No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 5e71d0-NWFjM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update


Title: No Child Left Behind and the School Improvement Process an Overview Author: Learning Point Associates Last modified by: rgreco Created Date – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:131
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 66
Provided by: LearningP4
Tags: behind | child | fall | left | update


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: No Child Left Behind: A Fall Update

No Child Left Behind A Fall Update
  • Illinois State Board of Education
  • September 2004

No Child Left Behind aka
  • No Principal Left Standing
  • No Attorney Left Unemployed
  • No School Left Open
  • No Chocolate Left Unopened
  • No Child Left Untested
  • What are your favorites?

Background and overview of NCLB
You may not like NCLB but remember
  • It is the result of a bi-partisan vote in
  • It is a federal law based on earlier one.
  • It has not been amended or changed.

For Those of You Too Young
  • What has transpired over the last half century
    that has led to the No Child Left Behind Act and
    the standards-based, assessment approach to
  • NCLB was not Phoenix, springing full- blown from
    the minds of Sec. Paige and/or Pres. Bush
  • So.some history

Sputnik October 4, 1957
  • Led to National Defense Education Act.
  • First time federal government intervened in
    public school policy and curriculum by providing
    funds to improve mathematics and science
    education citing national security as the reason.

LIFE from March 1958
  • Three-part series that identified critical issues
    in American education.
  • They are wretchedly overworked, underpaid and
  • Not enough time to plan lessons.

1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  • Signed into law by President Lyndon
  • Johnson.
  • First federal aid to school districts with
    large percentage of children living in
  • Began Head Start, health and nutrition
    program for three and four-year old

(No Transcript)
A Nation At Risk
Our society is being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a
nation and a people.
  • Graduation Requirements
  • Curriculum Content
  • Standards/Expectations
  • More Time-day/Year
  • Improve Teaching
  • Hold Leadership Accountable
  • Field Support

(No Transcript)
How Long Will NCLB Be Around?
  • Enacted in January 2002
  • Will be reauthorized in 2006, likelier 2007
  • Other laws in the meantime will likely be
    reauthorized before ESEA is IDEA, Perkins,
    Higher Education Act
  • Pres. Bush called it the path to promise in
    America at the RNC
  • In sum, it will be around long enough to ensure
    you want to follow what it says now

First---Ask Yourself
  • Would you want your child in a school that has a
    large of students who do not achieve at
    proficiency on an assessment in each state?
  • Would you want your child taught by a teacher who
    does not have the qualifications required under
    NCLBs highly qualified teacher rules?

Who Cant or Shouldnt Make It?
  • Intent of areas changed from one law to the
  • Increase accountability for student
  • Focus on what works.
  • Reduce bureaucracy.
  • Empower parents.

No Child Left Behind Themes
  • Assessment
  • Standards
  • Achievement Gap
  • Accountability
  • Teacher Quality
  • Parent Options
  • Flexibility
  • Reporting

Important Provisions
  • Accountability
  • States must develop and implement annual
    assessments of students in mathematics and
    reading in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006 school year.
  • States must develop science standards by
    2005-2006 and implement assessments by 2007-2008,
    in 1 grade each in grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12
  • Law changed in Illinois in summer 2004no longer
    testing writing or social sciences.
  • Benchmark will be NAEP.
  • States must meet 100 academic proficiency within
    12 years (defined by state).
  • Adequate yearly progress (AYP) must apply
    specifically to subgroups and all student data
    must be disaggregated.

Important Provisions (contd)
  • Parental Choice
  • If child is in a school formally designated as
    needing improvement, can transfer to another
    public or charter.
  • Up to approximately 1000 for private tutoring of
    a child in that school.
  • Reading First Initiative
  • Effective, proven methods of reading instruction
    backed by scientific research.
  • Funds tripled from Reading Excellence Act to
    Reading First/NCLB.
  • Teacher Quality
  • Highly-qualified in every classroom.
  • May use federal funds for faculty professional
    development opportunities.

Important Provisions (contd)
  • Safe Schools aka persistently dangerous
  • Victim of crime or attends unsafe school may
    transfer to a safe public school.
  • School officials can take reasonable action to
    maintain order.
  • English Fluency
  • LEP students tested for reading and language arts
    in English after attending school in US for three
    consecutive years.
  • Rural Schools
  • Greater say in how federal funds are used.
  • Greater flexibility in reaching the highly
    qualified teacher rules (2007 rather than 2006).

