The State of States NCLB Accountability Plans: September 2006

1
The State of States NCLB Accountability
PlansSeptember 2006
William J. Erpenbach, WJE Consulting,
Ltd. Ellen Forte, edCount, LLC ASR
SCASS September 26, 2006Providence, RI
2
Overview of 2005-06

• Forty-seven States submitted accountability
  workbook amendments for 2005-06.
• No surprise approvals
• Number and scope of verbal turn-downs increases
  and level of disagreement intensifies
• Where has all the flexibility gone?

3
Headlines from 2005-06

• The Growth Model Pilot Program
• Displacements caused by Hurricanes Katrina and
  Rita
• NAEP results spark renewed debate about States
  standards and assessments
• NPRM regarding 2 modified achievement standards
• AP study alleges 1.9 million students excluded
  from States AYP calculations
• In preparation for reauthorization, debate
  continues regarding laws effectiveness

4
Growth Models Pilot Program

• 20 states applied
• 7 self-deferred to 2006-07 Hawaii, Maryland,
  Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
  South Dakota
• 5 rejected Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, South
  Carolina, and Utah
• 8 peer reviewed Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona,
  Delaware, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon, and
  Tennessee
• 2 approved Tennessee and North Carolina

5
Growth ModelsNext Steps

• According to letter to non-approved States from
  Assistant Secretary Johnson (mid-May 2006)
• Non-approved States could submit revised
  proposals by September 15 for a second peer
  review in mid-October (all six did). These will
  have priority over new submittals in the
  review/approval process
• These States and others may submit new proposals
  by November 1, 2006
• ED still intends to limit to ten the number of
  approved plans through the pilot project period

6
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

• States with large hurricane-refugee student
  populations allowed to create separate group of
  these students for AYP participation counts but
  performance does not (for 2005-06 only)
• Approved Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana,
  Tennessee, and Texas
• Denied Pennsylvania

7
2005 NAEP Results

• Substantial differences remain between percent of
  students scoring proficient or above on state
  assessments and the percent scoring proficient or
  above on NAEP
• The debate over whether States standards and
  assessments are sufficiently rigorous likely to
  continue

8
NPRM Modified Achievement Standards (the 2
option)

• Provisions targeted to students who have
  significant difficulty achieving grade-level
  proficiency due to their disabilities
• Aimed at codifying use of alternate assessments
  based on modified standards
• Issued in December 2005, final rules not
  anticipated until late 2006 or early 2007
• Regulations would take back ED approvals to use
  higher minimum ns for subgroups

9
AP Allegations

• In April 2006, AP reports that 1.9 million
  students being excluded from AYP calculations due
  to minimum n
• Focus on exclusion of students in minority
  racial/ethnic subgroups did not look at SWDs
  and LEP students
• Immediate impact on pending requests from at
  least 10 States to modify their minimum ns
  (mainly increase)ED denied these almost
  immediately
• Secretary Spellings also responded to June 2006
  Congressional hearing that steps had been taken
  ensure that minimum n increases would no longer
  be approved and that previous decisions in this
  vein would be reviewed

10
Secretarys June 13, 2006, Letter to Rep. McKeon

• The Department, through its Assessment and
  Comprehensive Assistance Centerwill invite
  States to participate in a national technical
  assistance conference to be held this fall to
  help States improve their systems for ensuring
  the validity and reliability of their
  accountability decisions. With full testing under
  NCLB now underway, we will work with States to
  acquire new impact data on school and student
  inclusion rates and discuss with them a process
  for justifying how their specific n-size is
  necessary for valid and reliable results.
  Additionally, this forum will look at how States
  use of statistical tools affects the flow of
  interventions to students who most need academic
  assistance. (p.4)

11
Preparing for Reauthorization

• The Commission on No Child Left Behind
• Private, bi-partisan panel formed to study the
  federal school accountability law and recommend
  to Congress changes for the laws 2007
  reauthorization.
• Tommy Thompson, former U. S. H S Secretary and
  former Wisconsin Governor, and Roy Barnes, former
  Georgia Governor, co-chairs.
• Thirteen additional members

