Hot Topics in Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act

1
Hot Topics in Implementing the No Child Left
Behind Act

• Maree Sneed
• Hogan Hartson L.L.P.
• 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
• Washington, DC 20004-1109
• MFSneed_at_hhlaw.com
• [phone]

2
Outline of Topics

• State Accountability Plans
• Adequate Yearly Progress
• Subgroups
• 95 Participation Rate Requirement
• Assessment of Students with Disabilities
• Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students
• Amending State Accountability Plans
• Accountability
• School Accountability
• Title I Choice
• Supplemental Educational Services
• District Accountability
• Unsafe School Choice
• Teacher Qualifications
• Funding (or Lack Thereof?)

3
Quiz True or False?

• Florida requires a minimum subgroup size of 20
  students for both reporting and accountability
  purposes.
• Floridas other academic indicator for elementary
  and middle schools is the statewide writing
  assessment.
• Florida does not permit districts to designate
  the Florida Virtual School as a Title I choice
  option.
• Florida has approved 12 faith-based organizations
  as supplemental educational service providers.
• Florida has determined that its high, objective
  uniform state standard of evaluation is not
  appropriate for teachers of Speakers of Other
  Languages.

4
State Accountability Plans

• Must include all public schools and districts in
  the state
• Must hold all public schools to the same criteria
• Must include all public school students
• Charter school students
• Mobile students
• Must provide information in a timely manner,
  including through school and district report
  cards
• Must include rewards and sanctions

5
State Accountability Plans (2)

• Must set requirements for Adequate Yearly
  Progress (AYP)
• Must apply to all students and to students in
  particular subgroups
• Major racial/ethnic groups
• Economically disadvantaged students
• Limited English proficient (LEP) students
• Students with disabilities
• Must be based primarily on academic assessments
• Must meet full academic year requirement for
  score to count toward AYP
• Must meet 95 test participation requirement, for
  all students and for each subgroup
• Safe harbor provision
• Must include at least one other academic
  indicator
• Usually attendance rates for elementary and
  middle schools
• Graduation rate for high schools
• Must expect all public school students, including
  students in each subgroup, to achieve proficiency
  on mathematics and reading/language arts
  assessments by end of 2013-2014 school year

6
State Accountability Plans (3)

• Each state defines proficiency individually.
• A February 9, 2004 report from the Harvard Civil
  Rights Project found that in part because of
  this, the NCLB requirements have no common
  meaning.
• Some states have lowered their standards to avoid
  penalties for failing to make AYP, or have
  adopted different accountability systems for
  state and federal purposes.
• For example, according to a December 2003
  Northwest Evaluation Association study, 8th grade
  students in Wyoming must master algebra to be
  deemed proficient, while students in Colorado
  need only master high-level arithmetic.
• A recent study of 30 state systems by the Fordham
  Foundation and Accountability Works concluded
  that too often states set the bar for proficiency
  too low.
• On October 1, 2004, the Government Accountability
  Office recommended that USDOE establish a written
  process and timeline for states to meet NCLB
  requirements for full approval of state plans,
  including with respect to development of
  standards and assessment systems by 2006.

7
Florida Accountability Plan

• Floridas plan includes all public schools in the
  state, but, with respect to schools with fewer
  than thirty students (210 total schools)
• Those schools with highly mobile populations,
  such as juvenile justice facilities, teen parent
  programs, and hospital/homebound programs will
  not receive individual AYP designations.
• Ninety-eight schools fall into this category.
• Scores at these schools will be rolled up to
  the district and/or state levels.
• Other schools with fewer than thirty students,
  such as exceptional student education, vocational
  schools, and others, will receive individual AYP
  designations as long as they enroll at least ten
  students.
• One hundred twelve schools fall into this
  category.
• If a school enrolls fewer than ten students, its
  students scores will likewise be rolled up to
  the district and/or state levels. (These schools
  consist primarily of special situations in which
  one or more students have unique placements based
  on special circumstances, e.g., an adult
  education center or county jail.)
• Assessments
• Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
• LEP students enrolled in an approved English as a
  Second Language program for 12 months or less may
  be assessed using other measures of academic
  performance if FCAT is determined inappropriate
• For those students with disabilities for whom
  the Sunshine State Standards and participation in
  the FCAT are not appropriate, Florida uses a
  system of locally-developed alternate
  assessments.

8
Florida Accountability Plan (2)

• Subgroups
• American Indian
• Asian
• Black
• Hispanic
• White
• Economically Disadvantaged
• Students with Disabilities (SWD)
• LEP
• A student is considered in attendance for a full
  academic year if the student is enrolled and in
  attendance by the fall term as documented in
  Survey 2 conducted the second week of October and
  Survey 3 conducted the second week of February.
• Each Florida student is assigned a unique
  identification number upon initial enrollment.
  That same number remains with the student,
  regardless of changes in school or district
  attended.
• If a student transfers schools before the March
  testing window concludes, that students scores
  will be used in district but not individual
  school AYP calculations. If the student
  transfers districts, the scores will be used only
  in state calculations of AYP.

