[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 102 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7324-S7327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1430. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 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 today to introduce the School 
Accountability Improvements Act.
  As you know, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, 
made significant changes to Federal requirements for schools, school 
districts, and States. Many of these changes have been good, and were 
necessary.
  Because of NCLB, there is more national attention being paid to 
ensuring that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for 
the achievement of students with disabilities, those who are 
economically disadvantaged, and minority students. In my own State of 
Alaska this has meant, for example, that our more urban school 
districts are paying more attention than ever to Alaska Native 
students' needs.
  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 the most important factors in ensuring a child's 
achievement in school.
  Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities have more data 
than ever about the achievement of individual students, subgroups of 
students, and schools. With that data, changes are being made to school 
policies and procedures and more students are getting the help they 
need to succeed in schools.
  While these are just a few of the positive effects of the No Child 
Left Behind Act, there have been problems. This is not surprising, as 
it is difficult to write one law that will work well for both New York 
City and Nuiqsut, AK.
  My bill, the School Accountability Improvements Act is meant to 
address 6 issues that are of particular concern in Alaska and in other 
States around the nation.
  First, my legislation would give flexibility to states regarding 
NCLB's ``Highly Qualified Teacher'' requirements. In very small, rural 
schools, it is common for one teacher to teach multiple core academic 
subjects in the middle and high school grades. NCLB requires that this 
teacher be ``Highly Qualified'' in each of those subjects.
  While it is vital that teachers know the subjects they teach, it is 
also unreasonable to expect teachers in very tiny schools to meet the 
current requirements in every single subject. It is almost impossible 
for tiny, remote school districts to find and hire such teachers. Yet, 
students deserve to have teachers who know the subjects they teach.
  My legislation would provide flexibility by allowing instruction to 
be provided by Highly Qualified teachers by distance delivery if they 
are assisted by teachers on site who are Highly Qualified in a 
different subject. This provision is offered as a compromise in those 
limited situations.
  Second, my legislation would give credit to schools, rather than 
punish them, if students are improving but have not yet reached the 
State's proficiency goals by requiring the U.S. Department of Education 
to allow States to determine schools' success based on individual 
students' growth in proficiency. While it can be useful to teachers and 
administrators to know how one group of third graders compares to the 
next year's class, it is much more useful for educators, students, and 
parents to know how each child is progressing--is the child proficient, 
on track to be proficient, or falling behind? Many States now have the 
robust data systems that will allow them to track this information; 
NCLB should allow them to use the statistical model that will be most 
useful.
  My bill also improves NCLB's requirements for school choice and 
tutoring. No Child Left Behind gave parents an opportunity to move 
their children out of dysfunctional schools. I support that. But the 
law requires school districts offer school choice, and to set aside 
funds to pay for transportation, in Year Two of Improvement Status. 
Schools do not have to tutor the students until the following year. 
This is backwards logic. Schools should be given the opportunity to 
help students learn first before transporting them all over town. I 
think most parents agree, and that is one reason why we are seeing 
fewer than 2 percent of parents choose to transfer their children to 
another school. My bill would require schools to offer tutoring first 
before providing school choice.
  Mr. President, NCLB also requires schools to tutor and offer choice 
to students who are doing well at their neighborhood school. Schools 
should not be forced to set aside desperately needed funds to serve 
students who don't need those services. My bill would require schools 
to provide tutoring and choice only to those students who are not 
proficient. In addition, it would allow school districts to provide 
tutoring to students even if the district is in Improvement Status. 
While school districts may need improvement overall, those same 
districts employ teachers who are fully capable of providing effective 
tutoring.
  Many educators and parents also have concerns about NCLB's 
requirements for Corrective Action and Restructuring. These are very 
significant requirements that can include firing staff and closing 
schools that don't meet the law's AYP requirements. They are even more 
significant if the actions are not based on reliable information.
  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. Some question whether or not the tests we are giving these 
two groups of students are valid and reliable. Yet, NCLB requires 
districts and States to impose significant corrective actions or 
restructure a school completely if a school or district does not make 
AYP for any subgroup repeatedly. For truly dysfunctional schools and 
districts, that may be appropriate.
  But, how do we justify taking over a school, firing its teachers, 
turning its governance over to another entity, or other drastic 
measures if the students are learning but have not yet met the State's 
proficiency benchmarks? We can not.
  That is why my bill would not allow a school or school district to be 
restructured if the school missed AYP for one or both of those 
subgroups alone and the school can show through a growth model that the 
students in those two subgroups are on track to be proficient in a 
reasonable amount of time. Schools that are improving student learning 
should not be dismantled based on potentially invalid test results.
  In Alaska, Hawaii, and several other States, Native Americans are 
working hard to keep their indigenous languages and cultures alive. 
Teachers will tell you, and research supports them, that Alaska 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 particularly true for these groups of Americans.
  Many schools around the country that serve these students have 
incorporated indigenous language programs into their curriculum. The 
problem is that in many instances, there is no valid and reliable way 
to assess whether or not the students have learned the state standards 
in that language. Neither is it valid to test what a student knows in a 
language they do not speak

