Washington Update
Volume 8,
Issue 6
September -
October 2006
Dear NAFEPA Members:
Thank you for your vote of confidence in me
to serve another term as your president. I appreciate your support
and promise to serve you along with your Board of Directors.
The NAFEPA Fall Workshop for your Board of
Directors was a tremendous success. We spent hours reviewing where
we have been, where we are, where we want to be as an organization
in the future, and mapping out a plan of action to reach our goals.
You are to be commended for selecting your state representatives who
serve on the NAFEPA Board. Every board member was an active
participant, and your many ideas and concerns of federal program
educators in all states were addressed. The committees spent
productive time planning and goal setting under the leadership of
the new committee chairs, and you will be hearing more from them in
the coming months. We also installed our new officers for the next
two year term—Rick Carder as our new vice president, Debra Baros as
secretary, Randy Thudin as treasurer, and John Pfaff who will
continue with his past president responsibilities as I begin a
second term as your president. We also installed our three state
representatives who were elected by the Board to serve on the
Executive Committee: Glenda Virden from Michigan, Terry Lizotte from
Nevada, and Terry Larsen from California.
In this newsletter you will read about the
recent NCLB hearings conducted by the California Department of
Education. Four of our NAFEPA members provided testimony for those
hearings in mid-October, and we share their ideas with you so that
you can be thinking about how NCLB will affect your states and
districts in the future. We thank Rick Carter, Linda Cook, Terry
Larsen, and Joanna Junge for providing their papers for NAFEPA
members to review. We will also be posting their work and your
comments on our web page.
In the past months it has been my pleasure to
have been invited to speak at two state conferences—Florida and
Virginia, and I appreciate their hospitality and welcome the
opportunity to bring NAFEPA to their midst. Thank you to Robert Pugh
and Theo Lawton for placing NAFEPA on your state agendas.
I want to remind you that you can begin
registering for the NAFEPA Spring Conference by going to our web
site at www.nafepa.org. The
conference committee members, under Rick Carder, have done an
outstanding job of putting together a fantastic program. The
dates are March 11-14, 2007 at the Crystal City Hyatt in Crystal
City, Virginia, just a short metro ride from the heart of
Washington, DC.
Bobby Burns
President, NAFEPA
2007 - Annual Spring
Conference, March 11-14 - 2007
Crystal City Hyatt-Washington DC
NAFEPA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION IS NOW
OPEN……..Go to www.nafepa.org
Conference Chair: Rick Carder, NAFEPA Vice President
Highlights:
Dr. Pedro Noguera, Steinhardt School of Education, New
York University. Dr. Noguera is recognized as a leading urban
sociologist. He will speak about his research on how schools are
influenced by the social and economic conditions in the urban
environment.
Dr. Brian McNulty, Vice President, Leadership Development
for the Center for Performance Assessment. Dr. McNulty will speak to
various issues related to student achievement and assessment.
Alex Nock, Director of the Commission on No Child Left
Behind, the bipartisan, independent effort to improve the impact of
NCLB on student achievement. Mr. Nock will discuss the 2006 hearings
that were held to gather information about NCLB reauthorization.
David Shreve, Senior Director for Education National
Conference of State Legislatures. Mr. Shreve will address NCLB from
the viewpoint of state legislatures and the various plans that
states have for changes in the law.
20 REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO BE AT THE 2007
NAFEPA CONFERENCE:
- You are a federal education program director, manager, or
coordinator, a superintendent or district office administrator
who works with research, grants, personnel, or professional
development, a school site principal, or a site or district
employees who is funded from Title I or another programs under
No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
- You recognize that you need to stay on top of what is
happening with the reauthorization of the NCLB law.
- You are searching for up-to-date research about effective
practices for improving academic achievement.
- You are looking for new ways to help reluctant learners and
children who do not perform as well as they should.
- You want to make sure you are ready for federal audits and
compliance reviews that will be coming up in the near future.
- You have specific audit questions related to difficult
issues in your district or schools that need to be resolved.
