Mars Proposals for 2007 PSBA Legislative Platform:

Supports legislation ensuring consideration for a transience factor in determining AYP in schools, so that schools with highly transient student populations will not be unduly penalized for the performance of students who have been enrolled for a short period of time.

Rationale: One of the key intentions of the School State Report Cards is for parents to be provided accurate information that the school districts in those communities provide quality educational opportunities. It is unfair for districts to be judged based on the test results of students who, for example, may have lived in the district for only a short time. Therefore, the association should seek to support legislation which would require the DOE to modify their State Report Cards for schools to take into account the percentage of students enrolled in a school district for fewer than 360 instructional days (two school years) before the school year in which the state assessment was administered. For example, is it fair for a new student moving into a new community or new state to be administered the PSSA to which they are totally unfamiliar with and then have those same results factored into the district’s overall AYP results for public posting?

Supports efforts in modifying the Federal Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 so that it applies to the No Child Left Behind Act and other relevant federal statutes.

Rationale: The federal legislation entitled “The 19995 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act” considers NCLB to be a grant condition, meaning, “States do not have to participate….it is a voluntary program.” Federal grant conditions according to the UMRA are not considered unfunded mandates. Therefore, NCLB is not considered to be an unfunded mandate because of exceptions and loopholes in the language as contained and defined by the 1995 UMRA.

Furthermore, the newly released General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled, “Unfunded Mandates: Analysis of Reform Act Coverage” confirms in its findings that the NCLB Act is not an unfunded mandate; as critics of the law have claimed. In fact, the GAO’s report confirms that the NCLB Act did not meet the UMRA of 1995 definition of a mandate because the requirements were “a condition of federal assistance” (Page 22) and that any costs incurred by the state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions for receiving the funds (Page 24).

For further reading, you can find the GAO report as: http://www.gao.gov/news.items/d04637.pdf or www.marsrrservices.com, Click on policy issues page for more reading on “Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995”.

The same can be said of the amount of funding necessary for special education and the actual funding actually appropriated. The huge discrepancy is clear, but is still not considered unfounded with a clear indication of an unfunded mandate. However, the UMRA bill does not apply to appropriation bills. Being that IDEA is considered an appropriation, technically then, the IDEA shortfall is not considered an unfunded mandate as per the UMRA.

This proposal was on the National School Boards Association Legislative Platform for 2005.

Supports legislation providing adequate state funding for additional and safe modes of transportation required to provide transportation for charter, private, alternative, and special education student needs.

Rationale: The primary means of transporting students to and from charter, private, and alternative education schools is usually via busses contracted by the local school district. Most often, local taxpayers are unaware that it is the responsibility of the local district to provide transportation to and from schools to resident students not necessarily attending the district’s public school system.

Students living inside the local district who attend non-public schools are provided transportation pursuant to applicable statutes, regulations, and district wide policies. While all students are entitled to and privileged to transportation services, provided that they meet the provisions as established under Act 372, transportation costs are not absorbed in the per pupil expenditures of students. With increased amounts of students enrolling in charter and non-public schooling, as well as, NCLB requiring districts to provide for school choice, schools nationwide will be incurred with increased costs for providing safe and efficient bus transportation in the years to come for non-public students.

Pennsylvania’s aid ratios continue to decline statewide according to the new 2000 Census, as well as, Title 1 funding allocations from the federal government. Districts statewide are receiving reduced transportation subsidies continually in the past ten years due to decreasing market value aid ratios, which is directly related to the increasing wealth of school districts according to statistics, put out by the census bureau. As a result, the subsidy that is most affected by the reduced aid ratios is the transportation subsidy, as there currently is not a minimum level of funding.

Supports legislation that designates and provides a major source of state funding for cyber charter schools.

Rationale: Funding for cyber charter schools continues to come from a student’s home school district. Districts must pay full tuition for any resident student who enrolls in a cyber school regardless of where it is based, utilizing a combination of state and local money. According to the 2002 charter law amendments, the cost of charters to the public schools has been reduced. The state now supplies 30% of charter school funds, since charters only receive about 4/5’s of a school district’s per-pupil spending, the district share is drastically reduced according to the PDE, which now has oversight authority of all the state cyber charter schools. The state believes the district share is barely half the amount per charter student that the public schools spend on their own students attending their own schools. Currently, if school districts refuse payment of tuition to cyber charter schools, the Education Department simply deducts the amount of unpaid tuition from their state aid.

Supports efforts that support local decision making and flexibility to better serve students in implementation of the NCLB Act and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.