9
Florida Accountability Plan (3)

• Other Academic Indicators (must show an increase
  of at least 1 from prior year)
• Elementary and Middle
• FCAT writing assessment
• Administered in grades 4 and 8
• High
• Grade 10 writing assessment
• Graduation rate
• Note In addition, a school graded D or F
  under the Florida A Plan for Education will
  automatically be determined to have failed to
  make AYP.
• Minimum Subgroup Size
• For reporting purposes, 10 students
• For accountability purposes, 30 students (with
  the exception of small schools having a stable
  population of between 10 and 30 students)

10
AYP Subgroups

• Some states proposed that schools not be
  identified for improvement if their failure to
  make AYP was based on one subgroups performance
  in one year and a different subgroups
  performance in the following year.
• The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) has
  rejected this approach.
• However, other state accountability plans
  indicate that the failure to make AYP must be in
  the same grade band to be considered a second
  consecutive year of failure.
• Another difficulty is changing demographics If
  the size of a subgroup increases dramatically, a
  school will have to make tremendous progress to
  meet AYP requirements.
• Note Although a school may need to improve a
  particular subgroups score to avoid
  identification for improvement, the school should
  not, as one school reportedly did, hold separate
  assemblies for each minority subgroup. Rather,
  the school should consider more inclusive means
  of improving student scores within relevant
  subgroups and in the school as a whole.

11
AYP Subgroups (2)

• A February 9, 2004 Harvard Civil Rights Project
  Report found that NCLB sanctions fell especially
  hard on minority and integrated schools.
• Among the reports key findings
• The federal law identified schools as needing
  improvement on the basis of their demographic
  characteristics rather than their contribution to
  student learning.
• Despite the demographic differences between
  schools needing improvement and schools meeting
  AYP, two-year trends in achievement scores
  indicate that both types of schools made similar
  gains in reading and math proficiency scores.
  Regardless of initial differences in test score
  levels, all schools appear to help their students
  make similar improvements in reading and math
  over two years.
• In Illinois and New York, schools needing
  improvement enrolled over twice as many minority
  and low-income students, on average, than schools
  meeting AYP.
• In California, schools identified as needing
  improvement were more likely to contain a Black,
  Latino, socio-economically disadvantaged, and
  limited English proficient subgroup than schools
  making AYP.

12
AYP 95 Participation Rate

• Many schools have failed to make AYP because they
  did not meet NCLBs 95 testing participation
  requirement for the school as a whole or for
  particular subgroups.
• For example, in 2002, 70 of California schools
  failed to make AYP, primarily because they did
  not meet the 95 participation requirement.
• On March 29, 2004 and again on May 19, 2004,
  USDOE identified new flexibility for meeting the
  95 participation rate requirement.
• Average Participation Rate States may use data
  from the previous one or two years to average
  participation rate data for a school and/or
  subgroup.
• Medical Emergencies Schools can omit students
  who cannot take an assessment because of a
  significant medical emergency that lasts
  throughout the entire testing window, including
  makeup dates, when calculating participation
  rates.

13
AYP Students with Disabilities

• The same grade-level academic content and
  achievement standards that apply to all public
  schools and public school students in a state
  must be applied to alternate assessments used for
  students with disabilities.
• Alternate assessments must yield results for the
  grade level in which the student is enrolled in
  at least reading/language arts, mathematics, and,
  beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, science.
• In December 2002, USDOE withdrew a proposed
  regulation that would have limited the use of
  alternate achievement standards for students with
  the most severe cognitive disabilities for
  purposes of determining AYP to no more than 0.5
  of all students. On March 20, 2003, USDOE
  proposed a 1.0 cap instead.

14
AYP Students with Disabilities (2)

• Key points of the final regulations, issued
  December 2003, include
• The rules DO NOT limit the percentage of students
  with the most significant cognitive disabilities
  who may take 1) assessments with accommodations
  2) alternate assessments based on state
  achievement standards or 3) alternate
  assessments based on alternate achievement
  standards.
• The rules DO limit the percentage of proficient
  scores on alternate assessments based on
  alternate achievement standards that may be
  counted for AYP purposes.
• That percentage may not exceed 1.0 of all
  students in the grades tested (about nine percent
  of students with disabilities).
• States may appeal to USDOE for a higher limit.
  School districts may likewise appeal to the state
  for a waiver.
• States define which students have the most
  significant cognitive disabilities.  
• According to Education Daily, on April 27, 2004,
  USDOE rejected a request from Congressional
  Democrats to apply this change retroactively.
• In September 2004, Senator Kennedy (D-MA)
  introduced the NCLB Improvement Act, which would,
  among other things, make this change retroactive
  to the 2002-2003 school year.

