Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-16-2004-6aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 16, 2004 Action Agenda Item No. ?-g SUBJECT: Potential Impacts of Federal "No Child Left Behind" Legislation DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): NCACC 2004 Congressional Issue Paper NCASA Recommendations INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 Shirley Carraway, OCS Superintendent, 732-8126 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive an assessment from the County's two school systems of the potential impacts of "No Child Left Behind". BACKGROUND: In 2002, Congress enacted and President Bush signed into law the "No Child Left Behind" Act, designed to ensure that every child in the United States receives an excellent education and will graduate with the skills necessary to compete successfully in an increasingly interconnected global economy. This law requires that school systems throughout the country must be able to meet certain performance levels in standardized testing across a variety of demographic groups by 2013-2014. Schools that do not meet these tests of performance will face various sanctions, including the potential loss of federal funding. During recent months, there have been growing misgivings about some of the potentially adverse unintended consequences that may result from what is generally accepted as a well- intentioned federal law. A number of state legislatures have taken action directing local school systems not to pursue compliance, at least for the present, with the law's provisions. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners recently prepared a Congressional Issue Paper that encourages Congress to fully fund the requirements of the legislation and to reconsider whether it may produce unintended adverse consequences. The North Carolina Association of School Administrators has produced a document that identifies a number of areas of concern about the legislation as currently written, with some recommended modifications. Copies of both these documents are provided as background information in attachments to this abstract. Orange County Commissioners recently requested that both school systems in Orange County provide an assessment of how No Child Left Behind will affect education in each system, and how the law may already have affected students. Information provided by the school systems will be shared with members of the Orange County legislative delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly, for contemplation during the upcoming legislative session. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the presentation of this report. The "No Child Left Behind" legislation could have very significant (but currently, unquantified) impacts on school budgets over the long term. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report for information only at this time, 3 ?°atN wn°?,?. 2004 Congressional Issue Paper North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 0 "oy a Mailing flddiess P O Box 1488, Raleigh, NC 27602-1488 Telephone. 919-715-2893 • Fm: 919-733-1065 • Email. ncacc@ncacc oig • 6Vebsite. www ncacc. org Support Full Federal Funding for the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLBA) School Accountability Program Issue While NCLBA's objectives to improve student achievement and school accountability are commendable, lack of full federal funding for its implementation represents the largest federal unfunded mandate for public education in history and damages the program's credibility and opportunities for success. While the Congressional Research Service estimates that full funding of NCLBA requirements exceeds $30 billion for 2004, only $12.35 billion is being proposed. North Carolina's implementation would require $1.2 billion in additional federal dollars but only $548 million is being considered for 2004 Background President Bush announced his "No Child Left Behind" educational reform initiative immediately upon taking office and based on its tenets, Congress enacted NCLBA in late 2001 NCLBA seeks to increase accountability for states, school districts, and schools; provide greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; allow for more flexibility for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of federal education dollars; and place a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for young children. NCLBA requires annual state testing in grades 3-8 and high school with increasing penalties for schools and school districts if a given percentage of their students do not meet state standards of proficiency. Penalties escalate from required technical assistance, to parental transfer' options, to required supplemental services, to total restructuring, Accountability is measured in terms of "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP), which eventually requires that all students meet their state's standard of proficiency by 2012-2013 Within schools, AYP achievement is based on student subgroup performance, including those more likely to be associated with lower academic achievement, i e., children in minority populations, children with limited English proficiency, children living in poverty, and children with disabilities. Schools and school districts that fail to meet the AYP standard in a given year will be publicly identified as needing improvement and if they receive Title I funds, they will also be subject to aggressive interventions if the failure to meet AYP persists for two or more years. It is highly likely that in the first year, over half of our state's schools will be identified as not being .academically proficient, as a result of the weak performance of just one group or subgroup. These results will be featured in a public report card that will be equated with failure throughout the community North Carolina counties are constitutionally required to provide school capital facilities and also provide substantial funding for additional teachers, higher teacher salaries, and other school operating expenses Overall, counties appropriate over $2.5 billion to public schools. Congressional Action Needed The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners urges your support and advocacy to ensure full federal funding participation of the "No Child Left Behind" school accountability program. In addition, Congress or the administration should assess whether NCLBA is producing counterproductive consequences that impede school performance. ISSUES,AND RECOMMENDATIONS.