Rationale: One of the sticking issues of NCLB and IDEA continues to be special education students. In most cases, NCLB conflicts with a student’s uniqueness as demonstrated through meeting the accommodations of their goals and objectives as designated in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP). NCLB contradicts the process and purpose by which a student was originally deemed unable to reach 100% proficiency therefore designating an IEP containing legitimate and needed modifications. NCLB overrides the authority of IEP teams throughout school districts by administering regular state assessments (PSSA) even when deemed inappropriate by the IEP professionals. No one is going to argue that special education students should not be held to high standards, as well as, accountability, but testing them in a fashion that does not allow them to show what they know as punitive is not helpful. Schools can significantly boost special education student performance by focusing attention specifically on resources and those staff working closely with special education students. One example of an effort that would support the above resolution would be as recommended by the PDE: If a school is meeting adequate yearly progress in all categories and subgroups except special education, that school should not be identified as needing improvement or failing under NCLB. Rather the school must apply the strategic interventions associated with AYP to focus on that district’s special education program, as well as, providers in an effort to resolve the areas lacking within the program.

Supports efforts prohibiting the release of individual student test scores without the acknowledgement and permission of the student and/or parent of the student. School districts, however, should retain the option to utilize such data for analysis in order to improve curriculum and instruction.

Rationale: Section 4.51 of Chapter 4 Education Regulations clearly states that “The Department of Education or other Commonwealth entities are prohibited from collecting individual student test scores, and may only collect aggregate test scores by school and district”.

Scores currently placed on transcripts are done voluntarily by school districts and the point of opposition is that the state is requiring and therefore mandating that PSSA scores be included, thus taking away another local right of school districts.

Until there is empirical data which ensures reliability and validity of test scores, and until there are sound firewalls in place to prevent the mislabeling of children based on the PSSA scores, they should not be the sole indicator of student achievement and performance. School districts should have the sole authority to make that determination. Thus, keeping such life impacting decisions at the local level closest to the people who are best able to evaluate the individual student.

Supports periodic review of statewide academic standards and assessments, provided that school boards retain primary authority to regulate curriculum.

Rationale: Page 29 of the 2005 PSBA’s Belief’s and policies states, “The control of public schools should always be vested in local school boards”. Anything that comes in between that right and authority is clearly an erosion of local control.

School boards retaining the right to retain primary authority to regulate curriculum, is neither stated nor found anywhere in the Public School Code Act of 1949, it is an “implied right” as vested in the General Assembly. As per the School Code, the information listed below specifically points out references from the School Code that supports the statutorily defined autonomy of local school boards to determine curriculum and graduation requirements, both of which are local control issues.

Several statutes and the Pennsylvania School Code define powers given to local school boards. In Section 24 of the Pennsylvania Statutes (508) a majority vote of the school board is required in order to adopt courses of study.

Title 22 of the PA Code contains regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education or the Department of Education. These are not laws passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. It is stated at the beginning of 22 PA Code Chapter 4.4, (General Policies) “…the curriculum must be aligned in order to achieve academic standards”. Under this same section, it also states that it is the policy of the Board (State Board of Education) that the local curriculum be designed by school districts….to achieve the academic standards under Section 4.12.

PA School Code Section 1611 invests the “power to confer academic degrees, honorary, or otherwise…” to the board of school directors of the district and Section 1613 invests the power to issue high school certificates in the board of school directors.

Regulations and statutes such as these empower local school boards to determine local curriculum and graduation requirements. The statutorily defined autonomy of local school districts to determine graduation requirements and the granting of diplomas must be preserved.

Supports legislation stating that local school boards have the sole authority to determine what will be denoted on student records.

Rationale: Whether it is a “seal”, “stamp”, “score”, or “certificate”…..The Public School Code of 1949, section 1166-Academic Degrees states: “The power to confer academic degrees, is hereby vested in the school board of directors”. This proposed amendment reaffirms the statute authority vested with the school board to issue diplomas. In addition, it confirms the local school boards authority and option to make a “choice” reflecting their community and school district, as to whether to affix a seal onto a diploma or a PSSA score onto a student transcript.

The proposed amendment prevents the original action planned by the Pennsylvania Department of Education to alter diplomas by affixing state sponsored state seals onto student records and/or make notations on student records regarding “proficiency” or “basic” unless the local school board concurs. The state’s original plan to alter diplomas was being done without permission from the diploma issuing entity, the local school board, without regard to the local school board’s wishes. More importantly, no student who has worked to the best of his or her ability to fulfill graduation requirements should carry through the remainder of his or her life a diploma and/or transcript with a negative distinction, such as a seal, based on a one time test that would place the student at a disadvantage for college admission and/or the work market.

Opposes the use of any single or inappropriate measure of student achievement for any high-stakes reason, such as the distribution of funds, determination of empowerment status or student consequences or rewards.

