“No Child Left Behind” appears to be a loaded statement
these days. Two years have passed since this well-meaning legislation was passed
and all of us have been challenged by it. I would like to take this opportunity
to talk about the implementation issues that have affected all of us in
The Timing of NCLB has been backward: First came the
Act, then 11 months later, the federal regulations coincided with the January
2002 implementation. My own experience at that time resulted in two unique
perspectives. Like many of you I was grappling with the law as a superintendent,
seeking guidance on how NCLB would affect the 50,000 students in my district.
When I assumed the post as State Superintendent I truly began to question why
the U.S. Department of Education did not let us first understand the new law,
its intent and corresponding regulation, then set a more reasonable date for
implementation, like the 2003-2004 school year. Hence, nationwide we could
question the timing of NCLB, but the reality is, this law is absent of make-up
dates, do-overs or mulligans. Despite my own belief that NCLB implementation was
ill-timed, we have to accept this timetable and make the best of
it.
With that in mind, what all of us in
This spirit is often challenged, however, by the binding
and sometimes conflicting, as well as illogical, regulations approved by the
USDOE. Our goal in
Stepping up our accountability has been paralleled by
increasing costs. There is much debate about how much is enough.
While some of us have been tempted by the idea to
outright reject NCLB requirements, we would also be turning away roughly $800
million. Despite the heightened rhetoric, no state has rejected the funding. In
these troubled fiscal times, turning away this money – that undeniably helps
some schools more than others – is not a viable
option.
I say that because NCLB is intended to drive improvement
among our struggling students. How NCLB does this is another sore spot: Transfer
before tutor? This point has troubled me since the law’s enactment. Offering
students the right to choose a better performing school, before we offer the
supplemental services that will help them improve in their own school is
backward thinking at its best. Further, school districts offering supplemental
services are required to use only Highly Qualified Teachers, but private
providers are not held to the same standard. This needs to be changed by
offering tutoring first, choice second and create equity supplemental service
standards for both public and private services.
Until that change occurs I must point out that there is
nothing that prohibits districts from using available Title I funds to offer
supplemental services and choice options simultaneously. In fact, I encourage all affected
schools to use the law to offer parents options so that they become full
partners with schools in improving their child’s education and consequently the
school’s performance.
I continue to encourage your thoughtful suggestions for
considerations by the Advisory Task Force.
These suggestions do have positive results. For example, a Task Force
member had asked that we review a USDOE approved calculation of Adequate Yearly
Progress in another state. In December, we looked at this possibility: schools
would have to miss AYP for two consecutive years in a single subject (math,
reading) instead of our current computation of either subject. We ran simulations and found that about
ten of our schools would be positively impacted (meaning that under this new
calculation they would make AYP). At this month’s board meeting I am
recommending that we adopt the calculation.
In my capacity as Chief State School Officer, I have had
meetings since August 2002 with Secretary Paige and his top staff and have
implored them to make needed changes.
My colleagues in other states have done so as well. After two years of problematic
implementation, perhaps the USDOE will act on our requests. We have just
recently seen reconsiderations of assessing LEP students and the 1% waiver rule.
Nevertheless, I do not see regulatory changes in the offering in the very near
future.
I think it is safe to assume that if improvement of NCLB
does not come from
NCLB is wrought with good intentions that are coupled
with regulations that are inconsistent with good practices. The law must be
altered by the USDOE so that states can best meet its intent through flexibility
that truly allows us to best serve students.
I would like to continue this exploration of NCLB in the
upcoming weeks Friday message, specifically concerns I have with the AYP
calculations, the required assessments, timing of sanctions and reporting, and
the problems associated with the regulations affecting special populations of
students. But I don’t want to just opine on the problems with NCLB, I would also
like to offer some solutions.
As we navigate through the often murky waters of NCLB, I
invite all of you to submit brief essays on some aspect of NCLB regulations that
need attention or change. Together, we can move ahead in this
journey.
Robert Schiller
State Superintendent
of
Education
Also included in today’s
message:
Education
Agency Sesquicentennial
This week I invite you to join me in celebrating
education in
It is interesting to note that while a lot has changed
since then. Free public education
and compulsory attendance was opposed by many, especially in rural areas where
children were needed to help work farms.
A typical school in the 1850s consisted of one school building that
provided basic education through grade 8.
Some things have not changed. At the turn of the 20th
century, Superintendent Francis Blair focused his attention on teacher
certification, safe schools and the inequality of school
funding.
For more on education history please go to
http://www.isbe.net/news/2004/Illinois_education_timeline.pdf
For a history timeline, please go to: http://www.isbe.net/news/2004/celebration_of_education.pdf
Administrative
Rules Work Group
Please be advised that I have sent letters to members of
17 educational organizations inviting them to send two representatives to a work
group which will review the state’s education administrative rules. The task force will have the charge of
making recommendations to reduce nonessential administrative burdens related to
rules on curricular mandates; health safety, or specific rights of students and
staff; accounting, claiming and reimbursement for various programs; grants and
loans that are currently available; public schools evaluations and school food
services. I am asking for the names
to be forward to me by Monday, March 15. For more information please contact my
assistant Amy Fifer at (217) 524-9651.
