• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Education Program

---

Education Highlights of Sessions

at

NCSL Annual Meeting 2005

The 2005 NCSL Annual Meeting was held August 16-20 in Seattle, Washington.  More than 7,000 participants engaged in discussions on some of the most important issues facing states and legislatures.  Education issues--particularly the challenges of implementing No Child Left Behind--were prominently featured at the meeting.  Included here are brief summaries of each education session, materials and handouts provided by speakers, and links to other useful information on the topics.

Update on Federal Actions

The first part of the session covered several topics, including new regulations for the amended Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), movement on Federal Vocational Education, and the preliminary actions of the Higher Education Act.

During the second part of the session, the Education Standing Committee considered the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act of 2000 (PL 106-393).  The committee voted to consider it an active policy and agreed to visit the policy within the next year and make recommendations.

The NCSL NCLB bipartisan Task Force presented a summary of its findings.  The committee also considered the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education policy, referred to as the NCLB policy.  A spirited debate and an additional committee session ensured unanimous passage of the amended policy. 

Update on Federal Action Power Point

Summary of the Findings of the NCSL Task Force on No Child Left Behind Power Point

Engaging Latino Communities for Education (ENLACE)

This lunch session introduced the ENLACE program in New Mexico to a packed room of legislators, staff and others.  ENLACE, funded by the Kellogg Foundation, also receives state funding in New Mexico.  The program's goal is to support Hispanic youth in education, with a particular emphasis on high school drop-out prevention and college matriculation and graduation, through community networks and peer mentoring.  ENLACE employs local parents to staff community centers and perform outreach with children and their families.  In addition, ENLACE involves a student mentorship program where Hispanic students who are already in college provide encouragement and support to peers in secondary school. By helping families become involved and active advocates for their children to improve their school experience, this approach gives a voice to families who may feel marginalized by the education system.  Welcoming remarks were given by Indiana State Representative John Aguilera, current president-elect of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, and Senator Leticia Van de Putte, vice president of the National Conference of State Legislatures.  Speakers, moderated by New Mexico State Representative Rick Miera, included:  Louis Caldera, president of the University of New Mexico; Michael Fix, Vice president of the Migration Policy Institute; Maria Hines, ENLACE New Mexico Family Centers coordinator; and Karen Sanchez-Griego, state director of ENLACE New Mexico. 

The Kellogg Foundation has active ENLACE programs in a number of states and is committed to expanding this initiative.  The program concluded with an announcement that Kellogg has awarded NCSL a two-year grant to raise the awareness of ENLACE programs among state legislators; explore how state policy can encourage and support these programs; and provide information, support and technical assistance to states that are seeking to improve student success through the ENLACE model.

Migration Policy Institute PowerPoint

ENLACE Website

New Models of Teacher Compensation

Eric Hirsch of the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality noted that there is wide agreement regarding teacher compensation generally, in that most interest groups feel that teacher compensation needs to increase and that the single-salary schedule is insufficient.  He summarized three states that have engaged in new models.  Florida requires every district to have some form of performance pay.  With the passage of Proposition 301, Arizona increased its sales tax to support local models of performance pay.  Five school districts in Minnesota now are participating in a pilot performance pay program.  Denver’s Professional Compensation plan has resulted in increased principal and teacher discussions and better data collection and dissemination.  It also benefited Denver to include the plan in its collective bargaining agreement, to keep it moving forward through multiple leadership changes.  Lessons learned from Iowa’s attempt to implement performance pay include:

• If you create it, you'd better fund it, to avoid the “this too shall pass” mentality.
• Budget so every teacher can meet the goal.
• Ensure no teacher loses money.

Mr. Hirsch also said that improving working conditions, providing housing options, and offering tuition incentives for teacher’s children are other enticements states are using to make teaching more attractive.

Strengthening School Leadership to Close the Achievement Gap

Richard Laine, director of Education Programs for the Wallace Foundation, outlined lessons the foundation has learned while researching the topic of school leadership.

1.  Quantifying the effects of leadership on student outcomes is second only to teaching quality,

     and it matters most in low-achieving schools.

2.  Good training for leaders is only a start.  A bad system--one with no data to analyze or

     authority to make changes--leaves a leader with little ability to change teaching and learning.

3.  To change teaching and learning, there must be a focus on the behaviors of leaders, not only    

     on their  knowledge and skills.

4.  Legislative changes typically focus on helping leaders manage better.  Instead, they should

     focus on helping leaders lead better.

