October 2, 2007

NEA's Comments on Discussion Draft of Titles II-XI

The following comments supplement the letter we submitted  to the Committee on September 18, 2007. For additional information, please contact Joel Packer, Director, Education Policy and Practice (EPP); Donna Harris-Aikens, ESEA Policy Advisor (EPP); or Kim Anderson, Government Relations.

Title II

Part A-Improving Teacher and Principal Quality

We suggest amending the Title to add after "Teacher" the following: ", Paraeducator,"

Subpart 1 - Closing the Teacher Distribution Gap

Page 4, Line 10

The term "value-added" continues to be referenced multiple times in the draft and has not been replaced with our previous suggestion of "student learning gains." There are many references to value-added attached to teacher quality and pay-for-performance. The term "value-added" references only one type of growth model and system, despite the fact that there exist several different ways to measure growth in student learning over time. Continued references to a specific type of model undermine the language and intent of the growth model section included in Title I of the discussion draft.

(Other references to "value-added" which need to be changed are found at: Page 4, Line 12; Page 4, Line 13 through Page 5, Line 14, Page 9, Line 12, Page 9, Line 23, Page 14, Line 21, Page 14, Line 22, Page 14, Line 24, Page 15, Line 6, Page 15, Line 7, Page 15, Line 15, Page 15, Line 18, Page 15, Line 19.)

Significant research has focused on the promise and perils of using student achievement data as an outcome -- as a good indicator of teacher effectiveness -- in accountability models. We have several questions about value-added achievement (VAA): Are increases in achievement scores what we most want teachers to "produce"? Are tests at each grade level reliably appropriate for the grade level? Do they assume a reasonable and feasible amount of growth from year to year? Are scores across different grades comparable? When different versions of the same test are used, can we be sure they measure exactly the same thing in exactly the same way? When are the appropriate times to measure growth -- fall to spring, or spring to spring? How would value-added impact teachers for whom there are no statewide tests, such as art and music teachers? Such questions are crucial to interpreting VAA teacher effect estimates; and, while all of them have significant implications for the accuracy of these estimates, no current VAA approaches explicitly take them into account.

We recommend that any teacher or school effect estimated from VAA models should be taken as only that -- an estimate. The weaknesses of VAA render it inadvisable as the cornerstone of a system of teacher or school accountability. VAA-based estimates may help identify teachers who appear to be successful as well as those who appear to need assistance in improving their practice. However, until more is known about the accuracy of and tradeoffs between VAA approaches, VAA-based estimates should never serve as a single or predominant indicator of teacher effectiveness, and high stakes decisions should never be made primarily on the basis of VAA-based estimates.

Page 4, Line 20

This does not take into account missing data which is a major challenge to any statistical estimation. VAA requires not only consistent records of student performance but also reliable class rosters, so that individual students can be matched to individual teachers. Data may be missing because of unreliable records, but may also be missing because of other reasons. For example, absenteeism certainly causes missing data.

Section 2111, Premium Pay

NEA has stated on numerous occasions our policies regarding performance pay, particularly our opposition to linking student performance to any aspect of teacher compensation. We have attached to these comments written correspondence that all Committee members received outlining our positions with regard to Section 2111 and 2112.

We are continuing together with AFT to refine specific language to amend this section. Our draft proposal is as follows:

AMENDED SECTION 2111. PREMIUM PAY

"SEC. 2111. PREMIUM PAY.

(a) GRANTS.-The Secretary shall make grants to local educational agencies to provide higher salaries to exemplary, highly qualified principals and exemplary, highly qualified teachers with at least 3 years of experience, including teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, if the principal or teacher agrees to serve full-time for a period of 4 consecutive school years at a public high-need elementary school or a public high-need secondary school, including those teachers currently serving in high needs schools.

(b) USE OF FUNDS.-A local educational agency that receives a grant under this section may use funds made available through the grant-

(1) to provide to exemplary, highly qualified principals up to $15,000 as an annual bonus for each of 4 consecutive school years if the principal commits to work full-time for such period in a public high-need elementary school or a public high-need secondary school; and

(2) to provide to exemplary, highly qualified teachers, including teachers currently teaching at a qualifying high need elementary or secondary school, up to $10,000 as an annual bonus for each of 4 consecutive school years if the teacher commits to work full-time for such period in a public high-need elementary school.

(c) TIMING OF PAYMENT. -- A local educational agency providing an annual bonus to a principal or teacher under subsection (b) shall pay the bonus on completion of the service requirement by the principal or teacher for the applicable year.

(d) GRANT PERIOD. -- The Secretary shall make grants under this section in yearly installments for a total period of 4 years.

(e) OBSERVATION, FEEDBACK, AND EVALUATION. -- The Secretary may make a grant to a local educational agency under this section only if the State in which the agency is located or the agency has in place or proposes a plan, developed on a collaborative basis with the local teacher organization, to develop a system in which multiple evaluators, including principals and, if available, master teachers, rate teachers as exemplary. Such a system shall be --

(1) based on strong learning gains for students;

(2) based on classroom observation and feedback at least four times annually;

(3) conducted by multiple sources, including master teachers and principals; and

(4) evaluated against research-validated rubrics that use planning, instructional, and learning environment standards to measure teaching performance.

(f) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. -- To seek a grant under this section, a local educational agency shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary reasonably requires. At a minimum, the application shall include the following:

(1) A description of the agency's proposed new teacher hiring timeline, including interim goals for any phase-in period.

(2) An assurance that the agency will -

(A) pay matching funds for the program carried out with the grant, which matching funds may be derived from funds received under other provisions of this title;

(B) commit to making the program sustainable over time;

(C) create incentives to bring a critical mass of exemplary, highly qualified teachers to each school whose teachers will receive assistance under this section;

(D) improve the school's working conditions through activities that may include but are not limited to -

(i) reducing class size;

(ii) ensuring availability of classroom materials, textbooks, and other supplies;

(iii) improving or modernizing facilities; and

(iv) upgrading safety; and

(E) accelerate the timeline for hiring new teachers in order to minimize the withdrawal of  high-quality teacher applicants and secure the best new teacher talent for their hardest-to-staff schools.

(3) An assurance that, in identifying exemplary teachers, the system described in paragraph  (1) will take into consideration -

(A) growth of the teacher's students on any tests required by the State educational agency;

(B) value-added student achievement gains if such teacher is in a State that uses value-added longitudinal data system;

(C) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification; and

(D) evidence of teaching skill documented in performance-based assessments.

(g) HIRING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS EARLY AND IN A TIMELY MANNER. --

In addition to the requirements of subsection (f), an application under such subsection shall include a description of the steps the local educational agency will take to enable all or a subset of the agency's schools to hire new highly qualified teachers early and in a timely manner, including --

(1) requiring a clear and early notification date for retiring teachers that is no later  than March 15 each year;

(2) providing schools with their staffing allocations no later than April of the preceding school year;

(3) enabling schools to consider external candidates at the same time as internal candidates for available positions;

(4) moving up the teacher transfer period to April and not requiring schools to hire  transferring or 'excessed' teachers from other schools without selection and consent; and

(5) establishing and implementing a new principal accountability framework to ensure that principals with increased hiring authority are improving teacher quality.

(h) PRIORITY. -- In providing higher salaries to principals and teachers under this section, a local educational agency shall give priority to principals and teachers at schools identified under section 1116 for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

(i) DEFINITIONS. -- In this section:

(1) The term "high-need" means, with respect to an elementary school or a secondary school, a school that serves an eligible school attendance area in which not less than 65 percent of the children are from low-income families, based on the number of children eligible for free and reduced priced lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or in which not less than 65 percent of the children enrolled are from such families.

(2) The term "exemplary, highly qualified principal" means a principal who --

(A) demonstrates a belief that every student can achieve at high levels;

(B) demonstrates an ability to drive substantial gains in academic achievement for all students while closing the achievement gap for  those farthest from meeting standards;

(C) uses data to drive instructional improvement;

(D) provides ongoing support and development for teachers; and

(E) builds a positive school community, treating every student with respect and reinforcing high expectations for all.

(3) The term "exemplary, highly qualified teacher" means a highly qualified teacher who is rated as exemplary pursuant to a system described in subsection (e).

