NAFEPA POSITION PAPER - 2007
National Association of
Federal Education Program Administrators
(NAFEPA)
2007 NAFEPA POSITION PAPER
Legislative Committee: Chair, Terry
Larsen (California); Marilyn Chambers (Arkansas); Bob Pugh
(Florida); Everett Mann (Ohio); Chrisandra Richardson
(Maryland); Ambrosio Melendrez (Texas); John Pfaff (Wisconsin);
Bob Harmon (Washington); Elizabeth Pinkerton, NAFEPA Consultant;
Bobby Burns (Alabama), NAFEPA President
The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT of 2001
Considerations for Reauthorization From the Implementation of
NCLB
Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, states and school districts have systematically
worked to meet the goals of NCLB and improve instruction and
learning for all students. NAFEPA is fully committed to the
intent of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and for that reason, this
paper suggests a series of improvements based on the collective
experiences of implementation and outcomes with NCLB. NAFEPA
members support the premise that every child receives a high
quality education that is based on standards and that all groups
of students receive assistance to be successful learners. With
the coming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), NAFEPA members have prepared this position
paper with four main topics to be considered: STANDARDS,
ASSESSMENTS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY; HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND
PARAPROFESSIONALS; LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY (LEA) AND SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT; SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
(SES).
STANDARDS, ASSESSMENTS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
-
A common definition of “proficiency” that
applies nationwide is needed for grade level standards. For
example, a Rauch Interval Unit (RIT) scale could be used
along with a Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) system to
equate standards and progress. This would not require a
national curriculum but it would address the variance in
rigor that currently exists from state to state without
relying exclusively on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP).
-
A revision of NCLB should accommodate a
“growth model” for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of
school/district improvement that allows the monitoring of
student groups from year to year as well as the improvement
of significant subgroups in order to close the achievement
gap.
-
Recognition of additional levels of student
achievement for AYP should be made that allow credit for
progress toward meeting performance levels and cut scores
below proficient.
-
An accountability system should count the
scores of students in a sub-group no more than twice by
using the categories of: (1) racial/ethnic and (2) one of
the special population categories (economically
disadvantaged, English learner, or special needs).
-
Regardless of the type of accountability
model approved, AYP targets need to be ambitious, allow for
growth and be realistically attainable.
-
The percentage of students with severe
cognitive disabilities should be based on the percentage of
students with severe cognitive disabilities actually served
by the district rather than an arbitrary cut off. IDEA must
take precedence on all matters associated with students with
disabilities including student IEP requirements for student
testing, parents’ ability to opt-out students, out-of-level
assessments and the variety of accommodations and
modifications that may be provided.
-
An alternative assessment system for English
Language Learners and students with disabilities should take
into account the developmental, cognitive and language
acquisition needs of these students in order to assess
English language proficiency and content knowledge.
-
An alternative assessment and accountability
system for alternative schools should take into account the
highly mobile populations of these schools.
-
An authentic safe harbor provision that is
supported by research is needed which consists of a 3%
reduction in the below proficient category.
-
A parent’s right to opt a student out of
testing should not count against a school’s participation
rate.
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS and
PARAPROFESSIONALS
-
A provision should be made for states to use
their credentialing and licensing programs to determine
“highly qualified” status for all teachers, including
special education, English language learner, career
technical education, alternative education, and middle
school teachers who teach multiple subjects.
-
A provision is needed for an incentive
program to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in
hard to staff subjects and schools.
-
Increased flexibility is needed in the
requirements for highly qualified teachers for small middle
schools, small high schools, and schools in rural areas.
-
Teachers in all schools that receive federal
funds, including charter schools and nonpublic schools,
should meet the requirements of “highly qualified.”
-
The High Objective Uniform State Standard of
Evaluation (HOUSSE) should be allowed to determine subject
matter competence for new teachers hired to teach in
alternative settings.
-
Flexibility is needed for states to
determine the qualifications for paraprofessionals to meet
“highly qualified” standards with allowance given for
timelines, guidance, resources and training provided.
3. LEA AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
-
The length of time for LEAs in need of
improvement should be extended given the complexities of
systems change. Developing the qualities in LEAs that have
been identified in research for improvement takes time and
capacity building for states as well as LEAs. Improvement
may not realistically happen in steady, equal, incremental
steps each year. There are “implementation dips” as well as
“accelerated changes”.
-
An allowance should be made for districts
identified for improvement to continue providing their own
supplemental educational services if there is evidence that
overall student achievement in the district is improving.
-
A provision is needed that schools and
districts qualify for School Improvement after AYP is not
met by the “same subgroup” in the same subject for two or
more consecutive years.