Rationale: A sole test score should not be used as a primary criterion for any student achievement. A one-size fits all test is unfair and inappropriate. More importantly, the PSSA is a snapshot in time and is not necessarily reflective of a student’s twelve-year academic career. No student who has worked to the best of his or her ability to fulfill graduation requirements should carry through the remainder of his or her life a diploma and/or transcript with a negative distinction, such as a certificate, score, or state notation, based on a one-time test that would place the student at a disadvantage for college admission and/or work market. “Inappropriate” is referred to as invalid or unreliable in the above proposal. The issue is that school districts prefer “multiple measures of assessment utilized” with no sole indicators.

Opposes any efforts to reduce or remove the authority of local school districts to establish curriculum and graduation requirements.

Rationale: Several statutes and the Pennsylvania School Code define powers given to local school boards. In Section 24 of the Pennsylvania Statutes (508) a majority vote of the school board is required in order to adopt courses of study.

Title 22 of the PA Code contains regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education or the Department of Education. These are not laws passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. It is stated at the beginning of 22 PA Code Chapter 4.4, (General Policies) “…the curriculum must be aligned in order to achieve academic standards”. Under this same section, it also states that it is the policy of the Board (State Board of Education) that the local curriculum be designed by school districts….to achieve the academic standards under Section 4.12.

PA School Code Section 1611 invests the “power to confer academic degrees, honorary, or otherwise…” to the board of school directors of the district and Section 1613 invests the power to issue high school certificates in the board of school directors. Regulations and statutes such as these empower local school boards to determine local curriculum and graduation requirements.

Supports legislation requesting a review of the current state assessment by an independent entity.

Rationale: Currently, the PDE and the State Board of Education have complete “ownership” of the PSSA. These entities develop the assessment, fully oversee the assessment with no oversight by the General Assembly, score the assessment with the help of Data Recognition Corporation (a testing contractor that they hired from Minnesota), award Adequate Yearly Progress based on the assessment, and control the entire educational system through the premise and utilization of Pennsylvania’s schools through the mechanism of the PSSA. A comparable analogy similar to a bank conducting its own audit. The recent PSSA study conducted by HumRRO exaggerates this point further, by the SBOE hiring their own contractor to conduct the state assessment in relation to the Chapter academic standards, whereas, if the General Assembly or any outside entity was chosen to hire the outside contractor to evaluate the PSSA, not only would there be mounting opposition, but the final conclusions reached may certainly be different from the ones currently ascertained.

The development process and setting of proficiency levels should be reviewed and evaluated annually by an independent or out of state testing expert not previously involved in the development of the assessment itself. The review or audit should be conducted by persons knowledgeable about state and national assessments of student learning and shall be made public upon its completion through an issued report.

Supports legislation that enables school districts to use commercially produced, easily scored national achievement tests that are aligned with state academic standards for the No Child Left Behind Act to meet adequate yearly progress.

Rationale: National commercial achievement tests are reliable, valid measures of student achievement. The test results provide critical diagnostic information for each student that can be used by the teacher and parents to address areas of weakness and recognize areas of strength. Annual student score reports can be used to track student learning over time. The test results also provide local, state, and national comparisons for individual students, schools, and districts. Use of commercial tests allows for efficient use of education funds and classroom time. Some reputable examples of commercial tests: The Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the California Achievement, the Stanford Achievement, the Metropolitan Achievement, and the Wide Range Achievement tests. These tests are low cost, norm-referenced, with little or no subjective scoring, and have a quick turn around time. More importantly, they provide the ability to keep the decision making at the local level closest to the students and the role of the State is kept minimal and/or voluntary.

Supports a requirement for Congress and the State legislature to prepare a detailed fiscal impact statement, including the source of revenue, of proposed legislation or regulation requiring or directing the expenditure of school district funds prior to consideration.

Rationale: The purpose of this legislation would be to impede the mandate process coming from the state level onto the local level and to furthermore provide some justification for improving upon school and student academic improvement. There needs to be a check and balance system of accountability that will significantly reduce the costs of unfunded mandates, which in essence become the primary responsibility of the local taxpayers currently contributing toward the majority of school budget funding. Any mandate coming from any department should be including a fiscal state and local breakdown of costs upon local school districts justifying student and school improvement as a result of these reforms. The legislation should contain the provision with the understanding that the General Assembly should demand all and any information on related costs associated with public school mandates and it should be inclusive that without the necessary information provided by any and all departments, will result in the mandate not being considered for approval by either education committees.

Thank you for your consideration.

Supports legislation which enables all new public school employees to shift to a 401(K)-style defined contributions plans.

Rationale:

Defined contribution plans are plans in which both employee and employer make payments into private investment accounts that the employee can draw from after retirement, but the amount of funds is not necessarily guaranteed.

With taxpayers mandated to be required to annually contribute toward public school employee pension systems, taxpayers are being committed to a long-term debt obligation via local property taxes. Shifting new employees of the public school system to 401 (k) plans will stabilize costs and eliminate the ability of politicians to hand out costly benefit increases as political favors. At the current time, since lawmakers and union officials will not bear the costs of the benefit increases they preside over, there is no incentive for them to show restraint or to be fiscally responsible. The defined contribution plan simply requires that pension costs be dealt with in the current year. Defined contribution plans offer more stability, transparency, and remove the political influence from the retirement process. They also give employees greater flexibility and investment choices.

