Iowa Education Leader #7 * February 10, 2003

Iowa Education Leader #7 * February 10, 2003
A policy and advocacy update from the Iowa Department of Education

In the December issue of the Iowa Education Leader, I outlined some of the deeper economic forces that are driving change in education policy, and explained that the federal No Child Left Behind Act is the political response to those forces. (For your reference, you can find that issue at http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ootd/iel/index.html.) I also pointed out that by recognizing those underlying needs and working productively to solve them, we are in the best position to respond to this new policy and future waves of legislative demands as well.

Today I want to outline for you as clearly and as comprehensively as possible the manner in which I believe Iowa needs to respond to this new federal policy. Because of new perspectives available, I have waited until our last planning component was submitted. As a result, this Education Leader will be much longer than usual. But I think we need all the major facts in one place, including some history of our efforts as well as the some important specifics of Iowa's plans for implementation of NCLB.

The No Child Left Behind Act represents a very substantial change not only the federal role in state and local education policy, but also in the manner in which public education has come to be viewed. The challenge for us as Iowa educators will be to respond directly and forcefully to the student needs underlying this legislation, and also to manage the federal policy in a way that it complements, rather than frustrates, our work in meeting those student needs. I do not believe it was the intent of Congress to create barriers to improving student performance. But I also believe that this legislation was not specifically designed for the educational context of our state, and we must use the flexibility allowed by the law and by the United States Department of Education if we are to ensure that No Child Left Behind is a catalyst for school improvement rather than a distraction from it.

We have worked hard to establish a good working relationship with the leadership and staff of the USDE and I must report to you that efforts by these federal leaders have been reciprocal. As in any collaborative relationship, trust grows out of a better understanding of mutual needs. There have been numerous opportunities to attend meetings with the Secretary and his leadership staff or to attend special academies and workshops, and we have accepted every invitation. In late December, four of us representing Iowa met for over two hours with Undersecretary Gene Hickok, Assistant Secretary Susan Neuman, Special Counselor Susan Sclafani, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Relations Laurie Rich and six to ten other USDE staff. We had the chance to tell Iowa's story, to talk about our culture of community commitment, to explain our strategy of continuous improvement, and to describe our efforts over several year's time to improve instruction. These meetings have resulted in a growing understanding that Iowa's schools are already most willing to set high expectations for students and to be accountable for helping students to meet those expectations. What Iowa schools need is support rather than just compliance. We need to continue to offer better professional development opportunities to support more effective instruction and more effective leadership.

In telling our story to others, we have found a good opportunity to take stock of what we really are doing. In a typically Iowa way, many of us may not have paused to take note of the substantial accomplishments and commitments of the last few years. When viewed in total, there are very few states that have accomplished so much. Those of us in the state may see that we are not yet where we would like to be and we are eager for improvement, but we cannot lose sight of the progress so far. I have summarized some of those major accomplishments in an attachment to this Education Leader. If you don't take the time to read it now, you may want to take a glance at a later date.

Iowa's Plan for NCLB

We believe that Iowa continues to proceed in exactly the direction envisioned by President Bush and the Congress as they adopted the No Child Left Behind Act. In Iowa, we are willing to compare the extent of our commitment with any state. We will not lower our performance expectations for students in response to pending implementation of NCLB. It is not our intention to seek waivers from any of the requirements outlined in the law. Iowa's approach is indeed helping students learn to their highest capacity, and we believe that it is well within the discretion for the US Department of Education to provide the flexibility needed to approve Iowa's unique but effective approach for improving student performance.

As we move forward with implementation of NCLB, it becomes clear that what distinguishes Iowa from most states is not our policy of setting standards locally. It is our good fortune in working in a state that has a history of high student performance that is fairly uniform across both large and small districts. In Iowa, we find that nearly 90% of our schools score above the national median on nationally standardized tests. We have many parents of little wealth, but we do not have the degree of poverty seen in many states. We do not have huge and dysfunctional urban districts whose complexities sap the strength of the state's system. Even more remarkably, in seven years as chief in Iowa, I have not spoken with a single teacher, administrator, board member, or state policymaker who feels satisfied with the current level of performance. We still have unacceptable achievement gaps among students of different racial or socioeconomic backgrounds, and we have not reached an acceptable proportion of students who leave our high schools prepared to succeed in postsecondary education. While we have problems, we are more inclined to want to solve them than to complain about them. Our experience in Iowa is that districts do not need to be prodded with severe sanctions to set high goals and strive for continuous improvement.

