NSBA survey reveals NCLB implementation challenges

NSBA surveyed leaders of state school boards associations to see how local school boards are coping with adequate yearly progress (AYP) and other aspects of NCLB. Some of the preliminary responses are summarized below:

When asked what they see as the most significant challenges school districts in their states are facing in making AYP, most of the state leaders said local boards are concerned about the difficulty of achieving AYP among student sub-groups, particularly students with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency (LEP).

The California School Boards Association also mentioned the difficulty of explaining AYP to teachers and parents, the need for professional development to improve teacher capacity, and the need for funding to provide tutoring.

Reporting to the public

The Indiana School Boards Association cited several challenges regarding AYP: communicating to the public why a school district fails to make AYP even if all schools achieve AYP; handling choice and supplemental services, particularly in urban areas; coordinating the state's accountability system on report cards; and funding for testing and implementation.

Testing in special education, including the limited use of alternative assessments, is an issue for Michigan school districts.

Other issues cited by state school board leaders are the need to use a combined English/language arts score instead of a reading score and the requirement to test LEP students in English when they might be illiterate in their primary language.

Michigan and Wisconsin school board leaders said districts are concerned about achieving the required 95 percent test participation rate when states permit students to opt out of the test. Non-participating students in Michigan are factored into the AYP calculation with a score of zero.

When asked about what features their state was able to get into its state plan to make AYP more manageable, the Illinois Association of School Boards responded that AYP can rise in small increments at first, then larger steps, then smaller ones.

In California, a Title I school won't face sanctions unless it fails to make AYP in the same subject for two years in a row. New York and Ohio have similar plans.

In Michigan, school achievement results can be averaged for two or three years to offset year-to-year fluctuations. In addition, test results for schools enrolling fewer than 30 students can be combined with those of the previous year or two.

In New Jersey, students with disabilities are counted for AYP purposes as being in their neighborhood school, not the magnet or private setting in which they have been placed.

Wisconsin school districts have the option of calculating AYP on the basis of single years or two-years averaging.

Lack of funding

When asked to identify specific areas where school districts will lack sufficient funding this year to effectively implement NCLB, state association leaders in Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey cited the cost of transportation to meet the school choice mandate.

Leaders of the Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin associations all mentioned the need for more professional development funding to help them meet the highly qualified teacher mandate.

In some New York districts, staff cutbacks in high-need districts could mean tutors and teachers might not be available to help the neediest students.

When asked about state policy changes or developments in local experiences regarding supplemental services in Title I schools, several states responded that it's too early to tell.

The Alaska association, however, noted that districts are having problems attracting supplemental service providers. As a result, they are resorting to long-distance providers, which means minimal student contact.

California districts are finding that the need to develop and monitor individual supplemental service plans is a burden, as is the need to assess the quality of providers.

In California, New York, and Pennsylvania, parent demand for such services is low.

Washington reports an increase in private sector applications to provide supplemental services. A growing number are not qualified, however, which means the state agency must commit more time to this issue, there is a threat of lawsuits, and there is an increased likelihood of support needed for monitoring.

Highly qualified teachers

As states develop plans for meeting the highly qualified teacher mandate, several state school board leaders cited challenges faced by school districts.

In Alaska, for example, the state association expects teachers in rural areas will relocate to larger communities that have more opportunities for professional development.

In Georgia, the problem of an insufficient number of highly qualified teachers is exacerbated by a class-size reduction mandate.

Remote, rural schools in Nebraska will have difficulty paying the salaries of highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals.

New Jersey school leaders report the major problems will be special education teachers who lack a subject area major or certification, middle school teachers who are certified for elementary education, and long-time elementary teachers who have not taken the exam that was first required in 1985.

In Pennsylvania, several thousand seventh and eighth-grade teachers, who are certified in elementary education, will have to take a subject area test, as will special education teachers. There also are thousands of teachers, especially in urban districts, who have emergency certification. The state is seeking ways to help these teachers meet the highly qualified mandate.

In Washington, the state school boards association is proposing that teachers be allowed to demonstrate the "highly qualified" status though annual classroom evaluations.

Improvements proposed

Finally, when asked about the most important changes they would like to see made in the NCLB program, state association leaders offered these ideas:

• Provide adequate funding overall.

• Provide sufficient funding to cover administrative costs for Title I choice and supplemental services.

• Use more realistic AYP requirements, especially for subgroups.

• Use more realistic deadlines.

• Allow more flexibility with regard to the highly qualified teacher mandate in rural and remote areas.

• Allow secondary indicators to be more meaningful in calculating AYP. Rather than use these indicators as an additional reason for school improvement, use them as a basis to delay the identification of a school as in need of improvement.

• Assess students with disabilities in a way that is consistent with their individual education programs. Ease AYP requirements for students with disabilities.

• Allow the capacity of the receiving school to be a factor in student choice transfers.

• Require supplemental service providers to hire qualified teachers.

• Certified special education teachers should be deemed to be highly qualified.

• Continue to count LEP students in their AYP subgroup for some period of time after they achieve English proficiency.

• Eliminate AYP subgroup accountability for LEP students and students with disabilities.

• Give schools and districts credit for achieving a level of student progress regardless of whether they achieve a specific percentage score at the proficient level.

• Eliminate the district-level AYP and improvement program -- or at least reduce the sanctions.

• Change the assumption that 100 percent of students will meet high standards.

• Shift the focus away from sanctions as the driving force behind student achievement.

"Clearly, as NCLB has moved from a laudable goal to the real-world operational level, we are only beginning to scratch at the complexity," says NSBA Associate Executive Director Michael A. Resnick.

"The Department of Education has sought to make the program more manageable, although it has not released any broad-scale report stating what it has actually done in approving state plans or identifying issues that need to be resolved."

"Meanwhile, with local success and failure hinging on rather obtuse accountability principles and statistical approaches that vary from state to state," he says, "explaining to parents and teachers what the results, labels, and comparisons really mean could challenge the public's belief in the program.

"In the real world, funding counts, and Congress will need to step up to the plate -- or risk losing credibility for the potential letdown of enacting such an ambitious and costly program."