No Child Left INSIDE Act of 2007

“We’ve heard from many environmental education experts about how the No Child Left Behind’s strong focus on testing has led many teachers to reduce the time spent on environmental sciences. This legislation will help turn our children, whose generation will ultimately be responsible for saving the planet, into environmental stewards.”

-Rep. John Sarbanes, discussing No Child Left Inside Act

With the appropriations process completed for 2008, we will begin occasionally revisiting some STEM education bills introduced in 2007. We start with the “No Child Left Inside Act,” H.R. 3036, introduced in mid-2007 by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD). The bill would amend the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, and would specifically:

-Require states seeking new environmental education grants under No Child Left Behind to develop and submit a K-12 environmental education plan to ensure that high school graduates are environmentally literate. States receiving such funds would submit status reports on how those plans are being implemented.

-Provide new funding for states to develop, improve and advance environmental education standards.

-Provide new funding to train qualified teachers to teach environmental education courses and programs.

A Senate version of the bill was also introduced soon after the House bill, as S.1981, by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). Both bills were sent to the education committees in the House and Senate, and both are said to have strong support. Check our newly inaugurated STEM Ed. Bill Database for updates. Since the bills are amendments to NCLB, the fate of both may be determined by the larger fate of the NCLB reauthorization in 2008 (which, while uncertain, may move forward given that President Bush, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. George Miller appear intent on trying).

Each of the bills allow for grants to go to local education agencies (LEAs), institutes of higher education (IHEs), and certain other education organizations. Both versions authorize $500 million over the next five years for the program; however, we should again note that bills such as this are authorization bills, not appropriations bills, meaning that the “authorized” funding level is essentially a recommendation.

The “No Child Left Inside Coalition,” made up of 115 organizations, including the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation and Chesapeake Bay Foundation, has started a site advocating for the No Child Left Inside Act, where more information is available. Although not a member of the Coalition, the National Education Association also supports the legislation. Vote below to express your opinion about this bill (the poll is run through Washington Watch, and reflects the votes of visitors to their site as well; you can also add your comments on the bill here).

Update: Here are a few resources to learn about the more recent April 2008 Congressional hearing on the bill: read an overview here, a more in-depth review here, and other news coverage of the hearing here.

The State of Our Union's Education

About a quarter of the way through the President's State of the Union speech last night, he touched on education issues. Soon after he noted a few issues related to American competitiveness issues as well. The brief excerpts of each are below, and the full speech in video or text form can be found here.

The Democratic response by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was, as is common, a bit shorter, and did not discuss education issues; however, the video and text of that speech are available here. Although, prior to the State of the Union address, on Jan. 25th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a joint address touching on the Democratic perspective on various issues. The section on education is also available below, with the full speech available here.

President's State of the Union excerpts:

“Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens.

These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered the call…

…On education, we must trust students to learn, if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools.

In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.

Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results.

Last year, 4th and 8th graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs. Now we must...

(APPLAUSE)

Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibilities for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, provide extra help for struggling schools.

Members of Congress, the No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents and their teachers to strengthen this good law.

(APPLAUSE)

We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation's capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.

Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning.

And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential.

Together, we've expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools…

…To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow.

Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge.

So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on earth.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech excerpts:

“For education, we will chart a New Direction where innovation not only begins in the classroom, but where innovation will also change the classroom and the way children learn.

We must ensure that students are prepared for a globalized world and workplaces that will increasingly require them to work in teams, collaborating across companies, communities and continents. We must ensure that our children are not just learning basic skills but critical thinking and the ability to apply knowledge to new challenges.

To begin this effort, we must leapfrog over old arguments about testing and encourage and invest in more innovation so that the students of today will be prepared for the jobs of tomorrow here at home.

We began this work with our Innovation Agenda which launched a new commitment to encouraging students and ensuring highly-qualified teachers in the fields of math, science and engineering.

We are making college more affordable for all students to ensure that we have a new generation of innovators.

We began this work by enacting the largest expansion of student aid since the GI Bill in 1944. We cut student loan rates in half and boosted Pell Grants.

This year, we will continue that work through reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which will continue to address the rising cost of college and reshape our higher education system."

