[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13028-13029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 28, 2006

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the 
No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2006. This legislation will 
improve accountability for the academic performance of children 
enrolled in the nation's public schools. My bill builds on the major 
reforms of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 signed into law 
on January 8, 2002 and offers improvements that address many of the 
unintended consequences of the federal legislation while holding states 
and school districts accountable.
  As a former teacher, I am committed to providing our nation's 
children with the best possible education. I firmly believe in the 
original goals of NCLB but I understand that a ``one size fits all'' 
approach to student achievement is not possible. Alaska is more than 
two times the size the state of Texas, yet only has a population of 
660,000 compared to the 22.9 million residents of Texas. As you can 
see, providing education services in Alaska can be difficult as 190,000 
Alaskan students are literally scattered over 572,000 square miles.
  Alaska has approximately 500 public schools and they are organized 
into 53 school districts. These include 34 city and borough school 
districts and 19 Regional Educational Attendance Areas which serve 
students living in towns and villages in politically unorganized areas 
of rural Alaska.
  Alaska schools vary greatly in size. High schools in Anchorage, the 
state's largest city, may serve more than 2,000 students. Schools in 
other urban areas such as Juneau, Fairbanks, the Kenai Peninsula, or 
the Matanuska-Susitna Valley may serve hundreds and are similar to 
schools in small cities in the rest of the United States. However, many 
schools in rural areas are small, some with 20 or fewer students at a 
variety of grade levels. They may be many miles from population centers 
and services, and accessible only by aircraft or boat. In remote 
villages, schools often serve as centers of community activity.
  In addition to the geographic barriers, Alaska, like many other 
states is faced with cultural obstacles. There are 20 different Alaska 
Native languages spoken in the state and during the 2004-2005 school 
year, students in the Anchorage School District spoke 95 different 
languages. Roughly 42 percent of students are from ethnic minority 
groups including Native Alaskan, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, 
and African American.
  Alaska is not alone in having to face unique challenges as it 
struggles to educate its children. Each state in this country one has 
geographic, economic or cultural barriers that impede its schools from 
reaching a level of success as mandated by NCLB. My bill will establish 
an improved framework for accountability that fairly and accurately 
assesses student, school, and school district performance. As a result, 
states and local school districts will be able to more strategically 
use their resources to bring about meaningful and measurable results.
  This legislation contains more than 40 provisions that focus on five 
areas: Assessments, Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress, Sanctions, 
State Flexibility by the U.S. Department of Education and Non-Public 
Schools. Specifically the bill provides the following:
  Assessments. The bill offers greater flexibility to states in the use 
of alternate assessments for students with disabilities based on the 
individual education program (IEP) and authorizes states and school 
districts to count the scores in the calculation of AYP. The bill also 
offers states the flexibility to use alternate assessments for students 
who are not proficient in English. In both categories of students the 
assessment instruments must be valid and reliable in measuring the 
performance based on the specific needs of the student. The bill would 
also grant states the flexibility to assess students more than once 
within the full academic year, and to use the higher scores in 
calculating the performance of subgroups.
  Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress. The bill would authorize states 
to expand their AYP measurement systems to include gain score 
approaches like value-added and give partial credit for meeting basic 
proficient targets. Additionally, states would be permitted greater 
flexibility in using alternate methods of measuring AYP as long as the 
ultimate goals of NCLB are achieved. Use of these specific 
flexibilities would require approval by the U.S. Department of 
Education. Further, the bill would authorize school districts and 
schools with diverse student populations to calculate AYP in a way that 
more accurately reflects subgroup and school performance.
  Sanctions: Public School Choice and Supplemental Services. The bill 
would strengthen the use of sanctions by applying such sanctions only 
when AYP is not met by the ``same

[[Page 13029]]

group'' for two or more consecutive years in the same subject on the 
same indicator rather than applying sanctions when different groups or 
different indicators are involved from year to year in that subject. 
Additionally, the bill offers greater flexibility to states and school 
districts in the sequence of offering supplemental services and public 
school choice. Finally, the bill requires more effective use of local 
funds by limiting the options of public school choice and supplemental 
services only to those students within the subgroup that failed to meet 
their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more years--not all 
the students in the school.
  The bill would also remove restrictions from the current law that 
prohibit local school districts from providing supplemental services 
solely because the school district did not make AYP or is in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status. However, the 
state would have to grant such authority to local school districts.
  Restructuring. With respect to requiring schools or school districts 
to implement certain broad restructuring provisions, the total number 
of students not scoring proficient or above would have to exceed 35 
percent of the enrollment, and Congress would be required to 
appropriate an increase for Title I of at least $2.5 billion over the 
previous year, and appropriate at the authorized levels contained in 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
  State Flexibility. The bill would grant authority to the Secretary of 
Education to (1) approve state accountability plans that vary from the 
federal framework to align with effective state accountability systems, 
(2) grant statutory and regulatory waivers that are unnecessarily 
burdensome or duplicative of state requirements, and (3) make public 
any approved amendments to state accountability plans. Further, the 
bill would require that any waivers of the state's plan approved by the 
Secretary would be available to any state on a case-by-case 
determination provided the state or agency meets any requirements 
issued by the Secretary applicable to such waivers.
  Non-Public Schools. The bill authorizes students enrolled in non-
public schools who receive Title I services to be given the same 
assessments as public school students; and gives states the option to 
withhold Title I support to the non-public schools if their Title I 
students do not make AYP and perform at lower levels than their 
counterparts in the area's public schools for three years or more.
  I am pleased to be working with the National School Boards 
Association and am looking forward to pushing this important 
legislation through the House and Senate. Accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to support the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 
2006.

                          ____________________