***No Child Left Behind*---2008**

### Summary of Proposed Regulations for Title I

April 22, 2008

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new regulations for Title
I of the *ESEA* with the intent of building on the advancements of state
assessment and accountability systems, as well as strengthening the
public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES)
provisions of the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*. The regulations
also incorporate key feedback from the field. What follows is a summary
of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on April
23 in 2008.

## Assessments, Accountability and Transparency

1.  **Assessments and Multiple Measures**

> ***Background:** There is a misunderstanding among some in the field
> that accountability under Title I must be based on a single measure or
> form of assessment.*

**Proposal:** The proposed regulations clarify that measures of student
academic achievement may include multiple question formats (e.g.,
multiple choice, extended response) that range in difficulty within a
single assessment, as well as multiple assessments within a subject area
(e.g., reading and writing assessments to measure reading/language
arts).

2.  **Strengthening State Assessment and Accountability Systems**

***Background:*** *Regular access to a group of experts with knowledge
in the fields of education standards, assessments, accountability
systems, statistics and psychometrics would help ensure that state
standards and assessments are of the highest technical quality.*

> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require the creation of a
> National Technical Advisory Council (National TAC) to advise the
> secretary on key technical issues related to state standards,
> assessments and accountability systems. The National TAC would focus
> on significant, complex issues that affect all states. The secretary
> would select the 10 to 15 members who would make up the National TAC
> from nominations from the public.

3.  **Minimum Subgroup Size and Inclusion of Students in
    Accountability**

> ***Background:*** *Currently, there are many students and subgroups of
> students whose achievement data are excluded from adequate yearly
> progress (AYP) determinations at the school level. Data are excluded
> when states establish large minimum subgroup sizes and add other
> components (e.g., confidence intervals; definitions of "full academic
> year") to their AYP definitions.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require states to explain in
> their state accountability workbooks how the minimum subgroup size and
> other components of their AYP definitions (e.g., confidence intervals,
> indexes, definitions of "full academic year") combine to provide
> statistically reliable information. States also would be required to
> ensure that the maximum number of students and subgroups are included
> in AYP determinations. Additionally, states would be required to
> include the number and percentage of students and subgroups excluded
> from school-level accountability determinations in their
> accountability workbooks.
>
> No later than six months after the effective date of the regulations,
> states would be required to submit their accountability workbooks to
> the Department for technical assistance and peer review. The
> Department plans to use the National TAC to help determine guidelines
> by which states' accountability workbooks will be reviewed.

4.  **Inclusion of NAEP Data on State and Local Report Cards**

***Background*:** *More* *information about how students in a state are
performing on state assessments as compared to how those students are
performing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
would provide greater transparency about state standards and
assessments. This information also would provide parents with another
tool to assess the education systems in their states.*

**Proposal:** The proposed regulations require states and districts to
report the most recent available results from the state NAEP reading and
mathematics assessments on the same public report card that they use to
report the results of state assessments.

**5a. Uniform Definition of "Graduation Rate"**

> ***Background:*** *Current regulations give states latitude in
> determining how public high school graduation rates are calculated. A
> uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates is needed
> to raise expectations and to hold schools, districts, and states
> accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate on time
> with a regular high school diploma.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations establish a uniform definition
> of the graduation rate that is consistent with the definition agreed
> to by the National Governors Association (NGA).

-   The graduation rate would be defined as the number of students who
    graduate in a given year within the standard number of years with a
    regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who
    entered high school four years earlier (adjusting for transfers in
    and out). The standard number of years to earn a high school diploma
    would be four years.

-   States would be able to propose, for approval by the secretary, an
    alternate definition of "standard number of years" for limited
    categories of students who, under certain conditions, may take
    longer to graduate than the standard four years.

    -   A state that does not have a system to accurately track students
        who transfer to another educational program that culminates in
        the award of a regular high school diploma, which is needed to
        calculate the NGA graduation rate, would use the averaged
        freshman graduation rate (AFGR) on a transitional basis.

    -   By 2012--13, all states would have to use the more rigorous NGA
        definition of graduation rate.

