Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 1200 • Denver, CO 80203-3460 • 303.299.3600 • Fax: 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org

Consequences and Interventions (CI)
NCLB Reauthorization

To better inform the national debate on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization, ECS collected and synthesized recommendations by national organizations to improve the federal law.

ECS' database is organized around 16 issue areas that captured most recommendations. Some organizations did not offer recommendations for all issues, at least according to our analysis. And several recommendations appear more than once since they applied to multiple issue areas.

The summary and full text of all organizations' original recommendations for Consequences and Interventions (CI) are listed in this report. Please see the main page for additional reports and sources for the database.

Highlights
(See Abbreviation Key at end of table)

Organizations that addressed this issue
: 15 of 15
AASA; AFT; BCSA; Comm. NCLB; CCSSO; ECS; Ed Trust; FEA; NAESP; NASBE; NASSP; NCSL; NEA; NGA; and NSBA

Organizations that did not address this issue: None

Comments
All organizations presented recommendations related to the consequences and interventions required under NCLB, indicating a high degree of interest and perhaps concern as well. The most common proposal was to allow states and districts to target assistance and interventions to the highest need schools and students, rather than to all those that missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals.

Several organizations also would allow states and districts to switch the order of consequences -- in particular, school choice and supplemental education services. Lastly, there was a call to give schools more time to implement reforms before moving to the next sanction level.


Visit ECS' Database on NCLB Reauthorization main page for more information, explanations and access to organizations' original reports. Please note that ECS plans to expand the database as more information becomes available.

Database Last Updated: July 2007

This database was created and compiled by Mary Fulton, ECS policy analyst.
For questions and comments: 303.299.3679 or mfulton@ecs.org

NCLB Reauthorization : American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Focus federal funds on increasing achievement among highest-poverty students.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Focus federal dollars on supplementing local district efforts to increase achievement among the highest-poverty students.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Distinguish truly struggling schools from those that need limited assistance under AYP.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Create levels for making AYP that distinguish truly struggling schools from those that need limited assistance.

Rationale
: A system that distinguishes schools that need a lot of assistance from those that need limited assistance will allow supports and financial resources to be appropriately targeted.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Provide schools/districts resources and flexibility to implement research-based interventions.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation

Provide schools and districts the resources and the flexibility to implement research-based interventions.

Rationale: The first response to a struggling school should be systemic supportive interventions tailored to the needs of the school and its community. Struggling schools need a broad range of complimentary interventions, and they need research-based professional development, expertise, and supports to fully implement those interventions.

CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Target school interventions to students who are not proficient.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation

Interventions for schools that have not made AYP should be targeted to those students in the school who are not proficient.

Rationale: Focusing exclusively on those children who are not proficient allows a school to customize its research-based interventions to the students who need them most.

CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Redesign schools that receive help and continue to decline need.
CI 4 - Full Recommendation

Redesign schools that receive help over the years and continue to decline.

Rationale: After schools have received meaningful support and interventions and continue to decline or not improve, they should be closed in an appropriate manner and redesigned as a new school with a real chance to succeed. School redesign that works has been demonstrated in several places and often include: a longer school day, reduced class size, highly structured curricula and intensive reading and math instruction, targeted small group instruction, salary incentives to attract and keep high quality staff, and regular diagnostic assessment of student progress.

CI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Continue interventions for at least three years after schools exit “in need of improvement” status. 
CI 5 - Full Recommendation

Allow schools to continue to receive interventions for at least three years after they have exited the “in need of improvement” category.

Rationale: Schools are fragile organizations; once they achieve, they need the continued supports to solidify their accomplishments; and, they need the financial resources to continue the successful interventions.

CI 6 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to develop “learning environment index” for schools and mandate states and districts address problem areas.

CI 6 - Full Recommendation Require states to develop a “learning environment index” for all schools and mandate that districts and states address the problem areas identified by the index for schools not making AYP.

