Fwd: "Key areas" for NCLB amendments

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Ammunition for those planning to confront Miller next Saturday.

Susan

Begin forwarded message:

  From: James Crawford <jwcrawford@COMPUSERVE.COM>

  Date: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:22:59 AM US/Pacific

  To: ELLADVOC@asu.edu

  Subject: "Key areas" for NCLB amendments

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

  Chairman Miller's staff sent the following memo out today. Interesting that
  it's addressed to "freshmen members" rather than to all Democratic
  colleagues. Apparently the freshmen are considered to be most dissatisfied
  with NCLB.

  Interesting to see where Miller is promising changes, although it's all
  pretty vague at this point. E.g., there's the perennial call for better ELL
  assessments, but does that mean invalid & unreliable ones won't be used for
  high stakes? No indication.

  Jim

  Progress Report: 

                NCLB/ESEA Reauthorization

  TO:  Freshmen Members of Congress

  FR:  George Miller

  In response to recommendations from parents, teachers, principals,
  superintendents, and other stakeholders at our13 NCLB/ESEA hearings this year
  and a review of written recommendations from over 90 education groups, I have
  asked committee staff to develop proposals for our consideration in nine key
  areas. Your feedback on these changes is key to the reauthorization
  process. Thank you.

  ·        Allow states to use growth models that recognize progress over
  time. 

  The current accountability system requires schools to compare different
  groups of students year to year (i.e. comparing this year’s third graders
  with last year’s third graders). Schools are judged to have made “adequate
  yearly progress” (AYP) only when a set percentage of students reach an
  established benchmark at a given time – regardless of schools having a range
  of starting points in terms of their students’ proficiency. States should be
  allowed to use growth models that can expand the focus – and give schools
  credit for – the progress of low-performing and high-performing
  students. Funding would be provided to help states design and establish the
  data systems used for growth models and to expand the use of data and
  technology in our schools.

  ·        Allow states to use more than test scores to measure student
  learning and school performance. Concerns have been expressed that too much
  weight is placed on standardized tests and that student progress should be
  measured more fairly, comprehensively, and accurately. States should be
  allowed to gather multiple sources of evidence of student and school success
  – such as graduation rates and real-time classroom tests that allow teachers
  to adjust their instruction as necessary.

  ·        Improve test quality. Concerns must be addressed about fairness,
  validity, reliability, and appropriateness of tests for the students being
  tested, particularly for students who are in special education or students
  who are English Language Learners. In exchange for increased resources for
  developing tests, states should be required to improve the quality of tests
  to better measure what students know and can do to help drive richer
  classroom instruction. 

  ·        Direct appropriate and flexible interventions to schools that need
  the most assistance. Schools that have not made AYP are all treated the same
  under NCLB – with the same interventions and sanctions taking place over the
  same period of time. Schools should be allowed to use proven instructional
  interventions appropriate to their needs, and chronically struggling schools
  must receive more intensive support and assistance.

  ·        Address the high school dropout crisis and take comprehensive steps
  to turn around low-performing high schools.  Over 30 percent of all high
  school students fail to receive a diploma on time. Proposals should include
  providing critical support to help turn around low-performing high schools
  and ways to guarantee real progress toward closing graduation
  gaps. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the Department of
  Education does not allow states to over-inflate their graduation rates and
  assessment scores by using questionable statistics.

  ·        Making necessary changes to assessments and accountability so that
  the law works better for English Language Learners (ELLs). NCLB requires
  states to offer assessments in the language and form most likely to yield
  accurate data “to the extent practicable.” This has resulted in only a small
  number of states that have developed appropriate academic assessments for
  ELLs. Proposals should prioritize closing the achievement gap between ELL
  students and their English proficient peers and ensure sound instructional
  practices are available for ELL instruction.

  ·        Modify the assessment and accountability systems so that the
  academic progress of students with disabilities can be accurately measured
  and reported. NCLB requires the majority of students with disabilities to be
  assessed at grade level rather than at instructional level thereby creating a
  disconnect between the law and some students’ Individual Education Plans
  (IEPs). Assessments should be developed that would more accurately reflect
  what students have learned.

  ·        Build and elevate the teaching profession by providing teachers and
  principals with the supports they need to succeed – including higher
  salaries, career ladders, mentoring, and performance pay based on proven
  models. The teacher shortage crisis and the need to increase the number of
  outstanding teachers in shortage subjects like math, science, foreign
  language, special education and English Language Learners must be a
  priority. It is also imperative that we help close the achievement gap by
  closing the teacher quality gap – making sure that poor and minority students
  have teachers of the same quality as do other students.

  ·        Increase funding so that all schools have the resources they need to
  help all children succeed. Since signing No Child Left Behind in 2002,
  President Bush has shortchanged schools by over $56 billion. We are focused
  on putting funding for our schools back on track. On June 7th the House
  Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved a $4.2 billion
  increase for education for 2008. This includes an 8.4 percent increase in
  funding for No Child Left Behind. Programs that will see substantial
  increases include Title I Grants (an increase of $1.5 billion for a total of
  $14.3 billion), the Title I School Improvement Fund (an increase of $375
  million for a total of $500 million), and English Language Acquisition Grants
  (an increase of $106 million for a total of $775 million – the highest level
  of funding in the history of the program.)

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!