(j) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION --

(1) Nothing in subsections (a) through (i) of this section shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded to the employees of local educational agencies under Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) or under the terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between such employees and their employers, including, but not limited to, the right of employees of local educational agencies to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.

(2) A system for rating teachers as exemplary that is agreed to by a local educational agency and a teacher organization in collective bargaining shall be considered an acceptable system for receiving a grant under this section, notwithstanding the fact that such system may differ in one or more respects from the system described in subsection (e) and/or the assurances provided by the local educational agency pursuant to subsection (f). In those jurisdictions in which the employees of a local educational agency have the right to engage in collective bargaining regarding the compensation paid to such employees and the methods used to determine such compensation, a local educational agency shall not implement a system for rating teachers as exemplary under this section unless the system has been agreed to by the teacher organization in collective bargaining.

(3) If the employees of a local educational agency do not have the right to engage in collective bargaining with their employers regarding the compensation paid to such employees and the methods used to determine such compensation, the local educational agency shall not implement a system for rating teachers as exemplary under this section unless at least 75 percent of the teachers employed by the local educational agency vote to adopt the system. A system for rating teachers as exemplary that is adopted by such a vote shall be considered an acceptable system for receiving a grant under this section, notwithstanding the fact that such system may differ in one or more respects from the system described in subsection (e) and/or the assurances provided by the local educational agency pursuant to subsection (f)."

Additional recommendations:

Page 5, Line 10

Remove clause (C) - same issues as above with VAA.

Page 5, Line 17

General Concerns:

1. Allow applications from consortia of LEAs.

2. This section should make clear that teachers already in the district can apply and/or transfer to high needs schools and that "exemplary" teachers already in high-need schools can qualify for the bonuses.

3. Ensure that there are no "quotas" that limit the number of teachers deemed exemplary who can get the bonus.

Page 7, Line 3

Insert a new paragraph (3): "to improve working conditions in public high-need schools, including reducing class-size, expanding planning time, purchasing of necessary resources and technology, and/or improving professional development opportunities."

Page 8, Line 5

Allow for applications from consortia of LEA.

Page 9, Line 1

Replace "working" with "teaching and learning" here and all future references. The language should reflect the fact that teacher working conditions are student learning conditions and conditions need to improve for staff and also for students.

Page 9, Line 4

We appreciate that as a condition of applying for grants under this subsection the school district must provide an assurance that the teaching and learning conditions of its schools must be improved; however, we believe there should be a detailed survey of educators and a specific description of the plan the district will put in place to address the conditions or deficiencies found in the survey. In addition, we would like to maintain the items currently in the teaching and learning conditions list, but would like to add others and re-number them. So, on page 9, strike lines 7-14 and insert:

"(iii) expanding planning time and creating strategies that will afford teachers opportunities to:

I) plan and collaborate with colleagues;

II) discuss and observe best practices;

III) successfully meet the needs of diverse students; and

IV) participate in professional development;

(iv) improving high-quality, ongoing professional development opportunities that prepare them for changing curriculum and the challenges of teaching in the 21st century;

(v) improving or modernizing facilities;

(vi) improving or upgrading the safety of the school climate and facilities;

(vii) ensuring efforts are made to minimize the amount of routine paperwork required of teachers and focus on teaching with minimal interruptions;

(viii) ensuring that adequate resources including 21st Century instructional tools (e.g. technology) are available for students and staff and create opportunities for educators to have access to appropriate training and support to utilize instructional technology; and

(ix) ensuring as allowable use of funds that districts are able to work with local teacher unions and other coalition partners to survey principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, and other school staff about their teaching and learning conditions." 

Note: Move the list above from page 9 to page 8, line 14 and designate it as paragraph (2) and add the following introductory language: "A description of the agency's plan to survey all educators in the LEA about the teaching and learning conditions in the LEA and a detailed description of its plan to address at least the following conditions:"

Page 8, Line 14

Existing paragraph (2) should be re-designated (3).

Page 9, Line 8

Delete "and"

Page 9, Line 9

Delete "and"

Page 9, Line 13

Replace "best new teacher talent" with "talented new teachers"

Page 10, Line 22:

Following "…transfer period to April" replace with "ensuring that transferring or "excessed" teachers are selected at other schools due to the following: 1) qualified by specialization, 2) certification, 3) grade level, 4) program or other pertinent factors".

Page 11, Line 4

Following "teacher quality" add "by setting direction, empowering teachers, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program."

Page 12, Lines 17-22

The standard for principals to earn premium pay differs greatly from that of teachers. Using language such as "demonstrates a belief that" and "demonstrates and ability to" is very inconsistent with the language used for teachers. We would like the Committee to explain its rationale and justification for this language before we suggest additional legislative language for this section.

Page 12, Line 20

Delete "academic achievement" and insert "an array of student learning data"

Page 12, Line 23

After "data," insert "and supportive, proven leadership strategies"

Page 13, Line 2

Delete "and"

Page 13, after Line 5

Add: "and

(F) ensures that staff members, have autonomy to make decisions;

(G) ensures that knowledge of teaching and learning serves as the foundation for the schools professional learning community;

(H) Creates a collaborative work environment predicated on distributed leadership that supports the "team" as the basic unit of learning and decision-making within the school and promotes cohesion and cooperation among staff;

(I) structures the school schedule to enable teachers to have individual and collaborative planning time, including planning time with paraprofessionals;

(J) establishes effective professional learning communities and results-oriented professional development;

(K) builds a positive school community and creates opportunities for inquiry and the co-construction of knowledge for 21st century learning skills; and

(L) creates a high degree of teacher involvement in decision making and thus, develops conditions for broad-based, distributed leadership."

Section 2112, Career Ladders for Teachers Program

Page 14, Lines 2 et seq.

We strongly oppose the inclusion of a performance-pay element in the career ladders section. We thus propose deleting Section 2112(a)(2) and Section 2112 (b). Here again, we object to the use of test scores as a mandatory element of a grant program that impacts teacher compensation. A federal statute that pre-determines any element of a compensation system undermines collective bargaining in an unprecedented way.

We are continuing together with AFT to refine specific language to amend this section. Our draft proposal is as follows: 

AMENDED SECTION 2112, CAREER LADDERS FOR TEACHERS PROGRAM

(a) GRANTS. -- The Secretary may make grants to local educational agencies to establish and implement a Career Ladders for Teachers Program in which the agency -- 

(1) augments the salary of teachers in high need public elementary schools and secondary schools to correspond to the increasing responsibilities and leadership roles assumed by the teachers as they take on new professional roles (such as serving on school leadership teams, serving as instructional coaches, and serving in hybrid roles), including by -- 

(A) providing up to $10,000 as an annual salary augmentation to master teachers (including teachers serving as master teachers as part of a state-of-the-art teacher induction program under section 2122); and

(B) providing up to $5,000 as an annual salary augmentation to mentor teachers (including  teachers serving as mentor teachers as part of  a state-of-the-art teacher induction program  under section 2122); or

(2) provides up to $4,000 as an annual bonus to principals in elementary schools and secondary schools based on the performance of the school's students, taking into consideration whole-school value added student achievement gains in States that have value-added longitudinal data systems and in which  information on whole-school value-added student  achievement gains is available.

(b) DEFINITIONS. -- In this section:

(1) The term "career teacher" means a teacher who has a bachelor's degree and full credentials or alternative certification including a passing level on elementary or secondary subject matter assessments and professional knowledge assessments.

(2) The term "mentor teacher" means a teacher who -- 

(A) has a bachelor's degree and full credentials or alternative certification including a passing level on any applicable elementary or secondary subject matter assessments and professional knowledge assessments;

(B) has a portfolio and a classroom demonstration showing instructional excellence;

(C) has an ability, as demonstrated by student data, to increase student achievement through utilizing specific instructional strategies;

(D) has a minimum of 3 years of teaching experience; 

(E) is recommended by the principal and other current master and mentor teachers;

(F) is an excellent instructor and communicator with an understanding of how to facilitate growth in the teachers they are mentoring; and

(G) performs well as a mentor in established induction and peer assistance and mentoring programs.

