Memorandum

Friday 31 August 2007

TO:      Joel Packer

FR:      Justo Robles

RE:      Proposed Language for Reauthorization of ESEA: Initial Response

CTA has reviewed the available drafts of three sections of Title I [1123, 1121 and 1116] and has identified areas of special concern which must be addressed. 

Title I Section 1123: Data Systems and Requirements

Among the requirements of the data system under Title I, the essential elements include “a unique statewide teacher identifier that remains constant over time and matches all student records described in this subsection to the appropriate teacher” (1123 [c] 7, pg. 308).

Special Concerns:

It links all student test results to particular teachers and shreds all the safeguards that CTA fought for and won in the approval of CALTIDES, California’s statewide teacher database.  CTA only moved to support the bill authorizing CALTIDES once we had assurances that the design would be such that there was no way to link CALTIDES and CALPADS (the student database).  This would require the linking of those databases into a single system.  Furthermore, although there are safeguards and limitations concerning the disclosure of personally identifiable information for students, there are no protections for teachers.

All action possible should be taken to oppose and eliminate this provision. 

Section 1121: Fiscal Requirements

This section of Title I addresses maintenance of effort and the requirement to supplement, not supplant, non-federal (i.e., state and local) funds.

Section 1121[c] Comparability of Services

This sub-section requires that an LEA which receives Title I funding demonstrates that the average expenditure per pupil in Title I schools is equal to or greater than the average expenditure per pupil in schools that are non-Title I (within the same district).  The expenditure per pupil is measured in teacher salaries.

• If all schools in the district are Title I, then the average expenditure by pupil measured by teacher salaries of the two highest-poverty quintiles must be equal to or greater than those in the two lowest-poverty quintiles.

• The average per pupil expenditure can be made on a grade-span by grade-span or school-to-school basis.

• Data on teacher salaries must be filed with the SEA by the LEA on an annual basis to determine comparability of services.

• An LEA will be considered to have equal average expenditures per pupil on non-federal funds if expenditures measured in teacher salaries in Title I schools are 98% or greater of those in non-Title I schools.

Special Concerns:

Because salary schedules are designed to increase in relation to teacher education and experience, using teacher salaries as the measure of comparability of services goes to the heart of equitable teacher distribution.  Neither equitable teacher distribution nor comparability of services as measured by teacher salaries is new to ESEA, but the connection is tightened and previous “loopholes” (NEA characterization) have been eliminated. The Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights and Ed Trust have both been using the measure of teacher salaries as an indicator of inequality for some time. In addition to existing ESEA requirements, High Priority Schools Grants Program schools in California have a similar teacher experience distribution requirement and it has been required as part of our HQT local and state plans; the Quality Education Investment Act [SB 1133] has the Teacher Experience Index. While not using teacher salary as the measure but actual teacher experience, the results of either approach are similar and similarly problematic for CTA’s locals.

Collective bargaining agreements typically contain transfer and assignment provisions that do not consider teacher distribution, and requirements for equivalent teacher experience and education across schools within a district will often conflict with the transfer and assignment language and intent. The CTA Handbook contains two policy provisions that are relevant:

CTA believes any transfer or reassignment should follow due process and should not be arbitrary, capricious, or retaliatory (Transfer and Reassignment, p. 153).

CTA believes all transfer policies in relation to placement or reassignment of staff shall be in accordance with desegregation guidelines and affirmative action policies at all levels. Transfer policies as adopted by local school districts shall be so constructed as to eliminate discriminatory practices that result in the disproportionate assignment of minority teacher to minority schools within the system (Transfer Policy: Affirmative Action, pp. 153-154).

While CTA transfer policy addresses affirmative action in relation to race/ethnicity, the ESEA Title I statute (and much prevailing education policy) is predicated on disparities between high poverty and low poverty students and schools. To a large extent, the poverty index is a proxy for high proportion of African-American and Latino students.