15
AYP Students with Disabilities (3)

• On March 2, 2004, USDOE provided guidance
  regarding how states and districts can request
  waivers of this 1.0 limit
• States should contact USDOE no later than three
  months prior to the date that schools will be
  notified of identifications for improvement based
  on 2003-2004 assessment data.
• States will be asked to provide supporting
  information and documentation, including the
  following
• An explanation of the relevant circumstances
• Data showing the incidence rate of students with
  the most significant cognitive disabilities and
• Information showing how the state has implemented
  alternate achievement standards, consistent with
  NCLB regulations.
• USDOE urged states to adopt similarly rigorous
  processes for school district waiver requests,
  especially since USDOE will not grant an
  exception to a State based on the States liberal
  granting of exceptions to school districts.

16
AYP Students with Disabilities (4)

• Several states have submitted waiver requests to
  USDOE. For example
• Ohio
• 1.3 cap for the 2003-2004 school year
• APPROVED
• Texas
• No cap for the 2003-2004 school year, 7 cap for
  the 2004-2005 school year, and 6 cap for the
  2005-2006 school year
• Texas dropped its request after beginning
  negotiations with USDOE officials.
• As a result, it was reported that nearly 9
  percent of Texas students will be counted as
  automatic failures in calculating whether their
  schools make "Adequate Yearly Progress and that
  many more schools will fail to make AYP.
• Virginia
• 3.5 cap for three years
• REJECTED

17
Challenges in Assessing Students with Disabilities

• NCLBs 95 Assessment Participation Requirement
• Before NCLB, many disabled students were exempted
  from state assessments.
• Now, such exemptions can cause a school to fail
  to make AYP.
• Use of Grade-Level Assessments
• Many special education students do not perform at
  grade level, and are not required to do so under
  their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
• NCLB, however, indicates that assessments should
  generally be based on grade-level standards.

18
Challenges in Assessing Students with
Disabilities (2)

• Interaction of NCLB and the Individuals with
  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• NCLB indicates IDEA/IEPs trump when determining
  which assessments, accommodations to use with
  disabled students but
• Many states and testing companies have
  invalidated test results of students using
  IEP-required accommodations.
• USDOE has limited the percentage of students that
  can use alternate assessments based on alternate
  standards even though IEPs may permit use of
  alternate standards for a greater percentage of
  students.
• Several school districts, including those in the
  Washington area, have sought guidance regarding
  these issues and have proposed regulatory
  clarifications.
• According to an Education Policy Reform Research
  Institute report, concerns regarding NCLBs
  accountability requirements have hindered IDEAs
  goals of including students in the general
  education environment wherever possible. For
  example, teachers in tested grades are sometimes
  reluctant to include special education students
  in their classes because they count against
  them in assessments.
• Note USDOE has indicated that it expects the
  ongoing IDEA reauthorization to wed NCLB
  requirements to IDEA.

19
AYP LEP Students

• The same grade-level academic content and
  achievement standards that apply to all public
  schools and public school students in a state
  must be applied to alternate assessments used for
  LEP students.
• Students may initially be tested in their native
  language.
• After three consecutive years in U.S. schools,
  assessment for reading/language arts must be in
  English unless the school district determines on
  a case-by-case basis that native language
  assessments would yield more accurate and
  reliable results.
• Such individual exceptions then would be allowed
  for up to two additional years.
• NCLB does not limit use of native language
  assessments for subjects other than
  reading/language arts.
• Students may also receive appropriate
  accommodations to ensure the validity and
  reliability of the test results.

20
Challenges in Assessing LEP Students

• Lack of Native Language Assessments
• Many states do not have assessments in other
  languages. Moreover, even a state, like New
  York, that does have native language assessments
  cannot provide assessments in all of the
  languages spoken by the states LEP students.
• On February 19, 2004, USDOE issued new guidance
  that would give LEP students the option of taking
  the reading/language arts assessments in their
  first year of enrollment.
• On June 24, 2004, USDOE issued proposed
  regulations to codify its February guidance.
  Under the proposed regulations
• Newly arrived LEP students must still take the
  test of English language proficiency to measure
  their progress in learning English.
• States are not required to include the math
  results (or those of the reading/language arts
  assessment, if given) in AYP calculations.
• LEP students who opt out of the reading/language
  arts assessment can still be counted as
  participants for the 95 testing requirement as
  long as they take both the math and English
  language proficiency assessments.
• Comments on the proposed regulations were due
  August 9, 2004.

21
Challenges in Assessing LEP Students (2)

• Lack of Native Language Assessments (continued)
• USDOEs new guidance and proposed regulations
  would not apply to LEP students who have been in
  the United States for more than a year, so the
  lack of native language assessments remains a
  challenge for those students.
• In addition, USDOE most recently at Secretary
  Paiges annual back-to-school address on
  September 24, 2004 has refused to apply these
  new policies retroactively.
• In June 2004, Representative George Miller (D-CA)
  and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the
  NCLB Fairness Act. If passed, the act would
  require USDOE to apply its new policies on
  assessments of LEP students, as well as its new
  policies on participation rate calculation rates
  and assessment of special education students,
  discussed earlier, retroactively.
• In September 2004, Senator Kennedy introduced the
  NCLB Improvement Act, which would likewise make
  these changes retroactive.