(3) The term "master teacher" means a teacher who -- 

(A) holds a master's degree in the relevant academic discipline;

(B) has at least 5 years of successful teaching experience, as measured by performance evaluations, a portfolio of work, or National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification;

(C) demonstrates expertise in content, curriculum development, student learning, test analysis, mentoring, and professional development, as demonstrated by an advanced degree, advanced training, career experience, or National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification;

(D) presents student data that illustrates the teacher's ability to increase student achievement through utilizing specific instructional interventions;

(E) has instructional expertise demonstrated through model teaching, team teaching, video presentations, student achievement gains, or National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification;

(F) may hold a valid National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certificate, may have passed another rigorous standard, or may have been selected as a school, district, or State teacher of the year; and

(G) is currently participating, or has previously  participated, in a professional development program that supports classroom teachers as mentors.

(4) The term "high-need", with respect to an elementary school or a secondary school, has the meaning given to that term in section 2111.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION --

(1) Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded to the employees of local educational agencies under Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) or under the terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between such employees and their employers, including, but not limited to, the right of employees of local educational agencies to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.

(2) In those jurisdictions in which the employees of a local educational agency have the right to engage in collective bargaining regarding the compensation paid to such employees and the methods used to determine such compensation, a local educational agency shall not implement a Career Ladders for Teachers Program under this section unless the Program has been agreed to by the teacher organization in collective bargaining.

(3) If the employees of a local educational agency do not have the right to engage in collective bargaining with their employers regarding the compensation paid to such employees and the methods used to determine such compensation, the local educational agency shall not implement a Career Ladders for Teachers Program under this section unless at least 75 percent of the teachers employed by the local educational agency vote to adopt the Program."

Additional recommendations:

Page 16, Line 22

Insert "has successfully completed an" before "…alternative certification…"

Page 17, Line 4

Insert "has successfully completed an" before "…alternative certification…"

Page 17, Line 11

Insert "including student portfolios" after "…student data"

Page 18, Line 4

Insert "or National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification" after "discipline"

Page 19, Line 9

Insert before the period (.), the following: "or in other school leadership positions"

Section 2113, Teacher Residency Program Grants

NEA is generally supportive of this program to support prospective and new teachers.

Page 19, Line 19

After "…organizations" insert or "educational associations"

Page 20, Line 13

Insert "(this instruction should begin at least four weeks prior to the start of the school year)"

Page 21,  Line 11

Insert after "shall appoint",  "or may invite applications" from experienced …

Page 22, Line 2:

Insert after "program", "in collaboration with teachers"

Page 22, Line 22:

Replace (IV) with "documented professional development time spent on activities focused on high-quality subject-matter content thus, improving knowledge of the subject matter that they are teaching and enhancing the understanding of student thinking in that subject matter"

Page 23, Line 19

After "through" insert, "at least their first two years of teaching…" 

Page 24, Line 7 et seq.

Add eligibility criteria: In line 10 after "shall" add "demonstrate subject matter knowledge and teaching potential based on a rigorous application and assessment process. Shall " . . .

Page 26, Line 21

(2) Learning Gains - same issue as above using VAA as the only method to evaluate graduates of residency program.

Section 2121, Study on Developing a Portable Performance-Based Teacher Assessment

Page 28, Line 20

Insert after "states" the following: "or tests developed by national testing companies working in multiple states"

Page 28, Line 21

Insert after "multiple states," the following "including tests developed by national testing companies for use in a single state,"

Page 29, Line 4

Insert a new (D): "The relationship, if any, between teachers' scores on licensure and certification exams and the amount and quality of teacher preparation candidates receive, including preparation in nationally accredited institutions."

Page 29, Line 7

Delete "…including learning gains achieved…" and add "including preparation in nationally accredited institutions."

Section 2122, Improving Professional Development Opportunities

NEA is supportive of this program of  grants for teacher centers to expand and improve professional development for teachers. We are very pleased that the draft requires that a majority of the members of a teacher center policy board be representatives of, and selected by the teachers to be served by the teacher center.

Page 32, Line 14

Replace "activities" with "learning opportunities". Professional development should not be "activities" that are isolated with no apparent connection to the whole or to the conceptual learning that is being targeted. They should be sustained educator "learning opportunities" that include study groups, coaching and mentoring opportunities, networks linking teachers together to explore problems of mutual concern, and immersion in inquiry activities with students.

Part B - Teacher and Principal Quality State Grants

We suggest amending the Title to add after "Teacher", ", Paraeducator,"

Page 36, Line 17

After "students" insert "by focusing on high quality professional development and improving the teaching and learning conditions of all schools, particularly those serving high percentages of low income student and students who are racial and ethnic minorities."

Page 39, Line 21

Strike "and"

Page 39, Line 22

Insert a new paragraph (4):  "(4) includes a detailed description of the State's plan to address the teaching and learning conditions which impact the ability to attract and retain experienced and highly qualified teachers, such as class sizes, school safety and climate, access to high-quality professional development (including access to mentoring), supportive school leadership, and adequate planning time; and"

Page 39, Line 22

Redesignate existing paragraph (4) as paragraph (5).

Page 43, Line 8

Strike "and" and insert ", professional development, and an improvement in teaching and learning conditions. The State educational agency shall -- "

Page 44, Line 16

Insert a new paragraph: "(8) the results of a teaching and learning conditions survey of educators across the state; and"

Page 44, Line 16

Re-designate existing paragraph (8) as paragraph (9).
 
Page 46, Line 12

After "professional development" add "and the teaching and learning conditions…"

Page 46, Line 12

After "teachers" insert "paraeducators,"

Page 49, Line 10

Insert "(8) A detailed description of how the State educational agency will address the findings of a teaching and learning conditions survey of educators across the state in order to improve conditions for good teaching and learning and improve teacher recruitment and retention in hard-to-staff schools." 

Note:  Similar language should be added to local uses of funds, so that LEAs may conduct their own teaching and learning conditions surveys if they so choose.

Page 53, Line 23

Following effective school leaders add, "and develop the leadership practices that contribute positively to overall school performance…"

Page 55, Lines 1-9

Again we reiterate our objection to performance pay plans. The language here continues to undermine collective bargaining rights or adequately provide for educator approval in non-bargaining states. We strongly urge that this provision be deleted.

Page 56, Line 3

After "students learn" add "by focusing on teacher working and student learning conditions."

Page 56, Lines 4-5

Delete "(including recertification)"

Page 56, Line 14

We support the teacher diversity language here.

Page 57 Line 3

Add after "teachers and principals" the following: "that are equal in rigor and meet identical standards for entry to other State approved teacher certification programs"

Page 57, Line 12

Insert "Such programs should not lower current state licensure standards."

Page 57, Lines 21 et seq.

NEA recommends deletion of paragraph (G). If the Committee does not agree to the preceding recommendation, then strike the period (.)at the end, and add "and contingent upon collaboration with and approval by the association representing classroom teachers in the state." 

Page 64, Line 6

Insert after "teacher" the following: ", paraeducators,"

Page 67, Line 11

Insert after "Teacher" the following: ", Paraeducators,"

Page 68, Line 16

Replace "meeting" with "planning" and replace "a" with "all". The issue of teacher planning time is not mentioned enough.
 
Page 70, Line 17

NEA strongly supports peer mentoring and assistance. We urge the Committee to share draft language with stakeholders prior to introduction of the Chairman's "base" bill. As guidance, the following is NEA's policy on such programs, as adopted by our Representative Assembly:

The National Education Association believes that high standards within the teaching profession and continuous improvement in professional practice are cornerstones of the profession. Some  local affiliates may conclude that, under certain circumstances, a peer assistance or a peer assistance and review program is an appropriate mechanism for achieving these objectives.