- You want to know more about No Child Left Behind and
its predecessors under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
- You want to find out what other states are doing in this
fourth year of the implementation of NCLB.
- You want to increase your professional learning and be able
to communicate with colleagues across the nation.
- You are the only NCLB person in your district, and you want
to find someone who can answer all your question.
- You are anxious to know more about the trends toward changes
in NCLB expectations and practices.
- You want to be on top of the latest NCLB issues because your
district and community expect you to respond to questions.
- You have a genuine desire to improve parental involvement
with their children’s education.
- You are new to your job and need to know know more about
adequate yearly progress, assessments, and achievement gaps.
- You would like to know more about how to resolve problems
with highly qualified teachers in hard to fill content areas.
- You want to improve the status of paraprofessionals in your
district.
- You have become interested in the NCLB Hearings and you want
to know more about them and what will be the next steps.
- You want to have your district seen as a leader in NCLB and
student achievement.
- You want all the students in your district to be proficient
in math and reading.
- You want to assure that all your students receive a high
school diploma and are prepared for college and careers.
NAFEPA Members Testify
at NCLB Hearings in California
In mid October, the California
Department of Education held several hearings on NCLB to receive
input on the implementation on various aspects of the law. Four
NAFEPA members provided testimony for those hearings on the topics
of Highly Qualified Teachers, Interventions and Corrective Action,
Accountability, and English Language Learners. Condensed versions of
what they presented are provided for NAFEPA members in the following
pages. For further information, members may contact the individual
members, three of whom are on the Board of Directors. We anticipate
that other states will be having similar hearings as reauthorization
draws near, and we invite others to share their thoughts either
through this newsletter or on our web page.
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
RICK CARDER, GRANT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
NAFEPA VICE PRESIDENT
California has one of the nation's
most rigorous credentialing and licensing programs. California has
far more investment and experience in aligning teacher preparation
requirements with our rigorous academic content standards than does
the federal government. Prior to No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
California was experiencing a reduction in the number of individuals
entering public school teaching. However, without reducing our
demanding credentialing and licensing requirements, California
focused on recruiting and retaining the best and brightest teachers.
With the current federal demands on credentialing and subject matter
competence, our system is now struggling to maintain and recruit the
best and the brightest. For example, an aerospace engineer may not
be highly qualified to teach general science strictly based on
his/her degree, but would more than likely have to take additional
subject matter exams to prove his/her competence. States should be
allowed to use their credential and licensing program to determine
highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. The goal of
100% highly qualified should be the target, but states should be
recognized for their good faith efforts in obtaining this monumental
goal. Federal sanctions and withholding of federal funds only hurts
the goal of closing the achievement gap for all students. States,
not the federal government, should determine if teachers are not
highly qualified.
Special education teachers who
possess a bachelor's degree and special education credential, either
with single subject or multiple subject authorizations should be
declared highly qualified to instruct at the middle and high school
level. New teachers hired to teach in alternative settings should be
allowed to use the High Objective Uniform State Standard of
Evaluation (HOUSSE), to determine subject matter competence. States
should retain the right to issue history/social science credentials
that will meet the highly qualified status. This credential allows
teachers to teach history, social science, economics, and geography
which are included within the credential subject area.
INTERVENTIONS AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION
LINDA COOK, NORTH SACRAMENTO SCHOOL DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE, NAFEPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I believe that states and
districts should provide appropriate interventions and should be
allowed flexibility for the order of those interventions. There
should be a minimum of three years before a school or district is
identified for School Improvement and a longer timeline to effect
meaningful change, based upon scientific research. Despite the level
of School Improvement, the school or district has only one year to
implement and effect changes. It would appear that the parental
response to Supplemental Educational Services (SES) is greater than
the parental choice options. It may be that the opportunity for
supplemental tutoring provides the necessary strategies for
increased academic levels of proficiency. Participation rates should
not determine School Improvement status but should be reduced to the
original state participation percentage of 90%. Districts and
schools not meeting the participation rate should be required to
develop an improvement plan for participation only, and not be
identified for School Improvement. State law permitting parental
opt-outs of testing should not be included in the participation
calculation. Schools need a longer period of time to make effective
changes in the program. If they are not effective in a designated
period of time for increasing student proficiency, they should then
offer choice to transfer.
