Home ::

After Congress failed to reauthorize the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2007, most experts agreed that the chances of Congress acting to reauthorize NCLB during 2008, an election year, were slim to none. Instead, the Act has been automatically extended until September 2008, at which time Congress will extend the Act for an additional period of time. Due to lack of action by Congress and the growing chorus of protests from states and educators about the troublesome aspects of the current NCLB, such as no provisions for counting student growth as a means for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the U.S. Secretary of Education has released proposed regulations that address some of these issues and clarify others. The deadline to submit comments was June 23, 2008 and TCTA submitted comments.

Following is a summary of the proposed changes:

Assessments and multiple measures

The proposed regulations clarify that student achievement does not have to be determined based on a single assessment; that the law has always required "multiple measures" of achievement to ensure that the assessment system measures the full range of cognitive complexity in the state's academic standards. The proposed regulations clarify that states can use a single test or several tests and can rely on one item format or several item formats (such as multiple choice or constructed response).

Inclusion of NAEP data on state and local report cards

Current law and regulations require states to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics for grades 4 and 8 in order to receive Title I funds, and current law also requires districts, if selected, to participate in the NAEP. The proposed regulations would require a state to report the most recent available academic achievement results from NAEP reading and mathematics assessments on the same public report card as it reports the results of its state assessments. It also would require local school districts to report the state NAEP assessment data on its report card.

Minimum subgroup size and inclusion of students in accountability

Current law requires states to disaggregate student performance results on assessments by student subgroup. The law allows states to define the minimum number of students included in a student subgroup in order to be statistically valid and reliable. The federal government is concerned that some states are specifying a minimum size that is too large, which results in too many students whose assessment results aren’t included in the federal accountability system. Texas has defined its minimum student subgroup size for districts and campuses as 50 or more students in the student group, and the student group must comprise at least 10% of all students OR 200 students in the student group, even if that group represents less than 10% of all students. The proposed regulations would require each state to revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to include:

(1) how their subgroup size and the other components of the state's definition of AYP (e.g., confidence intervals, indexes, definition of full academic year) provide statistically reliable information while ensuring the maximum inclusion of subgroups, particularly at the school level, in AYP determinations;

(2) an explanation of how other components of the state's AYP definition, in addition to the state's minimum subgroup size, interact to affect the statistical reliability of the data and to ensure maximum inclusion of all students and student subgroups; and

(3) information on the number and percentage of students and student subgroups excluded from school-level accountability determinations.

States that propose large minimum subgroup sizes and include other components in their AYP definitions that result in the exclusion of large numbers of students or student subgroups would be subject to close scrutiny.

Uniform definition of "Graduation Rate"

Current law allows a state to determine its own definition of graduation rate and set a graduation goal that must be met as well as standards for improvement toward meeting the goal for purposes of meeting AYP. However, due to concerns about the wide variations among states in graduation rate definitions and goals, the USDE is proposing that states be required to use a uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates.

The proposed graduation rate is the number of students who graduate in the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the “adjusted cohort'' for that graduating class. The “adjusted cohort'' is the group of students who entered the 9th grade four years earlier, and any students who transferred into or entered the cohort in grades 9 through 12, minus any students removed from the cohort. To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA would need to confirm that the student either enrolled in another educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma or is deceased. A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a GED program, or leaves school for any other reason would remain in the adjusted cohort for the purposes of calculating the graduation rate. Texas defines its graduation rate as the percent of students entering ninth grade and classified as graduates four years later and apparently, this meets the USDE proposed graduation rate.

Although the proposed regulations require a four-year period to be measured in calculating graduation rates in most cases, there is an exception that would permit a state to propose, for approval by the Secretary of Education, an alternate definition of “standard number of years'' that would apply to limited categories of students who, under certain conditions, may take longer to graduate (as is the case, for example, for a small number of students with disabilities or students in “early college high schools'' who earn an associate's degree along with a high school diploma).

