Evaluation and Demonstrations (I-E-1501-1503)
Retains major features of current law, including requirements for a National Assessment of Title I, an Independent Review Panel to advise on the conduct of the National
Assessment, and a longitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness, as well as
Secretarial discretion to conduct other evaluation studies of Title I programs Also retains the Section 1502 Title I demonstrations authority
To enhance accountability systems, it is crucial to address assessment issues, including updates on state AYP definitions and school improvement initiatives Additionally, the implications of school choice and supplemental service options for students in underperforming schools should be evaluated Both national assessments and longitudinal evaluations must also incorporate cost-benefit analyses of Title I services to ensure effective resource allocation.
The Independent Review Panel now mandates stricter criteria for its composition, ensuring a diverse and qualified membership Additionally, it requires that the final report on the National Assessment of Title I undergoes evaluation by two independent experts in program evaluation to enhance credibility and accuracy.
The National Longitudinal Study now mandates the use of a nationally representative sample of Title I schools, incorporating detailed requirements to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive school reform models Additionally, it will evaluate the impact of school choice options under section 1116 on student achievement.
The new section 1503 mandates an independent study of assessments utilized for State accountability and student promotion and graduation decisions, to be completed within five years The Department will employ a peer review process to select a qualified contractor, overseen by reviewers appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement This study will synthesize and analyze existing high-quality research while evaluating academic assessment and accountability systems across SEAs, LEAs, and schools, focusing on the impact of achievement on various student groups An interim report is required after three years, with a final report submitted to Congress and the President Additionally, the Secretary may reserve up to 15 percent of the allocated funds for Part E, capped at $1.5 million, for this study.
CLOSE UP FELLOWSHIPS (Title I, Part E, Section 1504)
The Close Up Foundation in Washington, D.C has been granted a non-competitive award to provide fellowships for students from low-income families and their educators, facilitating their participation in the Close Up program alongside peers.
Participants spend one week in Washington attending seminars on government and current events and meeting with leaders from the three branches of the Federal
Government (Also authorizes similar programs for “new Americans.”)
The new provisions aim to enhance student participation in the Program for Middle School and Secondary School, specifically targeting students from rural, small town, and urban areas, as well as those with migrant parents.
Students and the Program for New Americans.
Teachers – Limits fellowships for teachers in the Program for Middle School and
Secondary School Teachers to not more than one per year Eliminates rule that only one teacher from each participating school can receive a fellowship each year.
New Americans – Replaces the Program for Recent Immigrants, Students of
Migrant Parents and Older Americans with a Program for New Americans.
Accountability – Adds accountability provision that requires the Close Up
Foundation to measure the “efficacy” of the program.
Program Name and Placement – Changes “Allen J Ellender Fellowships” to “Close
Up Fellowships” and moves the authorization from Programs of National Significance to within Title I-E (“National Assessment of Title I”).
The Close Up Foundation must assess the effectiveness of its programs in collaboration with the Secretary, focusing on three key areas: enhancing young people's understanding of the Federal Government, fostering a sense of civic responsibility, and improving educators' skills in teaching civic engagement and citizenship competencies.
The existing program aimed at fostering the development, adoption, and implementation of comprehensive school reforms will be maintained, emphasizing reliable research and effective practices to enhance academic achievement for children in participating schools.
Authorization – Creates a separate authorization for the program in the ESEA
Under Title I, new Part F establishes a statutory authorization for a program that previously lacked one Initially created through the Department's fiscal year 1998 appropriations act, the program was implemented based on guidance from the accompanying reports for the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 Congress has since allocated funds for this program under Part E, which focuses on Federal Evaluations.
Demonstrations, and Transition Projects) of Title I and Part A (Fund for the
Improvement of Education) of Title X
The funding for awards is specifically targeted to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that receive financial support under Part A of Title I In contrast, the FY 2001 appropriations allocated 83 percent of the total funding to LEAs eligible for Part A funds.
The additional reform component introduces two new requirements for grantees, mandating the use of program funds for comprehensive reforms that are backed by scientifically based research demonstrating significant improvements in the academic performance of participating students compared to their non-participating peers Furthermore, these reforms must also provide essential support for teachers, principals, administrators, and other school staff to enhance overall educational outcomes.
