No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Accountability and Assessment Implications Matrix developed by Frank Barnes, Senior Associate, AISR with Carolyn Chang and Maria Witt, Brown University ©Copyright 2002, Annenberg Institute for School Reform   STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AREA: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Title I, Part A Requires adherence to ESEA requirement that states adopt content standards in reading and math (ESEA 1994 authorization deadline: School Year 1997–98). Requires creation of a single statewide accountability system for all LEAs and public schools that are recipients of Title I funds. Maintains 1994 ESEA requirement for assessment in reading and math at 3 grade spans (3–5, 6–9, and 10–12 –, SYs 2002–2004). States must develop and implement annual assessments in reading and math in grades 3–8 (by SY 2005–06). States must develop standards for science (by SY 2005–06). Student academic achievement standards must be aligned with the state's academic content standards and must describe at least 3 achievement levels: 2 levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) and a basic achievement level. Requires implementation of science assessments at 3 grade spans (3–5, 6–9, and 10–12, by SY 2007–08). Implementation of new annual assessments may by deferred for one year if Congress does not appropriate annually specified levels of funding for assessment development and administration ($370M in Fiscal Year 2002 to $400M in FY 2005). Requires use of reading assessments in English for any student who has attended schools in the US (with the exception of Puerto Rico) for 3 or more consecutive years (by SY 2002–03). (See also Districts/LEAs: School Improvement matrix.) States must make every effort to accommodate English Language Learners, including, to the extent practiceable, providing assessments in the language most likely to accurately reflect student performance. (See also roles and responsibilities included in Title III provisions below.) States must annually assess English proficiency for all limited English proficient (LEP) students (by SY 2002–03). States must develop adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives specifying annual statewide measurable goals (by SY 2002–03). AYP is to be assessed annually to monitor the achievement of students, both in the aggregate and disaggregated by student groups based on poverty, race and ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency. The goal is for all students to meet the "proficient" level no later than SY 2013–2014. States must reserve 2% of Part A allocations for school improvement purposes in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, rising to 4% in 2004 and thereafter. States must distribute 95% of these funds to LEAs for schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. States may reserve up to 5% of annual Part A increases for Academic Achievement Awards; 75% of these funds must be awarded to high-poverty schools. States are to develop support systems for schools using resources from regional centers and laboratories, as well as other technical assistance providers. Priority goes to districts with schools subject to corrective action and school improvement policies. The support system is to include establishing and providing assistance to school support teams designating and using distinguished teachers and principals using other approaches (for example, through higher education institutions, local consortia of education service agencies, or private technical assistance providers) Annual state report cards to the public are required (by SY 2002–03). These state report cards must include (i). information on student achievement at each proficiency level on the State assessments, both in the aggregate and disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and socio-economic status Disaggregation won't be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable results or would reveal identifiable information about an individual student.   (ii). information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each group of students described above and the State's annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the academic assessments required (iii). the percentage of students not tested, disaggregated by the same categories noted above (iv). the most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject area and for each grade level for which assessments are required (v). aggregate information on any other indicators used by the state to determine the adequate yearly progress of students in achieving standards (vi). graduation rates for secondary school students consistent with Section 1111 (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years) (vii). information on the performance of local educational agencies (districts) in the state regarding making adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school improvement (viii). the professional qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers will be reported in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools Annual state reports to the Secretary are required, to be transmitted in summary form to Congress (by SY 2002–03). These state reports must include the number and names of schools identified for school improvement, the reason why each school was identified, and the measures taken to address those schools' achievement problems the number of students and schools participating in public school choice and supplemental service programs and activities state-, district- and school-level information on the quality of teachers and the percentage of classes being taught by "highly qualified" teachers       Title I, Part C Under Title I, Part A, it is required that state assessment systems enable disaggregation of results for children of migratory farmworkers and fishers (tied in with AYP). A SEA receiving Title I funds is required to provide records on migrant students to other states and LEAs at no cost. Title III, Part A, Subpart 1 States are required to develop annual measurable achievement objectives for limited-English-proficient children served under Title III that relate to such children's development and attainment of English proficiency while meeting challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards. Such annual measurable achievement objectives must reflect the student's time in a language-instruction program; must use consistent methods and measurement of growth that show, at a minimum, annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English; annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency at the end of each school year, as determined by a valid and reliable assessment; and adequate yearly progress for English Language Learners; but, this achievement objective shall not be applied to an eligible entity that, in a given school year, has experienced a large increase in limited-English-proficient children or immigrant children and youth; enrolls a statistically significant number of immigrant children and youth from countries where such children and youth had little or no access to formal education; or has a statistically significant significant number of immigrant children and youth who have fled from war or natural disaster; may also include, at the discretion of the state department of education, the number or percentage of children not receiving waivers for reading or language arts assessments.   If a state educational agency determines, based on the annual measurable achievement objectives described, that an eligible entity has failed to make progress toward meeting such objectives for 2 consecutive years, the agency shall require the entity to develop an improvement plan that will ensure that the entity meets such objectives. The improvement plan shall specifically address the factors that prevented the entity from achieving such objectives. If a state educational agency determines, based on the annual measurable achievement objectives described, that an eligible entity has failed to make progress toward meeting such objectives for 4 consecutive years, the agency shall require such entity to modify the entity's curriculum, program, and method of instruction; or make a determination whether the entity shall continue to receive funds related to the entity's failure to meet such objectives; and require such entity to replace educational personnel relevant to the entity's failure to meet such objectives. BENCHMARKS AND ASSESSMENTS States are assessed based upon Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks based primarily upon state academic indicators (assessments). NOTE: One additional academic indicator is required: at the high school level: graduation rates at the elementary school level: an indicator of the state's choosing Other indicators are permitted, but they may not be used to reduce the number of schools or change the identity of schools otherwise subject to improvement. States may average up to 3 years of data in making AYP determinations. A baseline for a school's AYP evaluation will be established by using student performance data from SY 2001–02. The student-performance data to be used for this baseline will be either a. the lowest-achieving group of students in the state (based on the above subgroups) in SY 2001–02, or b. the school at the state's 20th percentile in terms of the proportion of students at proficient levels in SY 2001–02.   The state is to choose the baseline according to whichever (a or b) has the higher proportion of proficient students. By the twelfth year, all students should be at proficiency. For SYs 2002–2014 (12 school years), progress toward AYP incremental goals will be measured against the baseline (a or b) from SY 2001–2002. Beginning in SY 2002–03, biennial (every 2 years) state participation in the state-level version of NAEP in grades 4 and 8 for reading and math will provide benchmarks for ensuring the rigor of standards and assessments. REWARDS Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 Beginning in 2004, some funds will be awarded competitively to states and LEAs based on evidence that they have increased significantly the percentage of 3rd-grade students reading at a proficient level and are improving the reading skills of students in the 1st through 3rd grades. SANCTIONS AND INTERVENTIONS States that have failed to meet the 1994 deadlines for implementing standards and a system for measuring AYP will result in the withholding of 25% of funds for state administration. The Secretary also has the option of withholding an unspecified amount of state administration funds from a state that fails to meet requirements of the new law. SUPPORTS Title I, Section 1003 (g) Authorizes $500 million for formula grants to states for a new Assistance for Local School Improvement grant program. States, in turn, make subgrants to local educational agencies to support school improvement activities. The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to help states, LEAs, and schools to meet the accountability requirements of section 1116 of Title I, Part A. States may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater, for administrative purposes. Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 Reading First State Grants (replacing the Reading Excellence Act) help states and local educational agencies to implement comprehensive reading instruction for children in kindergarten through third grade. Funds are allocated by formula based on the state's relative share of children aged 5 to 17 from families with incomes below the poverty line, with states receiving a minimum of one-quarter of one percent. Title I, Part C The Comprehensive School Reform Program supports the development, adoption, and implementation of comprehensive school reforms based on reliable research and effective practice and that will improve the academic achievement of children. Title II, Part B The new Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program authorizes $450 million for competitive 3-year grants to partnerships for activities to improve the academic achievement of students in the areas of mathematics and science. Competitive awards are given directly to partnerships at appropriation levels below $100 million and formula allocations to SEAs at appropriation levels of $100 million or more. Partnerships include an SEA; an engineering, math, or science department of an institution of higher education (IHE); and a high-need LEA. Title III Consolidates the 13 current bilingual and immigrant education programs into a state formula program and significantly increases flexibility and accountability (most of the consolidation is accomplished only if the appropriation is at least $650 million). Maintains the current focus on assisting school districts in teaching English to limited English proficient students and in helping these students meet the same challenging state standards required of all students. Title V, Part A (Innovative Programs) Supports charter schools; statewide education reform, school improvement programs, and technical assistance and direct grants to districts; yearly student assessments; implementation of state and local achievement standards; independent analyses to measure and report on student achievement; and certain school safety programs. Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 The Charter Schools grant program awards grants to SEAs and charter schools to support the planning, design, and initial implementation of charter schools. The title authorizes a new program of competitive 5-year grants to states with already established per-pupil aid programs to assist charter schools with their facility costs. Title V, Part B, Subpart 3 Voluntary Public School Choice program authorizes competitive awards of up to 5 years to establish or expand programs that provide students and parents with greater public school choice. Grantees (SEAs, LEAs, or partnerships that include at least one SEA or LEA working in cooperation with public, for-profit, or nonprofit entities) may use up to one year for planning or program design. Title V, Part D, Subpart 1 The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) supports activities to promote systemic education reform at the state and local levels recognition programs scientifically based studies and evaluations of education reform strategies activities to support Scholar-Athlete Games programs to promote voter participation in American elections demonstrations of effectiveness of school district or school contracts with private management organizations to reform schools other programs that meet the purposes of the Act Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1 $490 million is authorized for Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities. These funds are to assist states in developing the assessments required under the 2001 NCLB Act. Competitive grants are awarded to states, or consortia of states, to support collaborative efforts with institutions of higher education or research institutions to improve the quality of assessments. Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 Allows a state to transfer up to 50% of the funds it receives for state-level activities under the following programs: teacher quality state grants educational technology innovative programs safe and drug-free schools 21st Century Community Learning Centers The law also allows a state to transfer up to 50% of the funds it receives from these programs to Title I, Part A activities. The law requires each state transferring funds to notify the U.S. Department of Education in advance of the transfer(s); to modify its state plan to reflect the transfer(s); and to submit a copy of the modified plan within 30 days of the transfer(s). Funds may not be taken out of Title I, Part A. Title VI, Part A, Subpart 3 This provision authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Education to select up to seven states that will be able to consolidate the entire amount of money available for state-level activities and state administration under the following programs: Title I, Part A, and Reading First, except for the amount reserved for state-level professional development activities teacher quality state grants educational technology state grants safe and drug-free schools, including programs reserved for the governor's program, with the consent of the governor innovative programs 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs   The selected states may use consolidated funds for any educational purpose authorized under the ESEA. Each of the seven states must enter into performance agreements with at least four (and up to 10) school districts, at least half of which must have poverty rates of at least 20%. Each of the districts must consolidate its money from these programs in the same way as the state. To be eligible, a state must submit an application to the secretary that includes, among other things, a five-year plan describing how the state will use the consolidated funds to meet adequate yearly progress and advance the education priorities of the state. Title X, Parts B and G: Amendments to the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act, Parts J and K The Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers program funds 15 university-based or nonprofit centers that offer technical assistance to states, school districts, and schools on such topics as curriculum, instruction, assessments, professional development, program evaluation, meeting the needs of at-risk populations, creating a safe and drug-free school environment, and implementing educational technologies. Title X, Parts B and G: Amendments to the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act, Parts J and M The Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Consortia program funds 10 multistate consortia composed of institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, elementary or secondary schools, state educational agencies, or regional educational laboratories. The consortia disseminate exemplary mathematics and science educational materials and provide technical assistance in the implementation of teaching methods and assessment tools for use in elementary and secondary schools. Title X, Parts B and G: Amendments to the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994, Parts J and N The Regional Technology in Education Consortia (R*TEC) program funds 10 multistate consortia composed of institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, or state educational agencies. The R*TECs provide professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination of information on the various types and effective uses of hardware, software, and electronic networks to districts, schools, and others to help students meet challenging academic standards.   TOP