Legislation
Update – March 19
The General Assembly is in recess until March
23.
On March 22, the day before the legislature reconvenes,
there will be another hearing concerning Senate Bill 3000, the proposal to
create a new Department of Education under the direct control of the Governor.
The hearing will be held in the auditorium of
The House Elementary & Secondary Education Committee
has scheduled a hearing on March 24 at
It is important for members of the legislature, and the
public, to hear the facts about both of these proposals. Neither plan addresses the critical
issues of the day – properly funding our schools and ensuring every child in
Amendments are currently pending to the State Board’s
rules for Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition and Supervision (Part 1) that
will have significant effects on the ways in which districts assign their staff
beginning July 1 of this year. The
public comment on this set of amendments extends through March 22, and I
encourage you to use this opportunity to inform us of any problems or issues you
see in this material.
In particular, the rulemaking includes a wording change
in Section 1.440 (Additional Criteria for High Schools) that we believed would
simply clarify a long-standing requirement. It has come to our attention that the
existing rule may not have been interpreted in the field as it has been meant,
so that changing the rule would involve a significant change for some districts
after all. The proposed change is
displayed below; please let us know how
this amendment would affect your
district.
c)
No teacher shall should have more than five different
preparations.
The rulemaking encompasses a large amount of additional
material implementing the new structure of endorsements that corresponds to the
standards adopted over the last several years. The complete text has been posted under
“Proposed Rules and Amendments” on the “Rules” portion of our web site, and we
encourage you to review it during the comment period. As always, comments and suggestions may
be e-mailed to rules@isbe.net. We would greatly appreciate receiving
your input.
Notice
of Completed Rulemaking
Please be advised that two other rulemaking items
recently adopted by the State Board of Education are now in effect. Both these sets of rules have been
posted on the agency’s web site at www.isbe.net/rules; choose “Rules Currently
in Effect” and scroll to the relevant Part number. (If you print only the affected
Sections, remember to include the table of contents for the Part, which changes
every time the Part is amended.)
Standards
for Certification in Specific Teaching Fields (Part
27)
This rulemaking
removed a provision from Part 27 that was inappropriately included in the
standards for Technology Education Teachers when these rules were originally
promulgated. The language that was
struck (Section 27.460(k)) described inputs rather than competencies and thus
was inconsistent with a standards-based approach. Further, there was concern in the
technology education field that the requirement for 2000 hours of work
experience blurred the distinction between certification in vocational areas or
trades (based on work experience) with certification to teach exploratory
technology education programs.
It should be noted
that this set of standards is for a specific credential – Technology Education
Teacher – as distinct from the technology standards that are applicable to all
teachers and are found in Part 24 of ISBE’s rules (Standards for All Illinois
Teachers). The individuals affected
are teachers of exploratory technology courses.
Affected
Section:
27.460
Effective
Date:
Pupil
Transportation Reimbursement (Part 120)
This rule was developed in response to a problem
revealed through a district’s application for a modification of an existing rule
through the waiver process. The
rule that was the subject of the request was similar to the requirement for
districts that own and operate their own transportation services to prorate
their total transportation costs across all categories of transportation
services, based on the ratio of miles traveled in each category to total system
miles (Section 120.90(d)). The same
approach is used when a district chooses one contractor to provide all of its
transportation services and is expressed in Section
120.90(e).
A district
petitioned for authorization to treat each category of transportation services
separately for the purposes of calculating its reimbursement even though it
employs only one contractor to provide both regular and special education
transportation. The district
requested that the types of transportation be kept separate because separate,
competitive bidding had occurred for each type. That is, there were two separate
contracts, but the procurement process had resulted in issuance of both
to the same contractor based on the low bid in each
case.
The request could not be approved because waiving that
requirement could not result in meeting the intent of the rule (cost
containment) more effectively or efficiently, a criterion for approval of the
request. Other factors related to
the effect on other districts also played a part in the agency’s denial of the
request.
However, the Board and the staff accepted the premise
behind the district’s request and determined that the rule should be revised to
accommodate the situation that had been brought to light. The revised rule now delineates the
ability to treat categories separately even when there is a single contractor,
provided that each contract is let based on the lowest bid among at least
two.
Affected
Section:
120.90
Effective
Date:
Student
Information System Update
The Agency is now finalizing its procurement process to
name a vendor to build and implement a statewide Student Information System
(SIS). The contractual process
should be finalized sometime within the next month. Throughout the development of SIS, the
Agency plans to work closely with local school districts and vendors of School
Administrative Packages (SAPs). The
goal is to conduct a SIS pilot in the spring of the 2004-2005 school year using
unique student identifiers to transfer data back and forth between the Agency
and local schools and implement the unique identifiers statewide during the
2005-2006 school year for assessment tests. This system will help local schools and
the state make important data-driven decisions about ways to improve student
achievement and meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act.
ISBE is pleased to announce that the Illinois Assessment
Frameworks for grade 11 are now posted on the ISBE Web site at file://spr6/lsmith/My%20Documents/Weekly%20Messages/www.isbe.net/assessment/IAFIndex.htm. These frameworks focus on mathematics,
reading, writing, science, and social science and provide another level of
specificity linked to the State Goals for Learning.
