[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13749-13750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF THE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT 
                              (H.R. 5717)

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 29, 2006

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will 
improve No Child Left

[[Page 13750]]

Behind (NCLB) implementation while maintaining its important 
accountability provisions.
  NCLB provides a crucial level of accountability for the results of 
study in the classroom. While this change was welcome on both sides of 
the aisle, this law did present some technical problems in its ground-
breaking measurement and assessment of education achievement. I have 
worked closely with education specialists at the North Central 
Education Lab as well as local education professionals as part of my 
Education Advisory Board to gather data on NCLB implementation. This 
work resulted in a White paper detailing areas of concern to my local 
schools, coupled with practical solutions to these problems.
  Specifically, this Education Assessment Technical Corrections Act 
focuses on highly-qualified teacher requirements, determinations of 
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), and NCLB sanctions. My legislation 
maintains NCLB's important accountability provisions while improving 
implementation of the law in these key areas.
  Every child deserves an excellent teacher. Unfortunately, several 
schools are experiencing difficulty meeting the highly-qualified 
teacher requirements in certain hard-to-staff areas. Much like rural 
teachers were given relief through rules, teachers in ``hard to staff'' 
areas should be granted relief for the highly qualified teacher 
provision in the form of a two year extension. However, schools must 
demonstrate that they are working towards full compliance in order to 
qualify for the extension.
  Secondly, I strongly support measuring AYP for students. However, 
current law does not measure individual student improvement, counts 
students under multiple sub-groups, and creates discrepancies between 
NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. My 
legislation ensures that students are compared for consecutive years 
rather than two different classes for the same school year, places 
equal weight on each student, and clarifies Individualized Education 
Program status under NCLB. All these changes still maintain 
accountability measures under NCLB but provide more accurate 
assessments.
  Now that this landmark legislation has been in effect for a few 
years, it is important we revisit its effects. My bill takes into 
consideration important practical concerns of my local school boards 
while staying true to the goals of NCLB. I am proud that this bill 
reflects the advice and counsel of the North Central Education Lab, my 
Education Advisory Board and the National Education Association. I want 
to pay special thanks to Dr. Paul Kimmelman, the chairman of our 10th 
Congressional district Education Advisory Board, who led much of this 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, the Education Assessment Technical Corrections Act 
represents a strong bipartisan consensus, backed by school management 
and unions, to make the job of defining success and education 
achievement more accurate and useful.

                          ____________________