Ed Trust calls for college-ready state standards

Group also suggests targeted funds for high-poverty schools

By Patti Mohr
Staff Writer

In contrast to recent groups’ requests for Congress to “fix flaws” in the No Child Left Behind Act that demand too much of states and schools, the nonpartisan Education Trust organization is calling on lawmakers to strengthen federal requirements.
In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Kati Haycock, the group’s president, said most groups propose changes for the pending NCLB reauthorization that promise to fix problems but are, in fact, “essentially about weakening the law.” She said lawmakers should maintain the goal of closing achievement gaps while simultaneously pushing for higher standards, particularly at the high school level.“Instead of asking less, Congress should ask more of our schools,” Haycock said. The recommendations come at a time when growing factions of lawmakers turning against NCLB’s funding conditions. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., now has 58 cosponsors for his “A-Plus Act,” which would allow states to use federal funds for their own state-directed reforms.
Flexible timeline for ‘college-ready’ states
In many cases, Education Trust’s 18-page NCLB proposal draws from and builds upon other organizations’ suggestions. For example, it offers detailed advice about employing differentiated consequences for schools needing improvement,
empowering parents to collectively opt for an expanded learning time over supplemental tutoring, and allowing for growth models accountability
systems.
Perhaps the most nuanced recommendation is one aimed at raising state standards to prepare high school students for college and the workforce — a goal widely supported by stateofficials, higher education stakeholders, employers, and nonprofit education groups like Achieve, Inc. The proposal would encourage states to align 11th-grade assessments with college- and career-level standards that would be defined by state higher education executive officers and industry representatives. Though Education Trust estimates that few, if any, states would initially qualify, it would reward such states that do by allowing them to restart the 12-year goal of reaching 100 percent proficiency while lowering the goal to 80 percent of students.
Education Trust also proposes several ways to direct more funds to high-poverty areas:
• A $100 million per year fund for state longitudinal data systems that include student identifiers, information about programs’ student enrollment, and statewide audits of data, among other things.
• A $500 million ($300 million in new money) teacher pay-per-performance grant for state systems.
• A $750 million state curriculum development
fund.
• Amend Title I comparability provisions to require districts to end practices that “shortchange
high-poverty” schools within five years.
• Reduce Title I funds to states that fail to address funding inequities between high- and low-poverty school districts.
• Reserve 50 percent of Title II teacher quality
funds for high-poverty schools and require districts to use the funds for systemic efforts to address staffing issues.
The 18-page recommendations and a summary are available at www2.edtrust.org.