Key Issues for 2008
CSD will
help keep you up-to-date on key issues during the 2008 Missouri
Legislative Session. Be sure to visit CSD's Legislative Action
Center Web site to keep track of proposed bills and view
Legislative Alerts posted by CSD, providing you the opportunity to
contact your legislators.
State-Level
Hot Topics
Legislative
Advocacy Information Publication
CSD has created a
standard "Legislative Advocacy Information" sheet. These documents
will be created for key bills that CSD is tracking. To help
you learn more about each bill, please click on the links (bill
names) below to download a PDF document highlighting each
bill's summary, CSD's position/suggestions and talking points
related to each bill:
HB
1676
Tax
Credits/Scholarships/Vouchers
For the past several
years, the Missouri legislature has attempted to pass laws that
would take public funds away from public schools for private and
religious education. The 2008 Legislative session will once again
be an important time for public education advocates to stay on top
of this issue from now until May. To learn more, please
click HERE to download a PDF document with general
information and talking points related to tax
credits/scholarships/vouchers.
Talking Points for Voucher
Bills
Click HERE for a bill summary and talking points
on SB 770.
Click HEREfor a bill summary and talking points on SB
993.
Click HERE for a bill summary on HCS HB
1886.
School-Based Mental Health
Funding in Jeopardy (March 11, 2008)
Click HERE to download talking points and information
about the Department of Mental Health's efforts to save funding for
school-based mental health programs.
Collective
Bargaining
Public-sector
collective bargaining was established in Missouri as a result of a
May 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision in the Independence
National Education Association v. Indepenence School District
case. The State Supreme Court’s ruling authorizes public school
employees to form unions and to designate a representative and
enter into binding agreements with school districts. Public employees are not regulated by
Federal labor law, so the Missouri legislature in 2008 will most
likely look to establish laws to regulate the bargaining
process.
In the Fall of 2007, CSD
joined with the Missouri School Boards’ Association in hosting our
Fall Conference for Superintendents and School Board Members.
During this conference, MSBA provided valuable information to
school districts on this important issue.
Please click HERE
to learn more about collective bargaining and what it could mean in
Missouri, and download helpful information developed by the
Missouri School Boards’ Association.
Federal-Level
Hot Topics
Reauthorization of
NCLB
As Congress considers
the reauthorization of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, below
are some key points to consider when providing information about
improvements to NCLB. CSD-member superintendents developed the
following:
No Child Left Behind
Suggestions for Improvement
1. Use a reasonable growth or value
added model. The law presently compares achievement levels of one
group of students to another (i.e. 2007 achievement levels of third
graders are compared to 2006 achievement levels of a totally
different group of third graders). The achievement levels of 2007
third graders should be compared to themselves as they progress
through their education.
2. Create a scoring system which gives schools credit for
improvement. Many schools on the “Needs Improvement” list have
shown tremendous growth in student achievement. Many have
demonstrated much greater improvement than schools not designated
as needing improvement.
3. Create a scoring system which does not distort reality. A
number of schools appearing on the “Needs Improvement” list will
have two to three times the percentage of students scoring
proficient or above than a number of schools not designated as
needing improvement. This leaves the impression that very good
schools are somehow lacking, while some schools with lower levels
of achievement appear successful.
4. Recognize that the education of some subgroups is more
difficult than others, and supply adequate resources to help
schools achieve success with these students. A good start would be
to fully fund the federal portion of IDEA, which was promised at 40
percent but has never risen much above 18 percent.
5. Remove the “fail one you fail them all” aspect of the
law. This aspect creates multiple chances for school districts to
fail, particularly if they are large districts with a multiple
number of subgroups.
6. Make the “cell size” for subgroups cumulative for school
districts. Presently, if an individual school has 30 or more
students in a cell for a subgroup, then the subgroup’s score counts
towards the school’s score. The same cell size applies to the
district. This creates a situation where all of a district’s
schools may meet NCLB improvement goals, but the district itself
may fail. If a district has ten schools, the cell size should be
multiplied by that number at best, or at least increased
significantly.
7. Do not “cluster” grade levels in the scoring process
unless you multiply the cell size according to the number of
schools taking the test. Clustering ranges of grade level scores
increases a district’s chance of failing to meet standards.
8. Extend the time line for meeting NCLB goals, or do away with it
altogether. When NCLB was authorized in 2002, it gave public
schools until 2014 to have 100 percent of their children proficient
in reading and math. It then left it up to local school districts
to come up with plans on how to meet these goals. Interestingly,
the federal government recently announced its goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. It gave
itself a much longer time line (43 years) to achieve a
significantly less ambitious goal (80 percent) than it gave public
schools (12 years) to achieve a much higher standard (100 percent
proficient).
9. Remove the unreasonably punitive sanctions imposed on
local districts at the expense of local taxpayers (i.e. school
choice within districts, school reorganization, etc.). This is a
massive federal intrusion into local communities.
10. Retain the focus on subgroups of children but remove the
unreasonable scoring system and punitive sanctions.
11. Adjust scores for states with more difficult exams.
Missouri has been recognized as being in the top three states in
the nation when the requirements of its exams were compared to the
National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) exam. This
creates a situation where states with less stringent exams will
place a higher percentage of students in proficient categories than
might Missouri and create a false impression of the relative level
of learning between students in the respective states. This has
resulted in a situation where the more a state expects its children
to learn, the more that state will be sanctioned when compared to
those who expect less.
12. Develop a system where a student’s score counts only one
time. At present, a student’s score can count for or against a
district a number of times. For instance, a student may be
Hispanic, be on free or reduced lunch, have limited English
proficiency, and be on an IEP. This student’s score will count four
times. Unfortunately, students who struggle the most academically
and score poorly on the test generally fall into multiple
categories. The present system of multiple category scoring tends
to penalize schools/districts more than it rewards
schools/districts. An alternative suggestion would be to allow the
school district to choose the subgroups if a student falls in more
than two.
13. Adjust testing for the realities of children with
disabilities. IDEA recognizes that some children require certain
accommodations in order to enhance their education. Through
formulations of IEPs, these accommodations are required to be a
part of the learning and assessment process for the children. These
accommodations become a part of their everyday education. However,
No Child Left Behind prohibits or severely restricts the use of
these same accommodations in testing that are otherwise required
for the student’s education. One suggestion would be to use
alternative assessment for all IEP students, or use a growth model
for IEP subgroup met/not met standards.
14. Use alternative assessment for LEP students. The state
already tests LEP students with the MAC II in the spring. It is an
appropriate test of English proficiency for LEP students. Use the
results of the MAC II instead of the MAP for proficiency standards
with LEP students for NCLB purposes. Additionally, give LEP
students more time (2-3 years in the United States) before
proficiency testing is mandated.
15. Use a wider range of assessments to determine school
success/failure than one test. Missouri’s “Distinction in
Performance” grid is a good example and a more fair assessment of
the overall success/failure of a district or building.
