitemap legal privacy policy your california privacy rights advertise jobs@nea
© Copyright 2002-2008 National Education Association
