Recommendations f
or Eff
ectiv
e
Teachers f
or
All Students,
Eff
ectiv
e Principals f
or
All Comm
unities
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation D efinition of a H ighly Q ualified Teacher Section 9101(23)All teachers must be highly qualified b
y the end of the
2006–07 school y
ear (originally 2005–06 school y
ear
,
but extended via guidance fr
om the U.S. S
ecr
etar
y of
Education). H
ighly qualified is defined as possessing
state cer
tification or licensur
e, holding a bachelor
’s
degr
ee and demonstrating subject matter kno
wledge. H ighly Q ualified Teacher (HQ T). M aintain curr
ent law for four y
ears after the
enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed NCLB as described belo
w in the HQET section. A
dd
one additional way to acquir
e HQ
T status: obtaining an adv
anced cr
edential that
requir
es master
y of subject matter and pedagogy thr
ough a compr ehensiv e por tfolio assessment. H ighly Q
ualified and Effectiv
e
Teacher (HQET).
D
uring the initial period of
reauthorization (2008–12) all teachers teaching cor
e academic subjects would
be r
equir
ed to meet HQ
T or HQET r
equir
ements. HQET would include all of
the existing HQ
T pr
ovisions and would also r
equir
e teachers to meet both of the
follo
wing criteria: • D
emonstrating, thr
ough a v
alue-added metric, learning gains b
y their students
in the subjects they teach • Attaining one of the follo
wing: a positiv
e ev
aluation of a teacher
’s per
formance
by his or her principal, or a positiv
e ev aluation of a teacher ’s per formance thr ough a peer r evie w pr ocess The pr ocesses dev
eloped or selected for peer and principal r
evie
ws must be appr
ov
ed
by a state or district, and teachers and principals would be r
equir
ed to r
eceiv
e training
in its use. The demonstration of learning gains would be w
eighted no less than 50
per
cent of the total ev
aluation to
war
d achieving HQET status.
All states must establish HQET within four y
ears of enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed
NCLB, but can implement such r
equir
ements earlier if they can demonstrate
ability to meet necessar
y data r equir ements. HQET would r equir e each state to dev
elop a data system capable of v
alue-added measur ement (tr acking individual student pr ogr ess fr om y ear to y ear). S
tates that want to include gr
owth in their
adequate y
early pr
ogr
ess (A
YP) calculations would be r
equir
ed to implement HQET
requir
ements at the same time that they implement plans for including gr
owth in
their A
YP calculations.
All teachers in a state would be r
equir
ed to meet the ne
w r
equir
ement of HQET once
HQET is established in that state. The H
ighly O bjectiv e, U niform, S tate S tandar d of Ev aluation (HOUSSE) pr
ocess for teachers who w
er
e teaching befor
e the passage of
NCLB would be pr
eser
ved during the r
eauthorization period and as a par
t of HQET
.
Information on the HQET status of teachers would be r
epor ted to par ents on state and local r epor t car
ds in a way that is similar to curr
ent HQ
T r
epor
ting. The par
ent
right-to-kno
w pr
ovisions would also include HQET status of their child
’s teacher . Thr ee y ears of achiev ement data b y a teacher
’s students would be used to determine a
teacher
’s HQET status. The learning gains of a teacher
’s students would be compar
ed
against the learning gains of other teachers in the state using a v
alue-added metric.
The learning gains of special education teachers and teachers of E
nglish language
learners would be compar
ed to other such teachers in the state.
Teachers who ar
e
in the top thr
ee quar
tiles of pr
oducing learning gains and who also r
eceiv e either a positiv e principal ev aluation or peer r evie w would be consider ed to hav e achiev ed HQET status. O
nce a teacher obtains HQET status, that teacher is not r
equir
ed to be
ev
aluated on a y
early basis to maintain this status.
After two of the initial thr
ee y
ears of data is collected, teachers who ar
e at risk of not
achieving HQET status would be r
equir
ed to be giv
en pr
ofessional dev
elopment
and training designed to assist them in obtaining HQET status. S
uch pr
ofessional
dev
elopment would be r
equir
ed to be continued for a total of thr
ee y
ears.
Title II
teacher quality funds would be allo
w
ed to be used for this purpose.
If a teacher has not achiev
ed HQET status after thr
ee y
ears of pr
ofessional
dev
elopment, the school
’s principal must annually notify par
ents of the teacher
’s
inability to achiev
e HQET status. A
chiev
ement data is generated for thr
ee y ears. Thr ee y ears of pr ofessional dev elopment star
ts after the second y
ear of data collection,
and teachers hav
e two mor
e y
ears to attain HQET status while par
ents ar
e notified.
The total time that teachers hav
e to obtain HQET status is sev
en y
ears.
Teachers who
fail to gain HQET status after this sev
en-y
ear period would not be permitted to teach
in
Title I schools.
HQET applies only to subjects in which NCLB r
equir
es assessments (pr
esently
reading or language ar
ts, mathematics and science), unless a state, at its option,
expands HQET to mor
e subjects in which the state assesses per
formance. The application of HQ T to teachers in rural ar eas Section 9101(23) The U.S. D epar tment of E
ducation (U.S. DOE)
has issued guidance to allo
w teachers in some r
ural
districts who ar
e highly qualified in at least one
subject to hav
e thr
ee y
ears to become highly qualified
in the additional subjects they teach. S
uch teachers must be pr ovided pr ofessional dev elopment, intense super vision or str uctur ed mentoring as par t of this flexibility .
Incorporate U.S. DOE’
s allo
wance of thr
ee y
ears for teachers in some r
ural districts
to become highly qualified in additional subjects into the statute. Clarify that subj
ect
matter competency can be demonstrated thr
ough one test or one HOUSSE pr
ocess,
and multiple pr
ocesses ar
e not necessar
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation D efinition of a H ighly Q ualified Teacher Section 9101(23)
All teachers must be highly qualified b
y the end of the
2006–07 school y
ear (originally 2005–06 school y
ear
,
but extended via guidance fr
om the U.S. S
ecr
etar
y of
Education). H
ighly qualified is defined as possessing
state cer
tification or licensur
e, holding a bachelor
’s
degr
ee and demonstrating subject matter kno
wledge. H ighly Q ualified Teacher (HQ T). M aintain curr
ent law for four y
ears after the
enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed NCLB as described belo
w in the HQET section. A
dd
one additional way to acquir
e HQ
T status: obtaining an adv
anced cr
edential that
requir
es master
y of subject matter and pedagogy thr
ough a compr ehensiv e por tfolio assessment. H ighly Q
ualified and Effectiv
e
Teacher (HQET).