22
Challenges in Assessing LEP Students (3)

• Use of Accommodations
• NCLB permits reasonable accommodations.
• BUT many states, testers are unaware of this
  provision, and have invalidated test results of
  LEP students who used permissible accommodations
• In addition, NCLB does not set a time limit on
  use of reasonable accommodations.
• BUT, some states have misinterpreted NCLB to
  prohibit use of reasonable accommodations after
  an LEP student has been in U.S. schools for three
  consecutive years.
• The provision at issue applies to use of native
  language assessments, not reasonable
  accommodations AND
• That provision applies only with respect to
  assessments of reading/language arts, not other
  content area tests.

23
Challenges in Assessing LEP Students (4)

• Credit for Progress in Improving LEP Test Results
• It is hard for schools to make AYP with respect
  to the LEP subgroup.
• Generally, an LEP students scores will improve
  as the student becomes more proficient in
  English.
• By definition, though, an LEP student ceases to
  be part of the LEP subgroup upon attaining
  English language proficiency.
• Schools therefore do not get credit for
  improvements in LEP students scores.
• USDOE previously negotiated agreements with
  various states, including California and
  Illinois, to remedy this concern by permitting
  schools to count a student as LEP for a
  predetermined number of years after the student
  achieves English language proficiency.
• On February 19, 2004, USDOE issued new guidance
  that permits all states to count former LEP
  students as LEP for up to two years after those
  students attain English language proficiency. In
  June 2004, USDOE issued proposed rules to codify
  this new guidance, but USDOE has refused to make
  these changes retroactive.

24
Amending State Accountability Plans

• On February 5, 2004, USDOE announced procedures
  for review and approval of amendments to state
  accountability plans.
• Under these procedures, states must submit
  written requests for amendments no later than
  April 1st (of the year whose assessment results
  the change might affect).
• The states submission must include
• The rationale for the amendment and
• Relevant evidence of its effect.

25
Amending State Accountability Plans (2)

• For example, in its February 5th letter, USDOE
  highlighted an example of an amendment relating
  to assessment of students with disabilities
• States that counted students as participants
  under NCLB even if they took an out-of-level
  assessment that was not based on alternate
  achievement standards as outlined in current
  regulations will need to adjust this
  procedure.
• Students now can only be counted as participants
  if they take an assessment that meets the
  requirements of the final regulation, which was
  adopted after the original state plans were
  approved.

26
Amending State Accountability Plans (3)

• States may also need to amend their
  accountability plans if they wish to take
  advantage of USDOEs February 19, 2004 guidance
  on LEP students (discussed earlier)
• Waiver of reading/language arts content area
  assessments for LEP students during their first
  year of enrollment
• Inclusion of former LEP students in the LEP
  subgroup for up to two years after those students
  attain English language proficiency

27
Amending State Accountability Plans (4)

• For example, in 2004, USDOE approved the
  following changes in the size of the special
  education subgroup for AYP purposes
• Alaska 40 students (up from 20)
• Kansas 40 students (up from 30)
• Missouri 50 students (up from 30)
• Note The Consortium for Citizens with
  Disabilities has urged USDOE to prevent states
  from making the size of the special education
  subgroup too large, as that could effectively
  exclude special education students from NCLBs
  accountability provisions.
• As another 2004 example, USDOE approved the
  following changes to Delawares accountability
  plan
• Use of confidence intervals to increase
  reliability of subgroup calculations
• Substitution of a progress indicator for middle
  school science and social studies scores as
  other academic indicators

28
Stages of School Accountability

• School Improvement
• 2 consecutive years of failure to make AYP
• If Title I school, requires Title I choice and,
  in second year of school improvement,
  supplemental educational services
• Corrective Action
• 4 consecutive years of failure to make AYP
• If Title I school, requires above and at least
  one corrective action, such as new staff or
  curriculum
• Restructuring
• Failure to make AYP after 1 full year of
  corrective action
• Requires restructuring plan, which could include
  state takeover or contract with private education
  management company

29
Appeals of School Identification

• Not later than 30 days after receipt of state
  test results, the school district must officially
  identify all schools in need of improvement,
  corrective action, or restructuring.
• During that time, schools should determine
  whether there are any substantive grounds for
  appealing any school identifications.
• Examples of possible grounds for appeal of
  identification include
• Inaccurate or incomplete testing data
• Inclusion of students who were not in a school
  for a full school year
• Satisfaction of safe harbor provision
• Several districts have appealed identification
  under NCLB.
• In Georgia, in 2003, close to 200 schools were
  removed, upon appeal, from the states list of
  identified schools.
• In December 2003, after unsuccessful appeals,
  Reading School District filed suit against the
  Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) to
  challenge classification of 13 of its 19 schools
  as failing to make AYP. In August 2004, the
  district lost its challenge before the state
  trial court, and has now appealed to the state
  supreme court.
• Kennett Consolidated School District (also in
  Pennsylvania) likewise sued PDE to challenge
  identification of one of its schools. In
  September 2004, PDE reportedly settled the suit.
  PDE agreed to remove the identification but
  refused to concede any of its arguments or to
  explain the rationale for its decision.

