NEA Letter Responding to House Education Committee 
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Draft

September 5, 2007

George Miller     
Chairman     
House Committee on Education  

Howard P. "Buck" McKeon
Ranking Member
House Committee on Education

Michael Castle
Chairman
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education

Dale E. Kildee          
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education  

Dear Representatives:

We are writing in response to the discussion draft of Title I that you released on August 28.  While we appreciate the fact that you released a discussion draft and asked for comments, we are deeply concerned with the extremely limited amount of time that was made available for a substantive and thorough review of this 435-page draft, particularly in light of the 3-day holiday weekend. Since the draft only covers Title I and there are significant interactions between many of the provisions of this Title and other Titles not yet released that further complicates and limits our ability to fully analyze and comment on this draft.

While we appreciate that the bill recognizes that a child is more than a test score through its provision of multiple measures in the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system and are pleased that it includes several NEA priority concepts, we are concerned that in many cases it is still overly restrictive and prescriptive in the authority provided to states and school districts in designing their accountability plans and procedures, and still overly focused on measuring schools based on two test scores.  We do not believe that an accountability system based primarily on two test scores is either an accurate or fair reflection of student learning or school quality, particularly when so many of the tests being utilized do not test knowledge or skills, but rather rote memorization. 

We are also concerned that this Title imposes many additional mandates and requirements on schools and states (such as the longitudinal data system and student mobility audit) without any guarantee that additional funding will be provided to meet both new mandates and help states and schools overcome the cumulative $56 billion shortfall that occurred since 2002 between the NCLB authorized and actual funding levels.

Our state affiliates share these deep concerns and are continuing to analyze this language to determine the potential impact in the classroom.  Furthermore, our ESEA Advisory Committee worked thoughtfully for over two years to create our "Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization" ( PDF, 186KB, 34 pages ), which outlines not only the priority changes which must be made to the NCLB portions of ESEA, but also what policies and initiatives should be added in order to close achievement gaps and fulfill the promise of creating a great public school for each and every child in America. As we detail below, we believe there needs to be significant changes to this draft if ESEA is to fulfill its goal of ensuring every child a great public school.

While we appreciate the amount of work you and your staff have put into developing this discussion draft, we urge you to take the time needed to allow for adequate input and dialogue with educators in the field as you develop the remaining titles and move from a discussion draft to an actual bill.  We note that in 2001 there were over five weeks between the time then Chairman Boehner introduced his version of NCLB on March 22, 2001, and the committee markup on May 2, 2001. Because of the importance of this law to our members, children, and parents we urge that after you introduce a bill you provide for a significant period of time for comments prior to a mark-up so both you and other committee members can obtain meaningful input from educators in your districts, as well as for organizations like NEA to obtain meaningful input from our members and affiliates.

NEA's Major Concerns with Title I Draft

1. While the inclusion of multiple measures for determining Adequate Yearly Progress is a major conceptual change from current law and meets one of our top priorities, the section as drafted is too limited and restrictive.

• It weights too heavily the two current state reading and math test results.  Such tests will count for at least 85 percent of the AYP weight for elementary and middle schools, and 75 percent for high schools.  While we are not opposed to establishing a floor for the weighting of student learning results on statewide or local assessments in AYP, we believe the proposed percentages are too high.  Testing experts time and time again caution against over-reliance on single assessment instruments. 
• The list of allowable measures is much too restrictive and still too focused on test results.  There are only two possible measures for elementary school: results of other statewide tests and progress on reading and math tests for moving students from below basic to basic and from proficient to advanced.  High schools have three additional measures, but that list is still too limited. We suggest adding attendance rates and in-grade retention rates to the list of measures and allowing states to propose additional measures, subject to approval as part of their state plan.
• The "universal goal" and the rates of growth required for each indicator are set at a very ambitious level, which will likely severely limit the ability of schools to meet these measures.

2. While the draft includes growth models, it is too restrictive in what is allowed.   It still requires all students to be proficient or on a three-year trajectory toward proficient by 2013-14.  In addition, it still only allows growth models that give credit based on achieving proficiency, as opposed to credit for improvement on all points on the achievement scale. It should allow for a broader range of options in addition to this trajectory model, and give schools credit for students' improvement on all points of the achievement scale.

3. While the draft provides some new flexibility for testing and counting test scores for English Language Learner (ELL) students and students with disabilities, it remains too restrictive in both cases.

