1 No Child or Educator Left Behind January 29, 2003

2 Welcome Why Are You Here? Welcome to Chicago … Why did you come? What is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? What do you know about it?

4 So Many Acronyms So Little Time…

Origins of NCLB Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first enacted in Periodic reauthorization by Congress has occurred, with the last one prior to NCLB being in 1994.

NCLB in Illinois Finding Balance

NCLB This is the Federal Law (PL ) Signed into law January 8, 2002 Addresses complex issues. Interpretations will be numerous. Court challenges will likely occur. Be prepared for major changes!!!

8 The Illinois Vision The vision of the Illinois State Board of Education is that public schools will enable all students to succeed. ISBE identified three priorities that are considered critical to meeting the vision for Illinois education.  Eliminating the Achievement Gap  Eliminating the Educator Gap – Quantity and Quality  Eliminating the Funding Gap The priority of the state board will be focused on guiding policy to accomplish the elimination of these gaps by addressing the 5 goals of NCLB.

9

Five Goals Achievement Limited English Proficient Highly Qualified Teachers Safe Schools Graduation To achieve the 5 goals of NCLB, Illinois will focus on 3 previously identified GAPS. Identified Gaps Achievement Gap Educator Gap Funding Gap

11 Key Dates for Illinois January 2002 Fall 2002 Winter Spring 2003 Fall

12 Illinois School Code State laws must change to meet the requirements and interpretations of NCLB. Although most requirements currently apply only to Title I funded schools, NCLB requires a single state accountability system… so… Expect legislation in 2003 Illinois Public Act has already been amended to address NCLB.

13 Illinois Public Act amends the School Code to align with NCLB Effective immediately … NAEP*… all schools selected by USDE must participate Report Card… will be made available on district web sites or upon request Bilingual Education Notice… notifications to families include additional provisions beyond previous state law Public School Choice… selection parameters now in place  Laws or court orders (e.g., desegregation) cannot be violated.  Magnet schools transfers meet existing criteria or as a last resort.  Student transfer cannot exceed school enrollment capacity. *NAEP National Assessment of Education Progress (grades 4 and 8 reading and math)

14 Review of the 5 Goals Achievement Limited English Proficient Highly Qualified Teachers Safe Schools Graduation

15 Performance Goal 1: Achievement By all students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

16 Measuring Achievement The Illinois state assessment system will need to be modified to assure testing in at least reading and mathematics for grades 3-8 (by ). As of spring 2002, all tests counted! Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE) Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE) for limited English proficient students. Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA) for students with disabilities included in AYP for the first time.

17 AYP: Making Adequate Yearly Progress Baseline for both reading and mathematics are projected to be at 40% meeting/exceeding standards based on 2001 AYP simulation. All schools will have the same annual target. Schools under the baseline need to meet the 2003 annual target (in composite and student demographic groups), then progress toward 100% meeting/exceeding standards by Schools over the baseline have no required progression rate, but know that the target moves up annually…

18 Elements of Making AYP 95% participation by all subgroups (40 as N size) and composite, per school, per district + Making academic achievement goals + Meeting another academic indicator  High schools: graduation rate threshold  Elementary and middle schools: attendance rate threshold

19 This will apply to all schools in 2003 using disaggregated data! % Target % Baseline Target data

20 Illini Plan for Intermediate Goals

21 Minimal Size of Subgroup States must set the size of the group in order to “…yield statistically reliable information…” States must produce a rationale for the selected “minimal size.” Using 40 for subgroups and 10 as minimum for reporting Low income status + Students with disabilities + Limited-English proficient + Race/ethnicity 5 groups

ReadingReading Math A YP is determined by making it over all 18 hurdles (9 hurdles for reading and 9 for math) by disaggregation of data. Composite American Indian American Indian Asian Black White Hispanic Students with Disabilities Students with Disabilities Low Income Low Income LEP

