Upload
derrick-daniels
View
214
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
No Child Left Behind and Beyond:
The Lay of the Federal Policy Land & Finding the MIDDLE
GROUND
EPLC Annual ConferenceMarch 14, 2008
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Arnold F. Fege,Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy
Public Education Network; and President, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK)
[email protected], sign up PEN’s Weekly NewsBlast
At www.PublicEducation.org
3
80 domestic members in 34 states, plus
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
17 of the top 25 cities are represented
All in high poverty school districts with
primary focus of community
engagement and school reform
PEN’s Members
6
Lay of the Federal Land The Big Ticket Items for 2008
Budget and AppropriationsReauthorization of NCLBHigher Education ActHigh School Reform
Slide From NCLB to Competiveness Elections, Elections, Elections Where is EDUCATION in Campaign
2008?????
Ed
uca
tion
En
viro
nmen
t
Eco
no
mic
Se
curi
ty
He
alth
De
fen
se
Public
Democracy
8
Markets Create Wealth and Markets Create Wealth and Poverty:Poverty:
Purposeful Public Policy Purposeful Public Policy Creates a Strong Middle Creates a Strong Middle ClassClass
. FEDERAL FUNDING
AND INCOME/OPPORTUNITY
REDISTRIBUTION
Federal 2009 Budget
10
Domestic Discretionary Funding Is a Shrinking Share of Total Program Costs
Share of Total 2001 2008 Change
Defense & security 21.7% 29.2% +7.5%
Social Security, Medicare/caid 45.9% 43.5% -2.4%
Other mandatory programs 14.0% 12.5% -1.4%
Domestic discretionary 18.4% 14.7% -3.7%
Total program costs 100% 100% 0.0%
Notes: Figures may not add due to rounding. The defense/security figures also include veterans, homeland security, and international affairs. Medicare is net of premiums. Figures for 2008 are CBO’s January estimate plus supplemental discretionary funding requested by President Bush. Totals exclude net interest
11
Table 3:Domestic Discretionary Funding is a Shrinking
Percentage of the Economy (% of GDP)
2001 2008 Change
Defense & security 3.6% 5.6% +2.0%
Social Security, Medicare/caid 7.7% 8.4% +0.7%
Other mandatory programs 2.3% 2.4% +0.1%
Domestic discretionary 3.1% 2.8% -0.2%
Total program costs 16.7% 19.3% +2.6%
Addendum, revenues 19.8% 18.5% -1.3%
12
What Are the Major Domestic Discretionary Programs?
The largest domestic discretionary programs (in order of size) are:
•education, •highways and other ground transportation,
•housing assistance, •biomedical research,
•federal law enforcement, •public health services,
•air traffic and related transportation, and •space flight
13
14
15
16
6.4%
1.6%
-1.1%
5.3%4.8%
18.2%
2.7%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
* Conference Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill HR 3043
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008*
Reversing the Harmful DeclineFederal Government's Commitment to Education Investment
Percent Change in Discretionary Budget Authority From Previous Fiscal Year
Source: U.S. Department of Education and Office of Management and BudgetRounded to nearest tenth of a percent
17
NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDFUNDING
When compared to aggregate K-12 funding (@ $500 billion /yr), the “historic” increases in federal funding brought about since NCLB enactment amount to:
1. Title I funding-an increase of 1% in K-12.
2. NCLB programs-an increase of 1.1% in K-12.
3. K-12 programs-an increase of 2% in aggregate K-12 funding
18
“Historic” Increases in Federal Appropriations?
Estimated Impact of NCLB on Aggregated K-12 Spending Change in aggregate K-12 funding as a result of 1st year bump to
NCLB=+ $5 B or 1.1% increase in overall K-12 funding Each additional $1 Billion federal increase = .22% increase in
overall K-12 funding: = ¼ of 1%! Federal appropriations in K-12 as % of aggregate expenditures:
2000-2001: 7.0% (Before NCLB)2001-2005: 7.9% (After NCLB)
The net change from increased federal funding on K-12 education between FY 2001 and 2006 equals an increase of nearly $8 billion. That is an increase in federal approps of about 30%
But that $8 billion equals an increase in total K-12 funding of about 1.6%!