Update: The President's education agenda for 2008 is elaborated on in pages 18-20 of this White House document.

Key Stats on STEM from NSB

"Students from financially poorer families or whose mother had less formal education entered kindergarten with lower levels of mathematics skills," according to the National Science Board's (NSB) Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. This is one of many STEM education-related observations in NSB's most recent Indicators publication, released this week. The publication is meant to lay out the “data and trends” within science, engineering, and technology, on a biennial basis. Each publication includes a separate companion piece that offers the Board’s perspective on the policy implications of that year's Indicators (all of these materials are available for free online: the full Indicators here, the brief companion piece on policy here, and a "Digest" summary of key statistics from the Indicators here). The companion piece includes three policy recommendations: enhancing Federal funding of basic research; encouraging greater "intellectual exchange" between academia and the business sector; and developing new data to track the economic effects of globalization. Though issues related to these recommendations were the most salient points in NSB's unveiling of the Indicators, there was a story behind the story for the STEM education community.

Below, we will list some selected high and low points of that story, all of which are direct quotes from the publication, unless otherwise noted. The statistics generally come from the “highlights” section of chapter one of the Indicators (pages 1-4 to 1-6), but will be cited when drawn from another section, or from the Digest. Please visit chapter one, titled "Elementary and Secondary Education," for more complete information. The sections below are broken into the following categories (all taken directly from the text), and within each category there are subheadings which are italicized:

-Student Learning in Mathematics and Science
-Standards and Coursetaking
-Mathematics and Science Teacher Quality
-Professional Development of Mathematics and Science Teachers
-Teacher Salaries, Working Conditions, and Job Satisfaction
-Transitions to Higher Education

---

Student Learning in Mathematics and Science

All student groups made gains in mathematics and science during elementary and high school, but performance disparities were evident, and some gaps widened as students progressed through school.

Students from financially poorer families or whose mother had less formal education entered kindergarten with lower levels of mathematics skills and knowledge than their more advantaged peers. Substantial racial/ethnic gaps in mathematics performance were also observed.

In 2005, U.S. fourth and eighth grade students outperformed those tested in the 1990s in mathematics, and fourth grade students improved in science.

Widespread increases in mathematics from the 1990s to 2005 were not matched in science. Since 1996, the first year the current national science assessment was given, average science scores increased for 4th graders, held steady for 8th graders, and declined for 12th graders.

Standards and Coursetaking

In 2006, slightly more than half the states required 3 or more years of both mathematics and science courses for high school graduation.

Students in more than 40 states were required to complete at least 2 years of both mathematics and science in high school; 3 years was the most common requirement for both subjects, in effect in just over half the states.

State development of course content standards has progressed in recent years and standards continue to be reviewed and revised.

All states had issued content standards in mathematics and science by 2006–07, and 35 states had schedules for reviewing and revising those standards.

Trends from 1990 to 2005 show increases in advanced coursetaking; growth was especially strong in mathematics.

Class of 2005 graduates completed mathematics courses at far higher rates than their 1990 counterparts in all categories except trigonometry/algebra III.

As the school's poverty rate diminished [i.e., as income level increased], [high school] graduates were more likely to complete many of the advanced mathematics, science, and engineering courses [e.g., only 16.8% of students in schools with a high poverty rate completed trigonometry or algebra III, versus 26.2% in schools with a very low poverty rate; similarly, only 49.6% in high poverty rate schools completed chemistry, whereas 67% completed chemistry in low poverty rate schools; see tables 1-9 and 1-10 below for more details]. For some subjects, a significant different existed only between schools with very low poverty rates and all other schools (Indicators, page 1-23).

Mathematics and Science Teacher Quality

Most mathematics and science teachers have the basic teaching qualifications of a college degree and full state certification.

At least 75% of 2003 mathematics and science teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience participated in practice teaching before their first teaching job.

The majority of public high school mathematics and science teachers had a college major or certification in their subject field, that is, they were “in-field” teachers. Infield teaching was less common in middle schools than in high schools.

In 2003, 78%–92% of mathematics, biology, and physical science teachers in public high schools were teaching in field. Out-of-field teachers (that is, teachers teaching their subject with neither a major nor certification in the subject matter field, a related field, or general education) ranged from 2% of physical science teachers to 8% of mathematics teachers.