` 1. Accountability Model of Adequate Yearly Progress ISSUE 1.1: NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and school systems by labeling those that miss only one target the same as those that miss multiple targets. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" ofAdequate Yearly Progress should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. ISSUE 1.2: NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and school systems that have the most diverse and fastest-growing student population, since it requires them to reach more targets to succeed. RECOMMENDATION: A subgroup's test results should be reported every year, but in order to be included in determining Adequate Yearly Progress, the subgroup should exist at a school for two consecutive years. ISSUE 1.3: NCLB expects all students within a school or school system to achieve the same level of proficiency, despite their limitations or special needs, including those who have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or who speak English as a second language. This expectation in reality sets difficult, if not impossible, achievement levels for too many special needs students, RECOMMENDATION: Special education students should be assessed on their individual progress through appropriate measures that recognize their unique learning differences. In addition, test scores for students who speak English as a second language should not be applicable in the AYP determination for a minimum of two years or until the student is deemed English language proficient as determined by a statewide test. ISSUE 1.4: NCLB sets absolute expectations for children within specific subgroups, when the growth of these children, particularly those with special needs and those who are typically high achievers, would be a better measure of success, RECOMMENDATION: North Carolina's plan for compliance with NCLB should be allowed to include growth as a significant part of the determination of student progress and school success. ISSUE 1.5: Parents and communities find it difficult to distinguish the difference between the ABCs (in North Carolina) and AYP (under the federal law), and the two do not have the same measures. A school can be a School of Excellence under North Carolina's ABCs model and not meet AYP, and that can send an unnecessary alarm, which leads to confusion, through a School of Excellence's community. Ultimately, this can cause teachers and other personnel to leave a school or school system that fails to make AYP and worsen our state's teacher shortage, particularly in parts of the state that have high growth and very diverse student populations. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" of Adequate Yearly Progress should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets.. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. 2. Personnel Qualifications ISSUE 2.1: NCLB requires all teachers to be highly qualified in the content area in which they are assigned to teach. While simplistic in theory, this requirement is problematic in practice, since teachers must either attain certification in multiple subject areas or receive alternative credit for additional subject areas through a process that is tedious and difficult for school administrators to utilize efficiently. Special education teachers are most affected by this requirement, since they must teach multiple subjects to students with learning disabilities. The requirement may ultimately cause North Carolina's short supply of teachers, particularly those with expertise in special education, to dwindle further, causing additional hardships for our school systems and our students. RECOMMENDATION: Teachers should be given the opportunity to show their expertise in the areas in which they will be teaching or already have been teaching beyond their major, and the process for awarding credit for demonstrated skills should be simplified.. ISSUE 2.2: Requiring North Carolina teachers to increase their credit hours from 18 to 24 in one content area in order to gain "highly qualified" status under NCLB may be a costly mandate that will exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage, which already has reached a crisis stage. RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Education should issue guidelines offering direction on what credit hours may count toward the "highly qualified" requirements for teachers and allow some flexibility in credit hour requirements to honor existing state ficensum and reciprocity policies. ISSUE 2.3: Staff development of teachers and paraprofessionals will become a focal point for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals and maximizing student successes in the classroom. School administrators will devote considerable attention and resources toward staff development issues and numerous delivery options. RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Education, in implementing the professional development requirements of NCLB, should allow adequate time for school personnel to comply. In addition, our Congress should provide adequate funding to allow school systems to make improvements in this area. 3. Funding ISSUE: The legislation authorizing No Child Left Behind set adequate federal funding levels for its successful implementation by the states; however, the federal budget