The Secretary is mandated to implement quality initiatives that include a public-private collaboration aimed at helping States, Local Education Agencies (LEAs), and schools make informed choices when selecting comprehensive school reform providers This involves fostering the creation of effective school reform models and enhancing the capacity of reform providers to broaden their reach, maintain high standards, and ensure financial stability across more schools.
Emphasis on Proven Strategies – Requires that grantees implement comprehensive reforms based on scientifically based research
The federal mandate necessitates a national assessment of the outcomes achieved by schools three years post-implementation of comprehensive reforms, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of these reforms in schools exhibiting diverse characteristics.
State – Requires each State to conduct an annual evaluation of the effects of the reforms on student achievement and submit the report to the Secretary.
Schools must implement comprehensive reforms grounded in scientifically based research and proven practices These reforms should include an annual evaluation plan to assess their implementation and impact on student achievement.
Federal to State – Formula based on each State’s prior-year share of Title I Basic
Within State – Competitive awards to LEAs that receive funds under Part A of
Title I, with a priority for LEAs planning to use funds in schools in improvement or corrective action under Title I.
Federal – (1) Up to 1 percent for the BIA and Outlying Areas; (2) up to 1 percent for national evaluation activities; and (3) up to 3 percent for Quality Initiatives.
State – Up to 5 percent for administrative, evaluation, and technical assistance expenses
The Advanced Placement Incentive Program, originally established by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, is reauthorized under Part G of Title I of the ESEA This program aims to enhance participation among low-income students in advanced placement courses.
General Provisions (I-I)
Part I of Title I addresses the regulatory and administrative obligations tied to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, emphasizing the need for state rules to align with the act's objectives It highlights the inconsistency in regulatory deadlines, with section 1901 mandating final regulations within one year of enactment, while section 1908 requires regulations for State Plans and School Improvement to be completed within six months Key provisions focus on ensuring timely implementation of these regulations.
Federal Regulations under Section 1901 mandate a negotiated rulemaking process specifically for the standards and assessments provisions of the new law Additionally, it stipulates that the final regulations derived from this negotiated rulemaking must be published within one year of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
Section 1902 mandates that any proposed regulations must adhere to the agreements established through negotiated rulemaking Additionally, it requires the Secretary to maintain a precise and dependable record of these agreements.
State Administration under Section 1903 mandates that state rules, regulations, and policies pertaining to Title I align with its objectives, remain minimal, and undergo evaluation by a Committee of Practitioners established by the state to assist in fulfilling Title I responsibilities.
Section 1904 mandates annual audits by the GAO for at least six Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) that receive Title I, Part A funds These audits assess how effectively these funds are allocated towards academic instruction in the core curriculum, as well as expenditures on non-instructional activities, including janitorial services, utilities, vehicle purchases and leases, and travel costs for conferences This provision replaces previous Senate language that restricted the use of funds for non-instructional purposes.
Prohibition Against Federal Mandates, Direction, or Control – Section 1905 prohibits the Federal Government from mandating a State’s, LEA’s, or school’s
“specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.” (Same as current law)
Rule of Construction on Equalized Spending – Section 1906 states that nothing in
Title I mandates equalized spending for a State, LEA, or school (Same as current law)
State Report on Dropout Data – Section 1907 requires States to report annually to the Secretary on school dropout rates, disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
Regulations for Sections 1111 and 1116 – Section 1908 requires the Secretary to issue regulations for sections 1111 (State Plans) and 1116 (School Improvement) within six months of the enactment of the NCLB Act.
IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS
Authorizes a new State formula grant program that combines the Eisenhower
Professional Development State Grants and Class-Size Reduction programs into one program that focuses on preparing, training, and recruiting high-quality teachers
Major Changes from Current Law
Increased Flexibility – Allows LEAs increased flexibility to allocate funds among professional development, class-size reduction, and other teacher quality activities, without the requirements that are in current law.
Mathematics and Science Activities – Eliminates the Eisenhower priority for professional development in mathematics and science and creates a separate Math and Science Partnerships competitive grant program.
Competitive funds for higher education, managed in collaboration with State agencies and the SEA, are capped at $125 million This approach replaces the previous method of reserving a specific percentage of program funds for competitive grants, resulting in a decreased allocation for this segment as overall appropriations rise.
The state is implementing new initiatives to enhance education, which include reforms to teacher and principal certification and licensing requirements, the introduction of alternative certification routes, and strategies for recruiting and retaining educators Additionally, the state is focusing on reforming tenure systems, improving teacher testing processes, and establishing merit-based pay systems.
