1. No Child Left Behind
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the “No Child Left Behind Act,” will have a tremendous impact on public schools across the nation, as well as in Michigan.
This legislation is comprehensive, with over 1,200 pages. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the audience of key pieces in the legislation, to raise consciousness regarding the implications of the law, and to provide additional resources.
Audiences should consider this presentation as a first step to becoming acquainted with the new legislation.
PRESENTER’S NOTE:
You may want to be selective in using the slides and notes to best meet your audiences’ needs.
Potential audiences might include Principals, Curriculum Directors, Parents, Board Members, School Public/Community Relations Professionals, and Teachers.

2. HISTORY
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965
Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994
Reauthorization of ESEA - No Child Left Behind, 2002
First signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act focused on disadvantaged, low achieving students. This law has been referred to by many names, including HR 1, Public Law , ESEA, Reauthorization of Title I, and, most recently, No Child Left Behind.
This law is typically reauthorized every five years. In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act coordinated Title I and ESEA. In January 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law the reauthorized ESEA to continue to reach disadvantaged, low achieving schools and increase accountability by enhancing the focus to ALL students. This law is in effect through 2007, when it will again be up for reauthorization.
PRESENTER’S NOTE:
Another recent act of note is the Hawkins/Stafford Act, 1988; Title I focused on equity to help break out of the cycle of poverty in 1988, this act introduced accountability factors for Title I and school-wide assistance status.

3. PURPOSE
Close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, parental choices, and research-based reforms
The purpose of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is: READ SLIDE
Accountability is really not new; although over the years, the amount of accountability has increased as the dollars allocated have increased.
The focus of NCLB has been on turning around local schools, using methods that worked. These ideas are not eliminated, instead they are being enhanced through flexibility.
Some believe that previous measures in this law did not provide enough “force;” therefore, the reauthorization of ESEA, , is designed to put “teeth” into accountability.

4. GOALS
ALL students will attain proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by
ALL limited English students will become proficient in English
ALL teachers will be highly qualified by
ALL students will be educated in safe, drug-free environments
ALL students will graduate from high school
The overarching goals of No Child Left Behind are focused on key academic, instructional, and environmental goals. These are: READ LIST ON SLIDE.

5. KEY POINTS Key Points Accountability Teacher Quality
Options and Choices for Parents
Instructional Methods
Flexibility
This presentation will focus on key points that schools will need to address in order to attain the goals of NCLB. We will focus on specific information regarding the following: READ LIST ON SLIDE

6. ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability Testing Requirements
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Consequences
Public Reporting
Within the area of accountability, No Child Left Behind legislation focuses on: READ LIST ON SLIDE
We will highlight key points under each of these areas.

7. ACCOUNTABILITY Testing Requirements
States administer own tests which are:
Aligned
Valid and reliable
Inclusive:
Limited English Proficient Students
Special Education Students
The testing requirements under NCLB include a mandate that each state must have its own standards-based assessments which are aligned to the state curriculum.
The test must be proven valid and reliable, and must assess ALL students, including Limited English Proficiency and Special Education students.
The law contains provisions to ensure that certain levels of appropriations are available to the states to meet the testing requirements. These appropriations are included for the length of the reauthorization (until 2007).

8. ACCOUNTABILITY Testing Requirements
Annual reading and math assessments at grades 3-8 by
Science assessments by
At least once at elementary, middle, and high school grades
NAEP biennially starting in grades 4 and 8:
Random sampling
Mandatory participation
Limited English students must be assessed annually for English language proficiency
While there is no national test in development, Michigan is ahead of the curve. Our state is in the process of revising core curriculum benchmarks and state assessments (MEAP) to align with the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP test, serves as a comparative national benchmark to assess how students are doing in reading and math across the states.
A random sample of 4th and 8th grade students in each state must participate in the assessment every two years. There are provisions in this new legislation to cover the costs of testing.
Limited English Proficient students must be included in the state annual assessment as well as be assessed annually to determine their growth in the English language.

9. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
ACCOUNTABILITY
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Demonstrate Proficiency:
All schools reach 100% proficiency within 12 years
Schools must meet annual state objectives for progress
Continual Achievement:
States will determine annual objectives for progress
All subgroups must meet annual objectives for progress
95% of all students and all subgroups of students must be included in the assessment
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a minimum performance threshold determined by the state, using achievement data. States will also set goals to reach 100% proficiency in 12 years. In addition, schools must meet AYP each year.
In the ESEA legislation, demonstrated proficiency means that all schools must demonstrate proficiency in each subgroup of students. Subgroups include such demographics as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
It is important for schools to look at both the gaps between subgroup performance and the progress of each subgroup individually, as well as overall trends. Further, schools must ensure that at least 95% of students belonging in each subgroup are tested.
PRESENTER’S NOTE:
Title I has very specific criteria by which incremental progress should be measured. Refer specific questions to resource page - MDE Office of Field Services.

10. Adequate Yearly Progress - Example
ACCOUNTABILITY
Adequate Yearly Progress - Example
100%
100%
Target
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
This graphic illustrates the concept of Adequate Yearly Progress.
As you can see, the baseline target or starting point, shown as an example*, is established using data from The amount of growth needed each year to make AYP will be determined using the AYP formula being finalized by the Department of Education.
By , the goal is that 100% of students will reach the target. This graph depicts an example of how a district’s or building’s achievement toward 100% proficiency might look.
* PRESENTER’S NOTE:
We will have separate starting points in math and reading for elementary, middle school, and high school.
40%
Baseline
Target
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2014

11. ACCOUNTABILITY Consequences
Failure to make AYP will result in implementation of specific consequences
Each consecutive year, corrective actions become more intensive
For schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, increasingly severe sanctions are applied. Complete details of these sanctions are spelled out in the full regulations, but in broad terms, the following will occur (see next slide):

12. ACCOUNTABILITY Consequences
School Improvement Status–First Year (Two consecutive years of not making AYP):
Technical assistance
Must provide public school choice
Two year School Improvement Plan
10% of Title I funds must be allocated for professional development
Title I schools failing to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are identified for school improvement. These schools will receive technical assistance, which includes support in achieving school improvement goals, from the local district. If the local district needs additional assistance, it may request support from other sources (Intermediate School District, Institute of Higher Education, State Education Agency, etc.). The state will provide technical assistance to the schools in highest need.
Public school choice must be offered within districts, where applicable. Districts also have the opportunity to pursue collaborative arrangements with other districts. At least 5% of Title I funds must be allocated to cover transportation costs associated with this, if needed, focusing first on the most needy students.
Schools must develop a two year School Improvement plan outlining achievement goals based on data. As part of that plan, schools must spend at least 10% of Title I money on professional development aligned with the plan.
PRESENTER’S NOTE:
At the time of development of this presentation, the AYP formula for Michigan had not been determined. Districts that may have schools identified for improvement should set aside approximately 20% of their Title I funds for school choice and supplemental services, although no action should be taken until the formula has been determined and approved.

13. ACCOUNTABILITY Consequences
School Improvement Status – Second Year (Three consecutive years of not making AYP):
Continue actions from first year of school improvement status
Provide supplemental services to low-achieving, disadvantaged students
At least 5% of Title I funds for this purpose, if needed
Supplemental service providers must be approved by the state
After a third year of not making adequate progress, the school would also be required to offer students supplemental services such as private tutoring and other academic enrichment services which occur beyond the regular school day.
These services must be high quality, research-based, and designed to increase student achievement.
The service providers will be approved by the state, selected by parents, and paid for by the school district.

14. ACCOUNTABILITY Consequences
School Improvement Status - Third Year (Four consecutive years of not making AYP) Corrective Action:
Continue actions from previous years of school improvement
Districts must take at least one of the following actions:
Replace relevant school staff
Implement a new curriculum and provide professional development
Significantly decrease management authority
Appoint outside expert to advise on school improvement plan
Extend school year or school day
Restructure internal organization of school
After four years of inadequate progress, in addition to the previous sanctions, the school district must intervene: READ LIST