30
Title I Choice

• Any student attending a school that is in school
  improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
  has the opportunity to transfer to another school
  in the district.
• The district may identify the schools to which a
  student may have the opportunity to transfer.

31
Title I Choice (2)

• Identification of receiving school
• May not include
• Schools that have been identified for
  improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
• Schools identified as persistently dangerous
• May include public charter schools
• Timing
• District must provide opportunity for choice no
  later than first day of school year following
  year in which school district administered
  assessments that led to identification.
• Note Districts ability to meet this requirement
  is dependent upon states timely release of
  assessment data.

32
Title I Choice (3)

• Number of Choices District must provide choice
  of more than one school and must take into
  account parent preferences among the choices
  offered.
• Enrollment in Sending School Student may remain
  at new school until completion of the schools
  highest grade, even after school is not in one of
  accountability stages.
• Effect of Capacity Constraints District may NOT
  use lack of capacity in the district to deny
  students the option to transfer, but it can use
  capacity in a school to deny a transfer request
  to that school.

33
Title I Choice (4)

• According to USDOEs February 6, 2004 Draft
  Non-Regulatory Guidance on Public School Choice,
  when capacity is an issue school officials will
  need to employ creativity and ingenuity to meet
  demand. Here are some of the examples that USDOE
  gives
• Reconfiguring, as new classrooms, space in
  receiving schools that is not currently used for
  instruction
• Expanding space in receiving schools, such as by
  reallocating portable classrooms within the
  district
• Redrawing the districts attendance zones
• Creating satellite divisions of receiving
  schools
• Creating new, distinct schools, with separate
  faculty, within the physical sites of schools
  identified for improvement
• Encouraging the creation of new charter schools
  within the district
• Developing distance learning programs, or
  entering into cooperative agreements with
  virtual schools and
• Modifying either the school calendar or the
  school day, such as through shift or track
  scheduling, in order to expand capacity.

34
Title I Choice Florida

• The Florida Department of Education (FDE)
  stated in an April 2004 letter to school
  districts that, given the numerous initiatives
  regarding school choice already available across
  the state, it believed that meaningful choice
  for many of Floridas low achieving students from
  low socio-economic families has been provided.
  These existing choice options include
• Public school parental choice
• Charter schools
• Charter technical career centers
• The Florida Virtual School
• Floridas Opportunity Scholarship Program (Note
  This voucher program was recently found
  unconstitutional under the state constitution to
  the extent that it permitted parents to use state
  funds at private religious schools.)
• In developing new choice options for identified
  schools, FDE recommended that districts consider
• Placement of highly qualified teachers in core
  subject areas, with a focus on those areas in
  which the sending school did not make AYP
• Implementation of research-based programs to
  improve achievement
• Creation or expansion of
• Schools within a school
• Magnet programs
• International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement,
  or similar accelerated programs
• Supplemental academic programs
• Use of smaller class sizes, specialized
  instructional materials, and computer-assisted
  instruction

35
Title I Choice Florida (2)

• A May 2004 FDE presentation highlights the
  following as best practices in Title I choice
• Lee Zoned choice where each zone offers the same
  choice programs
• Okaloosa Franchise arrangement with Virtual
  School, with priority for economically
  disadvantaged students
• Flagler Comprehensive shuttle system, in which
  students are transported to their home schools
  and then transfer to shuttle buses to their
  schools of choice
• Seminole Extended transportation services to
  help choice students participate in before- and
  after-school programs

36
Title I Choice Florida (3)

• The May 2004 presentation also indicates that
• Students planning to enter a school for the first
  time should have the same opportunity for choice
  as students previously enrolled in the school.
  These students include
• Entering kindergartners
• Students moving from elementary to middle school
  (or from middle to high school) and
• Students who have just moved into the schools
  attendance area.
• Districts may choose to offer school choice with
  transportation, and additional school choice
  without transportation as long as the school
  choice without transportation does not unfairly
  exclude the lowest achieving children from
  low-income families.
• Districts can establish transportation zones for
  choice, with transportation fully funded to
  schools within the designated zone, and only
  partially funded to schools outside the zone.
• Districts must ensure, though, that each zone has
  sufficient capacity to accommodate demand for
  choice within that zone.
• Otherwise, districts must permit students to
  attend schools outside the zone with
  transportation.
• Districts should consider transporting teachers,
  programs, and supports, rather than students, in
  implementing Title I choice.