D
uring the initial period of
reauthorization (2008–12) all teachers teaching cor
e academic subjects would
be r
equir
ed to meet HQ
T or HQET r
equir
ements. HQET would include all of
the existing HQ
T pr
ovisions and would also r
equir
e teachers to meet both of the
follo
wing criteria: • D
emonstrating, thr
ough a v
alue-added metric, learning gains b
y their students
in the subjects they teach • Attaining one of the follo
wing: a positiv
e ev
aluation of a teacher
’s per
formance
by his or her principal, or a positiv
e ev aluation of a teacher ’s per formance thr ough a peer r evie w pr ocess The pr ocesses dev
eloped or selected for peer and principal r
evie
ws must be appr
ov
ed
by a state or district, and teachers and principals would be r
equir
ed to r
eceiv
e training
in its use. The demonstration of learning gains would be w
eighted no less than 50
per
cent of the total ev
aluation to
war
d achieving HQET status.
All states must establish HQET within four y
ears of enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed
NCLB, but can implement such r
equir
ements earlier if they can demonstrate
ability to meet necessar
y data r equir ements. HQET would r equir e each state to dev
elop a data system capable of v
alue-added measur ement (tr acking individual student pr ogr ess fr om y ear to y ear). S
tates that want to include gr
owth in their
adequate y
early pr
ogr
ess (A
YP) calculations would be r
equir
ed to implement HQET
requir
ements at the same time that they implement plans for including gr
owth in
their A
YP calculations.
All teachers in a state would be r
equir
ed to meet the ne
w r
equir
ement of HQET once
HQET is established in that state. The H
ighly O bjectiv e, U niform, S tate S tandar d of Ev aluation (HOUSSE) pr
ocess for teachers who w
er
e teaching befor
e the passage of
NCLB would be pr
eser
ved during the r
eauthorization period and as a par
t of HQET
.
Information on the HQET status of teachers would be r
epor ted to par ents on state and local r epor t car
ds in a way that is similar to curr
ent HQ
T r
epor
ting. The par
ent
right-to-kno
w pr
ovisions would also include HQET status of their child
’s teacher . Thr ee y ears of achiev ement data b y a teacher
’s students would be used to determine a
teacher
’s HQET status. The learning gains of a teacher
’s students would be compar
ed
against the learning gains of other teachers in the state using a v
alue-added metric.
The learning gains of special education teachers and teachers of E
nglish language
learners would be compar
ed to other such teachers in the state.
Teachers who ar
e
in the top thr
ee quar
tiles of pr
oducing learning gains and who also r
eceiv e either a positiv e principal ev aluation or peer r evie w would be consider ed to hav e achiev ed HQET status. O
nce a teacher obtains HQET status, that teacher is not r
equir
ed to be
ev
aluated on a y
early basis to maintain this status.
After two of the initial thr
ee y
ears of data is collected, teachers who ar
e at risk of not
achieving HQET status would be r
equir
ed to be giv
en pr
ofessional dev
elopment
and training designed to assist them in obtaining HQET status. S
uch pr
ofessional
dev
elopment would be r
equir
ed to be continued for a total of thr
ee y
ears.
Title II
teacher quality funds would be allo
w
ed to be used for this purpose.
If a teacher has not achiev
ed HQET status after thr
ee y
ears of pr
ofessional
dev
elopment, the school
’s principal must annually notify par
ents of the teacher
’s
inability to achiev
e HQET status. A
chiev
ement data is generated for thr
ee y ears. Thr ee y ears of pr ofessional dev elopment star
ts after the second y
ear of data collection,
and teachers hav
e two mor
e y
ears to attain HQET status while par
ents ar
e notified.
The total time that teachers hav
e to obtain HQET status is sev
en y
ears.
Teachers who
fail to gain HQET status after this sev
en-y
ear period would not be permitted to teach
in
Title I schools.
HQET applies only to subjects in which NCLB r
equir
es assessments (pr
esently
reading or language ar
ts, mathematics and science), unless a state, at its option,
expands HQET to mor
e subjects in which the state assesses per
formance. The application of HQ T to teachers in rural ar eas Section 9101(23) The U.S. D epar tment of E
ducation (U.S. DOE)
has issued guidance to allo
w teachers in some r
ural
districts who ar
e highly qualified in at least one
subject to hav
e thr
ee y
ears to become highly qualified
in the additional subjects they teach. S
uch teachers must be pr ovided pr ofessional dev elopment, intense super vision or str uctur ed mentoring as par t of this flexibility .
Incorporate U.S. DOE’
s allo
wance of thr
ee y
ears for teachers in some r
ural districts
to become highly qualified in additional subjects into the statute. Clarify that subj
ect
matter competency can be demonstrated thr
ough one test or one HOUSSE pr
ocess,
and multiple pr
ocesses ar
e not necessar
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation The application of HQ T to special
education teachers Section 9101(23)
NCLB’
s HQ
T definition applies to special education
teachers with sev
eral ex ceptions that w er e adopted as par t of the most r ecent r eauthorization of the Individuals with D isabilities E ducation A ct (IDEA).
Special education teachers, when determining their HQET status, would be compar
ed against other special education teachers. Clarify that subject matter
competency can be demonstrated thr
ough one test or one HOUSSE pr
ocess, and multiple pr ocesses ar e not necessar y. D efinition of a H ighly Effectiv e P rincipal N o such pr ovision. A ne w “H ighly Effectiv e P rincipal
” (HEP) designation, including factoring in
student learning gains, would be established that is similar to the HQET pr
ovision
recommended b
y the Commission. F
or principals to gain HEP status, they must do
all of the follo
wing:
•
D
emonstrate gr
owth in achiev
ement of the subgr
oups in their school that is
comparable to high-achieving schools with similar demographic characteristics in the state • Obtain cer
tification or licensur
e as a principal, as r
equir
ed in the state in which
they ar
e emplo
yed
•
Pass an assessment (which may include a peer r
evie w, state r evie w or school district r evie w component) administer ed b
y the state on the necessar
y leadership
skills to be an effectiv
e principal (such as the I
nterstate School Leaders
Licensur
e Consor
tium)
To implement the HEP designation, states must first hav
e in place a database capable
of tracking individual gr
owth of students.
States would hav
e four y
ears fr
om the date of enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed NCLB
to dev
elop and implement a system to designate principals as HEP
s. This timeline
is aligned to the timeline for implementing longitudinal data systems and HQET requir
ements. The HEP system would be r
equir
ed to be capable of identifying and
comparing schools with similar demographic characteristics. After the state has dev
eloped and implemented such a system, v
eteran principals (those who w er e a principal befor e enactment of a r eauthoriz ed NCLB) would hav e thr ee y
ears to gain HEP status. N
ew principals (those who did not hold a
principalship befor e enactment of a r eauthoriz ed NCLB) would hav e thr ee y ears fr om
their date of hir
e to obtain HEP status.
