Fixing a broken law

This blog is the third in a series about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. My two previous blogs, Let the games begin and Grappling with testing questions  provide additional background information.

This week, it was my honor to represent Kentucky and my fellow chief state school officers at a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) committee meeting. I was one of five individuals to testify. The committee heard from a researcher, local superintendent, high school principal, a teacher and me. Each individual had five minutes to give prepared remarks. Readers may watch a video of the entire hearing – my testimony starts about 41 minutes in – or you may want to access a written text of my testimony.

I was very impressed with the level of preparation of each senator. The committee staff does a great job in organizing the hearings and providing senators with background information. I was also very pleased to see the senators focus a number of questions to the teacher and principal. We all need to do more listening to our teachers and principals.

The Senate hearing was the second in a series of hearings to gain feedback on what the components of a reauthorized NCLB should be. The first hearing focused on annual testing and this week’s hearing focused on supporting teachers and leaders. Next week, the committee will have a roundtable with practitioners to discuss innovation.

As for my predictions on reauthorization based on movement in the House and Senate, I would say that the odds are 50/50 that we will see a reauthorized bill out of Congress before the end of the year. These odds are significantly higher than at any point since 2007. What are the potential stumbling blocks?

Annual testing and accountability seem to be the key issues that must be resolved. It appears there is growing support for continuing the annual testing required by NCLB (reading and math annually in grades 3-8 and once in each in high school; science once in elementary, middle and high school). This is a total of 17 federally required tests. Annual reporting and disaggregation of test results by NCLB subgroups also seems to have strong support. 

The line in the sand will probably be drawn with the accountability component. States and districts have added significantly to the number of tests given and percentage of time dedicated to testing due to federal and state ranking/rating of schools and districts based on test scores and to meet the Race to the Top and NCLB waiver requirements that tie teacher evaluation to test score performance. Teachers focus much more on teaching to the test and assessing students more often due to their evaluations being tied to the tests. 

My prediction on the accountability model is that reauthorization will provide general guidelines on accountability, however, the final accountability models will be developed by states. The United States Department of Education (USED) will be prohibited from approving or disapproving a state-developed model for accountability unless the USED can provide significant research to support why the state model is not a valid model for accountability. This resolution on accountability will support the states that are working to create a more balanced model of accountability that focuses on the skills and outcomes that we need our students to achieve in order to be successful in postsecondary education and training, careers and as a contributing member of society.

My prediction on teacher evaluation models, required by Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, is that these decisions will be left to states with flexibility to use federal funds to implement meaningful effectiveness systems that support teacher and leader professional growth which, in turn, impact growth in student learning. While the original intent of the NCLB waiver requirement for states to develop teacher and leader evaluation systems was a good idea, the implementation has led to micromanagement of states by USED. Also, there is scant evidence that states who have implemented the required plans have been able to provide any results that the new evaluation plans actually differentiate performance of teachers and/or impact student learning.

As I think back to the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), I can recall the debates between Democrats and Republicans as NCLB was moving through Congress in 2001. Republicans were pushing for more state accountability. Democrats were agreeing with the accountability as long as results were disaggregated by subgroup so that the original intent of ESEA was met. It was interesting to me that in the hearing this week, the Republican senators were supporting the reauthorization language that would push accountability back to states with flexibility to merge funding streams. However, Sen. Warren (D – MA) was clear that federal dollars should not flow to states without accountability for how the funds were expended.

So how do the next few months look for reauthorization? The timeline for the Senate would be bill mark-up in February and hopefully floor debate in the spring with possible passage in the summer. The House timeline may be similar. A late summer or fall conference committee where the USED and President Obama would be heavily involved may be possible, with the potential for a bill signing by the end of the year. 

Lots of moving pieces have to come together. Lots of potential pitfalls loom. However, I give it 50/50 odds because it is clear that both sides agree that the law is broken and must be fixed. It is also clear that educators and parents across the nation are disillusioned with the current testing and accountability requirements of NCLB and they are very vocal about the need for change. Stay tuned!!!

Congressional inaction leaving education behind

No Child Left Behind – it’s been part of our vernacular since 2001 when Congress passed the bipartisan legislation.  The idea was to change the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through an emphasis on closing achievement gaps and greater accountability. The hallmark of the legislation was the goal that 100 percent of students would reach proficiency in reading and math by 2014. 

