Fixing an Education 'Travesty'

By JAMES FULLER, Daily Herald Staff Writer

Illinois lawmakers will push the legal limits of the No Child Left Behind Act with three proposed changes that could make it easier for school districts to meet the federal requirements.

A group of suburban legislators told Wheaton Warrenville Unit District 200 officials last week the state may be able to change how some students are categorized and tested.

Much of the dander school officials raise over No Child Left Behind is the testing of students who are disadvantaged because of disabilities, language barriers or other reasons.

"The law as a moral compass is excellent," District 200 Assistant Superintendent Margo Sorrick said. "The way it's actually playing out is a travesty."

Northwest and West suburban schools rank among the best in the state for overall test scores but are finding themselves classified as failing by federal officials because portions of their so-called subgroups can't keep pace with the standards of the federal law.

Subgroups are identifiable portions of a district's student population such as disabled children or racial minorities.

No Child Left Behind requires a gradually increasing percentage of every subgroup to meet certain standards of progress - or the entire school is classified as failing.

The top priority, said state Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican, is to change what it takes to create a subgroup. In Illinois, it takes at least 40 students in a given category to form a recognized subgroup.

That number is similar to thresholds in many states. But it's low enough that if just a few students in any subgroup score poorly, the entire school can be labeled as failing.

In 2003-04, 69 percent of Illinois districts failed under No Child Left Behind because their subgroups of special education or limited-English speakers didn't make the grade required.

To change that, lawmakers are eyeing a new minimum threshold of up to 100 students.

But Cronin said lawmakers representing areas with large minority populations may oppose that change for fear of minorities losing the spotlight the federal law shines of them to ensure achievement.

If their testing isn't set apart and held to its own standard, it may be easier for schools to let them fall through the cracks.

A bump to 100 could also eliminate subgroups from many suburban districts because they wouldn't meet the new threshold.

Illinois State Board of Education spokeswoman Becky Watts said states set their own subgroup thresholds. California's is 100 students, but other states have thresholds as low as five.

"We can do this one if they want," Watts said. "It's entirely within the state's control. It's something I know the board is looking at."

Lawmakers said they believe the state board could make that change itself.

The other two proposals could be harder to pull off.

One echoes a call made by State Superintendent for Education Randy Dunn last month.

Lawmakers want academic progress for special education students to be measured by tests that match up with their Individual Education Plans. Those are plans tailored to realistic goals students can meet given their particular disability.

Currently, schools can show progress for up to 1 percent of their special education students through portfolios of student work and a separate test known as the Illinois Alternate Assessment. Remaining special education students take the basic standardized tests administered to all student groups, the Illinois State Achievement Test and Prairie State Achievement Exam.

Sometimes, just testing such students is a struggle. For instance, District 200 has a special needs student whose disability requires him to be in residential housing out of state. Therefore, the district can't even administer the Prairie State Achievement Exam to him. But his lack of testing counts against the district's progress under current No Child Left Behind guidelines.

Cronin said although it may be unreasonable for districts to test and show progress of some students, he's not optimistic the change will be allowable under federal regulations.

The last change may be the hardest to accomplish, but several districts have sought it.

Every year when scores come out, school officials complain the progress measured isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Grade levels are compared instead of students. For example, a current third-grade class is measured against the test scores of the third-grade class that came before it.

Lawmakers and school officials agreed at last week's meeting it'd be better to track individual students, particularly in the subgroups.

The state school board is developing the Student Information System that would support individual tracking by assigning a state ID number to every student. It's scheduled to piloted next year but is targeted for use with state report cards.

The legality of such tracking of students for No Child Left Behind is unclear.

The proposal is also likely to draw criticism from privacy advocates who could argue it would make be too easy for individual students to be ridiculed for their performance, Cronin said.

Watts said Dunn "wholeheartedly" supports Individual Education Plan testing and apples-to-apples tracking and has already asked federal officials to examine the potential for both measures.

"The issue is can we do this under the federal requirements," Watts said. "We may not have the authority at the state level to do some of these things."