19
NCLB Reauthorization
A Law in Limbo: The Perfect Storm and the Negative Coalition:
Developing a new bill that receives the majority vote of the committees, conference, and approval of White House
20
•EPLC Partner
•Hear about local capacity to implement the law
•Educate and mobilize the public regarding public education
•Create a record of the public’s opinion of NCLB
PEN NCLB Public Hearings
21
No Child Left Behind is …
• NCLB Law is over 1,000 Pages
• Over 1,500 pages of regulations & 10,000 pages of guidance
• Comprises 10 Titles, over 40 programs
• Affects every public school district in the country
• Requires Every Child to Score Proficient by the School Year 2013-2014.
22
NCLB: The Good Provided a platform for national discussion
of issues of equity and quality NCLB articulated the problem, sharpens the
focus on the achievement gap. Laudatory goals of holding schools
accountable for performance Riveted national attention on low performing
schools and strategies for improvement Began a system of data-based collection
and improvement
23
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
“Reaching agreement on NCLB is like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle the size of three football fields. We have the margins assembled, but not the center.”
Alice Cain, Majority House Education & Labor Committee Education Counsel, January 15, 2008
“The law fails to supply the essential resources that schools desperately need. We can’t achieve progress for all students on the cheap. Struggling schools can only do so much on a tin-cup budget”
Senate HELP Committee chair, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), January 17, 2008
“If its {NCLB} not reauthorized, then I have instructed our secretary to move forward on some reforms that she can move through the administrative process.”
President George W. Bush, January 8, 2008
“No Child Left Behind may be the most negative brand in America.”House Education & Labor Committee chair, Representative George Miller (D-CA), January 7, 2008
“NCLB is 99.9 percent pure.”US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings
“Some have described reauthorization as creating a bill that has the support of the White House and the NEA.” Marc Egan, Director of Governmental Relations, National School Boards Association, December 17, 2007
24
The Dynamics and the Players…• Original 2002 NCLB coalition
broke & splintered• White House and ED• New 2006 Senate/House
members• Freshman members on
Education Committee• The public (parents, community,
non-organized)• Educators• Governors, state legislators,
and state DOEs• Some want law as is
(Education Trust, BRT, Chamber)• Conservatives• Liberals• Media• Washington-based
organizations
25
• NCLB expired September 30, 2007, but automatically extended
• US House Education and Labor Committee & HELP Committee have held over 40 hearings in 2006 & 2007
• When will reauthorization be completed: 2008? 2009?
• Miller/Kennedy say they want bill in 2008
• Others say not possible: wait until 2009
The Lay of the NCLB Legislative Land
26
NCLB UNDER ATTACK
27Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
28Map courtesy of Communities for Quality Education
29
States whose Representative or Senator have sponsored a bill in the U.S. Congress to amend NCLB
Data from NEA, January 2006
30
Status of Reauthorization: The House• Key Chairs: Rep. George
Miller (D-CA) & Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA)
• Key Committee: Education and Labor Committee
• Congress Wanted to Pass NCLB in 2007, But Could Not Find Votes
• Committee released “discussion drafts in August-September, 2007
• Received over 1500 comments
• First “real” hearing was September 10, 2007: 44 witnesses
31
Status of Reauthorization: The Senate
• HELP staff are busily preparing a draft bill and say they will introduce in March/April 2008
• HELP was behind House/now ahead of House in bill drafting
• Focus on:
• Growth models/multiple measures
• Community/parent involvement
• State/local flexibility
• Incentives
• Teacher quality
• Differentiated sanctions
Reauthorization Options…………THERE WILL BE CHANGES!!
