Here it is the end of 2006! This has been a great year in the
life of NAFEPA. Our membership is at an all time high with over
1,700 members. Our Spring Conference had a record number of
attendees and our number of state affiliates continues to
increase. We also approved joint membership for states in
October and already have six states that are coming on board.
You will find in this issue of the newsletter an article
written by Leigh Manasevit, Esq and Tiffany Winters, Esq. of the
Brustein & Mansevit Law Firm. The article "New Clarifications on
School Restructuring," gives us a very easy to follow guide to
an important process in NCLB.
Along with the article you will notice a new feature to the
newsletter. We have asked several board members to review the
article and then comment on the application of the article in
regard to what we do as federal programs administrators. Please
let us know what you think about this added feature.
Rick Carder, Vice President and Conference Committee
Chairperson, brings us up to date on the plans for our 33rd
Annual NAFEPA Conference to be held March 11-14, 2007, at the
Crystal City Hyatt just across the Potomac River from
Washington, DC. Rick and the committee members have worked hard
to put together a very informative and enlightening conference.
I hope to see you there.
I hope your holidays are restful, and I wish you the very
best for the New Year.
As we enter 2007, we find ourselves regretfully having to say
farewell at the end of January to Dr. Jackie Jackson, director
of Student Achievement and School Accountability at the U. S.
Department of Education. She has been a tireless leader and
strong supporter of high quality education for all students, and
especially those from low income families who are served with
Title I funds. Dr. Jackson has been a good friend of NAFEPA, and
we will greatly miss her! We wish her well in her retirement,
and we hope to continue seeing her at educational
events—especially at NAFEPA conferences.
We are extremely pleased to present some of the
nation's most sought after keynote presenters in our main
sessions. Dr. Pedro Noguera, Steinhardt School of Education, New
York University, 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, 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, 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, will address NCLB from the viewpoint of
state legislatures and the various plans that states have for
changes in the law.
This year we will also feature some of our
NAFEPA member state schools that have shown tremendous growth in
closing the achievement gap and who have embraced the intent of
"No Child Left Behind." We are proud to hear the
experiences of three principals from two states: Chesapeake,
Virginia— Stephanie Johnson, Camelot Elementary, and Diane
Watkins, Cedar Road Elementary; and Raleigh, North
Carolina—Muriel Summers, A. B. Combs Leadership Magnet
Elementary. A third presentation will focus on the preschool
education and how high quality programs for four year olds can
be connected to kindergarten instruction. This session will be
presented by Dr. Joyce Wright, Sacramento County, California,
and NAFEPA Consultant Elizabeth Pinkerton.
The Capitol Hill visits will commence on
Tuesday, March 13, after our morning keynote presentations. You
should make the arrangements now for your appointments with your
senators and representatives. Members of Congress need to hear
your stories of NCLB implementation so they can be better
prepared to face the coming reauthorization of the law.
Please do not wait to register. All the
registration information is currently online at
www.nafepa.org. You will
also be able to view the entire agenda for the conference. I am
hoping to exceed our projected participant number of 300, and we
need all of you to encourage your fellow colleagues to register
for this outstanding conference. With reauthorization just
around the corner and the current changes in Congress, this
conference provides all participants with the ability to learn
from our fine presenters including many from the U. S.
Department of Education.
By: Leigh
Manasevit, Esq. and Tiffany Winters, Esq.
Under the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), when a school fails to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP) for five consecutive years that school is
identified for restructuring. Many schools are now faced with
fulfilling the requirements of the restructuring process.
Luckily, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released
revisions to its non-regulatory guidance on LEA and School
Improvement this past July to help clarify the school
restructuring process and requirements.
School restructuring is a
two-year process that involves major changes in the school's
operation and requires that the local educational agency (LEA)
intervene extensively in the functioning of a low-performing
school. When a school fails to make AYP for the fifth
consecutive year, the LEA is required to create a restructuring
plan during the sixth year. If that school then fails to make
AYP in the sixth year, that restructuring plan must be
implemented in the seventh year.
While an LEA may believe one
year is enough time to create a restructuring plan, the reality
is that their time is limited. The AYP scores are not released
until the fall, sometimes late fall, and the LEA must first
schedule meetings with parents, teachers and other relevant
groups before the planning of the restructuring plan can begin.