has fallen short of those funding levels in subsequent years. This funding shortage is made more difficult by a provision in the law requiring a certain percentage of allocated funds to be set aside for remediation and "school choice" issues in connection with placement under Title I school improvement status. RECOMMENDTION: The U.S. Congress should appropriate additional federal funds to meet the funding levels established by the authorizing legislation of No Child Left Behind. Additionally, a thorough analysis should be undertaken to determine the state and local funding requirements to fully implement the law. For more information, please contact: Katherine W Joyce, NCASA's Assistant Executive Director Officer 919-828-1426, Cell 919-906-2571, Email kjoyce@ncasa.net North Carolina Association of School Administrators' Recommendations Regarding the'No Child Left Behind' Act February 2004 Almost all education professionals, including the 6,000 who are members of the North Carolina Association of School Administrators (NCASA), agree with and wholeheartedly support the aims of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. We believe in the philosophy of educating every child who comes through the schoolhouse door and doing so in an equitable and fair manner. This overlying theme is a mainstay of No Child Left Behind and is the same guiding principle that the members of NCASA have been striving to achieve throughout our careers in public education in the State of North Carolina. In addition, our members concur with and support many of the finer points of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). We agree that all educators should work to ensure that every child can learn and deserves to learn from highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. We agree that public schools must place more emphasis on closing the achievement gaps of minority and low-income students. We concur that testing is a necessary tool for measuring student achievement, although we believe testing cannot and should not be the sole barometer of student progress. And finally, we believe educators should strive to create an educational system in which schools are held accountable for their students' progress. While NCASA agrees that educators in this state and across the nation should work to achieve these goals, our membership has encountered some difficulties in our efforts to implement and comply with the mandates of No Child Left Behind. Our organization, which is the only professional organization in the state that serves the entire administrative team of North Carolina's school systems and individual schools, has facilitated panel discussions and several dialogue sessions among individual groups of school administrators about NCLB over the last two years. We have concluded through these discussions that the U.S. Department of Education needs to make modifications to the implementation guidelines of several facets of this massive, federal law. We also have concluded that action by our Congress may be necessary to fund NCLB at an appropriate level to allow our public schools to implement the law as intended, to ensure that no child is left behind in our public education system. The North Carolina Association of School Administrators and our entire membership respectfully request that the U. S. Department of Education and the U.S. Congress take immediate and appropriate actions to clarify and modify the implementation process for No Child Left Behind, based on the concerns and recommendations that we have summarized on the pages that follow. We believe the modifications we are recommending will strengthen the federal law and make it easier for all educators to implement. Most importantly, we believe addressing the concerns we have outlined will leave intact the goals and high 0 purpose that emerged from the original legislation in 2002, with our public school students as the true beneficiaries. NCASA is seeking U.S. Department of Education and/or Congressional actions to address concerns our school administrators have identified with the implementation of the following components of the No Child Left Behind Act: 1. Accountability Model of Adequate Yearly Progress 2. Personnel Qualifications 3. Funding In each of the segments that follow, we outline the concerns school administrators have raised with each component of the federal law and the solution we recommend to help the U.S. Department of Education and our Congress modify the law's implementation for the sake of our schools and our students. Since North Carolina has made great strides in increasing student performance under the state's ABCs accountability model, our state perhaps more than many others, is struggling with the perceived "all or nothing" accountability model mandated under No Child Left Behind. Research-based practices drive the growth-based ABCs model in North Carolina. For a number of years, we have been disaggregating our data and analyzing groups of students to find ways and methods to help those students not at grade level. We are proud of the progress our students have shown. At the same time, we are concerned that our required transition to the Adequate Yearly Progress accountability model will bring this progress to a screeching halt, as parents and communities become unnecessarily alarmed over school performance reports tied to No Child Left Behind, In essence, the problem is this: Schools that miss even one AYP target are given the same "failing" label and sanctions as schools missing multiple targets, We need a better way. This problem is compounded, when you consider that schools with diverse populations have more groups that must reach targets, making it harder for them to perform up to expectations. Here's an analogy. Imagine you are a college student taking seven freshman-level courses, while your roommate is only taking three freshman-level courses. Imagine also that any course grade