01/20/04 -- NSBA fully supports the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to ensure that every student achieves the academic proficiency standards established by the states. And NSBA supports the act's goal to encourage states to reassess and strengthen their role in improving the quality of educational services available to K-12 public school students.
However, NSBA believes changes need to be made to the law and regulations to address various unintended consequences confronting school districts as they implement NCLB. NSBA's recommendations for improving NCLB will be discussed during the annual Federal Relations Network Conference, Feb. 1-3, in Washington, D.C. These recommendations include the following:
(1) Funding -- Congress must fully fund all NCLB programs at the level authorized by Congress, including Title I, when President Bush signed the legislation into law.
(2) Alternative assessments -- Annual assessments of students with disabilities and students who are not proficient in English cannot be accurately determined without greater flexibility in the design and development of assessment tools.
Therefore, in order to make AYP more meaningful and to ensure accurate school performance, states should have more flexibility to design alternate annual assessments for these students.
(3) Adequate yearly progress (AYP) -- The current design of AYP inappropriately overidentifies schools as "in need of improvement." To place the focus on key weaknesses in student achievement:
• The AYP calculations should give weight to the "progress of students," such as students who move from "below proficient" levels to "proficient" levels.
• Schools and districts should have the flexibility to have the proficiency scores of students belonging to more than one subgroup be counted as one student for AYP purposes rather than multiple times.
This could be done either by assigning that student to one group only or by fractionally apportioning that student's score among subgroups so the sum of the apportioned scores do not exceed 1.00.
• States should have the flexibility to identify different starting points for different groups as long as specific initiatives are identified that would result in accelerated progress in later years.
• If there are students whose primary language is not English and whose performance is substantially below grade level in their native language, school districts should be allowed to set aside their scores when calculating AYP for a period of up to two years.
School should also be allowed to use a "gain score" approach to determine whether they are making AYP.
• Sanctions should be applied to schools or school districts only when the same groups or subgroups within the grade levels fail to meet AYP targets in the same subject for two consecutive years or more.
(4) Participation in assessments/graduation rates -- The requirement that 95 percent of students be assessed results in the overidentification of schools as "in need of improvement."
States should have the flexibility to grant waivers to local schools when the number of students within a subgroup would be too small to reasonably meet this requirement.
In addition, states and districts should establish criteria for defining which students should be included when calculating "graduation rates."
(5) Public school choice/ supplemental services -- These provisions have strained school districts' budgets, led to overcrowding in some schools, and limited local school district authority.
• School choice and supplemental services should be limited to students who belong to subgroups that failed to meet AYP targets.
• School districts should have a greater role in participating in the state process for selecting and approving supplemental service providers.
• Schools should have the flexibility to offer supplemental services rather than choice in the first year of improvement status.
• Instructional personnel employed by supplemental service providers should be required to meet the same qualifications as comparable district employees
(6) Teacher and paraprofessional qualifications -- The increased demand for highly qualified educators will result in significant shortages in many districts, particularly in urban and rural areas.
• The provisions regarding "highly qualified" teachers in core subjects and special education and paraprofessionals should be modified to permit time extensions for unusual circumstances.
• States should be allowed to determine if teachers associated with state-approved online and distance learning courses need to meet the professional qualification requirements of NCLB.
(7) Federal administration -- There are wide inconsistencies among the state plans approved by the U.S. Education Department.
If a state receives a waiver, it should be available to other states requesting it, unless the department can demonstrate that it would substantially hurt that state's program.
(8) Universal accountability -- Non-public schools serving Title I students should be subject to the annual academic assessment and public reporting requirements that NCLB places on public schools.
(9) Congressional hearings -- Congress should hold hearings and conduct a study on NCLB implementation issues.