[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5214-S5218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1236. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of

[[Page S5215]]

1965 regarding highly qualified teachers, growth models, adequate 
yearly progress, Native American language programs, and parental 
involvement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am 
introducing entitled the School Accountability Improvements Act. We all 
know about No Child Left Behind, the Federal legislation that was 
introduced in 2001. We recognize that NCLB made significant changes to 
Federal requirements for school districts in our States. Many of these 
changes have been very positive and truly quite necessary. Because of 
No Child Left Behind, there is clearly more national attention being 
paid to ensure that school districts and the States are held 
accountable for the achievement of students with disabilities and for 
those who are economically disadvantaged and for minority students.
  In Alaska, this has meant, for example, that more of our urban school 
districts are paying closer attention than ever to the needs of our 
Alaska Native students. People across the Nation are also more aware 
that a teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability 
to teach that subject are perhaps the most important factors in a 
child's achievement in school. Teachers, parents, administrators, and 
communities have more data now than they have ever had, more data about 
the achievement of the individual students and the subgroups of 
students and about our schools. With that data, we are making changes 
to school policies and procedures, and more students are now getting 
the help they need to succeed.
  While these are just a few of the positive effects of No Child Left 
Behind, we recognize there have been problems. This is not surprising, 
as it is quite difficult to write one law that will work for a large 
urban city such as New York City in the East and have that be made 
generally applicable to a small remote rural community such as 
Nuiqsuit, AK.
  My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act, is meant to 
address five issues that we have identified in Alaska that are of 
particular concern to our State and of equal concern to other States. 
The first area we are focusing on would give flexibility to States 
regarding NCLB's highly qualified teacher requirements. In very small 
rural schools, particularly in my State, we will see a school where you 
have one teacher who is tasked with teaching multiple course subjects 
in the middle and in the high school grades.
  Under NCLB, the requirement is that the teacher must be highly 
qualified in each of these subject matter areas. But I have been 
listening to some of the teachers out in my remote communities. They 
may be hired to be the English teacher, but in a remote community with 
a small school, something may happen during the year. Say, the science 
teacher or the math teacher has left in the middle of the school year--
not an uncommon situation--they are not able to get anyone into that 
school to help. So now the English teacher is tasked to teach another 
subject.
  Under NCLB, he or she would then be required to be highly qualified 
in every subject they teach. So what my legislation would allow is for 
middle and high school teachers who work in schools with fewer than 200 
students and that have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified 
teachers in these areas to be deemed to be ``highly qualified'' if they 
have a degree or they pass a rigorous subject matter test in one of the 
core subjects they teach, as long as they can demonstrate they are 
highly effective at delivering instruction on a State-developed 
performance assessment.
  We are doing this in the State of Alaska now, where essentially a 
teacher can demonstrate, through the use of a video, their teaching 
methodology. But we must recognize we will have situations in our 
smaller schools, in our rural schools, where in order to be highly 
qualified in every core subject area they are teaching, we simply are 
not able to meet that. So we are asking for a level of flexibility for 
the States.
  We recognize it is vital that the teachers know the subjects they 
teach. This is critical. But it is also unreasonable to expect teachers 
