July 26, 2007: Letter to Chairman George Miller, House Committee on Education and Labor

July 26, 2007

The Honorable George Miller
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re:   Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act

Dear Chairman Miller:

In a recent memo to selected members of Congress, you requested comments on proposals under consideration by the House Committee on Education and Labor in preparation for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.  In addition to the comments that you receive directly from your colleagues, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is pleased to offer brief comments as well.  As you are aware, NSBA has submitted Statements for the Record at each of the scheduled hearings, and provided the Committee staff additional material regarding our recommendations.  These brief comments are offered as supplements to our more extensive comments previously provided, and respond to your broader principles in the absence of more specific details.   

Accordingly, NSBA, representing over 95,000 school board members across the nation, is pleased to offer the following additional comments: 

• Allow states to use growth models that recognize progress over time.
  NSBA supports this approach.  Research has concluded that growth is a more accurate measure of academic success, particularly for students who are traditionally at risk.  Also, allowing alternate methods of measuring progress gives states greater flexibility to design their accountability systems while continuing to support the broader goals of NCLB.  Further, we believe states should have the flexibility to design their growth models subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Education rather than the federal government mandating a specific approach. 
  
  
• Allow states to use more than test scores to measure student learning and school performance.
  NSBA supports this approach.  The new accountability system must ensure that multiple measures of academic progress are used to determine such performance, and that the assessments are reliable and valid for each student, including those with disabilities as well as English Language Learners (ELL).  Additionally, the system should ensure that states partner with the federal government and local school districts in the design, development and funding of interventions to support schools and school districts not progressing at desired levels.
   
  There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of some members of Congress concerning multiple measures of academic progress.  In our view, multiple measures simply allow states and school districts to develop systems that include more than a single standardized test to measure academic achievement.  In no way should the assessment of academic achievement be diluted.  Rather, assessors should have a combination of instruments by which academic achievement may be measured.  Having such options ensure that the assessment system is both valid and reliable for each student.
  
  
• Improve test quality.
  NSBA supports this approach.  Increased emphasis must be placed on ensuring valid and reliable assessments for each student.  Emerging approaches such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) must be more strategically used to meet the unique needs of students.  The research has well documented the fact that learning takes place in many different ways, and that in order to accurately and fairly reflect performance, assessment systems must be redesigned, and the federal government must increase the resources available to states and consortia of states to design, develop, and implement such assessment innovations.
  
  
• Direct appropriate and flexible interventions to schools that need the most assistance.
  NSBA supports this approach.  School districts should have the resources and flexibility to implement school improvement interventions that are data-driven and designed to meet the specific needs of targeted populations and individual students.  Additionally, there needs to be a System of Interventions aligned with the assessment of schools.  Currently, schools that have been identified as “in need of improvement” – and subject to sanctions – receive little additional technical or fiscal support that would improve their overall performance. 

Local schools must still be held accountable, but simply imposing sanctions on schools for lack of progress makes little sense when we understand the complexity of the current circumstances facing these schools.  For example, if two schools are performing at about the same level, but one school has been provided additional technical and fiscal resources to implement innovative interventions and the other school has been abandoned for all intent and purposes, should both schools receive the same rating or “label”?  Under the reauthorization, there must be some direct alignment between the increased use of innovative interventions and need, based on performance.

• Address the high school dropout crisis and take comprehensive steps to turn around low-performing high schools.
  We agree that this is a real challenge, but question whether the proposed approach will result in any significant turnaround.  We urge the Committee to address this issue cautiously and strategically.  The issue of high school dropout rates is a complex one requiring a more comprehensive approach.  While the formula for calculating the dropout rate needs to be consistent, the remedies and innovative strategies adopted must be left to school districts and local communities closest to the problem. 

Further, we believe that states should be required to partner with the federal government in creating and allocating additional resources.  Given the tremendous amount of resources needed, and the historical lack of federal or state resources, the federal government’s approach should be via a separate funding stream that would be triggered by an appropriate increase to the Title I program.  When federal funding continues to be limited, the major focus should be directed at students’ early years.  

• Making necessary changes to assessments and accountability so that the law works better for English Language Learners (ELLs).
  We agree in concept, and acknowledge that this, too, is a complex issue.  For states and school districts with relatively low numbers of different native language speakers, this is manageable.  However, for school districts and states with significantly higher numbers and more varied native language speakers, this remains both an operational and fiscal challenge.  Further, the issues of test reliability and test validity must be an integral part of any requirements or interventions. 

Rather than to create new mandates regarding ELL instruction and assessments, the focus of the federal government should be on assisting states to implement both short-term and long-term solutions that are workable and doable.  Ensuring high quality ELL instruction for every native language speaker requires tremendous federal and state resources to recruit and develop teachers from a much broader pool than currently available.  Ensuring high quality reliable and valid assessments for every native language speaker also requires significantly more federal and state resources.  We suggest that the federal approach should offer both technical and financial support to those states requesting such assistance through multi-year grants.  Simply mandating requirements for states and local school districts without the necessary resources will not adequately address this challenge.

• Modify the assessment and accountability systems so that the academic progress of students with disabilities can be accurately measured and reported.
  NSBA supports this approach.  Students with disabilities have unique assessment needs that must be taken into consideration when assessing student, school, and school district performance.  The current 1% and 2% caps and prohibition against the use of out of level assessments in considering performance are contrary to the whole philosophy regarding students with disabilities. 

Local schools have already made tremendous progress with the last reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with increased emphasis on parental involvement and more effective use of the IEP teams.  We recommend that such authority should be delegated to the IEP team to determine whether alternate assessments are appropriate, and how such assessments should be structured and considered in determining school and school district performance.  Further we recommend that the assessment and accountability system be modified so that the academic progress of students would allow the IEP Team to make such decisions. 

As an incentive for Congress to support its own national policy on education, we recommend that sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring would be deferred in any year that appropriations under IDEA do not increase by at least $2 billion over the previous year’s funding level. 

• 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.
  We concur that the teaching profession should be elevated, with increased emphasis on compensation, professional development, and major reforms in performance management.  However, given the historical lack of consistent federal resources over long periods, the federal approach should be in providing incentives to states and school districts to pursue innovative approaches that could subsequently be adopted by other states.  Such federal support could be made available via competitive grants requiring matching funds from the states.
  
  
• Increase funding so that all schools have the resources they need to help all children succeed.
  We strongly agree that Congress must significantly increase the federal investment in education.  Current programs like Title I continue to be short-changed resulting in significant financial challenges for states and local school districts.  The reality is that while authorization and appropriation levels have increased federal funding remains inadequate to address the emerging academic needs of the 21st century.  As an incentive, we also recommend that sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring would be deferred in any year that appropriations for Title I are not increased by at least $2 billion over the previous year until Title I is fully funded.    

We commend you for your commitment to public schools and look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the reauthorization process.  To review a complete list of our recommendations, please go to the H.R. 648 Quick Reference Guide.  If you have questions regarding our comments or recommendations, please contact Reginald M. Felton, director of federal relations, at 703-838-6782, or by e-mail, rfelton@nsba.org. 

Sincerely,

Michael A. Resnick
Associate Executive Director