School choice, transportation, and
supplemental educational services should be limited to only low
income non proficient students. A percentage of the reservations for
School Improvement should be available for coordination of SES and
planning for student interventions. In a small urban district, such
as mine, I am required to administer all the intricacies of the
choice and supplemental services, along with the many other federal
and state programs. The process of gathering intent to serve
students, SES information for parents, contracts and student
information necessary for Individual Education Plans (IEPs) requires
many, many hours. Parents want the services to begin more promptly.
More stringent oversight and assistance from the LEA and SEA are
needed. Evaluation of SES providers and their services must be
available to LEAs.
Without major changes in the
definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP), almost all
schools/districts will fail to meet the NCLB requirements within the
next few years. The current system gives schools 40 ways to fail and
only one way to pass. AYP does not account for significant academic
improvement of students who fall short of absolute grade level
proficiency. Matched score cohorts from one grade to another should
be considered. Performance expectations need to be ambitious and
rigorous, but realistically attainable.
ACCOUNTABILITY
TERRY LARSEN, ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE, NAFEPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Rigorous state content standards
and assessments are in place for language arts, math, science and
history/social studies in grades K-12. However, the performance
standards for proficiency in California are higher than in other
states. An NCLB amendment needs to address a common definition of
“proficiency” for grade level standards that applies nationwide. For
example, a Rausch Interval Unit (RIT) scale could be utilized along
with a Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) system to equate standards
and progress. A professional measurement community should be
consulted for appropriate national calibration of performance
standards.
The AYP Status Model does not
allow for recognition of academic improvement for students who fall
short of absolute grade level proficiency. Furthermore, Safe Harbor
is overly stringent; in application very few schools that would not
otherwise make AYP do so because of Safe Harbor. Criterion should be
revised based on research. An authentic Safe Harbor would be a 3%
reduction in the below proficient category.
Response to Intervention (RtI), a
provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
as amended in 2004, should be identified as a viable system
structure or framework for addressing the needs of under achieving
students. RtI is a structured system that involves organizing
resources by student needs instead of categorical program or special
education designation and a tiered model of service delivery where
targeted students in all tiers (1, 2, 3) receive increasingly
appropriate supplemental services to raise their achievement level.
RtI makes use of scientific research-based strategies and a
monitoring system that uses ongoing assessment to determine
instructional decision-making and student progress. If outcomes
indicate that special education students exit the program, there
would be advantages to including them in the subgroup. Currently,
data for students with disabilities (SWD) is unreliable because of
the ability of these students to complete the assessments. States
need flexibility in determining the percentage of special education
students who can be tested according to their ability or performance
level, not their grade level. The SWD group achievement of
proficiency and movement out of the group means only those who by
definition cannot meet proficiency will populate the sub-group.
States need flexibility for
holding these subgroups accountable as defined in the state's
Accountability Workbook. The percentage of students taking
alternative assessments who have severe cognitive disabilities
(determined by appropriate documentation) should be based on the
percentage of students with severe cognitive disabilities who are
actually served by a school or district rather than an arbitrary cut
off.
IDEA must take precedence on all
matters associated with students with disabilities, and NCLB should
be revised to reflect the priority of IEPs to ensure no unintended
incentives are created to place NCLB accountability requirements
over the needs of individual students with IEPs.
Based on current improvement
levels, and without major changes in the definition of adequate
yearly progress (AYP), almost all schools will fail to meet NCLB
requirements within the next few years. Currently, AYP is a narrow
and flawed yardstick of student performance. AYP gives schools 40
ways to fail and only one way to pass, and it does not account for
significant academic improvement of students who fall short of
absolute grade level proficiency. Matched score cohort groups from
one grade to the next should be considered. Performance expectations
need to be ambitious, they need to allow for growth, and they must
be realistically attainable. Lastly, whatever the broad goal, it is
the measurable AYP targets that really need to be rigorous, yet
realistic.