in these very tiny schools to meet the current requirements in every 
single subject they may end up teaching. It is almost impossible for 
school districts to find and then hire such teachers. So this provision 
is offered as a compromise in these limited situations.
  The second area the legislation focuses on is how we determine or how 
we calculate Adequate Yearly Progress. My legislation would require the 
U.S. Department of Education to approve a State's use of a growth model 
for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress if that model meets the core 
requirements of No Child Left Behind.
  Now, we know it can be useful for teachers, certainly for the 
administrators, to know how one group of third grade students, how one 
class compares to, say, the next year's class. But it is much more 
useful for educators, students, and parents to know how well each 
individual child has mastered each year's State standards.
  As a parent, yes, I want to know how my son's class is advancing as a 
whole. But as a parent, I want to know how he is doing from year to 
year, not just how his third grade class did and how the next class 
coming up behind him is going to do. I want to know what it means for 
me and my child as an individual.
  Schools should be held accountable for how well they are addressing 
each child's needs. Is the child proficient? Is he or she on track to 
be proficient? Or is he or she falling behind? These are things parents 
want to know. Are the schools making great progress in bringing all 
children to great proficiency, or are they maybe just missing the mark, 
or are they having very systemic difficulties? We know so many of the 
States now have very robust data systems that will allow them to track 
this information. NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model 
that is going to be most useful. It will actually be the best indicator 
of how each child is doing.
  Another area the legislation addresses is the issue of school choice 
and tutoring. As you know, No Child Left Behind gives parents an 
opportunity to move their children out of a dysfunctional school. If 
the school fails to meet AYP 2 years running, then the next choice that 
is offered the parent is your child can go to another school. In some 
parts of my State, that is geographically, physically impossible, and 
we have made accommodations around that. In the more urban school 
districts in Alaska, what we have found is parents are not choosing, as 
a general rule, to exercise that option. They are looking for something 
else. The law requires school districts to offer the school choice and 
to set aside funds to pay for the transportation in year 2 of 
improvement status. Then, in year 3, schools are required to offer 
tutoring if they reach that needs improvement status then.
  What I am suggesting in my legislation as to school choice is that 
moving children in year 2, if we fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, 
is too early in the process. Schools should be given the opportunity to 
address their deficiencies first, addressing them first within the 
school before they transport the students all over town. I think most 
parents agree with this. This is why, at least in Alaska, we are seeing 
fewer than 2 percent of parents choosing to transfer their children to 
another school. They would rather have those supplemental services 
offered in the school to see if they can't help address the needs of 
the child. Then if it still does not work, let's look to the next 
option.
  So my bill would flip the school choice and the tutoring. It would 
also limit the requirement for schools to offer these options to 
students who are not proficient rather than to all the children, 
including those who are being well served by the school. It would also 
allow the school districts to provide tutoring to students even if they 
are in improvement status. It is recognizing, again, we should look at 
the individual child and see if we can't tailor this to make it more 
responsive.
  As you know, assessing whether a child is proficient on State 
standards in a reliable and valid way is difficult. It is even more 
difficult when the child has a disability or has limited 
English proficiency. Research has not caught up with assessments for 
these subgroups, and no one is completely sure