Rationale
: Many of the schools not “making AYP” do not have adequate facilities, safe conditions, teacher retention policies, and the financial and professional supports necessary to succeed. The learning environment index should identify and measure teaching and learning conditions in each school that are known to contribute to increased student achievement. Schools that fail to make AYP would be required to show improvement on their learning environment index, and states and districts would be required to provide the resources to ensure that schools address the teaching and learning conditions identified for improvement.
CI 7 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure school interventions are research based and use appropriate remedies to improve student performance.
CI 7 - Full Recommendation Ensure interventions for schools not making AYP are research based and aimed at helping schools to employ the appropriate remedies to improve student performance.
CI 8 - Summary of Recommendation Provide research-based supports at first sign schools are not meeting achievement targets.
CI 8 - Full Recommendation Provide schools not making AYP with research-based supports at the first indication that achievement targets are not being met.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Business Coalition for Student Achievement (BCSA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Provide guidance on differentiating degree to which and reasons schools/districts miss AYP and focus resources on those with highest need.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Provide guidance on ways that states can differentiate among districts and schools that are close to or far from making adequate yearly progress, and ensure that resources for improvement focus on those with the highest concentrations of underperforming students.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to provide parents with timely and understandable information on SES and school choice options.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Require districts to provide parents with timely and easily understood information on their options and allow them to choose either supplemental education services or moving to a higher performing public school.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Target funding, assistance and effective educators to high-need schools.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Target funding, assistance and distribution of effective educators to high-need schools.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Commission on No Child Left Behind (Comm. NCLB)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Increase choice options by requiring schools that make AYP to reserve 10% of seats for student transfers and districts to audit available space.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Increase the availability of public school choice options by requiring schools that make AYP to reserve the equivalent of 10% of their seats for transfers from schools in which students are eligible for choice, and by requiring districts to annually audit the space available for choice transfers. Schools would not be allowed to deny enrollment to students who are geographically assigned to attend those schools.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts unable to accommodate school transfer requests to offer SES to students.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Ensure that students in struggling schools receive the support they deserve by requiring districts that are unable to accommodate all requests for public school choice to offer supplemental educational services (SES) to otherwise eligible students.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require schools in corrective action to select comprehensive set of interventions, rather than single option presently required.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Require schools in corrective action to select a comprehensive set of interventions designed to have a broader impact, rather than the one option required to be selected presently.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Require Education Department to provide further guidance on what constitutes "any other major restructuring option."
CI 4 - Full Recommendation Require the Education Department to provide further guidance to districts on what constitutes the last restructuring option—“any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms.”
CI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Focus on improving instruction and learning in struggling schools, rather than making district structural changes.
CI 5 - Full Recommendation Take a new systemic, districtwide approach to turning around struggling schools by focusing on improving instruction and learning in schools, rather than making structural changes to the management and operation of districts.
CI 6 - Summary of Recommendation Bolster state and district capacity to help low-performing schools by increasing Title I set aside funds and focusing restructuring on highest-need schools.
CI 6 - Full Recommendation Bolster the capacity of states and districts to help low-performing schools by increasing the amount of federal funds set aside by states for school improvement from 4% of Title I funding to 5%, and by allowing districts to focus their restructuring efforts on the lowest-performing 10% of their schools.
CI 7 - Summary of Recommendation Give schools full school year to implement interventions before moving to next level of consequences, and remove schools from improvement status once restructuring is implemented.
CI 7 - Full Recommendation Give schools adequate time to implement corrective actions and restructuring options by ensuring that identified schools have a full school year to implement the required interventions before moving to the next level of NCLB’s school improvement process. In addition, once a significant restructuring action is implemented in a school, the school would no longer be identified for school improvement.
CI 8 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to adopt comprehensive improvement plans if more than half of high schools miss AYP.
CI 8 - Full Recommendation Support struggling high schools by requiring districts in which more than half of the high schools did not make AYP—or in which half the students attend high schools that did not make AYP—to develop and implement comprehensive, districtwide high school improvement plans.
CI 9 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to identify point of contact for parents on supplemental services and school choice.
CI 9 - Full Recommendation Require districts to identify and publicize a person or office that would operate as a point of contact on supplemental services (SES) and public school choice. This would simplifying the process for parents seeking to learn about options for their children.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow range of and differentiate rewards/consequences based on degree to which schools/districts miss AYP.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Encourage a full range of rewards and consequences for districts and schools that differ appropriately in nature and degree, based, for example, on whether schools miss AYP by a little versus a lot.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to differentiate AYP consequences, target assistance to lowest performing students/subgroups and not to escalate consequences if schools making progress.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Permit states to exercise appropriate judgment and differentiate both accountability determinations and consequences based on sound evidence. This includes targeting interventions to the lowest performing students/subgroups that do not meet AYP and maintaining consequences (without escalation) where schools are demonstrating significant plans and progress in addressing identified underperformance.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Increase SES offerings by districts and to parents, permit states to change order of consequences (choice and SES) and target SES based on academic need.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Focus more on supports for schools and students, to increase parental choice regarding the kinds of supplemental educational services provided, to permit states and districts to change the order of required consequences (particularly choice versus supplemental educational services), and to target supplemental educational services based on academic need, and to increase opportunities for the provision of supplemental educational services at the district level.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Education Commission of the States (ECS)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure eligible students have access to supplemental services, interventions and safe schools as soon as possible. 
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Ensure all eligible students have access to supplemental services, appropriate interventions and safe schools. This may require federal officials to make a greater investment in technical assistance programs to turn around low-performing schools. Children simply cannot wait seven years for the most serious NCLB measures to take effect.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure low-performing school interventions are scientifically-research based.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Ensure interventions to improve low-performing schools – such as conversion to charter status or the use of management companies – are based on scientifically based research.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide incentives for non-Title I school improvement interventions.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Provide incentives for school improvement interventions in non-Title I schools.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Education Trust (Ed Trust)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Increase school improvement funding and require that 70% of these federal and state funds target schools “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement.”
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Increase funding for school improvement and require that 70% of federal and state school improvement funds be targeted to schools “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement.”
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require that, within three years, districts close gaps between state and local funds provided to schools “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” and average funding for non-Title I schools.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Require that, within three years after enactment, districts make up the difference between state and local funds provided to a school identified “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” and the district-wide average school funding for non-Title I schools if there is such a difference.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Increase school improvement set-aside to 20% (from 5%) if states match and devote the amount to increase their capacity to assist struggling schools, including contracts with non-profit providers.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Strengthen and focus state capacity for school improvement efforts. Increase to 20% (from 5%) the state set-aside for school improvement if states match that amount and devote the total to increasing capacity to diagnose, intervene in and provide support to schools in need of improvement, including entering into contracts with non-profit providers to assist struggling schools.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Create differentiated consequences for schools based on type and percentage of students that miss AYP targets. "In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” and "In Need of Focused Improvement” categories would include different requirements, timelines and sanctions.



