burr & gregg introduce bush nclb reauth bill

["Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>]

Sens. Burr and Gregg have introduced what is in effect the Bush NCLB reauthorization legislation. (Sen. Enzi, ranking Republican, did not sign on - perhaps because he is on committee or perhaps some other reason.) 

 

A very quick scan of their Title I and II indicates that they view the law, as Spellings said, 99.44% pure. They don't seem to change much at all (I have not compared with existing law, do not know what they may have deleted - I focused on what they altered or added). Assuming I did not miss something major, this bill really only makes 2 major changes relative to FEA and Joint Statement:

            - expands testing to grades 10-12 inclusive, rather than reducing the testing burden

            - removes the "other" clause from the restructuring sanctions, which is what most states are using, according to CEP. 

 

I also saw little of the Aspen institutes recommendations, beyond more testing and some merit pay provisions. 

 

http://www.eduwonk.com/NCLB07BILL.pdf - it is not up on Thomas yet, apparently. 

 

A few points, going through this bill (pages refer to the pdf version you can download): 

 

As Bush wants, mandated reading and math testing will expand to testing in grades 10-12 (all this would leave out grade 9 - ?) (p. 36)

 

"growth" is OK so long as all kids are to score proficient by 2014 - confirming the existing Dept of Ed approach. (p 28) 

 

Puts in law the 2% less-severely-disabled group (p 22); and a subsection (d) [page 38] on alternative and modified standards (which I think would apply to the 1 and 2 percent categories only).

 

Allows both choice and supp services after 2 years of not making AYP (now called Academic Alert status) [p. 70] ; but see p 95 which if I read correctly caps SES at 5% and in effect puts more money into transfers (up to 15%) - maybe I misunderstand. 

            

For schools in improvement, they have to show measurable annual gains so that kids at that school can be expected to attain proficiency by 2014 - not sure if that slightly alters the current situation. (p 76)

 

Under the improvement section, lots of requirements for "scientifically-based research"

 

The next few years after initial identification essentially carry on the improvement stuff. The next real leap continues to be 3 years after put on alert (5 years of not making AYP) - continues restructuring (p. 87)

            - allows for renegotiating teacher contracts (not mandated)

            - has "focused restructuring" if fewer than ½ kids don't make AYP (p89) - new curric, extensive prof dev, academic catch up programs, "shall replace or reassign underperforming staff" [appears mandatory - not sure they define such staff]; may restructure management

            - creates "comprehensive restructuring" for schools in which more than ½ kids don't make AYP (p 91). These are the same ones as now in restructuring requirement [charter, replace staff, private management, state control] except that it eliminates the "other" clause that most states and districts are apparently using; but it adds closing the school and allowing mayoral control as 2 other options. In effect, this would lead to far more privatizing/'outsourcing'. And talk about "bubble kids" - 1 kid as the line between below or above the ½?? BUT for a focused restructuring school that does not then make AYP, it shall be subject to comprehensive restructuring. Once "restructured," the clock starts anew toward making AYP. Nothing is said about what to do if that does not work. Start with SES and transfers and a new improvement plan again??

 

 

Makes almost no changes to sec 1118 parental involvement

Under prof dev p 113, LEAs to use 5% of their T1 funds for prof dev, recruitment and retention, which may include incentive or merit pay

 

There is a whole section graduation that includes support for AP and IB programs, etc at p 172

 

Title II (which I scanned very quickly) includes support for "merit" pay and other "differentiated" pay schemes; I may have missed it but neither here nor Title I do they address the many useless things allowed under prof dev; and in Title II they add in various things on recruitment of teachers. 

 

I have not looked at Title III; there are I am sure issues re: ELLs and SWDs and other things that deserve our attention.



Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Co-Executive Director
FairTest
342 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-864-4810    fax 617-497-2224
monty@fairtest.org
http://www.fairtest.org
Donate: https://secure.entango.com/servlet/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk