Order Code RL33749
The No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview
of Reauthorization Issues for the 110th Congress
Updated July 25, 2007
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
The No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview
of Reauthorization Issues for the 110th Congress
Summary
Most programs of federal aid to K-12 education are authorized by the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was most recently
amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). ESEA
programs are authorized through FY2008, and it is generally assumed that the 110th
Congress will actively consider legislation to amend and extend the ESEA.
Debates over reauthorization of the ESEA are likely to focus on the following
overarching issues: (1) What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of
standards-based assessments of pupil achievement required under the ESEA, and
should these requirements be expanded further to include additional subjects and/or
grade levels? (2) Are adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements appropriately
focused on improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and identifying low-
performing schools? (3) Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring required under the ESEA for schools and local educational agencies
(LEAs) that fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more been
effectively implemented, and have they significantly improved achievement levels
among pupils in the affected schools? (4) Will states meet the requirement that all
public school teachers (and many paraprofessionals) be “highly qualified” and that
well-qualified teachers are equitably distributed across schools and LEAs? (5)
Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum authorized
amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations be set for years beyond
FY2008? (6) Should the ESEA place greater emphasis on enhancing the nation’s
international competitiveness in science, mathematics, and foreign language
achievement? (7) The NCLB, with its numerous new or substantially expanded
requirements for participating states and LEAs, initiated a major increase in federal
involvement in basic aspects of public K-12 education. Should the active federal role
in K-12 education embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
This report will be updated regularly.
Contents
Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Adequate
Yearly Progress Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Performance-Based Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
School Improvement and Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LEA Improvement and Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding
Performance-Based Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Staff Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Staff
Qualification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding NCLB Funding Levels . . 26
International Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding International
Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding the Federal Role
in K-12 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Authorizations and Appropriations for ESEA Programs,
FY2001-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The No Child Left Behind Act:
An Overview of Reauthorization Issues
for the 110th Congress
Most programs of federal aid to K-12 education are authorized by the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA was most recently
amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L.
107-110). Virtually all ESEA programs are explicitly authorized through FY2007,
although they were automatically extended for one additional year when Congress
did not act upon reauthorization legislation by December 31, 2005.1 It is generally
assumed that the 110th Congress will actively consider legislation to amend and
extend the ESEA.
On January 24, 2007, the Bush Administration released “Building on Results:
A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act,”2 which outlines its
recommendations for ESEA reauthorization. Key recommendations in that
document, herein referred to as the “Bush Administration’s Reauthorization
Blueprint,” will be mentioned at relevant places in this report.
Debates over reauthorization of the ESEA are likely to focus on the following
overarching issues: (1) What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of
standards-based assessments of pupil achievement required under the ESEA, and
should these requirements be expanded further to include additional subjects and/or
grade levels? (2) Are adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements appropriately
focused on improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and identifying low-
performing schools? (3) Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring required under the ESEA for schools and local educational agencies
(LEAs) that fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more been
effectively implemented, and have they significantly improved achievement levels
among pupils in the affected schools? (4) Will states meet the requirement that all
public school teachers (and many paraprofessionals) be “highly qualified” and that
well-qualified teachers are equitably distributed across schools and LEAs? (5)
Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum authorized
amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations be set for years beyond
1 The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provides that “The authorization of
appropriations for, or duration of, an applicable program shall be automatically extended for
one additional fiscal year unless Congress, in the regular session that ends prior to the
beginning of the terminal fiscal year of such authorization or duration, has passed legislation
that becomes law and extends or repeals the authorization of such program.” (20 USC
1226a)
2 The document is available from the Department of Education at [http://www.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/leg/nclb/buildingon results.pdf].
CRS-2
FY2008? (6) Should the ESEA place greater emphasis on enhancing the nation’s
international competitiveness in science, mathematics, and foreign language
achievement? (7) The NCLB, with its numerous new or substantially expanded
requirements for participating states and LEAs, initiated a major increase in federal
involvement in basic aspects of public K-12 education. Should the active federal role
in K-12 education embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
Each of these issues is discussed in turn below. These discussions are brief, and
are intended primarily as an introduction to other CRS reports (referenced below)
that provide much more detailed discussions and analyses of these broad issues.
Assessments
! What has been the impact of the substantial expansion of standards-
based assessments of pupil achievement required under the ESEA,
and should these requirements be expanded further to include
additional subjects and/or grade levels (especially for senior high
school pupils)?
The current generation of pupil assessment requirements under ESEA Title I-A
began with the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-382),
that required participating states to develop or adopt curriculum content standards,
pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these, at least in the subjects
of mathematics and reading/English language arts, and for at least one grade in each
of three grade ranges (grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12).3 The NCLB substantially
expanded these requirements to provide that all participating states are to implement
assessments, linked to state content and academic achievement standards, for all
public school pupils in each of grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics by the end of
the 2005-2006 school year. Participating states are also required to develop and
implement assessments at three grade levels in science by the 2007-2008 school
year.4, 5 Assessment results must be provided to LEAs, schools, and teachers before
the beginning of the subsequent school year, so that they might be available in a
timely manner to make adequate yearly progress determinations for schools and
LEAs (see the following section of this report).
3 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing:
Implementation of ESEA Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, and
CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA
Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, both by Wayne C. Riddle.
4 States were required to develop content and academic achievement standards at 3 grade
levels in science by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
5 If no agency or entity in a state has authority to establish statewide standards or
assessments (as is the case for Iowa and possibly Nebraska), then the state may adopt either:
(a) statewide standards and assessments applicable only to Title I-A pupils and programs,
or (b) a policy providing that each LEA receiving Title I-A grants will adopt standards and
assessments that meet the requirements of Title I-A and are applicable to all pupils served
by each such LEA.
CRS-3
The primary rationale for requiring annual administration of standards-based
tests in each of grades 3-8 is that the provision of timely information on the
performance of pupils, schools, and LEAs throughout most of the elementary and
middle school grades is of value for both diagnostic and accountability purposes.
Arguably, such assessment results will improve the quality of the AYP
determinations that are based primarily on the assessments, and help determine
whether Title I-A is meeting its primary goals, such as reducing achievement gaps
between disadvantaged and other pupils.
Achievement standards associated with the required assessments must establish
at least three performance levels for all pupils — advanced, proficient, and basic (or
partially proficient). State educational agencies (SEAs) must provide evidence from
a test publisher or other relevant source that their assessments are of adequate
technical quality for the purposes required under Title I-A.6 A series of reviews to
determine whether states have met the 2005-2006 requirements have been taking
place beginning in the spring of 2006. The ESEA authorizes (in Title VI-A-1) annual
grants to the states to help pay the costs of meeting the Title I-A standard and
assessment requirements. States and LEAs participating in Title I-A must report
assessment results and certain other data to parents and the public through “report
cards.” States are to publish report cards for the state overall, and LEAs are to
publish report cards for the LEA overall and for individual schools. The report cards
must generally include information on pupils’ academic performance disaggregated
by race, ethnicity, and gender, as well as disability, migrant, English proficiency, and
economic disadvantage status.
In addition to these state assessment requirements, the NCLB requires all states
participating in Title I-A to participate in National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics, which are
administered every two years. Before enactment of the NCLB, participation in
NAEP was voluntary for states. NAEP is administered by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), with oversight and several aspects of policy established
by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The main NAEP assessment
reports pupil scores in relation to performance levels based on determinations by
NAGB of what pupils should know and be able to do at basic, proficient, and
advanced levels with respect to challenging subject matter.
NAEP tests are administered to only a representative sample of pupils enrolled
in public and private K-12 schools, and the tests are designed so that no pupil takes
an entire NAEP test. While NAEP cannot currently provide assessment results for
individual pupils, schools, or most LEAs, NAEP conducts assessments in 4th and 8th
grade mathematics, reading, and science at the state level as well as for selected
major cities. Under state NAEP, the sample of pupils tested is increased in order to
6 Several statutory constraints have been placed on the authority of the U.S. Secretary of
Education to enforce these standard and assessment requirements, including a provision that
nothing in Title I of the ESEA shall be construed to authorize any federal official or agency
to “mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific
instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or
program of instruction” (Sections 1905, 9526, and 9527).
CRS-4
provide reliable estimates of achievement scores for pupils in each participating state.
An implicit purpose of this requirement is to confirm trends in pupil achievement,
as measured by state-selected assessments, although such confirmation is limited and
indirect, usually limited to comparisons of the percentage of pupils at various
achievement levels on NAEP and state tests.
Bush Administration Reauthorization Proposals. The Bush
Administration’s Reauthorization Blueprint contains two proposals regarding the
ESEA Title I-A assessment provisions. First, participating states would be required
to develop content and performance standards in English and math covering 2
additional years of high school by 2010-2011, and assessments linked to these
standards by 2012-2013. The assessments would include a pair of 11th grade
assessments of college readiness in reading and math. However, states would be
required only to report the results of these assessments, not to use them for adequate
yearly progress determinations.