The HEP r
equir
ement applies to principals of
Title I schools only
.
A principal who was emplo
yed at a school befor
e it w
ent into impr
ov
ement status
and r
emains thr
ough the corr
ectiv
e action pr
ocess would hav
e his or her HEP status
rev
oked if that school continues to not make A
YP follo
wing the corr
ectiv
e action
inter
ventions. After this r
ev
ocation, and while the principal has not r
egained his or
her HEP status, the principal could not be emplo
yed as a principal in a
Title I school.
An individual who becomes the principal of a school alr
eady in the school
impr
ov
ement pr
ocess would not lose his or her HEP status simply because the school
impr
ov
ement pr
ocess continues, including thr
ough r
estr
ucturing. The maintenance
of a principal
’s HEP status would not affect the ability of a district to select a
restr
ucturing option that may lead to the dismissal of the principal fr
om the school.
Comparability Section 1120A(c)
School districts may r
eceiv
e T
itle I funds only if
they use state and local funds in
Title I schools to
pr
ovide comparable ser
vices to the ser
vices pr ovided in non-T itle I schools. Title I funds ar e intended to be supplementar y. I
f a school district doesn
’t
attempt to use state and local funds in a manner that is comparable in
Title I and non-T
itle I schools,
Title I r
esour
ces would not be supplementar
y, but
instead would be r
eplacing r
esour
ces that should
hav
e been pr
ovided thr
ough state and local funding.
School districts can satisfy this r
equir
ement thr
ough
the establishment of a districtwide salar
y schedule
and policies to ensur
e equiv
alence among schools,
curriculum and teachers.
T ighten Teacher Comparability R equir ements. E
liminate the curr
ent means of
satisfying the comparability r
equir
ement for teachers (not curriculum and other
ser
vices) and r
eplace with these r
equir
ements:
•
The expenditur
e of state and local funds on teacher salaries for
Title I schools
can be no less than 95 per
cent of av
erage expenditur
e for such salaries in
non-Title I schools (the specific measur
ement will compar
e the av
erage salaries of
teachers in
Title I and non-T
itle I schools so a school with a smaller number of
teachers would not hav
e to expend the same amount as a school with a larger
number of teachers to be vie
w
ed as comparable).
• T
itle I schools hav
e a number of HQ
Ts and HQET
s that is comparable to
non-Title I schools in the school district.
D
istricts must dev
elop a plan to phase in the comparability r
equir
ement o
ver a thr
ee-year period. D
istricts may not implement this r
equir
ement thr
ough for
ced transfers of
teachers to other schools or inv
oluntar y dismissals. N o for ced teacher transfers N o such pr ovision. N o F or ced Transfers. A principal of a
Title I school would hav
e the ability to r
efuse
to accept the transfer of a teacher to his or her school based on whether the teacher has obtained HQ
T (for curr
ent teachers) or HQET status (after implementation), if
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation The application of HQ T to special
education teachers Section 9101(23)
NCLB’
s HQ
T definition applies to special education
teachers with sev
eral ex ceptions that w er e adopted as par t of the most r ecent r eauthorization of the Individuals with D isabilities E ducation A ct (IDEA).
Special education teachers, when determining their HQET status, would be compar
ed against other special education teachers. Clarify that subject matter
competency can be demonstrated thr
ough one test or one HOUSSE pr
ocess, and multiple pr ocesses ar e not necessar y. D efinition of a H ighly Effectiv e P rincipal N o such pr ovision. A ne w “H ighly Effectiv e P rincipal
” (HEP) designation, including factoring in
student learning gains, would be established that is similar to the HQET pr
ovision
recommended b
y the Commission. F
or principals to gain HEP status, they must do
all of the follo
wing:
•
D
emonstrate gr
owth in achiev
ement of the subgr
oups in their school that is
comparable to high-achieving schools with similar demographic characteristics in the state • Obtain cer
tification or licensur
e as a principal, as r
equir
ed in the state in which
they ar
e emplo
yed
•
Pass an assessment (which may include a peer r
evie w, state r evie w or school district r evie w component) administer ed b
y the state on the necessar
y leadership
skills to be an effectiv
e principal (such as the I
nterstate School Leaders
Licensur
e Consor
tium)
To implement the HEP designation, states must first hav
e in place a database capable
of tracking individual gr
owth of students.
States would hav
e four y
ears fr
om the date of enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed NCLB
to dev
elop and implement a system to designate principals as HEP
s. This timeline
is aligned to the timeline for implementing longitudinal data systems and HQET requir
ements. The HEP system would be r
equir
ed to be capable of identifying and
comparing schools with similar demographic characteristics. After the state has dev
eloped and implemented such a system, v
eteran principals (those who w er e a principal befor e enactment of a r eauthoriz ed NCLB) would hav e thr ee y
ears to gain HEP status. N
ew principals (those who did not hold a
principalship befor e enactment of a r eauthoriz ed NCLB) would hav e thr ee y ears fr om
their date of hir
e to obtain HEP status.
The HEP r
equir
ement applies to principals of
Title I schools only
.
A principal who was emplo
yed at a school befor
e it w
ent into impr
ov
ement status
and r
emains thr
ough the corr
ectiv
e action pr
ocess would hav
e his or her HEP status
rev
oked if that school continues to not make A
YP follo
wing the corr
ectiv
e action
inter
ventions. After this r
ev
ocation, and while the principal has not r
egained his or
her HEP status, the principal could not be emplo
yed as a principal in a
Title I school.
An individual who becomes the principal of a school alr
eady in the school
impr
ov
ement pr
ocess would not lose his or her HEP status simply because the school
impr
ov
ement pr
ocess continues, including thr
ough r
estr
ucturing. The maintenance
of a principal
’s HEP status would not affect the ability of a district to select a
restr
ucturing option that may lead to the dismissal of the principal fr
om the school.
Comparability Section 1120A(c)
School districts may r
eceiv
e T
itle I funds only if
they use state and local funds in
Title I schools to
pr
ovide comparable ser
vices to the ser
vices pr ovided in non-T itle I schools. Title I funds ar e intended to be supplementar y. I
f a school district doesn
’t
attempt to use state and local funds in a manner that is comparable in
Title I and non-T
itle I schools,
Title I r
esour
ces would not be supplementar
y, but
instead would be r
eplacing r
esour
ces that should
hav
e been pr
ovided thr
ough state and local funding.