lower than an "A" means you fail the semester. What is the chance you will make at least one "B" versus your roommate's chances? You have seven chances to fail, while your roommate can focus his efforts on achieving "As" in only three courses. This "all or nothing" approach in the context of No Child Left Behind seems to mandate "Absolute Progress" in requiring schools and school systems to reach ALL their accountability targets, while missing none. We contend that 100-percent success in reaching all accountability targets is much more than "Adequate Yearly Progress," as called for under No Child Let Behind. That achievement level is more indicative of "Absolute Yearly Progress," and we believe this expectation in the law sets the majority of our public schools up for failure on this national barometer of achievement. This point is emphasized by the AYP performance results for North Carolina schools in the 2002-2003 school year. The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction reports that 356 schools failed to make AYP by missing only TWO targets, and 286 schools failed to make AYP by missing only ONE target or subgroup's achievement rate. In fact, some schools failed to make AYP because five or fewer students scored below the required level on the AYP reading or math test. We believe these reports show that the implementation of Adequate Yearly Progress in reality is asking our schools to achieve Absolute Yearly Progress, and we ask for modifications to address this issue. ISSUE: NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and school systems by labeling those that miss only one target the same as those that miss multiple targets. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" of Adequate Yearly Progress should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets.. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. The issue above outlining our concern on NCLB's "all or nothing" approach is exacerbated by constant changes in school populations across North Carolina. An individual school's subgroups that are included in the Adequate Yearly Progress computation may vary from year to year, as students move from school to school or from one district to another, particularly in high-growth areas of our state. As a result, a school or school system can miss its Adequate Yearly Progress target simply because a new subgroup was added that year. We reiterate that "all or nothing" is an unrealistic expectation for our public schools, and we ask for modifications to ensure that all schools and school systems have a fair chance to succeed. NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and systems that have the most diverse and fastest-growing student on, since it requires them to reach more targets to succeed. ;OMMENDATION: A subgroup's test results should be reported every year, in order to be included in determining Adequate Yearly Progress, the Iroup should exist at a school for two consecutive years. 0 In a related finding, we believe that Adequate Yearly Progress, as it is currently defined, is not the best way to measure school performance, since it focuses on sanctions for a school or school system that fails to meet a pre- determined achievement bar, commonly called a out score. Because of unique leaming differences, especially among students with special needs, requiring all students to reach the same cut score or achievement level is a problematic expectation. NCLB requires Limited English Proficient (LEP) students to be tested in English (at grade level) even though they may have had limited time or exposure to English when tested. The law also holds Students with Disabilities, who have been identified because of some learning difficulty, to the same standard of proficiency as all other students.. As educators, we know that these two groups of students with special needs require and deserve additional attention by school personnel to help them achieve "below"-grade-level in most circumstances. So testing special-needs students at grade level and expecting them to achieve at the same pace as their peers without special needs places an undue burden on the students and ultimately limits the school and school system's ability to meet their AYP targets. North Carolina school administrators believe we should report all the test scores but recognize that some students may take a little longer to, or may never, attain "adequate" performance levels because of their special needs. Because this portion of the NCLB law seems so unfair to school staff who are striving to help special populations of students succeed, we risk the possibility that they will either blame some groups of students for hurting their school's reputation, or ignore the law altogether. The testing requirements of special needs students under NCLB, perhaps more than any other of the laws components, need to be reviewed and then followed by a modified plan for implementation, and we respectfully ask the U.S. Department of Education and/or our Congress to initiate this action. ISSUE: NCLB expects all students within a school or school system to achieve the same level of proficiency, despite their limitations or special needs, including those who have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or who speak English as a second language. This expectation in reality sets difficult, if not impossible, achievement levels for too many special needs students. RECOMMENDATION: Special education students should be assessed on their individual progress through appropriate measures that recognize their unique learning differences. In addition, test scores for students who speak English as a second language should not be applicable in the AYP determination for a minimum of two years or until the student is deemed English language proficient as determined by a statewide test. 4 la NCLB's high expectations of special-needs students also help illustrate another concern we