In addition, states receiving Title I-A grants would be required to include NAEP
results, along with results on state assessments, on state report cards, to facilitate
cross-state comparisons of achievement levels. Finally, the Administration has
requested an increased FY2008 appropriation of $116.6 million for NAEP, in order
to support expansion of biennial state-level NAEP assessments in reading and math
to the 12th grade in 2009.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Assessments.7 Issues
regarding the expanded ESEA Title I-A pupil assessment requirements include:
! When will states implement math and reading assessments in each
of grades 3-8? What will be the consequences for states that did not
meet the deadline of the end of the 2005-2006 school year? Most
states did not meet this deadline. As of the publication date of this
report, the assessment programs of only 18 states have been fully
approved, and 5 states still have not fully met the assessment
requirements initially adopted in 1994. In recent years, a number of
states have experienced the loss of a portion of their Title I-A state
administration grants for failure to implement required assessments
on schedule.
! Should requirements for standards-based assessments in states
participating in ESEA Title I-A be expanded for senior high school
students? As discussed above, the current assessment requirements
are focused primarily, although not solely, on the elementary and
middle school grades. In the Administration’s NCLB
reauthorization Blueprint and elsewhere, proposals have been
7 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding pupil assessments
under the NCLB, see CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA
Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, and CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, both by Wayne C. Riddle.
CRS-5
offered to expand required assessments for pupils in grades 10-12,
in part to strengthen the process of determining adequate yearly
progress for senior high schools. This would include required state
participation in a 12th grade NAEP assessment. However, the
substantial variation in senior high school instructional programs
raises many issues, including the following: Might the required
assessments include high school exit or graduation tests? Given the
relatively high degree of curriculum differentiation at the senior high
school level (e.g., career and technical education programs, college
preparation programs, and so forth) might states be allowed to meet
these requirements by adopting different types of tests for pupils in
different types of academic programs? Might Advanced Placement
or International Baccalaureate tests be used to meet the new
assessment requirements for pupils participating in those programs?
! Has the emphasis on reading and mathematics in the Title I-A
assessment and adequate yearly progress requirements (see below)
begun to “crowd out” the amount of time and attention devoted to
other subjects, such as writing, science, history, civics, or foreign
languages? Concern has been expressed by some, and there is some
evidence,8 that the emphasis placed on reading and mathematics
(and, to a much more limited degree, science) through the Title I-A
assessment and adequate yearly progress requirements has reduced
time and energy devoted to other subject areas for many students.
This might lead to proposals to either de-emphasize the current
requirements, or to expand the assessment requirements to include
more subjects in more grades.
! Should “national standards” of pupil performance be incorporated
in some fashion into the assessment process, as a way of addressing
apparently substantial differences in state performance standards?
Curriculum content and pupil performance standards are determined
at the discretion of the states, and there appear to be substantial
differences in the degree of challenge embodied particularly in the
pupil performance standards. Some have called for a more explicit
role for “national standards,” either as embodied in NAEP or in
some other fashion, in the NCLB outcome accountability process, to
more directly address national concerns about educational quality,
and establish greater consistency in outcome accountability policies
across the nation.9 Others believe that in our federal system, where
state and local governments pay a large majority of educational costs
8 Center on Education Policy, “Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and
Instruction in the NCLB Era,” July 2007, available at [http://www.cep-dc.org], visited July
25, 2007.
9 For example, see “To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National
Standards and Tests for America’s Schools,” by Chester E. Finn, Jr. et al., Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation, 2006, available at [http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/National%
20Standards%20Final%20PDF.pdf], visited on October 13, 2006.
CRS-6
and have more explicit constitutional authority to set educational
standards, such basic matters of education policy should continue to
be left to state discretion. They further argue that states can continue
to successfully implement the detailed and challenging federal
requirements regarding adequate yearly progress (see below) only if
allowed to establish their own standard for pupil performance.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
! Are adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements appropriately
focused on improving education for disadvantaged pupil groups and
identifying low-performing schools?
A key concept embodied in the outcome accountability requirements of the
ESEA is that of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools, LEAs, and (with much
less emphasis) states overall.10 The primary purpose of AYP requirements is to serve
as the basis for identifying schools and LEAs where performance is inadequate, so
that these inadequacies may be addressed, first through provision of increased
support and opportunities for families to exercise choice to transfer to another school
or obtain supplemental services from a third-party provider, and ultimately through
a series of more substantial consequences (described in a later section of this report).
These actions are to be taken with respect to schools or LEAs that fail to meet AYP
for two consecutive years or more.
AYP standards under the NCLB must be applied to all public schools, LEAs,
and to states overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However,
consequences for failing to meet AYP standards (as discussed later in this report)
need only be applied to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A,11 and there are
no sanctions for states overall beyond potential identification and the provision of
technical assistance.
Under the NCLB, AYP is defined primarily on the basis of multiple
aggregations of pupil scores on required state assessments of academic achievement
in mathematics and reading,12 with a specific focus on the percentage of pupils
scoring at a proficient or higher level of achievement, based on state-determined
standards of proficiency. State AYP standards must also include at least one
10 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, and CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, both by Wayne C. Riddle.
11 States are encouraged to apply these consequences to all public schools and LEAs, but are
not required to do so. State practices vary on this point.
12 As noted earlier, the NCLB requires states participating in Title I-A to administer
standards-based assessments in science at 3 grade levels by the end of the 2007-2008 school
year. While statutory provisions are somewhat ambiguous on this point, it does not appear
that states will be required, under current Department of Education policy, to incorporate
results from these science assessments into their AYP determinations.
CRS-7
additional academic indicator. In the case of high schools, this additional indicator
must be the graduation rate; for elementary and middle schools, the attendance rate
is often selected by states to be the additional indicator. The additional indicators
may not be employed in a way that would reduce the number of schools or LEAs
identified as failing to meet AYP standards.
In addition, AYP calculations based on assessment scores must be
disaggregated — i.e., they must be determined separately and specifically not only
for all pupils at each level but also for several demographic groups of pupils within
each school, LEA, and state. The specified demographic groups (often referred to as
subgroups), in addition to the “all pupils” group, are: economically disadvantaged
pupils, limited English proficient (LEP) pupils, pupils with disabilities, and pupils
in major racial and ethnic groups.
However, there are three major constraints on the consideration of these pupil
groups in AYP calculations. First, pupil groups need not be considered in cases
where their number is so relatively small that achievement results would not be
statistically significant or the identity of individual pupils might be divulged. The
selection of the minimum number (“n”) of pupils in a group for the group to be
considered in AYP determinations has been left largely to state discretion, and state
policies regarding “n” have varied widely. Since the same minimum group size
policies are applied to schools and to LEAs overall, groups that are too small to be
separately considered for individual schools often meet the minimum group size
threshold at the LEA level. Second, it has been left to the states to define the “major
racial and ethnic groups” on the basis of which AYP must be calculated. And third,
pupils who have not attended the same school for a full year need not be considered
in determining AYP at the school level, although they are still to be included in LEA
and state AYP determinations, if they attended schools in the same LEA or state for
the full academic year. A number of special rules, which have evolved over time,
apply to two of the disaggregated pupil groups: LEP pupils and pupils with
disabilities.13
Many states have used the statistical technique of confidence intervals in an
attempt to improve the validity and reliability of AYP determinations, with an effect
of substantially reducing the number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet
AYP standards. Use of this statistical technique is not explicitly authorized by the
NCLB, but its inclusion in state accountability plans has been approved by ED. This
concept is based on the assumption that any test administration represents a “sample
survey” of pupils’ educational achievement level. As with all sample surveys, there
is a degree of uncertainty regarding how well the sample results — average test
scores for the pupil group — reflect pupils’ actual level of achievement. In practice,
“confidence intervals” may be seen as “windows” surrounding a threshold test score
level (i.e., the percentage of pupils at the proficient or higher level required under the
13 For a detailed discussion of these, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, and CRS
Report RL32913, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Interactions with
Selected Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), by Richard N. Apling and
Nancy Lee Jones.
CRS-8
state’s AYP standards). The size of the window varies with respect to the number
of pupils in the relevant group who are tested, and with the desired degree of
probability that the group’s average score represents their true level of achievement.
If all other relevant factors are equal, the smaller the pupil group, and the higher the
desired degree of probability, the larger is the window surrounding the threshold
percentage. A school would fail to make AYP with respect to a pupil group only if
the average score for the group is below the lowest score in the “window.”
State AYP standards must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an
ultimate goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the
end of the 2013-2014 school year. This was adopted in response to pre-NCLB AYP
requirements in most states that required little or no net improvement in pupil
performance over time.
The NCLB AYP provisions include an assessment participation rate
requirement — at least 95% of all pupils, as well as at least 95% of each of the
demographic groups of pupils considered for AYP determinations for the school or
LEA, must participate in each of the assessments that serve as the basis for AYP
determinations. The participation rate requirement was adopted in part to minimize
opportunities for schools or LEAs to raise their test scores by discouraging pupils
from participating in the tests.