Ntl Percentage of Fourth Graders Reading
Ntl Reading Scores and Funding
Spending has increased but test scores have not.
July 2004 article from
  • A rebellion against the federal No Child Left
    Behind Act in more than half the states
    legislatures has fizzled out, for now, with only
    a handful of Vermont school districts following
    through on threats to ignore the new law. At
    the height of this years backlash against
    President Bushs signature domestic policy
    initiative, 27 state legislatures drafted 54
    bills to protest the costs, penalties and
    unprecedented federal oversight of school policy
    under the 2002 act. Secretary Rod Paige and
    deputies crisscrossed the country on scores of
    trips to smooth over differences with state
    legislators and educators.

  • In the end, only the Democratic governor of
    Maine and the Republican governors of Utah and
    Vermont signed bills critical of the act, which
    is staunchly defended by the Republican Bush
    administration. The National Education
    Association had threatened to file suit
    challenging the law and set out to recruit states
    to join in. No state answered the call. Fearing
    election-year fallout, the Education Department
    made several changes to its rules enforcing the

  • Behind the scenes, at least 40 state agencies
    currently are negotiating for even greater
    flexibility in federal rules to try to reduce the
    number of schools penalized by the act. Since the
    law was passed, more than a quarter of the
    nations schools have been tagged as needing
  • Among the states that took action to protest No
    Child Left Behind, Vermont passed a law that
    gives individual school districts the ability to
    opt out of the law. But only a few have chosen to
    do that.

  • In Utah, the Legislature canned a bill to opt
    out of the law entirely and chose instead to
    study the cost of the federal mandates, after
    USDE officials rushed into the state capital to
    quell outrage. The Maine law started out as a
    bill to forbid state money from being spent on
    the federal requirements, but ended up asking the
    state department of education to study the laws
    costs, said a spokesman for the Maine SEA. No
    state chose to ignore the federal mandates or
    forfeit federal dollars, but the noise definitely
    got the attention of USDE, which since December
    2003 has made several significant changes to
    requirements. States now may defer the test
    scores of LEP students for one year, a greater
    number of SWD are allowed to take alternative
    tests and rural districts will have more time to
    meet federal teacher qualifications rules.

  • Schools are penalized if they miss the testing
    targets for two consecutive years, and subgroups
    of minorities, low-income and disabled children
    also must meet the benchmarks. Penalties range
    from allowing students to transfer to
    higher-scoring schools to providing extra
    tutoring to facing state takeover.
  • A policy analyst for the Thomas B. Fordham
    Foundation, warned that the proposed changes
    might be undermining the laws intent of
    improving the achievement of disadvantaged
    students. The art here is to balance the changes
    so we dont completely unravel the meaning and
    effect of No Child Left Behind, he said.

  • Several states have asked the federal education
    department to loosen the requirement that 95 of
    the grade levels tested show up for the exams
    every year, said an education researcher at the
    Council of Chief State School Officers. Instead,
    schools could average participation over two or
    three years, she said.
  • North Carolina has asked to limit the laws
    achievement standards to low-income students.
    Under that proposal, students from middle- and
    upper-income families would not have to pass
    state tests.
  • Many states are asking to increase the minimum
    number of students for a subgroups test scores
    to count against a schools achievement.

  • Tennessee is proposing that its schools would
    have to miss state benchmarks in the same subject
    for two consecutive years and in the same
    subgroup to be listed as a low-performing school.
    School districts would have to fall below state
    standards in both the same subject at the same
    grade level for two years to be penalized. Many
    states also are asking to use statistical
    cushions, called confidence intervals, for small,
    rural schools or schools with small numbers of
    disadvantaged students. With a confidence
    interval, smaller groups can pass the tests with
    lower scores or a lower percentage of that group
    must pass the test.