Foremost among my learning with regard to improving student performance is the stark and unremitting realization that strengthening accountability is only a fractional part of improving student performance. Other states may have had different experiences with the effectiveness of a singular focus on accountability, but in Iowa, where education is so consistently valued and supported, communities already insist on high student performance and they do so absent any coercion from the state level. The strongest evidence of this commitment to high expectations is the fact that our current level of student performance easily ranks in the top five or 10 of all states, even though the typical predictors of large group student performance - family income and parent education level - would cause us to be ranked 32^nd and 40^th respectively. If Iowa is to advance to even higher levels of student performance, we have known for some time that we will have to move well beyond the focus on accountability and respond to the more difficult challenges of building capacity to meet the new expectations.

Several studies - both nationally and here in the state - provide strong evidence to show that the chief instrument to "build capacity" for higher levels of student performance will be our actions to improve classroom instruction and provide better support to that instructional practice. A strong set of supports to improve instruction is a most necessary complement to any system of accountability. I am not willing to trade our investment in improving instruction to substantially increase activities directed only at monitoring compliance. That is not to say that we will not need to tolerate increased data collection and reporting, but the development of better data systems and the local use of that data will be essential to improving instruction.

Highlights of Iowa's NCLB Compliance
The Iowa Department of Education submitted the first component of our application and plan to implement NCLB in June of 2002. We submitted our plan for the accountability component on January 31, 2003. Between now and June of 2003 we expect complete approval of our implementation plan. Our latest submission was a "workbook" of very specific answers to very specific questions. Because of that format, it may not be easy to determine the full set of strategies that Iowa will use so I will outline the major components below. (If you would like to take a look at the actual workbook, it should be online later this week at the NCLB portion of our Department's web site.) I am very pleased that Judy Jeffrey and the team from our Division on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education have been able to put together a plan that adheres to the principles outlined below. Please remember that these elements are not final and are subject to further negotiation and eventual approval by the USDE.

Principles for Iowa's NCLB Plan:

Consistent with Iowa's current philosophy of continuous improvement, all school districts and all schools are expected to improve student performance and they continue to be accountable for improving student performance.

The operating philosophy of No Child Left Behind focuses on low performing schools and attaches sanctions to those that do not improve. Iowa's plan asks that all schools and school districts set goals to work toward full proficiency but will only attach federal sanctions to lack of progress if they are Title I schools and fall under the federal baseline that Iowa must establish.

Focus required federal sanctions and corrective actions on the lowest performing Title I schools and districts.

Historically, Iowa has not needed to rely on negative sanctions as an incentive to school improvement. Iowa's plan will only attach the federal sanctions to schools and districts that fall below the federally required baseline and only those schools that receive Title I funds. The State Board of Education will sponsor a recognition program for all districts that significantly reduce achievement gaps among specified sub groups.
Allow school districts and schools the maximum reasonable time to meet the requirements of Adequate Yearly Progress to better provide time to build professional development capacity to support improved student performance.

By using features from the five state plans that received early approval from the USDE, Iowa's plan seeks to minimize the rapid identification of a large number of schools and districts that will be labeled as not making adequate progress. While more schools will continue to be identified, the number will be much lower than originally thought and sanctions will not accrue as quickly. This defers the demand for rapid progress, but still supports the requirement to reach 100% proficiency by 2014.

Continues to support the growth and development of good local assessment practices that more effectively drive instruction and not demand that the more complex data from those autonomous systems be utilized in the determination of Adequate Yearly Progress.

Iowa's plan relies on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development for the "single statewide accountability system" required in the federal law. While these are norm referenced tests, the 2000 norms will be held constant in our reporting for this purpose for as long as necessary. The plan takes a defensible position that we can use a "criterion referenced interpretation" of these tests that is more than adequate for accountability purposes. National testing experts will support this position because the Iowa tests are constructed based on a thorough review of content standards of national organizations, states and school districts so the decision regarding "proficient" or "not proficient" is a valid one.

Continues to support several years of work by school districts in Iowa in developing standards and benchmarks without adverse impact on those districts as a result of Iowa's policy.

Iowa school districts can continue to work on their efforts to align instruction and assessments independent of the federal accountability system. This means that the local assessment systems that have more depth and will be most effective in driving instructional improvement need not be standardized from district to district.
Determine accountability on the percentage of students proficient.

Iowa's plan calls for the state to continue to monitor progress in 4^th, 8^th, and 11^th grade reading and mathematics until the 2005-06 school year. At that point, the state will begin monitoring all grades 3-8 and 11 for reading and mathematics.