As proposed, the language in Section 1121 will undermine existing collective bargaining agreements.  Further, the use of teacher salaries is an incomplete proxy for equitable and adequate resource distribution.

Section 1116: School and Local Education Agency Improvement and Assistance

School Improvement and Assistance Plan for Schools Not Making AYP

School develops a “comprehensive school improvement and assistance plan that identifies, analyzes, and addresses systemic causes for the school not making adequate yearly progress” (Sec. 1116 (b) 1, pg. 172-73).

Timeline:  Not later than 60 calendar days before the end of such school year, the plan shall be submitted to the LEA. 

Plan Content:

• Shall cover of period of 3 school years
• Shall include an analysis of the system causes for school not making AYP, including an analysis of teacher assignment and teacher expertise by grade, subject, and groups of students
• Shall include an analysis of practices concerning the school’s academic program and reforms that have the greatest likelihood of success (including improving teacher performance and teacher assignment – “how changes to teacher assignments could address causes for the school not making AYP”)

           
Designation as Priority or High Priority School:

The LEA shall designate each school not making adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years as either a High Priority School or a Priority School (p. 180).

Factors for Identifying High Priority School:

• The school has not made AYP and has a graduation rate of <60%
• More than half the students in the school are not proficient, or did not meet their growth target for states using growth models, in math or language arts
• More than one subgroup has fewer than half of the students at proficient levels in math or language arts
• An approved alternative process for designating schools as High Priority

Factors for Identifying Priority School:

• Any school in school improvement and assistance that is not designated as a High Priority school is a Priority School.

Plan Review:

The School Improvement and Assistance plan must be reviewed prior to approval by the LEA.  The members of the peer review panel shall include:

• Principals from high performing Title I schools
• Educators with similar experience and with a demonstrated record of improving student achievement
• School improvement specialist

Exiting School Improvement and Assistance (SIA)

A school previously identified shall no longer be identified for school improvement and assistance when the group or groups of students make AYP for 2 consecutive year or 2 out of the 3 years of the period covered.  If school makes AYP in the final year of SIA, the LEA may extend the implementation period for one additional year if necessary to meet the 2 consecutive years requirement.

School Redesign

If the school does not meet AYP after implementing its School Improvement and Assistance plan, the LEA shall designate the school either a High Priority Redesign School or a Priority Redesign School.

High Priority School Redesign

• Close the school, which at the discretion of the LEA may be reopened as a charter or with a comprehensive redesign of the instructional program and the staff
• Replace all of some of the school’s leadership and staff
• Enter into a contract with an agency to administer the school

Priority School Redesign

• Institute significant revisions in the instructional and leadership program and support services
• Review the performance of the school leadership and all staff serving students and make appropriate staffing changes

The LEA may limit the number of schools designated for High Priority Redesign to 10% of schools in the LEA or 50 schools, whichever is less. It is permissible for the LEA to identify additional schools for redesign.  (Need allowance for LEAs with fewer than 10 schools, not yet developed).

Special Concerns:

• Schools enter the SIA process sooner than the current Program Improvement (PI) intervention process.  In current PI program, schools are identified as PI after 2 consecutive years of not making AYP, thus beginning the process of planning and implementing interventions at the beginning of the third year.  In SIA process, schools begin planning after 1 year of not making AYP and have their improvement plan completed submitted by the end of the second year.  The corrective actions then are implemented by the first day of school of the third year, assuming the school does not make AYP for a second year.  The statute does not address the situation where the school does make AYP for a second year, but presumably, they would continue with any improvement plan they designed even though not required to by ESEA. 

• The draft statute declares that after 2 years of implementation as a High Priority Redesign school, the school is thereafter considered a new school for purposes of this section. The question remains (as with current PI program) – Now what?  Presumably the school begins the entire SIA process again. A Priority Redesign school that does not make AYP after 2 years in redesign automatically becomes a High Priority Redesign school.  This system could have the effect of schools “recycling” through various phases of Priority, High Priority, Priority Redesign, High Priority Redesign.