[[Page S5216]]

whether the tests they are giving these students are measuring what 
they know. Yet, NCLB requires that if a school does not make AYP for 
any subgroup for 6 years, the school district has the option to 
completely restructure that school. Similarly, a State has the option 
to restructure an entire school district.

  For those truly dysfunctional schools and districts, that may be 
appropriate as determined by the individual district or State. But if 
we do not even know if the assessment scores are valid and reliable, 
how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, turning 
its governance over to another entity, or other such drastic measures? 
We cannot. But we recognize that each child with a disability, and each 
child who is limited English proficient deserves the best possible 
education.
  So that is why my bill would not allow a school or a school district 
to be restructured if: No. 1, the school missed AYP for one or both of 
those subgroups alone; and, No. 2, the school can show through a growth 
model that the students in those two subgroups are on track to be 
proficient.
  Another area in the legislation we focus on is our Native heritage 
languages. In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native 
Americans are working hard to keep their heritage languages and their 
cultures alive. Teachers will tell you, and the research backs them up, 
that Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian students 
learn better when their heritage is a respected and vibrant part of 
their education. This is true of any child, but I think particularly 
true for these groups of Americans.
  Many schools around the country that serve these students have 
incorporated native language programs into their early curriculums--the 
curriculums in grades K-3. The problem is that in many instances, there 
is no valid and reliable way to assess whether the students have 
learned their State standards in that language. Neither is it valid to 
test what a student knows in a language they do not speak well.
  The example I will give you is that in the Lower Kuskokwim School 
District, in many of the schools, in an effort to get the children to 
connect with their education and to connect with their Yupik heritage, 
Yupik is taught in grades K-3. It is an immersion level program. If you 
go out there, the children are reading in Yupik. They are doing their 
math in Yupik. They are doing science experiments in Yupik. But then, 
in grade 3, they are required to test, under NCLB, in English.
  Now, not surprisingly, the children are not doing well on these 
tests. We need to anticipate the results. If you have not taught a 
child in a language in which they are going to be tested, perhaps, 
initially, they are not going to be performing at the level we want.
  I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance I believe we 
should place on allowing for those heritage languages to be preserved, 
to encourage our students in languages. Our research tells us--and I 
can tell you from a very personal experience with my two boys, who were 
part of a Spanish immersion program from the time they were in 
kindergarten through 8th grade in the public schools in Anchorage, they 
learned their sciences and math and geography and all their subjects in 
Spanish as well as English. Initially, you are a little anxious 
because: Are the test scores going to measure up? But what we can tell 
you is that by the time the children are being tested, certainly up in 
middle school, they are not only testing strong--very strong in both 
languages--but they know a second language very well.
  What my legislation will do in this area is allow schools with Native 
American language programs in States where there is no assessment in 
that heritage language to count the third graders--the first time they 
take the standardized tests--to count the students for participation 
rate only. It would then allow the school to make AYP if those students 
are proficient or on track to be proficient in grades 4 through 7.
  Then, the final area of my legislation is what I am calling the 
parent piece. As a parent, we know--you know; my colleague from the 
State of Washington was very involved with education before she came to 
the Senate as well--we all know as parents how important it is to be 
involved in our children's education.
  At the end of the day, not only did my husband and I check on our 
boys' homework, we asked them: What happened today? What is going on? I 
was PTA president at my kids' elementary school.
  NCLB recognizes that in many ways it is very important that parents 
are part of a child's education. But we also recognize we can be doing 
more. My bill would amend title II of NCLB, which authorizes subgrants 
for preparing, training, and recruiting teachers and principals, to 
allow--but not mandate--these funds to be used to develop parental 
engagement strategies, to train educators to communicate more 
effectively with parents, and better involve parents in their schools.
  We all know how great our Nation's teachers are. But our reality is, 
very few of them graduate from college having had a course on how to 
effectively communicate with parents. They know how important it is, 
but they are taught no techniques. Teachers are busy people. When a 
parent shows up at a classroom door and says: Hey, I am here to help, 
teachers often do not know how to react, how to allow them to help. 
Many teachers have difficulty communicating with parents, who may be 
working two jobs or have a different cultural background or language. 
This section of the bill would allow schools to spend some of their 
teacher training funds on these sorts of issues if they feel it would 
benefit their students.
  I know these five issues are not the only ones my colleagues and 
Americans may have with the No Child Left Behind Act. I have been 
talking with Alaskans all over the State about NCLB since I first came 
to the Senate. I look forward to working very hard on the 
reauthorization of the law this year with my colleagues. These, though, 
are the five issues that educators and parents in Alaska have told me 
are the most urgent for them, and I look forward to working to include 
them in the reauthorization as we move forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1236

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``School Accountability 
     Improvements Act''.