School districts can satisfy this r
equir
ement thr
ough
the establishment of a districtwide salar
y schedule
and policies to ensur
e equiv
alence among schools,
curriculum and teachers.
T ighten Teacher Comparability R equir ements. E
liminate the curr
ent means of
satisfying the comparability r
equir
ement for teachers (not curriculum and other
ser
vices) and r
eplace with these r
equir
ements:
•
The expenditur
e of state and local funds on teacher salaries for
Title I schools
can be no less than 95 per
cent of av
erage expenditur
e for such salaries in
non-Title I schools (the specific measur
ement will compar
e the av
erage salaries of
teachers in
Title I and non-T
itle I schools so a school with a smaller number of
teachers would not hav
e to expend the same amount as a school with a larger
number of teachers to be vie
w
ed as comparable).
• T
itle I schools hav
e a number of HQ
Ts and HQET
s that is comparable to
non-Title I schools in the school district.
D
istricts must dev
elop a plan to phase in the comparability r
equir
ement o
ver a thr
ee-year period. D
istricts may not implement this r
equir
ement thr
ough for
ced transfers of
teachers to other schools or inv
oluntar y dismissals. N o for ced teacher transfers N o such pr ovision. N o F or ced Transfers. A principal of a
Title I school would hav
e the ability to r
efuse
to accept the transfer of a teacher to his or her school based on whether the teacher has obtained HQ
T (for curr
ent teachers) or HQET status (after implementation), if
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation Pr ofessional dev elopment for
principals while school district is in impr
ov ement status N o such pr ovision. H ow ev er , under curr ent law , schools
and districts in need of impr
ov ement must r eser ve 10 per cent of their
Title I funding for pr
ofessional
dev
elopment for teachers and instr
uctional staff, but
not principals.
School districts identified for impr
ov
ement status would be r
equir
ed to include
pr
ofessional dev
elopment for principals as par
t of the 10 per cent r eser vation for pr ofessional dev elopment. P rofessional dev
elopment using these funds must be
focused on issues r
elev
ant to impr
oving student achiev
ement, such as using data
effectiv
ely in decision-making.
Inclusion of principals in the needs assessment for determining
the use of Title II pr ofessional dev elopment funding C urr ent law r equir
es school districts to conduct a needs
assessment to determine local pr
ofessional dev
elopment
and hiring needs.
Teachers ar e r equir ed to be “inv olv ed ”
in this needs assessment, which is supposed to identify both teacher and principal needs.
Consultation with principals would be r
equir
ed in the needs assessment pr
ocess
under
Title II.
Institution of higher education teacher dev
elopment requir ements N o such pr ovision. H igher E ducation Teacher D ev elopment R equir ements. Amend the H igher Education A ct to include a r equir
ement that institutions of higher education (IHEs)
that pr
epar
e pr
ospectiv
e teachers, as a condition of par
ticipating in federal student
aid pr
ograms, set annual goals to incr
ease the number of pr
ospectiv
e teachers in
subject shor
tage ar
eas (mathematics, science, special education, bilingual instr
uction)
and mor
e closely link the instr
uction pr
ovided b
y the IHE with the needs of schools
and the instr
uctional decisions ne
w teachers face in the classr
oom. As par
t of these
goals, IHEs would be r
equir ed to ensur e the follo wing: • T eacher training pr ovided b y the IHE r
esponds to the identified needs of the
school districts or states in which their graduates teach • A focus on pr
oviding training for special education teachers to instr
uct in
content ar
eas
•
Regular education teachers ar
e pr
ovided with training in teaching div
erse
populations, including special education students, E
nglish language learners
and students fr om lo w-income families • Pr ospectiv e teachers r eceiv
e training to teach in urban and r
ural envir
onments
• T
eachers and school leaders ar
e trained in collaborativ
e teaching methods
The attainment of such objectiv
es would be r equir ed to be publicly r epor ted. Teacher retention plan N o such pr ovision. Teacher R etention P lan.
School districts would be r
equir
ed to r
epor
t their teacher
turno
ver rate to the state, b
y HQ
T, HQET and non-HQ
T/HQET status. S
tates
would r
equir
e school districts that fall into the bottom quar
tile of turno
ver of HQ
T
and HQET to implement teacher r
etention plans. E xamples of r equir ed elements of these plans ar e: • M
entoring and induction suppor
ts to ne
w teachers, including training to build
collaborativ
e pr
ofessional learning methods focused on student achiev
ement
•
The use of differ
ential and bonus pay to attract teachers to har
d-to-staff schools
and to subjects with teacher shor
tages (mathematics, science, special education
and E
nglish as a second language)
•
U
sing the r
esults of a r
equir
ed state audit of the wor
king conditions of teachers
in schools to impr
ov
e those conditions—such as mor
e planning time, r elease time for pr ofessional dev elopment—to mor e effectiv ely pr omote a collaborativ e pr
ofessional learning envir
onment
•
The dev
elopment of sev
eral car
eer paths for teachers (e.g., master or
mentor teacher) U se of T itle II teacher
quality funds Title II, P
ar t A Pr esently , nearly $3 billion in Title II, P ar t A,
teacher quality funding is appr
opriated annually for
pr
ofessional dev
elopment and other expenditur
es to impr ov e teacher quality . U nder curr ent law , states hav e 18 differ ent teacher-quality-r elated activities or pr
ograms they can fund
under state-lev el activities in Title II, P ar t A. U nder Title II, P ar t A, states r eser ve 2.5 per cent of their
allocation for activities or pr
ograms operated b
y
the state. Under curr
ent law
, school districts hav
e mor
e than 19
activities or pr
ograms that can be funded under their
allocation under
Title II, P
ar
t A. U
nder this par
t, school
districts r
eceiv
e 95 per
cent of the state
’s allocation to
fund such activities or pr
ograms. Effectiv e and R esear ch-P ro ven P rofessional D ev elopment for P rincipals and Teachers. R educe the scope of activities and pr ograms that can be funded at the state
and district lev
el under Title II, P ar t A. E nsur e such funded pr
ograms and activities
ar e backed b y r esear ch and pr ov en-effectiv
e practices and addr
ess ar
eas of need, such
as impr
oving skills of under
qualified teachers, suppor
ting and mentoring no
vice
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation Pr ofessional dev elopment for
principals while school district is in impr
ov ement status N o such pr ovision. H ow ev er , under curr ent law , schools
and districts in need of impr
ov ement must r eser ve 10 per cent of their
Title I funding for pr
ofessional
dev
elopment for teachers and instr
uctional staff, but
not principals.
