The Role of Deputies and No Child Left Behind NCLB: The Case of Accountability with Rewards and Cons

1
The Role of Deputies and No Child Left Behind
(NCLB)The Case of Accountability with Rewards
and Consequences

• Deputies Leadership Commission
• Spring Academy
• May 16, 2004
• Scott R. Palmer
• HollandKnight LLP
• scott.palmer_at_hklaw.com

2
Introduction

• Bridging the Conversation (from Yesterday to
  Today)
• The Role of Deputies and NCLB (federal law as
  part of state education reform)
• The Case of Accountability w/ Rewards and
  Consequences (operationalizing the model and
  pending NCLB requirements)

3
I. The Role of Deputies and NCLB

• Multiple Laws in Education
• The No Child Left Behind Act
• Key Principles in Education Law
• Lessons for the Role of the Deputies

4
Federal Laws in Education

• Civil Rights Laws
• 14th Amendment (EPC, Due Process OTL)
• Title VI (race, ethnicity)
• Title IX (gender)
• Section 504 (disability)
• Title II (disability)
• EEOA (ELL proficiency/ content)

• Programmatic Laws
• NCLB (TI, TQ, ELL, etc.)
• IDEA (disability, FAPE)
• Perkins (vocational education)
• HEA (pipeline programs)
• Several reauthorizations pending!

5
Federal Laws in Education

• All against the state law backdrop, including
  state constitutional resource equity/adequacy
  obligations

6
The No Child Left Behind Act

• The major federal K-12 education law
• Reauthorizes ESEA (1965), IASA (1994)
• 25 billion in FY2004
• Broad scope
• Shift in federalism
• Focus on accountability
• Focus on transparency of data w/ OTL
  implications

• NCLB sets and agenda for state action (w/
  specific requirements)
• Accountability/AYP, w/ Rewards and Consequences
• Standards and Assessments
• Teacher Quality and Professional Development
• English Language Learners
• Students w/ Disabilities primarily in IDEA
• School Safety
• Data and Reporting

7
Key Principles of Education Law

• Federal law should reinforce sound state
  educational practices
• Federal standard is likely good faith, continuous
  improvement (along a spectrum of legal risk)
  evolution is inevitable
• Good intentions are not sufficient (data/evidence
  are key)
• Process matters, for good policy and legal
  compliance (w/ focus on what you want to do, not
  what you have to do)
• Federal law operates through chain link
  federalism USED monitors states, states monitor
  districts, districts monitor schools, etc.

8
Lessons for Deputies re NCLB

• Strategic Planning NCLB should not be about
  compliance, but leverage and guideposts
  preventive law as part of policy development to
  meet legal requirements as part of your education
  reform agenda
• Focus on what you want to do, not what you have
  to do or cant do
• Human Resources This kind of policy development
  requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary process
  
• Focus on coordinated dysfunction
• Leadership Leadership is about management
  w/vision NCLB implementation must be about
  meeting your education goals, where you rule
• Focus on design of strategies to meet objectives
  and goals

9
II. The Case of Accountability w/ Rewards and
Consequences

• A Policy Framework for Legal Compliance
• The Case of Accountability w/ Rewards and
  Consequences
• NCLB Requirements re Rewards and Consequences
• Pending Issues for State Action

10
A Policy Framework for Legal Compliance
Each step linked to the next by data/ evidence
11
A Policy Framework for Legal Compliance

• Federal law generally requires action on
  strategies (e.g., accountability, assessment, TQ)
  w/ certain design requirements
• Theory of action must be that IF state pursues
  certain strategies THEN state will better achieve
  its educational objectives and goals
• This is what it means to have valid/reliable
  systems built on scientifically based research

12
A Policy Framework for Legal Compliance

• Integration of strategies is vital
• Each strategy has multiple dimensions (e.g.,
  accountability includes student performance,
  accreditation, data transparency, etc.)
• Each strategy overlaps w/ other core areas of
  education reform (e.g., accountability,
  assessment, professional development, curriculum
  etc.)