• Abandon the law
• Completely restructure the law
• Make minimal changes to the law (USED, BRT, Chamber of Commerce, Education Trust)
• Keep the law, but reduce federal mandates and oversight
• Keep the law, but strengthen it with greater federal mandates
33
NCLB Re-Authorization Issues
One size does not fit all—not enough local flexibility
Changing AYP proficiency measure* Growth model* Multiple measures/Will they weaken
accountability?* Increased funding Adding middle School and high school reform
initiatives* Strengthening community and parent engagement Teacher performance pay
34
NCLB Re-Authorization Issues
Requiring ELL Children to take grade level tests when they do not speak English*
IDEA and NCLB: which takes precedence Law is too punitive/beats up on schools, rather
than helps them* School districts don’t enforce parental
involvement provisions Reducing punitive measures/increasing
incentives* National testing and standards??* Transfer and tutoring provisions don’t work
35
No Child Left Behind
How do we Approach Reauthorization?In choosing a vehicle for K-12 reform, which
vehicle has been chosen to get us where we need to go? and…
Will it get us there? and… What does the policy look like that will
assure a quality public education for all children
36
Reauthorizing ESEAReauthorizing ESEAStrategy and TacticsStrategy and Tactics
1. All the controversy has promoted change2. It’s going into the second year of the process
1. Some powerful senators don’t want to do it until 20092. Kennedy tenacity probably will produce a bill in 20083. Doubtful a NCLB agreement can be reached in 20084. Committees and members seeking input from the grassroots
3. We need to establish broad themes, but the devil is in the details1. NCLB is a start, but we need to get beyond NCLB. There has to be far
more at the table2. It’s the specifics that are holding up reauthorization3. Let’s drive specifics from the grassroots as the process unfolds4. Themes: equity, fairness, global competiviness, whole child,
individualized instruction, partnerships5. Don’t let NCLB drive agenda6. Determine federal interest vs. state and local roles: this is huge7. Relationship between USED and state/locals needs polishing
37
NARROWING OF CURRICULUM
38
NARROWING OF CURRICULUM Low performing districts are
increasing the time devoted to reading (3 hours per week) and math (1 ½ hours per week)
Social studies & science cut by 1 ½ hours each; art and music and physical education by an hour each & recess by another hour
Study of 349 school districts by the Center for Education Policy, 2007
39
MULTIPLE MEASURES THAT ASSURE COMPREHENSIVE EQUITY
Basic Academic Skills Critical thinking and problem solving Social skills and work ethic Readiness for citizenship and responsibility Foundation for life long physical health Foundation for life long emotional health Appreciation for the arts and literature Preparation for skilled work for those not going on to
collegeFrom Campaign for Educational Equity, 2007
. PROFICIENCY &
DIFFERENTIATED
SCHOOL INDENTIFICATION
41
NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDPROFICIENCY
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
California AYP Projections: Single-Year Percent of Schools Below Target
Start
50%
Yr 1
48% 45%
67% 65%62%
76%83%
87% 93%97% 98% 99%
Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10
Yr 11
Yr 12
42
Minnesota AYP Failure Rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
% of Elementary Schools
No Improvement Scenario Modest
Improvement Scenario
High Improvement Scenario
THE NCSL TASK FORCE ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
43
NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Or- Portrait of a Non-Performing School?Reading Math
Other IndicatorParticipation Proficiency Participation Proficiency
All Students Economically Disadvantaged
Other indicator for secondary schools is the graduation rate. For elementary and middle schools, it is typically the attendance rate.
Additional indicator applies only to the school-wide population.
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White Students with Disabilities
(SWD)
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students
44
NO CHILD LEFT BEHINDACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Portrait of a Non-Performing School?Reading Math
Other IndicatorParticipation Proficiency Participation Proficiency
All Students Economically Disadvantaged
Other indicator for secondary schools is the graduation rate. For elementary and middle schools, it is typically the attendance rate.
Additional indicator applies only to the school-wide population.
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Native American White Students with Disabilities
(SWD)
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students
45
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Adequate Yearly Progress: The Centerpiece of NCLB
AYP gives schools 40 ways to fail and only one way to pass. (Must meet all conditions to pass, and one deficient condition means failure.)
State accountability systems are used to diagnose problems and focus resources, AYP is designed to identify failure and to punish
AYP does not account for significant academic improvement of students who fall short of absolute grade level proficiency. (Growth)
46
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND PROFICIENCY RATES
Proficiency Projection Studies: AYP Failure Rates Projected for 2014
Connecticut: 93%Massachusetts: 74%Louisiana: 75%Pennsylvania: 77%Florida: 90%Illinois: 96%Indiana: 94%
. SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES (SES) & PARENTAL CHOICE
48
SES AND PARENTAL CHOICE
Less than 2% of eligible parents take advantage (Center for Education Policy, 2007)
Have SES kick in first followed by choice
For SES, assurance of quality staff, programs, and research-based outcomes
49
Thank You
For additional information contact:Arnold F. Fege, Director of Public Engagement and Advocacy
Public Education Network
601 13th Street, NW Suite 710S
Washington, DC 20005
202-628-7460
email: [email protected]