Iowa's workbook provides information in the following areas:

Definitions of how and who is to be included in the accountability system.
Timelines for reporting to the public and identification of schools in need of improvement.
Assurance that the state will implement the corrective actions and sanctions required by federal law.
Definitions of "full academic year" as needed to determine AYP.
Iowa's method of AYP implementation - "the relative contribution" model.
The annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals for the state.
The minimum numbers required for individual grades and subgroups for participation rates (40) and achievement/accountability gains (30) to be included in AYP determinations.
Continuation of a minimum group size of 10 for reporting purposes for grades, content areas, and subgroups.
Assessment process and timeline for of all ELL students in reading and mathematics.
Timelines for a graduation rate formula to be included in AYP.
Additional academic indicators for elementary and middle schools for AYP.
Rationale for using ITBS/ITED as the sole measure for proficiency at the state, district and school level.

Conclusion

I believe that Iowa's plan builds on the state's existing and future strengths, allowing us to continue our efforts to build capacity, while we also implement the essential requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. In the final analysis, our implementation may differ from many other states in that we complement our accountability with the commitment to continue to build our capacity to improve instruction. I do not see any reason to compromise the principles outlined above. I would certainly appreciate any reactions that you might have.

You will continue to receive more detailed information about our plan, but we will not be sending specific guidance until we receive approval.

Iowa Education Leader will be distributed periodically from Iowa Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill. To send comments or receive a faxed copy, please contact editor Kathi Slaughter, 515/281-5651, kathi.slaughter@ed.state.ia.us.

###

Attachment

Iowa Education Leader #7 * February 10, 2003
A policy and advocacy update from the Iowa Department of Education

“In telling our story to others, we have found a good opportunity to take stock of what we really are doing. In a typically Iowa way, many of us may not have paused to take note of the substantial accomplishments and commitments of the last few years. When viewed in total, there are very few states that have accomplished so much. Those of us in the state may see that we are not yet where we would like to be and we are eager for improvement, but we cannot lose sight of the progress so far.”

I have summarized some of those major accomplishments in this attachment to the February 10, 2003, Iowa Education Leader. If you don’t take the time to read it now, you may want to take a glance at a later date.

Efforts to Build Capacity for Improving Instruction

Iowa has embarked on some of the most dramatic system changes in the country to build capacity and provide improved instruction and improve teacher quality. We have acted on our understanding that teacher effectiveness is critical to improving student performance and teacher efficacy is essential to professional satisfaction.

· Over the last 10 years, Iowa has worked aggressively to direct the assets of the strongest system of intermediate education agencies in the country toward improved instruction and school improvement. By establishing a statewide accreditation system for Iowa’s Area Education Agencies, Iowa has one of the premier systems in place for supporting professional development and school improvement. It is the only intermediate system in the country that has accountability for student performance as part of its required purpose.

· Iowa has established a substantive change in the way teachers are prepared and licensed. The implementation of performance-based licensure involved unprecedented collaboration among state leaders and teacher preparation programs. Now every candidate for initial licensure in Iowa demonstrates that they can meet performance standards in teaching rather than just the completion of the required coursework.

· Perhaps the most remarkable accomplishment has been the passage of Iowa’s Teacher Quality and Student Achievement policy in the spring of 2001. While there is disappointment that economic downturns have frustrated the planned expansion of this program, the Governor and the General Assembly have maintained their commitment to the policy even in the most difficult of financial circumstances. Key components of the policy include:

· Uniform standards for teaching performance.

· A powerful two-year induction program with trained mentors, now in the second year of implementation.

· A uniform evaluation to enter “career” status as a gateway to continued teaching in Iowa.

· Training of 1,500 evaluators to implement this program. Because we know that the capacity to use data is essential, each of the evaluators has also received training in “Data Driven Leadership.”

· The Governor and the legislature have allocated $90 million since 1999 to reduce K-3 class sizes and providing access to intensive professional development for research-based teaching strategies.

· Iowa has targeted more than $4 million in federal funds from Title I, Special Education, etc. for the development and dissemination of highly effective professional development to improve instructional strategies in reading. Typical training sequences for K-3 teams span two to three years and are based on our partnership with national experts and CIERA. We have scaled up from a small pilot program for a few school buildings to providing intensive reading instruction training for a statewide reading network of individuals who are now available to work directly with school sites. Over this period of time we have reached more than 1,000 educators. One thing we have learned in this process is the intensive professional development that is needed to support change in teaching practices is costly, not only in dollars but also in the human resources. But that investment results in improved student achievement

· Establishment of a statewide reading team has provided a strong base of experts throughout the state who can directly assist schools in their improvement work. This strategy provides the ongoing and intensive assistance needed to change practices. Although we use experts to provide theory, we depend heavily on the resources of people who live and work close to the school site and who can work directly with the teachers in their classrooms frequently and over time.