Supports legislation abolishing teacher strikes throughout Pennsylvania.

Rationale:

Eliminating teacher striking would enable school boards more leverage in negotiating collective bargaining school employee contracts. Union bargaining teams are fighting for increased retirement benefits for their members, regardless of the costs taxpayers will pay for those extravagant promises. While the goal of stable retirement income is certainly honorable, the system utilized to achieve it for public school employees is seriously flawed.

Prior to the passage of Act 195, public employers and public employees were governed by Act 492 of 1947, the so-called “NO STRIKE LAW”. Most Americans do not believe there should be teacher strikes. 38 states already prohibit teacher strikes, even strong unions states such as Michigan and New York prohibit teacher striking. Pennsylvania has the dubious distinction of being notably first in ranking throughout the nation for teacher strikes.

Supports legislation approving measures specifically to address new hires through more stringent benefit calculations and eligibility formulas.

Rationale:

Major changes need to be enacted in retirement eligibility and benefit calculation for new and nonvested teachers and public school employees. Pennsylvania school employees are vested in the retirement system when they have accumulated five years of credited service. Increasing the vesting eligibility at ten years in lieu of five, will affect a number of existing members. Age and service requirements for formula benefits have the potential to be increased and the multipliers can either be increased or reduced, creating significant cost savings to the entire commonwealth.

Supports legislation enacting measures to limit the spiking of salaries in the years just before retirement for public school employees.

Rationale:

Numerous states such as Nebraska, Louisiana, and Illinois have enacted cap increases in salary making school districts and institutions of higher education liable for the present value of an increase in benefits resulting from annual salary increases of more than 6% in the years used to determine final average salary. The formula passed in Pennsylvania’s Act 9 of 2001, allows full retirement at 35 year’s of service or with 30 years of service at age 62, in which the system typically attaches benefits at 87.5% of an employee’s salary, or about three times the average private pension. In addition, because retiree’s no longer pay 7.45% in social security taxes, or 6% in pension fund contributions and may be eligible to Social Security payments, those retiring under Act 9 can actually draw more income than they did while being employed and working. In comparison, in the private sector, pensions nationally average 30% of an individual’s income.

Supports legislation enacting school employees to match employer contribution rates into PSERS pension retirement system.

Rationale:

The PSERS system is funded by contributions by employees, school employers (local school districts) and the commonwealth. School employers match the state’s contribution through a 50/50 formula. School employee members are required by law to make pretax contributions into the system at rates that differ based on when they were hired prior or after May 2001’s Act 9 and based on their class of service.

School employers are required to deduct mandated retirement contributions from employee’s pay and forward those amounts to PSERS. The rates for all three ways of contributing, are determined by the PSERS board of directors based on actuarial projections. During 2001-02 to 2005-06, public school employees have only had their contribution rates raised by .73%, which is less than 1%. During that same time frame, school employers have been forced to raise their contribution rates from 3.6% to 4.69% and now more recently, to 7.69% for the 2006-07 year.

The actual dollars’ increases in employer contributions were $110.4 million from $321.1 million in FY 2004 to $431.4 million in FY 2005. That was due to an increase in the contribution rate for employers from 2.98% in FY 2004 to 4% in FY 2005 (with an additional .69% to cover health care premiums). In comparison, employee contributions increased by just $4.6 million from $783.7 million in FY 2004 to $788.3 million in FY 2005, which was only a result of the increase in the total participant salary base.

Supports legislation providing a statewide actuary mechanism, in the event of state appropriations having insufficient funds to pay full entitlement for programs and services, that prevents the State from seeking additional funding beyond the district’s capabilities, to enable State subsidies be accounted for properly.

Rationale:

Since at least 2003, Pennsylvania state appropriations have insufficient funds to pay the full entitlement as of June 30, 2006 for:
1. Homebound Instruction Subsidy Allocation Payable
2. Tuition for Orphans Subsidy Allocation Payable
3. School Employee’s Retirement Subsidy Reimbursement
4. Commonwealth Reimbursement for Charter Schools and Cyber Charter Schools

As a result of statewide shortfalls in the four above listed and documented accounts, the LECS Comptroller’s Office of School Finance Division has been forwarding letters to all LEA’s requesting increased percentages, as well as, balances due for Unipay purposes so that the subsidies can be accounted for properly on the 2005-06 Fiscal Year Annual Financial Report.