The proposed regulations require that, beginning in the 2008-09 school year, schools and local school districts must either:

(1) meet a state-defined graduation rate goal, as approved by the Secretary of Education, that represents a rigorous graduation rate goal that it expects all high schools to eventually achieve (e.g., 90 percent); or

(2) demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding that goal, as defined by the state and approved by the Secretary of Education. The Texas graduation rate goal is currently 70%, or improvement of at least 1% from the previous year's rate.

Although current law doesn't require the graduation rate to be disaggregated by student subgroup for purposes of meeting AYP, the law does require that states disaggregate the graduation rate by student subgroup for reporting purposes. Apparently USDE has determined that simply reporting disaggregated graduation rate data is not sufficient to ensure that graduation rates improve for all students and the proposed regulations would require each state, beginning with the effective date of the proposed regulations, to disaggregate the graduation rate data at the local school district and state levels for determining AYP. Then, beginning in 2012-13, the disaggregated graduation rate at the school level would be added to the AYP calculation.

Including individual student growth in AYP

Current law does not allow states to use individual student academic growth measures as a means to meet AYP; however due to numerous complaints from states and educators that student growth measures give a more fair and accurate picture of student achievement, USDE is proposing regulations that permit a state, upon approval by the Secretary of Education to do the following:

  • Set annual growth targets that:

(1) Lead to all students, by the 2013-14 school year, meeting or exceeding the state's proficient level of academic achievement on the state assessments;

(2) Are based on meeting the state's proficient level of academic achievement on the state's assessments and are not based on individual student background characteristics; and

(3) Measure student achievement separately in mathematics and reading/language arts;

  • Ensure that all students who are tested using the state's assessments are included in the state's assessment and accountability systems;
  • Hold all schools and local school districts accountable for the performance of all students and student subgroups;
  • Be based on state assessments that:

    (1) Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading/language arts;
    (2) Have been in use by the state for more than one year; and
    (3) Have received full approval from the Secretary before the state determines AYP based on student academic growth;

  • Track student progress through a state-developed data system;
  • Include, as separate factors in determining whether schools are making AYP for a particular year:

    (1) The rate of student participation in assessments; and
    (2) Other academic indicators (graduation rate for high schools); and

  • Describe how the proposed annual growth targets fit into a
    state's accountability system in a manner that ensures that the system is coherent and that incorporating individual student academic growth into a state's definition of AYP does not dilute accountability.

Restructuring

Current law prescribes a cascading set of sanctions applicable to schools that fail to make AYP. Title I, Part A campuses that have failed to make AYP for five consecutive years or that fail to make AYP after one year of corrective action must engage in restructuring activities as follows:

(i) Reopen the school as a public charter school;

(ii) Replace all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make AYP;

(iii) Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school;

(iv) Turn the operation of the school over to the SEA, if permitted under state law and agreed to by the state; or

(v) Any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school's staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school, and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP.

Apparently, based on available data, the USDE is concerned that the restructuring requirements are not being implemented effectively, and in some cases not at all. Many schools have chosen the last option for restructuring, which some view as the "loophole" option which allows schools to make minimal changes. Accordingly, the USDE is proposing regulations that interventions implemented as part of a school's restructuring plan must be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the corrective action plan that the school implemented after it was identified for corrective action; the school district must implement interventions that address the reasons for a school being in restructuring; and replacing school staff may also include replacing the principal, but replacing the principal by itself is not sufficient.

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and public school choice

Frustrated with the low percentages of students taking advantage of the school choice and supplemental educational services (SES), such as tutoring if enrolled in schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years, the USDE is proposing a series of regulations intended to increase student participation in these options.

Access to information on district implementation of public school choice and SES

First, the proposed regulations require local school districts to provide the public with information regarding the school district's implementation of the public school choice and SES requirements, as soon as this information becomes available. School districts would be required to prominently display the following information on the school district's Web site:

  • Beginning with data from the 2007-08 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in public school choice.
  • Beginning with data from the 2007-08 school year and for each subsequent school year, the number of students who were eligible for and the number of students who participated in SES.
  • For the current school year, a list of SES providers approved by the state to serve the local school district and the locations where services are provided.
  • For the current school year, a list of available schools that are offered to students eligible to participate in public school choice.

