A key provision of current Title I law requires states to set criteria for determining which schools are consistently low-performing. And then help them improve or, if this fails, take “corrective action.” Unfortunately for thousands of children in low-performing schools, state criteria for determining which schools need help are so low as to be meaningless, according to a new “white paper” from the National Title I and School Reform Advocacy Project of the Center for Law and Education.
Many of the proposals for Title I reauthorization “focus on what happens to a school once it is identified for school improvement,” note Margot Rogers and Christine Stoneman, CLE staff attorneys for the project. “Yet, it is critical to analyze what criteria states use to determine which schools are in need of improvement.” If the criteria are too lenient, few, if any, schools will go into school improvement, rendering the improvement process moot.
The paper describes current law and the debate over how provisions intended to ensure all schools make progress resulting in all students meeting high state standards. It describes the meaning of “adequate yearly progress,” as defined by Congress; and of “transitional measure of progress,” or the law’s provision to give states time to fully implement new accountability systems. It then uses criteria from two states to show how state policymaking has thwarted the original intent of the law.
Wisconsin adopted a “continuous progress indicator” that combines gains and losses in three categories–percentages of students scoring proficient and above, percentage of students tested, and percentages of students moving from the lowest category (minimal) to basic (still below standard). The state, explains the paper, allows schools to offset failure to move students to the level of achievement they ought to have with increases in the number of students tested or moving out of the bottom category of proficiency. Such schools could persist for years at low levels of performance without being tagged for improvement.
Illinois adopted a definition of “transitional measure of progress” that says once 50% of students in a school meet the standards, there is no further requirement for annual progress. In addition, Illinois’ policy allows a school to offset poor performance in one subject with progress in other grades or subjects.
These states are neither the best nor worst in terms of meeting Title I requirements, say Rogers and Stoneman. They illustrate, however, ways in which states can fail to meet the basic criteria set by Congress.
In addition to preserving and enforcing the law’s current trigger for school intervention (failing to make enough progress each year for all students to become proficient within their school careers), the paper recommends two small changes: clarify that states must put schools/districts into school improvement if they fail to make sufficient progress that will enable all students to meet standards within 10 years; and clarify that schools/districts must be held accountable for enabling all students to meet the standards in all subjects and grades in which the state assessment is given.
The white paper, “Triggering Educational Accountability,” is available free on CLE’s website: www.cleweb.org
The House approved a Republican Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA) that attempts to define in a federal bill for the first time what is a fully qualified teacher. TEA, passed on a vote of 239-185 after a party-line defeat of a Democratic bill, combines funding from the Eisenhower Professional Development program, Goals 2000, and President Clinton’s new teacher hiring program into a $2 billion professional development program.
Under Rep. William Goodling (R-PA), chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being taken up in a series of smaller bills. TEA is the first one to pass.
The House bill defines a fully qualified teacher as one who has obtained state certification or passes the state teacher licensing exam and holds a license to teach. Also, an elementary teacher must hold a bachelor’s degree and demonstrate knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, math, science, and other areas of the elementary school curriculum. Secondary school teachers must hold a bachelor’s degree and demonstrate a high level of competency in all subjects they teach through either high performance on a rigorous state/local academic subject area test or completion of an academic major in their assigned classes. The TEA fails to define quality in ways that address the effectiveness of teachers or the other qualities of what makes a good teacher.
TEA does not reserve any money for class-size reduction specifically. School districts may earmark the money for that or use it to hire special education teachers or increase funding for professional development. President Clinton has threatened to veto it because it does not ensure continuation of his class-size reduction initiative.
The bill would require states to report progress on: improving student academic performance; closing the academic achievement gap between minority and non-minority students and low-income and wealthier students; increasing the percentage of core academic classes taught by “fully qualified teachers”, as defined in this bill; and reducing class sizes. States also must submit a plan ensuring that all teachers within the state are “fully qualified” as defined, by the end of 2003.
The House also approved additions to activities states could fund under their 5% set aside, including: expansion of teacher mentoring programs, professional development in technology, and standards for state alternative certification programs. Local districts must target their funds to schools with the lowest proportion of fully qualified teachers, the largest class sizes, or that have been identified as needing improvement.
- Peggy Cross, Human Rights Intern
Witnesses took different approaches to the topic of improving uses of ESEA funds at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on July 20.
Spending patterns of local districts are difficult to compare for research or policymaking purposes because of their different accounting systems, according to Robert Sampieri, director of K-12 education for Price Waterhouse Coopers, a major accounting and research firm. This creates barriers to tracing the amount of funding and sources that reach the classroom.
Two other witnesses pushed for block grants to states. Nina Shokrati Rees, education policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said her organization’s “Straight A's” proposal would give states flexibility in return for improving academic achievement (however the state defines it). Introduced in the House and Senate, Straight A's would waive requirements of 14 federal education programs (including Title I and Perkins), giving states the money in a block grant to spend as they wish (see Washington Update, 6/28/99). Mike Watson of the Murphy Commission of Little Rock, Ark., supported another block grant proposal, the Dollars to the Classroom initiative introduced by Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-AR). It also would give states flexibility in deciding how to spend federal education money.
Finally, Betty Preston, chair of the Missouri State Board of Education, warned against bypassing the state education agency and sending money directly to local districts. Channeling funds directly to classrooms would not ensure that good teaching and learning occur, she said. Rather, the ability of states to provide technical assistance should be enhanced.
- Peggy Cross, Human Rights Intern
“Straight A” Proposal Would Wipe Out Parent and Student Rights to Quality
Rep. William Goodling (R-PA), chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) have unveiled a Republican proposal for a new federal role in education. It is a block grant that would eliminate federal requirements for any program a state chooses to put into a block grant. This would include Title I, the Carl Perkins vocational program, Comprehensive School Reform Demonstrations, and many more.
Even if a state chooses not to opt for a block grant, a local education agency could do so and remove all program requirements that apply to the district. The “Academic Achievement for All–Straight A’s Act” includes virtually no requirements regarding high-quality teachers, parent involvement, accelerated curriculum, individual assistance, targeting of funds to low-income students, or many of the other protections that Title I and other federal laws currently contain.
States would have a free rein for five years. After that, if a state is not meeting 80% of its goals for reducing performance gaps, it would have to comply with federal requirements. If a state has made little or no progress, it would lose only one-half of its administrative funds (limited to 1% under Title I). If a state makes significant progress on closing the gap, it would get a bonus of 5% of its block grant funds. For five years, however, a child in a n effective program would have no recourse.
“Straight A's” threatens the rights of parents and students to a quality education even more than does the controversial “Ed-Flex” legislation passed earlier this year. It has the support of the Republican leadership in the House.