The primary purpose of any such program should be to provide "assistance" -- to improve

professional practice, retain promising teachers, and build professional knowledge to improve student success. A local affiliate may, at its option, also decide to include a "review" component in the program --  involving the evaluation of performance. If a local affiliate takes either position, the program should -

a. Be developed through collective bargaining or through a joint association/school district agreement in nonbargaining states

b. Be governed by a board composed of an equal number or a majority of representatives appointed by the local affiliate

c. Acknowledge that the school district makes the final decision to retain or seek nonrenewal or termination, but that recommendations forwarded by the joint governing body are routinely accepted and acted upon by the district

d. Ensure that only teachers who are deemed by their peers to be highly skilled practitioners are selected for the role of consulting teacher, that the consulting teacher's area of expertise is the same as or closely related to that of the participating teacher, and that the consulting teacher is chosen by the program governing bodies

e. Seek consulting teachers who reflect the diverse population of the teaching staff

f. Provide that consulting teachers are properly compensated and provided adequate time to fulfill their responsibilities

g. Provide that consulting teachers receive extensive and ongoing training in mentoring/coaching skills, district initiatives and resources, and current education instructional methods

h. Establish guidelines for the referral of teachers as well as safeguards to prevent unwarranted referrals and to allow participating teachers the selection and/or approval of their assignment to a consulting teacher

i. Establish and convey to all consulting and participating teachers clear rules on allowable uses of documents, products, and communications arising from the program

j. Require extensive documentation based on ongoing assessments of each participant

k. Require that rigorous and extensive assistance be provided over an appropriate period of time to help the participating teacher attain the requisite standard of proficiency before any effort is made to counsel the participating teacher into alternative career choices either within or outside the education profession or a recommendation to initiate nonrenewal or termination proceedings is issued

l. Ensure due process protection and duty of fair representation procedures

m. Guarantee that participating teachers, consulting teachers, and teachers who sit on governing bodies do not lose their Association membership or bargaining unit status by virtue of their participation in the program.

Page 73, after Line 9

After "alternative routes to teacher certification" add the following: "in programs that are equal in rigor and meet equivalent standards for entry to other State approved teacher certification programs"

Page 73, Line 12

Delete "reforms tenure systems;"

Page 73, Lines 13-20

We strongly urge the Committee to include a separate class size reduction program that does not compete with professional development funds in Title II. A class size reduction initiative, including the creation of a national class size database, should be a separate, dedicated stream of funding to ensure that students receive the individual attention they deserve. See our comments below.

Page 80, Line 4 

Delete "and"

Page 80, Line 6

Strike the period (.) and insert the following:
"; (IV) high-quality learning opportunities focused on curriculum and instruction, including mentoring, participation in principals' networks and study groups, collegial school visits, and peer coaching; and
(V) developing and understanding of positive teacher working conditions to help minimize teacher mobility and reduce attrition at hard to staff schools."

Page 89, Line 17

Delete verbiage after "…evaluate principals on their" and add "ability to cultivate a shared vision and practice, lead instructional improvement, develop organizational capacity, and manage change."

Page 90, Line 8

After "leaders," insert "provided that such experimental programs maintain high pedagogical and professional skills and do not lower state certification or licensure standards."

Page 96, Line 24

After "organizations," insert "provided that such organizations' candidates will be expected to meet the same high standards mandated by state licensure standards."

School Leadership

We recommend the addition of a new a grant program to states for programs that enhance the quality of educational leaders so that they effectively:

1. Speak to the improvement of student achievement and a vision of the elements of school, curriculum and instructional practices that make higher achievement possible.

2. Set high expectations for all students to learn higher-level content.

3. Know how to lead the creation of a school organization where faculty and staff understand that every student counts and where every student has the support of a qualified and caring adult.

4. Understand the appropriate use of data to initiate and continue improvement in school and classroom practices and student achievement.

5. Use the principles of collaborative leadership and creates structures that provide teachers input regarding the design and organization of the school.

6. Make parents partners in their student's education and creates a structure for parent and educator collaboration.

7. Understand the change process and have the leadership and facilitation skills to manage it effectively.

8. Understand how adults learn and knows how to advance meaningful change through high-quality sustained professional development that benefits students and teachers.

9. Uses and organize resources and time in innovative ways to meet the goals and objectives of school improvement including the time needed to form professional learning communities and teacher professional development.

10. Understand the need to infuse 21st century skills into the curriculum and standards.

11. Understand the ongoing need to assess teaching and learning conditions and implement plans to address conditions which impede teaching and learning.

12. Understand the need to be trained and provide professional development in the area of serving diverse learners (ELLs, poor, students with disabilities, migrant)

Concern: Class size reduction is addressed only as a voluntary activity that LEAs "may" carry out in using grant funds for professional development activities in high-need districts on page 73, Lines 13-20. Also, instead of a class size of 18 or fewer for grades K-3 the NEA advocates a class-size of not more than 15 for grades K -1 and not more than 18 for grades 2-5.

Note:  The placement of this provision to hire new teachers and reduce class size under this section of the law related to professional development seems inconsistent with the other activities included in this section.

Discussion: It is disappointing that the proposed law does not take a more definitive role in requiring states and districts to reduce class sizes despite decades of strong scientific evidence that smaller class sizes have a positive and long-lasting effect on student achievement; particularly for high-need students. Even the discussion draft acknowledges the impact of class size on a school's working condition by including reduction in class size as an assurance in the "application requirements" to receive grant funds [under section 2111 for Premium Pay] to help staff high-need schools.

Recommendation: Given the sound debate on the advantages of smaller class sizes, the proposed law should do more to strengthen states' abilities to develop and implement class size reduction plans. Specifically, the new law should:

a. Restore the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program as proposed in Congressman Wu's bill (HR 2668). The CSR program was implemented in FY 1999-2000 after congress made a bipartisan commitment to a seven-year plan for reducing class-size to not more than 18 in the early grades. During the first year 29,000 new teachers were hired and over 1.7 million young children benefited. The CSR program was eliminated just two years later in January 2002 when No Child Left Behind became law. A new CSR program should, however, do more to differentiate the needs of students at the various school levels by prescribing the following limits on class size:

1. Pre-k -  not more than 20 per classroom with two teachers (ratio 1:10)

2. K-1 -  not more than 15

3. Grades 2-5-  not more than 18

4. Grades 6-8-  not more than 20

5. Grades 9-12 -  not more than 25

6. Low SES and special need students  - not more than 15

b. States should help districts implement short-term and long-term options to accommodate the need for additional classroom space (e.g., convene school building committees to reallocate the use of existing school space; renovate buildings to restructure existing space; rent classroom space from businesses or establish partnerships in which businesses donate space;  team-teaching by two certified teachers in a single classroom; and restructuring the school day and/or calendar to maximize the use of existing space).

c. Districts should set up an implementation and evaluation plan on the impact of their class size reduction program. The evaluation should assess changes in student and teacher outcomes such as: student learning (defined as multiple measures of student learning, such as state assessments, classroom-based assessments, district assessments, portfolios, end-of-course grades, performance assessments, and other measures of learning), grade retention rates, student attendance rates, dropout rates, student discipline incidences, teacher morale, classroom management and instructional practices, teacher retention rates and recruitment, and parental involvement. Reduced caseloads for pupil and related services personnel, parent satisfaction

d. States and districts should be prohibited from increasing class sizes in other grades in order to reduce class sizes in a particular grade(s).

e. There should be a professional development component of this initiative.

f. Fund the implementation of a national class size database and require states to report annually on the size of all classes (preK through 12) in all schools. The database should be modeled after the National Class Size Database (NCSD) (http://www.national-class-size-database.org) designed and managed by HEROS, Inc. (http://www.heros-inc.org), an organization of education scholars and researchers,  to provide schools, school systems, and state departments of education with an easy, assessable, standardized system to collect and report "actual" class size data. Beyond reporting purposes, the NCSD also permits states and districts to regularly monitor class sizes and teacher work loads, which have a direct effect on student achievement.

Page 110, Line 4

Replace "advising" with "supporting"

Page 111, Lines 13-14

NEA supports the change requiring that eligible partnerships include teacher training departments of higher education institutions. In the past, they were not a required partner even though the skills and strategies for "how" to teach generally reside in these departments/schools/colleges.

Page 112, Line 11

After "students," strike the remaining clause and replace with ", faculty, and other subject matter experts; and"

Page 112, Line 14

After "classroom," insert "or school district regional training site"

Page 112, Lines 21-22

Delete "if the followup training is for teachers in rural districts," because professional development follow-up should be able to be conducted through distance learning for all, not just rural school districts. Distance learning can be an effective way of communicating with teachers following face to face professional development. In fact, it might lead to more support for teachers through wikis, blogs, email, etc.
 