     SEC. 2. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN SMALL SCHOOLS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     teachers in public elementary and secondary schools know the 
     subject matter and curriculum that they are teaching and can 
     convey the subject matter to students.
       (b) Highly Qualified Teachers of Multiple Academic Subjects 
     in Small Schools.--Section 1119(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Exception for multi-subject teachers in small 
     schools.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 9101(23) or any 
     other provision of this Act, a middle or secondary school 
     teacher who is employed to teach multiple core academic 
     subjects in a school designated as a small school under 
     subparagraph (B) but who is not highly qualified as the term 
     is defined in such section, shall be deemed to be highly 
     qualified for purposes of this Act if the teacher--
       ``(i) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) of such 
     section;
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of subclause (I) or (II) of 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) of such section for 1 or more of the 
     core academic subjects that the teacher teaches; and
       ``(iii) demonstrates highly effective delivery of 
     instruction on a performance assessment, developed or adopted 
     by the State within which the small school is located, that 
     assesses skills that are widely accepted as necessary for the 
     effective delivery of instruction.
       ``(B) Small school.--A State educational agency shall 
     designate a school as a small school for a school year if the 
     State educational agency determines, based on evidence 
     provided by the local educational agency serving the school, 
     that the school--
       ``(i) has unique staffing or hiring challenges that require 
     1 or more teachers at the school to teach multiple core 
     academic subjects for such year;
       ``(ii) has made a reasonable effort to recruit and retain 
     for such year middle or secondary school teachers who meet 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A) and either subparagraph 
     (B) or (C) of section 9101(23), to teach all students 
     attending the school; and

[[Page S5217]]

       ``(iii) had an average daily student membership of less 
     than 200 students for the previous full school year.''.

     SEC. 3. GROWTH MODELS.

       Section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(L) Growth models.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a State that desires to 
     satisfy the requirements of a single, statewide State 
     accountability system under subparagraph (A) through the use 
     of a growth model, the Secretary shall approve such State's 
     use of the growth model if--

       ``(I) the State plan ensures that 100 percent of students 
     in each group described in subparagraph (C)(v)--

       ``(aa) meet or exceed the State's proficient level of 
     academic achievement on the State assessments under paragraph 
     (3) by the 2013-2014 school year; or
       ``(bb) are making sufficient progress to enable each 
     student to meet or exceed the State's proficient level on 
     such assessments for the student's corresponding grade level 
     not later than the student's final year in secondary school;

       ``(II) the State plan complies with all of the requirements 
     of this paragraph, except as provided in clause (ii);
       ``(III) the growth model is based on a fully approved 
     assessment system;
       ``(IV) the growth model calculates growth in student 
     proficiency for the purposes of determining adequate yearly 
     progress either by individual students or by cohorts of 
     students, and may use methodologies, such as confidence 
     intervals and the State-approved minimum designations, that 
     will yield statistically reliable data;
       ``(V) the growth model includes all students; and
       ``(VI) in the case of a growth model that tracks individual 
     students, the State has the capacity to track and manage the 
     data efficiently and effectively.

       ``(ii) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, for purposes of any provision that requires the 
     calculation of a number or percentage of students who must 
     meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement 
     on a State assessment under paragraph (3), a State using a 
     growth model approved under clause (i) shall calculate such 
     number or percentage by counting--

       ``(I) the students who meet or exceed the proficient level 
     of academic achievement on the State assessment; and
       ``(II) the students who, as demonstrated through the growth 
     model, are making sufficient progress to enable each student 
     to meet or exceed the proficient level on the assessment for 
     the student's corresponding grade level not later than the 
     student's final year in secondary school.''.

     SEC. 4. SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.