Additionally, the governance alternatives may require contracts
and bidding which may not even start until the spring.
Therefore, LEAs should take caution with their limited
timeframe.
Restructuring includes a major
reorganization of a school's governance structure arrangement by
an LEA that:
Makes fundamental reforms,
such as significant changes in a school's staffing and
governance, to improve student academic achievement in the
school;
Has substantial promise to
improve student academic achievement and enable the school
to make AYP as defined by the State's accountability system;
and
Is consistent with law.
Prior to the creation of a
restructuring plan, the LEA must send notice to parents and
teachers of a school's identification for restructuring. These
groups must have the opportunity to comment before the
restructuring plan is created and both groups must be invited to
participate in the development of the plan. While creating the
restructuring plan, the LEA must continue to implement school
choice and ensure that supplemental educational services are
available to eligible students.
The restructuring plan must
include an “alternative governance” arrangement that will be
carried out if the school fails to make AYP for a sixth
consecutive year. Alternative governance means that, at the
LEA's election, the school must do one of the following:
Reopen the school as a
public charter school;
Replace all or most of the
school staff, which may include the principal, who are
relevant to the school's inability to make AYP;
Enter into a contract with
an entity, such as a private management company, with a
demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school
as a public school;
Turn the operation of the
school over to the state educational agency (SEA) (if
permitted under state law or the state agrees);
Implement any other major
restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that is
consistent with the NCLB principles of restructuring.
ED clarified that "other major
restructuring of the school's governance" means a significant
change of the governance structure, which may include increasing
controls, monitoring, creating a theme school, reconstituting
small autonomous learning communities, and expanding or limiting
grades served. The variety and rigor of the restructuring
options allow an LEA to choose one or more "alternative
governance" interventions that best address the identified needs
of the school and school community, as long as it is substantial
enough to transform and sustain change.
LEAs must also consider that a
governance change alone will not likely produce a significant
change in student performance without also considering such
issues as staff development, curricula, instruction, use of
technology, assessment, and other factors that are essential for
success. Regardless of the decisions made, the restructuring
plan will require the active support and involvement of the
school and district personnel, parents, teachers, business and
community organizations, state education personnel, governmental
agencies and others.
Additionally, replacing school
leaders alone cannot bring about the desired improvement in the
education system. Replacing all or most of the school staff is
only one of several restructuring options available and there is
a great deal of flexibility in how to implement this option. For
example, some LEAs have asked all staff to reapply for their
positions and to be part of the restructuring process. Other
LEAs work with staff and unions to include provisions in
contracts to compensate teachers for working longer school days
and/or longer school years as part of the restructuring
arrangements.
When a school is identified
for improvement, it is required to spend not less then 10
percent of its Title I, Part A allocation for high quality
professional development. The new guidance clarifies that this
does not apply to schools identified for restructuring or
corrective action. This is a new interpretation that was not
widely anticipated. Although not required, schools identified
for restructuring and corrective action are permitted to use
Title I, Part A funds for high quality professional development
and in fact ED encourages them to do so. Additionally, Title I,
Part A and Title II, Part A funds may be used to provide
financial incentives and rewards to teachers in schools in
restructuring states. Title II, Part A funds may also be used to
develop and implement strategies and activities to recruit,
hire, and retain highly qualified teachers and principals.
If a school again fails to
make AYP for the sixth year the LEA must implement the
restructuring plan no later then the beginning of the school
year following the year in which the school was in the first
year of restructuring. The restructured school must continue to
offer school choice and supplemental services until it makes AYP
for two consecutive years. Further, an LEA should continue to
offer technical assistance to the school to ensure that the
necessary support is available to increase the potential for
sustained improvement and success.
Schools that continue to fail
AYP after restructuring and alternative governance must continue
to undertake corrective actions that will improve education in
the school. An exception is if a school is designated as a "new
school". If, as a result of restructuring, a school is
significantly reconfigured (for example to serves different
students and different grades) and accordingly meets the State's
definition of a new school, that school may be treated like any
other new school in the State. Depending on the State's
operational rules, this may mean starting over on the school
improvement timeline.