have identified with the federal laws accountability model: the federal law contains no component for rewarding or recognizing individual student growth. This is true for students at all ends of the learning spectrum, from the students with special needs who we discussed above, to the highest achievers in our schools. In fact, since so much time and resources must be focused toward helping subgroups with the lowest performance levels meet their AYP targets, school personnel may divert attention from high achievers who they expect will easily score above the AYP requirement. An unintended consequence may result, as our schools' top achievers are not challenged to reach higher levels. Prior to NCLB, the North Carolina accountability model recognized schools for the growth students showed each year, not whether they jumped over some hurdle. A high-performing student population was expected to continue to learn and grow. We think that an accountability model that focuses more on rewards and less on consequences is a better way to judge schools, since growth in student achievement is recognized and encouraged. Again, we offer an analogy. The business you operate has 5 percent of the market share. If you increase that market share to 10 percent, that is significant growth, It is important to recognize that improvement, even though your company may still only have one-fourth of the market share of the leading company in that market. Likewise, the barometer for school performance should focus on continuous improvement, and not on the performance observed at some snapshot in time. ISSUE: NCLB sets absolute expectations for children within specific subgroups, when the growth of these children, particularly those with special needs and those who are typically high achievers, would be a better measure of success. RECOMMENDATION: North Carolina's plan for compliance with NCLB be allowed to include growth as a significant part of the determination of progress and school success. The success we have achieved under North Carolina's growth-based accountability model brings us to another concern about the No Child Left Behind accountability model. Our greatest fear is that North Carolina parents will perceive their school or school system as failing under the new federal law, as opposed to succeeding under the nationally recognized North Carolina accountability model. A review of a school or school system's performance under North Carolina's ABCs plan is an apples-to-oranges comparison of performance under No Child Left Behind. But that is a confusing message for parents to understand. In connection with our concern about the public's perception of a school or school system's performance under NCLB, we are concerned about the impact that perception will have on our ability to staff our schools adequately with highly qualified personnel. Staffs at high-performing schools that make expected and above expected growth under North Carolina's ABCs plan and then do not make AYP become demoralized. There is a concern for the out-migration of teachers to escape the brand of failing AYP, This trend is expected to exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage beyond its current crisis level, in which our public schools annually must fill 10,000 to 11,000 teaching positions, while our education programs in our state's universities are turning out only approximately 3,500 eligible teachers each year. Of that number, only approximately 2,500 enter the classroom in North Carolina. ISSUE: Parents and communities find it difficult to distinguish the difference between the ABCs (in North Carolina) and AYP (under the federal law), and the two do not have the same measures. A school can be a School of Excellence under North Carolina's ABCs model and not meet AYP, and that can send an unnecessary alarm, which leads to confusion, through a School of Excellence's community. Ultimately, this can cause teachers and other personnel to leave a school or school system that fails to make AYP and worsen our state's teacher shortage, particularly in parts of the state that have high growth and very diverse student populations. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" of Adequate Yearly Progress should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. To put our concerns with AYP into perspective, we ask you to consider the incredibly quick timeline connected with it. While roughly 150 years has passed since the beginning of the common school movement in our nation, No Child Left Behind asks all educators to achieve the goal of "universal proficiency" in merely 12 years. Universal proficiency, as defined by NCLB, is assuring that every student, regardless of race, poverty, disability or language proficiency, is academically successful. "The goal itself, while worthy, is lofty and seems almost unachievable. When that consideration is grouped with the fast pace of the reforms and the depth of the individual mandates affecting AYP alone, our school administrators are struggling to succeed and are asking our Congress and the U.S. Department of Education for assistance. 