WHAT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REALLY MEANS TO DISTRICTS

1
WHAT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REALLY MEANS TO
DISTRICTS

• Joanna Rummer, Assistant Superintendent
  Instruction and Curriculum
• Laura Hickle, Coordinator of Assessment,
  Technology, and Categorical Programs
• Sierra Sands Unified School District

2
Introduction

• January 8, 2002, New Law, No Child Left Behind
  Act of 2001, President Bush
• Education Reform Plan
• Stronger accountability for results
• Increased flexibility and local control
• Expanded options for parents
• Emphasis on teaching methods proven to work

3
Themes of No Child Left Behind

• Accountability-Centerpiece of NCLB
• Choice
• Information
• Qualifications
• Flexibility
• Consolidation

4
State of California Performance Goals for
Accountability

• All students will reach high standards, at a
  minimum attaining proficiency or better in
  reading and mathematics, by 2013-2014.
• All limited-English-proficient students will
  become proficient in English and reach high
  academic standards, at a minimum attaining
  proficiency or better in reading/language arts
  and mathematics.
• By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly
  qualified teachers.
• All students will be educated in learning
  environments that are safe, drug-free, and
  conducive to learning.
• All students will graduate from high school.

5
2 Years After No Child Left Behind

• Where are we?
• Issues
• Resources
• Guidance
• Flexibility
• Clarification
• Communication

6
Corrective Legislation?

• Has the administration failed to implement the
  law correctly?
• 10 congressional lawmakers wrote issues in a
  letter to Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, on
  January 8, 2004 outlining misgivings on
  implementation of NCLB

7
Issues Outlined in Letter

• Handling dropout rates as a measure of academic
  progress
• Civil rights protections for children regarding
  providers of supplemental education services
• Mandate for Highly qualified teachers in every
  classroom
• Confusing messages about revisions and changes to
  state accountability plans
• Delay in issuing regulations and guidance
• Inadequate technical assistance and information

8
Accountability

• State accountability plans were not all received
  until 9 months ago
• Federal laws set the reporting hurdles higher
  than most state laws
• Mandates of the NCLB Act do not have a common
  meaning across state lines

9
Adequate Yearly Progress

• By 2013-2014 Academic Year
• All schools must have made AYP toward having
  students meet or exceed standards in reading,
  math, and science
• All schools, districts, and numerically
  significant subgroups are required to make AYP
  each year.

10
AYP Site Issues

• Title I schools not making AYP for two
  consecutive years will be identified Program
  Improvement
• There are increasingly tough consequences for
  Title I schools not making AYP

11
Consequences

• Defer program fund or reduce administrative funds
• New curriculum
• Replace relevant personnel
• Remove schools and arrange alternative governance
• Abolish or restructure the LEA
• Authorize transfer to another LEA with paid
  transportation

12
AYP District Issues

• Districts can also be identified for Program
  Improvement
• Ultimately, consequences include
• Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative
  funds
• Adopt new curriculum
• Replace certain district personnel
• Remove certain schools from districts
  jurisdiction
• Abolish or restructure district
• Let students transfer to higher-performing
  schools operated in another district.
• Appoint receiver or trustee to administer
  district in place of superintendent or school
  board.

13
AYP (Federal) and API (State)

• How do they relate?

14
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)The Basics

• Based on English language arts and mathematics
  separately
• All students held to same high academic standards
  
• Goal is 100 proficiency by 2013-14
• Inclusion of all students

15
Components of AYP
At or above proficient ELA and Math, overall And
for each subgroup

• API of 560 or more
• Or one point of growth
• Graduation rate increase
• Of .1 of 1 per year

95 Participation Rate Overall and for each
subgroup
16
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

• For Elementary and Middle Schools are based on
• The California Standards Tests (CSTs) in English
  language arts and math (percent proficient)
• The California Alternate Performance Assessment
  (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive
  disabilities

• For High Schools are based on
• Results from the Grade 10 California High School
  Exit Exam (CAHSEE) administration
• The California Alternate Performance Assessment
  (CAPA) for students with severe cognitive
  disabilities

17
AMOs English language arts
18
AMOs Math
19
The API as the Other Indicator
20
Qualifications

• Highly Qualified Teachers
• Beginning 02-03, Districts must report to State
  about progress toward ensuring all teachers are
  highly qualified.
• By end of 05-06, All teachers in District
  receiving Title I assistance/or in State
  receiving Title 1 funding must be highly
  qualified.
• Core Academic Subjects only for teachers not in
  Title I districts.
• English, reading, language arts, math, science,
  foreign languages, civics and government,
  economics, arts, history and geography.