The primary basic structure for AYP determinations under the NCLB is
specified in the authorizing statute as a group status model, with a required threshold
level of achievement that is the same for all pupil groups, schools, and LEAs
statewide in a given subject and grade level.14 A “uniform bar” approach is
employed: states are to set a threshold percentage of pupils at proficient or higher
levels each year that is applicable to all pupil subgroups of sufficient size to be
considered in AYP determinations. In addition, the NCLB statute includes a safe
harbor provision, under which a school that does not meet the standard AYP
requirements may still be deemed to meet AYP if it experiences a 10% reduction in
the gap between 100% and the percent proficient or above in the preceding year for
the specific pupil groups that fail to meet the “uniform bar,” and those pupil groups
make progress on at least one other academic indicator included in the state’s AYP
standards.
Another basic type of AYP model, the individual/cohort growth model, in
which the achievement of the same pupils is tracked from year-to-year, is not
explicitly mentioned in the NCLB statute. However, under a pilot program initiated
by ED, up to 10 states may be allowed to use growth models. To date, eight states
(North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Ohio, Alaska, and
Arizona) have been approved in the growth model pilot.
Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the required threshold
levels of performance on assessments, other academic indicators, and test
14 For a discussion of the models of AYP, see CRS Report RL33032, Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS-9
participation with respect to all of the designated pupil groups that meet the
minimum group size criterion, as well as an “all pupils” group.
Available data on the impact of the NCLB’s AYP provisions during the latest
year for which complete data are available (school year 2004-2005) may be
summarized as follows:
! The percentage of all public schools failing to meet AYP standards
for one or more years was approximately 26%. For individual
states, this percentage varied widely, ranging from 2% (Wisconsin)
to 66% (Hawaii). These variations appear to be based, at least in
part, not only on underlying differences in achievement levels but
also on differences in the degree of rigor or challenge in state pupil
performance standards, and on variations in state-determined
policies on minimum group size.
! The percentage of public schools failing to meet AYP standards for
2 consecutive years or more, resulting (at least in the case of Title I-
A participating schools) in their being identified as in need of
improvement, was approximately 13% of all public schools, or 18%
of Title I-A schools, again with a high degree of variation among
individual states. Schools most likely to be identified were those in
large, urban LEAs, schools with high pupil poverty rates, and middle
schools.
! Based on test results for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years,
the aggregate percentage of public schools failing to meet AYP
standards for one, two, or more years remained relatively constant.
It appears that, in the aggregate, the effects of higher thresholds for
assessment results were offset by increasing flexibility allowed by
ED in state AYP policies.
! Approximately 24% of all LEAs failed to meet AYP standards for
one or more years, while approximately 12% of LEAs were
identified for improvement as a result of failing to meet AYP
standards for two consecutive years or more. The odds of failing to
meet AYP standards were much greater for urban LEAs than for
rural or suburban LEAs.
Bush Administration Reauthorization Proposals. The Bush
Administration’s Reauthorization Blueprint contains three proposals regarding the
ESEA Title I-A AYP provisions. First, all participating states would be allowed to
use growth models to make AYP determinations, subject to conditions comparable
to those applicable to the current pilot program. In addition, by the end of the 2011-
2012 school year, graduation rates used as the additional academic indicator in AYP
determinations for high schools would have to be disaggregated according to the
same demographic groups as achievement levels. Further, states would be required
to use a standard measure in calculating graduation rates, known as the averaged
freshman graduation rate (AFGR). Finally, the Administration proposes that science
test results to be included in AYP determinations beginning in 2008-2009, although
CRS-10
with a delayed goal for proficiency (2019-2020), in contrast to the 2013-2014 goal
for reading and math.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Adequate Yearly
Progress Requirements.15 Issues regarding the ESEA Title I-A AYP
requirements include the following:
! Are the current AYP requirements so detailed and rigid that “too
many” schools and LEAs are failing to meet them, especially those
with diverse pupil populations? Substantial percentages of public
schools and LEAs overall have already failed to meet state AYP
standards. Morever, future increases in performance thresholds, as
the ultimate goal of having all pupils at the proficient or higher level
of achievement is approached, may result in higher percentages of
schools and LEAs failing to make AYP. ED officials have
emphasized the importance of taking action to identify and improve
underperforming schools, no matter how numerous. Without
specific requirements for achievement gains by each of the major
pupil groups, it is possible that insufficient attention would be paid
to the performance of the disadvantaged pupil groups among whom
improvements are most needed, and for whose benefit the Title I-A
program was established. Others have consistently expressed
concern about the accuracy, efficacy, and complexity of an
accountability system under which such a relatively high percentage
of schools is identified as failing to make adequate progress, with
consequent strain on resources to provide technical assistance and
implement program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring. Further, a number of studies have concluded that,
when comparing otherwise similar public schools, those with a
wider variety of demographic groups are substantially less likely to
meet AYP standards.
! Should states be allowed greater flexibility in the models of AYP
they implement to meet the NCLB requirements? In particular,
should all states be allowed to adopt models that are largely or
primarily based on pupil achievement growth, as discussed above
with respect to the current pilot program? The conditions for
participation in the pilot are somewhat restrictive, and the “growth
models” initially approved are relatively limited, essentially adding
a projected achievement level option to the standard AYP model of
the NCLB. The ESEA might be modified to allow states to use a
wider range of growth and other models of AYP.
15 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding AYP under the
NCLB, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the
No Child Left Behind Act, and CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged:
Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, both by
Wayne C. Riddle.
CRS-11
! Should AYP determinations retain their current “pass-fail”
structure, or should states be allowed to use a more varied,
graduated rating scale? Under current law and policy, schools,
LEAs, and states simply do or do not meet AYP standards, and there
is generally no distinction between those that fail to meet only one
or two required performance or participation thresholds to a
marginal degree versus those that fail to meet numerous thresholds
to a substantial extent. Several analysts have suggested that a more
nuanced grading scale be allowed (e.g., a division of schools or
LEAs failing to make AYP into higher versus lower priority
categories, or grades ranging from A to F), as is used in several state
accountability systems. A major complication is determining at
what point on such a scale the current “automatic” consequences
(e.g., school choice or supplemental services, discussed below) are
invoked.
! Is the flexibility allowed to states and LEAs with respect to minimum
group sizes and use of confidence intervals making it “too easy” for
many schools and LEAs to meet AYP standards and resulting in the
achievement of too many disadvantaged pupils not being
specifically considered, especially at the school level? Extensive
use by states of these forms of flexibility could make the Title I-A
AYP requirements substantially less challenging, and significantly
reduce their focus on disadvantaged pupil groups. Consideration
might be given to setting maximum levels for state group size and
confidence interval policies.
! Should at least some states be allowed to determine AYP using
“multiple measures,” placing less emphasis on reading and math
assessment scores? Many educators object to the almost exclusive
use of reading and math tests scores to determine whether schools or
LEAs make AYP. While acknowledging that such scores are a basic
facet of school system effectiveness, they argue that such other
important criteria as scores on assessments in additional subjects, the
percentage of pupils scoring at levels above proficient (i.e.,
advanced), or the share of pupils taking and passing advanced
courses should also be taken into consideration. Opponents of such
proposals argue that “multiple measures” concepts are sometimes
ambiguous and that the dominant focus should remain on math and
reading test scores.
! Do AYP requirements embody appropriately challenging — or
unrealistic — expectations that all pupils will perform at a
proficient or higher level by 2014? Without an ultimate goal of
having all pupils reach a proficient or higher level of achievement by
a specific date, states might establish relative goals that require little
or no net improvement over time. A demanding goal might
maximize efforts toward improvement by state public school
systems, even if the goal is not met. Nevertheless, a goal of having
all pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement, within any
CRS-12
specified period of time, may be criticized as being unrealistic, if one
assumes that proficiency has been established at a challenging level.
It is likely that many states, schools, and LEAs will not meet the
NCLB’s 2014 AYP goal, unless state standards of proficient
performance are significantly lowered and/or states are allowed by
ED to aggressively pursue the use of statistical techniques such as
setting high minimum group sizes and confidence intervals.
Performance-Based Sanctions
! Have the program improvement, corrective actions, and
restructuring required under the ESEA for schools and LEAs that
fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years or more been
effectively implemented, and have they significantly improved
achievement levels among pupils in the affected schools?
The NCLB requires states to identify LEAs, and LEAs to identify schools, that
fail to meet state AYP standards for two consecutive years for program improvement,
and to take a variety of further actions with respect to schools or LEAs that fail to
meet AYP standards for additional years after being identified for improvement.16
While states are encouraged to establish unitary accountability systems affecting all
public schools, the Title I-A statute requires them only to apply these sanctions to
schools and LEAs that receive Title I-A funds, not all schools and LEAs.17
School Improvement and Corrective Actions. Title I-A schools that fail
to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years must be identified for program
improvement. Once so identified, a school remains in “needs improvement” status
until it meets AYP standards for two consecutive years.18 At this and every
subsequent stage of the program improvement and corrective action process, the LEA
and/or SEA are to arrange for technical assistance, “based on scientifically based
research” (Section 1116(b)(4)(c)), to be provided to the school. Funding for this
purpose is provided in part through a state reservation of 4% of total Title I-A grants
for school improvement activities,19 as well as a separate authorization for additional
16 For further information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education:
Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), Section 4:
Outcome Accountability Under ESEA Title I-A, by David P. Smole.