The proportion of in-field mathematics and science teachers in middle schools was lower (33%–55%) than in high schools (78%–92%). About 3%–10% were teaching out of field.

Teachers in schools with low concentrations of minority and low-income students tended to have more education, better preparation and qualifications, and more experience than teachers in schools with high concentrations of such students.

Mathematics and science teachers in low-minority and low-poverty schools were more likely than their colleagues in high-minority and high-poverty schools to have a master’s or higher degree and to hold full certification.

Mathematics and science teachers in low-minority and low-poverty schools were more likely to teach in field than their colleagues in high-minority and high-poverty schools.

New mathematics and science teachers (those with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience) were more prevalent in high-minority and high-poverty schools than in low minority and low-poverty schools.

Professional Development of Mathematics and Science Teachers

Participation in induction and mentoring programs was widespread.

In 2003, 68%–72% of beginning mathematics and science teachers in public middle and high schools reported that they had participated in a formal teacher induction program or had worked closely with a mentor teacher during their first year of teaching.

Teacher participation in professional development was common. However, various features of professional development identified as being effective in bringing about changes in teaching practices were not widespread.

Teacher Salaries, Working Conditions, and Job Satisfaction

Attrition from teaching was typically lower than from other professions and attrition rates of mathematics and science teachers were no greater than the overall rate. Many were satisfied with being teachers and planned to stay in the profession as long as they could.

In 2003, 90% of mathematics and science teachers said that they were satisfied with being teachers in their schools, 76% planned to remain in teaching as long as they could or until retirement, and more than 66% expressed their willingness to become teachers again if they
could start over.

In academic year 2003-04, about 59% of the public secondary schools in the United States reported vacancies in mathematics teaching positions, and of these nearly one-third said that they found it "very difficult to" or "could not" fill those vacancies (Digest, page 19).

About one-third of public secondary schools with vacancies in mathematics [32%] or physical sciences [31%] reported great difficulty in finding teachers to fill openings in these fields, whereas 22% of schools reported that this was the case in biology/life sciences [similarly, 31% in ESL, 32% in foreign language, and 31% in special education] (Digest, page 19).

Science and mathematics teacher salaries continue to lag behind salaries for individuals working in comparable professions and the gaps have widened substantially in recent years.

In 2003, the median salary for full-time high school mathematics and science teachers was $43,000, lower than the salaries of professionals with comparable educational backgrounds such as computer systems analysts, engineers, accountants or financial specialists, and protective
service workers ($50,000–$72,000). From 1993 to 2003, full-time high school mathematics and science teachers had a real salary gain of 8%, compared with increases of 21%–29% for computer systems analysts, accountants or financial specialists, and engineers.

In 2003, 53% of public middle and high school mathematics and science teachers said that they were not satisfied with their salaries.

Transitions to Higher Education

Over two-thirds of all U.S. high school graduates enroll in postsecondary education immediately after graduation, although immediate enrollment rates for low-income families are lower (Digest, page 18).

Between 1975 and 2005, the percentage of students ages 16 to 24 enrolling in college immediately following high school graduation rose from 51 to 69%, with increases evident across all income levels (Digest, page 18).

Over 80% of high school graduates from high-income families attend college immediately after graduation, compared with 54% from low-income families (Digest, page 18).

---

Science and Engineering Indicators, Chapter 1, Appendix Table 1-9
*Click to enlarge.

Science and Engineering Indicators, Chapter 1, Appendix Table 1-10
*Click to enlarge.

NCLB and the Courts

Are States incurring costs under No Child Left Behind which the law itself says they will not have to? In 2005, a federal district judge in Detroit said “no.” This week, the majority in a federal appeals court said “yes,” reversing the Detroit decision. An example of some of the NCLB-related costs States have to pay was noted in a 2005 Education Week article: “Illinois will spend $15.4 million per year to develop and administer required tests, whereas the federal government currently gives Illinois $13 million per year for this purpose, a $2.4 million annual shortfall”—or simply a $2.4 million State cost, depending on which one of these two rulings is determining the verbiage. The 2005 Detroit case, which led to this week’s appellate decision, was brought by the National Education Association (NEA), along with some State NEA organizations, other affiliates, and local school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont.