School districts identified for impr
ov
ement status would be r
equir
ed to include
pr
ofessional dev
elopment for principals as par
t of the 10 per cent r eser vation for pr ofessional dev elopment. P rofessional dev
elopment using these funds must be
focused on issues r
elev
ant to impr
oving student achiev
ement, such as using data
effectiv
ely in decision-making.
Inclusion of principals in the needs assessment for determining
the use of Title II pr ofessional dev elopment funding C urr ent law r equir
es school districts to conduct a needs
assessment to determine local pr
ofessional dev
elopment
and hiring needs.
Teachers ar e r equir ed to be “inv olv ed ”
in this needs assessment, which is supposed to identify both teacher and principal needs.
Consultation with principals would be r
equir
ed in the needs assessment pr
ocess
under
Title II.
Institution of higher education teacher dev
elopment requir ements N o such pr ovision. H igher E ducation Teacher D ev elopment R equir ements. Amend the H igher Education A ct to include a r equir
ement that institutions of higher education (IHEs)
that pr
epar
e pr
ospectiv
e teachers, as a condition of par
ticipating in federal student
aid pr
ograms, set annual goals to incr
ease the number of pr
ospectiv
e teachers in
subject shor
tage ar
eas (mathematics, science, special education, bilingual instr
uction)
and mor
e closely link the instr
uction pr
ovided b
y the IHE with the needs of schools
and the instr
uctional decisions ne
w teachers face in the classr
oom. As par
t of these
goals, IHEs would be r
equir ed to ensur e the follo wing: • T eacher training pr ovided b y the IHE r
esponds to the identified needs of the
school districts or states in which their graduates teach • A focus on pr
oviding training for special education teachers to instr
uct in
content ar
eas
•
Regular education teachers ar
e pr
ovided with training in teaching div
erse
populations, including special education students, E
nglish language learners
and students fr om lo w-income families • Pr ospectiv e teachers r eceiv
e training to teach in urban and r
ural envir
onments
• T
eachers and school leaders ar
e trained in collaborativ
e teaching methods
The attainment of such objectiv
es would be r equir ed to be publicly r epor ted. Teacher retention plan N o such pr ovision. Teacher R etention P lan.
School districts would be r
equir
ed to r
epor
t their teacher
turno
ver rate to the state, b
y HQ
T, HQET and non-HQ
T/HQET status. S
tates
would r
equir
e school districts that fall into the bottom quar
tile of turno
ver of HQ
T
and HQET to implement teacher r
etention plans. E xamples of r equir ed elements of these plans ar e: • M
entoring and induction suppor
ts to ne
w teachers, including training to build
collaborativ
e pr
ofessional learning methods focused on student achiev
ement
•
The use of differ
ential and bonus pay to attract teachers to har
d-to-staff schools
and to subjects with teacher shor
tages (mathematics, science, special education
and E
nglish as a second language)
•
U
sing the r
esults of a r
equir
ed state audit of the wor
king conditions of teachers
in schools to impr
ov
e those conditions—such as mor
e planning time, r elease time for pr ofessional dev elopment—to mor e effectiv ely pr omote a collaborativ e pr
ofessional learning envir
onment
•
The dev
elopment of sev
eral car
eer paths for teachers (e.g., master or
mentor teacher) U se of T itle II teacher
quality funds Title II, P
ar t A Pr esently , nearly $3 billion in Title II, P ar t A,
teacher quality funding is appr
opriated annually for
pr
ofessional dev
elopment and other expenditur
es to impr ov e teacher quality . U nder curr ent law , states hav e 18 differ ent teacher-quality-r elated activities or pr
ograms they can fund
under state-lev el activities in Title II, P ar t A. U nder Title II, P ar t A, states r eser ve 2.5 per cent of their
allocation for activities or pr
ograms operated b
y
the state. Under curr
ent law
, school districts hav
e mor
e than 19
activities or pr
ograms that can be funded under their
allocation under
Title II, P
ar
t A. U
nder this par
t, school
districts r
eceiv
e 95 per
cent of the state
’s allocation to
fund such activities or pr
ograms. Effectiv e and R esear ch-P ro ven P rofessional D ev elopment for P rincipals and Teachers. R educe the scope of activities and pr ograms that can be funded at the state
and district lev
el under Title II, P ar t A. E nsur e such funded pr
ograms and activities
ar e backed b y r esear ch and pr ov en-effectiv
e practices and addr
ess ar
eas of need, such
as impr
oving skills of under
qualified teachers, suppor
ting and mentoring no
vice
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation Recipr ocity of teacher cer tification and licensur e acr oss states Title II of NCLB allo
ws the use of state funds to
pr
omote r
ecipr
ocity among the states.
R ecipr ocity of Teacher Cer tification or Licensur e. Requir e or giv e states incentiv es to pr omote r ecipr ocity of cer
tification and licensur
e acr
oss states thr
ough
consor
tiums or other means. S
tates joining such a consor
tium could not lo
w
er the
scor
es needed to pass teacher exams for cer
tification.
Teachers who ar
e teaching in
states in the consor
tium would hav
e thr
ee ways to gain r
ecipr
ocity:
•
Those meeting curr
ent HQ
T r
equir
ements
•
Those scoring in the top one-thir
d of teachers in the state on teacher exams
•
Those who ar
e awar
ded HQET status (as described abo
ve)
For states that join such consor
tiums, course content that is specific to the r
eceiving
state will be pr
ovided to teachers online or at no cost b
y the r
eceiving state.
Por
tability of
principal and teacher pensions
N
o such pr
ovision.
