NSBA's Issue Brief on Improving the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
BACKGROUND
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law on January 8, 2002, as a means of holding states, school districts and schools more accountable for improving the academic performance of each student regardless of economic status, race, ethnicity, proficiency in English or disability. The new law reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), first enacted in 1965.
NCLB requires states to:
- Establish rigorous academic standards.
- Conduct annual assessments at specific grade levels with at least a 95% participation rate.
- mplement a comprehensive accountability system that includes extensive data collection and public reporting on student and school performance.
- Direct formal sanctions against Title I schools and their school districts for failing to meet proficiency targets in reading and math.
- Establish new qualification requirements for teachers and paraprofessionals beyond the standards previously established by many states.
In establishing this expanded federal framework for accountability, NCLB provides states discretion to: 1) establish content and performance standards; 2) select and operate assessment programs; and 3) establish requirements to monitor and report academic performance of groups of students who have traditionally not been performing at the desired levels.
NSBA POSITION
Local school boards across the nation continue to welcome the goals of NCLB—including increased accountability for student performance. However, almost from the beginning, local school boards voiced concerns regarding NCLB implementation. Many school boards believe that some of the current provisions in the law do not recognize the complex factors that influence student performance. Increasingly, they raise objections regarding the unintended consequences resulting from these provisions. Of major concern is the belief that the current accountability framework does not accurately or fairly assess student, school or school district performance.
Local school boards acknowledge the U.S. Department of Education’s earliest efforts to approve revisions to state accountability plans. However, there have been very limited changes which continue to result in the perceived unfair labeling of local schools as “in need of improvement.”
Local school boards continue to be concerned that unnecessary blame is being directed toward specific groups of students whose performance has resulted in the identification of schools as “in need of improvement” and subject to more severe sanctions. Moreover, the overbroad negative labeling is unproductive and directs attention and resources away from our primary goal to improve student performance for all students.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act established a rigorous but theoretical accountability system for the nation’s public schools. Unfortunately, what has evolved in the name of accountability is a measurement framework that bases its assessment of school quality on a student’s performance only on a single assessment; and mandates a series of overbroad sanctions not always research-based or targeted to the students needing services and, to date, not yet proven to have significant impact on improving student performance and school performance.
Six years after enactment of the federal law, local school districts continue to struggle to comply with the language of the law at a time when the unintended consequences of this complex law are imposing far more dysfunctional and illogical implementation problems than had been anticipated by the sponsors of the legislation. Additionally, federal and state lawmakers have become increasingly aware that successful attainment of the desired national goals is very much dependent upon the financial and personnel capacity of the state departments of education and the capacity of local school districts.
Therefore, Congress should enact common sense flexibility that recognizes the unique learning needs of a diverse student enrollment, defer to the judgment of local schools on appropriate improvement strategies, and fund the law’s requirements.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITY
In late summer/early fall of 2007, both the House and Senate education committees released “discussion drafts” for review and comment. NSBA was pleased that the House “discussion draft” would shift the emphasis of the current NCLB law away from punitive sanctions and a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and move toward an approach that recognizes the need for greater flexibility and increased options for states and local school districts. We were particularly pleased that the draft would allow for growth models and indexing systems, multiple measures of academic achievement, and provides several key reforms regarding progress measures for students with disabilities and English Language Learners (ELL).
However, NSBA has very serious concerns that the House draft added significant process, data collection and reporting requirements which could overload the system. We are concerned that our personnel and fiscal resources would be adversely impacted. Therefore, we identified over 40 specific areas of the “discussion draft” that would need to be addressed to our satisfaction in the final House bill in determining our final position.
The Senate “discussion draft” addressed selected components of Titles I through VII and Title X. However, the Senate draft does not address any controversial areas. Consequently, NSBA will have to wait until the Senate releases additional legislative language on more substantive areas before we can take a position.
As the second session of the 110th Congress commenced, Representative George Miller (D-CA-7), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor; and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions voiced their strong desire to complete the ESEA/NCLB reauthorization before the second session adjourns.
Earlier discussions with the two committee staffs indicated that committee bills could be introduced as early as March – prior to the Easter District Work Period (March 15-30). However, it appears that the earliest committee actions would not be scheduled before mid-April. If both committees move quickly, it is possible that final legislation could be completed before the end of the second session.
NSBA PRIORITIES FOR THE ESEA/NCLB REAUTHORIZATION
Priority #1
Incorporate the provisions contained in H.R. 648
These provisions have been developed based on recommendations from local school boards across the nation having implemented the law. Generally, these provisions can be grouped into three broad priority areas of concern: Assessments, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Measurement, and Sanctions.
