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

Education Trust (Ed Trust)
NCLB Reauthorization Recommendations

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 the Education Trust's (Ed Trust) original recommendations are listed in this report. Please see the main database page for additional reports.

Highlights

Issues addressed: 10 of 16
Adequate Yearly Progress; Assessment, Standards and Curriculum; Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development; Consequences and Interventions; Data Systems and Reporting; Finance; High Schools; Other Programs; School Leadership; and Teaching Quality.

Issues not addressed: 6 of 16
Early Childhood; English Language Learners; Safe Schools; Students with Disabilities; Supplemental Education Services; and Miscellaneous/Overarching.

Areas of emphasis:
Funding; Teaching Quality; Adequate Yearly Progress; Consequences and Interventions; and Data Systems and Reporting.

Source:
Education Trust Recommendations for No Child Left Behind Reauthorization (April 2007)


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 : Education Trust (Ed Trust)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
AYP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Consider disaggregated high school graduation rates as AYP indicator equal with achievement indicators.
AYP 1 - Full Recommendation Consider disaggregated high school graduation rates as an adequate yearly progress (AYP) indicator co-equal with achievement indicators for high schools.
AYP 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require high schools/districts with graduation rates of less than 90% to increase overall rates and reduce gaps between groups.  
AYP 2 - Full Recommendation Require high schools and districts with group graduation rates of less than 90% to increase four-year overall graduation rates by not less than 5 percentage points over two years, or to increase the five-year rate by not less than 8 percentage points over two years. The graduation growth targets must both raise overall graduation rates and reduce graduation rate gaps between groups.
AYP 3 - Summary of Recommendation Provide options to measure AYP, including growth models and college- and career-ready level standards. Require states to adopt subgroup “n” size no greater than 30 and confidence intervals no greater than 95%.
AYP 3 - Full Recommendation

Reform AYP to give states more choices and schools credit for student learning growth and to promote college-and career-ready standards. Provide states with three AYP Choices, but require all states to adopt a student subgroup “n” size no greater than 30 and confidence intervals no greater than 95%.

A) States could choose to retain the “status model” and the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014; or

B) States could move to a “growth model” and retain the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014; or

C) States could agree to boost their standards to “college- and career-ready levels” and agree to get not less than 95% of all students and students in each group to the “new basic” level within 12 years of enactment and 80% of all students and students in each group to the “new proficient” within 12 years of enactment.

AYP 4 - Summary of Recommendation Require states with high discrepancies of students scoring proficient on statewide tests vs. NAEP to increase by 50% the percentage of students reaching “advanced/exceeds proficient” level on state assessments by 2014.
AYP 4 - Full Recommendation Require states that have unusually low definitions of proficiency, as revealed by a discrepancy of 3:1 or more between the percentage of students at the proficient level on their own assessments and those at the proficient level on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams to increase by 50% the percentage of students reaching the “advanced/exceeds proficient” level on their state assessment by 2014.
AYP 5 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use growth models for AYP, but require states to have sophisticated data systems, stable assessment systems, student progress targets and comprehensive high school assessments. 
AYP 5 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to use a growth model to track student progress and calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP), but also require the following: 

  • A statewide education data system that tracks individual students from year to year and can match student records to teacher records over time and produce all required reports on teacher effectiveness
  • Stable assessment systems or the demonstrated ability to equate scores from year to year
  • Growth targets for all students—including those at or above the proficient level on state standards
  • Assessments in multiple high school grades in mathematics and Reading/Language Arts in order to use growth calculations for high school AYP determinations.

Under the recommended growth model students would be counted as proficient for AYP if they are on a three-year trajectory toward proficiency by a certain date, or by the last assessment, whichever comes first. Accountability determinations would continue to be based on both overall and disaggregated data.