17 Over 90% of all LEAs, and approximately three-fifths of all public schools, participate
in the Title I-A program.
18 If a school that has been identified for improvement meets AYP standards for one year
(only), then implementation of subsequent stages of corrective action or restructuring
(described below) may be delayed for one year.
19 No LEA is to receive less than its previous year Title I-A grant as a result of implementing
this reservation. Due to this requirement, it is likely that some states have been unable to
reserve the full 4% in some recent years, due to flat or declining Title I-A grants statewide.
CRS-13
funds.20 Parents of pupils in these schools are to be notified of the school’s
identification as needing improvement.
Pupils attending schools that have failed to meet AYP standards for two
consecutive years or more must be provided with options to attend other public
schools that have not been designated as needing improvement or as being unsafe.21
Public school choice must be offered to such pupils by the next school year (unless
prohibited by state law). LEAs are generally required only to offer public school
choice options within the same LEA; however, if all public schools in the LEA to
which a child might transfer have been identified as needing improvement, then
LEAs “shall, to the extent practicable,” establish cooperative agreements with other
LEAs to offer expanded public school choice options.22 Transportation must be
provided to pupils utilizing public school choice options. Children who transfer to
other public schools under this authority are to be allowed to remain in the school to
which they transfer until they complete the highest grade in that school; however, the
LEA is no longer required to provide transportation services if the originating school
meets AYP standards for two consecutive years.
If a Title I-A school fails to meet AYP standards for a third year, pupils from
low-income families in the school must be offered the opportunity to receive
instruction from a supplemental services provider of their choice,23 in addition to
continuing to be offered public school choice options.24 States are to identify and
provide lists of approved providers of such supplemental instructional services —
which might include public or private schools, LEAs, commercial firms, or other
organizations — and monitor the quality of the services they provide. The amount
spent per child for supplemental services is to be the lesser of the actual cost of the
services or the LEA’s Title I-A grant per child (from a poor family) included in the
national allocation formula (approximately $1,400 on average for FY2007, although
this amount will vary substantially in different states and LEAs).
20 No funds were appropriated under this authority for FY2002-FY2006. However, for
FY2007, $125 million was appropriated under this authority, and $500 million would be
appropriated for FY2008 under bills reported by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations (H.R. 3043 and S. 1710).
21 On this and other school choice provisions and issues, see also CRS Report RL33506,
School Choice Under the ESEA: Programs and Requirements, by David P. Smole.
22 If a LEA is unable to offer public school choice options to eligible pupils, it may offer
supplemental services options, as described below.
23 For a more thorough discussion and analysis of this provision and related issues, see CRS
Report RL31329, Supplemental Educational Services for Children From Low-Income
Families, by David P. Smole.
24 A limited number of states and LEAs have been allowed by ED to reverse the order for
introducing public school choice and supplemental services — i.e., to offer supplemental
services after two years of failing to meet AYP standards, and school choice after a third
year. In addition, the requirement to provide supplemental services may be waived if none
of the approved providers in the state offers such services in or near a LEA, and the LEA
itself is unable to provide such services.
CRS-14
LEAs are to use funds equal to as much as 20%25 of their Title I-A grants for
transportation of pupils exercising public school choice options plus supplemental
services costs (combined), although the grant to any particular school identified for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring may not be reduced by more than
15% in order to provide these funds.26 If insufficient funds are available to pay the
costs of supplemental services for all eligible pupils whose families wish to exercise
this option, LEAs may focus services on the lowest-achieving eligible pupils.
According to the report, “Title I Accountability and School Improvement From
2001 to 2004,” published by ED in 2006, approximately 1% of pupils eligible for
public school choice, and 19% of those eligible for supplemental services, in the
2003-2004 school year actually participated in these activities. It is unclear whether
such low participation rates in most states, if continuing into the present, result from
delayed implementation of these provisions by states and LEAs, low levels of
parental interest, inadequate dissemination of information about the options to
parents, limited availability of alternative public schools or tutorial services, or other
factors.
One or more “corrective actions” must be taken with respect to Title I-A schools
that fail to meet AYP for a fourth year. These “corrective actions” include replacing
relevant school staff; implementing a new curriculum; decreasing management
authority at the school level; appointing an outside expert to advise the school;
extending the school day or year; or changing the organizational structure of the
school. Which of these specific actions is to be taken is left to state and/or LEA
discretion.
Title I-A schools that fail to meet AYP standards for a fifth year must begin to
plan for “restructuring,” and those that fail to meet AYP requirements for a sixth year
must implement their restructuring plan. Such restructuring must consist of one or
more of the “alternative governance” actions: reopening as a charter school;
replacing all or most school staff; state takeover of school operations (if permitted
under state law); or other “major restructuring” of school governance. In September
2005, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) published a report on actions
taken in the 13 states where one or more schools reached this final stage of school
25 More specifically, LEAs are to use an amount equal to 5% of their Title I-A grant for
public school choice transportation costs, 5% for supplemental services, and up to an
additional 10% for either, to the extent needed. These funds may be taken from the LEA’s
Title I-A grant, or from other sources.
26 LEAs are also authorized to use any funds that might be available under the Innovative
Programs block grant (ESEA Title V-A) to pay additional supplemental services costs; states
are authorized to use funds they reserve for program improvement or administration under
Title I-A, or funds available to them under Title V-A, to pay additional supplemental
services costs. However, these funds may be rather limited, as the FY2007 appropriation
for all of ESEA Title V-A was $99 million. Finally, according to a 2004 report by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), approximately two-thirds of rural LEAs use
some of their funds under the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP, ESEA ) to
help pay costs of providing supplemental services. (GAO-04-909, “No Child Left Behind
Act, Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural
Districts,” p. 34.)
CRS-15
improvement in 2004-2005.27 In general, the authors of the ECS study concluded
that (1) SEAs vary widely in their involvement in the restructuring process; (2) in
most cases, the restructuring options applied to affected schools have been relatively
mild to “moderate” (e.g., changing curriculum, implementing a school reform
strategy, or altering the school’s management structure) rather than “strong” (e.g.,
reconstituting or closing the school, or converting it to a charter school); and (3)
political difficulties have arisen in cases where stronger forms of restructuring have
been applied. In several states, some restructuring options could not be implemented
because they are not authorized under state law (e.g., charter schools).
LEA Improvement and Corrective Actions. Procedures analogous to
those for schools apply to LEAs that receive Title I-A grants and fail to meet AYP
requirements. While states are encouraged to implement unitary accountability
systems applicable to all pupils and schools, states may choose to base decisions
regarding LEA status and corrective actions only on the Title I-A schools in each
LEA. Further, as noted earlier, identification as needing improvement and corrective
actions need be taken only with respect to LEAs that receive Title I-A grants,
although this includes over 90% of all LEAs.
LEAs that fail to meet state AYP standards for two consecutive years are to be
identified as needing improvement. Technical assistance, “based on scientifically
based research” (Section 1116(c)(9)(B)), is to be provided to the LEA by the SEA;
and parents of pupils served by the LEA are to be notified that it has been identified
as needing improvement.
SEAs are to take corrective action with respect to LEAs that fail to meet state
standards for a fourth year (two years of failing to meet AYP standards after having
been identified for improvement without, in the meantime, meeting AYP standards
for two consecutive years). Such corrective action is to include at least one of the
following (at SEA discretion): reducing administrative funds or deferring program
funds; implementing a new curriculum; replacing relevant LEA staff; removing
specific schools from the jurisdiction of the LEA; appointing a receiver or trustee to
administer the LEA; abolishing or restructuring the LEA; or authorizing pupils to
transfer to higher-performing schools in another LEA (and providing transportation)
in conjunction with at least one of these actions.
Finally, ED is required to establish a peer review process to evaluate whether
states overall have met their statewide AYP goals, beginning after the third year of
implementation of the NCLB. States that fail to meet their goals are to be listed in
an annual report to Congress, and technical assistance is to be provided to states that
fail to meet their goals for two consecutive years or more.
As noted in the previous section of this report, based on the latest available
complete data, the percentage of public schools failing to meet AYP standards for 2
consecutive years or more, resulting (at least in the case of Title I-A participating
schools) in their being identified as in need of improvement, is approximately 13%
of all public schools, or 18% of Title I-A participating schools, while approximately
27 See [http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/28/6428.pdf], visited on October 13, 2006.
CRS-16
12% of all LEAs have been identified for improvement as a result of failing to meet
AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. As implementation of the NCLB
requirements continues, increasing percentages of schools and LEAs will likely face
the prescribed consequences of failing to meet AYP standards for three, four, five,
six or more cumulative years.
Finally, the NCLB has limited provisions regarding performance-based rewards
for high-performing schools and LEAs that participate in the Title I-A program.
States are to establish Academic Achievement Awards for schools that significantly
reduce achievement gaps between pupil groups or exceed AYP requirements for two
or more consecutive years, and to LEAs that exceed AYP requirements for two or
more consecutive years. States may reserve up to 5% of their annual Title I-A grants
that is in excess of the state’s previous year’s allocation for this purpose, but
information on the extent to which states have actually reserved Title I-A funds for
this purpose is unavailable.