**5b. Graduation Rates and AYP**

> ***Background:** Under current regulations, in order to make AYP, most
> states require schools to make only a small amount of improvement from
> one year to the next or to meet very low graduation rate goals (e.g.,
> 50 percent). Permitting schools and districts with extremely low
> graduation rates or minimal levels of improvement to make AYP does not
> provide sufficient accountability for ensuring that students graduate
> on time.*
>
> **Proposal:** States would be required to:

-   Set a graduation rate goal (e.g., 90 percent) that represents the
    rate they expect all high schools to meet; and

-   Define how schools and districts may demonstrate continuous and
    substantial improvement from the prior year.

To make AYP, a school or district would have to meet the graduation rate
goal or demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the
prior year.

**5c. Disaggregation of Graduation Rates**

> ***Background:*** *Current regulations do not require disaggregated
> graduation rate data (i.e., data broken down by student subgroups) to
> be included in AYP determinations. Data show large disparities in the
> graduation rates of different subgroups. Simply requiring
> disaggregated data to be reported has not been sufficient to ensure
> that graduation rates improve for all students.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require disaggregated
> graduation rates to be taken into account in AYP determinations. No
> later than the 2012--13 academic year (when all states must use the
> NGA rate), states would be required to disaggregate the data by
> subgroup at the school and district levels to determine and report
> AYP. Prior to the 2012--13 school year, states would have to
> disaggregate the data at the school, LEA, and state levels for
> reporting purposes, but only at the LEA and State levels for
> determining AYP.

**6. Including Individual Student Growth in AYP**

> ***Background:*** *There is general consensus among teachers,
> administrators, researchers, and advocates that states should be
> permitted to include measures of individual student growth (i.e.,
> growth models) when determining AYP. By allowing states to include
> measures of individual student progress in AYP calculations, schools
> will continue to be held accountable for the achievement of all
> students. At the same time, states will have the flexibility to use
> more sophisticated methods of determining AYP.*

**Proposal:** The proposed regulations set the criteria that states must
meet in order to incorporate individual student academic progress into
their definitions of AYP. The proposed regulations build on criteria
that are part of the current "growth model" pilot program.

**7. Same Subject-Same Subgroup Identification for Improvement**

> ***Background:*** *Limiting the identification of schools and
> districts that are "in need of improvement" to those that do not meet
> the annual measurable objective (AMO) in the same subject for the same
> subgroup over consecutive years is inconsistent with the law's
> accountability provisions. The law requires that every subgroup meet
> the state's AMO in each subject, each year.*

**Proposal:** The proposed regulations codify current Department policy
that a district may base improvement status on whether a school missed
AYP because it did not meet the AMO in the same subject (or meet the
same academic indicator) for two consecutive years. A district may not,
however, limit identification for improvement to those schools that
missed AYP only because they did not meet the AMO in the same subject
(or meet the same academic indicator) for the same subgroup for two
consecutive years.

**8. Restructuring**

> ***Background:*** *Based on available data, the Department is
> []{.mark}concerned that the restructuring requirements are not being
> implemented effectively, and in some cases, not at all.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require the following:

-   Interventions implemented as part of a school's restructuring plan
    must be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the
    corrective action plan that the school implemented after it was
    identified as in need of improvement.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Districts must implement interventions that address the reasons why
    a school is in the restructuring phase.

-   In replacing all or most of the school staff, a district may include
    replacing the principal; however, replacing the principal alone
    would not be sufficient to constitute restructuring.

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and Public School Choice

**9. Timely and Clear Notification to Parents**

> ***Background:** Too often, parents whose children attend* Title I
> *schools that are identified as in need of improvement are not
> notified until after the start of the school year that they may send
> their children to better-performing public schools in their districts.
> Additionally, parents may be unaware of their children's eligibility
> for SES because the eligibility notice is not clearly distinguishable
> from the information that districts provide when a school is in
> improvement status.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require timely notification to
> parents regarding public school choice and SES. Districts must:

-   Notify parents of eligible children that they may elect to
    participate in public school choice and detail their available
    options as far in advance as possible, but no later than 14 days
    before the start of the school year. This requirement will give
    parents adequate time to exercise their choice option before the
    school year begins. With more time for parents to evaluate their
    choice options, the level of public school choice participation
    across the country should increase.

-   Notify parents of eligible children of the availability of SES and
    highlight the benefits of SES. This notice must be clear and
    concise, as well as clearly distinguishable from the other
    information sent to parents notifying them that their child's school
    is in improvement status.