AYP 6 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use achievement of college- and career-ready standards as alternative measure for AYP as long as states meet several specified requirements. States that raise these standards would be allowed to adjust AYP timelines and targets.
AYP 6 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to use college- and career-ready standards for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP), but require a task force of K-12, higher education and business leaders. This approach would qualify as an alternative measure for AYP only if:

  • The state has an 11th grade assessment and performance standards that are aligned with the college- and career-ready standards, and has aligned its assessments and performance standards for elementary and middle grades to the 11th-grade, college-ready assessment
  • The state’s higher education system or SHEEO certifies that students meeting the proficient level on assessments aligned to the standards and administered at the 11th grade level would be, upon admission to any state college or university, placed into credit-bearing courses
  • Achievement of the “new basic” level would indicate preparation adequate for active citizenship and service in the military, entry into postsecondary education, and access to formal, employment-related training/education opportunities
  • States provide attestation from representatives of industry that the standards reflect the skills and knowledge necessary for meeting workplace demands
  • Evidence of appropriate rigor from third through at least 11th grade is accepted by a peer review panel appointed by the Secretary of Education.

States that raise their standards to college- and career-ready level would be allowed to set a new 12-year AYP timeline and adjust their targets such that:

  • States can set goals for 80% of students to demonstrate proficiency against college and career-ready standards. States also must set goals for 95% of students demonstrating basic achievement.
  • Both goals must be applied separately to each student group at the school, district and state level for AYP purposes.
Assessment, Standards and Curriculum (ASC)
ASC 1 - Summary of Recommendation Require Congress to create $750 million Curriculum Development Fund for states to develop high quality curriculum materials, provide professional development around curriculum and create assessments based on curriculum.
ASC 1 - Full Recommendation

Require Congress to create a new $750 million Curriculum Development Fund. Such funds should be used by states to: 

  • Develop and/or procure high-quality curriculum materials aligned with state standards
  • Provide high quality professional development to teachers around new curriculum materials
  • Create high quality interim/formative assessments based on new curriculum materials.

Fifty percent of these funds should be used by states to focus on the development, procurement and distribution of high-quality, high school-level materials. And no less than 10% of these funds should be provided to the Institute for Education Sciences to research and disseminate information on the effectiveness of curriculum materials developed and procured with these funds.

ASC 2 - Summary of Recommendation Continue Congressional support to improve quality of state assessments, including for ELL students and students with disabilities; create classroom assessments tied to state standards; and design college- and career- ready assessments.
ASC 2 - Full Recommendation

Continue Congressional $400 million annual support for state assessments. Such funds should be used by states to:

  • Improve the quality of their assessments used for adequate yearly progress (AYP)
  • Develop or improve assessments for English language learners (ELL) and students with disabilities
  • Create high-quality interim/formative assessments aligned with states standards to provide educators with quicker and more useful information about student learning growth; and/or 
  • Design new high-quality assessments—including end-of-course assessments— aligned to college and career ready standards.

States should be required to file annually, with the Secretary of Education, reports on the use of these funds.

ASC 3 - Summary of Recommendation Allow states to use achievement of college- and career-ready standards as alternative measure for AYP as long as states meet several specified requirements. States that raise these standards would be allowed to adjust AYP timelines and targets.
ASC 3 - Full Recommendation

Allow states to use college- and career-ready standards for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP), but require a task force of K-12, higher education and business leaders. This approach would qualify as an alternative measure for AYP only if:

  • The state has an 11th grade assessment and performance standards that are aligned with the college- and career-ready standards, and has aligned its assessments and performance standards for elementary and middle grades to the 11th-grade, college-ready assessment
  • The state’s higher education system or SHEEO certifies that students meeting the proficient level on assessments aligned to the standards and administered at the 11th grade level would be, upon admission to any state college or university, placed into credit-bearing courses
  • Achievement of the “new basic” level would indicate preparation adequate for active citizenship and service in the military, entry into postsecondary education, and access to formal, employment-related training/education opportunities
  • States provide attestation from representatives of industry that the standards reflect the skills and knowledge necessary for meeting workplace demands
  • Evidence of appropriate rigor from third through at least 11th grade is accepted by a peer review panel appointed by the Secretary of Education.

