NCLB REDUX: House Committee Releases Draft Language on NCLB Reauthorization, Includes Significant New Programs for High Schools

On August 28, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and Ranking Member Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) released a 435-page plan for reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and invited education stakeholders to submit comments on it by September 5. The draft, which only included Title I of NCLB, contains significant new provisions for high schools. It also outlines plans to revamp the accountability system by revising how Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is calculated and includes new interventions for schools that fail to meet achievement goals.

“In response to feedback that we have received on the No Child Left Behind Act through nearly two dozen hearings in Washington, DC and around the country, a review of written recommendations from over 100 education groups, and many conversations with our constituents and our colleagues in Congress, we have developed the attached staff discussion draft for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” reads a letter from Miller, McKeon, and Representatives Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Michael Castle (R-DE) that accompanied the discussion draft.

The letter says that the discussion draft is a “work in progress” and “subject to change over the coming weeks as the committee moves a bill through the legislative process.” It adds that the committee had not endorsed the draft but felt that it represented a “good starting point from which to receive input.”

The reauthorization of NCLB provides Congress with an excellent opportunity to address middle and high schools, which were largely left out of the current law. The discussion draft appears to take several steps toward correcting that oversight. One new provision is a “Graduation Promise Fund” that would establish new resources to support schoolwide improvement activities in high schools with the lowest graduation rates.

Unlike the current law, which allows states to use different graduation rate calculations, the draft plan would establish a single definition of a high school graduation rate that would be used in every state. It would also boost graduation rate accountability by requiring states to disaggregate graduation rates by student subgroups (racial, special education, English language learners, etc.) in a way similar to that currently used for test scores. In addition, it would require all schools to make increases in their graduation rates in order to make AYP.

For example, under the draft language states will either require schools to meet an average growth target of 2.5 percentage points per year in their graduation rates to make AYP (3 percentage points if a five-year graduation rate is used) or may develop an alternate system that is equally rigorous and results in closing the achievement gap between student subgroups by 2019–2020. It would also set an end goal of a 90 percent graduation rate for every high school in the country.

To help states measure graduation rates more accurately and to address other needs, the draft plan would create a new program to help fund longitudinal data systems in every state and require each state to develop such a system within four years of the bill’s passage. Data collected by these systems includes student academic achievement results, graduation rates, and other data elements related to academic achievement.

The draft also outlines plans to revamp the accountability system by implementing “growth models” that would allow states to measure growth in individual student achievement over time instead of comparing cohorts of students from year to year. And whereas NCLB in its current form only permits states to count math and reading scores to measure AYP, the draft proposal would allow states to use multiple measures for accountability, including graduation, dropout, and college-going rates, the percentage of students who complete end-of-course exams for college preparatory courses, and assessments in government, history, science, and writing. And, whereas NCLB in its current form focuses on bringing every student up to proficiency in reading and math, the draft language moves the goal to which states should align their standards to college and work readiness.

Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia, called the draft a “true step forward” for high school reform at the federal level. “In the past, high schools have been neglected in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” he said. “Clearly, Chairman Miller and Representative McKeon are being thoughtful and deliberate in the way they approach high school policy in this reauthorization. The draft takes into consideration the research and practice that shows what is working for at-risk students in our nation’s high schools by including a new funding stream for research-based high school improvement, along with a more accurate measure of high school performance through common calculation, disaggregation, and meaningful growth in graduation rates for all students.”

However, Wise added that some sections of the draft were “in need of improvement,” specifically mentioning that “adequate funding is critical to the success of school improvement efforts.” He said that he looked forward to working with Congressmen Miller and McKeon to ensure that the reauthorization includes the best policy for the nation’s high school students.

Looking Forward

At the end of July, Chairman Miller said that it was his intention to bring the bill reauthorizing NCLB to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for debate during the month of September. With a one-week turnaround for submitting comments on the Title I discussion draft, a marathon hearing on the reauthorization scheduled for September 10, and a September 14 deadline for comments on Titles II–XI (see article below), it is apparent that Miller is doing everything he can to keep his timeline.

On the Senate side, lawmakers worked on their version of NCLB reauthorization throughout the month of August and hope to have it ready for floor debate before the end of the year.

The complete NCLB discussion draft, as well as an eleven-page summary, is available at http://edworkforce.house.gov/micro/nclb.shtml.

MORE NCLB: House Committee Releases Draft Language on Revamped Striving Readers Program, Teacher Pay for Performance Plan, and the Rest of NCLB

On September 6, the House Education and Labor Committee released a staff discussion draft of the remaining titles (Titles II-XI) for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The draft includes language that would officially authorize the Striving Readers program; it currently exists only as a demonstration program through the appropriations bills.