Law changes in Illinois to date
  • Changes in the law regarding public school choice
  • Requirement of testing students if school is
    selected for NAEP
  • Required bilingual notification for families
    (beyond what had been in place)
  • Report cards available on web sites (and on paper
    if requested)

  • Changes from the Assessment Accountability
    Taskforce re testing
  • Testing every year as of 2006
  • Hours of testing expanded
  • Appeals process and panel established
  • Accountability process and consequences

NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004
  • HB 6906. Provides that if a school district has
    an overall shortage of highly qualified teachers,
    as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind
    Act of 2001, or a shortage of highly qualified
    teachers in the subject area of mathematics,
    science, reading, or special education, then the
    school board must spend at least 40 of the money
    it receives from Title 2 grants under the Act on
    recruitment and retention initiatives to assist
    in recruiting and retaining highly qualified
    teachers. NOW LAW
  • Effective immediately.
  • SB 2205. Prohibits the ISBE from testing in
    writing, social sciences and physical
    development. NOW LAW

NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004
  • SB 2769. Requires that no student shall receive
    a regular high school diploma without taking the
    Prairie State Achievement Exam (and all juniors
    must be tested). NOW LAW
  • HB 3977. Requires that applicants for employment
    at a school district must undergo a
    fingerprint-based criminal background check. NOW
    LAWEffective immediately.

NCLB Changes in IL law in 2004
  • SB 2115. Allows a school or district to deny
    enrollment to a student 16 years of age or older
    for one semester for failure to meet minimum
    academic or attendance standards if certain
    conditions are met. Requires a district to
    identify, track, and report on the educational
    progress and outcomes of reenrolled students
    (defined as dropouts who have reenrolled
    full-time) as a subset of the district's required
    reporting on all enrollments. Provides that a
    reenrolled student who again drops out must not
    be counted again against a district's dropout
    rate performance. NOW LAW

Other bills passed in 2004
  • SB 2918. Increases the compulsory school age
    from 16 to 17 years of age. Provides that certain
    provisions that apply to truant officers apply to
    the regional superintendent of schools or
    designee in a district that does not have a
    truant officer. Makes changes concerning the
    compliance procedure for persons who fail to send
    a child to school. Establishes, subject to
    appropriations, the Graduation Incentives
    Program. NOW LAW
  • SB 2940. Provides that health examinations shall
    include the collection of data relating to
    obesity, including at a minimum, date of birth,
    gender, height, weight, blood pressure, waist
    circumference, and date of exam. Provides that
    the Department may collect health data from local
    schools and the State Board of Education relating
    to obesity on health examination forms. NOW LAW
  • SB 3000. Allows the Governor to appoint 7 new
    ISBE membersNOW LAW

Other bills passed in 2004
  • HB 752. Requires that starting July 2005
    students in grades K, 2 and 6 must have dental
    exams. NOW LAW
  • SB 3091. Allows a joint agreement made up of
    school districts or a regional superintendent of
    schools on behalf of schools and programs
    operated by the regional office of education to
    apply for a waiver or modification of mandates.

Other bills passed in 2004
  • SB 3109. Requires ISBE to establish a system to
    provide for the accurate tracking of transfer
    students. Provides that the system shall require
    that a student be counted as a dropout in the
    calculation of a school's or district's annual
    student dropout rate unless the school or
    district to which the student transferred sends
    notification to the school or district from which
    the student transferred documenting that the
    student has enrolled in the transferee school or
    district. Provides that the notification must
    occur within 90 days after the date the student
    withdraws or the student shall be counted in the
    calculation of the transferor school's or
    district's annual student dropout rate. Provides
    that all records indicating the school or
    district to which a student transferred are
    subject to the Illinois School Student Records
    Act. NOW LAW

Other bills passed in 2004
  • SB 1553. Makes changes regarding certification .
    Changes concerning out-of-state candidates. An
    initial teaching certificate shall be
    automatically extended for one year for all
    persons who (i) have been issued an initial
    certificate that expires on June 30, 2004 and
    (ii) have not met, prior to July 1, 2004,
    standard certificate requirements. Changes
    certain requirements in order to receive a
    standard certificate (including the induction and
    mentoring requirement, the completion of an
    advanced degree requirement, and the accumulation
    of CPDUs), and adds other requirements. Makes
    changes concerning the process in which standard
    certificates are issued. Makes changes with
    regard to the renewal of administrative
    certificates. Removes the requirement that a
    certificate holder develop a certificate renewal
    plan for satisfying continuing professional
    development requirements.

Other bills passed in 2004
  • SB 1553 (continued) Removes some of the
    requirements that participation in CPD activities
    must meet. Provides that participation in
    Illinois Administrators' Academy courses must
    total a minimum of 30 (now, 36) CPD hours, and
    removes the documentation requirement. Requires
    the certificate holder to complete a verification
    form developed by ISBE and certify that 100 hours
    of continuing professional development activities
    and 5 Administrators' Academy courses have been
    completed. With regard to certain certificate
    holders, provides that certificate holders who
    evaluate certified staff must complete a 2-day
    teacher evaluation course.