**10. Access to Information on District Implementation of Public School
Choice and SES**

> ***Background:** Districts currently are not required to make
> information on public school choice and SES eligibility available to
> the public. Doing so would make districts' implementation more
> transparent and make it easier for parents to obtain the information
> they need.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require districts to include on
> their Web sites the following information:

-   The number of students who were eligible for and who participated in
    SES and public school choice during prior school years;

-   A list of SES providers approved to serve the district, as well as
    the locations where services are provided for the current school
    year; and

-   A list of available schools to which students eligible for public
    school choice may transfer for the current school year.

**11. State Monitoring of Districts' Implementation of SES**

> ***Background:*** *Although States have always had to monitor their
> districts to ensure that the SES requirements were being met, states
> have not been required to make their monitoring procedures public.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require States to develop,
> implement and publicly report the standards and techniques they use to
> monitor how districts implement the SES requirements.

**12. SES Provider Approval Process**

> ***Background:*** *The law currently sets forth the minimum criteria
> that states must consider in approving SES providers. However, more
> can be done to ensure that states approve only those providers with
> programs having evidence of contributing to increased student
> achievement.*
>
> **Proposal:** In approving an SES provider, the regulations require
> states to consider, at a minimum:

-   Evidence from the provider that the instruction it would provide and
    the content it would use are research-based and aligned with state
    academic content and student achievement standards;

-   Information from the provider on whether it has been removed from
    any state's approved provider list;

-   Parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if available,
    regarding the success of the provider's instructional program in
    increasing student achievement; and

-   Any evaluation results demonstrating that the instructional program
    has improved student achievement.

**13. State Monitoring of SES Provider Effectiveness**

> ***Background:*** *States are required to evaluate whether providers
> have contributed to increased student achievement for two consecutive
> years. However, the law does not specify the evidence a state must
> consider in making determinations about renewing approval of providers
> or withdrawing them from the state's approved list.*
>
> **Proposal:** To inform the renewal or withdrawal of approval for a
> provider, the proposed regulations require a state to examine, at a
> minimum, evidence that the provider's instructional program:

-   Is consistent with the instruction provided and content used by the
    district and state;

-   Addresses students' needs as described in their SES plans;

-   Has contributed to increasing students' academic proficiency; and

-   Is aligned with state academic content and student academic
    achievement standards.

> Additionally, states would have to consider, if available, parent
> recommendations, results from parent surveys or other evaluation
> results regarding the success of the provider's program in increasing
> student achievement.

**14. Costs for Parent Outreach**

> ***Background:*** *Districts must provide parents with the information
> they need to make the best, most informed decisions regarding their
> children's education. Currently, districts are not allowed to count
> the costs of this outreach toward their obligation to spend an amount
> equal to 20 percent of their Title I, Part A funding on public school
> choice and SES.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations permit a district to count the
> costs associated with providing parent outreach and assistance toward
> meeting its 20 percent obligation for SES and transportation for
> public school choice. The amount that could be counted as such would
> be capped at 0.2 percent of the district's *Title I, Part A*
> allocation. A district still would be allowed to spend more than that
> amount on parental outreach activities.

**15. Use of Funds for Public School Choice and SES**

> ***Background:*** Currently, the law does not require that districts
> meet certain requirements before reallocating funds for public school
> choice and SES to other purposes.
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations require a district, before
> reallocating unused funds from choice-related transportation and SES
> to other purposes, to provide satisfactory evidence to the state that
> it has demonstrated success in:

-   Partnering with community-based organizations to inform students and
    parents of SES and public school choice options.

-   Ensuring that students and their parents have had a genuine
    opportunity to sign up to transfer to a better-performing school or
    obtain SES by

    -   Providing timely, accurate notice to parents;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ensuring that sign-up forms are made widely available and accessible
    and that they have been distributed directly to all eligible
    students and their parents; and

-   Allowing eligible students to sign up to receive SES throughout the
    academic year.

    -   Ensuring that SES providers are given access to school
        facilities on the same terms as are available to other groups
        that seek to use school facilities.

**16. Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers**

> ***Background:** Current* Title I *regulations do not include all of
> the requirements for highly qualified special education teachers that
> are in the more recent Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
> (IDEA) regulations.*
>
> **Proposal:** The proposed regulations add a cross-reference to the
> definition of "highly qualified special education teachers" in the
> IDEA regulations. This is a technical change.