NCLB Recommendation #35
SUBJECT
Implementation of Sanctions on Schools: Subgroup Performance
P.L. 107-110 PROVISIONS
TITLE I PART A SUBPART 1 SEC. 1116(b)(1)(A); SEC. 1116 (b)(5); SEC. 1116(b)(7)(C) and
SEC. 1116(b)(8)(A)
NSBA RECOMMENDATIONS
#35: Sanctions for schools and school districts will apply only when AYP is not met by the “same group” for two or more consecutive years in the same subject or indicator, rather than applying sanctions when different groups and/or different subjects or indicators are involved from year to year.
RATIONALE
This provides a more reasonable approach in the identification of schools. By requiring at least a 2-year pattern of low performance of a specific group, limited school resources can be strategically targeted and the number of schools identified would more accurately reflect the needs of students.
PROPOSED BILL LANGUAGE
Section 1116 (b) (20 U.S.C. 6316(b)) is amended—
In paragraph (1)(A) by inserting after “2 consecutive years” the following: “(in the same subject for the same group of students, as described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v))”;
In paragraph (5) by inserting after “adequate yearly progress” the following: “(in the same subject for the same group of students)”;
In paragraph (7)(C) by inserting after “adequate yearly progress” the following: “(in the same subject for the same subgroup of students)”;
In paragraph (8)(A) by inserting after “adequate yearly progress” the following: “(in the same subject for the same group of students and the total number of students who did not meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement (who are members of a group described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)) that did not make adequate yearly progress exceed 35 percent of all students enrolled in such school who took the assessment in such subject”;
IMPACT OF CURRENT LAW
Under current law, even if a subgroup that failed to make AYP last year subsequently makes AYP this year, the school is forced to be identified and subject for sanctions if a different subgroup failed AYP for the first time this year. In this case, the school doesn’t even get a chance to address the academic challenges of the second subgroup to make AYP. Over the years, about 38 states have asked the U.S. Department of Education to permit them to identify rejected the request, although nothing in the law appears to prohibit same subgroup schools as not making AYP based on the same subgroup criterion. ED, however, has repeatedly identification. How schools are identified for improvement determines how certain Title I funds must be spent. School districts need to make strategic spending decisions based on data that reflect a pattern of problems, not an anomaly. Changing spending and program priorities each year based on a different subgroup failing to make AYP is not a strategic way to spend limited funds.
NSBA CONTACT
Reggie Felton, director of federal relations, 703-838-6782 or rfelton@nsba.org.