CI 4 - Full Recommendation

Create differentiated consequences for schools that do not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets. Two categories of schools "in need of improvement" would include different requirements, sanctions and timelines.

  • A school would be identified as being “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” if the school does not make AYP in the overall student category or for group(s) that represent 50% or more of the school enrollment. No less than 70% of a state’s total School Improvement funding would be focused on activities to support student learning in Schools in Need of Comprehensive Improvement.
  • A school would be designated as “In Need of Focused Improvement” if the school does not make AYP for student groups representing less than 50% of the students in the school.
CI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Revise current NCLB school improvement plan process and require a Comprehensive Improvement Time Line for schools that do not made AYP in overall student category or for group(s) that represent 50% or more of school enrollment.
  • Year 1: Develop comprehensive improvement plan
  • Year 2: Implement plan and report progress. Schools given flexibility with staffing and professional development
  • Year 3: Parents given priority to transfer their children from schools in need of improvement
  • Year 4: Improvement plan implementation continues
  • Year 5: Comprehensive Restructuring plan developed. The “other” choice in current law eliminated
  • Year 6: Comprehensive Restructuring plan implemented.
CI 5 - Full Recommendation

Revise current NCLB school improvement plan process and require a Comprehensive Improvement Time Line for schools that do not made AYP in the overall student category or for group(s) that represent 50% or more of school enrollment. No less than 70% of a state’s total school improvement funding would be focused on activities in these schools.

  • Year 1: In consultation with the district and state, schools develop a comprehensive improvement plan. The plan would include spending plans for school improvement funds, Title I funds, Title II funds, district comparability funds, Title III funds (if one of the groups not making AYP is English Language Learners) and IDEA funds (if one of the groups not making AYP is students with disabilities).
  • Year 2: If a school fails to make AYP for a second consecutive year in the same subject, either overall or for student groups that represent 50% or more of the school enrollment, the Comprehensive Improvement plan is implemented with annual progress reports to the public. Schools In Need of Comprehensive Improvement would not be required to accept transferring teachers, would be given priority in the next round of teacher hiring, and would be allowed to add additional professional development hours for teachers if the hours were part of the school’s approved improvement plan. If a majority of the school’s parents vote to use supplemental education services (SES) funds for expanded time programs, schools must be able to apply a pro-rata share of SES funds to provide expanded instructional time.
  • Year 3: School Improvement plan implementation with progress reporting continues. Parents of children in schools in improvement will be given priority in spring district school choice programs for enrollment in the fall of the following school year.
  • Year 4: Improvement plan implementation continues.
  • Year 5: Comprehensive Restructuring plan developed in consultation with state and the district based on four of the options available under NCLB. The “other” choice in current law would be eliminated.
  • Year 6: Comprehensive Restructuring plan implemented.

