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)

afege@publiceducation.orgAlso, 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: afege@publiceducation.org