A 95% participation rate in the
state testing program is currently in effect. However, procedures
for calculating the 95% participation rate do not exclude the parent
opt outs as legally allowable under California statute. Furthermore,
out-of-level testing counts against the 95% participation rate. A
90% participation rate which ensures a strong representative sample
and would accommodate for parent opt outs and out-of level testing
for students with disabilities is recommended. Furthermore, schools
and LEAs who fail to make 90 or 95 percent participation rate should
not be identified as School Improvement but instead be required to
develop an improved participation plan for relevant groups.
In order to more accurately
measure actual student progress, it is better to consider matched
score cohort groups from one grade to the next. Performance
expectations need to be ambitious, allow for growth, and be
realistically attainable. Should this model be used, it is important
to compare grade level performance statewide tests. If performance
at certain grade levels dips regularly, the comparative rigor of the
test should be examined. The federal government should recognize and
give credit toward moving students from Far Below Basic to Below
Basic and Basic by reviewing statewide performance level data and
setting an ambitious but reasonable goal for the total percentage of
students moving upward from Far Below Basic to Proficient.
Alternative education programs should be given credit for meeting
their Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM) goals and
objectives, and an alternative AYP accountability system needs to be
included in that model. The district or school should not be placed
into School Improvement because of not meeting the 95% participation
rate. Instead, the district or school should be required to develop
an improved participation plan for the specific groups in need. A
revision of NCLB is needed to accommodate an individual student
growth model based on matched scores for district or school
improvement rather than the current status model for calculating AYP.
This alternative model allows for the monitoring of significant
subgroups in order to narrow the achievement gap. California needs
to set ambitious but realistically attainable Academic Performance
Index significant subgroup targets that demonstrate growth over
time.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
JOANNA JUNGE
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (NAFEPA MEMBER)
It is generally accepted that one
of the positive outcomes of NCLB has been the increased focus on
improving the academic achievement of English Language Learner (ELL)
students and I strongly support keeping these students a high
priority in the reauthorization of NCLB. ELL students should remain
a subgroup in all of the NCLB accountability measures; however, the
NCLB accountability system which requires that all ELL students be
tested on standardized tests in English, a language in which they
are not proficient, is clearly not valid or equitable. The three
year exemption from standardized testing in English, which NCLB
allows for ELL students who have attended US schools for less than
three years, should be made a requirement. In addition, NCLB's
provisions which allow for primary or native language testing for
students instructed in their primary language must be fairly and
uniformly implemented by the U. S. Department of Education. The
primary language scores should be included in the calculation of
adequate yearly progress (AYP) and in the determination of our
state's Academic Performance Index (API). The three year exemption
and the inclusion of primary language scores will ensure that
programs, schools, and districts are not unjustifiably penalized for
having large numbers of ELL students who have little or no English
proficiency. As it currently exists, the NCLB accountability system
places unfair sanctions on schools for not demonstrating above
average gains in English acquisition among their large populations
of ELL students since many of the factors that promote rapid
acquisition of English are beyond a school's control.
The Title III program is one of the positive components of NCLB
because it has provided a consistent allocation of funds which
support specialized programs for ELL students. The separate Title
III accountability system requiring English Language Development
Standards and assessments aligned to those standards is a valid,
reasonable, and equitable foundation for the first two annual
measurement achievement objectives (AMAO). The third AMAO has the
same flaws inherent in the overall NCLB accountability system
discussed earlier because it is based on meeting AYP; however,
overall Title III accountability is reasonable. Nevertheless, it is
essential to ensure that the ELL subgroup continues to include
students reclassified to Fluent English Proficient until they have
scored at the proficient level on the English Language Arts
California Standards Test for three years. This will guarantee that
the ELL subgroup does not include solely those students who by
definition do not meet proficiency. I would like to mention one
final critical issue, the new set of requirements for Consortia
under Title III. The new mandate that the lead LEA be the program
agent in addition to the fiscal agent puts an unreasonable burden on
the lead LEA. It jeopardizes the willingness of the lead LEAs to
perform that role, particularly with another, lower performing LEA.
