[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10603-10604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LEARNING ASSESSMENT FOR STUDENTS AND 
                                SCHOOLS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 26, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the 
Comprehensive Learning Assessment for Students and Schools Act or 
``CLASS Act of 2007.'' This legislation makes practical and meaningful 
reforms to the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The importance of ensuring that each child in America is given the 
opportunity to reach his or her full potential cannot be overstated. 
Having an educated workforce is a matter of economic competitiveness 
and it is a matter of national security. I voted for the No Child Left 
Behind Act, NCLB, in 2001 because it placed much needed focus on 
accountability and on closing the socalled ``achievement gap'' in this 
country by targeting the achievement of low-income and minority 
students. These remain laudable and important goals.
  Since the law was enacted 5 years ago, I have met with students, 
parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and others to discuss 
the real-world effects of this Federal mandate. What I have learned is 
that there is broad consensus in favor of establishing high standards 
and accountability, but there is also an emerging consensus that the 
law has had some unintended consequences.
  In 2005, several stakeholders in Colorado's education community, 
including representatives from the Colorado Association of School 
Executives, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado 
Education Association, and the Colorado Board of Cooperative 
Educational Services Association, produced a policy paper suggesting 
meaningful reforms to the NCLB. The policy paper's prescriptions mirror 
what I have heard first hand from constituents in my district and other 
Coloradans. My legislation addresses many of these suggested reforms.
  First, the way that the Department of Education currently measures 
Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, does not yield an accurate metric for 
actual student progress in our Nation's schools. For example, in 
Colorado in 2004, the Boulder Valley School District met 140 of 142 
required performance targets, Littleton Schools met 124 of 128, and 
Durango met 91 of 94. Yet under the ``all or nothing'' rules of NCLB 
each of these districts were labeled as failing.
  The CLASS Act would allow schools to use longitudinal growth to 
measure student proficiency to calculate AYP more accurately. 
Longitudinal growth measures a student's progress from previous years 
as opposed to comparing the scores of one cohort of students one year 
to an entirely different cohort the following year. By focusing 
directly on individual students, we can develop a much better 
understanding of ways to improve the grade-level learning process.
  In addition, the CLASS Act would require that multiple measures be 
used to assess AYP. These would include: the proportion of State report 
card indicators met, a performance index score, student drop-out rate, 
and a measure based on individual student achievement gains over time 
by disaggregated groups. When a school is required to offer transfer 
choices and supplemental services to a school because that school has 
failed to meet all of its AYP targets, transfer choice and supplemental 
services will only be available to students who fall under the one of 
the subgroups that failed to meet an AYP target. For example, if the 
students with disabilities subgroup is the only one within a school to 
not achieve AYP, then only those special education students would be 
offered transfer options and supplemental services. This common-sense 
measure allows schools and districts to target resources where they are 
needed most.
  Second, two federal mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Act 
(IDEA) and NCLB are conflicting. Whereas NCLB requires that students 
progress at similar rates, IDEA expressly states that students with 
disabilities progress at different rates. NCLB requires that students 
progress be measured by a ``proficient score'' on a standardized test; 
IDEA is based on an Individual Education Program (IEP) team decision 
with a test score as just one factor. The CLASS act would allow a 
student's IEP to be taken into consideration when determining the 
assessment level under which a student would be tested for the purposes 
of NCLB.
  Third, the CLASS Act would acknowledge the fact that becoming fluent 
in a new language is a complex process that occurs over time. It is 
unfair and unproductive to require students, while they are learning 
English, to be tested in both the acquisition of a new language and in 
the subject content. The CLASS Act would exclude the performance of 
students with limited English proficiency who have resided in the 
United States for less than three years, so as to avoid any distortion 
in measurement resulting from the new arrivals of such students.
  NCLB has provided critical tools for parents, teachers, and 
administrators to understand how children are learning and what schools 
and families can do to improve education. But in order for 
accountability assessments to be meaningful, they need to be 
transparent and fair.
  Madam Speaker, the CLASS Act goes a long way toward achieving the 
goal of transparent and fair assessments of student progress without 
compromising the critical goal of demanding excellence in our public 
education system. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation.

[[Page 10604]]



                          ____________________