The bottom line, the State is experiencing consistent shortfalls in state and federal funding which will exacerbate with the increased costs and federal funding cuts to programs and services related to education. Therefore, the State is more inclined to tap into resources via the local school districts, aka, local taxpayers to make up these state shortfalls in funding, rather than reduce spending and allocating financial resources they necessarily do not have and continuing to provide at the local taxpayer’s expense. This process will continue to reoccur with the current administration at the State level, unless school districts address it with a legislative solution and/or when and if both the State and schools restrain themselves from increased spending.

Opposes legislative efforts to consolidate school districts at the county, regional, intermediate, or any other level that removes the local autonomy of a community and therefore removes the local control of an individual school district.

Rationale:

Consolidation transfers power upward and away from parents, students, and local conditions to more centralized political arrangements in which unions and other special interests have more political clout. The result has been higher, not lower, pupil costs and worse education for students. As evidenced in Economics 101, any economies gained by movements down cost curves have been more offset by upward shifts in these same curves. Power inevitably follows the source of money. History in education has proven the ability to increase school funding and to divert it into other areas in lieu of education. When two school districts are combined, despite its smallness or ruralness of each, their size ultimately increases through consolidation, leaving the individual parent or voter to have less influence on educational outcomes, moving the freedom of more decisions to the educational bureaucracies. Consolidation discourages competition and educational diversity that assembles a respective community. One of the strongest attributes of our nation’s most effective schools is that those that establish a clear identity for students based on a community of interest, ultimately have better student performance. In our enthusiasm as a commonwealth to be more efficient with resources, we need to keep in mind that “school consolidation pushes in exactly the opposite direction.”

There is no empirical evidence in other states suggesting that consolidation of multiple school districts improves student achievement and/or closes the student achievement gap which exists among all districts. While there may be some minimal cost savings for shared resources, this system already exists with the intermediate units which are adequately and efficiently providing educational services and programs at the county level among various districts. Consolidation will only exacerbate the issues which exist at the local level individually creating the need for increased resources and diminished effectiveness in providing quality educational services and programs to all our students.

Supports legislative efforts to provide a free college education to the children and spouses of Pennsylvania Military Service Members who are killed in the line of federal or state duty.

Rationale:

Pennsylvania as a commonwealth provides the nation’s highest number of National Guard members (troops) and is the third largest commonwealth providing all personnel serving in the military. When a U.S. service member is killed on duty, his or her family is entitled to an array of benefits. But, due to the inconsistency of regulations and individual circumstances, the amount a surviving family receives varies, and in most cases, does not stretch far enough to cover a family’s expenses. Across the country, there are various groups which accept public donations for families of troops to help set up funds for providing for the families and children’s educations which are dependent upon the public individual support. While this legislation would not be a panacea for removing the emotional trauma in which is experienced by military families, it would be an entitlement rightly deserving of families while loved ones are deployed in the military that would benefit in minimizing familial trauma.

This tuition waiver would cover the cost of attending a state-owned university, state-related university, community college, or approved trade school. To qualify, the Guard member must have been a Pennsylvania resident and recipients must reside in the Commonwealth. Currently, the state law provides a 50% tuition credit only to children of guardsmen killed during state duty. By extending this language to include spouses, the State has the ability to enable an investment in providing skills and education preparing productive and working citizens in lieu of incurring health and welfare costs for widows, as well as, spouses left behind supporting families.

Supports legislative efforts to address harassment, intimidation, bullying, and identity theft conducted by electronic means as it relates to the incident having an impact on a student, school employee, volunteer or educational environment to be a criminal offense.

Rationale:

A safe and civil environment in school is necessary for students to learn and achieve high academic standards. Harassment, intimidation, or bullying, like any other disruptive or violent behavior, is conduct that disrupts both a student’s ability to learn and a school’s ability to educate its students in a safe environment. The above described acts that are conducted the majority of times by electronic means should be clarified as they need not to occur during school hours, occur on school property, or involve school computers as long as the incident has an impact on the targeted individual or educational environment as described in the legislation. Currently there are 45 states that have upgraded their laws to deal with cyber bullying by placing provisions which relate to physical harm of a student or the student’s property; relates to false accusations; relates to students, school employees, or volunteers, provides that each school district shall adopt a policy, as well as, a model of intervention and reporting requirements. In addition, protection against lawsuits upon compliance to policies would need to be addressed in such legislation.

While most school districts already have internet usage policies in place, each district can amend, modify, and adopt new regulations to enhance existing local policies to expand its capabilities of addressing the issues described above. Furthermore, districts would bear the responsibility to share this policy with students, parents or guardians, volunteers, and school employees.

Supports legislation that establishes statewide guidelines for addressing DNR Orders specifically for schools and students while providing flexibility at the local level.