Page 117, Lines 15-18

Replace current language in (i) with the following: "directly relate to the curriculum, instruction, and assessment of a teacher's primary assignment;"
Comment: Pedagogical content is equally important as math and science content. They both are needed for students to achieve.
 
Page 118, Line 12

Delete "experienced"

Page 118, Line 13

After "faculty" insert "experienced in teaching mathematics and/ or science;"

Page 118, Line 21

After "technology" insert "to deliver and affect student learning in the classroom."

Part D -- Math Success for All

Page 125, Lines 18-21

Question: Regarding (C), who decides if teachers do not have the knowledge or "expertise" in the teaching of mathematics? 
Recommendation: In that provision, make use of highly qualified provisions by deleting all after "teachers who…" on Line 19 and adding the following: "are not highly qualified."
 
Page 134, Lines 5-6

Question: How will the priority be determined? Will it be similar to (A)(ii)?
 
Page 141, Lines 7-10

NEA supports the inclusion of mathematicians and mathematics educators on the peer review team and encourages the inclusion of master teachers on these teams as well.

Page 148, Line 20 et seq.

NEA is supportive of the inclusion of the Troops to Teachers Program in the discussion draft.
 
Page 166, Line 14

Add after "alternative approaches to achieve teacher certification" the following: "…in programs that are equal in rigor and meet identical standards for entry to other State approved teacher certification programs"
 
Page 168, Line 16

After "programs" insert "(provided such programs maintain the same or equivalent standards for acquiring both pedagogical skills and training, as well as subject matter knowledge)"

Page 174, Line 13

We again reiterate our opposition to performance pay and ask that such provisions be deleted.

Page 175, Line 13

After "certification," insert "provided that such routes maintain equal or higher standards that currently exist with in the states for traditional certification; and"

Page 181, Line 9

Delete "and".

Page 181, Line 11

After "programs," strike the period (.) and insert "; and (5) provide on-going, high quality support to all teacher participants."

Part F -- Achievement Through Technology and Innovation

NEA is generally supportive of this Part, in particular the focus on professional development.

Page 185, Lines 16 et seq.

We propose that the bill also include a reference to professional development in technology for paraeducators and specialized instructional support personnel.

Page 191, Line 17

Reinstate the $3,000 minimum allotment and eliminate the requirement that schools collaborate (but still leave it as an option). Example language from the ATTAIN Act (HR 2449) is:

"(2) MINIMUM ALLOTMENT- The amount of any local educational agency's allotment under subsection (a)(3)(A) for any fiscal year shall be a minimum of $3,000."

We urge the Committee to consider the following additional concerns and recommendations submitted by CoSN, ISTE, SIIA, and SETDA:

• State Administration and Research.
  • Recommendation:  Include HR 2449's provisions which allow for states to use up to 5% of funds for state activities and technical assistance, and an additional 2.5% for research and evaluation. At a minimum, insert HR 2449's provision establishing a $100,000 minimum for state activities and evaluation.
  • Justification: HR 2449, especially its competitive grants, is focused on the evaluation and implementation of research-based and innovative systemic school reform that centers on the use of technology. State leadership is critical to support districts in determining and replicating effective and research-based practices. The Title II-F draft provides states with 3.33% of all funding received for state activities and an additional 1.67% to conduct evaluations. In contrast, HR 2449 provides the greater of $100,000 or 5% for state activities and the greater of $50,000 or 2.5% for evaluations. Further, current law allows states 5% for state activities but neither requires nor provides funding for evaluations. We are very concerned that reducing state activities funding from 5% to 3.33% and omitting HR 2449's $100,000 minimum will provide inadequate funds for states, especially small states, to coordinate education technology programs and provide technical assistance. We also believe that the draft's slashing of funds for evaluations nearly in half will not allow states to conduct and support the quantity or quality of research on education technology envisioned elsewhere in Title F and throughout the NCLB reauthorization draft.

• Student Technology Literacy.
  •  Recommendation: Insert HR 2449's provisions on student technology literacy assessments. At a minimum, provide encouragement to and support for states to identify challenging academic content and achievement standards and to measure student progress towards technology literacy. Lastly, to ensure that the public is informed of progress towards student technology literacy, add a requirement for annual local, state and federal collection and reporting of student technology literacy data.
  • Justification: The current Title II-F draft maintains the goal of achieving student technology literacy by the eighth grade, but eliminates HR 2449's requirement that states assess student technology literacy at least once by the end of eighth grade. Instead, the draft requires only that states "carry-out activities to assess the state's progress towards ensuring that its students are technologically literate by the eighth grade." Our organizations submit that the only way to determine whether the technology literacy goal is being met is to implement some measures of student progress. Also, we believe it important that states identify the challenging academic content and achievement standards that states will use to ensure that students will be technology literate. Finally, we agree wholeheartedly that technology literacy measurements should not count towards school adequate yearly progress, need not be separate exams, and could be incorporated into existing assessments - all of which are spelled out in HR 2449.

• Professional Development.
  
  •  Recommendation:  Increase the professional development set-aside for formula grants to 40% and retain the current law's exception permitting states to waive the professional development set aside upon an LEA's demonstration that they have otherwise met these professional development needs.
  • Justification: The current Title II-F draft requires that states spend 30% of their formula and competitive grants on professional development and related tools. While the research demonstrates the continuing critical importance of professional development in the effective use of technology, Title II-F represents but a slight improvement over the status quo of current law, which calls for a 25% set aside for professional development but does NOT included related tools as a use of funds. In contrast, HR 2449 provides a 40% reservation of funds for formula grants. While we appreciate the draft's commitment to making professional development a focus of Part F, we continue to believe that a further targeting of resources is needed to ensure the training of teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom. Continuation of the current Title II-D EETT waiver would provide both an enhanced focus on training, while providing LEAs with flexibility should they have met their professional development needs already. 
    
• Authorization of Appropriations.
  • Recommendation:  Insert a $1 billion authorization level for Title II, Part F.
  • Justification: The current Title II draft contains no authorized funding level for Part F, whereas current law Title II-D and HR 2449 authorize $1 billion. We believe that education technology remains and will continue to be integral to NCLB's success and believe that it merits an authorized funding level of $1 billion in Part F of Title II. The current Title II-D was funded at about $690 million in its first three years (FY 2002-04), and restoring funding to this or greater levels is needed to meet local needs for improving student achievement through the use of technology.

Subpart 4, Internet Safety

Page 222, Lines 21-25

We appreciate the inclusion of these provisions which help guard against censorship of lawful content. We recommend that the Internet safety policy required in Section 2641 (a) also include training for teachers, paraeducators, school library and media specialists, and other staff on the provisions of the school's policy.

Part G, John Glenn Fellowship Program

Page 239, Lines 21 et seq.

We suggest adding a clarification to Section 2724 that says any Fellows hired under this Subpart must meet the highly qualified teacher definition in Title IX.

Page 1, Line 11

NEA strongly recommends that the authorization for Title III grants be doubled.

Page 3, Lines 3-9

NEA supports the addition of language ensuring that all children have access to the full curriculum.

Page 4, Line 1 et seq.

NEA supports the language requiring the Secretary to develop a common methodology for identifying limited English proficiency and immigrant children, and to use a methodology that is valid and reliable for the purpose of determining state allocations of resources. We propose adding a requirement that the Secretary develop such methodology after input and consultation with appropriate stakeholders, including ELL teachers. We also suggest that the methodology be issued as a proposed rule and be subject to public comments.

Page 6, Line 3

NEA supports the language adding students' comprehension as one of the domains of language.

Page 7, Lines 9-11

NEA supports the discussion draft's support for instructional programs that would lead to academic proficiency in more than one language, thereby providing support for native language proficiency. There is strong evidence that strengthening students' native language literacy improves their ability to become proficient in English.

Page 8, Lines 3-12

NEA questions the need to extend the paraprofessional requirements applicable to Title I funded paras to those hired under Title III. At a minimum, we strongly recommend that if this requirement is added, that the provisions of Section 1119 (d) and (e) also be made applicable here. In particular, deleting the exemptions for paras in paragraph (d) will create confusion and unnecessarily extend the current para requirements to additional staff who do not need to meet such requirements. There also needs to be a clarification of "work in a program funded under this part". Does this refer to just paras paid in whole or in part with Title III funds, or all paras working in such programs regardless of the source of their salary?  We recommend this requirement be limited to just those paras paid with Title III funds.