15. ACCOUNTABILITY Consequences
School Improvement Status - Fourth Year (Five consecutive years of not making AYP) Restructuring:
Continue activities from school improvement and corrective action
Districts must take at least one of the following actions:
Reopen school as a charter school
Replace all or most of relevant school staff
Contract with outside entity to operate school
State takeover
Any other major restructuring of school’s governance that makes fundamental reform
Five years, of inadequate progress would also result in the school being subject to some type of alternative governance, including: READ LIST

16. Consequences–Safe Harbor Provision
ACCOUNTABILITY
Consequences–Safe Harbor Provision
Schools not meeting annual state objectives can make AYP if:
Percentage of students not proficient for all students and each subgroup is reduced by 10% from the previous year
To avoid over-identification of schools as failing, when students in a school are making significant academic progress, a safe harbor is allowed.
This safe harbor is intended for schools and districts that are making progress in student achievement but have not yet made adequate yearly progress. Michigan is discussing a definition of safe harbor aligned to Michigan YES!
For schools where achievement is below the state objective, the school will be considered to have made adequate yearly progress (and would not be identified as failing) if the number of students not proficient in each subgroup is reduced by 10% from the previous year. It applies only if a school does not meet the state objective for the content area and/or subgroup. There is no requirement that safe harbor be met for a subgroup for which the state objective is already met.

17. ACCOUNTABILITY Public Reporting
State Report Card requirements include:
Dissemination at the beginning of school year
Disaggregated student MEAP data
Comparison of student achievement levels
Percentage of students not tested
Graduation rates
Number and names of schools in need of improvement
Comparison of actual academic achievement to annual objectives for all subgroups
Teacher qualifications
The State of Michigan has been reporting information to the public on schools for many years. The new ESEA law requires each state to report its scores at the beginning of the school year. As reporting requirements become clearer, the state will continue to align reporting requirements to the new ESEA legislation. More in-depth information can be found at the National Central Regional Educational Lab (NCREL) website that includes an in-depth, state-by-state review of current report card content.
In regard to teacher qualifications – school districts must inform parents that they may request information on teachers’ qualifications:
Certification for grade level and subject,
Emergency or provisional status,
BA, major and graduate degrees, and
Whether child is provided services by paraprofessionals.
Also, must provide parental notification when the child is being taught for 4 consecutive weeks by teachers NOT highly qualified

18. ACCOUNTABILITY Public Reporting
School and District Report Cards must include:
Same information as in State Report Card, applied to the district and individual schools
Comparison of student scores on state assessments with other students within the district and state
As in the State of Michigan, districts and schools have been reporting to the public for years. This process will continue to be refined to align with NCLB legislation as well, and beginning in 2003, schools will be required to publish this information at the beginning of the school year.
The Center for Educational Performance Indicators (CEPI), Standard and Poors School Evaluation Services, PA 25/335, and Education Yes! all provide Michigan citizens with information about K-12 public schools, public school academies, and private schools. It is not yet clear how these resources will be coordinated.

19. ACCOUNTABILITY Public Reporting
New requirements to provide parent notification on:
Teacher qualifications
Student performance on state assessments
School choice information
Limited English Proficiency student placement and program information
Schools must provide parents with information on children’s achievement on statewide assessments that have been disaggregated, or broken down, by subgroup.
Schools must also provide outreach information regarding parent involvement in language instruction programs, as well as the reasons for LEP student placement in a language education program.

20. KEY POINTS Key Points Accountability Teacher Quality
Options and Choices for Parents
Instructional Methods
Flexibility
Teacher and staff quality are important to efforts to improve schools. For this reason, NCLB raises standards for teachers and paraprofessionals.

21. TEACHER QUALITY Teacher Quality
Beginning all new Title I teachers must:
Be highly qualified
Be certified and teaching in their content area(s)
Not hold emergency credentials
Have proven competency in teaching areas assigned
All core academic subject area teachers not highly qualified must meet the requirements by
Title II funds can be earmarked for teacher and principal quality
The NCLB legislation provides new accountability provisions to ensure that teachers and paraprofessionals are highly qualified.
In general, under the law, “highly qualified” means that a teacher has at least a bachelors degree, has been certified (including alternative routes to certification) or licensed by a state and has demonstrated a high level of competence in the subject(s) he or she teaches.
For Title I teachers, the new standards are effective with the beginning of the school year. For other teachers, the standards must be met by
Title II funds can be used to prepare, train and recruit high quality teachers and administrators.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CHARTER SCHOOLS: While the Federal law was written to accommodate those states that do not require teachers to be certified in charter schools, the State of Michigan requires that teachers be certified in charter schools. The only exception occurs if the authorizing agency of the charter school is an institute of higher education and the teacher is a professor at that institute.