While a laudable goal, there were major problems in the implementation of the law. States were allowed to set their own standards, design their own tests and set proficiency cut scores as they saw fit. The result was a wide variation among the states in the percentage of students reaching proficiency in reading and math. The National Assessment Governing Board highlighted these differences in a comparison of state testing data and data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In several cases, states reported 80-90 percent of students scored proficient on state tests, while less than 20 percent reached proficiency on NAEP assessments. When many students reached college, this disparity became evident – they were not adequately prepared.   

In 2007 Congress was due to reauthorize No Child Left Behind.  In the meantime, there has been significant debate about how to do so. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proposed a blueprint to reauthorize NCLB; both the House and Senate have tried to move legislation that would reauthorize this important education law. However, to date, there has been no consensus on change and no success. 

While a 100 percent proficiency goal was worthy, it was also an impossible goal to reach. With the 2014 deadline looming, states and schools faced a deadline that would label all schools as failures. No Child Left Behind had lost all credibility with educators, parents, and the public. Something had to be done.

So in absence of ESEA reauthorization, the President and Secretary utilized executive orders and existing language in No Child Left Behind to allow states to seek waivers with the proviso they would do a better job preparing all children for college and careers. I had the opportunity to serve on a task force with the Council of Chief State School Officers that developed next-generation accountability principles that were a foundation for many states as they asked for a No Child Left Behind waiver. To date 44 states have received waivers.

The waiver issue has been in the news lately. Washington became the first state to lose a waiver when the state was unable to meet key requirements that it had agreed to in its waiver application.  During hearings on the administration’s proposed education budget, many of the questions from committee members focused on the No Child Left Behind waivers. Education writers have been criticizing the administration about how the Department of Education has handled the waivers.

The criticism is misplaced. States asked for relief from No Child Left Behind due to the impending 2014 deadline.  The criticism should be redirected to the root of the problem – Congress. Through its inability to pass a reauthorized No Child Left Behind law, Congress has left states floundering and the Department of Education attempting to help without any clear guidance or vision from lawmakers. 

Congress has failed to meet minimum expectations on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The public recognizes this as evidenced by the low ratings on opinion polls. With a mid-term election in November, it is time to ask candidates what they would do to get Congress moving again so that our education system is not left behind.

The Importance of Federal Flexibility

This week I had the honor of testifying before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee at a hearing titled “No Child Left Behind: Early Lessons from State Flexibility Waivers.”

In February 2012, Kentucky was one of the first states granted a waiver from certain requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by the U.S. Department of Education. The waiver cleared the way for the state’s new Unbridled Learning: College/Career-Readiness for All accountability system to be used for both state and federal accountability.

With this testimony, I had the opportunity to not only urge reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and explain our experience with the waiver process but also share on a national stage the great work we are doing in Kentucky and the progress we are making to ensure all our students graduate college/career ready.

Below is a transcript of my testimony before the HELP committee. Video of the full proceeding can be accessed here.

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Testimony
Washington D.C.

February 7, 2013

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and Senator Paul, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the Committee today about Kentucky’s ESEA flexibility waiver. I am honored to explain to you how we are best serving the students in my state.

First, though, let me be clear that Kentucky and my fellow chiefs across the nation support ESEA reauthorization first and foremost. We feel that only reauthorization gives us the long range expectations of federal accountability and the long-term sustainability of our efforts to best serve the needs of students. With reauthorization, we can implement policies that address the requirements of the legislation with fidelity, knowing that we will not have to alter those plans for any reason other than their success in meeting the goal of getting our students to college and career readiness.

I also thank Secretary Duncan and President Obama for the opportunity to innovate and build a new college and career readiness-based assessment and accountability system in Kentucky through the ESEA waiver process that I hope will inform reauthorization efforts and highlight the value of state flexibility in federal law.

From the very beginning of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), I have been an ardent supporter of the vision of the legislation. EVERY child should reach proficiency. For too long, our schools had failed to meet the needs of many children who needed our help the most. However, as we all can agree, while the vision of NCLB was right, we lost something in the translation to details. NCLB had some unintended consequences. Among these were:

• Wide variation in standards and proficiency levels across states
• A focus on “teaching to the test”
• Loss of a balanced approach to education with reductions in the arts, physical education, science and other critical subject areas
• A focus on “bubble kids” who were close to passing state tests and not providing support for gifted/talented students or low-performing students
• Confusion of parents with different systems for state and federal accountability that often reported contradicting results

Given the challenges of implementation and the looming 2014 timeline of NCLB to reach 100 percent proficiency, the Council of Chief State School Officers convened a group of chiefs to develop a model for next generation accountability systems that would focus on college and career readiness. This group was a natural progression to the successful work of the Common Core Standards. During this time, the administration was also working on the waiver process for states who wanted to create innovative accountability systems.

