Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street, NW Washington, DC 20007

1. Michigan Association of State and Federal Program Specialists“NCLB Reauthorization: What is on the Horizon?”Traverse City, MichiganNovember, 2007 Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 lmanasevit@bruman.com (202) 965-3652

2. January 4, 2007 110th Congress • Senate • 51 Democrats • 49 Republicans • House • 233 Democrats • 202 Republicans • November 2008: Presidential Election

3. Aspen Institute • Beyond NCLB… -Report on NCLB: Bipartisan Committee Site: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/NCLB_Book.pdf

4. Measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

5. Measure of AYP:Increased Autonomy for States/Locals • Consistent with nearly all non-administration proposals

6. Measure of AYP:Multiple measures beyond assessments • State Flexibility • Multiple Measures of Student / School Performance • Validity & Reliability of Existing Tests

7. Measure of AYP:Growth Models • ED Pilot • Limitations • General Support • NEA and General Union Opposition • Barack Obama raises “merit pay”

8. North Carolina Florida Arkansas Arizona Alaska Tennessee Ohio Delaware Iowa Measure of AYP:Growth Models9 Approved

9. Measure of AYP:N Numbers • Uniformity – Subgroups • Minimum # • National Uniformity

10. Measure of AYP:Increased focus on HS • More assessment at HS • Alignment to Higher Ed • Focus on college and workplace readiness • Standardize Graduation Rate Calculation in Law (NGA Recommendation)

11. Measure of AYP:National Standards? • Possible – Unlikely • NAEP – Wider reporting

12. Consequences of Failure to make AYP

13. Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Increased Autonomy for States/locals CEP – Reframe “Consequences” as “Opportunities”

14. Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Differential Consequences • Utilization of existing – in different order • New consequences • Allowability of more focus on failing subgroup

15. Consequences of Failure to make AYP:Increased Resources • Targeted to Failing Schools – Subgroups • Flexibility in Allocation

16. SES - Choice

17. SES-Choice:SES Eligibility Proposals • Expansion of High Income – Low Achieving • Restriction to Low Achieving

18. SES-Choice:Sequence • Flip - Pilot Project – Extended to 07-08 • Both Choice and SES First Year • Up to 7 LEA / per State

19. Highly Qualified Teachers

20. Highly Qualified Teachers:Increased autonomy for State/locals • More Exceptions Allowable - Possible

21. Highly Qualified Teachers:Effectiveness in addition to credential • Less focus only on credentials- • more on quality • years of experience • History of results

22. Highly Qualified Teachers:Equity • Equity plans in statute • Distribution generally of more experienced teachers • Comparability in Title I • loophole???

23. Highly Qualified Teachers: HOUSSE – esp. rural, special education • Multi-subject Teachers • Teacher Shortage, esp. Special Education

24. Students with Disabilities

25. Students with Disabilities • Are they SWD in General Ed OR • General Ed students with disabilities? • Policy issue to be determined

26. Students with Disabilities • Large N numbers for this group – Leave unmeasured SWD?

27. Students with Disabilities:Modified standards of assessment • 1% Rule • 2% Proposed Rule • Keep • Expand • Eliminate • Debate as to support for these particular numbers • More autonomy for IEP teams possible

28. Students with Disabilities:Better NCLB-IDEA coordination • Assessments • Utility for District – State or National Comparison

29. English Language Learners

30. English Language Learners:Coordinate Title I and Title III Standards Both have achievement standards requirements

31. English Language Learners: Resources to Meet Growing Population • Regular classroom participation • Specialists • Esp. short in rural areas

32. English Language Learners: Flexibility on testing in English • Measure ability, NOT years in the US – Or increase initial years • English acquisition as part of AYP

33. English Language Learners: Residual Inclusion

34. Resources • High Cost Issues • All Teachers HQT • Statewide Standards / Assessments • SWD, ELL • Administrative Costs

35. Unlikely to pass… • Private school vouchers/scholarships are not politically viable. • If vouchers were not politically viable when Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress back in 2001, it is a forgone conclusion that not much political capital will be spent trying to push vouchers through the 110th Congress 35

36. Emerging Language on NCLB Reauthorization – House Education and Labor Committee - Staff Discussion Draft Only Currently Under Revision

37. Greater Flexibility in AYP Multiple Indicators • Allow in addition to statewide assessment • Application to Secretary • 5 indicators allowed • May increase number of schools making - AYP • Growth in… • Science • History • Civics or Government • Writing Assessments • Increase percentage of students in below basic to basic, proficient to advanced provided total students proficient increases

38. Greater Flexibility in AYP (cont.) 3. Increase in percentage passing rigorous exams in high level courses 4. Increase in percentage to higher ed 5. Decrease in dropout rates

39. Multiple Indicators CREDIT: ELEMENTARY: 15% PER DISAGGREGATED GROUP SECONDARY: 25% PER DISAGGREGATED GROUP

40. Growth Models • Allowed – Requirements established by the Secretary • Consistent with underlying goals NCLB • Incorporate into AYP • 13-14 Proficient or 3 year trajectory!! • All included • Approved assessments, in use 2 years at least • Track individual students – longitudinal tracking

41. Longitudinal Data System Within 4 years of enactment 100M

42. State Standards and Assessments • Sufficient rigor for success in the workplace and/or higher ed • $ for States that undertake to “dramatically improve standards and assessments”

43. Uniform N Number 30 But USED Secretary May Approve 40

44. Special Education • 1% Rule • 2% Rule • Residual inclusion 3 years • USED “waiver” for LEA to 3% modified achievement standards

45. ELL • Native Language Testing to 5 years plus 2 options • Codify “newly arrived” regs • Residual inclusion 3 years (up from 2) • 10% of state ELL population –particular language-native language assessment • Portfolio and other alternate assessments • Note clarification re population

46. Low Performing Schools • State setaside from 4 to 5% • $ (authorized) for grants to improve graduation rates in schools under 60%

47. High School Accountability State May Analyze & Revise Standards for Alignment to Post Secondary and/or Workplace Disaggregate graduation rate • Economic disadvantage • Major race and economic group • Special Ed • LEP • Uniform and reliable method for rate calculation • Targets 90% • Part of AYP

48. Report Cards • State and Local • Retains basic requirements with some additions

49. Local Assessments • Pilot – 15 States • LEA’s use Local Assessments in addition to State Assessment

50. Peer Review Additional Transparency