Robert Chanin, general counsel for the NEA, told Education Week what he thought this week’s ruling could mean: “Hundreds of school districts and all of the states now know that at least one court of appeals has said to them, ‘You are right; you don’t have to do anything you are not getting the money to do.’ ” In a New York Times article on the subject, it notes that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings left open the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal.

The language in a particular NCLB provision is what the case hung on, where it states:

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act."

What does it mean? Does it mean that no NCLB-related costs can be required of the States except for those which the feds pay for? That’s what the majority determined this week. Conversely though, the dissenting judge, Judge David McKeague, held that it “simply prevents federal officers from transforming NCLB from a voluntary program into a mandatory one.”

The majority based their opinion on the idea that “a state official deciding to participate in NCLB could reasonably read [the above-quoted provision] to mean that her State need not comply with the requirements that are ‘not paid for under the Act’ through federal funds.” This idea, in turn, is based on the “Spending Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that there be clarity for the States in terms of what costs they will bear under a given piece of legislation. The majority also quotes the former education secretary Rod Paige, who preceded Spellings, as saying, in 2003, “[I]f it’s not funded, it’s not required. There is language in the [NCLB] bill that prohibits requiring anything that is not paid for.”

Judge McKeague, who was the dissenting of the three judges, had the alternate interpretation of the provision, noted above, but further held that State officials considering participation in NCLB should have been well aware that there were costs associated with their participation. Specifically he says, “State and local school officials…had a crystal clear vision of what Congress was offering them by way of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Many of them could not bring themselves to pass up the federal funds, but simply hoped that someone or something could save them at the end of the road. Today the majority [ruling] does exactly that.” He goes on to note that federal funding for education has always been low (“7% of total funding for local education” in 2001), and that the onus has always been on the States to cover most education costs.

Interestingly, the NEA lawyer, Robert Chanin, seemed to agree with the dissenting judge to a degree based on a 2003 memo he wrote on the issue: “In point of fact, however, neither the parental notice requirement – nor, indeed, any of the other requirements in NCLB – are 'imposed' on the states in a legal sense. NCLB has been enacted on the basis of Congress' Spending Power, and states can avoid this and other statutory requirements simply by declining to accept federal Title I funds. If the states decide to accept such funds, however, then they must also accept the conditions that Congress has attached to them. To be sure, a legal argument can be made that this choice is not really 'voluntary' – states have no option but to comply inasmuch as they cannot adequately fund public education without the federal contribution – but the courts uniformly have rejected such an argument in the education context, as well as in connection with other federal aid programs." The majority opinion, however, says that regardless of States’ motives, the alleged ambiguity of the NCLB language led them to their final decision: “To be sure, state officials may have their own interests in reading [the provision] to excuse their States’ obligations to comply with unfunded requirements of NCLB; our point is merely that NCLB does not provide clear notice that their interpretation (and, apparently, the former Secretary’s) is somehow misplaced.”

The arguments for the minority and majority opinions reach a good deal beyond these summative points here though, and are contained in the 29 pages of the final decision, available here.

Update: Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced February 1 that the Department of Education would indeed be appealing the above ruling. The press release read as follows:

"I am pleased to announce today that the Solicitor General has authorized the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the case Pontiac (MI) School District et al. v. U.S. Department of Education. The petition will be filed shortly.

As you know, on January 7, 2008, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 decision, ruled against the Department in a case brought by several school districts and NEA affiliates alleging the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an "unfunded mandate."

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I strongly disagree with the ruling, and believe that if the decision were to stand, it could undermine efforts to improve the education of our nation's children, in particular those students most in need.

NCLB is not an unfunded mandate. It is a voluntary compact between the States and the Federal government, which asks that in exchange for Federal tax dollars, results be demonstrated. This investment is netting solid results and creating an opportunity for every child in America to have access to a quality education."

Update 2: In a similar court case in Connecticut, a Federal judge ruled in favor of Secretary Spellings. As noted in this Education Week news coverage of the case, "A federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government yesterday in all counts in Connecticut's lawsuit seeking flexibility under NCLB and to have it declared an unfunded mandate."