The centrist Education Trust released its proposals for NCLB reauthorization on April 11.  Normally, a summary would be part of New Education Economy®, but there's already something of a backlog of important material, so your editor has excerpted the proposals of greatest impact on the industry below.

First, the observations:

Giving parents a private right of action to enforce NCLB is a powerful idea, but unlikely to pass Congress for too many political, legal, financial and administrative reasons to list here.

Aside from the fomidable adminstrative problems, the idea of allowing parents to vote on whether their school in need of improvement should offer SES or in-house support is bound to be attractive to many. It is clear that administrators would prefer a vote they might win to today's automatic loss of funds. The implications for the school improvement industry are not entirely clear.  SES providers might lose schools that would otherwise be subject to mandatory SES, but the schools that did select the option might see a much higher level of parental willingness to take up the option. Where schools selected against SES, other school improvement providers might pick up business. One can conceive of marketing campaigns/referendums pitting SES firms against schools and in-school providers. Were your editor advising the CSSO, AASA, the unions or any other establishement stakeholder group, this would be a proposal they would back.

In practice, the proposal to calculate AYP with a value-added model based on individual student's "three-year growth trajectory toward proficiency by a date certain or by the last state assessment, whichever comes first" appears to be no less demanding than the present scheme. Multiple year testing in high school is an obvious implication, which will raise the question of states' real interest in the growth scheme (as opposed to killing NCLB accountability outright) when it's costed out.

Splitting the "in need of improvement" identification into "focused" and "comprehensive" categories may be the way for the industry to retain the large market segment now consisting of schools whose failure to meet AYP can be identified with a small, but historically neglected, student groups.

The market for professional development of teachers would probably grow.

Some part of the proposed "curriculum development fund" will probably pass. Your editor believes the impetus for R&D would be better spurred by high standards for schools leading to increased demand for programs and so drawing private sector investment. R&D driven by consumer demand is likely to be more effective than that coming out of some government committee's view of supply requirements. However, the program would be a source of free capital for firms in the industry.

The more important question is how "$75 million... provided to the Institute for Education Sciences and specifically allocated to researching and evaluating the quality and effectiveness of materials and services procured with curriculum development funds" is likely to spent, and the industry's role in setting the quality agenda....

High school would get more, and a larger share of, Title I funding.
The excerpted highlights below:

AYP

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions should be modified to account for the growth in individual students’ academic achievement from year to year.

• Allow states to replace the current status model of AYP and implement a growth model that gives schools credit for students who are on a three-year growth trajectory toward proficiency by a date certain or by the last state assessment, whichever comes first. This calculation should be based on the growth of individual students over time. Growth models must establish growth targets for all students, including students who are already proficient or advanced.
• Accountability determinations should continue to be based on results for each group represented in the school/district/state in addition to overall results....
• In order to use growth calculations for high school AYP determinations, states must administer assessments in multiple high school grades in mathematics and Reading/Language Arts.
• Limit group size for school accountability determinations (i.e., N-size) to no more than 30 students with a confidence interval that does not exceed 95%.

Parent Rights

• Parents of students in Title I schools should have a private right of action to enforce their rights under the law.
• Parents would have access to important data on funding patterns, teacher distribution patterns and high school graduation patterns that they currently do not have access to.
• Parents would participate in school-level decision making about the use of SES funds by voting on whether to use the funds for tutoring services or expanded instruction.

Schools In Need of “Comprehensive Improvement”

Schools are identified as being In Need of Comprehensive Improvement if they have not made AYP in the overall student category or for groups that represent 50% or more of the school enrollment….

During the first year of identification as In Need of Comprehensive Improvement, schools, in consultation with LEA and SEA school improvement specialists, must develop Comprehensive School Improvement Plans that analyze and address systemic causes for the school’s inability to meet AYP. These plans must:
a) Identify the specific reasons for identification as In Need of Improvement;
b) Diagnose the school-based causes of these reasons for identification;
c) Articulate a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan to improve instruction and achievement. The plan must specifically address how the
school will:
- implement a curriculum and benchmark assessments that are aligned with the state’s standards;
- expand instructional time for students not proficient and not on track to proficiency on state assessments; and
- ensure that all teachers receive assistance and support in implementing curriculum, benchmark assessments, and additional instructional time;
- ensure that first-year teachers are not disproportionately assigned to students who are not proficient and not on-track to proficient….

Schools In Need of Focused Improvement

Schools are identified as being In Need of Focused Improvement if they have not made AYP for groups that represent less than 50 percent of the school enrollment.

Data

Create a designated, $100 million per-year fund to develop and maintain state data systems. Funds should be apportioned 50 percent on an equal share per state and 50 percent pro-rated based on state PK-12 public school enrollment….

Highly Qualified Teachers.

Require states to, within 18 months of enactment, conduct and publish a needs assessment to determine which LEAs have the most acute teacher quality and staffing needs by analyzing and reporting
on the LEAs with the highest percentages of:
__ first-year teachers;
__ first- and second-year teachers;
__ teacher attrition rates, averaged over the most recent three years for which data is available;
__ teachers on emergency credentials or state certification waivers;
__ classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified….

Establishing a competitive grant fund of $500 million ($200 million of which is transferred from Title V and $300 million in new funds) to support states in the implementation of systems to evaluate teacher performance based on objective measures of growth in student learning and to use those systems to evaluate professional development activities, and to reform teacher compensation,
assignment, and tenure policies….

Grant funds would grow …(to) $900 million in the fifth year. Ten percent of the funds, but not more than $60 million annually, would be reserved for the Department of Education to conduct, commission, and disseminate research to determine the most effective methods of determining teacher effectiveness based on objective measures of growth in student achievement, and to study the most effective uses of such data in improving student achievement….

Curriculum Development

Congress should create a $750 million curriculum development fund to be allocated to states based on public PK-12 enrollment. Such funds shall be used to develop and/or procure high-quality curriculum materials that are aligned with state standards and/or to provide such materials to teachers, along with training and support in using the curriculum materials….

An amount equal to no less than 10% of funds appropriated for curriculum development, or $75 million, whichever is greater, shall be provided to the Institute for Education Sciences and specifically allocated to researching and evaluating the quality and effectiveness of materials and services procured with curriculum development funds….

High School

50% of any new Title I funds.... (and) 50% of Curriculum funds.... should be targeted to high schools.