21
Qualifications Cont.

• Paraprofessionals
• Beginning Jan. 8, 2002 Newly hired Title I
  paraprofessionals must meet NCLB paraprofessional
  requirements.
• July 1, 2002 All Title I paraprofessionals must
  have a high school diploma or equivalent.
• By end of 05-06, all Title I paraprofessionals
  hired on or before January 8, 2002 must meet NCLB
  paraprofessional requirements.

22
Some Flexibility Given

• December 9, 2003
• Students with Disabilities
• February 19, 2004
• English language learners
• March 15, 2004
• Highly Qualified Teachers
• March 29, 2004
• Participation Rates

23
Flexibility in Meeting Requirements

• Students With Disabilities Easier for states to
  test students with severe cognitive disabilities
  and include results in performance ratings.
• English Language Learners Not required to test
  if enrolled in US schools less than one year. If
  have become proficient in last 2 years, can count
  them in AYP for ELL
• Highly Qualified Teachers Extra flexibility for
  teachers in rural areas and science teachers.
  Streamline alternative means for current teachers
  to demonstrate subject matter mastery in multiple
  subjects.
• Test Participation Rates Average participation
  over 2-3 years to meet 95 participation rate.
  May omit students because of a medical emergency.

24
Consolidation/Budget

• Never before in American education has such a
  small federal outlay of money leveraged such
  extensive federal intervention in our schools
• NCLB is significantly underfunded
• Supplement not supplant

25
Some Solutions

• Explore real challenges of NCLB with
  Congressional hearings.
• Devise ways to help schools achieve the laws
  goals
• Make more adjustments in testing requirements
• Provide funds to train principals and teachers
• Amend the AYP requirements

26
More Solutions

• Allow use of more reading programs found to be
  effective
• Require private and charter schools to abide by
  the same obligations as public schools
• Avoid punishing and labeling schools as low
  performing.
• Judge schools on more than one test score
• Fully fund NCLB

27
Sources Used in Creating this PowerPoint

• Changing NCLB. School Program News. March 31,
  2004.
• Close-UP No Child Left Behind-Highly Qualified
  Teachers. The Achiever March 15, 2004Vol. 3,
  No. 5.
• Cowan, Kristen Tosh Esq. The New Title I The
  Changing Landscape of Accountability. January
  2004 Edition
• Cuban, Larry. The Contentious No Child Law Who
  will Fix It? And How. Education Week. March 17,
  2004.
• Davis, Michelle R. Paige Stresses Flexibility of
  Education Law. Education Week. March 17, 2004.
• Davis, Michelle R. Utah Lawmakers Shelve Bill on
  No Child Law. Senator Urges Changes in Federal
  School. Law Education Week. March 10, 2004.
• Evans, Dennis L. Federal Overreaching. Education
  Week. March 3, 2004.
• Fabrizio, Lou. Schools Encountering Mixed
  Federal, State Accountability Forces. Education
  Week. March 10, 2004.
• Hoff, David J. Accountability Conflicts Vex
  Schools. Education Week. March 10, 2004.
• Hoff, David J. Chiefs Sense a New Attitude in
  Meeting With Bush. Education Week. March 31,
  2004.
• Hoff, David J. Debate Flares Regarding Aid Given
  to States. Education Week. January 21, 2004.
• Hoff, David J. Debate Grows on True Costs of
  School Law. Education Week. February 4, 2004.
• Matlosz, Felicia Education Chief Ponders Future.
  The Fresno Bee, April 2, 2004.
• NCLB Update. Ed Review. March 26, 2004.
• Newkirk, Thomas. False Positives. Education
  Week, March 3, 2004.
• Peterson, Paul E., West, Martin R. The
  Contentious No Child Law Money Has Not Been
  Left Behind. Education Week. March 17, 2004.
• Propositions 57 and 58 PassNow on to the Budget.
  What the Legislature Can Do. Education Trust
  Report Graduation Rates and Highly Qualified
  Teachers. Changes to NCLB Accountability
  Workbook. School Program News. March 15, 2004.
• Robelen, Erik W. Census Data to Result in Title I
  Cuts for Some States. Education Week. March 10,
  2004.
• Robelen, Erik W. Federal Rules for Teachers are
  Relaxed. Education Week. March 24, 2004.