States that raise their standards to college- and career-ready level would be allowed to set a new 12-year AYP timeline and adjust their targets such that:

  • States can set goals for 80% of students to demonstrate proficiency against college and career-ready standards. States also must set goals for 95% of students demonstrating basic achievement.
  • Both goals must be applied separately to each student group at the school, district and state level for AYP purposes.
Capacity Building, Innovation and Research & Development (CIRD)
CIRD 1 - 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.
CIRD 1 - 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.
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.
Data Systems and Reporting (DSR)
DSR 1 - Summary of Recommendation Create grants for state longitudinal data systems that would incorporate the Data Quality Campaign's ten elements. Progress toward such a system could determine a state's ability to use growth models for AYP, apply for grants and receive full funding under NCLB.

DSR 1 - Full Recommendation

Create a $100 million-per-year grant fund to assist states in developing, improving, maintaining and operating statewide longitudinal education data systems.

  • The data systems would be required to incorporate at least the 10 data elements identified as critical by the Data Quality Campaign. These include: unique and stable statewide student identifiers; the ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year; information on untested students; information on student attainment in high school; information on student participation in and performance on college admissions and/or college-level assessments; information on college enrollment, placement, persistence, and attainment; unique and stable statewide teacher identifiers; and the ability to match student records to teacher records. State data systems also should incorporate additional teacher elements including grade levels and subjects of teaching assignment, major and minor of undergraduate study, preparation program participation, certification status and professional development program participation.
  • A state’s ability to use a growth model for adequate yearly progress (AYP) would be conditioned on the inclusion in its data system of data elements necessary to objectively evaluate instructional effectiveness at the classroom, school and district levels.
  • The Secretary of Education would be required to withhold 25% of the Title I administrative funds of any state that, after three years, is not making significant progress toward the creation and operation of the required data system. 
  • States failing to have data systems including all required elements and failing to generate any required reports four years after the date of enactment would jeopardize eligibility for all Title I funding.
  • States with data systems meeting all of the requirements would receive a full share of funding and could use funds to maintain, operate and upgrade their systems, and would be eligible to apply for competitive grants to support the use of data generated by their systems to reform policies governing teacher evaluation, compensation, tenure and assignment.
  • The Secretary would be directed to issue regulations requiring state data systems to incorporate adequate protections for data security and student/family privacy.
DSR 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to report annually on progress of developing the statewide longitudinal education data system proposed by Education Trust.
DSR 2 - Full Recommendation Require states to report annually on the progress in developing and bringing on line their statewide longitudinal education data system proposed by the Education Trust. Retain all current public reporting requirements under NCLB.
DSR 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to report additional teacher qualification, distribution and attrition information for districts with highest and lowest minority and low-income student enrollment. Require annual reports of district/school needs for qualified teachers, actions to close teacher quality gaps and efforts to measure teacher effectiveness.
DSR 3 - Full Recommendation Enhance public reporting of teacher qualifications and teacher distribution patterns. Require states to report annually a comparison of the following indicators in schools and districts in the highest and lowest quartiles of enrollment of minority and low-income students:
  • Percentage of first-year teachers
  • Percentage of first- and second-year teachers
  • Percentage of teachers on emergency credentials or state certification waivers
  • Percentage of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified
  • Annual teacher attrition rates.

In addition, require states and school districts to annually conduct and publish an analysis of districts and schools’ need for highly qualified teachers and experienced teachers, as well as the actions being taken to ensure that low-income and minority students are accorded their fair share of such teachers. The report will include the progress the state is making in its ability to measure, with objective measures of student learning growth, the effectiveness of individual teachers.

