2006 LEGISLATIVE POSITION PAPER
National Association of Federal Education Program Administrators

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

1.   Accountability

• Allow states to use a growth model measure as a second indicator for determining academic progress under the Adequate Yearly Progress provisions: Schools and districts that make gains in student achievement from year to year with the same cohort of students will be closing the achievement gap, the ultimate goal of NCLB. However, these districts are not recognized for this accomplishment under the current structure of AYP. NCLB should be modified to allow states to determine whether or not a school or district has made Adequate Yearly Progress based on longitudinal growth in student achievement. The improvement made by students from the beginning to the end of the school year or as they advance in grade level should be part of the evaluation.

• Allow additional alternate assessment systems for students with disabilities and English language learners: In the past two years, the Department of Education has made significant changes to regulations affecting students in these two subgroups. The 1% rule governing special education students taking an assessment based on alternate achievement standards as well as the recently proposed 2% cap on students assessed under modified achievement standards address some of the concerns. However, to ensure that special education students are appropriately assessed, the Individual Education Program should determine which assessment is used to calculate AYP (i.e.: regular grade-level assessment with or without accommodations, alternate assessment, or modified based standards assessment).
  
  The regulations affecting the participation of English language learners in state assessment programs have been modified. Students who have been in the country for less than two years should be exempt from taking both the reading and math assessments. Not until year three should their results be counted towards adequate yearly progress (AYP). In addition, based on current research regarding academic language acquisition, once they are no longer considered to be ELL students, their assessments should be included in the ELL subgroup for three years, not the current two years. Performance expectations need to be ambitious, but realistically attainable.

• Permit states to design accountability systems where every student counts the same number of times: While disaggregating assessment results is absolutely essential to the goal of closing the achievement gap, the current structure of the law allows some students to count only once or twice while another student may count up to five times. This submits schools and districts to an odd form of “double jeopardy” where they may be subject to sanctions repeatedly for the struggles of the same students.
  
  Design an accountability system that counts the scores of students in a sub-group no more than twice using the categories of racial/ethnic and special populations (economically disadvantaged, English language learners, or special needs) with one factor applied to each category.

2.   School and District Improvement

• Allow districts to retain the ability to provide supplemental educational services after district identification for improvement: Recently, the U.S. Department of Education placed some urban districts in difficult situations regarding the continued provision of offering supplemental educational services after the district has been identified for improvement. Since the states must approve and review the quality of the supplemental educational service providers under the existing statute, it should not be necessary for the U. S. Department of Education to mandate a blanket prohibition to districts that find themselves on the list of districts that are in need of improvement. States require a rigorous application to become a provider and include a review process to determine the effectiveness of all providers.
  
  Districts should be given the same rights as other providers and should only be removed as providers if their supplemental educational services are deemed to be ineffective after a thorough review, not because they have been assumed to be ineffective. Districts are already held to higher standards than other providers by being required to employ only highly qualified staff and provide instruction related to state standards.

• Designate schools for improvement only after the same subgroup fails to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years: As a result of not making AYP, the district and school actively addressed the subgroup problem. The next year after implementing the intervention plan, that particular subgroup meets its goal. However, now the school is designated for school improvement because a new subgroup experienced difficulty in a different subject area. While the school successfully addressed the problem in year one, it now enters the school improvement phase and must offer school choice without having a chance to address the new area of concern.

• Implement in year three, “corrective action”, a “demonstration of progress” phase: If while in year three of district AYP improvement, the district shows progress towards meeting its AYP targets, the district temporarily does not advance any further toward the “restructuring” phase. Instead, the district enters into a comprehensive review process administered by the SEA and several LEAs. As long as the progress continues, the district is allowed to focus its time and resources on that effort.

3.   Supplemental Education Services and School Choice

• Provide School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services flexibility: These programs should be available to the students in the sub-group(s) who failed to make their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more years. In addition, supplemental educational services should be targeted to the low income sub-group students that failed to meet the AYP standards.
  
  With state approval, the LEA could offer supplemental educational services in the first year of improvement status in lieu of school choice.

• Require SES providers to use only highly qualified teachers: School districts are required to employ highly qualified teachers as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Supplemental educational services (SES) providers should be held to the same requirements and standards as the school districts they serve.
   

• Allow districts to use 10 percent of the set aside for school choice and supplemental educational services to support the significant administrative and implementation costs associated with these programs. Districts implementing school choice and SES are burdened with additional expenses that result from implementing these requirements. Under the current system, districts can only use the central set aside designation which decreases the overall funds available to the schools. The expense should be charged to the specific programs.

• Increase the allowable carryover for districts incurring SES charges: The current carryover limitation for districts that are incurring SES charges needs to be revised. Districts are required to set aside funds for this use and must reserve them past the time we are able to amend the budget. The remaining funds not accessed by the students are then subject to the 15% carryover limitation.

4.   Federal Support

• Fulfill the federal promise for NCLB support: Never before has the federal government expected so much and tied so much accountability to the appropriation of federal funds. The successful implementation of NCLB is an important national challenge and deserves funding at the levels authorized by the Act.
  
  The focus of this support must remain as one of the major commitments of NCLB. Recently, important components of NCLB have taken significant cuts, such as the Title V program. Smaller grant programs and new initiatives certainly allow Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to move ahead on additional priorities, but school districts still must meet the obligations of the major provisions of NCLB. A program such as Title V provides the districts with resources to support the district’s improvement efforts, while a new initiative funded at this program’s expense might never benefit these students. Title V funds provide the flexibility to districts to support student achievement through the innovative programs and customization allowed in order to achieve the NCLB goals.
  
  In addition to support for early literacy and learning readiness programs, early childhood programs, such as Head Start and Even Start, need adequate federal funding to prepare students for kindergarten.
  
  Appropriations for programs providing for the educational needs of adolescent youth in our high schools should also be increased. Additional funding for the Carl D. Perkins Program will prepare a large number of high school students for further education, training and the transition from school to the work force.