In addition, if this new para requirement is added, then districts receiving Title III grants should be required to spend a portion of their funds to assist paras in meeting these new qualifications.

Further, the deadline set of four years after enactment is not in alignment with the school year and will likely fall in the middle of the school year. We suggest that the deadline be the end of the academic year that is four full school years after enactment of the bill.

General Recommendations

In addition to the specific changes recommended above, we propose that the following provisions be included in Title III:

1. For students under 3rd grade, clarify that the yearly English language proficiency assessments do not have to be paper tests

2. Require that the LEA's Title III improvement plan (Section 3116 -- Local Plans) include a description of a process by which students, parents, teachers and other necessary school staff create and implement a process for appropriate identification and recommended placement of ELL students enrolled in the school. Such plan must include procedures that incorporate a minimum of the following features:

3. For ELLs with disabilities, schools should coordinate English language acquisition services and efforts with the special education and related services to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child. This includes supplementary aid and services that the child needs. It also includes modifications to the program or supports for school personnel, such as training or professional development, that will be provided to support the child.

4. Regardless of specialized program services provided, ELL pupils shall be integrated with non-ELL pupils  for instructional purposes in activities where language proficiency is not a major impediment, including such areas as physical education, art, music, and similar curricular areas. Rationale notwithstanding ELL students are not to be placed in segregated settings based on their English language proficiency status.

5. LEA plan must describe the assessment strategies that will be used to measure the child's academic and linguistic progress, and ensure that all measures are psychometrically sound and appropriate for use with students who have been identified as having limited English proficiency.

6. The school district shall be responsible for ensuring that the programs designed to address the needs of ELL students are being carried out as intended.

TITLE IV

Part A, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Page 11, Line 17 et seq.

Comment: We are very pleased that the draft addresses the challenges in preventing and responding effectively to bullying and harassment by requiring schools to have rules prohibiting bullying and harassment; giving parents and students annual notice of these rules; collecting and reporting information on the prevalence of bullying; and allowing schools to use funding to train teachers, administrators and counselors to prevent bullying, as well as to teach students about the consequences of bullying. Addressing bullying in our schools is critical to ensuring all children a safe learning environment free from harassment and intimidation. Bullying adversely affects students' ability to participate in or benefit from educational programs and school activities so by addressing the needs to prevent and protect from such behavior in the Safe and Drug-Free section of this legislation is sound education policy,

Additional language that could be added to strengthen bullying prevention efforts can be found in the Bullying and Gang Reduction for Improved Education Act (HR 3438), introduced by Representative Linda Sánchez.

Page 15, Line 20

Recommendation: With the expansion of  data collection on school violence to include not only incidents at a school but also on school buses and school functions, we recommend inserting after "teacher", "and other staff". It is important to collect such data from other school employees including bus drivers and other support staff.

Page 17, Line 13 et seq.

Recommendation: We propose amending Section 4113(a)(3) of current law by inserting after "of", "teachers, education support personnel,". Teachers and other employees should be included in the development of the state's application, along with the groups currently listed.

Page 18, Line 18

Recommendation: Insert after "parents", ", teachers, other school employees," to ensure that teachers and other employees also receive the policies.

Page 19, Line 14

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers," "education support personnel,". Since bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and other school staff often witness and confront incidents of school violence, it is important that all school employees receive this training.

Page 19, Line 23

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers," "education support personnel,"

Page 20, Line 13 et seq.

The safe climate section replaces the "persistently dangerous" section in current law (Section 9532).

Concern: We would like to make sure that there are sufficient funds designated to "Challenge Schools" that will address the issue and provide for implementation of plans to assist those schools to achieve a safe climate for learning.

Recommendation: We also propose that the right to transfer to another public school in the district be limited by the same factors included in the transfer option in Title I, which include:

Such right to transfer is

(a) prohibited by, or violates, State law;

(b) places the school to which a student may transfer in excess of capacity limits defined by State or local law or regulation the local educational agency;

(c) would violate State or local health and safety codes; or

(d) is inconsistent with a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan.

Part B, 21st Century Community Learning Centers

NEA supports the additional allowable uses of funds for service learning, nutrition education,  and  physical fitness and wellness programs. We also support the following proposals that were submitted by the Afterschool Alliance.

Page 31, Line 23

Delete "by striking paragraph (2)" and add the following: "delete paragraph (2)(A)"

Rationale:  Grants should be renewable at the discretion of the state, and thus language referencing programs previously funded needs to be retained in the statute.

Page 32, Line 2

After "is amended by" insert the following: "in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), striking '3 percent of the amount made available to the State' and inserting '5 percent of the amount made available to the State, providing that sufficient funds are available for continuation awards to covered programs,' and by".

Rationale:  Giving states the option to increase the set aside from 3 to 5 percent will make vital new resources available for strengthening professional development opportunities, expanding technical assistance to programs, and disseminating successful practices throughout the state.

Page 33, Line 9

Replace "period" with "periods" to read "…renewed for periods of not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years contingent on…"

Rationale:  The change makes clear that the awards are renewable.

Page 33, Line 14

Add new (3) and redesignate current (3) as (4).

"(3) after subsection (g), by inserting the following: '(h) Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted to prohibit a state from renewing a recipient's grant, contingent on the recipient's performance during the previous grant having been satisfactory in terms of program design, quality, and the number of children served"'.

Rationale:  States should have the clear authority to renew grant awards for successful, high quality programs.

Page 34, Line 17 et seq.

NEA supports the committee's inclusion of the National Academy of Sciences Study. We agree with the Afterschool Alliance that a study of this nature would be very valuable in determining alternate measures of student success. We request that funding for this effort be designated as a separate appropriation from that of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers so that the study does not come at the expense of services to children and youth.

Further, we recommend adding representatives of teachers to the members of the panel that will conduct the study.

Part D, Full-Service Community Schools

Page 36, Line 17 et seq.

NEA is pleased that the discussion draft includes provisions to establish a grant program to support full-service community schools.

Page 39, Line 9

After "school" insert the following: ", including an assessment of the need to hire and support school-based outreach coordinators who will be responsible for identifying student needs and connecting available community resources to meet those needs".

Page 43, Line 3

Insert new (J) "Programs that identify students at risk of dropping out and provide supportive services to them to address their individual needs." and redesignate existing (J)-(P).

TITLE V

Part B -- Public Charter Schools

Page 50, Lines 16-21

This provision amends Section 5142 of current law to provide that consultation with private school officials occurs "in accordance with section 9501(c)."  That section is amended by changes on page 198, described below.
Recommendation: NEA recommends that current law be retained, as we recommend that proposed changes to the consultation process be removed.

Page 51, Line 16

After "parents" add the following: "as well as the fiscal and academic impact of such schools on the districts in which they are located".
Rationale: One of the purposes of the grant program is to evaluate the effects of charter schools, including the effects on students, student achievement, student academic achievement, staff and parents.

Page 52, Lines 17-20

The language reflects a substantive change that permits grants to authorized public chartering agencies in addition to state education agencies.

Concern: This seems an inappropriate delegation to a non-governmental entity.

Page 53, Lines 14-23

NEA is pleased that the draft improves current law by calling for annual review and evaluation, as opposed to merely "periodic." 

Page 53, Line 22

Replace "or" with "and"

Page 53, Line 23

Add after "charter" the following: ", and is complying with fiscal accountability requirements for charter schools as set forth under State law and the school's charter."

Page 54, Lines 11-16

Delete paragraph (B) because NEA believes that local school boards should be the only entity that can grant or renew charter applications.

Page 54, Lines 20-25

Comment:  NEA appreciates the addition of new language that also encourages States to ensure that charter schools operate under the supervision of independent governing boards that enter into a written performance contract with the chartering agency.

Recommendation: This language could be strengthened, however, by doing the following on Line 24:

• Delete the word "performance"
• Add after "contract" the following: "that includes measurable performance outcomes and fiscal accountability standards."

Page 55, Lines 8-14

This is a welcome addition to the priority criteria.

