Ten Changes Needed to Improve “No Child Left Behind”
NEA originally released this list in January 2004. Since then, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced several changes to the NCLB rules and the IDEA reauthorization made additional changes to highly qualified rules for special education teachers.
The Secretary has validated NEA’s position that common sense changes
were needed to NCLB by adopting parts of three of our proposed changes. However,
much more needs to be done and additional resources need to be provided.
1. Expand school accountability beyond the current measure of the percent of students who score proficient on one day on two tests (reading and math).
Allow states to incorporate additional measures into an accountability index to measure schools. Such measures could include attendance, graduation and dropout rates, percentage of students taking honors and AP classes, and results from other state and local assessments. Under NCLB, other academic indicators can only increase the number of schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Schools get no credit for positive improvements on any other academic indicator.
2. Provide additional flexibility in using test scores to measure schools.
Under NCLB, states and schools are limited in using test scores. The only measure is a snapshot of the percent of students proficient or above on the day of the test. Unless they meet the yearly proficiency percentage, schools get no credit (with the limited exception under Safe Harbor) for growth in the percentage of students who are proficient over time, or for moving student achievement levels up on other points of the achievement scale (such as from below basic to basic or from proficient to advanced). Schools get no credit for longitudinal growth in student achievement, such as how students in a particular grade have improved from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, or how a group of students have improved as they advance in grade level. NEA proposes to allow states to utilize AYP academic growth models that acknowledge progress in student achievement both over time and within the school year.
3. Provide flexibility in the current requirement that 95 percent of students overall and in each subgroup must take the test.
A school will fail AYP if just one subgroup of students falls one percentage point short of the required 95 percent participation rate, even if all of its students exceed the required proficiency levels on the test. Nationwide, thousands of schools have been labeled as failing to meet federal standards because literally one or two children did not take the test. NEA proposes that reasonable flexibility be provided, such as by lowering the 95 percent level to 90 percent participation, allowing averaging over three years of participation (as is now allowed in averaging test scores over three years), and setting an absolute minimum number of students (such as 5-10) in a subgroup that fail to take the test before counting as failing AYP.
NOTE: On March 29, 2004, Sec. Paige adopted part of this NEA proposal, by allowing states to average test partciaption rates by up to three years. He also is allowing states and schools to exempt from the participation requirement students who were absent due to a medical emergency. However, he did not lower the threshold as NEA proposed from 95% to 90%, nor set an absolute minimum number of children to be absent before a school fails to make AYP.
4. Provide flexibility and more reasonable rules for assessing English Language Learners (ELL).
Currently, newly arrived immigrant students while they may be exempt from taking the required reading test, they must take the required math test even if such student has been in this country for only one day. NEA proposes to exempt students from the participation requirement until they have been in the United States for one full academic year. Additionally, since standardized reading and math tests are not available in the multitude of languages spoken by students, this results in most students taking the test in English prior to their being proficient in English. NEA proposes giving states the option to exempt from AYP purposes test scores for ELL students until they have been in the United States for three years. They would still be required to take the tests (after their first year) and have their scores reported by subgroup. They would still be required to take an annual test of their English language proficiency.
Alternatively, students who become proficient in English should still count in the ELL subgroup for 3 years. Otherwise it is simply impossible for this subgroup to ever reach the 100 percent proficiency level in reading in English, since part of the criteria for being in the ELL group is not being proficient in English.
NOTE: On February 19, 2004, Sec. Paige announced new policies that implement parts of this NEA proposal. States are now allowed to exempt from taking the reading test immigrant students who have been in the United States for less than one year. However, such students must still take the math test. In addition, states may now count “exited” ELL students in the ELL subgroup for up to two years.
5. Limit designating schools as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to those schools where the same subgroup of students in the same subject fail to meet AYP for two or more consecutive years.
As an example, currently if in year one every subgroup met AYP in both reading and math, except for Hispanic students in reading, and the next year the school improves Hispanic student achievement in reading, but just one other subgroup fails to meet the proficient levels in reading, the school is considered in need of improvement, even though the school addressed the needs of Hispanic students in reading. While the Department of Education has said that states may limit identifying schools for improvement to the case of one or more subgroups failing in the same subject, it consistently has refused several states' requests to limit it to the same subgroup in the same subject.