       (a) School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services.--
     Section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) Supplemental educational services.--In the case of a 
     school identified for school improvement under this 
     paragraph, the local educational agency shall, not later than 
     the first day of the school year following such 
     identification, make supplemental educational services 
     available consistent with subsection (e)(1).''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (F);
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Failure to make adequate yearly progress after 
     identification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any school served under 
     this part that fails to make adequate yearly progress, as set 
     out in the State's plan under section 1111(b)(2), by the end 
     of the first full school year after identification under 
     paragraph (1), the local educational agency serving such 
     school shall--
       ``(i) provide students in grades 3 through 12 who are 
     enrolled in the school and who did not meet or exceed the 
     proficient level on the most recent State assessment in 
     mathematics or in reading or language arts with the option to 
     transfer to another public school served by the local 
     educational agency in accordance with subparagraph (B);
       ``(ii) continue to make supplemental educational services 
     available consistent with subsection (e)(1); and
       ``(iii) continue to provide technical assistance.
       ``(B) Public school choice.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out subparagraph (A)(i) with 
     respect to a school, the local educational agency serving 
     such school shall, not later than the first day of the school 
     year following such identification, provide all students 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) with the option to transfer 
     to another public school served by the local educational 
     agency, which may include a public charter school, that has 
     not been identified for school improvement under this 
     paragraph, unless such an option is prohibited by State law.
       ``(ii) Rule.--In providing students the option to transfer 
     to another public school, the local educational agency shall 
     give priority to the lowest achieving children from low-
     income families, as determined by the local educational 
     agency for purposes of allocating funds to schools under 
     section 1113(c)(1).
       ``(C) Transfer.--Students who use the option to transfer 
     under subparagraph (A)(i), paragraph (7)(C)(i) or (8)(A)(i), 
     or subsection (c)(10)(C)(vii) shall be enrolled in classes 
     and other activities in the public school to which the 
     students transfer in the same manner as all other children at 
     the public school.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (8)(A)(i), by striking ``all''.
       (b) Supplemental Educational Services Providers.--Section 
     1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6316(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (13);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Rule regarding providers.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (13)(B), a local educational agency identified under 
     subsection (c) that is required to arrange for the provision 
     of supplemental educational services under this subsection 
     may serve as a provider of such services in accordance with 
     this subsection.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (13)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1)), by inserting ``, who is in any of grades 3 through 12 
     and who did not meet or exceed the proficient level on the 
     most recent State assessment in mathematics or in reading or 
     language arts'' before the semicolon.

     SEC. 5. CALCULATING ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS FOR STUDENTS 
                   WITH DISABILITIES AND STUDENTS WITH LIMITED 
                   ENGLISH PROFICIENCY.

       Section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (as amended by section 4) (20 U.S.C. 6316) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Partial Satisfaction of AYP.--
       ``(1) Schools.--Notwithstanding this section or any other 
     provision of law, in the case of a school that failed to make 
     adequate yearly progress under section 1111(b)(2) solely 
     because the school did not meet or exceed 1 or more annual 
     measurable objectives set by the State under section 
     1111(b)(2)(G) for the subgroup of students with disabilities 
     or students with limited English proficiency, or both such 
     subgroups--
       ``(A) if such school is identified for school improvement 
     under subsection (b)(1), such school shall only be required 
     to develop or revise and implement a school plan under 
     subsection (b)(3) with respect to each such subgroup that did 
     not meet or exceed each annual measurable objective; and
       ``(B) if such school is identified for restructuring under 
     subsection (b)(8), the local educational agency serving such 
     school shall not be required to implement subsection 
     (b)(8)(B) if the local educational agency demonstrates to the 
     State educational agency that the school would have made 
     adequate yearly progress for each assessment and for each 
     such subgroup for the most recent school year if the 
     percentage of students who met or exceeded the proficient 
     level of academic achievement on the State assessment was 
     calculated by counting--
       ``(i) the students who met or exceeded such proficient 
     level; and
       ``(ii) the students who are making sufficient progress to 
     enable each such student to meet or exceed the proficient 
     level on the assessment for the student's corresponding grade 
     level not later than the student's final year in secondary 
     school, as demonstrated through a growth model that meets the 
     requirements described in subclauses (III) through (VI) of 
     section 1111(b)(2)(L)(i).
       ``(2) Local educational agencies.--Notwithstanding this 
     section or any other provision of law, in the case of a local 
     educational agency that is identified for corrective action 
     under subsection (c)(10) solely because the local educational 
     agency did not meet or exceed 1 or more annual measurable 
     objectives set by the State under section 1111(b)(2)(G) for 
     the subgroup of students with disabilities or students with 
     limited English proficiency, or both such subgroups, the 
     State educational agency shall not be required to implement 
     subsection (c)(10) if the State educational agency 
     demonstrates to the Secretary that the school would have made 
     adequate yearly progress for each assessment and for each 
     such subgroup if the percentage of students who met or 
     exceeded the proficient level of academic achievement on the 
     State assessment was calculated by counting--
       ``(A) the students who meet or exceed such proficient 
     level; and
       ``(B) the students who are making sufficient progress to 
     enable each such student to meet or exceed the proficient 
     level on the assessment for the student's corresponding grade 
     level not later than the student's final year in secondary 
     school, as demonstrated through a growth model that meets the 
     requirements described in subclauses (III) through (VI) of 
     section 1111(b)(2)(L)(i).''.

