KEY POINTS ON ESEA REAUTHORIZATION

  1. Oppose Straight A’s , which would let States and districts exempt themselves from virtually all federal requirements.
    1. Straight A’s would tell schools they can take Title I money but no longer have to figure out with parents how they will provide curriculum, effective instruction, highly qualified staff, and individual help for students to master standards. And states and districts could ignore the requirements to help schools do these things.
    2. Straight A’s would tell schools they could take Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration money, but no longer actually need to have and implement a comprehensive school reform plan.
    3. Straight A’s would tell schools and districts they can take federal vocational money but no longer have to ensure that vocational students are not channeled into second-class education and narrow job training.
    4. In short, Straight A’s cuts the legs out from under school reform and eliminates the elements of a quality education that parents should be able to count on from their school.
    5. Straight A’s pretends that these core requirements are the barrier to quality education, when the real barrier is failure to implement them.
    6. Even if there were federal requirements that were standing in the way of reform – there is already more than enough flexibility in existing law – through waivers, consolidation of plans and applications, consolidation of administrative funds, and Ed-Flex.
  2. Improve Title I:

     

    1. Make it clear that schoolwide programs can consolidate their funds under other programs, but not ignore the substantive requirements of this programs.
    2. Require that targeted assistance programs have a plan for student achievement, just like schoolwide programs already do.
    3. Tighten up the requirements for adequate yearly progress by clarifying that adequate yearly progress must (a) be enough for all students to achieve proficiency in ten years, (b) be accomplished for disadvantaged and limited-English proficient subgroups as well as all students, (c) be achieved in all subjects for which the State has standards.
    4. Reports cards and other information for parents, schools, and the public should :
      1. Provide frequent information for parents and teachers about how well their individual children are doing in relation to standards. Teachers and principals should be better trained in how to design classroom-based assessments that will provide this information, and to how to use the information. This does not require, and will not be accomplished by, additional state-level tests – the existing Title I state assessment requirements are already sufficient for program accountability.
      2. Provide parents with information about the qualifications of their child’s teachers, as a matter of course, rather than only upon request, which can be intimidating
      3. Provide information about students who do not take the state assessments, fail to be promoted, drop out, or fail to graduate. These students should be taken into account when determining whether a school is making adequate progress in achievement.
      4. Make sure that parents are heavily involved in designing the report cards and other information that parents get.
    5. Change negotiated rule-making by making sure that consumers (parents and students) have equal representation in the negotiations, instead of being vastly outnumbered.
  1. Make it clear that schoolwide programs can consolidate their funds under other programs, but not ignore the substantive requirements of this programs.
  2. Require that targeted assistance programs have a plan for student achievement, just like schoolwide programs already do.
  3. Tighten up the requirements for adequate yearly progress by clarifying that adequate yearly progress must (a) be enough for all students to achieve proficiency in ten years, (b) be accomplished for disadvantaged and limited-English proficient subgroups as well as all students, (c) be achieved in all subjects for which the State has standards.
  4. Reports cards and other information for parents, schools, and the public should :
    1. Provide frequent information for parents and teachers about how well their individual children are doing in relation to standards. Teachers and principals should be better trained in how to design classroom-based assessments that will provide this information, and to how to use the information. This does not require, and will not be accomplished by, additional state-level tests – the existing Title I state assessment requirements are already sufficient for program accountability.
    2. Provide parents with information about the qualifications of their child’s teachers, as a matter of course, rather than only upon request, which can be intimidating
    3. Provide information about students who do not take the state assessments, fail to be promoted, drop out, or fail to graduate. These students should be taken into account when determining whether a school is making adequate progress in achievement.
    4. Make sure that parents are heavily involved in designing the report cards and other information that parents get.
  5. Change negotiated rule-making by making sure that consumers (parents and students) have equal representation in the negotiations, instead of being vastly outnumbered.
  1. Promote requirements to help ensure that teachers are certified in, or have majors in, the fields they are teaching, but don’t call that "highly qualified" or "fully qualified." As in current law, Title I schools and districts still need to work with parents to figure out how to make sure that the certified teachers are highly qualified to help all their students master high standards.
  2. Make sure that Parent Information and Resource Centers are truly an independent source of support and information for parents, with majority parent boards or governing bodies. Also provide for Local Family Information Centers to provide locally based support especially in high-poverty areas.