• It codifies the existing one percent and two percent rules for students with disabilities.  In so doing, it requires testing the so-called two percent students using grade-level standards rather than instructional level standards (where those would be appropriate). We recommend that states be allowed to utilize instructional level standards where appropriate based on the student's IEP in order to accurately determine a student's baseline set of skills and knowledge and to craft a responsible IEP with challenging and appropriate growth expectations over the course of the school year.
• It allows a school district to request a waiver of the two percent cap, but such a waiver may only be granted through the 2009-10 school year. This time limitation makes no sense to us, and we urge that it be deleted.
• For ELLs, it allows use of scores from the English Language proficiency test in lieu of the reading/language arts content test for AYP purposes for the first two years certain ELL students are in U.S. schools.  However, this extension from the current one-year exemption of reading scores is time limited for only the first two years after enactment. Again, we urge the deletion of the time limitation for this flexibility.

4. The options required in the redesign phase are too limited, focused solely on what entity controls and runs the school or replacing all the staff, and are not supported by research that they will improve student learning and close achievement gaps.   We also do not fully understand what is meant by an "intermediary" on page 227, line 23. We urge the inclusion of an additional option, similar to current law that provides for other significant restructuring of the schools' governance and/or curriculum.

5. The draft contains several provisions that could undermine teachers' collective bargaining rights and adversely affect compensation or other terms and conditions of employment.  Among these are:

• A limitation on how many years a student in a school designated as in need of school improvement may be taught  by a "novice" teacher (pages 195-196 and 244-45);
• New comparability requirements for teacher salaries (pages 299-300);
• A new program for expanded learning time (new Section J on page 399);
• The new required data system must include a "unique statewide teacher identifier that remains consistent over time and matches all student records described in this subsection to the appropriate teacher." (Page 308); and
• The allowance for salary increments or bonuses for teachers serving high-need schools who "increase the number of low-income students who take Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate examinations with the goal of successfully passing such examinations." (Page 381)

We strongly urge you to add protections to ensure that under any of these programs or requirements that the rights or remedies teachers and other school employees have under federal, state, local law, or collective bargaining agreements not be reduced, that their right to engage in good faith bargaining over issues affecting their compensation and terms of employment not be reduced, and that any changes affecting such must be agreed to through collective bargaining, or where bargaining doesn't exist a 75% majority vote of acceptance by teachers in affected jurisdictions.  One way to do so would be to revise the "Construction" clause on page 251 so it applies to all provisions of Title I, not just Section 1116.  We also question the wisdom of the federal government becoming deeply involved in teacher pay and assignment issues.

6. As noted above we are deeply concerned with the inequities of the required sanctions, consequences, and mandates regardless of whether or not sufficient funding is provided. We propose two options for your consideration.  The first is included in HR 684, which would allow states or school districts to suspend, modify or defer any of the sanctions for failing to meet AYP in any year in which Title I is not funded at its authorized level.  The second option would be to delay the 2013-14 requirement that 100 percent of students achieve proficiency for each year in which Title I is not funded at its authorized level.

7. We encourage the committee to include in other Titles programs that provide schools and teachers with the tools and resources they need to help all children succeed, including:

• Funding for mentoring programs for new teachers;
• Expanded and high-quality professional development for all teachers and other school staff;
• Smaller classes;
• School repair and modernization; and
• Quality pre-K programs.

There are several areas where we are supportive of the concepts and programs in the bill (though we are concerned in several cases as noted above with overly restrictive requirements):

• Multiple measures for measuring school quality and student learning.  We are pleased that the other measures allow schools to receive positive credit toward making AYP;
• Growth models;
• Some common-sense flexibility for testing and counting test scores for both English Language Learner students and students with disabilities;
• Creation of different categories of schools based on how far short they are of making AYP (the new priority/high priority schools);
• Provisions allowing school districts to limit the number and percent of schools categorized as high priority redesign;
• Targeting of public school choice and supplemental service requirements to high priority schools and to specific student groups in such schools that do not make AYP;
• A broader, more flexible list of interventions for priority schools that are focused on improvements in teaching and learning;
• Additional resources for high schools focused on improving graduation rates and an expanded dropout prevention program;
• Additional resources for school improvement;
• A pilot program for inclusion of local assessments in addition to state assessments in the AYP assessment system;
• A new program for ensuring children in low-income schools have access to a broad curriculum, including music and art; and
• Inclusion of principles of universal design for learning and response-to-intervention in several areas.

Sincerely,
    
Diane Shust     
Director, Government Relations

Joel Packer
Director, Education Policy and Practice