This jeopardizes the funding for small LEAs that cannot be funded
independently. These provisions of Title III must be changed.
I would like to emphasize the necessity that states be given
flexibility in holding the ELL subgroup accountable as defined in
the state's Accountability Workbook, and that Negotiated Rulemaking
with stakeholder groups (such as NAFEPA) be a mandated process in
the Reauthorization of NCLB. Finally, an evaluation of the NCLB Act
should be mandated and performed by an outside research entity with
experience and expertise in the evaluation of instructional programs
for English Language Learners.
New Members
and Executive Committee
Welcome to Our New NAFEPA Members
ARKANSAS:
Kristi Anderson, Brenda Bates, Mary Bridgforth, Donna Garrett, Pam
Hogue, Kathy Kemp, Letitita Martin, Sandy Russell
CALIFORNIA:
Margaret Abrahamson, Felicia Adkins, Emily Andrade, Esther Askew,
Laurie Baccus, Donna Bazett, Carol Beck, Carol Besser, Gustavo
Blankenburg, Elizabeth Blasquez, Zondra Borg, Colleen Calvert,
Maggie Carrer, Robert Castro, Maggi Cathey, Vanessa Chacon, Cathy
Chan, Cindi Chandler, Charemon Cooks, Linda Cordero, Katherine
Cornell, Christopher Corpus, Leland Daniels, David Day, Christopher
Downing, Karen Ellison, Vicki Ford, Alejandra Fulton, Linda Gephart,
Jeannette Giannetta, Paul Grafton, Jeff Hamlin, Marianne Hamor,
Taryn Harmon, Stephen Harris, Barbara Heisser, Jeptha Hicks, Rebecca
Hinojosa, Kitty Hudson Cawley, Arturo Jimenez, Marvin Jones, Bob
Kampf, Judy Kearns, Bob Laughrin, Gwenis Laura, Darlene Laval, Juan
Leal, Denise Lindeman, Joan Lucid, Evan Lum, Sharon Masek, Jolene
Massey, Michael McCoy, Brian Murray, Greta Nash, Kristen Nelson,
Marcie Nichols, Anita Oudega, Jody Pastell, Dottie Podolak, Penny
Post, David Ramos, Raghu Reddy, Terri Reed, Thomas Rousseau, Manuel
Salinas, Karen Sharkey, Ben Smith, Gregory Spencer, Nancy Stubbs,
Chris Szczepaniak, Phil Villamer, Gessy Watkins, Yolanda Webb, Walli
Weitz, Ellen Welt, Cyntia White, Barbara Williams, Dieann Williams,
Edward Winchester, Lin Wolf, Tannie Wyse, Sherrill Young, Melodee
Zamudio
COLORADO:
Paul Johnson
FLORIDA:
Linda Johns
MASSACHUSETTS: Melissa LeRay,
Kristen Montgomery
MICHIGAN: Kari Anama, Rosa Benford, Patrick Bevier, Mel Blohm,
William Botts, Marcie Brown, Stanley Bushouse, Joan Cashin, Sandra
Cherry, Marjorie Christenbery, Rill Currie, Lonnie Draper, Loretta
English, Marcelene Fayz, Richard Heinrich, Jane Hesse, Cindy
Hoffman, Evan Hordyk, Debbie Kroll, Veronica Lake, Joanne Lelekatch,
Laurie McCarty, Bob Naumann, Teresa Neal, Michael Ostyn, Phil
Phillips, William Pitts, Richard Rockwell, Wageh Saad, Crystal
Schrock, Melanie Schroder, Carmen Smolinski, Sharon Spence, Terrie
Stafford, Mary Strom, Beth Van der Veer, Trich Vermeer, Linda Voit,
Donita White, Vnona Miller
MISSISSIPPI: Kyseta Armstrong,
Bertha Watts
OHIO:
Rosetta Brown
PENNSYVLANIA: Jeffrey
Baker, Tommy Bedillion, Kathy Popp, Jean Purnell, Ann Schweighofer
SOUTH CAROLINA: Kathleen Bounds, Archie Franchini, Aimie
Fulmer, Addie Futrell, Antoinette Jones, Sharon Snyder
WISCONSIN: Sally Habanek, Diane Matsche, Guy Steckbauer.