The framework for each subject consists of a set of
assessment objectives that are clear, concise statements of the knowledge and
skills students are expected to demonstrate on the Prairie State Achievement
Examination. The assessment
objectives for science, writing, and social science form the specifications for
assessments starting in spring 2006.
The assessment objectives for reading and mathematics are based on the
ACT AssessmentÒ and WorkKeysÒ tests that are used currently to assess
these two subjects. The writing and
science frameworks also contain some references to the ACT Assessments in these
subject areas.
Announcement of E-Grants
Trainings
The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has
scheduled eight training dates and locations throughout the state for the new
E-Grant Management System (eGMS).
There will be no fee for participating, however registration is
required. Electronic registration
and additional details regarding the training sites can be accessed through our
new eGMS web page at http://www.isbe.net/egms/. ISBE will release its first grant
application through (eGMS) this spring.
Districts will submit the FY05 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) consolidated
application for the following grants:
·
Title I, Part A, Improving the Academic Achievement of
the Disadvantaged
·
Title II, Part A, Teacher
Quality
·
Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology
(formula grant)
·
Title IV, Part A, Safe and
·
Title V, Part A, Innovative
Programs
Districts will use ISBE’s Web Application Security
System (IWAS) to access eGMS and submit the NCLB consolidated application via
the Internet. The system will
significantly reduce grant preparation time for districts, improve data quality
and communications, standardize ISBE grant applications, and improve efficiency
of the grant review and approval process.
Questions about the workshops can be directed via email to egrants@isbe.net.
Occupational
and Physical Therapy in Illinois Schools
A new publication, “Recommended Practices
for Occupational And Physical Therapy In Illinois Schools,” has been
developed. The purpose of this
document is to present administrators, occupational and/or physical therapy
personnel, educators, other professionals, and parents, with information
regarding the provision of occupational and/or physical therapy in educational
environments. This document is
intended to serve as guidance so that each Local Educational Agency (LEA)
employing therapists can establish or update their own procedures for providing
these support services to students.
Included is a statute review, an explanation of the differences between
IDEA and Section 504, an overview of OT/PT as a related service, factors in the
determination of the need for therapy, the provision of OT/PT in the education
setting, and administrative considerations. This document may be downloaded from our
website at http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/.
Enrollments
on First Day of Testing to be Collected Electronically This
Year
Early next week, all superintendents will be receiving
notification letters about the new electronic data collection and reporting
system ISBE will be using this spring to collect the districts’ and schools’
enrollments on the first day of testing.
This will be collected using the Pearson SchoolHouse system. Enrollment numbers can either be entered
by the district office or the superintendent can give each principal a password
to enter his/her school’s data.
Either way, by May 21st each superintendent must authorize the
final submission of all of the district and school enrollment figures. Secure passwords for your district and
schools are included in next week’s letters. A user guide at http://schoolhouse.ncs.com/ provides
instructions on using this system and should be studied
carefully.
The main advantage of this system is that it has many
checkpoints built into it. For
example, it will not let you submit your data if the school’s numbers do
not add up to the district totals or if you have omitted your IEP or low income
students. This should help to
ensure accurate collection of data this year. ISBE will also be reporting data back to
the districts electronically later this year. If there are any questions about this
system please contact jcraig@isbe.net.
Guidance for Districts with
Schools Identified for Corrective Action as Required by
NCLB
As a result of not having made AYP for
four consecutive years, some schools in
Business
Community Shows Support for CTE
One hundred and thirty-five
The results of this campaign, accompanied by the
alphabetical listing of companies that supported the resolution and aggregated
company profile information, will be unveiled at a Media Briefing on March 17 at
the National Press Club. Panelists
will explain the value the business community places on the nation’s career and
technical education system.
National
Youth Science
The National Youth
Science Camp has opened the application period for attending this summer's
adventure. The National Youth
Science Camp is a four week long, all-expense paid program that will take
place between June 24 and . Scientists
from across the nation who work on some of the most provocative topics in
science today present lectures and hands-on science seminars and linger to
interact informally with student delegates. Delegates are challenged to explore
new areas in the biological and physical sciences, art, and music with resident
staff members. They also may
present seminars covering their own areas of interest and research.
The delegates visit
Please recommend
this program to seniors who could be interested. More information about the program can
be accessed at file://spr6/lsmith/My%20Documents/Weekly%20Messages/www.sciencecamp.org Applications are due April 14. (Please note that this date is extended
from the national due date.) Please
contact Gwen Pollock at gpollock@isbe.net for electronic copies of the
application materials. If you need
hard copies of the materials, please call 217/557-7323 for
assistance.
Migrant
Education Summer Programs Application Due
Applications for Migrant
Education Summer Programs for FY 04 were due by . Please
submit your proposal ASAP. Applications
are available in our office. Please contact us at 312/814-3850.
Foreign
Exchange Teachers Recruitment
Recruitment of Foreign
Exchange Teachers is scheduled to take place in
Newsclips
http://www.isbe.net/news/2004/newsclips/040312.htm