12
Preparing for Reauthorization

• CCSSO Committee on Reauthorization, Libby
  Burmaster, Wisconsins chief, Chair
• Coalition of school, civil rights and
  child-advocacy groupsSubmitted a list of 14
  recommendations for changing NCLB to
  Congressional staffers

13
Preparing for Reauthorization

• Center on Education Policy
• November 2005
• ED has made it easier for schools and districts
  to make AYP
• There needs to be greater transparency in the
  workbook change process
• There is almost no documentation of requested
  changes that were rejected, and very little
  public information about the rationales for
  accepting or rejecting changes.
• March 2006
• Teaching and learning have changed as a result of
  the law
• Urban districts are increasingly experiencing the
  greatest effects of the law
• ED should monitor and report how CIs, safe
  harbor, and other flexibility provisions affect
  the number of schools and districts in AYP
  determinations

14
Preparing for Reauthorization

• Education Weeks Room to Maneuver (December
  2005)
• the mixed national picture on AYP may have as
  much to do with how each state calculates
  progress as on overall test-score trends.
• much of the flexibility granted by ED has
  consisted of extending agreements already reached
  with some states.
• The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University
• ED is changing the meaning of NCLB through
  negotiated deals with States and the department
  has not resolved underlying flaws in the law.
  (February 2006).
• The law hasnt significantly impacted national
  achievement scores or narrowed racial gaps among
  students June 2006).

15
2006-06 DecisionsA Move Away from Flexibility

• As in past, most denials done verballya few
  States told not to submit amendment requests that
  hadnt been informally approved
• Past precedent no longer basis for approval
  (e.g., minimum n, CIs, other statistical tests)
• States threatened with financial penalties for
  non-compliance (e.g., teacher quality and final
  assessment systems)

16
2005-06 Amendment Requests

• Standards and Assessments
• Replace high school assessments with SAT or ACT
  (2)
• Delay use of results from additional grades in
  3-8 for use in AYP for one to two years (7)
• AYP Application
• Modify how LEAs are identified for improvement
  (9)
• Base AYP on missing same subject by same subgroup
  (6)
• Create new subgroup for hurricane displaced
  students (7)

17
2005-06 Amendment Requests

• AYP Model
• Modify FAY (8) and graduation rate definitions
  (12)
• Modify Participation Rate calculations (16)
• Modify minimum ns (10)
• Apply or modify confidence intervals (6)
• Modify or reset Starting Points, AMOs and IGs
  (14)
• Modify or add indexing to proficiency
  determinations (12)
• Modify safe harbor determinations (12)

18
2005-06 Amendment Requests

• Inclusion
• Continue use of 2 proxy for SWDs against
  modified achievement standards (33)
• Modify manner in which SWDs are included in State
  assessments (9)
• Modify manner in which LEP students are included
  in State assessments (10)
• Reporting and Consequences
• Delay reporting AYP due to implementation of new
  assessments (9)
• Target consequences to the subgroups not making
  AYP targets (6)

19
Approvals

• Most changes to FAY, graduation rate, and
  participation rate were approved
• Some proficiency indexing models were
  approvedincluding use of weighting constants
  to calculate AYP in each grade and each subject
• Equi-percentile adjustments permitted for testing
  systems in transition

20
Denials

• Every request for an increase in minimum n or an
  increase in the size of a confidence interval was
  denied (one State required to drop either SEM or
  CI for proficiency determinations)
• Students with invalidated tests must be
  considered as not tested
• Almost all requests to omit additional grades (in
  3-8) for AYP in 2005-06 denied
• States required to include use of OAIs in school
  district AYP calculations not consistently
  required previously (March 2006).
• Inclusion of formerly served LEP students
  continues to be limited to 2 years
• No approvals for treating SWDs similarly in spite
  of pending NPRM that includes this provision and
  a few States had received prior approval for this

21
The State of States NCLB Accountability
PlansSeptember 2006
William J. Erpenbach, WJE Consulting,
Ltd. Ellen Forte, edCount, LLC ASR
SCASS September 26, 2006Providence, RI