DSR 4 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to publish, on school report cards, the amount by which state and local funding for Title I schools is below district average. Require districts to publish plans for ensuring equitable school-to-school funding within three years.
DSR 4 - Full Recommendation Require districts to annually and individually publish, on school report cards, the amount by which state and local funding for any Title I school is below the district average. Districts also must publish plans and timelines for ensuring equitable school-to-school funding within three years.
DSR 5 - Summary of Recommendation

Require states that choose growth models for AYP to include the following information on all level of report cards:

  • Overall percentage of students attaining and on trajectory toward proficiency
  • Percentage of students in each group attaining and on trajectory toward proficiency.
DSR 5 - Full Recommendation

Require states that choose a growth model for adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations to indicate the following information on state-, district- and school-level report cards:

  • Overall percentage of students attaining the proficient level
  • Overall percentage of students on a trajectory toward the proficient level
  • Percentage of students in each group attaining the proficient level
  • Percentage of students in each group on a trajectory toward the proficient level.
DSR 6 - Summary of Recommendation Require states and districts to annually publish overall graduation rates and goals and for each student group for all districts or high schools.
DSR 6 - Full Recommendation Require states and districts to annually publish overall graduation rates and goals, as well as graduation rates and goals for each student group for each district or high school.
Early Childhood Education (ECE)
ECE 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.
English Language Learners (ELL)
ELL 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.
Funding Issues (FI)
FI 1 - Summary of Recommendation Prohibit transfer of Title II funds for teacher and principal quality to other Titles under NCLB.
FI 1 - Full Recommendation Prohibit the transfer of Title II funds for high quality teachers and principals to other Titles of No Child Left Behind.


FI 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require, within five years, districts participating in Title I to show that non-federal funds (including teacher salaries) are equitably distributed across schools. Districts must report funding gaps until parity is achieved and ensure schools in need of improvement receive their fair share of funding.

FI 2 - Full Recommendation Amend Title I provisions under NCLB:
  • Require that, within five years of enactment, all school districts participating in Title I provide evidence that non-federal funds, including those for teacher salaries, are distributed equitably across schools
  • Put all school districts receiving Title I funds on notice that entering into any new contracts or other new binding agreements preventing them from achieving an equitable distribution of funds would jeopardize eligibility for Title I funding
  • Clarify that the law is not intended to compel school districts to use forced or involuntary personnel transfers to meet the comparability requirements
  • Until districts achieve funding equity, they would be required to annually publish—on the NCLB-required school report cards of any Title I school receiving less than the district-wide average of state and local funds—the amount by which a school is short-changed
  • Districts that have not yet achieved compliance with these requirements -- no later than three years after enactment -- would be required to provide resources to “make whole” any school designated for Comprehensive School Improvement and not receiving its fair share of state and local funds; such funding must be established before the any funds designated for School Improvement are factored into the calculation of the school’s budget
  • After two years of implementation of the law the Education Department's Inspector General would be required to audit five states and 10 districts per year to determine progress on this requirement.
FI 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to only allocate actual expenses to Title I budgets, including teacher salaries.
FI 3 - Full Recommendation Require districts to only allocate actual expenses to Title I budgets, including actual teacher salaries for teachers supported with Title I funds.
FI 4 - Summary of Recommendation Expand Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) Program to encourage and reward equitable state education funding policies. Grants also should reflect state effort/capacity and regional cost of education.
FI 4 - Full Recommendation Expand the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) Program by distributing new Title I funds through this formula to encourage states to develop more equitable education funding policies and reward states that already are equitable with their own resources. State per-pupil expenditure figures should be adjusted in the EFIG formula to reflect state effort/capacity, and to reflect regional differences in the cost of education as estimated by the Education Department.
FI 5 - Summary of Recommendation Focus Title II funds on high poverty schools, divided equally between district and principal-led efforts to improve teacher effectiveness.
FI 5 - Full Recommendation Provide high poverty schools with more federal funding by focusing all of the Title II funds that districts receive on high poverty schools: 50% on district-level activities to support efforts to improve teaching at these schools; and 50% directly to these schools to support principal-led efforts to enhance teacher effectiveness.
FI 6 - Summary of Recommendation Increase school improvement funds and require that 70% of these federal and state funds target schools “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement.”
FI 6 - 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.”
FI 7 - 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.
FI 7 - 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.
FI 8 - Summary of Recommendation Target 50% of new Title I funds at high schools and use 50% of proposed Curriculum Development Fund for high school level materials.
FI 8 - Full Recommendation Target 50% of any new Title I funds at high schools. In addition, use 50% of the proposed $750 million Curriculum Development Fund to develop and provide high school level materials aligned to state standards.
FI 9 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to publish, on school report cards, the amount by which state and local funding for Title I schools is below district average. Require districts to publish plans for ensuring equitable school-to-school funding within three years.
FI 9 - Full Recommendation Require districts to annually and individually publish, on school report cards, the amount by which state and local funding for any Title I school is below the district average. Districts also must publish plans and timelines for ensuring equitable school-to-school funding within three years.
High Schools (HS)
HS 1 - Summary of Recommendation Target 50% of new Title I funds at high schools and use 50% of proposed Curriculum Development Fund for high school level materials.
HS 1 - Full Recommendation Target 50% of any new Title I funds at high schools. In addition, use 50% of the proposed $750 million Curriculum Development Fund to develop and provide high school level materials aligned to state standards.
HS 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to use uniformly calculated graduation rates and to identify percent of students graduating within four and five years. Require states to report accuracy of graduation-rate data and calculations to Education Department.
HS 2 - Full Recommendation Require states to use uniform graduation rates that calculate the number of students who graduate with a regular diploma, divided by the number of students who formed the ninth grade cohort for that graduating class, adjusted for transfers both in and out and, further, should be calculated to identify the percent of students graduating within four years and the percent graduating in five years. States must report to the Secretary annually on efforts to ensure accuracy of graduation-rate data and calculations.
HS 3 - Summary of Recommendation Require high schools and districts with group graduation rates of less than 90% to increase four- and five-year overall graduation rates. Growth targets must raise overall graduation rates and reduce gaps between groups.
HS 3 - Full Recommendation Require high schools and districts with group graduation rates of less than 90% to increase four-year overall graduation rates by not less than 5 percentage points over two years, or to increase the five-year rate by not less than 8 percentage points over two years. The graduation growth targets must both raise overall graduation rates and reduce graduation rate gaps between groups.
Other Programs (OP)
OP 1 - Summary of Recommendation Provide new tools for parents to become more engaged in their children's education, including: access to additional school data, decision making role in use of SES funds and the ability to enforce their rights under NCLB.
OP 1 - Full Recommendation