Other bills passed in 2004
  • SB 1553 (continued) Provides that a teacher
    holding an early childhood, elementary, high
    school, or special certificate may substitute
    teach for a period not to exceed 120 paid days or
    600 paid hours in any one LEA in any one school
    term (now, only through 2003-2004). Makes changes
    concerning what a master certificate holder in an
    area of science or social science is eligible to
    teach. Provides that an initial teaching
    certificate is renewable every 4 years until the
    person completes 4 years of teaching (now,
    nonrenewable), and allows a person who has
    completed 4 years of teaching but has not
    completed the professional development
    requirements to have his or her certificate
    reinstated for one year. Makes changes concerning
    what a standard or master certificate holder
    needs to do to satisfy the CPD requirements, and
    makes changes concerning the renewal process.
    NOW LAW and in effective

  • AYP formula.
  • Highly qualified teacher rules.
  • Disaggregated groups
  • Disabilities.
  • LEP.
  • Funding
  • Timing with state deficits.

  • Plan changes and other recent information

Approved Changes in the State Plan
  • Multi-racial. In response to concerns raised by
    Illinois students, parents, and school personnel,
    Illinois has added a multi-racial/ethnic group to
    the States major racial/ethnic groups for both
    accountability and reporting purposes.
  • Identification of Schools and Districts for
    Improvement. Illinois will identify schools and
    districts for improvement on the basis of not
    making AYP for two consecutive years in the same
    content area.
  • Assessment and Accountability for LEP students.
    Illinois adopts the flexibility allowed relative
    to limited English proficient students for
    assessment and accountability purposes for no
    testing in Year 1.

Approved Changes in the State Plan
  • Alternate Assessments. Illinois will use the
    final regulation concerning the 1.0 percent cap,
    ensuring that the "number of proficient and
    advanced scores based on the alternate
    achievement standards" does not exceed 1.0
    percent of all students in the grades assessed at
    the State level.
  • Participation Rate. Illinois adopts the new
    flexibility regarding multi-year averaging of
    participation rate. Illinois will also adopt the
    new flexibility regarding students who have
    significant medical emergencies during the
    testing window and its affect on a school's
    participation rate.

Suggested Changes in NCLB? Education Week, 8/11/04
  • Identify schools for SI etc only if the same
    subgroup misses its targets in the same subject
    for two years in a row.
  • Target choice and SES to students in the subgroup
    that missed the target, not all.
  • Move beyond test scores as the sole, or even the
    primary, measure for judging schools.

The ABCs of AYP Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt
We Can Do This (Education Trust)
  • The first report updates last years, ABCs of
    AYP incorporating new rules for
    limited-English proficient students, students
    with disabilities, and participation rates. The
    report also covers myths, misconceptions, and
    common questions.
  • As states begin to release their 2003-04 student
    achievement data, there is still significant
    confusion about the accountability provisions in
    NCLB, and doubt about whether states can actually
    meet the requirements and the goalsEducation
    Trust released two documents in June 2004
    explaining the accountability and public
    reporting provisions in addition to a data
    presentation analyzing some recently released
    student achievement results.

The ABCs of AYP
  • Everyone recognizes the need to close
    achievement gaps and ensure that every student
    counts, but accountability systems prior to AYP
    did not adequately focus on these prioritiesBy
    one important measure, then, AYP is already
    having a positive effect there are no more
    invisible students when it comes to
    accountability, and the public discussion about
    education is squarely focused on achievement gap
  • Mississippi State Superintendent Johnson
    believes that the AYP data reporting tool is
    highlighting what needs to be improved in
    Mississippis education system. He stated We
    expect too little of our kids and ourselves, and
    that's a hard paradigm shift to make. If you
    have high standards, kids will learn what you
    teach them. The goal is for 100 of students to
    be proficient. AYP data will let us know whether
    were on track to meet that goal"

The ABCs of AYP
  • Its important to remember that AYP and
    accountability arent reforms they are intended
    to cause reforms. An important goal of NCLB was
    to encourage states and districts to focus more
    attention and resources on the students who are
    furthest behind, Education Trust, and early
    returns are showing us that their efforts are
    beginning to bear fruit. Educators are reporting
    greater focus on curriculum and instruction and,
    so far, the states that have reported their data
    have reported narrowing achievement gaps, in some
    areas significantly.