[[Page S7325]]

well. Research also tells us that students who are learning in a full 
language immersion program do not test well initially, but by 7th grade 
they do as well or better on State tests and they can speak two 
languages.
  My legislation would allow schools with Native American language 
programs in States where there is no assessment in that language to 
calculate Adequate Yearly Progress for third graders by 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.
  Finally, I know as a parent how important it is to my boys that their 
father and I have always been involved in their education. NCLB 
recognizes, in many ways, how important parents are in a child's 
education, but improvements can still be made. My bill would amend 
Title II of NCLB--which authorizes subgrants for preparing, training, 
and recruiting teachers and principals--to allow, but not mandate, more 
parental involvement in our schools. This section of my bill would 
allow parent-teacher associations and organizations to be members of 
federally funded partnerships formed to improve low-performing schools 
and to provide training to teachers and principals to improve parental 
engagement and school-parent communication.
  I can tell you that as wonderful as our Nation's teachers are, very 
few of them graduate from college having had a course in how to 
effectively communicate with parents. Teachers are very busy people, 
and when a parent shows up at the classroom door and says, ``Hi, I'm 
here to help'' teachers often do not know how to react. Many teachers 
have difficulty communicating with parents who may be working two jobs, 
or who have a different cultural background or language. In my view, 
parents should be a part of improving their children's schools, and 
have insights into how communication between school and home can be 
improved.
  I know that these 6 issues are not the only issues that my 
colleagues, Alaskans, and Americans may have with the No Child Left 
Behind Act. I have been talking with Alaskans about NCLB since I came 
to the Senate, and I look forward to working hard on the 
reauthorization of the law this year.
  Mr. President, 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. 1430

       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, RURAL, OR REMOTE 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to ensure that local educational agencies have 
     flexibility in the ways in which the local educational 
     agencies may provide instruction in core academic subjects;
       (2) to provide relief to teachers who are assigned to teach 
     more than two core academic subjects in small, rural, or 
     remote schools; and
       (3) to provide assurances to students that their 
     instructors will have appropriate knowledge of the core 
     academic subjects the instructors teach.
       (b) Highly Qualified Teachers of Multiple Core 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) Special rule for small, rural, or remote schools.--In 
     the case of a local educational agency that is unable to 
     provide a highly qualified teacher to serve as an on-site 
     classroom teacher for a core academic subject in a small, 
     rural, or remote school, the local educational agency may 
     meet the requirements of this section by using distance 
     learning to provide such instruction by a teacher who is 
     highly qualified in the core academic subject, as long as--
       ``(A) the teacher who is highly qualified in the core 
     academic subject--
       ``(i) is responsible for providing at least 50 percent of 
     the direct instruction in the core academic subject through 
     distance learning;
       ``(ii) is responsible for monitoring student progress; and
       ``(iii) is the teacher who assigns the students their 
     grades; and
       ``(B) an on-site teacher who is highly qualified in a 
     subject other the core academic subject taught through 
     distance learning is present in the classroom throughout the 
     period of distance learning and provides supporting 
     instruction and assistance to the students.''.
       (c) Small, Rural, or Remote Schools.--Section 9101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (41) through (43) as 
     paragraphs (42) through (44), respectively;
       (2) in the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (39), 
     by striking ``State.--The'' and inserting the following
       ``(41) State.--The''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (39) the following:
       ``(40) Small, rural, or remote school.--The term `small, 
     rural, or remote school' means a school that--
       ``(A)(i) is served by a local educational agency that meets 
     the eligibility requirements of section 6211(b) or 
     6221(b)(1)(B);
       ``(ii) has an average daily student membership of fewer 
     than 500 students for grades kindergarten through grade 12, 
     inclusive, for the full school year preceding the school year 
     for which the determination is being made under this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(iii) has an average daily membership of fewer than 100 
     students in grades 7 through 12, inclusive, for such 
     preceding full school year; and
       ``(B) has been unable, despite reasonable efforts to do so, 
     to recruit, hire, or retain a sufficient number of teachers 
     who are highly qualified in the core academic subjects for 
     the school year for which the determination is being made 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. GROWTH MODELS.

       Section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (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) the State has the capacity to track and manage the 
     data for the growth model 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 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 State 
     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).''; 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), not later 
     than the first day of the second school year following 
     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

[[Page S7326]]

     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.--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.
       ``(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.'';
       (3) in paragraph (7)(C)(i), by striking ``all''; and
       (4) 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 corrective action or 
     restructuring under paragraph (7) or (8) of subsection (b), 
     respectively, the local educational agency serving such 
     school shall not be required to implement subsection 
     (b)(7)(C)(iv) or subsection (b)(8)(B), respectively, 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 failed to make adequately yearly 
     progress under subsection (c)(1) 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--
       ``(A) if the local educational agency is identified for 
     improvement under subsection (c)(3), the local educational 
     agency shall only be required to develop or revise and 
     implement a local educational agency plan under subsection 
     (c)(7) with respect to each such subgroup that did not meet 
     or exceed each annual measurable objective; and
       ``(B) if the local educational agency is identified for 
     corrective action under subsection (c)(10), the State 
     educational agency shall not be required to implement such 
     subsection if the State educational agency demonstrates to 
     the Secretary that the local educational agency 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--
       ``(i) the students who meet or exceed 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).''.

     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. 
     6311(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 Hawaiian in at 
     least grades kindergarten through grade 2 for a school year 
     that does 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 subparagraph (L)(i).''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVING EFFECTIVE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

       Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2131(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 6631(1)(B)), by 
     inserting ``one or more parent teacher associations or 
     organizations,'' after ``another local educational agency,''; 
     and
       (2) in section 2134 (20 U.S.C. 6634)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(C), by inserting ``one or more 
     parent teacher associations or organizations,'' after ``such 
     local educational agencies,'';
       (B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (C) 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)'';

[[Page S7327]]

       (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)(E),'';
       (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)''.

                          ____________________