2. Personnel Qualifications The new personnel qualifications set forth in No Child Left Behind pose an additional concern for school administrators in North Carolina. The NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher makes it very difficult for North Carolina school administrators to recruit teachers in an already shrinking pool of personnel, as referenced above. It may also cause districts to lose a number of experienced teachers because they do not meet the new standard. And conversely, the highly qualified teachers may be drawn away from a district that 6 ?a has a number of schools not meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress accountability requirements. ISSUE: NCLB requires all teachers to be highly qualified in the content area in which they are assigned to teach. While simplistic in theory, this requirement is problematic in practice, since teachers must either attain certification in multiple subject areas or receive alternative credit for additional subject areas through a process that is tedious and difficult for school administrators to utilize efficiently. Special education teachers are most affected by this requirement, since they must teach multiple subjects to students with learning disabilities. The requirement may ultimately cause North Carolina's short supply of teachers, particularly those with expertise in special education, to dwindle further, causing additional hardships for our school systems and our students. RECOMMENDATION: Teachers should be given the opportunity to show their expertise in the areas in which they will be teaching or already have been teaching beyond their major, and the process for awarding credit for demonstrated skills should be simplified. In a related matter, personnel administrators have concerns over the 24 college credit hours in a content area required for classification as a highly qualified teacher. Many wonder why 18 hours is not sufficient for highly qualified status, since that amount satisfies the add-on licensure process in North Carolina. Personnel administrators also request clarifications to determine what 24 hours of credit are appropriate to count, when evaluating a teacher's qualifications. Above all, personnel administrators ask for more time from the federal government to collect, analyze and report on data to determine if a teacher is highly qualified, This is especially true, since the supporting documents that are required for meeting the highly qualified status are difficult, or almost impossible, to locate in some circumstances. Many personnel directors have expressed frustration that the National Teacher Examination (NTE) scores from 10 to 15 years ago are not available for the teachers currently involved in the hiring process, thus making the highly qualified status unattainable for some of our state's most experienced teachers. ISSUE: Requiring North Carolina teachers to increase their credit hours from 18 to 24 in one content area in order to gain "highly qualified" status under NCLB may be a costly mandate that will exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage, which already has reached a crisis stage. RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Education should guidelines offering direction on what credit hours may count toward the quailed" requirements for teachers and allow some flexibility in credit requirements to honor existing state licensure and reciprocity policies. 13 In another related matter, North Carolina school administrators have expressed similar concerns over No Child Left Behind's new requirements for highly qualified teacher assistants, or paraprofessionals. In fact, school administrators have a heightened sense of concern over paraprofessional qualifications, since the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in November 2003 submitted its required report on highly qualified personnel to the U.S. Department of Education. That report shows that highly qualified teachers are teaching 83 percent of North Carolina classes, while only 35 percent of North Carolina's paraprofessionals are highly qualified. New paraprofessional standards went into effect when President Bush signed the NCLB bill into law on January 8, 2002. Previous employment criteria, as set in N.C. State Board of Education (SBE) policies, recommended only a high school diploma. The change in standards shocked many North Carolina paraprofessionals, who viewed the changes as a threat to their employment. However, recent reports by school systems have been very positive. In fact, many paraprofessionals are excited about being included in staff development training, and they feel more like team members with the teachers. Being included in training activities has validated their employment. Yet, North Carolina school administrators emphasize that efforts to transition all our paraprofessionals to the new standards will not happen overnight, and we need assistance to meet the requirement of having 100 percent of our teacher assistants highly qualified by 2006, as called for under No Child Left Behind, In addition, many administrators wonder where the money will come from to bring current paraprofessionals up to the new standards in No Child Left Behind and ensure that the pool of paraprofessionals eligible for employment does not shrink and ultimately hold a negative impact for our students and classrooms. We urge Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to identify a pro-active solution to this massive problem facing all North Carolina school systems. North Carolina is still evaluating the number of teachers and paraprofessionals receiving sustained, high-quality staff development. A recent survey found that 47 percent of our teachers reported having English as a Second Language students in their classes, but only 6 percent reported 8 or more hours of staff development within the last 3 years on how to instruct those children with special needs. ISSUE: Staff development of teachers and paraprofessionals will become a focal point for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals and maximizing student) successes in the classroom. School administrators will devote considerable attention and resources toward staff development issues and numerous delivery options. 