5.  Certification does not equal qualification.

6.  Efforts to improve school leadership must be coordinated between the state and district.

Three legislators participated in this session--each from a state that receives funds from the Wallace Foundation.  Representative Ro Foege described how Iowa has made efforts to improve school leadership.  Required coursework for school leaders now is tied to state standards at schools of education, research-driven professional development for leaders is offered along with a Leadership Academy for school administrators, and principal and superintendent evaluations are tied to state standards.  Representative Rick Miera discussed New Mexico’s recently enacted legislation that creates a data-driven support system to produce timely data.  The new system still needs to integrate existing systems, establish standards and train staff.  Senator Robert O’Leary described the data collection system that has been used in Massachusetts for more than 10 years.  He pointed out that the goal in developing strong school leaders should be to develop state systems that cultivate leadership skills over the long run, not just to find individuals to “step in front of the cannon.”

Audience questions revealed that legislators are thinking about whether non-educators (those with a business or other background) will make good principals.  Laine said there is very little support in the education community for that tactic.

Reinventing School Finance

Jacob Adams, a senior fellow with the Center on Redesigning Education, noted that the reason school finance needs to be redesigned is because it originally was designed to redistribute resources more equitably between districts; the focus now is on adequate levels of funding to support student performance.  To reform school finance, policymakers may wish to being by considering the following:

• Understand the magnitude of the achievement gap in your state.
• Understand why the performance gap exists.
• Separate strategic finance issues from parochial issues.
• Think in terms of funding strategies.

Mr. Adams suggested that the following steps be taken to reform school finance systems to focus on student learning and student performance:

• Consider refining your state’s accountability policies.
• Make data available that supports learning.
• Convene effective-use panels.
• Focus on funding student needs.
• Experiment with capacity grants.
• Consider using multi-year funding as a tactic.
• Think about ways to increase school and district flexibility in terms of applying resources to specific problems.

Creating Extraordinary High Schools: Innovative State Strategies

This session which focused on high school redesign, introduced the National Governors Association (NGA) Honor States Program to legislators, legislative staff and others.

Stefanie Sanford, senior policy officer with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, began the session with an overview of the history of the American high school and statistics about high school graduation rates.  Currently, only 70 percent of students who start high school receive a diploma, and only 30 percent go on to complete a bachelor's degree.  This is dangerous for the nation because educational attainment leads to economic growth.  The Gates Foundation's efforts in high school redesign focus on improving the rigor, relevance and relationships of the high school experience to ensure that every high school student graduates prepared for work and postsecondary education. 

Dane Linn with the NGA spoke about the NGA Honor States Program, which provides grants to states with comprehensive high school redesign agendas.  The 10 states chosen for the first round of grants are Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.  These states were chosen because their grant proposals were most likely to result in measurable success within each state, seed innovation and creative solutions to difficult challenges, and build momentum for high school reform efforts across the country.

Joe DiMartino with the National High School Alliance spoke about the Alliance's "A Call to Action: Transforming High School for All Youth," a framework of six core principles and recommended strategies for preparing the nation's youth for college, careers and active civic participation.  "A Call To Action" provides leaders at the national, state, district, school and community levels with a common framework for building public will; developing supportive policies; and actually implementing the practices needed to radically change the traditional, factory-model high school that tracks and sorts students.

Arkansas Senator Shane Broadway spoke about the Honor States plan in his state.  As the result of losing an adequacy lawsuit, Arkansas has worked for several years to reform its high schools, and has had success in raising test scores.  Arkansas's plan includes several components: 

• Increasing professional development requirement from 30 hours to 60 hours.
• Requiring every district to offer four advanced placement (AP) classes.
• Requiring high school students to complete four units of math and three units of science.
• Undertaking a grade inflation study, to compare ACT scores to grades.
• Instituting longitudinal tracking, so student progress can be tracked through a P-16 system.

The panel of speakers, moderated by Minnesota Senator Steve Kelley, discussed ongoing challenges and issues around building state policy in support of high school redesign.  Questions from the audience revealed legislators' concerns that vocational education seems to be missing from the high school reform conversation.  Although the panelists agreed that vocational education should be part of the discussion, they also reiterated that all high school graduates should be equally prepared for postsecondary education, whether it be vocational education or traditional college.

NGA Honor States Website

National High School Alliance Website

Testing and Assessing Youth with Disabilities: Challenges and Issues for States

The session presenters discussed how the process of assessing youth with disabilities relates to both No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements and student education and transition goals. South Dakota Senator Ed Olson, session moderator, introduced the topic with a story of a recent high school graduate with disabilities who began her schooling with a misleading assessment which, when reconducted, resulted in a highly productive and successful educational experience.  Jane Krentz, currently a research fellow at the National Center on Educational Outcomes (a former state legislator and chair of NCSL's Education Committee), provided a history of testing policy at the national level, including a discussion of how assessment requirements may drive expectations of students.  Jane also discussed issues around the Department of Education's case-by-case state NCLB exemptions for this population.  Bob Runkel described Montana's Comprehensive Assessment system, an innovative effort that capitalizes on the state's rural and small school districts.  A highlight of the Montana program is the evaluation of children using both Montana Reading and Mathematics content standards and expanded benchmarks, measured through teacher observation.  Joan Wills, director of the Center on Workforce Development at the Institute for Educational Leadership, closed the session with a summary of how workplace expectations can be met and even exceeded through a quality redesign of the assessment process and education plan.  Ms. Wills argued for alternative testing with an emphasis on workplace transition skills and competencies. She also stressed the importance of an intra-agency approach to education in order to best serve students with disabilities. 

Jane Krentz, National Center on Educational Outcomes Power Point

Bob Runkel, Montana State Special Education Power Point

Joan Willis, Center on Workforce Development Power Point

No Child Left Behind:  Recent Comprehensive Reports on Its Implementation

The first half of the session was devoted to recent findings regarding the implementation of No Child Left Behind from the perspectives of the Center on Education Policy, the Harvard Civil Rights Project, and the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights.  The Center for Education Policy and the Harvard Civil Rights Project, which examines the effects of NCLB on minority and low-income children, reported that overall achievement is up, although it may not be a direct correlation between achievement levels and NCLB.  Both groups found particular findings troubling, including: bribes from tutoring companies; the expanded role of the federal government in education; a short implementation timeline; unrealistic expectations; and the need to move toward a growth model since the current accountability measure under NCLB, adequate yearly progress (AYP), is not a good indicator of a school's performance.  Requests from the Center on Education Policy's latest survey will be available in March 2006.  The center predicts that the following issues surrounding NCLB will emerge:  lack of consistency/transparency in the implementation of NCLB; an increase in the number of school identified as failing; and lots of discussion in Congress.

As the dissent, The Citizens Commission on Civil Rights argued that schools are achieving extraordinary results.  In particular, the performance of black students in the southeast has increased dramatically.  Most notably, since the inception of NCLB, schools have set high standards for their students and are being held accountable for their results.

The last part of the session was devoted to summarizing NCSL's NCLB Task Force findings.  The bipartisan task force was comprised of 22 members, including 16 legislators and six legislative staff members.  The task force met eight times in 10 months and, on January 29, 2005, presented its final report to the NCSL Executive Committee, which unanimously approved it.  The report consists of six chapters.  Most of it--chapters two through five--recommends specific changes that could be made to the law.  The first chapter, in contrast, raises fundamental questions about the act's underlying philosophy, and the last chapter addresses one of the most vexing questions raised by legislators:  the federal funding available for NCLB.

Delivering the Promise: State Recommendations for Improving No Child Left Behind

The Perfect Storm:  The Impending Crisis for Higher Education and What State Legislators Can Do

To begin this session, co-moderator Connecticut Representative Denise Merrill, gave an overview of the goals of NCSL's Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education, a two-year effort that brings together legislators from around the country.  Goals of the commission include alerting legislators and the public that a crisis is coming in higher education funding; elevating the awareness among state legislators about their roles in funding higher education and the steps that will be necessary to expand a higher education system that already is overextended; expanding the conversation to increase collaboration; and providing ongoing training and professional development for legislators in higher education policy issues.

Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, spoke about the center's Measuring Up 2004:  The National Report Card on Higher Education.  The report finds that gains in higher education preparation were made in most groups, with the exception of low-income students; that smaller proportions of young and working-age adults are enrolling in college; that state colleges and universities are significantly less affordable than they were 10 years ago; that there have been modest gains in degrees and certificates completed; that states have increased the percentage of their population with associate or baccalaureate degrees, which has increased economic output; and that most states are "incomplete" in developing actual skills needed for the workplace

Paul Lingenfelter, executive director of State Higher Education Executive Officers, spoke about what it will take for Americans to compete in the future.  The American work force is more expensive than most of the world because we demand health benefits and high wages.  To justify those costs, Americans must continue to be the best-educated population in the world.  Mr. Lingenfelter argued that legislators must ask the right questions about higher education funding, including:

• What do we need from higher education?
• What can we do better with the money we have?
• What do we need that justifies more money?