Identified below are some of the top priority operational changes that local school boards believe should be made to the current NCLB law. In each of these areas, NSBA is not proposing mandates for the states. Rather, NSBA is proposing that NCLB give states the option to implement the following provisions in their state plan:
Assessments:
- When determining AYP for students with limited English proficiency, states would have the option to allow local school districts to implement alternate assessments or individualized measurements of progress based on students making specific gains toward meeting proficiency for up to three years.
- Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams would determine the nature of assessments appropriate for students with disabilities, and such assessment results would be used to calculate AYP as long as the number of students assessed under this method does not exceed 3 percent of the total student enrollment tested at each grade level for a specific subject.
- States would have the option to count the higher score achieved by a student who is assessed more than once prior to the start of the next school year in determining AYP.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Measurement:
- When determining AYP, states would have the option to credit schools for the progress students (e.g. growth/value added models) make from one year to the next in meeting state standards.
- Students belonging to multiple subgroups should be counted in each group as an equal fraction totaling one student toward AYP.
- At the state’s discretion, school districts would be allowed to identify schools as meeting AYP when one or more subgroup(s) fail to meet the AYP target as long as the total number of students in the subgroup(s) failing to meet their AYP targets does not exceed 10 percent of the total number of students counted for the specific assessment or additional indicator. (This alternate method to identify a school could not be applied to the same group for the same subject in two consecutive years.)
Sanctions:
- Schools and districts would only be required to apply federal sanctions when the same subgroup fails to make AYP in the same subject or indicator for two consecutive years or more.
- Sanctions would be aligned with the need for improvement. States would be authorized to limit the use of restructuring to schools and school districts where the number of students belonging to subgroups that failed to meet their AYP targets and who were themselves unsuccessful in scoring at proficient or above totaled at least 35 percent of the total student enrollment.
- School choice and supplemental educational services sanctions would be available only to those students that belong to a subgroup that failed to meet its AYP target and were themselves unsuccessful in scoring at proficient or above.
Priority # 2
Complete the ESEA/NCLB reauthorization during the second session of the 110th Congress before it adjourns in December 2008
It is imperative that the reauthorization is completed before the 110th Congress adjourns. Failure to reauthorize ESEA/NCLB during this 110th Congress will be devastating to our public schools and has the potential for adversely impacting public opinion regarding local schools across the country.
Equally important, states and our local schools will continue to be subject to the many flawed requirements of the law. This could mean another two or three school years of an increasingly rising AYP bar and a progression of sanctions that will expand the number of schools identified as not making the grade as well as the cost of unnecessary dysfunctional actions that schools will be required to implement.
Given the questionable political will to reauthorize this important federal law, local school boards across the nation will need to engage their local communities and state legislatures to reinforce the strong desire to improve the law based on the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act, H.R. 648 and to complete the reauthorization before the second session of the 110th Congress adjourns.
LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTIONS ENDORSING PROVISIONS IN H.R. 648
Progress continues to be made regarding co-sponsors of the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007, H.R. 648, introduced by Representative Don Young (R-AK) that incorporates the 40 recommendations developed by local school board members across the nation. In addition to Rep. Young, we now have 28 co-sponsors.
The list of sponsors/co-sponsors has substantially increased, and now includes thirteen Republicans and sixteen Democrats: Jo Bonner (R-AL-1), Rick Boucher (R-VA-9), Donna Christensen (D-VI), William L. Clay (D-MO-1), Steve Cohen (D-TN-9), Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Charles Dent (R-PA-15), Phil English (R-PA-3), Terry Everett (R-AL-2), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ-7), Bart Gordon (D-TN-6), Tim Holden (D-PA-17), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL-2), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH-11), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-7), Jim Matheson (D-UT-2), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11), Charlie Melancon (D-LA-3), Dennis Moore (D-KS-3), Jerry Moran (R-KS-1), Tim Murphy (R-PA-18), Ed Pastor (D-AZ-4), Todd Platts (R-PA-9), Rick Renzi (R-AZ-1), Mike Ross (D-AR-4), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9), and Albio Sires (D-NJ-13).
Also, we are pleased that the number of local school boards passing resolutions endorsing H.R. 648 has increased to over 730. These local boards represent over 40 states from rural, suburban and urban communities. We realize that H.R. 648 will not be the final bill to reauthorize ESEA/NCLB, but we also know that with increased support for H.R. 648 by elected officials, the final committee bill will more likely include NSBA’s priority recommendations.
For additional information, please contact Reginald M. Felton, director of federal relations at the National School Boards Association, at 703-838-6782, or by e-mail, rfelton@nsba.org.
March 2008