8 014 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S Department of Education, in implementing the professional development requirements of NCLB, should allow adequate time for school personnel to comply. In addition, our U.S, Congress should provide adequate federal funding to allow school systems to make improvements in this area. 3. Funding No Child Left Behind, as embraced by President George Bush and our Congress, has brought with it a slight increase in federal education funding. North Carolina's public schools are grateful for this increase, and we ask our Congress to find the additional funds necessary to enable us to implement NCLB as intended. Quite simply, the increase in federal funding is not sufficient to cover the increased demands of the federal law. According to research compiled by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the change in aggregate K-12 funding as a result of the first-year implementation of No Child Left Behind was an increase of $5 billion or a 1.1 percent increase in overall K-12 funding nationwide. AASA reports the following information on nationwide Title 1 basic funding, which is the centerpiece of NCLB: m $13.5 billion was authorized in Fiscal Year 2002, while the federal budget allocated only $10.3 billion that year. $16 billion was authorized in Fiscal Year 2003, but the federal budget allocated only $11.6 billion; and ® $18.5 billion was authorized for Fiscal Year 2004, yet the federal budget allocated only $12.3 billion. The finance officers in our school systems have identified some key areas of concern with federal funding for No Child Left Behind, as allocations currently stand. We ask you to consider the following funding concerns, as the Fiscal Year 2005 federal budget is shaped and approved this year. We expect a huge increase in transportation costs associated with transporting students to their parents' school of choice, after a students current school fails to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements for a second year. In relation to that concern, we expect budget deficits in infrastructure and physical plant costs, as some schools burst at the seams with an influx of new students after second-year AYP assessments. We have previously outlined concerns with the hurdles we expect in helping our teacher assistants become highly qualified to meet new federal requirements. We must reiterate here that the staff development costs associated with helping to bring the 65 percent of our current teacher assistants up to highly qualified standards could be exorbitant. In addition, North Carolina 9 9 school systems will incur costs in upgrading the remaining 17 percent of our teachers to highly qualified status in the prescribed timeframe. While we agree the investment is worthwhile, we look to our Congress for assurance that the federal budget will cover these expenses because the funds simply are not available at the state or local level. Finally, we would like to point out that there is one hidden cost not taken into consideration with the passage of No Child Left Behind or the federal funding associated with it. Finance officers and personnel directors in North Carolina both have identified data-collection costs as a missing piece of the puzzle under NCLB. One prime example is the increased time and training that will be necessary to help school personnel properly code and report information through the Student Information Management System (SIMS), The extra time required for human resource and financial staff in public schools to collect, analyze and report data in new categories defined by No Child Left Behind is not only an increase in workload for these individuals, but also is a huge drain on the school system's operating budget. Funding for data collection should be given a high priority in the upcoming federal appropriations process.. Again, we reiterate that we are grateful for the increases that our Congressional delegation has been instrumental in pushing through for public schools in North Carolina. We simply ask you to push for more so that we can give the mandates of No Child Left Behind the attention and resources necessary to help our schools and our students succeed. ISSUE: The legislation authorizing No Child Left Behind set adequate federal funding levels for its successful implementation by the states; however, the (federal budget has fallen short of those funding levels in subsequent years. This funding shortage is made more difficult by a provision in the law that requires a certain percentage of allocated funds to be set aside for remediation and "school choice" issues in connection with a school's placement under Title 1 school improvement status. RECOMMENDTION: The U.S. Congress should appropriate additional federal funds to meet the funding levels established by the authorizing legislation of No Child Left Behind. Additionally, a thorough analysis should be undertaken to determine the state and local funding requirements to fully implement the law. In conclusion, NCASA and our membership would like to reiterate our commitment to helping all students in all schools succeed academically. We believe the No Child Left Behind Act gives us an opportunity to work within the existing education system to educate all children, and we vow to maintain our leadership stance in working to achieve that goal of universal proficiency. 10 0 North Carolina schools are recognized as leaders in innovation, in student improvement and in accountability. While No Child Left Behind presents us with many challenges, we find those challenges worthy of our best efforts as education leaders. We pledge our continued efforts to teach every child in every North Carolina classroom, and we ask the U.S, Department of Education for assistance in interpreting troublesome portions of the federal law and modifying implementation plans for those NCLB components. In addition, we ask our Congress to ensure we have the monetary and other resources required for complying with this ambitious federal directive. With your assistance, North Carolina schools can ensure No Child Left Behind is more than the name of a federal law or even a lofty goal. It is our hope that No Child Left Behind will become the reality of education efforts in every North Carolina classroom. We thank you in advance for your assistance in helping us make strides in this process for the sake of all North Carolina students. 11