These recommendations would not preclude a district from restructuring schools more rapidly. Further, in cases in which more than 10% of the total schools in a district are “In Need of Comprehensive Restructuring,” districts and states could agree that a district could limit, during any one year, restructuring efforts to the 10% of schools with the lowest performance.

CI 6 - Summary of Recommendation

Revise current NCLB school improvement plan process and require a Focused Improvement Time Line for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for student groups representing less than 50% of enrollment.

  • Year 1: Develop a Focused Improvement plan
  • Year 2, 3 and 4: Implement Focused Improvement plan and issue annual progress reports
  • Year 5: Develop Focused Restructuring
  • Year 6: Implement Focused Restructuring plan
  • Year 7: Devote 75% of Title I funds to extended day programs for student groups that are not proficient.
CI 6 - Full Recommendation

Revise current NCLB school improvement plan process and require a Focused Improvement Time Line for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for student groups representing less than 50% of enrollment.

  • Year 1: After the first year of not making AYP, schools - in consultation with the district - must develop a Focused Improvement plan. In addition to plans for using school improvement and Title I funds, such plans must include plans to refocus and better use Title III funds (if one of the groups not making AYP is English Language Learners) and IDEA funds (if one of the groups not making AYP is students with disabilities).
  • Year 2: If the school does not make AYP for a second consecutive year in the same subject and with at least one group that did not make AYP in the prior year, and the group(s) that did not make AYP account for less than 50% of the student enrollment, the school must implement the approved Focused Improvement plan in Years 2, 3, and 4 with annual progress reports to the public. School choice and supplemental education services (SES) rules are the same as those for schools In Need of Comprehensive Improvement.
  • Year 5: Focused Restructuring plan developed in consultation with the district and state department, as well as with parent/community representatives—and submitted for approval to both the superintendent and the chief state school officer. The plan will include provisions to devote at least 50% of a school’s Title I funds to extended day programs for students from groups who have not reached the proficient level.
  • Year 6: Focused Restructuring plan is implemented.
  • Year 7: If the school has not yet made AYP, 75% of the Title I funds must be devoted to extended day instructional programs for children from groups who have not met the proficient level.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow improvement plans to take hold before applying sanctions; don't apply sanctions that undermine effective reform.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Replace unsuccessful sanctions with effective interventions that improve student achievement.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to reward schools that exceed improvement targets and assist those that fall short.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Require states to establish a system of rewards for schools that exceed improvement targets and specialized assistance for schools that fall short of their targets.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow range of interventions, including capacity building, and specific sanctions and rewards under AYP.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Allow states to use a full range of interventions, including capacity building, in addition to specific sanctions and rewards under AYP.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Do not enforce NCLB compliance by withholding federal funding for unrelated programs.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Do not enforce state compliance with federal rules and regulations through threat of or actual withholding of federal funding for unrelated programs.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Eliminate funding reductions as AYP consequence and allow fund transfers in year three of corrective action.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Eliminate funding reductions as a sanction for Title I schools that are not meeting proficiency levels, and allow school districts to transfer funding in year three of corrective action. Imposing funding sanctions is a regressive policy that impedes a school’s ability to provide the services required to improve student achievement.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Eliminate requirement that Title I funds be used for transportation for school improvement purposes.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation

Eliminate requirement that Title I funds be reserved for transportation; funds needed for transportation should be in addition to—not subtracted from—a district’s Title I allocation.

  • Use of Title I funds for transportation costs is a regressive policy. Title I funds are intended for school improvement purposes and should be used for in-school programs. 
  • As more Title I schools reach year three of corrective action, the full 20% set-aside will potentially be used for supplemental services and school choice, leaving little funding for other instructional support in schools that have the greatest demonstrated need. 
  • A negative consequence of the transportation set-aside is that school districts are supplanting state transportation funds with federal funds.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to decide order of interventions for schools “in need of improvement,” for example, offering SES before choice.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Allow states to decide the order of interventions provided when a school is identified as being “in need of improvement.” For example, providing choice as the first intervention service may not be the best approach for all students. Supplemental services may be a more appropriate initial intervention.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Grant states flexibility when counting transfer students in receiving school’s AYP calculations, allowing more time to improve student performance.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Grant states more flexibility when counting transfer students in the receiving school’s AYP calculations. This will allow receiving schools the chance to improve the student’s performance before the school is held accountable for that student to make AYP.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to focus NCLB intervention funds on students most in need and redirect unused Title I funds for other disadvantaged student services.   

