[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3168-S3169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 3316. A bill provide for flexibility and improvements in 
elementary and 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 the statute.
  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 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 form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' 
level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the 
``proficient'' line.
  Second, 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.

[[Page S3169]]

  Third, 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 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 while still ensuring accountability.
  Fourth, 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 three years, and 
would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary.
  Fifth, 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.
  Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater 
flexibility and common sense modifications to address the key NCLB 
challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a 
good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed 
teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and 
accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization 
process.
                                 ______