Rationale:

In Pennsylvania, numerous districts are providing educational services to severely disabled, handicapped, and terminally ill students in the public school setting or through the intermediate units. Consequently, some children with chronic and terminal conditions are at risk of dying while attending school and on school premises. Despite recent attention to DNR Orders, no assessment of state laws or school policies has yet been established, nationally, and/or statewide pertaining to DNR guidelines and policies addressing the considerations of the school districts and intermediate units throughout the Commonwealth. Most school districts do not have policies, regulations, or protocols for dealing with student DNR Orders. In comparison, a similar majority of districts either would not honor student DNR’s or depending upon who you ask, were uncertain about whether they could.

With little case law, literature, or precedent existing, there needs to be some specific DNR guidelines and policies established specifically addressing the considerations of the school districts and Intermediate Units throughout the Commonwealth. When families have chosen to limit resuscitative efforts, school officials should understand the medical, emotional, and legal issues involved. While competent adults have legislated alternative means to refuse unwanted medical care, including advanced directives, the options for children and students have remained less well defined, as well as, specifically addressing the learning environment setting. Coordinated efforts are needed to harmonize school district, state, and federal approaches in order to support children and families’ right to have important medical decisions honored in schools. I have written a policy brief examining the current status of the existing PA law, outlining the process and implications specifically for schools and intermediate units and examined the need for reforms in current statues, as well as the need for specific statewide guidelines as pertaining to student DNR orders, and made it available free to the public at www.marsrrservices.com Click on Policy Issues link.

Supports legislation permitting alternative methodology for measuring individual and aggregate student progress under the NCLB Act, for determining AYP targets,
specifically for ESL and students with disabilities without compromising accountability determinations.

Rationale: It is not uncommon for schools failing to meet AYP measures under the NCLB Act, to still fulfill measuring individual student growth based on how much progress individual students make over time. States across the country are readily submitting proposals to the USDOE that would enable schools that miss their achievement targets under the NCLB law to demonstrate through various growth models, (i.e. value-added assessment, or Pennsylvania Performance Index system) that they are still making substantial progress by utilizing other measures for accountability determinations.

Supports legislation providing language amendments to the Charter School Law to provide a distinct statutory separation between the different methods of educational delivery and cost structures which currently exist among bricks-and-mortar charter schools and cyber charter schools.

Rationale: The current practice of funding charter school districts under the state code is to utilize the local districts as intermediaries for payment. This change could be a viable option for having the department appropriate and provide payments for costs of students more equitably statewide. School choice options within the public school system need to be further explored by states. The PDE who maintains oversight, as well as, approval authority of charter cyber schools should shift the funding from school districts to the PDE and eliminate the inequity of funding.

Supports legislation which would require school officials to conduct interviews with students who withdraw from school or who are illegally absent.

Rationale: Requiring brief exit interviews can provide vital information about a reason a student chooses to withdraw or drop out of High School, allowing the district and the state to possibly create programs to help retain and graduate more students in our public school system. The information gathered will then be reported to the DOE to further be incorporated into the already existing Electronic Dropout Graduate Report. Because of the state’s compulsory school attendance laws, the interview must inquire as to why a student is illegally absent. This process protects the school district from liability after a student chooses to withdraw.

House Bill 1729 requires principals or guidance counselors to conduct these interviews with students who withdraw from school or who are illegally absent 10 days or more. Students must be made aware of alternatives to withdrawing from school. When a student is not in compliance with the state’s compulsory school attendance laws, an interview must inquire as to why a student is illegally absent.

Under HB 1729, if a student fails to complete an interview, the student’s guardian must complete the interview on their behalf. Parents who do not complete an interview either in person or via telephone, could face a civil penalty of up to $300.
HB 1729 awaits referral to a Senate Committee.

Supports legislation allowing districts not to comply with NCLB by forgoing Title 1 funds and to seek public approval for mill levy to replace lost federal funds.

Rationale: Currently in 2005-06, no state can get or receive NCLB money or federal funding, unless they (the state) have Goals 2000 and School To Work in Place. In addition, no state can receive Federal Title 1 money unless they have Goals 2000 in place. In the event a state or district would wish to refuse the reforms such as NCLB and Goals 2000, from the federal government without jeopardizing the loss of valuable Title 1 funding for those schools and students needing it, Policymakers would need to pursue alternative funding.

Supports legislation which would call upon the President and Congress of the United States to amend the NCLB Act to provide for a mechanism that will require the granting of waivers from said act to (states) such as Pennsylvania that have implemented effective and high standards and accountability measures.

Rationale: The federal Secretary could provide statutory and regulatory waivers to states or state plan’s revision approved on a case by case determination, including waiving requirements that are unnecessarily burdensome or duplicative of state requirements.

Supports legislation requesting Congress to work with the PA state legislature in granting time, flexibility, and changes to ensure successful statewide implementation of the NCLB law once schools are identified for not meeting AYP and the implementation of sanctions associated with a school’s adequate AY status.