CI 3 - Full Recommendation Allow states to change the way they provide intervention services so that their NCLB money is focused on the students most in need. Schools should be required to use their Title I funds to provide intervention services to failing subgroup(s) and low-income students only. If these resources are not needed for the intervention services prescribed by the law, states should be allowed to redirect those resources to other activities that serve disadvantaged students. This would require the federal government to change the requirements for state set-asides of Title I money for transportation and supplemental services.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Permit states to determine order of consequences for schools, especially for rural and urban schools where options may be limited.
CI 4 - Full Recommendation Permit states to determine the sequence of consequences offered for schools in need of improvement, especially for rural and urban schools where choices and providers may be limited.

Flexibility in assigning consequences is especially important in urban and rural areas. Decisions about consequences must be decentralized so that decision making is the responsibility of the level of government closest to, most familiar with and responsive to the areas in question.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Education Association (NEA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Ensure accountability systems provide and target support and assistance to schools/districts most in need of improvement.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Ensure accountability systems provide support and assistance, including financial support for improvement and technical assistance to those schools needing help, with targeted assistance to those schools and districts most in need of improvement.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Intervene in schools that fail to improve after receiving additional resources and assistance.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Provide supportive interventions to schools that fail to close achievement gaps after receiving additional financial resources, technical assistance and other supports.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow time to implement improvement plans before applying sanctions; apply sanctions only when same subgroup fails same subject; target choice and SES to groups that fail AYP; and provide SES before school choice.

 
CI 3 - Full Recommendation

Correct specific flaws of current AYP system if certain elements are maintained. These corrections include:

  • Providing more than one year to implement improvement plans before subjecting schools or districts to additional sanctions
  • Designating schools or districts as "in need of improvement" only when the same subgroup of students fails to make AYP in the same subject for at least two consecutive years
  • Targeting school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to the specific subgroups that fail to make AYP
  • Providing SES prior to providing school choice; and ensuring that SES providers serve all eligible students and utilize only highly qualified teachers.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Provide separate funding for school improvement and technical assistance programs.
CI 4 - Full Recommendation Provide a separate ESEA funding stream for school improvement programs to assist districts and schools.
CI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Apply AYP consequences to schools only when Title I is funded at authorized level.
CI 5 - Full Recommendation Establish a trigger whereby any consequences facing schools falling short of a revised accountability system are implemented only when Title I is funded at its authorized level.
CI 6 - Summary of Recommendation Provide separate funding stream for SES and school choice.
CI 6 - Full Recommendation Provide a separate ESEA funding stream for supplemental education services and school choice, if these mandates remain in the law.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National Governors Association (NGA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Offer states rewards or incentives for raising student performance and holding schools to high standards.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Offer states rewards or incentives for raising student performance and holding schools to high standards.

Governors believe that states should be enabled to reward or incentivize schools and districts that raise student achievement. States, districts and schools that improve should not be penalized by the withdrawal of rewards or incentives when increased student achievement is reached. Federal funds should be available to states for such rewards or incentives, and any federal rewards or incentives program should be funded without a reduction in funding for critical education programs.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to offer SES before providing school choice.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Allow states to raise student achievement by first offering supplemental services before providing school choice. Governors support this logical progression of services for students, with an emphasis on helping students receive high quality services while staying in their school.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide states authority, time and flexibility to assist low performing schools, and provide resources to build state capacity for these efforts.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Expand the current authority granted to states in NCLB to quickly address areas of need in their education systems. Governors urge Congress to expand and reinforce gubernatorial authority in this area as well. Any federal sanctions should provide states with the time, flexibility, technical assistance and clear authority to resolve problems and assist schools in need of improvement. In addition, governors urge Congress to provide additional support to states to assist schools in need of improvement, since meaningful school reform requires substantial resources and capacity.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation

Target Title I funds to schools with highest concentration of low-income students and assist state efforts to close achievement gaps among student subgroups.