-
An extension of the timelines is needed to
enter or exit School Improvement (from two to three years)
for both schools and districts. An analysis of the research
on the actual time required to turn around schools and
districts should be conducted and used to guide timelines. A
revision is needed that participation rates will trigger a
“Plan to Improve Participation” rather than School
Improvement status.
-
A provision is needed to implement a
“demonstration of progress” phase in year three for
districts that show progress towards meeting their AYP
targets. As long as progress continues, the district should
be allowed to focus on that effort instead of “corrective
action.”
4. SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES (SES)
-
An allowance should be made for states and
districts to decide the appropriate interventions (School
Choice, SES, or other state defined interventions), and the
order of interventions when a school is first identified for
School Improvement.
-
A provision should be made that School
Choice and SES are available only to low income students
belonging to the subgroup/s that failed to meet AYP targets
and scored below proficient themselves.
-
An allowance should be made for district
flexibility in determining “lack of capacity” for School
Choice regarding health and safety requirements, class size
requirements, and collective bargaining agreements as
legitimate limitations.
-
A provision is needed that SES providers are
required to meet the same professional requirements for
highly qualified staff as public schools.
-
A provision is needed that allows districts
to screen out SES providers on state approved lists who do
not meet local requirements.
-
An allowance should be made for districts to
use a percentage of the 20 percent set-aside (for School
Choice and SES) for administrative costs to implement these
programs.
-
A provision that SES providers have
experience working with special needs students, i.e.,
students with disabilities as related to IDEA requirements,
and English language learners as related to English language
development.
-
An increase in the allowable carryover for
districts incurring SES charges is needed in order to avoid
the restrictions of budget deadlines and the 15% carryover
limitation. Allowance should be made for unspent funds set
aside for SES to be used during the following year in more
flexible ways.
OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
The law should include the negotiated rulemaking
provision that requires the U. S. Department of Education to
consult with and involve program administrators and other
stakeholders in the development of rules and regulations
affecting the administration of the Title I program.
The law should include the provision that
requires state education agencies to establish and consult with
a Committee of Practitioners (COP) that includes program
administrators before issuing state rules and regulations
related to the administration of Title I programs.
Welcome to Our New NAFEPA
Members
Alabama: Gloria Jemison, Jean Robinson
Arkansas: Vhaness Chambers California: Patricia
Busher, Kathleen Felci, Sherry Francis, Armida Saldivar
Colorado: Carol Avalos, Jan Marie Delay, Brett Frazier
Florida: Katherine Shetler, Amy Williamson Georgia:
Laura Grimwade, Micheal Ingram, Bradley Waldron Illinois:
Randall Rhode, Sharon Love Massachusetts: Janet Daisley,
Janet Lyons Maryland: Michael Maloney Michigan:
Tamara Bashore-Berg, Debby Kuhl, Barbara Potter, Linda Van
Houten Mississippi: Sherry Washburn Missouri:
Elena Amerault, Teresa Holmes North Carolina: Belinda
Black, Mike Harmon Nevada: Leslie Fuentes, Ray Medina
New York: Ken Butkus, Julie Latzer Ohio: Carla
Birney, April Bray, Larissa Brown, Karen Engle, Alice Nack,
Anthony Reese, Rebecca Ruckel; Jason Stragand, Susan Wolf Oklahoma:
Kathy Dunn Pennsylvania: Al Knechel; L. Colin Furneaux
Rhode Island: Kim Mercer, Gail Mulligan South Carolina:
Missy Brakefield, Ernest Dupree, Harriet Jaworowski, Phyllis
Overstreet Texas: Susie Grider, Lynn Harris Virginia:
Diane Greene, Diane Watkins Vermont: Vincent Hawkins
Message to NAFEPA Members
and Especially Our New Members - Helen Adams, North Carolina
We are honored and excited about your
participation and support of NAFEPA as well as the presence of
so many new members at our March conference. You were there for
a very worthy cause, and we are excited to have all of you as
members of this great organization. NAFEPA is a “family affair”.
We get to know each other, and together, we utilize our
resources to make a difference for children. I want to share
with you the impact that NAFEPA has had and continues to have in
my life and the programs that I implemented. I was introduced to
the organization by a co-worker, Bob Severs of Winston-Salem,
NC. Bob was the Legislative Chair for our state organization and
served as our representative on the NAFEPA Board of Directors.
My first conference in DC with this group convinced me that it
was the best conference that I had ever attended. As a federal
program administrator, I was always in search of new, better,
and unique ideas to assist me in making the right decisions for
our participating children. NAFEPA answered many of my concerns
and offered numerous benefits to me and my colleagues, and I
have been a NAFEPA member ever since!