Rationale: The USDE recently denied the state’s request to utilize what Pennsylvania felt was a “more reasonable timeline” for implementing AYP sanctions. Sanctions for schools and school districts related to corrective action and school restructuring should only apply when AYP is not met by the same group for two or more consecutive years in a subject on the same indicator rather than applying sanctions when different groups and/or different indicators are involved from year to year in that subject.

Supports legislation providing a transfer option only to low achieving students within the group who failed to meet their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more years, not to all students in the school.

Rationale: The implementation of the transfer option to all students in the school is extremely costly for the state, as well as, local taxpayers of any district involved in sanctions. The financial obligations for providing transportation and supplemental services can be unnecessarily burdensome in travel time, safety, and unusually high pupil costs.

Supports legislation to change the minimum number of students, the “N” size required to report disaggregated assessment data for the special education and limited English proficiency student subgroups.

Rationale:

N-size is the minimum number of students in a particular racial or ethnic subgroup for which disaggregated data must be reported. Most states N-sizes range from 25 to 40 (meaning students) per sub groupings. Some states have also been successful in increasing these N-size numbers, by “over-inflating” the N-size in an effort to have these scores not being utilized in school level AYP determination and reporting purposes. Currently, Congress, States, and Schools are in disagreement as per how this process should reflect student and/or school performance.

Recently, the PDE requested the USDOE to amend their “N” size to be 40 or 15% of all students tested, whichever is greater, but, was denied this request.

In an effort to utilize new federal flexibility related to testing of special education students, states must now have the same “N” size for all student subgroups. The “N” size for a group within a school may be increased to a number or percentage of that school’s total school enrollment to better align with schools with larger enrollments or in the event a student belongs to more than one group over representing their count.

There are many diverse subgroups as mandated within the framework of NCLB, this proposal only specifically addresses two major subgroups of students here in Pennsylvania.

Supports legislation which would forbid funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents.

Rationale: A radical plan to subject ALL children to mental health screening in schools originated in the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health created by President Bush in 2002. This commissioned report recommends “routine and comprehensive” testing and mental health screening for every child in America, including preschoolers. President Bush has instructed 25 federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the commission’s recommendations.

Should schools be the vehicle for providing mental health screening for students at in-school health clinics?

Supports legislation to forbid coerced drugging with psychotropic medicine of children in all schools that receive state money.

Rationale: Psychotropic medications are utilized to control the symptoms of mental illness. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health wants schools to be the vehicle for identifying, screening, and providing mental health services to all students. Psychotropic medications are not cures for mental illness, they only control symptoms. In 2004, Congress’s reauthorization of the IDEA included language that forbids drug coercion of children in order to attend public schools. However, this law only protects special needs children under IDEA and it only covers psycho-stimulants (Ritalin-type drugs), not anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs.

HOWEVER, July 1st, 2005, Congress again reauthorized IDEA which tilted the power in which schools will no longer have the upper hand in deciding whether children should be given Ritalin or other controlled substances. The new law returns the power back to the parents barring states and schools from keeping students out of class in cases when parents disagree with a recommendation to medicate a child. But, there is no PA state law protecting students, teachers, and schools with this cutting-edge, fast track issue.

States and schools will have plenty incentive to comply with the new law. Congress is threatening to block federal aid to schools that try to force medication on students against the wishes of their parents. Congress is currently already considering expanding the law. A bill sponsored by Rep. John Kline of (R-MN), a member of the House Education Committee, would extend the Child Medication Safety Act to include psychotropic drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft. Congress is hopeful these new amendments will allow parents and school professionals to explore other strategies when dealing with student’s behaviors. In addition, the Parental Consent Act of 2005 & 2006 would forbid any mental health screening of children under age 18 without the consent of parents.

For more reading on the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health for students, click on www.marsrrservices.com, click on policy page.

Supports legislation promoting incentives and rewards for accomplished professionals and supports for teachers and leaders working in high-poverty, low performing schools.

Rationale: Federal, state, and district systems of rewards and sanctions for low-performing schools hold people accountable for improved achievement in ways that do not deter teachers and principals from going into these schools. District improvement plans promote policies and practices that get and keep effective teachers and leaders in high poverty, low-performing schools. Provide legislation to make sure those schools are places where effective teachers and leaders want to work and can be successful….improve teacher retainment……raising student achievement. …it can be done!

Supports legislation resolving Congress to fully fund the NCLB Act while enabling Pennsylvania General Assembly to define the appropriate role of the federal government in measuring student performance in our state’s schools.

Rationale:

Currently, in Congress’ attempt to reign in fiscal spending, they are not living up to the amounts committed in providing federal education funding to Pennsylvania in NCLB and IDEA, while demanding accountability. Where is the accountability of our Congress and their federal role in what federal government wants, demands, and expects of states and local school districts? With no intention of restoring federal cuts at this point in time, coupled with the federal share being well below what was originally authorized to be appropriated, and States “actually receiving” far less than the amount appropriated…..there is no doubt to be a substantial shortfall that will only exacerbate in the years to come, specifically in 2007-08 and beyond, when States and districts will feel the initial implications. As a result of this combined shortfall, the burden to fund education will be placed more on the local school districts and local taxpayers of this State and this country.