· Because we know that every adult in the school must be prepared to impact instruction, Iowa also has created and implemented a system for paraeducator preparation and licensure.

· Our next steps are to make recommendations for a professional development system built on high quality, long-term blocks of learning that will focus on improved instructional strategies for all teachers. We will also recommend an “advanced” level for teachers who will be leaders, mentors, and trainers for other teachers. Our rate of progress in this regard may be limited by available funding. We will proceed with further development only when substantially increased funding for compensation is available.

Efforts to Increase Focus on Results and to Improve Accountability

Accountability, which is central to NCLB, has been a critical element in Iowa’s school improvement effort for the past several years. I believe that Iowa has taken steps that are in fact more aggressive in actual implementation of accountability than you might find in many states.

· In 1998 the Iowa General Assembly established a new system for accrediting Iowa’s K-12 school districts and that law, together with the ensuing regulations from the State Board of Education, aligned state and federal requirements for school districts. The Comprehensive School Improvement Plans required by this law consolidate 11 state and federal planning requirements and Annual Reports. This allows local districts to focus on one plan and one set of results for all students.

· Our department has approved content and achievement standards as established by every district in our state.

· We have documented that the standards set by districts in reading and mathematics have been reviewed in accordance with consistent criteria established by the Iowa Department of Education.

· Every school district has been developing a comprehensive assessment system that measures their standards through both a norm-referenced assessment and other multiple means that provide data to the classroom teacher, the district, the community, and the state.

· Every school district in our state as been reporting desegregated data on state-set student proficiency levels for three years.

· We have been reporting on proficiency levels for reading and mathematics for grades 4, 8, and 11 at the state leve; for four years.

· Every school district provides a school report card to their community and to our department that details student achievement in not only reading and mathematics, but also in readiness for postsecondary, drop-outs, etc.

· We are in our third year of identifying “schools in need of improvement” and in our second year of providing support and resources in the way of training and programs to assist those schools in their improvement efforts.

Iowa continues to invest in a multi-purpose assessment system that integrates the need to drive improved instruction and the need to report clearly to parents and others with the need to demonstrate accountability to any external audience.

· All Iowa districts use the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development. Approximately 95% of our districts already test in grades 3-8 using this instrument.

· We have worked extensively with the Iowa Testing Programs at the University of Iowa to develop a criterion referenced interpretation of both the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development. The nationally renowned experts at Iowa Testing Programs have been of particular assistance to our Department of Education and to local districts in developing the needed reporting for federal purposes. As a result, we are able to report the required three bands of achievement with both validity and reliability using this methodology.

· Because we have been able to respond to state-level testing issues more efficiently, we have been able to direct much more development support to assist districts with their local assessment planning and implementation. Each district has in place an assessment system that responds directly to their local standards. In September of this year, we awarded a grant to the University of Iowa to provide assistance to all districts in verifying the technical adequacy of their assessments. This will be accomplished this spring through a series of regional workshops and direct assistance to the districts.

· In 2000, when districts indicated that they needed support in identifying or developing multiple assessments, the Iowa Department of Education provided the resources and support to a state collaborative to develop and implement stand-alone assessment modules that are aligned to content standards. These standards-referenced modules are available to school districts to independently determine which subset, if any, of assessment modules they will administer as part of their district-wide assessment system. Each assessment module is group administered under specified conditions and then scored by panels across the state that are trained under uniform conditions. These modules provide a low-cost method for school districts to “augment” the norm-referenced assessments. Districts may choose other assessments to measure their standards if they so choose.

· Our experience with schools that are most effective in improving student performance indicates that the review of data from classroom and building level assessments and the use of this information to modify instruction is the most effective practice. We have since embedded this concept into professional development and have established the tracking of implementation data as a standard practice in quality professional development sponsored by the state or regional educational entities. It is clearly these more frequent local assessments that drive instructional improvement, not the once-a-year state assessment.

We are Showing Results!

Our efforts are showing results.

· Iowa was assaulted by severe economic changes in the 1980s and was slow to respond to the emerging needs of families and young students. Beginning in the lower grades, statewide indicators of student performance declined for nearly a decade. That decline has ended and statewide proficiency levels have begun to improve as a result of the work outlined above. Following nine years of slightly declining levels in the percentage of fourth grade students reading proficiently at the state level, we have seen increases in each of the last two years. As these increases occurred we have also included virtually all 4^th grade students in these assessments.

· Some analyses show that Iowa’s students with disabilities are scoring at the highest level of any in the nation.

###