Here are some of the benefits to you as a NAFEPA
member:
-
You have opportunities to network and have
consistent dialogue with program staff members who serve in
similar positions or roles in their respective districts.
You will have chances to share ideas, talk about
programmatic issues and project implementation with
colleagues. You really get to meet experts who are concerned
about children and what is best for them. These lines of
communication are open at all times.
-
You have access to up to date information as
it relates to pertinent topics. NAFEPA provides you with a
special web page and the Members Only page on which we post
power point presentations from our legal experts at Brustein
and Manasevit and other timely messages for you.
-
You will be able to maintain a viable and
visible working relationship with members of the U. S.
Department of Education. In previous years we have been
participants in Negotiated Rule Making for reauthorization
of federal law, and we hope to be involved once again.
-
You benefit from our close partnership with
organizations such as the Brustein and Manasevit law firm
that specializes in federal education law.
-
You will visit your elected representatives
on Capitol Hill at our annual conference. This is a great
way for you to talk about your school district and how
federal legislation impacts your schools. You can showcase
success stories from your district.
In summary, you can see that NAFEPA provides
many benefits for you, the members. Let us know how best we can
serve you, and we will do our best to help you with what you
need. Let me pose a challenge for all NAFEPA members, and that
is for each of us to recruit one new member for our
organization. We stand at more than 1,700 members right now.
Let’s see if we can reach out to 1,700 more!
HOW TO ENTER THE MEMBERS
ONLY PAGE
at www.nafepa.org
The password is esea1965nclb
Keep the password confidential. It is ONLY for NAFEPA members!
NAFEPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
STATE REPRESENTATIVES
Alabama:
Karen Jensen: 256-852-7073; kjensen@madison.k12.al.us —
Margaret Mastin: 256-582-3171;
mastinma@marshallk12.org
Arizona:
Minerva Meija Kong: 520-364-2447;
mkong@dusd.k12.az.us
Arkansas:
Anita Farver: 870-543-4236; afarver@pbsd.k12.ar.us — Marilyn
Chambers: 870-853-9851;
mchamber@hca.sesc.k12.ar.us
California:
Terry Larsen: 626-308-2251; larsen_terry@alhambra.k12.ca.us—Linda
Cook: 916-263-8258;
lcook@nssd.k12.ca.us
Colorado:
Mary McGrane: 970-352-7404;
mmcgrane@cboces.org
Florida:
Robert Pugh: 386-329-0543;
pugh_b1@firm.edu
Illinois:
JB Culbertson: 309-672-6754;
jb.culbertson@psd150.org
Louisiana:
Annette Jennings: 985-651-0969;
ajennings@stjohn.k12.la.us
Maryland:
Chrisandra Richardson: 301-230-0660;
chrisandra_richardson@mcpsmd.org
Massachusetts:
Paul Zinni: 508-588-0230;
pzinni@tmlp.com
Michigan:
Glenda Virden: 734-495-0797; virdeng@comcast.net — Marie
Miller: 313-297-9600;
millerm24@comcast.net
Minnesota:
Dale Zellmer: 763-506-1120;
dale.zellmer@anoka.k12.mn.us
Mississippi:
Peggy Rogers: 662-244-5001;
drpjrogers@cs.com
Missouri:
Sandra Pettit: 816-413-5067;
sipettit@nkcsd.k12.mo.us
Nevada:
D. Terry Lizotte: 702-799-8630;
terry@interact.ccsd.net
New Jersey:
Daniel Loggi: 609-646-0109;
dlogedd@aol.com
New York:
Christian Johnson: 917-710-1913;
xtnjohnson@gmail.com
North Carolina:
Helen Adams: 919-772-4009;
helenadams1@earthlink.net
Oklahoma:
Tom Sipe: 580-767-8000;
sipet@poncacity.k12.ok.us
Ohio:
Everett C. Mann III: 513-887-5000;
hasa_em@swoca.net
Pennsylvania:
Jim Sheffer: 717-309-9383;
jsheffer@aol.com
Rhode Island:
Patricia Dubois: 401-767-4614;
rid25595@ride.ri.net
South Carolina:
Jacqueline Hopkins: 803-625-5006;
hopkjac@hampton2.k12.sc.us
Texas:
Gloria Williams: 512-414-0113;
gwillms@austinisd.org
Mitzi
Doggett: 903-845-6991;
doggettm@gladewaterisd.com
Virginia:
Betsy Mierzwa: 540-946-4600;
bmierzwa@waynesboro.kl2.va.us
Washington:
Robert Harmon: 360-725-6170;
bobharmon@k12.wa.us
Wisconsin:
John Pfaff: 920-459-3596;
jpfaff@sheboygan.k12.wi.us