     SEC. 6. NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS.

       Section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (as amended by section 3) (20 U.S.C. 
     6316(b)(2)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(M) Native american language programs.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (I) or any other provision of law--
       ``(i) a school serving students who receive not less than a 
     half day of daily Native language instruction in an American 
     Indian language, an Alaska Native language, or Native 
     Hawaiian in at least grades kindergarten through grade 2 for 
     a school year that does

[[Page S5218]]

     not have State assessments under paragraph (3) available in 
     the Native American language taught at the school as provided 
     for in paragraph (3)(C)(ix)(III)--

       ``(I) shall assess students in grade 3 as required under 
     paragraph (3), and such students shall be included in 
     determining if the school met the participation requirements 
     for all groups of students as required under subparagraph 
     (I)(ii) for such school year; and
       ``(II) shall not include such assessment results for 
     students in grade 3 in determining if the school met or 
     exceeded the annual measurable objectives for all groups of 
     students as required under subparagraph (I)(i) for such 
     school year; and

       ``(ii) in the case of a school serving students in any of 
     grades 4 through 8 who received such Native American language 
     instruction, such school shall count for purposes of 
     calculating the percentage of students who met or exceeded 
     the proficient level of academic achievement on the State 
     assessment--

       ``(I) the students who met or exceeded such proficient 
     level; and
       ``(II) the students who are making sufficient progress to 
     enable each such student to meet or exceed such proficient 
     level on the assessment for the student's corresponding grade 
     level by the time the student enters grade 7, as demonstrated 
     through a growth model that meets the requirements described 
     in subclauses (III) through (VI) of paragraph (L)(i).''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVING EFFECTIVE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

       Section 2134 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6634) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(C), by inserting ``one or more 
     parent teacher associations or organizations,'' after ``such 
     local educational agencies,'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Optional Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership that 
     receives a subgrant under this section may use subgrant funds 
     remaining after carrying out all of the activities described 
     in subsection (a) for--
       ``(1) developing parental engagement strategies, with 
     accountability goals, as a key part of the ongoing school 
     improvement plan under section 1116(b)(3)(A) for a school 
     identified for improvement under section 1116(b)(1); or
       ``(2) providing training to teachers, principals, and 
     parents in skills that will enhance effective communication, 
     which training shall--
       ``(A) include the research-based standards and 
     methodologies of effective parent or family involvement 
     programs; and
       ``(B) to the greatest extent possible, involve the members 
     of the local and State parent teacher association or 
     organization in such training activities and in the 
     implementation of school improvement plans under section 
     1116(b)(3)(A).''.

     SEC. 8. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (as amended by sections 4 and 5) (20 U.S.C. 6316) is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (6)(F), by striking ``(1)(E),'';
       (B) in paragraph (7)(C)(i), by striking ``paragraph (1)(E) 
     and (F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     paragraph (5)'';
       (C) in paragraph (8)(A)(i), by striking ``paragraph (1)(E) 
     and (F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     paragraph (5)'';
       (D) in paragraph (9)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(E)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5)(B)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(1)(A), (5),'' and inserting 
     ``(5)(A),''; and
       (E) in paragraph (11), by striking ``(1)(A),'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(10)(C)(vii), by striking 
     ``subsections (b)(1)(E) and (F),'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (b)(5)'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``(1),'' after 
     ``described in paragraph'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1)(A)(ii), by inserting ``(A)'' after 
     ``(b)(5)''; and
       (5) in subsection (g)(3)(A), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(1)(E)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(5)(B)''.
                                 ______