22. TEACHER QUALITY Teacher Quality All states must:
Develop a plan demonstrating how teachers will become highly qualified by
Require annual increase in the percentage of highly qualified teachers in each local district beginning in
Increase annually the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development beginning in *
In order to meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers, all states must: READ LIST
*PRESENTER’S NOTE:
The State of Michigan already requires professional development hours. Districts must provide teachers, who are new to the profession, 15 days of professional development during the teacher’s first three years. In addition, districts must provide all teachers five days of professional development every year.

23. TEACHER QUALITY Teacher Quality
Paraprofessionals hired after January 8, 2002 must meet requirements for qualification standards
Paraprofessionals hired prior to January 8, 2002 must meet requirements for qualifications by January 8, 2006
A notable change for school districts as a result of No Child Left Behind legislation involves new requirements for paraprofessionals.
The new standards affect NEW Title I paraprofessionals immediately. For those hired on or after January 8, 2002, they must have two years of higher education or an associate degree, or pass a formal assessment.
Title I paraprofessionals hired prior to January 8, 2002, have four years to meet the new standards (January 8, 2006).
There are two exceptions to these requirements. These are focused on employees who provide translation services or work to foster parent involvement.

24. KEY POINTS Key Points Accountability Teacher Quality
Options and Choices for Parents
Instructional Methods
Flexibility
This legislation also affords parents with new options and choices.

25. Options and Choices for Parents
All Title I Schools:
Increased parent notification and reporting requirements for all districts
Emphasis on parental involvement
School Improvement Status Schools:
Transfer option to schools not identified for improvement
Supplemental services provided outside the school day
All schools receiving Title I funding have increased notification and reporting requirements as a result of NCLB, as well as increased responsibility for encouraging parental involvement.
For schools designated as being in school improvement status, specific requirements include notifying parents of school choice and supplemental service options.

26. KEY POINTS Key Points Accountability Teacher Quality
Options and Choices for Parents
Instructional Methods
Flexibility
Instructional Methods are another key area of No Child Left Behind.

27. Instructional Methods
Resources concentrated on scientific, research-based programs
Characteristics of scientific research-based studies:
Uses scientific method
Has been replicated
Can be generalized to larger population
Meets rigorous standards
Other studies/programs point to same conclusion
A major emphasis of the new ESEA is reading, with the goal of all children being able to read by third grade. Michigan will receive $28.4 million under the “Reading First” program. These funds are designated to establish reading programs for children in grades K-3.
These funds can be used for professional development for teachers, efforts to identify children who are at risk of not reading by third grade, and instruction to help children overcome reading barriers.
The funds will be concentrated on programs which exhibit characteristics of scientifically based research. There are ongoing discussions regarding what constitutes scientifically based research, but according to the federal government, the key characteristics of reliable research include:
Use of the Scientific Method – This method involves a hypothesis about what works or how it works, with both a treatment and control group design used to try to disprove the hypothesis.
Replication – Several studies or trials of the same study all find the same result.
Generalizability – This allows study findings to be applied broadly to groups or subpopulations other than those studied.
Rigorous Standards – The study design, measures, and interpretation meet rigorous standards of peer review.
Convergent Findings – Results found using varied approaches all indicate the same conclusion.
While the focus is currently on reading programs, there is hope, expressed by the federal government, that these criteria will also be applied to other content areas.

28. KEY POINTS Key Points Accountability Teacher Quality
Options and Choices for Parents
Instructional Methods
Flexibility
The No Child Left Behind Act does increase accountability, but it also provides some financial flexibility to local school districts and schools.