WE ALSO
WELCOME THESE NEW STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NAFEPA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS;
Marilyn Chambers, Arkansas; Betsy Meirzwa, Virginia; Linda Cook,
California.
MEET THE NEW
MEMBERS OF THE NAFEPA EXECUTIVE COMMIEEE:
Some changes took place on the NAFEPA Executive Committee for the
new term that began on October 1, 2006. At Large Member Rick Carder
(California) was elected by the membership to serve as vice
president, and At Large Member Paul Zinni (Massachusetts) ,who
served in that capacity for four years, left the committee although
he retains his position on the Board of Directors. The members of
the Board elected three persons to serve for the 2006-08 term.
Glenda Virden (Michigan) was elected for a second term, and Terry
Larsen (California) and Terry Lizotte (Nevada) were chosen to fill
the open positions. Members were introduced to Glenda in an earlier
newsletter, so our focus this month is on the two new members of the
Executive committee.
TERRY LARSEN
is currently the Director of Special Projects K-12 in the Alhambra
Unified School District. His responsibilities consist of state and
federally funded programs including Title I, Title V, Gifted and
Talented Education (GATE), and California’s School and Library
Improvement Program. He earned his doctorate at the University of
Colorado, Boulder while serving as a state Title I Consultant for
the Colorado Dept. of Education. He has a strong background in
assessment and evaluation, and his teaching experience includes
elementary, secondary, and graduate school as an adjunct professor
at California State University, Long Beach. He has had direct
administrative responsibilities for federal programs since 1976. Dr.
Larsen is President-Elect of the California Association of State and
Federal Education Programs (CAASFEP). While previously serving on
the NAFEPA Board, he helped recruit three new states—Colorado,
Nevada and Georgia. He also served on NAFEPA’s Legislative Committee
and participated in Negotiated Rule Making with the US Office of
Education for the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) in the mid
1990s. He has contributed to NAFEPA’s position papers and provided
several testimonies to the NCLB Commission regarding the
reauthorization of the law.
D. TERRY LIZOTTE has been a member of NAFEPA for 11 years and
the Nevada State representative to the Board of Directors for seven
years. He is a founding member of the Nevada Federal Programs
Administrators Association and has served on its Board of Directors
since its inception. As an administrator in the Clark County School
District since 1990, he has extensive experience in federal, state,
corporate, and private grants development and administration. His
grant applications have brought over $70,000,000 to the district in
12 years. Having moved into alternative education, he continues to
write and manage grants and provides fiscal guidance and oversight
to 24 schools and programs. He provided expert testimony on the
operations and effectiveness of a variety of grant programs to
federal and state congressional committees and is interested in
developing programs that bring direct services to students and
professional development to all staff members. Lizotte was a fighter
pilot in the U.S. Air Force for 20 years prior to joining the
district and his duties included designing, conducting, and
evaluating major military exercises in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
MEMBERS ONLY
CODE ON WEB PAGE:
Leave the top line as Member. The password is:
esea1965nclb.
NAFEPA
Board of Directors
State Representatives
CHECK YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUE
DATE ON THE LABEL OF THIS NEWSLETTER!
If you are OVERDUE - this is your last newsletter.
We do not want to lose you as a NAFEPA member, so we hope to
hear from you soon.
This newsletter was prepared by: Elizabeth Pinkerton
If you are in an unaffiliated state, contact me
elizabeth.pinkerton@frontiernet.net
if you need
additional information.
Click here
for printable version in .pdf format.
Click here
for Newsletters Archives.
Click here
for NAFEPA Membership/Subscription Form.