The ABCs of AYP
  • This second document Questions to ask about
    state AYP reports provides a guide to
    information that should be publicly available. By
    providing reporters, parents, and community
    members with unprecedented information about
    student achievement, AYP allows community members
    to begin to ask questions and take actions that
    will help to change schools.

The ABCs of AYP
  • Accountability and AYP will tell us a lot about
    how our public schools are doing in meeting the
    goal of educating all kids. stated Kati Haycock,
    Director of the Education Trust. How we respond
    and act on AYP information will say a lot about
    our own beliefs and commitments.
  • Education Trust can be accessed at

ISBE Moved Forward with Enhanced State
  • The State Board of Education authorized State
    Superintendent of Education Schiller on 9/2/04 to
    finalize a contract with an assessment contractor
    that will develop and score new tests to be
    implemented next school year.
  • The RFSP was released last August, and since that
    time the State Board has been negotiating with
    three bidders that would implement the Illinois
    Enhanced Assessment System. Schiller will work
    toward finalizing a contract with Harcourt
    Assessment, Inc., which has been determined to be
    the most qualified bidder to develop and score
    the new tests.
  • Changes to state assessment mandated under NCLB
    made it necessary to update the ISAT and the
    PSAE. The mandate provided the State Board with
    the opportunity to work with members of the
    education community in Illinois and together
    create the frameworks for the subjects to be
    assessed, to improve the reporting of data to and
    to enhance the delivery of data to school

Enhanced State Assessments
  • We are confident that the new assessments will
    represent the needs of the educational community
    in Illinois, Schiller said. This has been an
    involved process with input from many teachers
    and administrators in Illinois, especially the
    people who served on our Accountability and
    Assessment Task Force and committed countless
    hours of time and effort to ensure that the new
    assessments will be a win-win for school
    districts statewide.
  • In April the State Board of Education and the
    Assessment and Accountability Task Force were
    presented with the proposals by the three
    assessment contractors. Last month, the State
    Board passed a resolution, which requested input
    from the Governors office before finalizing a
    test contract. The State Board determined that
    recent substantive changes to state law and
    budget cuts affecting the subjects assessed by
    the state did not result in substantial and
    material changes in the RFSP. The Governors
    office agreed in writing that ISBE should move
    forward with the contract negotiations.

Enhanced State Assessments
  • The contract is expected to run from the
    2005-2006 school year through the 2007-2008
    school year. State Board members were told that
    they can expect improvements in the areas of
    return of Report Card Information and timelier
    notifications of AYP status.
  • Currently the ISAT measures individual student
    achievement relative to the Illinois Learning
    Standards. The results give parents, teachers,
    and schools one measure of student learning and
    school performance. In the 2004-2004 school year
    students in grades 3, 5, and 8 will take the ISAT
    in reading and mathematics. Students in grades 4
    and 7 will take the ISAT in science.
  • Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year the
    enhanced ISAT will be expanded to include
    assessment of students in grades 3 through 8 in
    reading and mathematics, while those students in
    grades 4 and 7 will continue to be assessed in
  • The PSAE measures the achievement of grade 11
    students relative to the Illinois Learning
    Standards for reading, mathematics, and science,
    and will not be expanded to include additional

Schools In Need of Improvement, Step-by-Step
  • School Year
  • By end of 2002-03
  • By end of 2003-04
  • Beginning of 2004-05
  • By end of 2004-05
  • Beginning of 2005-06
  • By end of 2005-06
  • Beginning of 2006-07
  • School makes AYP Y/N
  • N
  • N
  • Year 1, SI (choice)
  • N
  • Year 2, SI (choice SES)
  • N
  • Choice, SES and CA

Schools In Need of Improvement NOW
  • The total number of Title I schools in School
    Improvement status is 694, with some schools
    entering their first year of restructuring under
    the No Child Left Behind Act. Letters were sent
    to the affected districts on Thursday regarding
    these schools. The breakdown of the duplicated
    694 schools includes
  • CHChoice 216 CSChoice and SES 213 CACorrective
    Action 242 RSRestructuring Year 123
  • It is important to note the following points in
    remarks made to your communities, school boards
    and the media, on the Preliminary School
    Improvement Status issue.
  • This is a list of Title I schools only that have
    not made AYP for two or more consecutive years
    and are now in school improvement.
  • Required to notify schools before the beginning
    of the school year, and in order to meet this
    requirement we were only able to use preliminary
    state assessment data.
  • The determinations do not include participation
    rate, attendance rate and graduation rate.