Local funding is being allocated to various initiatives aimed at enhancing education, including the recruitment and retention of teachers and principals through financial incentives such as signing bonuses Additionally, there are efforts to implement mentoring programs, reform tenure systems, introduce merit-based pay, conduct teacher testing, and establish pay differentiation strategies.
Class-size reduction enables Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to allocate program funds specifically for decreasing the number of students in classrooms Unlike current regulations, this approach does not restrict the use of these funds solely to class-size reduction initiatives in grades 1 through 3, thereby providing greater flexibility for educational institutions.
The Secretary is empowered to initiate a national teacher recruitment campaign through the National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse, aimed at supporting high-need Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in attracting and training teachers This initiative includes a public service campaign to inform potential educators about available resources and pathways into the teaching profession Additionally, the Secretary can award competitive grants to help high-need LEAs recruit and train school leaders, such as principals and assistant principals Grants will also be available for teachers pursuing advanced certification or credentialing through various organizations, as well as for improving the skills of early childhood educators in communities with high poverty rates.
The establishment of a National Panel on Teacher Mobility aims to explore effective strategies for enhancing mobility and employment opportunities for highly qualified teachers Additionally, it allocates funding to the University of Northern Colorado to support other institutions of higher education in the training of special education teachers.
If a State Educational Agency (SEA) finds that a Local Education Agency (LEA) has not made progress towards meeting Title I teacher qualification requirements after two years, the LEA is required to create an improvement plan The SEA is responsible for providing technical assistance to both the LEA and its schools during the development of this plan to ensure the LEA can achieve its measurable objectives.
If, after an additional year, the State Education Agency (SEA) finds that a Local Education Agency (LEA) has not made progress toward its measurable objectives and has not achieved adequate yearly progress under Title I for three consecutive years, the SEA is required to establish an agreement with the LEA This agreement will focus on the appropriate use of the LEA's funds, which includes creating professional development strategies and activities, while also prohibiting the use of Title I, Part A funds for any paraprofessionals hired after this determination.
After three years of inadequate performance, State Education Agencies (SEAs) will allocate funds directly to schools, allowing teachers to select professional development activities in consultation with their school principal.
Federal to State – Funds are allocated by formula, with each State first receiving its
In FY 2001, funding for the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants and Class-Size Reduction programs was distributed, with allocations determined by 35 percent based on the child population aged 5 to 17 and 65 percent based on child poverty levels Each state is guaranteed a minimum allocation of 1 percent of the total funds.
State to Local – Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies are suballocated to LEAs by formula LEAs first receive the amount they received in FY 2001 for the
The Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants and Class-Size Reduction programs allocate remaining funds based on a formula that assigns 20 percent to child population (ages 5 to 17) and 80 percent to child poverty levels Subgrants are awarded competitively to Eligible Partnerships by the State agency for higher education (SAHE) in collaboration with the State Education Agency (SEA).
Federal – One-half of 1 percent each for the outlying areas and the BIA.
Ninety-five percent of funds are allocated for Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies, while the lesser of 2.5 percent or $125 million is designated for Subgrants to Eligible Partnerships The remaining funds are reserved for State-level activities, and both State Agencies for Higher Education (SAHE) and State Education Agencies (SEA) can utilize up to 1 percent of their funds for planning and administrative purposes.
A new program has been established, allocating $450 million for competitive three-year grants aimed at partnerships focused on enhancing students' academic performance in mathematics and science This initiative allows for competitive awards to be granted directly to partnerships with funding levels under $100 million, as well as formula allocations to State Education Agencies (SEAs) at specified appropriation levels.
Eligible applicants for the grants include partnerships that consist of a State Education Agency (SEA), an engineering, math, or science department from an Institution of Higher Education (IHE), and a high-need Local Educational Agency (LEA) Additional partners may comprise other IHE departments focused on engineering, math, or science, as well as other LEAs, public charter schools, private schools, businesses, or nonprofit and for-profit organizations with proven success in enhancing the quality of math and science education.
Grantees are authorized to utilize funds for various educational enhancements, including the development or redesign of rigorous math and science curricula, professional development for teachers to boost their subject knowledge, and the promotion of effective teaching skills rooted in scientific research and technology Additionally, the funds can support the operation of summer workshops, recruitment of math, science, and engineering majors into teaching roles, and the establishment of distance learning programs.