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 Congress.

• 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 education?

• NCLB was not Phoenix, springing full- blown from the minds of Sec. Paige and/or Pres. Bush…

So….some history……

SputnikOctober 4, 1957

Sputnik…

• 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 disregarded.”

• Not enough time to plan lessons.

EDUCATION MILESTONES1957 – Sputnik1958 – Life Magazine series1965 – Elementary and Secondary Education Act1983 – A Nation At Risk1996 – The Education Summits, 99 and 012000 – Glenn Commission2001 – No Child Left Behind Act2002 – Institute of Education Sciences2003 – IDEA, Higher and Vocational Education

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 poverty. Began Head Start, health and nutrition program for three and four-year old children.

A Nation At Risk

• Graduation Requirements

• Curriculum Content• Standards/

Expectations

• More Time-day/Year• Improve Teaching• Hold Leadership

Accountable• Field Support

“Our society is being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.”

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 NCLB’s highly qualified teacher rules?

Who Can’t or Shouldn’t Make It?

ESEA into NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Intent of areas changed from one law to the other--

• Increase accountability for student performance.

• Focus on what works.

• Reduce bureaucracy.

• Empower parents.

No Child Left Behind Themes• Assessment• Standards• Achievement Gap• Accountability

• Teacher Quality• Parent Options• Flexibility• Reporting

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 2004…no 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

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 (cont’d)

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).

Important Provisions (cont’d)

Ntl Percentage of Fourth Ntl Percentage of Fourth Graders Reading ProficientlyGraders Reading Proficiently

0

20

40

60

80

100

1992 1994 1998 2000

Ntl Reading Scores and Funding

Spending has increased but test scores have not.

July 2004 article from Stateline.org

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 year’s backlash against President Bush’s 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.

Stateline.orgIn 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 law.

Stateline.orgBehind 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 nation’s schools have been tagged as “needing improvement.”

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.

Stateline.orgIn 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 law’s 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.

Stateline.orgSchools 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 law’s intent of improving the achievement of disadvantaged students. “The art here is to balance the changes so we don’t completely unravel the meaning and effect of [No Child Left Behind],” he said.

Stateline.orgSeveral 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 law’s 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 subgroup’s test scores to count against a school’s achievement.

Stateline.org

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

2002

• 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)

2003

• 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 established

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 LAW…Effective 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 members…NOW 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. NOW LAW…

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…

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

• 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 State’s 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 year’s, 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 goals…Education 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 priorities…By 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 issues.”

Mississippi State Superintendent Johnson believes that the AYP data reporting tool is highlighting what needs to be improved in Mississippi’s 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 we’re on track to meet that goal…"

The ABCs of “AYP”

It’s important to remember that AYP and accountability aren’t 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 http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust

ISBE Moved Forward with Enhanced State Assessments

• 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 districts.

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 Governor’s 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 Governor’s 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 science.

• 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 grades.

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:– CH=Choice 216

CS=Choice and SES 213CA=Corrective Action 242RS=Restructuring 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.

LIST or LETTER NOWOn 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 restructuring.

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 www.ed.gov/admins/comm/suppsvcs/sesprograms/index.html.

Consequences per State LawSec. 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 submitted.

Consequences

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)

ConsequencesIn 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.

Consequences

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.

ConsequencesIf 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 1965.

Is There Any Way Out from CA? Yes, over two years.

School Year• Beginning of 2006-07• By end of 2006-07• Beginning of 2007-08• By end of 2007-08• Beginning of 2009-09

School Makes AYP (Y/N)

CA

Y

CA

Y

No longer in CA

Resources• USDE newsletter, The Achiever:

www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/2004/090104.html#6

• 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 NCLBSUP@ed.gov

• State legislation at Web site http://www.legis.state.il.us

• State NCLB site at www.isbe.net/nclb

• State AYP site at www.isbe.net/ayp