“Safe Harbor” Safe Harbor “Safe Harbor” allows for schools to avoid being identified as “not meeting” the achievement benchmark as identified by NCLB. Even if a school does not make AYP in the composite or any student demographic group, it can fulfill its progress requirement per group by: Decreasing by 10% the proportion of students who do not meet/exceed standards AND maintain or raise the graduation rate (for high schools) OR maintain or improve attendance rates (for elementary/middle schools)

ISAT Reading - Grade 3

ISAT Reading - Grade 5

ISAT Reading - Grade 8

27 Achievement Gaps 2002 PSAE Math

28 PSAE Reading - Students with Disabilities % Meets and Exceeds Students with Disabilities Students w/out Disabilities

29 Adequate Yearly Progress Accountability School Improvement Status (Federal) and System of Support (Illinois) Schools are identified as needing school improvement (School Improvement I) and placed on Academic Early Warning List (AEWL) if they:  Fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)  Are recipients of any Title I funding  Continue to serve the same grade levels After 2 consecutive years of no improvement, these schools join the Illinois System of Support (School Improvement II).

Illinois Proposed Single Accountability System: School Improvement/Sanctions State Academic Early Warning List Level 1 Misses AYP for 2 years Federal School Improvement 1 Status State Academic Early Warning List Level 2 Misses AYP for 3 years Federal School Improvement 2 Status State Academic Watch List Misses AYP for 4 years Federal Corrective Action Status State Intervention Status Misses AYP for 5 years Federal Restructuring Status Revised School Improvement Plans approved by local board External Support Team School & District Analysis District/State Performance Agreement Optional: Extended Day/Year Programs Revised School Improvement Plans approved by local board and Regional Office of Education External Support Team School & District Analysis District/State Performance Agreement Optional: Extended Day/Year Programs Revised School Improvement Plans approved by local board, Regional Office of Education and ISBE School Improvement Panel appointed by State Superintendent School & District Analysis District/State Performance Agreement Optional: Extended Day/Year Programs Additionally for Title I schools: Classify the school as a charter school OR Replace principal and staff OR Select an outside management entity OR State takeover and management In addition, Title I schools must Offer School Choice In addition, Title I schools must offer School Choice Supplemental Educational Services In addition, Title I schools must offer School Choice Supplemental Educational Services Options for Title I schools also include: Extended school day/year and/or Incentives for HQ teachers and/or External curriculum modifications Moderate Support Intensive Support Regional Superintendent removes local school board OR State Superintendent appoints an Independent Authority to operate school or district State Board non-recognizes school or district, dissolving the entity OR State Superintendent reassigns pupils and administrative staff

31 What is the Illinois System of Support? ISBE assistance to identified schools and districts: School improvement planning External support and partnerships Additional funding and resources Using scientifically-based research and proven practices for: increasing student achievement raising teacher quality parent involvement instructional leadership allocating resources

32 ILLINOIS SINGLE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY COMPLIANCE ACCOUNTABILITY (Inputs) PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY (Outcomes) School Code Requirements/ Regulations Illinois Learning Standards Monitoring Annual Assurances Full Compliance Full Recognition Incomplete Compliance Pending Recognition Probationary Recognition Non-Recognition State Assessments Meeting AYP CriteriaNot Meeting AYP Criteria State & Federal RewardsAcademic Early Warning List Academic Watch List Non-Recognition