Requir
e the U.S. DOE to conduct a study within two y
ears of the enactment of a
reauthoriz
ed NCLB to determine the feasibility of allo
wing the por
tability of teacher
and principal pensions fr
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation G ro wth model Section 1111(b)(2)(B) C urr
ent NCLB law includes what is commonly
referr ed to as a “ status model ” for measuring accountability . I t compar es the per formance of subgr oups of childr en against a pr edetermined bar established b y each state. S ubgr oups abo ve the bar ar
e deemed as meeting adequate y
early pr ogr ess (A YP); subgr oups belo w the bar ar e deemed as not meeting A YP
. Though the U.S. D
epar
tment of
Education (U.S. DOE) has appr
ov
ed pilot pr
ograms
in fiv
e states, curr
ent law includes no authority for
a longitudinal gr owth model. NCLB’ s “ safe harbor ” pr
ovision is the closest existing statutor
y mechanism
that r
ecogniz
es gr
owth. A subgr
oup in a school can
meet the safe harbor goal and ther
efor e be deemed as meeting A YP , if that subgr oup sho ws a decr ease in the per
centage of students not scoring pr
oficient
equal to 10 per
cent of the gap betw
een the subgr
oup
’s
curr
ent per
formance and 100 per
cent pr
oficiency
(i.e., a subgr
oup at 20 per
cent pr
oficiency would need
to hav
e 28 per
cent of its students pr
oficient in the
follo
wing y
ear
’s assessments to meet safe harbor: the
goal of 100 per
cent pr
oficiency minus the curr
ent
20 per
cent pr
oficiency equals a gap of 80; 10 per
cent
of the gap of 80 is eight; in or
der to meet the safe
harbor
, the schools must decr
ease the gap b
y eight
points or incr
ease the per
centage of students scoring
at pr oficient lev els fr om 20 to 28). S afe harbor , unlike a longitudinal gr
owth model, compar
es two differ
ent
sets of students (last y
ear
’s 3r
d graders with this y
ear ’s 3r d graders). Include a factor of gr owth in existing A YP calculations. S
tudents would be deemed as
meeting pr oficiency if they w er e “ on track ” to becoming pr oficient within thr ee y ears, based on the gr owth trajector
y of their assessment scor
es. This thr
ee-y
ear windo
w
to become pr
oficient would star
t with the assessment r
esult during the first y
ear the student was identified as not being pr oficient and would not be recalibrated ev er y year .
Students on track to becoming pr
oficient would be included as pr
oficient students for
the purposes of calculating whether a school has made A
YP
.
This gr
owth-tracking system would r
equir
e states to dev
elop and implement data
systems capable of tracking individual student per
formance fr
om y
ear to y
ear
(kno
wn as longitudinal data systems). S
tates would hav
e four y
ears fr
om the
enactment of a r
eauthoriz
ed NCLB (in other wor
ds, until 2012) to dev
elop and
implement this system.
Recommendations f
or
Accelerating Pr
ogr
ess and Closing
Achie
vement Ga
ps
Thr
ough Impr
ov
ed
Accountability
Issue
Cur
rent Statute/Regulation
Recommendation
Inclusion of science as a subject for which AYP calculations ar
e
made for subgr
oups
and schools Section 1111(b)(2)(B)
Pr
esently
, NCLB r
equir
es that mathematics and
reading or language ar
ts be included in A
YP
calculations. I
n addition, science assessments ar
e
requir
ed to be administer
ed beginning in 2007–08,
but the r
esults of these assessments ar
e not to be included in A YP calculations. U nder curr ent law ,
science assessments will be administer
ed (star
ting
in the 2007–08 school y
ear) once in each of the
follo
wing grade spans: 3–5, 6–9 and 10–12.
Include the r
esults of science assessments in A
YP calculations based on the existing
grade-span r
equir
ements.
Requir
e states to establish annual measurable objectiv
es (AMO
s) for science
achiev
ement, similar to the existing AMO
s for r
eading or language ar
ts and
mathematics. AMO
s should be set under r
equir ements of curr ent law , including the goal of 100 per cent pr oficiency b y 2013–14. Same subgr oup ,
same subject Section 1111(b)(2)
Pr
esently
, the NCLB statute deems a school to be in
impr
ov
ement status if any subgr
oup in the school
does not make A
YP in either r
eading or mathematics
during a two-y
ear span. F
or example, a school would
be identified for impr
ov
ement if in one y
ear disabled
students did not make A
YP in mathematics and in
the next y
ear H
ispanic students did not make A
YP
in r
eading.
Requir
e schools to be identified for school impr
ov
ement if they do not make A
YP for
the same subgr
oup in the same subject for two consecutiv
e y ears. N-siz e Section 1111(b)(2) U nder NCLB, states ar e r equir ed to set a minimum subgr oup siz
e for both public r
epor
ting and A
YP
calculations. The statute r
equir
es this minimum
siz
e to be set so the data yields “
statistically r
eliable
information
” and would not pr
oduce “
personally
identifiable information about an individual student.
”
C
urr
ent r
egulations hav
e no set limits on the N-siz
e of
a state. S
tates, as par
t of their accountability plans to
the U.S. DOE, submitted a pr
oposed N-siz e. M any states hav e submitted r evised N-siz
es in the past two
years. S
ome states hav
e r
eceiv
ed permission for N-siz
es
for childr
en with disabilities and E
nglish language
learners that ar
e larger than other subgr
oups.
Requir
e all N-siz
es for the purpose of A
YP calculations to be no gr eater than 20. Allo w school districts to r equest a waiv er fr
om the state for schools that can, thr
ough
documented evidence, justify a larger N-siz
e. A waiv
er granted b
y the state can
pr ovide an N-siz e of no gr eater than 30. Confidence inter vals Section 1111(b)(2) States hav e pr
oposed and gotten appr
ov
al for
, as par
t
of their accountability plans to the U.S. DOE, the use of confidence inter
vals in making v arious calculations related to A YP , including N-siz e. Confidence inter
vals may be seen as “
windo
ws
”
surr
ounding a state
’s AMO. The siz
e of the windo
w
varies accor
ding to the number of students in the
subgr
oup who ar
e tested and accor
ding to the degr
ee
of pr
obability that the gr
oup ’s av erage scor e r epr esents their tr ue lev el of achiev
ement. Confidence inter
vals
ar
e r
oughly analogous to the “
margin of err
or
”
commonly r
epor
ted with opinion polls.
M
aintain the use of confidence inter
vals in calculating N-siz
es and A
YP calculations
for those states that choose to use them. R
estrict the use of a state
’s confidence
inter
val to no mor
e than 95 per
cent. Confidence inter
vals will not be permitted in
determining whether a child is on track to be pr
oficient under the gr
owth model
recommendations described abo
ve.
Childr
en with
disabilities Section 1111(b)(2)(B) (v)(II)(cc)
U
nder the NCLB statute, childr
en with disabilities
ar
e tr
eated the same as other subgr
oups for A
YP
calculation purposes. Childr
en with disabilities,
under the NCLB statute, in combination with the I
ndividuals with D
isabilities E
ducation A
ct
(IDEA) statute and r
egulations, ar
e r
equir
ed to be
giv
en assessments under one of thr
ee scenarios:
the r
egular assessment; the r
egular assessment with
accommodations; or alternate assessments aligned to grade-lev
el standar
ds.
U
nder r
egulations and guidance issued b
y the U.S.
DOE, two other assessment scenarios hav
e been
dev
eloped that define ho
w to assess childr
en with
disabilities for accountability purposes: 1 P
er
cent P
olicy:
Childr
en with significant cognitiv
e
disabilities can be assessed against alternate standar
ds
using alternate assessments. The standar
ds for these childr en typically consist of v er y basic mathematics and r eading. A chiev ement of pr oficiency on these
assessments counts for A
YP purposes. School districts
ar
e permitted to include up to 1 per
cent of their total
population in this categor
y. CONTINUED ON P A GE 180 Authoriz e the 1 per
cent policy issued b
y the U.S. DOE.