  • On August 13, 2004, a letter was sent to
    district superintendents who currently have
    schools in school improvement status. The letter
    serves as an "early alert" that some schools have
    been identified as not making AYP based only on
    preliminary 2004 state assessment results and may
    be required to offer
  • public school choice or
  • public school choice and supplemental educational
    services or
  • public school choice, supplemental educational
    services, and corrective action or
  • public school choice, supplemental educational
    services, corrective action, and first year of
  • Schools identified as having to offer any of
    the above , except for restructuring (first year
    is a planning year) should be prepared to
    implement these efforts at the beginning of
    2004-05 school year.

New information on SES
  • The new 61-page publication includes samples of
    an announcement flier, enrollment form, parent
    survey and progress report from the school
    districts. Included also are appendices showing
    each district's demographics, the report's
    methodology for collecting data, and additional
    resources for implementing supplemental
    educational services.
  • Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services
    Programs is at

Consequences per State Law
  • Sec. 2-3.25f. State interventions. (a) A school
    or school district must submit the required
    revised Improvement Plan pursuant to rules
    adopted by ISBE. The ISBE shall provide technical
    assistance to assist with the development and
    implementation of the improvement plan. School
    districts that fail to submit required School
    Improvement Plans or fail to obtain approval of
    such plans pursuant to rules adopted by ISBE may
    have State funds withheld until such plans are

  • Schools or school districts that fail to make
    reasonable efforts to implement an approved
    School Improvement Plan may suffer loss of State
    funds by school district, attendance center, or
    program as ISBE deems appropriate. The provisions
    of this subsection (a) relating to submission and
    approval of School Improvement Plans are subject
    to the provisions of Section 2-3.25k. (b)

  • In addition, if after 2 years following its
    placement on the academic watch status list a
    school district or school remains on the academic
    watch status list, the State Board of Education
    shall take one of the following actions for the
    district or school
  • ISBE may authorize the State Superintendent of
    Education to direct the regional superintendent
    of schools to remove school board members
    pursuant to Section 3-14.28 of this Code.
  • Prior to such direction ISBE shall permit
    members of the local board of education to
    present written and oral comments to ISBE. ISBE
    may direct the State Superintendent of Education
    to appoint an Independent Authority that shall
    exercise such powers and duties as may be
    necessary to operate a school or school district
    for purposes of improving pupil performance and
    school improvement.

  • The State Superintendent of Education shall
    designate one member of the Independent Authority
    to serve as chairman. The Independent Authority
    shall serve for a period of time specified by
    ISBE upon the recommendation of the State
    Superintendent of Education.
  • ISBE may (A) change the recognition status of
    the school district or school to non-recognized
    (a) non-recognize the school district or school,
    or (B) (b) may authorize the State Superintendent
    of Education to direct the reassignment of pupils
    or direct the reassignment or replacement of
    school district personnel who are relevant to not
    meeting AYP criteria and administrative staff.

  • If a school district is non-recognized in its
    entirety, it shall automatically be dissolved on
    July 1 following that non-recognition and its
    territory realigned with another school district
    or districts by the regional board of school
    trustees in accordance with the procedures set
    forth in Section 7-11 of the School Code. The
    effective date of the non-recognition of a school
    shall be July 1 following the non-recognition.
  • alignment with NCLB All federal requirements
    apply to schools and school districts utilizing
    federal funds under Title I, Part A of the
    federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

Is There Any Way Out from CA? Yes, over two
  • School Makes AYP (Y/N)
  • CA
  • Y
  • CA
  • Y
  • No longer in CA
  • School Year
  • Beginning of 2006-07
  • By end of 2006-07
  • Beginning of 2007-08
  • By end of 2007-08
  • Beginning of 2009-09

  • USDE newsletter, The Achiever
  • The NCLB Superintendents Hotline opened January
    2004 and is staffed on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    EST. After hours, the Hotline is available to
    receive messages. Superintendents can call
    toll-free to 1-888-NCLB-SUP (625-2787) or by
    e-mail at
  • State legislation at Web site http//www.legis.sta
  • State NCLB site at
  • State AYP site at