Illinois Proposed Single Accountability System: School Rewards/Recognition PROGRESS RECOGNITION All Student Groups Meet AYP Requirements in Reading and Mathematics Public Reporting of Progress Attainment Regulatory Flexibility PERFORMANCE RECOGNITION >X% of student test scores meet or exceed state standards for all student groups for all tested subjects DISTINGUISHED SCHOOLS RECOGNITION Title I school with year’s highest % of students reaching reading and math proficiency Title I school that made the year’s most progress in closing achievement gaps in reading and math across all student groups Public Recognition Established as a model school for specific instructional strategies State Board Showcase School SPECIAL PROGRAM RECOGNITION Programs show measurable positive results for students; e.g., Early Childhood Attendance Truancy/Dropout Prevention Substance Abuse Violence Prevention Extended Day/Year Public Reporting Established as a model school for specific program(s) Public Reporting School Banner Regulatory Flexibility THOSE WHO EXCEL RECOGNITION Significant closure of achievement gaps among student groups OR Exceeds AYP Targets Public Reporting Monetary Award for Instructional Use BLUE RIBBON SCHOOLS RECOGNITION Schools having at least 40% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds that dramatically improve reading and mathematics to high levels Schools whose students, regardless of background, achieve in the top 10% in reading and mathematics STATEFEDERAL Public Recognition Established as a national model school

34 District Accountability and AYP (never used in Illinois before) All school information aggregated at district level 95% participation Disaggregated data (so may be subgroups at district level while not at school level) Achievement information Use of additional indicator Use of safe harbor

35 National Accountability 363 public schools in Illinois were selected to participate in the 2003 Reading and Math sample at grades 4 and 8. Illinois law requires selected schools to participate. NAEP tests are administered to a sample of students (approximately 64) in each participating school. US Department of Education will use State NAEP data to verify the results of statewide assessments. NAEP is administrated by Federal Contractors from January 27 – March 7. Chicago participates in District NAEP. Participation in NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)

36 Performance Goal 2: LEP All LEP students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

37 LEP Requirements New Testing Requirements  LEP students who have attended school in US for three consecutive years and who participate in a language instruction program must be tested in English in reading and language arts. (Individual waivers will be allowed for students for up to two years after the initial three year period if special circumstances exist) New Notice for Parents of LEP  Detailed parental notification and documentation (with the application for funding forms)

38 Performance Goal 3: Highly Qualified Teachers By all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. Quality Educator Issues Title II/Part A

39 “The Teacher Effect Makes All Other Differences Pale In Comparison “ Williams Sanders

40 All Talk: No Action Education Trust, August 2002 The amount of out-of-field teaching in the nation and states remains unacceptably high; no progress nationally from to to reduce this amount. Classes in high poverty and high minority schools are much more likely to be assigned to a teacher lacking minimal academic qualifications in the subject area. High schools have unacceptably high rates of out-of-field teaching in core subjects. There is a significant problem in the middle grades in terms of teacher assignment and out-of-field teaching. The rates for out-of-field teacher assignments are particularly high in math.

41 Criteria on Highly Qualified Staff Funding Source Location Duties

42 Highly Qualified Teachers--Funding Title I Teachers  Those teaching core academic subjects, teaching in a program supported by Title I funds, and hired after the first day of school year must be highly qualified.  Targeted Assistance Schools  Schoolwide Schools All Teachers (regardless of funding source)  By the end of school year, all teachers must be highly qualified.

43 Highly Qualified Teachers--Location Title I Teachers  Those teaching core academic subjects, teaching in a program supported by Title I funds, and hired after the first day of school year must be highly qualified.  Targeted Assistance Schools  Schoolwide Schools All Teachers (regardless of funding source)  By the end of school year, all teachers must be highly qualified.

44 Highly Qualified Teachers--Duties “…Those teaching core academic subjects…" Reading or English LA Mathematics Science Foreign Languages Civics Government Economics Arts History Geography

45 Highly Qualified Teacher Issues What we know: Teachers holding only Transitional Bilingual or Substitute certificates do not meet highly qualified definition. ISBE is seeking further guidance from USDE on definition of highly qualified as it relates to middle school and special education teachers. Once guidance is received, ISBE and ROEs will facilitate district training to identify highly qualified teachers.

46 Parental Notification Requirements Beginning with school year, districts receiving Title I funds must notify parents they have the right to request information on the professional qualifications of teachers. Schools receiving Title I funds must provide timely notice to parents if a student is assigned for four (4) or more consecutive weeks to a teacher who is not highly qualified.