Amend the A dministration ’s pr oposed 2 per cent policy b y r
educing the per
centage to
1 per
cent, then authoriz
e with the follo
wing ex
ceptions:
•
Str
engthen the gatekeeping pr
ocedur
es used to determine which childr
en ar
e
included under this ne
w 1 per
cent policy
. This includes striking the pr
ovision
from the A
dministration
’s r
egulation that identifies a child
’s disability as the
means for automatic inclusion under this ne
w policy
.
•
Requir
e school district officials to monitor the implementation of this policy t
o
ensur
e it is uniformly applied to schools acr
oss a school district.
Add sev
eral pr
ovisions to IDEA to str
engthen the IEP team
’s r
ole in determining
the appr
opriate assessment for childr
en with disabilities and to impr
ov
e par
ental
kno
wledge of such decisions. S
pecifically
, IDEA would be amended to r
equir
e
the follo
wing:
•
IEP teams would attest in writing that the team has sufficient kno
wledge to
make a decision on the child
’s assessment and whether the child should be in the
existing 1 per cent categor y or the ne w 1 per cent categor y. P ar ents must r eceiv e
this attestation in writing befor
e signing off on the IEP’
s decision.
CONTINUED ON P
A
Issue
Cur
rent Statute/Regulation
Recommendation
Inclusion of science as a subject for which AYP calculations ar
e
made for subgr
oups
and schools Section 1111(b)(2)(B)
Pr
esently
, NCLB r
equir
es that mathematics and
reading or language ar
ts be included in A
YP
calculations. I
n addition, science assessments ar
e
requir
ed to be administer
ed beginning in 2007–08,
but the r
esults of these assessments ar
e not to be included in A YP calculations. U nder curr ent law ,
science assessments will be administer
ed (star
ting
in the 2007–08 school y
ear) once in each of the
follo
wing grade spans: 3–5, 6–9 and 10–12.
Include the r
esults of science assessments in A
YP calculations based on the existing
grade-span r
equir
ements.
Requir
e states to establish annual measurable objectiv
es (AMO
s) for science
achiev
ement, similar to the existing AMO
s for r
eading or language ar
ts and
mathematics. AMO
s should be set under r
equir ements of curr ent law , including the goal of 100 per cent pr oficiency b y 2013–14. Same subgr oup ,
same subject Section 1111(b)(2)
Pr
esently
, the NCLB statute deems a school to be in
impr
ov
ement status if any subgr
oup in the school
does not make A
YP in either r
eading or mathematics
during a two-y
ear span. F
or example, a school would
be identified for impr
ov
ement if in one y
ear disabled
students did not make A
YP in mathematics and in
the next y
ear H
ispanic students did not make A
YP
in r
eading.
Requir
e schools to be identified for school impr
ov
ement if they do not make A
YP for
the same subgr
oup in the same subject for two consecutiv
e y ears. N-siz e Section 1111(b)(2) U nder NCLB, states ar e r equir ed to set a minimum subgr oup siz
e for both public r
epor
ting and A
YP
calculations. The statute r
equir
es this minimum
siz
e to be set so the data yields “
statistically r
eliable
information
” and would not pr
oduce “
personally
identifiable information about an individual student.
”
C
urr
ent r
egulations hav
e no set limits on the N-siz
e of
a state. S
tates, as par
t of their accountability plans to
the U.S. DOE, submitted a pr
oposed N-siz e. M any states hav e submitted r evised N-siz
es in the past two
years. S
ome states hav
e r
eceiv
ed permission for N-siz
es
for childr
en with disabilities and E
nglish language
learners that ar
e larger than other subgr
oups.
Requir
e all N-siz
es for the purpose of A
YP calculations to be no gr eater than 20. Allo w school districts to r equest a waiv er fr
om the state for schools that can, thr
ough
documented evidence, justify a larger N-siz
e. A waiv
er granted b
y the state can
pr ovide an N-siz e of no gr eater than 30. Confidence inter vals Section 1111(b)(2) States hav e pr
oposed and gotten appr
ov
al for
, as par
t
of their accountability plans to the U.S. DOE, the use of confidence inter
vals in making v arious calculations related to A YP , including N-siz e. Confidence inter
vals may be seen as “
windo
ws
”
surr
ounding a state
’s AMO. The siz
e of the windo
w
varies accor
ding to the number of students in the
subgr
oup who ar
e tested and accor
ding to the degr
ee
of pr
obability that the gr
oup ’s av erage scor e r epr esents their tr ue lev el of achiev
ement. Confidence inter
vals
ar
e r
oughly analogous to the “
margin of err
or
”
commonly r
epor
ted with opinion polls.
M
aintain the use of confidence inter
vals in calculating N-siz
es and A
YP calculations
for those states that choose to use them. R
estrict the use of a state
’s confidence
inter
val to no mor
e than 95 per
cent. Confidence inter
vals will not be permitted in
determining whether a child is on track to be pr
oficient under the gr
owth model
recommendations described abo
ve.
Childr
en with
disabilities Section 1111(b)(2)(B) (v)(II)(cc)
U
nder the NCLB statute, childr
en with disabilities
ar
e tr
eated the same as other subgr
oups for A
YP
calculation purposes. Childr
en with disabilities,
under the NCLB statute, in combination with the I
ndividuals with D
isabilities E
ducation A
ct
(IDEA) statute and r
egulations, ar
e r
equir
ed to be
giv
en assessments under one of thr
ee scenarios:
the r
egular assessment; the r
egular assessment with
accommodations; or alternate assessments aligned to grade-lev
el standar
ds.
U
nder r
egulations and guidance issued b
y the U.S.
DOE, two other assessment scenarios hav
e been
dev
eloped that define ho
w to assess childr
en with
disabilities for accountability purposes: 1 P
er
cent P
olicy:
Childr
en with significant cognitiv
e
disabilities can be assessed against alternate standar
ds
using alternate assessments. The standar
ds for these childr en typically consist of v er y basic mathematics and r eading. A chiev ement of pr oficiency on these
assessments counts for A
YP purposes. School districts
ar
e permitted to include up to 1 per
cent of their total
population in this categor
y. CONTINUED ON P A GE 180 Authoriz e the 1 per
cent policy issued b
y the U.S. DOE.