13
The Case of Accountability w/ Rewards and
Consequences
Each step linked to the next by data/ evidence
14
The Case of Accountability w/ Rewards and
Consequences

• Accountability w/rewards and consequences is a
  strategy, w/certain design requirements
• Theory of action is that IF state has a SSAS,
  THEN the state will better achieve its
  educational objectives and goals. SSAS must be
  valid and reliable in the sense that
• Indicators and decision rules lead to
• Accurate classifications, which lead to
• Effective education interventions, which lead to
• Improved student achievement

15
NCLB Requirements on Accountability/AYP

• Accountability States must establish a single
  statewide accountability system for all public
  schools and districts
• AYP As core part of system, states must hold
  schools and LEAs accountable for demonstrating
  adequate yearly progress (AYP) in raising student
  achievement and closing achievement gaps (based
  primarily on assessments in reading/language arts
  and mathematics)
• AYP based on (1) 95 participation on
  assessments, (2) percent proficient on
  assessments, and (3) performance on an additional
  indicator
• AYP must be shown for students overall and for
  each subgroup, disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
  poverty, disability, and limited English
  proficiency (where such subgroups are above
  minimum number for subgroup accountability)
  schools, districts, and states must achieve 100
  proficiency by 2013-14
• States may adopt blended accountability systems
  that combine federal AYP and state
  criteria/determinations (including various
  growth models)

16
NCLB Requirements onRewards and Consequences

• Rewards and Sanctions States must establish a
  system of rewards and sanctions applicable to all
  public schools as part of their single statewide
  accountability system
• School Consequences Title I schools that fail to
  meet AYP for two or more consecutive years will
  be identified for school improvement w/ the
  following required consequences
• Year 2 improvement plan, technical assistance,
  10 expenditure on teacher quality, and public
  school choice
• Year 3 all the above plus supplemental services
• Year 4 all the above plus corrective action
  (which includes district option of replacing
  staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing
  management authority, appointing outside experts,
  extend school day/year, or restructuring internal
  organization)
• Year 6 all the above plus restructuring/alternati
  ve governance (which includes district option of
  reopening as a charter school, replacing staff,
  hiring private management, state takeover,
  restructuring governance, or other major reform)
• District Consequences Title I districts that do
  not meet AYP are placed in improvement status
  after two years and in corrective action after
  four years, with less stringent but real
  consequences decided by the state

17
Pending Issues for State Action

• Single Statewide Accountability System
• Define AYP (AYP Workbook revisions, w/in range of
  flexibility)
• Consider other state criteria
• Integrate AYP and state criteria
• Establish rewards and consequences (educational
  interventions that can improve student
  achievement)

18
Pending Issues for State Action

• Rewards and Consequences
• Address T1 vs. Non-T1 (1st year for non-T1)
• Move up, add, or restrict consequences
• Determine state vs. local control
• Establish rewards
• Determine 2 consecutive years
• Deal with LEA AYP/improvement and state
  interventions

19
Pending Issues for State ActionState to LEA
Rewards and Consequences

• Many LEAs will miss AYP for 2 consecutive years
  and be in improvement this year
• Consequences for LEAs
• LEA improvement plans
• SES implications
• Consequences for SEAs
• Parental notification
• TA if requested
• May take corrective action
• SEAs need to focus on effective state to district
  monitoring, accountability, support, etc., w/ low
  burden and high benefit

20
Pending Issues for State ActionState to LEA
Rewards and Consequences

• Ex. NJQSAC
• Integrates 5 components of accountability
  Instruction, Personnel, Fiscal Management,
  Operations, and Governance
• Meets requirements of federal and state law
  (including federal AYP and state resource
  adequacy obligations)
• Targets level of SEA intervention (and SEA
  takeover) to nature and level of LEA
  underperformance

21
Conclusion

• With focus on strategic planning, HR, and
  leadership, NCLB implementation can more often
  reinforce sound state education practices
• For legal and educational reasons, SEAs must
  focus on effective monitoring and support at the
  LEA level to improve student achievement

22
HollandKnightImproving Education, Preventing
Litigation

• Scott Palmer is Partner with Holland Knight LLP
  in Washington, D.C., where he provides strategic
  planning, policy, and legal counseling services
  to states and school districts on a wide array of
  standards-reform issues, including those
  associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of
  2001, high-stakes testing, and services for
  English language learners and students with
  disabilities.
• Mr. Palmer previously served as Deputy Assistant
  Secretary in the U.S. Department of Education,
  where his portfolios included federal compliance
  and discrimination issues arising in the context
  of standards reform, testing, resource
  adequacy/equity, diversity/ desegregation, and
  more. Mr. Palmer is also Senior Fellow with the
  Harvard University Civil Rights Project.
• Mr. Palmer can be reached at HollandKnight in
  Washington, DC, at [phone] or
  scott.palmer_at_hklaw.com.