47 Suggestions for Notification Include information on how the teacher is qualified; Include information on NCLB timeline requirements— ; Include information on how the school will assist teachers in becoming highly qualified; Include information on why teacher was assigned to position.

48 Professional Development Requirements State and districts receiving funds must ensure that increased numbers of teachers receive high quality professional development each year. ISBE will align professional development provider evaluations to USDE/NCLB definition of professional development. One-day or short-term workshops and conferences cannot be considered professional development for NCLB purposes.

49 Qualified Paraprofessionals The law addresses qualifications, duties and responsibilities. Paraprofessionals in programs supported with Title I funds newly hired after January 8, 2002 must meet one of the following 3 criteria:  2 years of post-secondary study at an Institute of Higher Education  An Associate’s degree  A rigorous standard of quality as demonstrated through a formal state or local assessment measuring the ability to assist in the instruction of math, reading and writing or math readiness, reading readiness or writing readiness. Existing paraprofessionals hired before January 8, 2002 and working in programs supported with Title I funds have until January 8, 2006 to become qualified.

50 Latest Paraprofessional News!!!!! Paraprofessional Assessment Guidance  ETS’ ParaPro is acceptable means of meeting requirements.  Local assessment criteria is established.  ACT WorkKeys will be considered when evidence of ‘ability to assist in instruction’ is established.  Find the guidance document at ISBE NCLB web page

51 Principal’s Role Principals will have to verify compliance Attest annually in writing as to whether the school is in compliance or not

52 For More Information Certification/Testing: Certificate Renewal: Professional Preparation:

53 Performance Goal 4: Safe Schools All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.

54 Unsafe School Choice Option “Persistently Dangerous” is addressed by ISBE policy right now. Legislation may be required. Students may exercise their choice option and transfer under the “persistently dangerous” school provision when:  Violence related expulsions are greater than 3%.  One or more students have been expelled for gun or explosive device.  # of students exercising the choice option is greater than 3%.  Any individual student who is a victim of “violent criminal offense at school” (immediate transfer upon verification of the offense).

55 Performance Goal 5: Graduation All students will graduate from high school.

56 Looking Deeper: Reading First Special Education SIP and Data Analysis Secondary Education

57 Reading First Eligible districts are those that have the greatest percentage or number of 3 rd grade students not meeting state standards for reading AND have the greatest % or # of students eligible for Title I, Basic. Funds of $50, ,000 per school for the initial year, and then diminishing over time. Focus on K-3

58 Students with Disabilities IDEA is being reauthorized at this time… Student – all public school children will be tested, including students with disabilities. The % of students with disabilities participating in state assessments is increasing. IMAGE and IAA results were included in the calculations of AYP in 2002.

59 Federal Funding Sources Titles I, II, IV and V 21 st Century Community Learning Community Rural Education Comprehensive School Reform and Title I Accountability Community Service Grant

60 Federal $$$ To Illinois Title I up $67.6 M over prior year, to $434.4 M Reading First at $32.8 M (statewide) new 21 st Century at $12.5 M (statewide*) new Class Size $/Eisenhower $ per se (-$85.7 M) Title II - Teacher Quality at $115.5M State Assessment Funds at $12.3 M new Educational Technology Grants up to $25.7 M Urgent School Repair (none now, -$42.6 M) IDEA up $55 M over the prior year, to $336 M Total increase in federal $ over last year: $222.8 M Earmarks to LEAs to help with specific achievement gaps GRAND TOTAL IN ALL NCLB FUNDS NOW AT $800 M!!! NO NEW APPROPRIATION YET

Resource Updates ISBE Home Page – ISBE No Child Left Behind Page – ISBE No Child Left Behind – USDE home page- Newsletter: THE ACHIEVER ROE/ ISC