Bush Administration Reauthorization Proposals. The Bush
Administration’s Reauthorization Blueprint contains numerous proposals regarding
the ESEA Title I-A program improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
provisions. These include the following:
! More flexibility would be authorized for states and LEAs to target
school improvement and corrective actions (but not restructuring) on
specific pupil groups failing to meet proficiency thresholds, as long
as the “all pupil” group in a school or LEA meets proficiency
targets.
! Schools identified for improvement would be required to offer
supplemental educational services (SES) to pupils from low-income
families immediately, not just after a 3rd year of failing to meet AYP
standards. Funding levels for SES would be increased for LEP
pupils, pupils with disabilities, or pupils living in rural areas. In
addition, funding for SES would be increased for pupils in schools
identified for restructuring (Promise Scholarships; see below).
! LEAs would be required to spend all of their 20% reservation for
choice and SES or risk forfeiting the remainder.
! The proposal attempts to strengthen school restructuring by making
it more substantial in most cases, and including an option of turning
governance authority for schools over to an elected official (such as
a mayor) where authorized.
! Promise Scholarships would be authorized for pupils in schools
undergoing restructuring for attendance at another public school, a
private school, or for intensive SES. Title I-A funds plus an
additional $2,500 would follow the child to a new school (for an
estimated total of $4,000 if attending another public or private
school, or $3,000 in the case of intensive SES). Pupils choosing a
private school option would take state assessments.
CRS-17
! Opportunity Scholarship grants would be authorized for LEAs with
large numbers of schools in improvement status (similar to the
federally-funded Washington, D.C. private school scholarship
program). Scholarships would be provided to pupils from low-
income families attending schools identified for improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring.
! Schools identified for restructuring would be authorized to avoid
limitations on teacher transfers in collective bargaining agreements.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Performance-Based
Sanctions.28 Issues regarding performance based sanctions under the NCLB
include the following:
! Since the NCLB’s performance based sanctions generally apply only
to schools that receive Title I-A grants, and few senior high schools
participate in Title I-A, should new mechanisms be adopted to
increase accountability among senior high schools? Concerns have
been expressed that the assessment, accountability, and
performance-based sanctions of the NCLB have limited impact on
senior high schools. Under the Administration’s NCLB
reauthorization Blueprint, requirements for standards-based
assessments would be expanded at the senior high school level,
along with new grants for improvement of low-performing high
schools. However without increased participation by high schools
in the Title I-A grant program, the application of performance based
sanctions to high schools would not expand.
! With substantial numbers of public schools and LEAs identified as
needing improvement, and increasing numbers likely to be identified
for corrective action or restructuring as the 2013-2014 goal of all
pupils at a proficient or higher level of achievement approaches,
will the ability of states and LEAs to provide technical assistance,
school choice and supplemental services options, and other
resources necessary for effective corrective action and restructuring
become increasingly limited? While the NCLB generally provides
for the reservation of 4% of ESEA Title I-A grants for school
improvement grants, this may not be sufficient to address the needs
of the growing number of schools and LEAs identified for
improvement and subsequent sanctions. An additional $125 million
was separately appropriated for this purpose for FY2007, and $500
million would be provided under committee-reported appropriation
bills for FY2008. Whatever the level of these grants, almost all of
the funds must be spent at a local level, but there are concerns
regarding the capacity of many state educational agencies to provide
28 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education:
Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), Section 4:
Outcome Accountability Under ESEA Title I-A, by David P. Smole.
CRS-18
necessary guidance and technical assistance for turning around low-
performing schools.
! Why are relatively small percentages of eligible pupils taking
advantage of the supplemental services and, especially, the school
choice options required under the NCLB? Are the low levels of
participation primarily the result of a lack of meaningful options in
many localities, of inadequate information dissemination and
promotion activities by schools and LEAs, funding limitations, lack
of parental interest, or other causes? Whatever the cause, how
should this situation be addressed?
! Have supplemental services provided by third parties been more
effective than conventional public school instruction? Available
information on the effectiveness of instruction by supplemental
services providers, either individually or in the aggregate, is highly
limited. While some advocates appear to believe that competition
and choice will be sufficient assurances of quality, others question
how the impact of these services can be appropriately measured and
evaluated.
! Should there be more emphasis on rewards and other positive
performance incentives for LEAs and schools? While performance-
based rewards are authorized under the NCLB, they are apparently
little used, and the current focus is very much on a variety of
sanctions.
Staff Qualifications
! Will states meet the requirement that all public school teachers (and
paraprofessionals with teaching duties) be “highly qualified”?
The NCLB established new requirements regarding teacher qualifications for
all public schools in states participating in ESEA Title I-A.29 The NCLB also
expanded upon previous ESEA Title I-A qualification requirements for teacher aides
or paraprofessionals, although these provisions are limited to most paraprofessionals
paid with Title I-A funds.
First, the NCLB required LEAs participating in ESEA Title I-A to ensure that,
beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, teachers newly hired with Title I-A funds
were “highly qualified.” Second, participating states were to develop and implement
plans providing that all public school teachers statewide in core academic subjects30
29 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL33333, A Qualified Teacher
in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
30 Program regulations (Federal Register, December 2, 2002) define core subject areas as
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and
(continued...)
CRS-19
were “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. However, the
Secretary of Education stated that the 2005-2006 deadline could be extended by one
year (to the end of the 2006-2007 school year) for states that provide evidence that
they are making a “good faith effort” toward meeting the highly qualified teacher
(HQT) requirement. All states were required to submit teacher quality plans to ED
by July 7, 2006. The subsequent round of peer reviews determined that 9 states fully
met the NCLB requirements, 39 states partially met them, and 4 states would have
to submit revised plans by November 1, 2006. States have been required to pay
particular attention to equity in teacher quality — i.e., to assure that the percentage
of teachers who are highly qualified is not disproportionately low at public schools
with high percentages of pupils from low-income families.
The criteria that teachers must meet in order to be deemed to be “highly
qualified” include some elements that are applicable to all public school teachers, and
others that apply only to teachers who either are, or are not, “new to the profession.”
The criteria applicable to all public school teachers are that they must hold at least
a bachelor’s degree, must have obtained full state certification or passed the state
teacher licensing examination, and must hold a license to teach, without any
certification or licensure requirements having been waived for them. An exception
is made for teachers in public charter schools, who must meet the requirements
established in the state’s charter school law. Program regulations also provide that
individuals participating in alternate certification programs meeting certain
requirements would be considered “highly qualified” on a provisional basis and given
three years to obtain the necessary credentials.
The additional criteria applicable to teachers who are new to the profession are
that they must (a) demonstrate, by passing a “rigorous” state test, subject area
knowledge and teaching skills in basic elementary curricula (if teaching at the
elementary level); or (b) demonstrate “a high level of competency” by passing a
rigorous state academic test or completing an academic major (or equivalent course
work), graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject taught (if teaching
at the middle or high school level).
Finally, a public school teacher at any elementary or secondary level who is not
new to the profession may be deemed to be “highly qualified” by either meeting the
preceding criteria for a teacher who is new to the profession, or by demonstrating
competence in all subjects taught “based on a high objective uniform State standard
of evaluation” (HOUSSE) which is not based primarily on the amount of time spent
teaching each subject.
Special flexibility has been granted by ED to teachers in certain circumstances.
For example, teachers in small, rural LEAs who teach multiple subjects and are
highly qualified in at least one of those subjects were given an additional three years
to meet the highly qualified requirements in all core subjects they teach. In addition,
science teachers may not need to be highly qualified in each field of science they
teach (e.g., biology, chemistry), depending on state certification policies for such
30 (...continued)
government, economics, arts, history, and geography (34 C.F.R. § 200.55(c)).
CRS-20
teachers.31 States have also been granted a degree of flexibility in treating middle
school teachers the same as other secondary school teachers (as provided under the
statute) or as elementary teachers.
Paraprofessionals, also known as teacher aides, constitute approximately one-
half of the staff hired with ESEA Title I-A grants, and their salaries constitute an
estimated 15% of Title I-A funds.32 The NCLB established requirements for
paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds, effective as of the end of the 2005-2006
school year. The affected paraprofessionals must have either:
(a) completed at least two years of higher education; or
(b) earned an associate’s (or higher) degree; or
(c) met a “rigorous standard of quality,” established by their LEA, and “demonstrate,
through a formal State or local assessment ... knowledge of, and the ability to assist
in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics”33 or readiness to learn these
subjects, as appropriate.
These requirements apply to all paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds
except those engaged in translation or parental involvement activities or other non-
instructional services. Finally, all paraprofessionals in Title I-A programs, regardless
of duties, must have at least a high school diploma or equivalent.
States and LEAs have adopted a wide variety of approaches to meeting these
requirements. According to the ECS, twelve states have established paraprofessional
qualification requirements that exceed those under the NCLB, and five states are
applying their requirements to all paraprofessionals, not just those providing
instructional services in Title I-A programs. Eleven states have established
certification requirements for paraprofessionals (which is not specifically required
by the NCLB). Thirty-six states are using the “ParaPro” test published by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) to assess paraprofessional qualifications, while
17 are using the “WorkKeys” test published by the American College Testing
Program (ACT), and 21 are allowing LEAs to use tests of their choice (several states
are following multiple approaches).