The panel of speakers, moderated by Wisconsin Representative Rob Kreibich, discussed ongoing challenges and issues related to funding for higher education.  Challenges for legislators include the fact that not every legislator represents a college, and that most legislators have a two-to-four year outlook, while higher education funding requires a longer-term outlook.  Comments from the audience included a question about why students and parents don't complain about rising tuition costs; thoughts about why the public perception has changed to believing that higher education is a private good, not a public one; comments about the trend that the average annual income of state college students and parents have raised dramatically, while lower-income students who really need public colleges are being pushed out; and thoughts about trends in colleges in other nations, including the observation that other countries are dramatically improving their higher education systems, which has resulted in fewer international students being educated in U.S. colleges.

Alternative to Traditional Public Education:  An Update on Charters, Vouchers and Tax Credits

The speakers in this session covered several issues relating to school choice, including trends, research and legislative activity.  Privatization programs have increased dramatically since the 1990s, largely due to the appeal of the programs, which encompass competition and innovation.  Preschool and special education are the fastest growing school choice sectors.  Research suggests that the market approach works, competition improves public schools, school choice is popular with parents, and children's lives are being transformed.

Research also has shown that in the last decade, schools of choice have had difficulty outperforming public schools.  Privatization programs have several hurdles to overcome, including fixed costs; additional costs (marketing, equity, politicking and partnerships); no miracle pedagogy; new economies of scale; and a competitive response from public schools.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs?  Research shows that privatization programs raise student achievement, but the percentage is fairly insignificant.  The financial, legislative and legal costs are significant.

Recent trends to monitor, include moving from vouchers toward tuition tax credits; an appeal to preestablished markets--"niche schools" such as charter schools; and privatization through select educational processes--NCLB and private SES providers.

At least 35 states introduced school choice legislation during their 2005 sessions.  Six states enacted school choice legislation this session--Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah.

Trends in School Choice and the Privatization of Education Power Point

Alliance for School Choice Power Point

National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education Teachers College, Columbia University Website

School Siting: How Far Away Makes Sense?

Legislative Education Staff Network (LESN) Education Roundtable 

This roundtable discussion was for members of the Legislative Education Staff Network (LESN), which is sponsored by NCSL and the Education Commission of the States (ECS).  Discussion centered on school financing and special education/IDEA issues.  The roundtable was led by Robin Johnson, principal legislative analyst for North Carolina, who co-chairs the LESN along with Audrey Carr, Kentucky; Kathy Hanlon, Iowa; Connie Erickson, Montana and Doug Berg, Minnesota.  Staff members from Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah discussed the effects and outcomes of several litigation lawsuits on adequacy and equity.  As a result of these lawsuits, several states have made, or are in the process of evaluating, changes to their state's education finance system.  According to those present, the focus on finance has moved from the issue of total amount available for education to the assessment of spending efficiencies and accountability.  Several people indicated that their states have had difficulty tracking funding streams and spending at the district and school levels, while a few states have implemented detailed accounting and tracking systems, including uniform charts of accounts and data warehouses.  Teacher compensation also continues to be debated, with an acknowledgement by the group that compensation comparisons between states may be inappropriate because they rarely account for the number of work days in teacher contacts.

Lack of time permitted a full discussion of special education issues.  Discussants cited little to no state legislative activity around IDEA.  North Carolina, is however, undertaking a full rewrite of its special education law in the coming year and, thus, IDEA issues soon will be addressed.  All agreed that lack of funding for special education was a consistent and universal complaint.  Several other staff members indicated ongoing issues over the district's cost responsibility for children who are temporarily educated in the district as a result of their placement in residential treatment.  School districts are responsible for the education of those students residing in the district.  However, state regulations may not provide clear or sufficient methods for reimbursing the per-pupil costs of "temporary" students--students who may not be counted in the district's funding, depending upon the timing and duration of their residential placement.  Some residential treatment programs service out-of-state children, further complicating costs and reimbursement.  It was noted that Medicaid does not reimburse for education, although children may be attending residential treatment programs on Medicaid dollars.  Other significant issues include over-identification, classroom accommodations, and high stakes school exit exams.

Visitor counts for this page.

 Education Home Page