Provide new tools for parents to become more engaged in their children's education. Under the Education Trust's recommendations, parents would:

  • Have access to important and additional data on funding patterns, teacher distribution patterns and high school graduation patterns.
  • Participate in school level decision making about the use of supplemental education services (SES) funds by voting on whether to use the funds for tutoring services or expanded instruction.
  • Have a private right of action to enforce their rights under NCLB if their students attend Title I schools.
Safe Schools (SS)
SS 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.
School Leadership (SL)
SL 1 - Summary of Recommendation Allow principals in low-performing schools to refuse “involuntary” teacher transfers.
SL 1 - Full Recommendation Allow principals of schools identified as “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” to refuse any teachers through “involuntary” transfer.
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
SWD 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.
Supplemental Education Services (SES)
SES 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.
Teaching Quality (TQ)
TQ 1 - Summary of Recommendation Require states to report additional teacher qualification, distribution and attrition information for districts with highest and lowest minority and low-income student enrollment. Require annual reports of district/school needs for qualified teachers, actions to close teacher quality gaps and efforts to measure teacher effectiveness.
TQ 1 - Full Recommendation Enhance public reporting of teacher qualifications and teacher distribution patterns. Require states to report annually a comparison of the following indicators in schools and districts in the highest and lowest quartiles of enrollment of minority and low-income students:
  • Percentage of first-year teachers
  • Percentage of first- and second-year teachers
  • Percentage of teachers on emergency credentials or state certification waivers
  • Percentage of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified
  • Annual teacher attrition rates.

In addition, require states and school districts to annually conduct and publish an analysis of districts and schools’ need for highly qualified teachers and experienced teachers, as well as the actions being taken to ensure that low-income and minority students are accorded their fair share of such teachers. The report will include the progress the state is making in its ability to measure, with objective measures of student learning growth, the effectiveness of individual teachers.