Recommendation: Because adequate yearly progress is measured according to the performance of a variety of demographic indicators, however, this criterion could be improved on Line 9 by adding after "percentage" the following: "of each group of students identified in section 1113 (C)".

Page 55, Line 15

Add a new section (G) as follows:

(G) The State demonstrates that teachers and education support professionals employed in charter schools

(i) must meet the same requirements as teachers and education support professionals employed in traditional public schools with regard to licensure and certification;

(ii) are considered public employees; and

(iii) have the same constitutional, statutory, and collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in traditional public schools.

Page 55, Line 15

Current law authorizes the Secretary to take into account the number of charter schools operating in a State in determining the grant to be awarded to an SEA. NEA recommends that the criteria be expanded to include the effectiveness of those charter schools, their impact on the districts in which they are located, and the capacity of the chartering agency to provide adequate oversight.

Page 56, Line 18

Current law requires applicants to describe how the SEA will inform charter schools of the availability of federal funds. To minimize the administrative burden and ensure equity, NEA recommends that line 18 be amended to read as follows:

(i) will, consistent with the manner in which it informs traditional public schools and educators of Federal funds and programs for which they may be eligible, inform each charter school in the State regarding-

Page 56, Line 24

Current law also requires applicants to describe how the SEA ensures that each charter school receives its share of Federal formula funds. NEA recommends this language be revised as follows:

(ii) allocates to charter schools Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year;

Page 57, Line 5

Requires applicants to describe how the State will disseminate to local education agencies the best practices of charter schools. Because NEA believes it is important to disseminate the best practices of all schools, and ensure that charter schools also receive such information, the following change is proposed:

(iii) will identify and promote to each local educational agency in the State the best or promising educational practices developed by charter schools and traditional public schools;

Page 57, Line 16 et seq.

NEA recommends that a 16th prescribed element be added - an assurance that employees of the charter school will be considered public employees and have the same labor rights as other public employees, and that they be held to the same requirements as their peers at traditional public schools with regard to licensure and certification.

Page 58, Line 8

Requires a description of how the charter school will be managed. NEA recommends this requirement be clarified to include a description of responsibilities.

Page 58, Line 20

Insert "teachers and other education professionals" after "parents"

Page 61, Line 11

NEA recommends this language be modified to read as follows:

(xiv) materials that demonstrate support from the State's educational community, including support from the local education agency in which the applicant is or will be located, as well as a majority of teachers and education support professionals employed in the school and parents of children enrolled in the school in the case of a traditional public school whose conversion to charter status is the subject of the application.

Page 61, Line 14

Requires applicants for subgrants from the State to describe how the State encourages the inclusion on charter school boards of individuals with a diversity of skills. NEA questions the appropriateness of requiring an individual applicant to describe State policy, and recommends the following revision:

(xv) a description of the diversity of skills represented on the board that will govern the proposed charter school, including business management, financial management, real estate finance, labor relations, and curriculum and instruction; and

Page 68, Line 18 et seq.

This section requires that most of the subgrant funds awarded by SEAs to enable applicants to plan and implement a charter school must be awarded to charter school developers, equitably distributed among public and private non-profit organizations and groups of teachers, administrators, parents, and others. This mandate undermines State discretion and imposes a federal distribution formula regardless of the quality of the various developers. NEA recommends that the language be deleted.

Page 75, Line 16 et seq.

The draft sets forth new language for national dissemination grants that authorize individual charter schools, SEA's or other authorized chartering agencies, "an eligible applicant", or a consortium of the above to apply for grants to help public schools adopt charter school innovations or disseminate information about charter school innovations. The criteria for approval do not include any evaluation of the effectiveness of the innovations at improving student achievement or fiscal accountability. It also fails to recognize traditional public schools as a potential source of innovation.

Recommendation: NEA recommends that the section be amended as follows, and removed from Part B:

(2) APPLICATIONS - The following entities may apply to the Secretary for funds under this subsection to carry out the activities described in paragraph (4):

  (A) A State educational agency

  (B) An accredited college of teacher education

  (C) A regional education research laboratory

  (D) A consortium of entities described in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C).

(3) CRITERIA - The Secretary shall award grants under this subpart on the basis of the quality of the application, the capacity of the applicant to execute the application, and the scale of impact of the application.

(4) ACTIVITIES - A grant recipient may use funds reserved under paragraph (1) to:

(A) conduct evaluations to identify innovative educational practices that improve student achievement;

(B) develop curriculum materials, assessments and other instructional materials based on innovative educational practices that have been proven effective at improving student achievement;

(C) disseminate to public schools across the state information regarding innovative educational practices that improve student achievement;

(C) develop and offer professional development courses to train educators in the use of effective innovations in education;

(D) promote partnerships among public schools that will enhance the implementation of effective education innovations, including offering opportunities for teachers to visit schools that have adopted effective innovative practices; 

Page 81, Line 11 et seq.

This replaces subpart 2 "Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation", Sec. 5221 et esq. under current law.

Recommendation: Revise this section to provide facilities assistance equitably to all public schools by deleting all references to "charter" and replacing them with "public" throughout the section. Alternatively, this section should be deleted and instead the bill should provide a comprehensive federal program of assistance for urgent school repairs and renovations for public schools, with charter schools being eligible.

Page 95, Line 1 et seq.

NEA supports the language clarifying that a charter (the contract between the school and its governing board) must describe how student performance will be measured pursuant to State standards and assessments described in section 1111.

Page 98, Line 5 et seq.

Defines eligible applicant to include a charter support organization. NEA recommends that (B) be deleted due to the risk that federal funds will be used for advocacy purposes.

Magnet Schools

Page 99, Line 11 et seq.

NEA supports the changes proposed in the discussion draft for magnet schools. The discussion draft modifies the findings to include greater participation by minorities and women in math and science, greater participation by all students in the study of foreign languages, and integration among diverse racial and ethnic groups as national interests. It also promotes equitable access to high quality education as a purpose.

Page 99, Line 19

Recommendation: Insert after "foreign languages" the following: ", and music and art programs"

Subpart 2, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs

Page 103, Line 1 et seq.

NEA is pleased that the proposed definition of services includes early intervention services, such as schoolwide positive behavior and intervention supports. Research has shown these programs to be effective in reducing the number of students who have behavioral problems and reducing the number of students who are inappropriately referred for special education services.

NEA also supports the recommended change in the school social worker to student ratio to a more reasonable level. This change will allow school social workers to be effective in a counseling role. Lastly, NEA also supports the amendments under this section to allow the use of funds for professional development focused on building innovative approaches for systemic school counseling programs that promote cross stakeholder collaboration.

Page 104, Line 3

Insert after "teachers," the following: "education support professionals,"

NEA supports this program, which will help to increase the number of students who graduate with an advanced level of proficiency in a foreign language.

Subpart 22 -- Environmental Education

Page 121, Line 7 et seq.

NEA supports this program to help educators and students engage in field-based activities to facilitate learning that integrates the study of natural, social, and economic systems.
 
Subpart 23 -- Substitute Teachers

NEA supports this new program which will ensure that substitute teachers receive needed training and supports.

Page 136, Line 15

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph (4):  "a description of substitute recruitment, selection, and training process used to secure the best talented substitutes;" and renumber the remaining paragraphs.

Page 137, Line 3

Recommendation: Insert after "teaching" the following: "and assessment"

Page 138, Line 11

Recommendation: Insert a new paragraph (E): "working conditions that substitute teachers deal with on a daily basis"

Subpart 24 -- Innovative, Integrated Curricula Grant Program

Page 139, Line 11 et seq.

NEA supports this new program, which will help ensure that students receive comprehensive curricula.

Part F - Teaching of American History

Page 148, Line 3 et seq.

Recommendation: We propose adding to the required members of the Advisory Board, "representatives of teachers of history at both the elementary and secondary levels".

TITLE VI

Section 6111, Grants for State Assessments ands Related Activities and Section 6112, Grants for Enhanced Assessment Systems

NEA strongly supports the provisions for these sections, which provide for critical improvements to state assessments. We applaud in Section 6111 the provisions concerning formative assessments and multiple measures of student achievement including performance-based measures.

We support the language in Section 6112 concerning critical thinking, problem solving, and application of knowledge to real world contexts. We are pleased with the pilot program for performance-based measures.
 