In addition, the types of responsibilities to which all paraprofessionals paid with
Title I-A funds may be assigned are outlined in the NCLB. These include tutoring
of eligible pupils, assistance with classroom management, parental involvement
31 For details, see CRS Report RL33333, A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom:
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
32 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RS22545, Paraprofessional Quality
and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
33 Or reading readiness, writing readiness, or mathematics readiness, where appropriate (e.g.,
for paraprofessionals serving preschool or early elementary pupils).
CRS-21
activities, translation, assistance in computer laboratories or library/media centers,
and instruction under the direct supervision of a teacher.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding Staff Qualification
Requirements.34 Issues regarding the ESEA Title I-A teacher and paraprofessional
qualification requirements include:
! Are the special forms of flexibility given to small, rural schools and
multi-subject teachers justified, and are there other circumstances
that warrant special flexibility? While current flexibility has been
focused on teachers in small, rural LEAs, evidence indicates that the
percentage of teachers not meeting the HQT requirements is greatest
in central city LEAs. It may be questioned whether this flexibility
should be expanded to other school settings. Another general area
of concern is middle schools. The NCLB currently treats middle
school teachers the same as those in high schools in several respects,
although many middle school teachers work in settings that are more
comparable to elementary schools. While ED has allowed a degree
of flexibility to middle school teachers, the special role of teachers
at this level might be more explicitly recognized in reauthorization
proposals.
! Are these minimum qualification requirements reliable indicators of
teacher quality and effectiveness? The NCLB’s HQT requirements
are closely linked to state teacher certification requirements and, in
the case of secondary school teachers, attainment of baccalaureate
or higher degrees with a major in the subject(s) taught. While
widely accepted as minimum qualifications, these are not the only
attributes closely associated with teacher effectiveness in improving
student achievement,35 nor do they address issues of instructional
methods used by teachers in the classroom. Further, there is
evidence that a very large majority of teachers already met the HQT
requirements when the NCLB was enacted.36 However, those
characteristics often identified in research on teacher effectiveness
are much more difficult to measure and evaluate than the current
HQT requirements.
34 For additional information on possible reauthorization issues regarding staff qualification
requirements under the NCLB, see CRS Report RL33333, A Qualified Teacher in Every
Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
35 For example, several studies have found such characteristics as the selectivity of the
institution of higher education attended by a teacher, or his/her cognitive level as measured
by achievement test scores, to be closely associated with achievement test score gains by
their pupils. See, for example, Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher
Attributes, by Jennifer King Rice, Economic Policy Institute, 2003.
36 For details, see CRS Report RL33333, A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom:
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
CRS-22
! Does the current statute give the U.S. Department of Education
sufficient authority to ensure an equitable distribution of teacher
quality across schools and LEAs? One issue regarding these NCLB
staff qualification requirements is whether high-poverty LEAs and
schools will be able to meet the teacher qualification requirements.
Schools and LEAs disadvantaged by high pupil-poverty rates have
generally had particular difficulty attracting highly qualified staff.37
! Have the NCLB’s paraprofessional qualification requirements
significantly affected either the quality of these staff or the extent to
which ESEA Title I-A funds are used to employ them? The NCLB’s
qualification requirements for paraprofessionals performing
instructional duties in Title I-A programs have received much less
attention from ED than the HQT requirements. States and LEAs are
responding to these requirements in widely varying ways. While
concern has been expressed that substantial numbers of
paraprofessionals previously employed in Title I-A programs would
be unable to meet these requirements, and might lose their jobs,
there is not yet any systematic evidence that this has occurred.
Funding Levels
! Should ESEA programs be funded at levels closer to the maximum
authorized amounts, and at what levels, if any, should authorizations
be set for years beyond FY2008?
Both during its consideration, and especially after enactment, a great deal of the
debate surrounding the NCLB has been focused on the level of funding appropriated
for ESEA programs, particularly on funding trends and on differences between
amounts authorized and appropriated.38 Over the decades since enactment of the
original ESEA in 1965, the typical pattern of ESEA authorizing statutes has been to
specify an authorized level of appropriations only for the first year of the
authorization period (if at all) for most ESEA programs, and to simply authorize
“such sums as may be necessary” for the remaining years.39 The NCLB broke with
this pattern, but only with respect to five of the 45 separately authorized ESEA
37 See, for example, The Education Trust, Honor in the Boxcar: Equalizing Teacher Quality,
Spring 2000.
38 For additional information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31244, K-12 Education
Programs: Authorizations and Appropriations for FY2002, and CRS Report RL33058, K-
12 Education Programs: Recent Appropriations, both by Paul M. Irwin.
39 For the largest ESEA program — Title I, Part A — many program advocates have argued
that the “full funding” level should be based on maximum payment calculations under the
Basic Grant allocation formula, even in years when no authorization level was explicitly
specified. The Title I-A Basic Grant formula establishes a maximum payment based on poor
and other “formula children” multiplied by a state expenditure factor. The total of these
maximum payments is understood by a number of analysts to represent the “full funding”
level for Part A. For FY2006, this amount would be approximately $29.1 billion.
CRS-23
programs (plus approximately 20 specified subprograms). However, one of the five
programs is the largest federal K-12 education program, for which approximately
one-half of all ESEA funding is appropriated and to which most of the major ESEA
requirements are linked: Education for the Disadvantaged under ESEA Title I, Part
A. Thus, the following discussion will focus on the ESEA overall, and on Title I-A
in particular.
Table 1, below, provides appropriations for FY2001-FY2008 compared to
authorization levels, where available, for three groups of ESEA programs: (1) Title
I-A only; (2) all ESEA programs for which an authorization level is specified in the
ESEA for that year (i.e., no programs for the pre-NCLB year of FY2001, a large
majority of ESEA programs for FY2002, and five programs only for FY2003-
FY2008), including Title I-A; and (3) all ESEA programs (appropriations for
FY2001-FY2007 and the Administration’s budget request for FY2008 only, since
there is no recent year for which authorization levels are specified for every ESEA
program). Under the automatic extension provisions for the General Education
Provisions Act, ESEA authorization levels for FY2008 are the same as the FY2007
levels. The FY2008 appropriations levels in Table 1 are the amounts that would be
provided under FY2008 ED appropriations legislation, as reported by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations (H.R. 3043 and S. 1710).
As noted above, the only year for which authorization amounts were specified
under the NCLB for almost all ESEA programs was the first year of the current
authorization period, FY2002. For that year, as indicated in Table 1, the total amount
authorized for all ESEA programs with specified authorization levels was $26,347
million, and the appropriation for these programs was $20,003 million. The grand
total ESEA appropriation for FY2002 was $21,954 million. For ESEA Title I-A
specifically, the authorization was $13,500 million, and the appropriation was
$10,350 million.
These FY2002 appropriation levels represented substantial increases over the
FY2001 level for the ESEA overall (+19.0%) and for Title I-A (+17.0%).
Appropriations also increased significantly for FY2003 compared to FY2002,
although less so for the ESEA overall (+7.5%) than for Title I-A (+14.0%).
Appropriations continued to increase at a declining rate for FY2004 compared to
FY2003 (+3.8% for the ESEA overall and +5.6% for Title I-A). However, funding
has been essentially flat over the period of FY2004-FY2007 for the ESEA overall
and Title I-A in particular.
Another trend is that over the period of FY2002-FY2007, appropriations have
represented a decreasing share of authorizations for those ESEA programs with
specified authorization levels. For FY2002, the first year under the NCLB,
appropriations were 76% of the amount authorized both for the ESEA overall and for
Title I-A. By FY2007, the appropriations represent 50% of the authorized level for
all ESEA programs with specified authorizations, and 51% of the Title I-A
authorization.
CRS-24
Table 1. Authorizations and Appropriations for ESEA Programs,
FY2001-FY2008
(in millions of dollars)
All ESEA Programs for Which
All ESEA
ESEA Title I-A
Authorization Levels Are Specified
Programs
for the Indicated Fiscal Year
Approp-
Fiscal
Appropria-
riation as
Year
tion as a
a Per-
Appropri
Authoriza-
Percentage
Appropria-
Authori-
Appropri-
centage
ation
tion
of
tion
zation
ation
of
Authoriza-
Authori-
tion
zation
2001
$8,763
na
na
na
na
na
$18,442
2002
$10,250
$13,500
76%
$20,003
$26,347
76%
$21,954
2003
$11,689
$16,000
73%
$13,901
$18,650
75%
$23,610
2004
$12,342
$18,500
67%
$14,435
$21,450
67%
$24,275
2005
$12,740
$20,500
62%
$14,631
$23,750
62%
$24,352
2006
$12,713
$22,750
56%
$14,331
$26,300
54%
$23,332
2007
$12,838
$25,000
51%
$14,358
$28,875
50%
$23,521
2008
$13,910
$25,000
56%
$15,198
$28,875
53%
$24,508
Adminis-
tration
2008
$14,363
$25,000
57%
$16,175
$28,875
53%
$25,523
House
Comm.
2008
$13,910
$25,000
56%
$15,431
$28,875
56%
$24,610
Senate
Comm.
Sources: Table Prepared by CRS.
A less concrete issue is the question of whether ESEA funding has increased
sufficiently since FY2001 to pay the increased costs incurred by states and LEAs of
meeting the expanded programmatic requirements included in the NCLB. It is likely
that no definitive answer to this question will ever be available, but a brief evaluation
of the issue is worthwhile, if only to enhance one’s understanding of the meaning of
the question.
There are varying contexts in which both the costs and the benefits of NCLB
participation by states and LEAs may be evaluated. First, are the “costs” to be
defined relatively narrowly — i.e., including only the direct costs of meeting such
specific requirements as the development and administration of standards-based
assessments of reading and mathematics achievement to public school pupils in each
of grades 3-8, plus science assessments at 3 grade levels? Alternatively, are the
“costs” to be defined more broadly, to include, for example, all estimated costs
associated with helping low-performing schools to meet AYP standards, especially
as the “ultimate goal” deadline of 2013-2014 approaches? Studies have been
conducted of some aspects of this issue as narrowly defined. For example, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study of the costs to each
CRS-25
state of developing and administering the assessments required under Title I-A.40
According to the GAO, the level of state costs for assessment development and
administration, as well as whether those costs could be met with funding provided
by the assessment development grants that are specifically provided under the NCLB,
depends primarily on the kinds of test questions states choose to utilize. In contrast,
it is almost impossible to systematically estimate the broader costs of improving
pupil performance sufficiently for all schools to meet AYP requirements, and to meet
all of the performance-based sanctions that the NCLB requires states and LEAs to
implement. If it were possible to estimate these costs, they would likely exceed total
ESEA appropriations. However, it may be questioned whether the federal
government should be responsible for all of the costs associated with identifying and
improving low performing schools.
Second, should the “costs” associated with NCLB implementation be compared
to the total funding level for Title I-A and other ESEA programs, or only with the
increases adopted since FY2001? Both the requirements associated with, and the
appropriations provided for, the NCLB built upon a body of previous ESEA
requirements and funding. It may be questioned whether any “cost-benefit” focus
should be on marginal changes, or on the entirety.
Third, should costs and benefits be evaluated separately for states vs. LEAs vs.
individual schools? Costs and benefits of ESEA participation may differ
substantially for state governments vs. varying types of LEAs. For example, SEAs
are responsible for developing, implementing, and reporting to ED and the public on
policies embodying many of the NCLB’s distinctive requirements (such as
assessments, AYP, or highly qualified teachers). However, with very few exceptions
(e.g., assessment development grants), SEAs have experienced increases in federal
funding to help meet these costs that are simply proportional to total program funding
levels. At the LEA level, somewhat increased targeting of ESEA Title I-A funds on
LEAs with relatively high numbers or percentages of pupils from low-income
families41 combined with flat total funding levels has resulted in declining funding
levels for thousands of LEAs at the same time that they must implement a number
of expanded ESEA requirements. At the same time, many LEAs, most of them large
and/or high poverty, have experienced disproportionately large increases in ESEA
funding in recent years.
Finally, should costs and benefits be evaluated purely in financial terms, or
should they include broader concepts such as changes in pupil achievement level or
shifts in control over education policy by different levels of government? Beyond
finances, the benefits of the expanded NCLB requirements may include increased
attention to the educational status of disadvantaged pupils and the schools they
attend, a heightened emphasis on applying high achievement expectations to all
pupils, and a wider range of assessment data for pupils, schools, LEAs and states.
Non-financial costs may include a limited yet substantial increase in federal influence
on basic policies affecting all public school pupils, and an emphasis on assessments
40 Government Accountability Office. Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence
Expenses; Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389.
41 See CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for
ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle, pages 46-49.
CRS-26
that may narrow the curriculum of instruction if the tests do not measure the full
range of skills and subjects that public schools are expected to impart.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding NCLB Funding Levels.
Possible reauthorization issues regarding ESEA/NCLB funding levels include the
following:
! Should the authorization level for at least some ESEA programs
continue to be specified after FY2008, and if so, at what levels?
Congressional intent regarding anticipated funding levels could be
clarified by explicitly stating appropriation authorization levels for
each program and each year of the authorization period. At the same
time, this would generate debates over the level at which
authorizations should be set. Further, given that the appropriation
for the largest ESEA program, Title I-A, has been below the
authorized amount each year, with the gap between authorization
and appropriation increasing each year, it may be questioned
whether the specification of authorization levels has a significant
impact. At the same time, specified authorizations do provide a goal
for those seeking increased funding, and express the judgement of
those involved in the authorizing process of an appropriate level of
funding.
! Should the implementation of existing or additional requirements be
linked to the provision of specified minimum (“trigger”) levels of
funding? In the NCLB, implementation of certain new pupil
assessment requirements was made contingent upon the provision of
specified minimum levels of funding for assessment development
grants to the states. This policy might become a model for possible
expanded assessment or other requirements in a reauthorized ESEA,
to address ongoing funding level debates as well as concerns about
the costs vs. benefits of ESEA participation for states and LEAs.
! Do the costs to states and LEAs of meeting the ESEA’s requirements
newly adopted under the No Child Left Behind Act exceed the benefit
of federal aid increases since 2001, especially in a period of
relatively tight federal budgets? This question will likely be raised,
but it will be exceptionally difficult to resolve. A key issue is
whether accountability provisions such as those initiated under the
NCLB are seen as appropriate mechanisms for assuring effective use
of all federal, state, and local funds, rather than just a trade-off for
marginal increases in federal funds.
CRS-27
International Competitiveness
! Should the ESEA place much greater emphasis on enhancing the
nation’s international competitiveness in science, mathematics, and
foreign language achievement?
National policy discussions have increasingly focused on the relationships
between the performance of the nation’s educational system and the long-term
competitiveness of the nation’s economy. While much of this discussion has been
focused on higher education, concerns also arise from average academic achievement
levels of U.S. K-12 pupils in science and mathematics that are below those of many
other developed nations, especially at the high school level. This concern is
combined with widely held assumptions that there is a significant relationship
between academic achievement levels in mathematics and science with a variety of
indicators of international economic competitiveness.
In the 2003 administration of assessments under the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Program for International Student
Assessments (PISA), 15-year old pupils in the United States scored significantly
below 20 other OECD nations in mathematics,42 and below 18 other OECD countries
in science. In each case, U.S. scores were significantly below the OECD average as
well.
International comparisons of achievement in mathematics and science of 12th
grade students in the United States and other developed and developing nations were
most recently conducted in the mid-1990s; these were coordinated by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).43
The scores of U.S. students in these assessments were lower than those for 18 of the
20 other participating countries in mathematics (all except Cyprus and South Africa),
and were below those of 15 of the 20 other participating countries in science.
At the same time, the relative performance of younger pupils in the United
States is somewhat more positive. The average scores of U.S. pupils in 4th and 8th
grades on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
conducted in 2003 were above the international average in mathematics and science.
In terms of country rankings, the United States performance was approximately in the
middle overall on the latest TIMSS assessments.44 However, in addition to focusing
on earlier grades, these TIMSS assessments include a wider range of nations than the
OECD or IEA assessments, with a larger proportion of less-developed nations
participating.
42 Among OECD countries, the scores of only Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico
were below those of U.S. pupils.
43 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Mathematics
and Science Achievement in the Final Year of Secondary School: IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, 1998, by Ina V.S. Mullis et al.
44 See CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education Issues and Legislative Options, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Christine M. Matthews, and
Bonnie F. Mangan, pages 5-8.
CRS-28
While the ESEA currently has a few programs that are specifically focused on
improving instruction in mathematics, science, or foreign languages, these are
relatively small.45 One of the largest ESEA programs — the Teacher and Principal
Training and Recruiting Fund (Title II, Part A) — was initially focused on improving
the skills and content knowledge of K-12 teachers of mathematics and science, but
no longer focuses on any specific subject areas. Aside from targeted programs,
perhaps the most significant competitiveness-related element of the current ESEA is
the inclusion of mathematics and (to a lesser degree) science in the ESEA Title I-A
assessment requirements, and the required use of mathematics assessment results in
AYP determinations.
During the 110th Congress, Members are likely to consider possible changes to
federal K-12 education policies regarding assessments, accountability, and other
aspects of science and mathematics education through proposed amendments to the
No Child Left Behind Act. It is also probable that proposals in the 109th Congress
aimed at improving the quantity and quality of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education and training — such as the Bush Administration’s
American Competitiveness Initiative, or the series of “PACE” (Protecting America’s
Competitive Edge Through Education and Research) bills — will remain on the
agenda for the 110th Congress.
As discussed earlier, the ESEA currently requires states participating in Title I-A
to implement standards-based assessments in reading and mathematics in each of
grades 3-8 plus once in high school, and (by the end of the 2007-2008 school year)
in science at three grade levels. Further, while statutory provisions are ambiguous
on this point, current ED policy does not require states and LEAs to incorporate
science assessment results in making AYP determinations. One series of options to
address competitiveness concerns would be to expand K-12 science and even
mathematics assessment requirements, especially at the high school level, and to
require incorporation of science assessment results into AYP determinations.