37
Challenges of Title I Choice

• Implementing choice is costly and
  administratively difficult.
• A February 2004 Harvard Civil Rights Project
  Study found
• In many instances, students transferred to other
  schools with high poverty rates
• No serious evaluation was done of whether
  transfers helped the students exercising choice
• Burdens were concentrated in high-poverty urban
  districts and
• In 11 urban districts fewer than 3 of eligible
  students transferred.
• To alleviate administrative difficulties, Palm
  Beach County School District, for example,
  required parents of children who might be
  eligible for choice to choose among possible
  receiving schools by April 28th, though they will
  not learn whether their children are actually
  eligible until after June 28th.
• Akron officials opted for a similar approach,
  only to discover that only 3 schools not 19, as
  initially expected were actually identified for
  improvement under NCLB.
• In May 2004, USDOE issued a publication that
  highlights promising choice practices at five
  school districts (Cambridge, MA Desert Sands,
  CA Mesa, AZ Miami-Dade County, FL and
  Milwaukee, WI).

38
Challenges of Title I Choice (2)

• Districts ability to identify schools in a
  timely manner, as required by NCLB, is dependent
  upon states timely release of relevant
  assessment data.
• For example, Texas has yet to release 2003
  testing data.
• Texas has explained that the delay was caused by
  extended negotiations with USDOE over amendments
  to the states accountability plan.
• According to September 2004 press reports, USDOE
  is considering withholding as much as 7 million
  from Texas for its failure to release test score
  data before the start of the 2004-2005 school
  year.
• According to USDOE, half the states have not yet
  reported AYP results as of the start of the
  2004-2005 school year.
• Some districts have few or no potential receiving
  schools.
• For example, Chicago officials predict only 457
  of tens of thousands of eligible students may be
  able to transfer.
• Districts have found it difficult to persuade
  neighboring districts to accept choice students.
• Some districts, such as Grant Joint Union School
  District in California and the District of
  Columbia Public Schools, have had to offer
  supplemental services instead.

39
Challenges of Title I Choice (3)

• Demand for choice can be expected to increase as
  more schools are identified.
• Preliminary data from USDOE indicated that about
  47,000 students (or about one out of every
  thousand students) nationwide transferred under
  NCLBs Title I choice provisions in 2002-2003.
  USDOE anticipates the number will go up.
• For example, about 2,500 Palm Beach County
  students requested Title I choice transfers in
  2004.
• As demand increases, so will transportation
  burdens.
• Some districts are reimbursing parents for
  transportation costs, whether on public
  transportation or by taxi.

40
Supplemental Educational Services

• Definition Tutoring and other academic
  enrichment services that are
• In addition to instruction provided during the
  school day
• Specifically designed to increase academic
  achievement and enable students to attain
  proficiency
• Of high quality and research-based
• Eligibility Children from low-income families
  attending Title I schools that have failed to
  make AYP for 3 or more consecutive years
• Priority If Title I funding is insufficient to
  meet demand, priority must be given to the
  lowest-achieving low-income students. Districts
  should use objective criteria to determine
  priority.
• Selection Parents select service provider

41
Supplemental Educational Services (2)

• States Obligations
• Develop list of eligible providers
• Provide potential providers with annual notice of
  opportunity to provide supplemental services and
  procedures for obtaining approval
• Maintain, by school district, list of approved
  providers
• Publicly report standards and techniques for
  monitoring quality and effectiveness of services
  provided and for withdrawing approval from
  providers who fail, for 2 consecutive years, to
  contribute to increasing students academic
  proficiency

42
Supplemental Educational Services (3)

• Districts Obligations
• Develop services agreements with approved
  providers
• Provide annual notice to parents of service
  availability
• Provide assistance for provider selection
• Pay for supplemental services
• Must spend at least 5 of Title I, part A
  allocation on such services and at least 20 on
  supplemental services and Title I choice
  combined, if necessary to meet demand
• Ensure that students with disabilities receive
  appropriate services and accommodations,
  consistent with goals and objectives of students
  IEP
• Ensure that LEP students receive appropriate
  services and language assistance
• Not disclose to public, without parents
  permission, identity of any student eligible for,
  or receiving, supplemental services

43
Supplemental Educational Services (4)

• Components of Supplemental Service Agreements
• Specific achievement goals for student, developed
  in consultation with students parents
• Description of how students progress will be
  measured and how students parents and teachers
  will be regularly informed of progress
• Timetable for improving students achievement
• Provision for termination of the agreement if
  provider fails to meet students progress goals
• Provisions for payment of services
• Provision prohibiting provider from disclosing to
  public identity of any student eligible for or
  receiving services without the written permission
  of the students parents AND
• Assurance that services will be provided
  consistent with applicable civil rights laws

44
Supplemental Educational Services (5)

• In August 2004, USDOE provided additional
  information regarding school districts authority
  and the limitations on that authority with
  respect to supplemental educational services.
• School districts may not require service
  providers to meet additional conditions relating
  to
• Minimum number of hours of services,
• Use of state-certified teachers as tutors, or
• One-on-one tutoring.
• BUT districts can impose reasonable operational
  and administrative requirements applicable to all
  district contractors, such as the following
• Background checks for company employees and
• Minimum level of liability insurance.