29. FLEXIBILITY Flexibility
Legislation allows for flexibility in use of funding
Title I schools attaining AYP
Up to 50% of the funds allocated in one or more of the following programs can be transferred among these programs or into Title I, Part A:
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting (Title II, Part A)
Enhancing Education Through Technology (Title II, Part D) formula grant only
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (Title IV, Part A)
Innovative Programs – (Title V, Part A)
This legislation allows the above named funds to be transferred into other program categories or into Title I, Part A, although this flexibility differs between schools making AYP and those identified for School Improvement.
The proportion of funding that can be transferred is higher for those schools making AYP. The programs into which the funds can be transferred include Teacher Quality/Professional Development, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative Programs.
PRESENTER’S NOTE: Schools in Corrective Action CANNOT transfer ANY of their Title I funds.

30. FLEXIBILITY Flexibility Schools identified for School Improvement
Up to 30% of funds allocated for Title II, Part A; Title II, Part D; Title IV, Part A; or Title V, Part A may be transferred to support Title I, Part A, school improvement activities

31. SUMMARY Assessment for ALL students Accountability for ALL students
Public reporting for ALL schools
Increased options for ALL parents
Highly qualified personnel in ALL schools
Dollars to classrooms in ALL schools
“Reform is no longer about access to money. It is no longer about compliance or excuses. It is about improving student achievement by improving the quality of education we offer American students.”
Rod Paige, Secretary of Education
Some components of this new law will look familiar. In some instances, Michigan will have little to do to comply with these requirements. In other instances, the requirements are completely new and will require thought, action, and effort on the part of schools and districts to implement.
It is important to keep in mind that full implementation details are not complete (and may take years to complete). Many of the questions being asked locally are also being asked at the state level. MDE will share new information and developments as they become available from the U.S. Department of Education.

32. OTHER AREAS Educational Technology (Title II, Part D)
Language Instruction for LEP/Immigrant Students (Title III)
Safe and Drug Free Schools/Communities (Title IV, Part A)
21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part B)
Innovative Programs – State Grants (Title V, Part A)
Rural Schools (Title VI)
This presentation has attempted focus on essential aspects of the law, through a broad lens, and offers resources for additional depth and refinement.
However, as noted, it is important for all districts and schools to be aware of other changes and implications. The following areas are those which all districts should review: READ LIST

33. KEY DATES 2002-2003 Adequate Yearly Progress formula defined
Public school options provided, including parental notification in Title I schools with school improvement status
All newly hired teachers and paraprofessionals must be highly qualified in Title I schools
State will identify supplemental service providers
Districts will provide supplemental services in Title I schools in the second year of school improvement status
The following are important dates for all schools in the state and are current as of September 2002.

34. KEY DATES
Annual assessment of Limited English Proficient students
Biennial NAEP testing in grades 4 and 8 in reading and math
States and districts distribute annual report cards based on NCLB requirements
Annual assessment in math and reading/language arts at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12

35. KEY DATES
Districts failing to make AYP for previous 2 years will enter Year 2 School Improvement status
Biennial NAEP testing in grades 4 and 8 in reading, math, and science
Annual assessments of reading and math in grades 3-8 (fall)
All public and charter school teachers must meet standards of high quality
States must have science standards established
Paraprofessionals hired prior to January 8, 2002 must meet new standards by January 8, 2006

36. KEY DATES
Biennial NAEP testing in grades 4 and 8 in reading, math, and writing
Current reauthorization ends
Annual assessment in science at least once a year in grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12
Biennial NAEP testing in grades 4 and 8 in reading, math, and science
All students must be proficient in reading and math
2014

37. MORE INFORMATION MDE website @ www.michigan.gov/mde
United States Department of Education NCLB
House Committee on Education and the Workforce or (thorough Q&A document)
NASDSE (Special Education implications)
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (dates, timelines and policy issues by state)
Education Commission of the States
questions to:
Contact your local Intermediate School District
These resources provide additional detailed information, and are routinely updated: GO THROUGH LIST
PRESENTER’S NOTE: Presenters are encouraged to review these websites before making presentations.

38. SPONSORS Ingham Intermediate School District
Michigan Association of Intermediate Administrators
Michigan Department of Education
Oakland Schools
© September 2002