Fwd: EdWeek on NCLB reauthorization

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Begin forwarded message:

  From: James Crawford <jwcrawford@COMPUSERVE.COM>

  Date: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:01:05 AM US/Pacific

  To: ELLADVOC@asu.edu

  Subject: EdWeek on NCLB reauthorization

  Reply-To: James Crawford <jwcrawford@COMPUSERVE.COM>

  Some hopeful signs, but I suspect that "major changes" will be in the eye of
  the beholder.

  Jim

  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/07/18/43nclb.h26.html

  NCLB-Renewal Ideas Circulate on Capitol Hill

  By Alyson Klein and David J. Hoff0000,0000,0000

  Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor
  Committee, has signaled to freshmen in Congress that he’ll propose some major
  changes to the 5½-year-old No Child Left Behind Act when he releases his
  reauthorization bill, possibly in the coming weeks.

  Meanwhile, two Senate Republicans last week introduced their own NCLB
  reauthorization bill, which would also add more flexibility to the law while
  retaining its core accountability principles.

  Rep. Miller’s anticipated revisions include ideas that have been popular in a
  number of recent NCLB reauthorization proposals, such as allowing “growth
  models” as a gauge of student progress and instituting a more tailored range
  of consequences for schools that don’t meet achievement goals.

  Rep. Miller outlined his thinking in a memo distributed last month to
  freshman House members.

  Under the outline, schools could get credit for individual student gains in
  proficiency—using so-called growth models—and not just for gains by cohorts
  of students compared with those in previous years. Schools struggling to meet
  the law’s goals would be subject to interventions appropriate to their needs,
  according to the outline. And those that continually missed achievement
  targets would receive more intensive support.

  The outline also calls for changes to assessments and accountability systems
  for English-language learners and students in special education, although it
  doesn’t offer specifics.

  Rep. Miller, who was a key architect of the NCLB bill that President Bush
  signed into law in 2002 and has strongly supported federal accountability
  measures, also wrote that he would like to allow states to use “more than
  test scores” to determine whether students are making progress under the law.
  He suggested such measures could include “real-time classroom tests that
  allow teachers to adjust their instruction as necessary.”

  That recommendation drew criticism from Amy Wilkins, a vice president of the
  Education Trust0000,0000,0000, a Washington-based research and advocacy group
  that promotes policies to serve low-income students. She said the
  recommendation would allow schools to use so-called formative assessments,
  which are designed to be a diagnostic and teaching tool, for accountability.

  She said such tests—while beneficial for instruction—don’t provide a clear,
  comparable measure of student gains for accountability.

  “I’m surprised and disappointed,” Ms. Wilkins said of Mr. Miller’s outline.
  She said that in the past, Rep. Miller “has been clear as a bell on the need
  for transparent, straightforward [accountability]. This seems to back away
  from that.”

  Aaron K. Albright, a spokesman for Rep. Miller, took issue with Ms. Wilkins’
  criticisms.

  “These complaints are a misrepresentation,” he said. “We strongly believe in
  accountability.”

  Joel Packer, the chief NCLB lobbyist for the National Education Association,
  said he was “generally pleased” with the list of ideas Mr. Miller presented.

  “The broad outline closely matches what we’ve advocated for,” he said, noting
  that the 3.2 million-member teachers’ union had pushed for growth models and
  allowing schools to use multiple measures to show student gains.

  Mr. Packer also noted that Rep. Miller’s memo, which uses the word
  “interventions” rather than “sanctions” to refer to measures to help
  struggling schools, appears to reflect a shift in tone from “negative
  consequences and mandates” to “helpful, supportive assistance.”

  Rep. Miller has yet to release a comprehensive reauthorization bill, although
  several education lobbyists said his staff is aiming to unveil such
  legislation before Congress adjourns at the end of the month for its August
  recess.

  The Senate bill was introduced July 12 by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a former
  Senate education committee chairman and another architect of the NCLB law.

  The measure, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Richard M. Burr, R-N.C., would
  echo some of Rep. Miller’s ideas by introducing more flexibility into the
  accountability system at the center of the law.

  It would permit all 50 states to participate in the Department of Education’s
  growth-model pilot.

  The legislation would revise accountability rules for English-language
  learners, by allowing them two years to learn English before becoming a part
  of a school’s accountability system, rather than one year, as under the
  current law.

  The bill would also place a new emphasis on high schools, calling for
  supports to help identify students at risk of dropping out and resources for
  accelerated “catch-up” programs for students who are struggling academically.
  But it would not require additional testing in high schools, unlike a
  blue-print for reauthorization the White House released in January.

  The bill would retain the deadline of the 2013-14 school year for bringing
  all students to proficiency.

  Differing Consequences

  Rep. Miller is likely to receive widespread support for his proposal to
  differentiate interventions based on how far schools fall short of goals for
  adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under the federal law, one expert on the
  law said.

  Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, a
  Washington-based research and advocacy organization, noted that Secretary of
  Education Margaret Spellings endorsed the idea last month in a meeting with
  the USA Today editorial board.

  “It’s dawning on people … that so many schools are being identified for
  improvement and states don’t have the resources to adequately deal with
  them,” said Mr. Jennings, a former House Democratic aide.

  But, Mr. Jennings added, Congress is out of touch with the field when it
  comes to Reading First—a $1 billion-a-year program under the NCLB law that is
  intended to improve reading instruction in the primary grades. Appropriators
  have recommended significant cuts to the program for fiscal 2008, citing
  audits that suggested federal officials improperly influenced states’
  decisions about instructional materials to be purchased under the program.

  Still, the program is popular with education officials around the country,
  says a new report from Mr. Jennings’ center.

  The Center on Education Policy found in a recent study that 42 states use
  professional development paid for by the reading program to help schools
  failing to meet AYP goals. Forty states said they used curriculum materials
  purchased under Reading First in schools in need of improvement.

  “We have a real disconnect between the Congress and what’s happening in local
  school districts and the states,” Mr. Jennings said.

Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!