45
Supplemental Educational Services Florida

• In May 2004, FDE indicated
• Based on preliminary data, it expected that 45
  schools in 14 districts would be eligible for
  supplemental educational services in the
  2004-2005 school year.
• It had approved 56 1st round providers (based on
  January applications)
• 26 statewide
• 27 commercial/private companies
• 14 community-based organizations
• 7 distance learning groups
• 8 school districts
• 3 private schools
• 1 faith-based organization
• Once approved, a provider remains on the
  state-approved list for three years, unless the
  provider fails to perform adequately, meet the
  terms of agreements, or experiences poor feedback
  from parents.

46
Challenges of Supplemental Educational Services

• Few parents exercised supplemental educational
  services options.
• Possible causes of low participation rates
• Limited number of approved providers in some
  areas
• Late start for initiating this requirement
• Difficulties in managing and administering the
  program
• Need to change families conceptions of school
  to include longer learning day in a variety of
  settings
• For example, only 1,100 of 18,000 eligible
  students in the Chicago Public Schools registered
  for supplemental services in 2003.
• In the meantime, USDOE announced on February 10,
  2004 that it intends to investigate Chicagos use
  of some of its Title I money to hire public
  school teachers as tutors instead of private
  supplemental educational services providers.

47
Challenges of Supplemental Educational Services
(2)

• As with Title I choice, demand can be expected to
  increase as more schools are identified and
  parent information increases.
• While the demand for services so far is low, the
  potential for supplemental educational services
  to fragment Title I is significant.
• Districts will be faced with growing
  administrative burdens in implementing
  supplemental educational services and in
  assessing the effect of this policy on student
  achievement and Title I schools.
• For example, DC indicated that it does not expect
  to have sufficient funding to accommodate all
  students eligible for supplemental educational
  services in 2004-2005.
• Identifying and accommodating supplemental
  educational services requirements is
  time-consuming and costly.
• Buffalo was required to spend 6.6 million to pay
  for supplemental educational services from
  outside agencies. The Harvard Civil Rights
  Project found the tutoring programs were only
  loosely tied to the school curriculum and were
  inadequately monitored.
• In May 2004, USDOE issued a guide to help
  districts implement supplemental educational
  services requirements. The guide highlights
  practices at five school districts (Forsyth
  County, GA Los Angeles, CA Rochester, NY San
  Diego, CA and Toledo, OH).

48
Challenges of Supplemental Educational Services
(3)

• States are not evaluating supplemental
  educational service providers effectiveness at
  improving student achievement (as required by
  NCLB).
• According to a September 2004 study by the
  Association of Community Organizations for Reform
  Now and the American Institute for Social
  Justice, of 30 states reviewed
• Only six completed evaluations of supplemental
  educational services providers effectiveness.
• Of these, only one state (Louisiana) tracked
  student test scores against tutoring services.
• Other states either did not track student
  performance directly or used service provider
  data.
• Three states took action against providers.
• Arizona removed certain providers who were not
  being selected by parents.
• Illinois removed one provider for failing to
  provide good service.
• Pennsylvania removed one provider.
• Six other states were not yet required to
  evaluate providers because they did not have two
  years of data.
• Many other states were still in the process of
  completing their evaluations at the time of the
  study.
• The study is available at http//www.acorn.org/fil
  eadmin/ACORN_Reports/ Accountability_Left_Behind.p
  df.

49
District Accountability

• Improvement
• Applies after two consecutive years of district
  failure to make adequate yearly progress
• Mandates improvement plan development or
  revision, with implementation the following year
• Corrective Action
• Applies after 2 years of district failure to make
  AYP following identification for improvement
• Requires state to take one or more corrective
  actions, such as replacement of school personnel
  or abolition of the district
• If state law so provides, state must provide
  notice and hearing before taking action. The
  hearing shall take place not later than 45 days
  following the decision to implement corrective
  action.
• Note In September 2004, it was reported that
  Indiana considers the performance of only Title I
  schools when determining whether its districts
  meet AYP requirements.
• The statutory text seems to permit this
  interpretation of district accountability
  requirements.
• USDOE has rejected this approach, but has not
  required Indiana to reconsider past
  determinations.
• Indiana is reportedly considering whether to
  challenge USDOEs interpretation.

50
Unsafe School Choice

• Each state must establish and implement a
  statewide policy requiring that students who
  attend persistently dangerous public schools,
  or who become victims of violent crime in or on
  public school grounds, be allowed to attend a
  safe public school, including a public charter
  school.
• Persistently Dangerous Schools
• Each state must consult with a representative
  sample of school districts to identify
  persistently dangerous schools using objective
  criteria.
• Each state must keep appropriate records
  regarding its identification process, and must
  annually report the number of schools identified.
• Each state must annually reassess its schools
  using its established objective criteria.
• Victims of Violent Crime
• Each state determines what constitutes violent
  crime.

51
Unsafe School Choice (2)

• A district that has one or more schools
  identified as persistently dangerous must
  timely provide transfer options and submit a
  corrective action plan for state approval.
• All students at an identified school must be
  given transfer options.
• To the extent possible, students should be given
  the option of transferring to a school that is
  making AYP and has not been identified for
  improvement.
• Transfers must be in effect as long as the
  original school remains identified as
  persistently dangerous.

52
Unsafe School Choice (3)

• USDOE issued final rules in June 2003 and
  confirmed those rules in nonregulatory guidance
  in August 2004.
• Under the rules
• States must identify schools as persistently
  dangerous in sufficient time to allow school
  districts to offer students the option to
  transfer to a safe school at least 14 calendar
  days before the start of the next school year.
• Districts with identified schools must give
  students the opportunity to transfer at least 14
  calendar days before the start of the 2003-2004
  school year and every school year.
• Implementation Note Because the deadlines for
  states are so fluid, districts could face
  situations in which states delay identification
  until shortly before the districts 14-day
  transfer option deadline is triggered.

53
Unsafe School Choice (4)

• A district must also give student victims of
  violent crime on or around school grounds the
  opportunity to transfer to a safe school
  beginning at the start of the 2003-2004 school
  year and every school year thereafter.
• USDOE Guidance provides as follows
• States determine which crimes constitute violent
  crimes triggering transfer option.
• Districts should generally give victims the
  opportunity to transfer to a safe school within
  14 calendar days.

54
Implementation of Unsafe School Choice

• Some states are not keeping adequate records on
  crimes and violence occurring at school.
• For example, an August 2004 audit found that DC
  lacked a comprehensive system to record and track
  violent incidents from the time of their
  occurrence until the completion of school or
  police investigations.
• The audit also found that DCs reporting policies
  were inconsistent or unclear.
• States seem to have set identification criteria
  high to avoid identifying schools
• Maryland
• Original definition would have flagged 36 of the
  states 208 schools in 2003
• Final definition identified no schools as
  persistently dangerous in 2003
• Pennsylvania
• Small schools Five dangerous incidents in two of
  the past three years
• Large schools 20 dangerous incidents in that
  time period
• California
• School identified if, for three years in a row,
  at least one student has a gun or commits a
  violent crime on school property and at least 1
  of students are expelled for serious crimes
• Over the past two years, one school had 28
  batteries, two assaults with a deadly weapon,
  three sex offenses, and one death BUT is not
  considered persistently dangerous under state
  criteria.

55
Teacher Qualifications

• After the first day of the 2002-03 school year,
  districts may hire only highly qualified teachers
  for Title I-supported programs.
• States and school districts must develop plans to
  ensure all teachers of core academic subjects are
  highly qualified by end of 2005-2006 school year.
• District must ensure that low-income students
  and minority students are not taught at higher
  rates than other students by unqualified,
  out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.

56
Teacher Qualifications (2)

• A teacher teaching in a Title I-supported program
  is a teacher
• In a targeted assistance school who is paid with
  funds under Title I, Part A OR
• In a schoolwide program school OR
• A teacher employed by a school district who is
  paid with Title I funds to provide services to
  eligible private school students
• Highly qualified requirement applies only to
  teachers teaching core academic subjects, such as
  reading, English, mathematics, science, foreign
  languages, economics, and civics.

57
Teacher Qualifications (3)

• Basic Requirements
• Bachelors degree (or higher academic credential)
• Full state certification
• Subject-matter competence
• For new teachers, demonstrated through competency
  test(s)
• For veteran elementary teachers, demonstrated
  through competency test(s) OR high, objective
  uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE)
• For veteran middle or high school teachers,
  demonstrated through competency test(s) OR HOUSSE
  OR other statutory options, such as National
  Board certification or academic major in core
  academic subject(s) taught

58
Teacher Qualifications Challenges

• Effect on Veteran Teachers
• Many current teachers entered the profession
  before states required tests of subject matter
  competency.
• These veteran teachers must therefore either be
  subjected to subject matter tests intended for
  new teachers or must be evaluated under their
  states high objective uniform state standard of
  evaluation (HOUSSE).
• Some states, however, have been slow to devise
  and implement such a state standard of
  evaluation.
• According to the Education Commission of the
  States, only 22 states are on track for full
  implementation of highly qualified teacher
  requirements by 2005-2006 deadline.

59
Teacher Qualifications Challenges (2)

• Effect on Veteran Teachers (continued)
• The states that have adopted standards of
  evaluation have taken widely different
  approaches, according to a December 2003
  Education Trust study. For example
• Arkansas five years experience
• New Mexico five years experience, two
  successful job evaluations, college coursework in
  their fields, peer observation, portfolio of
  lesson plans, satisfactory student achievement