Page 149, Line 2 et seq.

Recommendation: All references to "student achievement" be replaced by the term "student learning"

Page 150, Line 9

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers" the following: "paraeducators,"
 
Page 151, Lines 24

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers" the following: "paraeducators,"

Page 152, Line 17

Recommendation: Insert after "in" the following: "civic participation,"

Page 152, Lines 3 - 4

Recommendation: Include Regional Resource Centers (RRCs).

 Page 152, Line 23

Recommendation: Strike "better"
 
Page 154, Line 22

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers" the following: "paraeducators,"

Page 154, Line 24

Replace "benefit" with "improve"
 
Page 155, Lines 14-16

Recommendation: Clarify the panel make-up by specifying who will serve on the peer review panel in addition to experts in educational measurement. We recommend that the panel include representatives of classroom teachers, including special education teachers and teachers of  ELL students.
 
Page 156, Line 13

Recommendation: Insert after "teachers" the following: "paraeducators,"
 
Page 156, Line 15

Recommendation: Replace "benefit" with "improve"
 
Page 156, Line 22

Recommendation: Replace "different" with "multiple"
 
Page 160, Line 7 et seq.

NEA supports the special rule as it is designed to provide states with the necessary resources to develop and make available the appropriate assessments for these students.

Page 160, Line 23 et seq.

NEA questions the specific percentages contained in this section. What is the rationale for the differing percentages allowed for transfer for each program? Perhaps setting one uniform transfer percent of 60 percent would be more appropriate.

Page 164, Line 10 et seq.

Generally, the changes in this section are very positive and will help to update this important program with more current language and funding structures.

Note: In current law, the Rural Education Initiative allows in subpart two for school districts to combine funds, in order to carry out authorized REAP activities, from:
(1) Subpart 2 and section 2412(a)(2)(A) of title II.

(2) Section 4114.

(3) Part A of title V.

The current draft of this section does not update these titles to reflect the new titles and section references of the Miller-McKeon discussion draft. The Committee will need to correct this in the final version.

Page 165, Lines 14-19

The Special Eligibility Rule might be written more clearly to state (as the draft does) that a school that does not receive funds from the small rural program can receive funds from the rural and low-income program. As currently written, while correct, it may be confusing for the Department of Education. In general we support opening the eligibility for schools that may qualify for both programs, but may not receive funding under the small and rural program to receive funds under the rural and low-income program.

Title IX - General Provisions

Section 901, Definitions

Page 187, Line 1 et seq.

We support his definition, but recommend that a clause (I) be added as follows: "is developed with the active participation of classroom teachers,"

Highly Qualified Teacher definition

Page 187, Line 23 et seq.

Section 901 of the discussion draft removes the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), thereby eliminating teachers' ability to use the HOUSSE provisions to meet NCLB's highly qualified requirements. States and school districts have counted on these provisions to help them retain caring, quality educators in the classroom until these teachers have met all the paperwork requirements found in the highly qualified definition. Eliminating HOUSSE would cause irreparable harm to thousands of teachers not new to the profession, and would make it unnecessarily more difficult for states and school districts to meet the 100 percent highly qualified requirement.

We believe certain teachers have a right and a critical need to continue to utilize HOUSSE, including:

• Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who are highly qualified in one subject at the time of hire. Such teachers should be able to use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of hire, since the draft provides them such additional time to meet the highly qualified rule;
• Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession and are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire. Such teachers have a right under IDEA to use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within two years of the date of hire;
• Teachers coming to the United States from other countries, who should be able to use HOUSSE to meet highly qualified requirements;
• Teachers not new to the profession who are currently highly qualified but have a future change of assignment at their current school. They may need to use HOUSSE to establish that they are highly qualified in such new assignment;
• Teachers not new to the profession who are currently highly qualified but change school districts within their state or move to another state. These teachers may need to use HOUSSE to meet highly qualified requirements; and
• Teachers who are rehired after a period of not having worked as a teacher, whether due to work in another profession, retirement, or any other reason.

We continue to advocate that a highly qualified special education teacher is one who has obtained at least a bachelor's degree, does not currently hold an emergency or temporary teaching credential, and is fully licensed or certified by his/her state as a special education teacher.

We also propose adding an analogous provision to parallel the new Section 9101(23)(D) to cover social studies teachers.

We also recommend specifying that teachers who receive National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification automatically be deemed highly qualified.

We also recommend deleting from current law Section 9101(23)(A)(i) the following: "except when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teachers meets the requirements set forth in the State's public charter school law."  We strongly believe that the HQT definition should apply equally to charter school teachers, so they would not be exempt from having to be fully licensed or certified.

Finally, we propose revising the new section on rural school teacher flexibility. The  definition used for rural school is too limiting and does not fairly apply to states with larger countywide districts. We recommend that teachers who serve in schools districts defined in either Sections 6211 or 6221 be eligible for this flexibility.

Section 904, Participation by Private School Children and Teachers

In general, we propose adding a requirement that private students who receive services under equitable participation, particularly under Title I, be subject to the same assessments the state uses for public schools under Title I AYP requirements, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of such services.

Page 196, Line 17 et seq.

NEA recommends that equitable participation be limited to the programs to which it is applicable under current law.
Rationale: According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Education, fewer than 7 percent of private schools had at least one student participating in half of the programs for which equitable participation currently applies.   Before the mechanism is expanded yet again to include more programs, programs should be evaluated to determine whether expansion is warranted.

Page 198, Lines 16-20

NEA recommends deleting language granting private school officials the right to consult regarding how the amount of money available for services is determined, including consideration of any formula by which such funds are made available to the LEA.
Rationale: This seems an inappropriate intrusion by a private entity into determinations made by publicly accountable agencies.

Page 199, Line 10 et seq.

NEA recommends deleting language specifying that consultation must include meetings, both prior to any decisions, and throughout the implementation and assessment of funded activities.
Rationale: This appears to be a gross intrusion into the manner in which local education agencies and private school officials conduct consultations, which may be conducted more efficiently and cost-effectively by telephone and/or e-mail. It is also unnecessary, given the complaint process available under Section 9503.

Page 201, Line 1 et seq.

NEA recommends retaining current law instead of language proposed on Lines 5-8 that would eliminate the rights of anyone but private school officials and parents of private school children to submit complaints pursuant to this section.
Rationale: This change would prohibit complaints by service providers, public school officials, and others who may also be in a position to observe violations of Section 9501.

NEA endorses the language on Lines 9-15 that mandates that complaints be submitted in writing, along with supporting documentation, as the requirement would strengthen the complaint process.

Section 9524, School Prayer

NEA recommends the deletion of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, which results in significant unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy for public schools. We are not aware of any complaints being filed against schools under this section.

Section 9527, Prohibitions on Federal Government and Use of Federal Funds

NEA continues to strongly believe that Section 9528(a) prohibits the federal government from requiring a state or school district to spend any of its own funds to comply with the requirements of the Act, beyond the amount of funds it receives under this Act. Because the complaint we filed in April 2005  to compel the Secretary to comply with this section is still under appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, we are not recommending any statutory changes at this time.

Section 9528, Armed Forces Recruiter Access to Students and Student Recruiting Information

NEA strongly recommends that this section be changed from a parental /student "opt-out" regarding the student directory information being submitted to military recruiters, to an opt-in, as specified under HR 1346 by Rep. Honda.

Section 9534, Civil Rights

NEA recommends that supplemental educational service providers approved by state education agencies and engaged by local education agencies to provide services authorized and funded according to Section 1116(d), and other non-governmental entities that receive funds under this Act be deemed recipients of federal funds and thus subject to federal civil rights laws. This is necessary because the Department of Education has issued regulations and other policy documents that have ruled that SES providers are not recipients of federal funds and thus are exempt from most federal civil rights laws.

Title X

Reading First

Page 205, Line 11 et seq.

Overall, this legislation appears to address most of the problems with the last version of Reading First. Especially commendable is Section 1001(g), section 1243, p. 296 (3).

Page 206, Line 19

Delete "linguistically appropriate". Either students have a separate assessment or it is English. Unless students are taught the subject -- reading, science, math -- in their first language a test in that language will not help them demonstrate their knowledge and skills. This should be s