When signed into law in 2002, NCLB contained the Reading First program, a $1 billion program aimed at grades K–3 with the goal of teaching every student how to read by third grade, but it lacked a similar reading program for older students.

First proposed by President Bush in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget, the Striving Readers program was designed to fill that void and was tasked with improving the reading skills of middle school and high school students who read below grade level. Currently, however, only eight programs nationwide receive funding under the Striving Readers program—even though the U.S. Department of Education received close to 150 applications in the initial competition and nine hundred intentions to apply for a grant. The need for a larger program is obvious—as evidenced by the grant competition and by the latest results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading, also known as the Nation’s Report Card, which finds that nearly 70 percent of all fourth- and eighth-grade students failed to read at grade level.

As included in the draft language released last week, the “new and improved” Striving Readers program would be far more comprehensive and, if supported by appropriate funding levels, could expand to every state. Specifically, the revised program would help states create statewide literacy initiatives for students in grades 4–12, share data on student progress with parents and with the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high-quality instruction. It would also provide funding to districts and schools to create plans to improve literacy, develop top-notch assessments, train teachers in every subject area in literacy strategies, and use data to improve teaching and learning.

At the school level, grant recipients would use money for assessments, training principals to support adolescent literacy initiatives, data collection, recruiting adolescent literacy coaches, and professional development. Schools that receive funds would also have to provide ongoing high-
quality professional development in adolescent literacy instruction to teachers of core academic subjects and to school leaders.

States would have to set aside a portion of their funds to provide technical assistance, preservice course work reviews, state licensure and certification recommendations, and progress reports on
whether there was a reduction in the number of students who read and write below grade level. The draft also requires a national evaluation of the Striving Readers program and its impact on student achievement.

Teacher Pay-for-Performance and New Math Program for Secondary School Students Also Included in Draft Plan

The draft language for Titles II–XI also includes provisions on teacher and principal quality, English language learners, after-school programs, education reform and innovative programs, and additional language on accountability and flexibility.

The teacher language included in the discussion draft borrows heavily from the Teacher Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act of 2007, introduced in May by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, and contains provisions for teacher-performance pay and career ladders for teachers.

Under the teacher-performance pay section, high-need school districts could choose to apply for performance pay bonuses of up to $10,000 for outstanding teachers (and of up to $12,500 for teachers of math, science, special education and other shortage subjects) and annual bonuses of up to $15,000 to outstanding principals who transfer into the hardest-to-staff schools for four years. However, school districts would have to develop the evaluation criteria in collaboration with local teacher unions and base it on multiple measures of success, including student learning gains, principal evaluations, and master teacher evaluations.

The career ladder section would establish competitive grants for high-need school districts to establish career ladder programs that increase salaries for those teachers who expand their knowledge and skills and take on additional responsibilities or leadership roles within the school.

The draft language would also provide competitive grants for high-need school districts to create teacher residency programs in which a prospective teacher would work alongside mentor teachers for an academic year. In return, participating prospective teachers must commit to teach in a high-need school district for a period of 5 years.

Also included in the draft is a proposal to combine the Math NOW and Math Skills programs into a single grant program called Math Success for All, which would provide funds for school districts to offer targeted help to low-income students in kindergarten through secondary school whose math achievement is significantly below grade level. Grants awarded under the program could be used to provide inservice training to mathematics coaches who would help elementary and secondary school teachers implement research-based mathematics instruction in their classrooms. Coaches would assist teachers in assessing and improving students’ mathematical abilities and knowledge.

The complete draft language for Titles II–XI, as well as a fourteen-page summary, is available at http://edlabor.house.gov/micro/nclb.shtml.

Education Funding Still Up in the Air: Timeline Unclear for Education Appropriations Bill Congress is in high gear for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), but the same cannot be said for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education appropriations bill. It has slowed to a snail’s pace since the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill on July 19. Although the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the bill on June 21, a timetable for debate on the Senate floor has yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Senate will consider the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which controls spending for the U.S. Department of Education, sometime this fall. As passed by the House of Representatives, the overall bill totals $607 billion—$10.8 billion more than requested by the president and $2.5 billion more than the amount approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. For the U.S. Department of Education, the House bill includes approximately $62 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $5.5 billion over FY 2007 and about $6 billion more than President Bush had requested. Final action on the bill could be delayed until at least December if President Bush vetoes the bill, as he has promised. In a Statement of Administration Policy released on July 17, the president took issue with the level of funding included in the House version of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, saying that the bill contained an “irresponsible and excessive level of spending.”