Amend the A dministration ’s pr oposed 2 per cent policy b y r
educing the per
centage to
1 per
cent, then authoriz
e with the follo
wing ex
ceptions:
•
Str
engthen the gatekeeping pr
ocedur
es used to determine which childr
en ar
e
included under this ne
w 1 per
cent policy
. This includes striking the pr
ovision
from the A
dministration
’s r
egulation that identifies a child
’s disability as the
means for automatic inclusion under this ne
w policy
.
•
Requir
e school district officials to monitor the implementation of this policy t
o
ensur
e it is uniformly applied to schools acr
oss a school district.
Add sev
eral pr
ovisions to IDEA to str
engthen the IEP team
’s r
ole in determining
the appr
opriate assessment for childr
en with disabilities and to impr
ov
e par
ental
kno
wledge of such decisions. S
pecifically
, IDEA would be amended to r
equir
e
the follo
wing:
•
IEP teams would attest in writing that the team has sufficient kno
wledge to
make a decision on the child
’s assessment and whether the child should be in the
existing 1 per cent categor y or the ne w 1 per cent categor y. P ar ents must r eceiv e
this attestation in writing befor
e signing off on the IEP’
s decision.
CONTINUED ON P
A
Issue Cur rent Statute/Regulation Recommendation Pr oposed 2 P er cent P olicy:
This applies to childr
en
with disabilities who can achiev
e academically
, but
can
’t achiev
e at grade lev
el in the same period of time
as their nondisabled peers. This policy allo
ws school
districts to classify up to 2 per
cent of their total school
population in addition to the 1 per
cent of students
in the gr
oup of childr
en with significant cognitiv
e
disabilities (a total of up to 3 per
cent). U
nder
the r
egulation, classified childr
en would be giv en assessments against “ modified achiev ement standar ds. ” These standar ds should measur
e the same academic
content as r egular achiev ement standar ds. U nder U.S. DOE’ s pr oposed r
egulations, school districts ar
e
allo
w
ed to ex
ceed the 2 per
cent cap if they hav
e not
reached full capacity under the 1 per
cent policy
. The
total of both gr
oups may not ex
ceed 3 per
cent.
In determining childr
en to be classified under the 2
per
cent r
egulation, individualiz
ed education pr
ogram
(IEP) teams must determine that:
•
A student
’s disability pr
ecludes the student fr
om
achieving grade-lev
el pr
oficiency
•
The student cannot achiev
e grade-lev
el
pr
oficiency ev
en with high-quality instr
uction • The student is r eceiving grade-lev el instr uction
in the subjects for which he or she is being assessed
•
School districts shall be r
equir
ed to pr
ovide IEP team members and par
ents
of childr
en with disabilities with a guide dev
eloped b
y the U.S. DOE in
consultation with the states and par
ent training and information centers (PTI
s)
on assessments under NCLB. The guide may be used for measuring a child
’s
academic pr
ogr
ess and the pr
ocess used to select the appr
opriate assessment
for the child. The guide shall be pr
ovided to par
ents annually and upon par
ent
request. The state shall conduct trainings, in conjunction with PTI
s, for
members of IEP teams (including par
ents) on the assessment selection pr
ocess.
•
School districts shall be r
equir
ed to complete a needs assessment annually to
ensur
e that they hav
e the exper
tise and personnel to make pr
oper assessment
and accountability categorizations of childr
en with disabilities (placement in the
existing or ne
w 1 per
cent categories).
•
States, as a condition of r
eceiving IDEA funding, shall ensur
e that school
districts can r
eceiv
e technical assistance in the selection of assessments and the
placement of childr
en in the existing or ne
w 1 per
cent categories.
English language learners Section 1111(b)(2)(B) (v)(II)(dd)
U nd er r eg ul at io ns a nd g ui da nc e i ss ue d b y t he U .S . D O E, E ng lis h l an gu ag e l ea rn er s d o n ot h av e t o b e te st ed i n t he fi rs t y ea r t he y a re i n U .S . s ch ool s a nd , if t he y a re t es te d, s ch ool s d o n ot h av e t o i nc lu de En gl ish l an gu ag e l ea rn er a ss es sm en t r es ul ts i n sc ho ol s’ A YP c al cu la tio ns . A lso u nd er r eg ul at io ns a nd g ui da nc e i ss ue d b y th e U .S . D O E, E ng lis h l an gu ag e l ea rn er s m ay b e in cl ud ed i n t hi s s ub gr ou p f or t w o a dd iti on al y ea rs af te r t he y b ec om e p ro fic ie nt i n E ng lis h a nd a re n o lo ng er c la ss ifi ed a s a n E ng lis h l an gu ag e l ea rn er . Authoriz e the r
egulations and guidance issued b
y the U.S. DOE and expand,
from two y
ears to thr
ee y
ears, the amount of time E
nglish language learners may
be included in the E
nglish language learner subgr
oup after they ar
e designated
as pr
oficient.
O
ther indicators
(graduation rate and attendance) Section 1111(b)(2)(D)
U nder curr ent law , a school ’s A YP status is determined based on assessment r
esults plus an additional
indicator
. NCLB r
equir
es graduation rates to be
used for secondar
y schools and r
equir
es the state to
define the academic indicator for elementar
y schools
(often attendance rate is used). I
f a school met its
AYP for assessment r
esults, but did not meet its other
indicator
, the school would not meet A
YP . U nder curr ent r egulations, states ar e allo w ed to set
the graduation-rate or elementar
y school indicator at the lev el they decide, ev en if it is at a lev el belo w some schools ’ curr ent per formance. I n addition,
graduation-rate and elementar
y school indicator data is vie
w
ed on
an aggr
egate basis for a school, not a subgr
oup basis.
Requir
e all states to adopt the pr
ovisions of the N
ational G
ov
ernors Association
compact on graduation rates. This compact, which was signed b
y all 50 go vernors and the go vernor of P uer to Rico, r equir es a four-y
ear adjusted cohor
t graduation rate
using a common formula. Requir
e the disaggr
egation of graduation-rate and elementar
y school indicator data
and use this disaggr
egated data for A
YP calculations.
Requir
e states to set goals for continuous pr
ogr
ess in incr
easing graduation rates and
the elementar
y school indicator (on a disaggr
egated subgr
oup basis at the state, school
district and school lev
els) to close the gap betw
een subgr
oups in graduation rates and
the elementar
y school indicator b
y the 2013–14 school y
ear
.
States, districts and schools would be deemed to hav
e closed the gap for an indicator
in any y
ear in which ther
e is less than a fiv
e per
centile point differ
ence betw
een the
subgr
oup with the highest rate and the subgr
oup with the lo
w
est rate. Childr
en with
disabilities who ar
e not assessed against grade-lev
el content standar
ds would not be
included in graduation-rate calculations for A
