August 28, 2008
TEXT SIZE

Key Milestones in the ESEA/NCLB Reauthorization Process


In January 2005, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) officially unveiled its bill, the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2005. The bill contained over 40 provisions that would improve the implementation of the current federal law.

In June 2006, Representative Don Young (R-AK-At Large) introduced H.R. 5709, No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2006, which incorporated all 40 of NSBA’s recommendations. Co-sponsors for H.R. 5709 included Representatives Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ-9), Rob Bishop (R-UT-1), Todd Platts (R-PA-19), and Jo Bonner (R-AL-1).

The Young bill would: 
  • Increase the flexibility for states to use additional types of assessments for measuring AYP—including growth models.
  • Grant states more flexibility in assessing students with disabilities and students not proficient in English for AYP purposes.
  • Create a student testing participation range, providing flexibility for uncontrollable variations in student attendance.
  • Allow schools to target resources to those student populations who need the most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group fails to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years.
  • Ensure that students are counted properly in assessment and reporting systems.
  • Allow supplemental services to be offered in the first year of “improvement.”
  • Strengthen federal responsibility for funding.
  • Require NCLB testing and reporting for non-public schools for students receiving Title I services.

In November 2006, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced S. 4064, Improving the No Child Left Behind Act, which incorporated many of the major provisions contained in the NSBA bill, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-AK-At Large).

In January 2007, Representative Young re-introduced his bill as H.R. 648, No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007. As of January 14, 2008, the list of co-sponsors includes Representatives Jo Bonner (R-AL-1), Rick Boucher (R-VA-9), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Stephen Cohen (D-TN-9), Phil English (R-PA-3), Terry Everett (R-AL-2), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ-7), Bart Gordon (D-TN-6), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL-2), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ-7),Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11), Charlie Melancon (D-LA-3), Jerry Moran (R-KS-1), Todd Platts (R-PA-9), Mike Ross (D-AR-4), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9) Charles Dent (R-PA-15), Albio Sires (D-NJ-13), and Steve Cohen (D-TN-9).

Also in January 2007, Sen. Crapo (R-ID) re-introduced his bill, S. 348, Improving the No Child Left Behind Act .

On January 30, 2007, as part of the 2007 Federal Relations Network (FRN) Conference, over 800 local school board members visited with their members of Congress to again push for adoption of key provisions as outlined in H.R. 648. Subsequently, NSBA’s aggressive lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill continued, including:

  • A second distribution of NSBA’s proposed legislative language for the reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB to every member of Congress.
  • Follow-up visits with members of Congress who have co-sponsored bills that address NSBA’s recommendations.
  • Follow-up meetings with staff members of the House and Senate education committees.
  • Participation on regional and national panels that provide expanded opportunities to promote NSBA’s positions.

On August 1, 2007, Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) introduced S. 1913, the No Child Left Behind Enhancement Act – a bipartisan bill that incorporates even more of the provisions contained in H.R. 648 than Senator Crapo’s original bill in such areas as AYP, Students with Disabilities, English Language Learners (ELL), Sanctions and Highly Qualified Teachers.

In August 2007, the leadership of the House Education and Labor Committee, Chairman George Miller (D-CA-7), Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA-25), Ranking Member Dale Kildee (D-MI-5) of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, and Ranking Member Michael Castle (R-DE-At-Large) of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, released a staff discussion draft for Titles I-XI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, last reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

On September 7, 2007, NSBA submitted formal comments on Title I; on September 10, NSBA testified before Chairman Miller’s committee, and on September 14, 2007, NSBA submitted formal comments on Titles II-XI.

NSBA is pleased that the House discussion draft would shift the emphasis of the law away from punitive sanctions and a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and move toward an approach that recognizes the need for greater flexibility and increased options for states and local school districts. We are particularly pleased that the draft allows for growth models and indexing systems, multiple measures of academic achievement, and provides several key reforms regarding progress measures for students with disabilities and English Language Learners.

However, NSBA has very serious concerns that the draft adds significant process, data collection and reporting requirements which could overload the system. We acknowledge the need for effective planning, adequate data collection, and appropriate reporting. However, we are concerned that our personnel and fiscal resources would be adversely impacted. Our comments addressed over 40 specific areas of the draft that would need to be addressed to our satisfaction in the final House bill in determining our formal position.

On October 17, 2007, the leadership of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee released a staff discussion draft for selected components of Titles I through VII and Title X. The Senate draft is considered neither final nor complete and does not address issues that are controversial.

NSBA is generally pleased with the draft components released by the Senate. The draft addresses such areas as Migrant Education, Advanced Placement, Math and Science Partnerships, Innovation for Teacher Quality, Education Technology, American History and Civics, Language Instruction for English Language Learners and Immigrant Students, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Summer Term Education Programs, Public Charter Schools, Voluntary Public School Choice, Magnet Schools, Fund for the Improvement of Education, Rural Education, Indian Education, and Homeless Education. The Senate HELP Committee has deferred release of any additional drafts until 2008.

Unfortunately, both the House and Senate committee leadership formally announced that they will not be able to complete their respective reauthorization bills during the first session of the 110th Congress. As a result of the announcements, NSBA forwarded letters to Chairman Miller (D-CA-7) and Chairman Kennedy (D-MA) and other members of congressional education committees expressing disappointment with their inability to complete their respective committee bills, and urged them to give the ESEA/NCLB reauthorization sufficient priority in order to address the major issues identified by local school boards in H.R. 648, and to complete the final legislation prior to adjournment of the 110th Congress in December 2008.

The NSBA letter also identified why local school boards want the reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB to take place in 2008, rather than wait until the next Congress convenes.

  • The current accountability and assessment systems fail to accurately or fairly reflect the performance or progress of students, schools or school districts unnecessarily resulting in too many of our schools being labeled as “in need of improvement,” and interpreted by the general public as failing.
  • The overemphasis on high stakes testing will continue in spite of the fact that states and school districts have been unable to fully provide reliable and valid assessments for our students with disabilities and our English Language Learner (ELL) students – due to the failure of Congress to fully provide the necessary funding as promised.
  • Local school districts and schools will continue to be restricted from targeting already limited federal funds on those students and school districts most in need due to mandated set-asides for supplemental services and public school choice programs that have demonstrated very limited, if any, results.
  • States and local school districts will continue to be subject to a “one-size-fits-all” approach that fails to recognize the unique needs of individual students or schools—and that fails to provide adequate flexibility to states and local school districts.

For additional information, please contact Reginald M. Felton, director of federal relations at the National School Boards Association at 703-838-6782, or by e-mail at rfelton@nsba.org.