THE ECONOMIC LOSSES FROM HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS IN CALIFORNIA: New Study Pegs Annual Loss at $46.4 Billion

The 120,000 students who did not graduate from California’s high schools in 2007 will cost California approximately $46.4 billion over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new brief by the California Dropout Research Project (CDRP). The brief, The Economic Losses from High School Dropouts in California, finds that the costs associated with dropouts stem, not only from lost tax revenue, but also from higher medical costs and the increased likelihood of a dropout being on welfare or committing a crime, compared to individuals who receive a high school diploma.

“Until now, we knew very little about the economic costs of California’s dropout crisis,” said Russell W. Rumberger, University of California-Santa Barbara professor of education and CDRP director. “These findings reveal severe economic consequences to the state and underscore the need for solutions to the dropout crisis.”

According to the study’s authors, Henry M. Levin, Columbia University professor of economics, and Clive Belfield, assistant professor of economics from Queens College, City University of New York, California loses $46.4 billion—2.9 percent of the gross state product—for each group of Californians who reach age twenty without a high school diploma. The brief reports that there were more than four million people (ages eighteen to sixty-four) in California in 2005 who had not earned a high school diploma.

In the study, Levin and Belfield break down the costs associated from dropouts into several categories. For example, they find that high school graduates earn an average of $290,000 more during their lifetimes and pay $100,000 more in taxes than dropouts. Because of this income disparity, California’s state government loses $3.1 billion in state and local tax revenue for each year’s worth of dropouts. In addition, they find that California must spend an additional $2.5 billion for crime-related expenses, $400 million on food stamps, welfare, and other support, and $3.5 billion on health expenditures for each class of dropouts.

In a separate brief, The Return on Investment for Improving California’s High School Graduation Rate, Belfield and Levin perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine what it would take to ensure that more Californians earned a high school diploma. Using five interventions that range from preschool to high school and that have proven track records in raising the rate of high school graduation as models, Belfield and Levin determine that the cost of producing one additional high school graduate ranges from $37,810 to $131,000.

Compared to the benefits per high school graduate, which range from $53,000 (fiscal benefits to state and local governments) to $392,000 (total economic benefits to the state), Belfield and Levin conclude that each dollar invested in the five proven interventions generates a return of $2 to $4 in fiscal benefits to all levels of government.

Both studies are available at http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/.

EDUCATION AND SAFETY: New Brief Suggests Connection Between Educational Attainment and Crime, Public Safety

States that invest more resources in education tend to have lower violent crime and incarceration rates, according to a new research brief published by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). Titled Education and Safety, it is the first in JPI’s series of four briefs that will focus on the effects of positive social investments on public safety.

Released August 31, the brief highlights research regarding educational attainment in relation to crime and safety. It concludes that “there is no silver bullet that will guarantee reductions in criminal activity or crime rates, [but] the research suggests that increased investments in quality education can have a positive public safety benefit.”

JPI reports that an increase in graduation rates may have a positive impact on crime reduction, citing a study by the American Economic Review which finds that a one-year increase in the average years of schooling completed leads to a 30 percent decrease in violent crime. The brief also emphasizes the findings that a 5 percent increase in the male high school graduation rate would lead to approximately $5 billion in annual savings related to crime expenses, a figure that was originally published in the Alliance for Excellent Education’s Saving Futures, Saving Dollars brief in August 2006.

JPI also determined that the ten states with the highest percentages of residents that reported having at least a high school diploma had lower violent crime rates on average than the ten states with the lowest educational attainment (about 385 violent crimes per 100,000 people, compared to about 488 per 100,000). States with the highest college enrollment rates were also more likely to have lower violent crime rates (an average of 276 per 100,000, compared to 440 per 100,000 in the states with the lowest enrollment rates). Additionally, the ten states with the greatest increases in higher-education spending between 2000 and 2005 experienced an average decrease in violent crime of almost 7 percent, whereas the ten states that increased their higher-education spending by the least amount in the same time frame saw a 1 percent increase in violent crime.

The brief emphasizes the fact that communities of color are disproportionately plagued by high risk of incarceration and lower educational attainment. “As the educational prospects of most Americans improved, the prison system continues to be filled with people who suffer from the disparities in education systems,” the report reads, going on to state that imprisonment has been found to interrupt education and employment, thereby leading to the disenfranchisement of these individuals from their communities and an increase in crime.

The Justice Policy Institute brief can be found at
http://www.justicepolicy.org/content.php?hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=61.

Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction and Earnings is available at http://www.all4ed.org/publications/SavingFutures.pdf.

Straight A's: Public Education Policy and Progress is a biweekly newsletter that focuses on education news and events both in Washington, D.C., and around the country. The format makes information on federal education policy accessible to everyone from elected officials and policymakers to parents and community leaders. The Alliance for Excellent Education is a nonprofit organization working to make it possible for America's six million at-risk middle and high school students to achieve high standards and graduate prepared for college and success in life.