6. Target choice and supplemental services to students in the particular subgroups that are not meeting AYP standards.
Currently, if just one subgroup fails to meet AYP standards, then ALL children in the school, not just those in that subgroup, or those who are individually not proficient, have the right to paid transportation to another public school that has made AYP. In the case of supplemental educational services, while this option is limited to low-income children, it again is not targeted to those needing the most academic help. As AYP is currently structured, 21.350 schools have already failed to meet AYP for at least one year, with 10,992 failing to make AYP for two or more years. Over time, ever increasing numbers of children will be seeking ever fewer spots in other public schools, resulting in overcrowding, increased class size, and possible resegregation problems. Targeting these options to specific subgroups will help avoid these problems, while also ensuring that those students with the greatest needs get the assistance.
7. Recognize the unique teaching responsibilities of special education teachers.
Currently, many teachers of students with disabilities teach such children multiple subjects. Under NCLB such teachers must demonstrate content knowledge in each and every subject. Doing so places an unreasonable and possibly unobtainable burden on special education teachers and will likely make it even more difficult for schools to address the shortage of qualified special education teachers. NEA proposes that a special education teacher who is fully licensed and certified in special education should be considered to meet the NCLB highly qualified rules.
NOTE: The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), enacted in December 2004, include some improvements in the requirements of special education teachers too meet the NCLB highly qualified rules. While a step in the right direction, the new rules are complex, provide no additional time for special education teachers to comply, and fall short of simply allowing fully licensed/certified special education teachers to be considered highly qualified.
8. Recognize the unique situation of small rural schools in meeting the highly qualified teacher requirement.
In particular middle schools face a difficult challenge, since due to their small size it will not be possible for them to have a separate fully certified and licensed biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science teacher. States should be given flexibility in how middle schools in general and small rural schools in particular meet the highly qualified requirements. The definition of rural schools used in the March 2004 Department of Education rule needs to be broadened.
NOTE: On March 15, 2004, Sec. Paige announced three new policies on “highly qualified” teachers that adopt parts of this NEA proposal. Under the new policies, current teachers in certain rural school districts who teach multiple subjects will have one additional year (until the end of the 2006-07 school year) to become highly qualified in such additional subjects. Newly hired teachers in rural schools will have three years from their date of hire to become highly qualified in additional subjects they teach. In addition, States that have a “broad-based” science certification can consider teachers with such certification to be "highly qualified" in any science discipline. Finally, States may establish a streamlined process under the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) for teachers of multiple subjects to demonstrate they are competent in each of their subjects. While these policies allow teachers in some rural schools more time to prove their “competency” in multiple subjects, and allow a streamlined process for other teachers, they still require such teachers to prove their competency in each of the multiple subjects they teach. The policies also fail to recognize broad-based certification in social science. In addition, the definition used for rural school is overly restrictive and has resulted in some states not having any schools that qualify for this flexibility. Finally, The Secretary has said that it is optional for States to have a HOUSSE. NEA believes the law requires that each State establish a HOUSSE.
9. Provide the resources and flexibility for Title I paraprofessionals to meet NCLB requirements.
Under NCLB all Title I paraprofessionals must either have an associates degree, two years of college courses, or meet a state or local assessment of their knowledge of and ability to assist with instruction in reading, writing, and math. Since the average salary of a paraprofessional is only $17,300, it will be a major financial burden on most paraprofessionals to pay for any needed college courses, test preparation, or the cost of tests. NEA proposes that school districts using federal funds pay any costs incurred by paraprofessionals or provide them the training needed to meet the new requirements. In addition, the law should make clear that each paraprofessional has the right to decide which of the three options to use to meet the standard. Finally, the date for paraprofessionals to meet the NCLB job qualification requirements– January 8, 2006 – should be extended until the end of the 20025-06 school year, in order to align it with the school calendar and match the date provide for teachers to meet their highly qualified requirements.
10. Ensure that federal funds do not subsidize discrimination.
Secretary Paige has ruled that federal civil rights laws generally do not cover supplemental education service providers. In addition, he has said that any faith-based entity receiving funds under ESEA programs may discriminate on the basis of religion in employment. NEA believes that any entity receiving funds under any ESEA program must fully comply with all federal civil rights laws. Finally, in another ruling, the Secretary has determined that supplemental service providers are not required to serve students with disabilities or Limited-English Proficient students. NEA proposes that, just as public schools must serve all students, so should supplemental service providers.