TQ 2 - Summary of Recommendation Require districts to use Title II funds to address inequities in teacher distribution and support principals' efforts to boost teacher quality.
TQ 2 - Full Recommendation

Focus NCLB Title II funds on high-poverty schools by:

  • Requiring that districts use all of their Title II district-level funds to address inequities in teacher distribution until an equitable distribution is achieved
  • Applying the Title I district-to-school ranking and allocation rules to 50% of the Title II funds to provide principals in high-poverty schools with additional resources to support their efforts to boost teacher quality.
TQ 3 - Summary of Recommendation Prohibit transfer of Title II funds for teacher and principal quality to other Titles under NCLB.
TQ 3 - Full Recommendation Prohibit the transfer of Title II funds for high quality teachers and principals to other Titles of No Child Left Behind.
TQ 4 - Summary of Recommendation Close High Objective Uniform State System of Evaluation (HOUSSE) loophole by clarifying that this provision applies to veteran, not novice, teachers.
TQ 4 - Full Recommendation Close the High Objective Uniform State System of Evaluation (HOUSSE) loophole in NCLB by clarifying that this provision applies only to veteran, not novice, teachers.
TQ 5 - Summary of Recommendation Require states and districts to assess distribution of qualified teachers across schools, develop plans and goals to address inequities and publish progress reports.
TQ 5 - Full Recommendation Require states and districts to assess, at the district and school levels, the distribution of teachers who are highly qualified, novice or teaching on emergency credentials. States and districts would be required to develop plans, with annual measurable goals, to redress inequities in the distribution of such teachers and to annually publish reports on their progress against their goals.
TQ 6 - Summary of Recommendation Withhold Title II funds from states not making progress toward equitable distribution of teachers and require distribution of funds to schools/districts with most acute needs.
TQ 6 - Full Recommendation Require the Secretary of Education, after three years, to withhold Title II funds from states not making significant progress toward an equitable distribution of teachers and require states to redistribute the funds directly to the schools and districts identified as having the most acute needs.
TQ 7 - Summary of Recommendation Allow principals in low-performing schools to refuse “involuntary” teacher transfers.
TQ 7 - Full Recommendation Allow principals of schools identified as “In Need of Comprehensive Improvement” to refuse any teachers through “involuntary” transfer.
TQ 8 - Summary of Recommendation Encourage states to use student achievement measures to evaluate teacher effectiveness. Establish Incentive Fund to provide state grants for teacher evaluation, professional development, assignment and performance-based compensation initiatives.
TQ 8 - Full Recommendation Encourage states to use objective measures of growth in student achievement to evaluate teacher effectiveness by:
  • Establish a competitive grant fund to support states in the implementation of systems to evaluate teacher performance based on objective measures of growth in student learning and to use those systems to evaluate professional development activities and to reform policies governing teacher compensation, assignment and tenure. Grants would only be awarded to states in which objective measures of student learning growth will be primary indicators in proposed activities.
The Incentive Fund would be funded at $500 million the first year ($300 million in new funds and $200 million in Title V funds), $600 million in the second year, $700 million in the third year, $800 million in the fourth year and $1 billion in the fifth year. Ten percent of the funds would be set aside for research and evaluation with the purposes of determining the most effective methodologies for using objective measures of student learning growth, evaluating the effectiveness of states receiving such grants in using them to improve teacher effectiveness, and eliminating disproportionate assignment of ineffective teachers to high-poverty and high-minority schools.
TQ 9 - Summary of Recommendation Focus Title II funds on high poverty schools, divided equally between district and principal-led efforts to improve teacher effectiveness.
TQ 9 - Full Recommendation Provide high poverty schools with more federal funding by focusing all of the Title II funds that districts receive on high poverty schools: 50% on district-level activities to support efforts to improve teaching at these schools; and 50% directly to these schools to support principal-led efforts to enhance teacher effectiveness.
Miscellaneous/Overarching (Misc.)
Misc. 1 - Summary of Recommendation No recommendations identified for this issue.



© 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