A goal of the guidance is to
encourage LEAs to take dramatic restructuring action in failing
schools. We see this through the definition of a "new school",
which allows a school to reset the AYP clock if an LEA takes
dramatic enough action. Therefore, LEAs should not be afraid to
implement drastic actions when creating their restructuring
plan.
COMMENTS on
the Restructuring Article from NAFEPA Board Members:
From: Betsy Mierzwa,
Virginia
I actually felt this was a very "readable" article. I
appreciated the caution of making sure to use the two year
process for restructuring. Since schools are just beginning to
enter into this process there could be additional obstacles not
even mentioned in the article that will crop up. I thought the
examples of issues were very helpful. I also appreciated the
comment about taking dramatic restructuring action. The
examples of just changing a principal or staff doesn't guarantee
academic achievement really resonated with me. I have heard
principals say that if we just had "more staff" we would be able
to meet the academic requirements. However, if we truly look at
our data we may find that it is not a staffing issue but a
program implementation/delivery issue. Again, I found this
particular article much easier to read and understand.
From: Christian Johnson,
New York
I'm pleasantly surprised at this piece - from the discussion
I was afraid that it would need restructuring into style closer
to what I used at the Compliance Insider, but they're already
there. The last paragraph is especially important; to some
degree it answers the criticism that ED's guidance "watered
down" the restructuring requirements. Only by reconstituting the
school under state law -- the most dramatic of the restructuring
alternatives -- can a school start with a clean slate. I hope
others will be able to discuss some of the practical
considerations with restructuring. Given the mixed success that
many charters and Gates Foundation prototypes have posted thus
far, it's critical for administrators to think through both
design and implementation, particularly by ensuring adequate
support among faculty and parents. In fact, that would be a
great idea for a second article on the topic.
From: Everett Mann, Ohio
I believe this information is very readable and would give
district federal program administrators the information they
need to know to work with their schools and states on school
restructuring plans.
Top Ten
Organizations that Influence Educational Policy!!!
You may have
read about the study conducted by the Education Research Center
that lists ten organizations that have influenced educational
policy in the past decade.
-
U. S.
Congress
-
U. S.
Department of Education
-
Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation
-
Education Trust
-
National Governors’ Association
-
American Federation of Teachers
-
Achieve, Inc.
-
National Education Association
-
Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation
-
Center
on Education Policy
Jack Jennings,
CEO of the Center on Education Policy is an Honorary Member of
NAFEPA for his many contributions to our organization. The work
done by CEP is valuable, and many NAFEPA members have been and
continue to be involved with the research and case studies. Jack
is a frequent speaker at NAFEPA conferences.
Welcome to Our New NAFEPA Members
ALABAMA:
Michael Barber, Brenda Bray, Donnella Carter, Becky Cox,
Theodore Crook, Beth Drew, Wendy England, Joan Frazier, Cynthia
Green, Latanza Harrison, Donna Henry, Nancy C. Hill, Leah Anne
Lowe, Magaline Marshall, Rick McInturf, Karen Mitchell, Randy
Pettus, Celia Rudolph, Barbara Shirley, Valarie Smith, Gary D.
Talley, Joe Walters; ARKANSAS: Sharon Chuculate, Barbara
Fredrick, Bill Glover, Mike Gray, Annette Henderson, Anita
Humphreys, Jane Jamison, Scott Jones, Helen McGee, Susanna
Metcalf, Sandra Miles, Barbara Niven, Natalie Sherwood, Tim
Sparacino, Becky Sullivan, Mona Thompson, Bennie Whitfield,
Patti Willford; ILLINOIS: Anne C. Coffman; LOUISIANA:
Debra Reimonenq, Nathaniel Zeno; MICHIGAN: Jennifer
Allen, Mike Battenn, Monique Beels, Kim Bidwell, Leah Breen,
Lisa Brown, Charles Bruce, Rebecca Caverly, Angela Coan, Lauri
Coe, Michelle Cook, Harvey Czerwinski, Jeremy Daugherty, Sally
Dunlop, Joseph Ellison, Carolyn Evans, Stephen Evans, Sharrece
Farris, LaWanda Finney, Christine Forrister, Rick Heitmeyer,
Edwina Hill, Maureen Horenziak, Marcia Gibbens, Evan Hordyk,
Vickie Houston, Beth Hunter, Michele Jahn, Germaine Jarvis,
Debora Kitson, Arden LaMere, Tom Livezey, Donna Lochrie, Laurie
McCarty, Judy McCrone, Noama Miller, Julie Montross, Connie
Nash, Nina Nettles, Kathy Niergarth, Shannon Pathe, Karen Pond,
Rose Potvin, Roberta Rickett, Zenaida Rivera, Sue Sharma, Jerry
Sinkel, Amy Sitzer, Hallie Snyder, Stan Trompeter, Grace
Velchansky, Stephanie Vittitow, Shawn Vondra, Mary Kay Wanska,
Catherine White, Manuel Wilson, Linda Winslow, Ronell Young,
Janice Zapac; MISSISSIPPI: Janie Alexander, Earline
Davis, David Faulkenbery, Mary Jones, Jeanne Kinnard, Bobbie J.
Lewis, Barbara McCoy, Crystal Newman, Delores Nash, Loretta
Shird, Lisa Smith, Kenyartic Brown, Pam Compton, Betty Duke,
Valerie Jaynes, Shirley Nichols, Jan Carter, Jim Hamilton,
Harriet Kinnel, Bettye Neely, Tina Penton, Debra Petty, David
Spinks, Bobby Luke, Lisa McNeil, Terri Nyman, Thomas Spencer
Jr., NORTH CAROLINA: Donna Brown, Lori Bruce, Scarlet
Davis, Cassandra Evans, Thomas Evans, Jayne Gill, J. Terry Hall,
George Hancock, Barbara Hardison, Janice H. Linker, Jennifer
Locklear, Rhonda Muhammad, Faye Geneva Neeriemer, Nelson, Linda
Nicholson, Richard M. Purcell, Yvette S. Richardson, Kim
Rudisill, Timothy Sims, Dorothy Skinner, Marty Smith, Rosemary
H. Smith, Dale E. Strayhorn, Loreto K. Tessini, Linda Ward;
TEXAS: Barbara Agee, Vickie Ansley, Leslie Branyan, Kathy
Carter, Cheryl M. Ensley, Marilyn Hankla, Sharon Jensen, Janie
Livas, Linda Marshall, Cathy Ostmeyer, Anne Phillips, Camilla A.
Reyna, Melissa Shaver, Debora A. Simmons, Teresa Thompson, Donna
Walton, Nadine Wolfe; VIRGINIA: Janice Pierson, Mary C.
Wheeler
WE ALSO
WELCOME A NEW STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
NAFEPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Jim Sheffer, Pennsylvania
A Few
Words About NAFEPA Membership-Subscription
-
We have
many states that are changing to NAFEPA’s joint membership
process. What that means in those states is that when you
join your state organization, you also become a member of
NAFEPA, the national
organization of which your state is an affiliate.
-
California
was the first state to use joint membership, and when Nevada
became affiliated, joint membership was what they decided to
use. On October 1, 2006, the joint membership rate was
reduced by the NAFEPA Board from $80 to $50, and a number of
states decided that this was workable for their
organizations. We now have these states either using joint
membership or moving toward it: Michigan, Texas, Alabama,
Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia.
-
This change
means that we now have three ways that folks can join NAFEPA:
Joint membership as described above at $80; Choice
Membership which means that state members can join just the
state organization or both the state and national (NAFEPA
amount for this is $85); and Direct Membership which allows
the member to bypass the state organization and join NAFEPA
directly at $100. Direct Membership is also used by members
from states that do not have a state affiliation with
NAFEPA.
-
When states
send their membership lists to NAFEPA, we would like to have
the following information: name, position, district, mailing
address, telephone number, and email address. And, we
applaud you if the lists can be sent electronically on an
Excel spread sheet. Send to
elizabeth.pinkerton@frontiernet.net.
-
We carry
members on our list for about six months after they become
overdue, and we mark the due dates on the address label of
the newsletters. If you have questions about membership,
feel free to contact me. Thanks.
Elizabeth
NAFEPA
Membership/Subscription Form
Download form now!
(.pdf file*)
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.
