|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
USED Moving to Stricter Enforcement of NCLB ProvisionsAfter a year of providing flexibility and allowances, it appears the U.S. Department of Education is again more aggressively enforcing NCLB as it comes up for the 2007 reauthorization. In May, the AP released a report that the states were not disaggregating the scores of millions of disabled, poor and limited English proficient (LEP) students in their districts. The practice, approved by USED, allowed states to avoid reporting for a group if it represented a small percentage - known as the "n-size" - of the total student population. As these n-size numbers increased so did the perception that the states weren’t accurately reporting for the groups the law was designed to help. This year the department has rejected all requests for increases in n-size. Two other proposals for flexibility have come to a virtual standstill. One that would determine the effect of growth rates on accountability standards ended up with only two pilot programs. Another proposal that would provide more flexibility for LEP students never occurred. In another development, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has issued a letter to states threatening sanctions of Title I funds if they don’t improve their school choice and SES programs. California faces the loss of $700 million in Title I funding because the state has failed to provide adequate transfer opportunities for students in underperforming schools. It was also announced recently that several states face financial sanctions for failure to meet the accountability provisions of NCLB. Most states have also failed to meet the highly qualified teacher standard. States are beginning to react to the enforcement, most notably in Arizona and Nebraska. Arizona has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that USED has broken its promise to allow LEP students to take a separate test and count their test scores only after they've completed three years of English. Nebraska has issued a scathing letter to the department stating they have not been a good partner and did not do enough to help the state meet accountability requirements for their mixed model assessment plan, STARS. Iowa officials were also surprised to find their accountability system deemed inadequate; this was contrary to the ongoing discussions they had been having with USED. Unrest among educators, administrators, parents, and other education advocates is increasing. Many groups feel NCLB should be strictly enforced if student success is to be achieved. Others are questioning the use of high stakes testing and complain that inadequate federal funding is obstructing the full realization of the law's goals. Reauthorization in 2007 will provide an opportunity for arguments on both sides to be heard. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 856-241-7772. |
|
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
||