The timing was right for Kentucky. In 2009, our General Assembly had unanimously passed Senate Bill 1, which required more rigorous standards, rigorous assessments, a balanced accountability system, and support for educators to implement the new system. Kentucky was one of the first states to apply for the ESEA waiver due to our state legislation.

Kentucky completed a waiver application that built on the key components of NCLB. We kept a focus on proficiency, achievement gaps, graduation rate, and annual progress. However, we moved to a more rigorous standard – college and career readiness for all students. Our state legislation had recognized the economic imperative of having more students graduate from high school that had achieved college and career readiness in addition to basic skills proficiency.

Let me highlight a few elements of our waiver request:

K-3 Program Review – This component measures every child’s readiness for kindergarten based on common readiness expectations. Through this component, we ensure early childhood providers use the information to improve services to children. Also, we ensure that schools are ready for children and help all children reach success in reading and math by the end of 3rd grade.

College and Career Readiness – Perhaps the most innovative component of our system is the partnership with business and higher education to clearly define college and career readiness and have measures in place that track progress of individual students, schools and districts. In grades 3-8, we have built an assessment system that measures college/career ready standards and reports on the progress of individual students, classrooms, schools and districts toward the goal of college/career readiness for all students. At the 8th, 10th, and 11th grade levels, we have added end-of-course assessments and independent college/career-ready assessments that provide college/career readiness measures accepted by colleges and businesses.

Balanced system – Our accountability system supports the concept of the whole child. It was very important to our General Assembly that we provide opportunities for students to excel in arts/humanities, career and technology, physical education and health, world languages, and writing/research programs. Our Program Review accountability measure uses the latest in performance-based assessments and project-based learning to measure student learning and student opportunities in these areas. This ensures we have a balanced approach to accountability rather than a limited focus on basic math and reading skills.

Subgroup performance – Kentucky continues the focus on individual subgroup performance as required by NCLB; however, due to low student counts in some schools for some subgroups, we found that many Kentucky schools were not being held accountable for closing achievement gaps. Through our new accountability system, we have ensured that ALL schools have the responsibility for closing achievement gaps through an aggregate gap group even if they have small counts for individual subgroups.  The use of the aggregate gap group allows for the inclusion of students otherwise missed due to the low number of students in a single subgroup. To make sure that individual subgroups are not being overlooked, we set ambitious performance targets for all subgroups and use these targets to drive interventions, and require that schools improve the performance of the subgroup that led to their identification.

Comparative data and transparency – Through the use of our on-line accountability school and district report card, the citizens of Kentucky are able to see how their school or district is performing compared to other schools or districts. Also, citizens are able to see the annual targets for improvement of their school and district in proficiency, gap, graduation rate, and college/career readiness.

The results from our accountability model have certainly been catching the attention of many states. With our first assessment of the Common Core Standards, we saw drops in proficiency rates of between 20 percent to 30 percent in language arts and math. However, we are not shying away from these results; in fact we embrace these as a more realistic view of the percentage of our students who are making progress toward reaching the most important goal of college and career readiness. These results also are very much in alignment with the National Assessment of Education Progress.

Additionally, we are seeing some early indications of improvement. Our graduation rates have improved and the percentage of graduates who are college and career ready has improved from a baseline of 34 percent in 2010 to 47 percent for the Class of 2012.

In closing, I again thank the committee for this opportunity to speak, and thank Secretary Duncan and President Obama for encouraging the state-level innovation that we are seeing in Kentucky and across the country.

My request to the committee is very simple. I hope you will move toward reauthorization as soon as possible to provide concrete parameters for states for improving education systems to better serve students. However, I strongly encourage the committee to provide those states that have demonstrated their commitment to accountability and college/career readiness for ALL students, through the waiver process, the ability to continue and grow that innovation through a flexible federal law and additional funding flexibility that will support states as they work to make the vision of college/career readiness for ALL students a reality.