PA policymakers should recognize that the state should control its public education budget and allocate funding according to Pennsylvania’s needs and priorities, driven by decision-making of local school boards, and recognize that until certain federal actions are taken into account, Pennsylvania should utilize its own proven system of student and school accountability and reassert its historic leadership role in providing a quality public education for the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Supports legislation to prevent the USED from denying federal funds to states and school districts that refuse to spend their own money on the regulations of NCLB.

Rationale: Implementation of NCLB regulations and mandates are costing states and school districts millions of dollars more annually than the federal government is providing. The NEA is asking for the court’s interpretation of what Section 9527 means which states that nothing in NCLB can mandate a state or school to pay for any costs not incurred for under the Act….should the federal government be able to withhold federal funding because a local school district refuses to spend their own funding on the law’s regulations (mandates)?

Supports legislation in refining the conflict between the requirements for the NCLB Act and the IDEA in regard to special education students.

Rationale: Under IDEA, schools are required to develop Individualized Education Plans that set realistic and attainable learning goals based on the student’s particular disability. The IEP is reviewed on an annual basis by an IEP Team and adjusted based on the individual student’s progress. However, under NCLB, students are expected to learn at grade level or above and pass a standardized test without allowances for disabilities. 95% of students enrolled in any specific grade level have to take the test and 40% of that total need to pass as required by NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress. Schools that consistently fail to meet AYP goals face the loss of federal Title 1 funds and state takeover of their schools. There is a definite conflict between the two laws and our most vulnerable students and schools are caught in the crossfire. Legislation should and can continue to support assessment and accountability requirements for our special education students.

Supports legislation that would require the Department of Education to modify the current State Report Cards for schools for public accountability purposes.

Rationale: Legislators need to modify the current State Report cards for schools and take into account the percentage of students to whom the PSSA test is administered who were enrolled in a school district for fewer than 360 instructional days (two school years) before the school year in which the test was administered. The legislation could also address modifications for the percentage of students to whom the PSSA test is administered who are classified as English as a Second Language learners. By refining the State Report Card, the calculations would provide a more accurate assessment of the performance of our school districts statewide, particularly in urban school districts. Accurate published information prevents misinformation to the public. The Senate passed SB 151 this year addressing this concept, but, it is still pending in the House. The House has their own identical version as well, but, it has not gone to the Floor for a vote as of this point in time.

Supports legislation enabling authorized federal education funding to be fully reassigned to Title 1 and IDEA in an effort to retain resources for Pennsylvania school districts.

Rationale:

States such as Pennsylvania are not fully accessing their federal funds available to them for Title 1 and IDEA purposes. These so called “unobligated funds” are not sitting idle or uncommitted, whereas, a portion of those funds are committed for ongoing contracts with specific spending schedules for cash flow purposes. This commitment of funds cannot be reassigned to IDEA or Title 1 purposes and will not add to the current funding levels which districts currently receive respectively for both. This federal shortfall leaves states and local school districts in a deficit which is ultimately made up by the local taxpayers within school districts across the country. There is already a struggle with Congress over the disparity of funding authorized and what is actually appropriated and actually received at the local level once accessed by States…..the parameters of the system created are preventing needed funding from reaching its most vulnerable students in America’s classrooms.

Supports legislation to allow school districts to impose impact fees assessed on economic development and residential housing to provide additional revenues needed for capital expenses incurred in rapidly developing school districts.

Rationale: According to the National Center for Education Statistics, overall school enrollments reached a record high of 52.7 million in 1998 and estimate that figure to increase by 3% by 2008 at the secondary level (9-12) and 11% with enrollments (K-8). At the same time, America’s school buildings are aging even as its pupil population is growing. These two trends taking place in our commonwealth’s schools mimic the national trends most schools are experiencing. Most school construction costs are financed in Pennsylvania primarily with local tax revenues as most state aid accounts for only 12% of the projected outlays. Rural school districts statewide are adversely affected by increased enrollments, but, lower property assessments and tax yields. 40% of the commonwealth’s schools are inadequate in space and age deterioration and would cost approximately $7.2 billion to replace. The most frequently cited reasons listed by local school officials for undertaking construction projects include: the age of the existing facility, technology improvements, inadequate instructional space, and increasing pupil enrollments.

Life long residents of various communities might still be able to stay in their homes and not be forced to move because of ever increasing taxes needed because of new development and the expectations of new residents. When impact fees are rolled into their mortgages, it isn’t nearly as painful as the ever increasing tax increase.

This concludes MASD’s newest proposals for the 2007 legislative platform.