The ESEA provisions regarding K-12 teachers could be modified to encourage
more postsecondary graduates in STEM to enter, and remain in, positions as K-12
teachers. For example, a previous focus on science and mathematics in the largest
ESEA teacher program (Title II-A) might be revived in some form. Finally, proposed
ESEA amendments might focus on improvement of the infrastructure (equipment,
facilities, and quality of instructional materials) for K-12 science and mathematics
instruction.
Bush Administration Reauthorization Proposals. The Bush
Administration’s Reauthorization Blueprint contains at least two proposals relevant
to international competitiveness. First, science test results to be included in AYP
determinations beginning in 2008-2009, although with a delayed goal for proficiency
(2019-2020). Second, a Math Now program would be authorized, providing
45 The largest current ESEA program focused on mathematics, science, or foreign languages
is the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program authorized under Title II, Part B, and
funded at $182.2 million for FY2006. This program is focused primarily on providing
professional development activities for K-12 mathematics and science teachers.
CRS-29
competitive grants to improve math instruction for elementary and middle school
pupils.
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding International
Competitiveness. Possible reauthorization issues regarding international
competitiveness include the following:
! Does the requirement that all students must attain proficiency on
state academic assessments in reading and mathematics by 2013-
2014 have any adverse effect on the ability of schools and LEAs to
devote adequate resources toward providing a challenging
educational experience to students who are already achieving at a
proficient or higher level? Some have questioned whether the
requirement that all students must attain proficiency on state
academic assessments in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014
may be having an indirect, adverse effect on our long-term
competitiveness by reducing the ability of schools and LEAs to
devote adequate resources toward providing a challenging
educational experience to students who are already achieving at a
proficient or higher level. Currently, federal support for more
challenging academic programs for advanced K-12 students is quite
limited. The implicit, primary federal strategy of recent decades has
been to focus on raising the base achievement level for the
disadvantaged, rather than challenging the more advanced students.
Alternative proposals might place greater emphasis on maximizing
achievement by more advanced students.
! Should states and LEAs be explicitly required to include the results
of assessments in science in their AYP determinations, and should
the number of required science assessments be expanded? The
ESEA’s emphasis on science education in particular could be
significantly expanded by increasing the number of grades in which
science assessments must be administered by participating states,
and explicitly requiring the inclusion of science assessment results
in AYP determinations. Opponents would likely argue that the
ESEA’s assessment and AYP provisions are already very extensive
and complex, and should not be expanded.
! Should programmatic aid under the ESEA be targeted more
specifically on science, mathematics, and foreign languages? Major
options here include focusing teacher recruitment and professional
development programs on these subjects, or providing new forms of
aid for instructional infrastructure (such as classroom laboratories).
The opposing argument is that these decisions are best left to state
and local educational authorities.
CRS-30
Federal Role
! The NCLB, with its numerous new or substantially expanded
requirements for participating states and LEAs, initiated a major
increase in federal involvement in basic aspects of public K-12
education. Should the active federal role in K-12 education
embodied in the NCLB be maintained?
While ESEA reauthorization debates will be substantially focused on major
specific aspects of the current federal role in K-12 education discussed above — such
as assessments, AYP, performance based sanctions, or staff qualifications — there
will likely be a broader consideration of the aggregate impact of current federal K-12
education policies. The NCLB represented a quantum increase in federal
involvement in the nation’s K-12 education systems, and several issues have arisen
with respect to not only the statutory provisions but also the manner in which they
have been implemented and administered by ED.
Previous to enactment of the NCLB, the scope of most federal K-12 education
program requirements was limited to specific programs or activities supported by
federal grant programs.46 While some steps in the direction of a broader scope for
some federal program requirements began with the Improving America’s Schools Act
of 1994 (IASA),47 the NCLB represented a major expansion of the scope of federal
requirements. As discussed above, provisions associated with participation in the
ESEA Title I-A program of Education for the Disadvantaged have a major impact on
assessment, accountability, staff qualifications, and other basic policies affecting all
public schools and students.
Not only are the statutory provisions in these areas broad in scope and detailed
in nature, but in the view of many observers, they are also being administered by ED
in a comparatively active and strict manner. As ED staff and designated peer
reviewers have examined initial and revised state policies regarding assessments,
AYP, performance based sanctions, and teacher qualifications, several observers
have expressed concerns about: a lack of transparency in the review procedures and
criteria; inconsistencies (especially over time) in the types of changes that ED
officials have approved; whether the net effect of the changes is to make the
accountability requirements more reasonable or to undesirably weaken them; whether
the changes may make an already complicated accountability system even more
complex; and whether decisions on proposed changes are being made in a timely
manner by ED.48
46 One long-term exception to this pattern would be civil rights requirements applicable to
the total operations of federal aid recipient agencies.
47 For example, the assessments in reading and mathematics at three grade levels, required
under the IASA for states participating in ESEA Title I-A, were generally to be the same
assessments as used statewide.
48 See, for example, Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year
4 of the No Child Left Behind Act, and Council of Chief State School Officers, Statewide
Educational Accountability Under the NCLB Act — A Report on 2006 Amendments to State
Plans.
CRS-31
While the NCLB substantially increased federal involvement and direction in
the K-12 education policies of participating states, debates during the last
reauthorization of the ESEA also featured numerous proposals to increase state and
LEA flexibility in the use of federal aid, and some of these proposals were included
in the NCLB. For example, the eligibility threshold for schools to be allowed to use
their ESEA Title I-A funds on a schoolwide basis was reduced to 40%, a level that
is approximately the national average percentage of pupils from low-income
families.49 The statute allows the use of funds under most federal aid programs, not
just Title I-A, on a schoolwide basis, if basic program objectives and fiscal
accountability requirements are met. In addition, the NCLB amended the ESEA to
allow most LEAs to transfer up to 50% of their grants among four programs —
Teachers, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and the Innovative Programs
Block Grant — or into (not from) Title I-A. The NCLB further authorized additional
forms of special flexibility to states and LEAs, although participation in most of these
authorities has been quite limited.50
Another aspect of this active federal role is continuation of a strategy of
providing ESEA aid through a large number of separate, categorical programs. The
NCLB eliminated some previous ESEA programs, and in some other cases it
consolidated groups of related ESEA programs into a single program. At the same
time, the NCLB authorized several new ESEA programs, and there are currently 45
authorized ESEA programs. While this is a reduction from the 57 authorized
programs in the pre-NCLB version of the ESEA, this comparison is somewhat
misleading, as the current statute combines approximately 20 distinct sub-programs
under one authorization.51
As a result of the detailed and broadly applicable requirements adopted under
the NCLB, federal involvement in public K-12 education is significantly more
extensive than in the past, while the aggregate federal contribution to public K-12
education revenues remains relatively small (approximately 9%). In considering the
ESEA for reauthorization, the Congress will decide whether to continue this active
federal strategy, perhaps expanding it further through increased assessment or other
requirements, or to place tighter limits on the scope of federal involvement in state
and local K-12 education systems. A hybrid approach might involve continued or
expanded federal requirements regarding pupil outcomes combined with fewer
requirements regarding the purposes for which federal grant funds can be used.
Examples of the latter might include program consolidation, an expansion of current
authority to transfer funds among ESEA programs, or policies offering increased
flexibility in return for reaching specified levels of performance.
49 Under this provision, any school participating in Title I-A with 40% or more of its pupils
from low-income families may qualify to operate a schoolwide program.
50 See CRS Report RL31583, K-12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility in the
Administration of Federal Aid Programs, by Wayne C. Riddle.
51 Under the Fund for the Improvement of Education, ESEA Title V-D, 20 distinct programs
are combined under a single authorization. In practice, appropriations are provided
individually for many of these programs. For further information, see CRS Report
RL31244, K-12 Education Programs: Authorizations and Appropriations for FY2002, by
Paul M. Irwin.
CRS-32
Possible Reauthorization Issues Regarding the Federal Role in K-
12 Education. Possible reauthorization issues regarding the federal role in K-12
education include the following:
! Should the current relatively active level of federal involvement in
broad K-12 education policies be sustained or expanded? An active
federal role is an expression of the national interest in improving
educational performance, and an effort to assure effective use of
federal aid funds. At the same time, a federal role of less scope
would be consistent with the limited federal contribution to public
K-12 education revenues, as well as the historical primacy of states
and LEAs in K-12 education policy.
! Have major NCLB requirements been implemented by ED in a
consistent, transparent, and effective manner? An expansion of the
scope of federal requirements has been accompanied by increased
attention to the ways in which those requirements are administered
and enforced by ED. Efforts might be devoted to ways to enhance
the transparency and consistency of future ESEA implementation
activities — for example, through increased public dissemination of
information on policies proposed by states and ED’s responses to
those proposals.
! Should the level of flexibility provided to states and LEAs in their
use of ESEA grant funds be expanded? As with the NCLB, efforts
to sustain or expand outcome accountability requirements are likely
to be coupled with efforts to increase state and local flexibility in
other respects, particularly with respect to how federal aid funds may
be used.