[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1904-S1905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 562. A bill to provide for flexibility and improvements in 
elementary and

[[Page S1905]]

secondary education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child 
Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined 
in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our 
legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine 
and other States in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind 
Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in keeping with the worthy 
goals of NCLB.
  Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet 
with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. 
In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I 
commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation 
issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our 
task force included members from every county in the State and had 
superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, 
business leaders, former State legislators, special education experts, 
assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of 
Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from 
the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.
  After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final 
report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory 
changes to the Act. These recommendations form the basis of the 
legislation that we are introducing today.
  First, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of 
multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the 
``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current 
regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools 
who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special 
education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects 
throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly 
qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional 
time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

  Second, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to States 
in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting State 
education standards. Specifically, it would permit States to use a 
cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of 
students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' 
model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose 
scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' 
level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the 
``proficient'' line.
  Third, our legislation would provide schools with better notice 
regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to 
identify and work with a particular group of students before being 
identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to 
allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The 
changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts 
and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend 
to occur gradually and over time.
  Fourth, our legislation would allow the members of a special 
education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that 
individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that 
assessment to count for all NCLB purposes.
  One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have 
small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup 
size--only 20 students. I was very concerned to hear reports that in 
some schools, special education students fear that they are being 
blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the 
statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it 
would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is 
not working out in practice.
  This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and 
common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a 
special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone 
knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students 
are referred for special education services precisely because they 
cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to 
determine the best test for each special student will bring an 
important improvement to the Act.
  Fifth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's 
current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 
2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review 
progress by the States toward meeting this goal every 3 years, and 
would allow her to modify the timeline as necessary.
  Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater 
flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB 
challenges facing Maine, and other States. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB 
reauthorization process.
                                 ______