Timely and clear notification to parents

Next, the proposed regulations would require school districts to notify parents of eligible children that they may participate in public school choice, and detail their available options as far in advance as possible, but no later than 14 days before the start of the academic year, in the hopes that with more time for parents to evaluate their public school choice options, the level of public school choice participation should increase (current regulations state that districts must provide parents with this information by the first day of a new academic year). The proposed regulations would also require the SES eligibility notice to highlight the benefits of SES, and to be clear, concise, and clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents. According to USDE, this proposed change would address concerns that parents may be unaware of their child's eligibility for SES because the eligibility notice is not clearly distinguishable from the information that school districts provide when a school is in improvement.

State monitoring of districts' implementation of SES

Current regulations require states to monitor school districts and their implementation of the SES requirements; however, the proposed regulations would require states to publicly report on the standards and techniques for how they monitor their school districts' implementation of the SES requirements so that information is available to the public about how states monitor school districts to ensure that the SES and public school choice requirements are being met.

SES Provider Approval Process

According to USDE, there is uncertainty regarding the evidence that states may require providers to submit as part of their application to be an approved SES provider; accordingly USDE is proposing regulations that specify the minimum evidence that states must consider in approving providers to help ensure that

students receive high quality SES services as follows:

  • Evidence from the provider that the instruction it would provide and the content it would use are research-based and aligned with state academic content and student achievement standards.
  • Information from the provider on whether the provider has been removed from any state's approved provider list.
  • Parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if any, regarding the success of the provider's instructional program in increasing student achievement.
  • Evaluation results, if any, demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement.

State monitoring of SES provider effectiveness

States are required to evaluate whether providers have contributed to increased student achievement for two consecutive years. However, the law does not specify the evidence a state must consider in making determinations about renewing approval of providers or withdrawing them from the state's approved list. According to USDE, there is a need to specify the evidence that states must consider in monitoring SES providers so that stronger programs will be approved, there are clearer expectations for monitoring, and there is better alignment between approval and monitoring criteria. Thus the proposed regulations require that states would have to examine, at a minimum, evidence that the provider's instructional program:

  • Is consistent with the instruction provided and the content used by the school district and state;
  • Addresses students' individual needs as described in students' SES plans;
  • Has contributed to increasing students' academic proficiency; and
  • Is aligned with the state's academic content and achievement standards.
  • States also would be required to consider:
  • Any recommendations from parents (including through parent surveys) concerning the provider, if such information is available; and
  • Any evaluation results demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement.

Costs for Parent Outreach

Currently, districts are not allowed to count the costs of providing parents with the information they need to make informed decisions about school choice and SES toward their obligation to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I, Part A funding on public school choice and SES. Accordingly, the proposed regulations permit a district to count the costs associated with providing parent outreach and assistance toward meeting its 20 percent obligation for SES and transportation for public school choice. The amount that could be counted as such would be capped at 0.2 percent of the district's Title I, Part A allocation.

Use of funds for public school choice and SES

Currently, the law does not require that districts meet certain requirements before reallocating funds for public school choice and SES to other purposes. The proposed regulations require a district, before reallocating unused funds from choice-related transportation and SES to other purposes, to provide satisfactory evidence to the state that it has demonstrated success in:

  • Partnering with community-based organizations to inform students and parents of SES and public school choice options.
  • Ensuring that students and their parents have had a genuine opportunity to sign up to transfer to a better-performing school or obtain SES by
    • Providing timely, accurate notice to parents;
    • Ensuring that sign-up forms are made widely available and accessible and that they have been distributed directly to all eligible students and their parents; and
    • Allowing eligible students to sign up to receive SES throughout the academic year.
  • Ensuring that SES providers are given access to school facilities on the same terms as are available to other groups that seek to use school facilities (according to USDE, since current law does not require local school districts to pay or provide transportation for students to and from SES programs, if SES providers cannot operate on school grounds, families may have to arrange transportation for their children to the site where SES services are provided. Accordingly, USDE proposes this regulation as a means of ensuring that families can participate in, and students can attend, SES programs.)

Web posted: 05/12/08