April 16, 2009

NREAC Conference Call

Phil Gerek
Bob Mahaffey
Ray Patrick
Claudette Morton
Mary Kusler
Bill LeTarte
Bob Rogers
Darrell Rudd
Joe Bard
Noelle Ellerson
Brian Talbott
Boyd Dressler
Dave Walrath
Jimmy Cunningham

USED Update: Stimulus and NCLB Regulations

• Since our last conference call, the US Education Department has issued a set of fact sheets and a set of guidance related to the stimulus and its implementation. All of the documents are available on the USED website as well as the AASA Stimulus Webpage.
  USED Stimulus Resources: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html
  AASA Stimulus Webpage: http://www.aasa.org/content.cfm?ItemNumber=11157
• When USED released the Title I, IDEA and State Fiscal Stabilization Fund guidance on April 1, they also released a letter announcing that he will keep most of the October 2008 Title I regulations issued by the former Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings. Duncan confirmed, however, he intends to propose regulatory amendments to repeal two provisions. First, the Secretary will propose amendments to the requirement that states revise their Accountability Workbooks and undergo peer review of their AYP definitions. Given the increased requirements on states as a result of ARRA, and the likelihood of further revision after NCLB reauthorization, the Secretary determined this requirement was too burdensome. Second, he will seek a change to the policy prohibiting local districts and schools identified as "in need of improvement" from serving as supplemental educational service providers.  In addition, he will consider one year waivers if a state's current assessment timeline precludes its districts from meeting the 14-day public school choice notice requirement.  Finally, the Secretary will invite public comment on all of these proposed changes.  (http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/090401.html)
• It is important for rural schools to weigh in during this comments period.
• USED released the metrics (data collection points) state will used under the race to the top and state fiscal stabilization fund. The metrics correspond to the four assurances established in ARRA, the same four assurances that will likely have a leading place in any ESEA reauthorization efforts coming out of USED. The full letter is attached to the email.
  The four assurances and related metrics are outlined here:
• Teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have highly qualified teachers – A state would report on the extent to which all students have access to qualified and effective teachers and whether or not teachers are evaluated based on how well their students perform. More specifically, a state would report:
• the number and percent of teachers in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty
• schools in the state who are highly qualified;
• the number and percent of teachers and principals rated at each performance level in each local educational agency’s (LEA’s) teacher evaluation system; and
• the number and percent of LEA teacher and principal evaluation systems that require evidence of student achievement outcomes.
• Higher standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning – A state would report the extent to which public information is available regarding student performance compared to other states, the extent to which all students are fully included in state assessment and accountability systems and are provided high-quality assessments, and how many high school seniors continue on to pursue a college education or technical training. To this end, states would report:
• the most recent state reading and mathematics NAEP scores on 2009-10 State Report Cards;
• whether the state is taking steps to enhance the quality of state academic assessments, including whether the state is engaged in activities consistent with section 6112(a) of the ESEA to
• work in collaboration or consortia with other states or organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state academic assessments;
• measure student academic achievement using multiple measures of academic achievement from multiple sources;
• chart student progress over time; and
• evaluate student academic achievement using comprehensive instruments, such as performance and technology-based assessments;
• whether the state has developed and implemented valid and reliable assessments for students with disabilities and the percent of students with disabilities tested on state mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) assessments;
• whether the state has developed and implemented valid and reliable assessment for English language learners and the percent of English language learners tested on state mathematics and ELA assessments; and
• the number and percentage of students by school who graduate high school and go on to complete at least one year’s worth of college credit (as applicable to a degree) within two years.
• Intensive support, effective interventions, and improved achievement in schools that need it the most – A state would identify schools most in need of academic intervention, and report on the progress of those schools in implementing reforms to improve student academic achievement. More specifically, a state would report:
• the number of schools in restructuring status that have demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed, or consolidated within last three years;
• of the schools in restructuring status, the number of schools in the bottom five percent that have demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed or consolidated within the last three years;
• the number and percent of schools in restructuring status that have made progress on state assessments in mathematics and ELA in last year; and
• whether the state allows charter schools and whether there is a cap restricting the number of such schools, the number of charter schools currently operating in the state, and the number of charter schools closed within the last three years for academic purposes.
• Better information to educators and the public, to address the individual needs of students and improve teacher performance – A state would report on the extent to which it has implemented a system to provide greater clarity to parents about the quality of their child’s education. This system will enable educators to use real time information about the individual needs of students, move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and improve their performance. In particular, a state would report:
• progress towards implementing a statewide data system which includes each of the 12 elements described in the America COMPETES Act, to track progress of individual students, from preschool through postsecondary education, and match students to individual teachers; and
• whether all teachers in mathematics and ELA in tested grades receive timely data on the performance of their students and estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement, in a manner that informs instruction and includes appropriate benchmarks.

Attached

The next conference call will be Wednesday, April 29 at 3 pm ET.