Other Key ESEA Reforms


Data Reporting Requirements and Supporting the Capacity to Gather, Input, Analyze and Report Local, State and Federal Data


The primary role of student data should be to inform local teaching and learning. State and federal data should be minimal and not create a burden that detracts from supporting students at the local level. ACSA supports the need for timely, accurate student data, but it’s important for state and federal officials to recognize that school and district staff (classified and certificated) must be provided the support and training to gather, input, analyze and report student data. This is lacking in the Blueprint and has been lacking in California’s quest to create a statewide student longitudinal data system over the last fifteen years. Without professional training, infrastructure and support provided to local educators in the use and application of student data, the system will fail. We urge funding be provided for this purpose under ESEA.


Supplemental Service Providers (SES) and School Choice


ACSA does not believe SES and Choice have resulted in the intended goals set forth by the Bush Administration under NCLB. If some form of SES and Choice are included under ESEA reform proposals we recommend they become optional strategies and that states and local school districts have greater authority to hold SES providers accountable.


 Recognize the important role before and after school programs can provide as an option for tutoring as well as other tutoring programs already offered by school districts.


 Hold states accountable for identifying standards and criteria for defining academic achievement goals for students served by SES providers, including how services are cost-effective and contribute, rather than detract, from the school district’s plan for student academic achievement.


 Recognize the extensive time and funding necessary to monitor private SES providers and the Choice process. Fund the administration of these options appropriately.


 Allow school districts to continue to work with their students as an SES provider.


 Hold SES providers to the same “Highly Qualified” teacher requirements and “effectiveness” requirements identified in the Blueprint.


 Provide the SES or Choice option to Title I students who are not proficient and could benefit from such services rather than all students (non-Title I) who are proficient.


 Federal law must honor “lack of capacity,” campus health and safety, class size requirements and facility limitations when requiring School Choice.


 Modify percentage set-aside requirements for School Choice, Transportation and Supplemental Services and instead adjust to actual amounts spent. Allow for carryover and reflect true administrative costs in federal funding.


 Provide school districts with the authority to screen SES providers who do not meet local requirements, including contract requirements. Allow school districts to require SES providers have experience with English learners and students with disabilities.


10


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28