CI 4 - Full Recommendation

Continue to target Title I funds to schools with the highest concentration of students living in poverty. Congress also should support targeted assistance for states working to raise student achievement among struggling subgroups of students.

Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)

NCLB Reauthorization : National School Boards Association (NSBA)
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
Consequences and Interventions (CI)
CI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Limit school transfers to low achieving students in subgroups that fail to meet AYP in same subject for two or more years.
CI 1 - Full Recommendation Require that school transfer option be offered only to those low achieving students within the subgroup who failed to meet their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more years – not to all students in the school.
CI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Discontinue school choice transportation financial obligations for students when their subgroup meets AYP.
CI 2 - Full Recommendation Discontinue financial obligations of a school district to provide transportation for a student when the subgroup to which the student belongs no longer is identified as not meeting AYP target within the student’s former school even if that school continues to be identified as not making AYP for other reasons.
CI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Offer students option to transfer to one school rather than at least two schools, as currently allowed under NCLB.
CI 3 - Full Recommendation Offer a student the option to transfer to one other school rather than the current interpretation of at least two schools.
CI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Expand reasons for exempting students from being offered school transfer option to include class-size laws; overcrowding; need for mobile classrooms or building construction; and travel burdens.
CI 4 - Full Recommendation Add the following conditions to the current regulation exempting students from being offered the transfer option when health and safety are involved: 1) class-size laws; 2) overcrowding; 3) the need for mobile classrooms, construction or other significant capital outlays; and 4) such travel burdens as time, safety and unusually high per pupil costs.
CI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Allow districts to offer SES before school transfer option.
CI 5 - Full Recommendation Allow supplemental services to be offered in the first year that a school is in improvement status – rather than only offering the transfer option for that year.
CI 6 - Summary of Recommendation Apply sanctions only when AYP is not met by “same group” for two or more consecutive years in a subject on “same indicator. ”
CI 6 - Full Recommendation Apply sanctions for schools and districts only when AYP is not met by the “same group ” for two or more consecutive years in a subject on the “same indicator ” – rather than applying sanctions when different groups and/or different indicators are involved from year to year in that subject.
CI 7 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to restructure when they fail to make AYP, based on averaging scores of all grades tested and for at least one grade span.
CI 7 - Full Recommendation Apply corrective action sanctions to restructure a school district when it fails to make AYP on the basis of 1) averaging the score of all grades tested and 2) it fails to make AYP for at least one grade span.
CI 8 - Summary of Recommendation Require restructuring only when total number of students in subgroups not scoring proficient or above exceeds 35% of school or district’s enrollment.
CI 8 - Full Recommendation Do not implement NCLB provisions requiring the restructuring of a school or a district unless the total number of students in the groups not scoring proficient or above exceeds 35% of that school or district’s enrollment.
CI 9 - Summary of Recommendation Defer sanctions due to sudden enrollment changes within student subgroups, as well as natural disasters or financial hardships.
CI 9 - Full Recommendation Defer implementation of school or district sanctions for one year due to a sudden change in the enrollment of particular groups of students in the school or within identified groups, in addition to hardships such as natural disasters or financial difficulties.
CI 10 - Summary of Recommendation Defer NCLB sanctions if Title I appropriations do not increase by at least $2.5 billion over previous year.
CI 10 - Full Recommendation Defer sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring in any year that appropriations for Title I is not increased by at least $2.5 billion over the previous year until Title I is fully funded.
CI 11 - Summary of Recommendation Defer NCLB sanctions if appropriations for students with disabilities are not consistent with IDEA funding levels.
CI 11 - Full Recommendation Defer sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring in any year that appropriations for students with disabilities are not consistent with the authorized funding levels in Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004.
Parent and Community Involvement (CPI)


Abbreviation Key for Organizations
AASA = American Association of School Administrators
AFT = American Federation of Teachers
BCSA = Business Coalition for Student Achievement
Comm. NCLB = Commission on No Child Left Behind
CCSSO = Council of Chief State School Officers
ECS = Education Commission of the States
Ed Trust = Education Trust
FEA = Forum on Educational Accountability
NAESP = National Association of Elementary School Principals
NASBE = National Association of State Boards of Education
NASSP = National Association of Secondary School Principals
NCSL = National Conference of State Legislatures
NEA = National Education Association
NGA = National Governors Association
NSBA = National School Boards Association


© 2008 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is a nonprofit interstate compact that helps state leaders shape education policy.

To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.

Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy