Download This Bill in Microsoft Word format
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
H. 4891
STATUS INFORMATION
House Resolution
Sponsors: Reps. Duncan, Taylor, Pinson, Allen, Leach, Neilson, Parks, M.A. Pitts, Hayes, J.E. Smith, Branham and McLeod
Document Path: l:\council\bills\nbd\12240ac04.doc
Companion/Similar bill(s): 1031, 4889
Introduced in the House on March 3, 2004
Currently residing in the House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions
Summary: "No Child Left Behind" legislation
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/3/2004 House Introduced HJ-35
3/3/2004 House Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-35
3/18/2004 House Committee report: Favorable Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-27
3/19/2004 Scrivener's error corrected
3/23/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Hayes,
J.E.Smith, Branham
3/24/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: McLeod
3/24/2004 House Recommitted to Committee on Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-16
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 18, 2004
H. 4891
Introduced by Reps. Duncan, Taylor, Pinson, Allen, Leach, Neilson, Parks and M.A. Pitts
S. Printed 3/18/04--H. [SEC 3/19/04 2:36 PM]
Read the first time March 3, 2004.
To whom was referred a House Resolution (H. 4891) to express concern with provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and to urge Congress to review and modify the No Child Left Behind, etc., respectfully
That they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend that the same do pass:
ROBERT W. LEACH, SR. for Committee.
TO EXPRESS CONCERN WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND LEGISLATION AND TO URGE CONGRESS TO REVIEW AND MODIFY THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND LEGISLATION.
Whereas, although the intent behind the No Child Left Behind legislation was laudable, there are modifications needed in the legislation; and
Whereas, the requirement that all subgroups reach 100% proficiency using the same measure is unrealistic; and
Whereas, alternate assessment limitations for students with disabilities are inconsistent with the needs of South Carolina; and
Whereas, identification of schools as having failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) or as in need of improvement without consideration of the magnitude or significance of the school's overall success in the required areas is unfair; and
Whereas, the required sanctions for schools identified as in need of improvement are not available in many areas of the State and may not result in a better educational experience for students; and
Whereas, requiring all teachers to demonstrate highly qualified status through receipt of an academic major or passage of a content specific test is unrealistic for South Carolina's rural, remote, and special purpose schools as well as special education teachers; and
Whereas, the requirement that all subgroups have not less than 95% participation is not appropriate, particularly since the requirement relates to limited English proficiency (LEP) students after one year in the school system, even though they frequently lack previous formal educational opportunities; and
Whereas, funds made available to states to implement No Child Left Behind are not what were promised when Congress enacted the legislation and are insufficient to meet the requirements of the legislation; and
Whereas, the future costs of implementing the remediation portion of the No Child Left Behind legislation is not included in the mandates placed on the states by the federal government; and
Whereas, states should be allowed to establish separate starting points and trajectories by subgroup so long as the trajectory results in 100% proficiency by 2014; and
Whereas, states should be allowed to adopt value-added models based on the growth of individual students from grade to grade, ensuring that every student achieves proficiency over time; and
Whereas, states should be allowed to use alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards for students with severe disabilities beyond the 1% variance allowed under No Child Left Behind, and consistent with the student's individualized education plan (IEP); and
Whereas, No Child Left Behind legislation should allow the limitation on the percentage of students to whom this applies to be set by states' and local districts' enrollment of students with severe disabilities; and
Whereas, states should be allowed to develop alternative assessments for students with significant disabilities who do not qualify as severely disabled but who will still more appropriately be measured against a personalized performance standard consistent with the state content standards and the student's IEP; and
Whereas, states and districts should be allowed to identify schools in need of improvement based on the group having failed to make AYP for two consecutive years with the same subgroup in the same subject; and
Whereas, the law should differentiate improvement status and associated sanctions based on the magnitude of the school's failure to meet the AYP requirements; and
Whereas, states should be allowed to target the school choice option and supplemental services to those students in subgroups that did not make AYP; and
Whereas, schools should be allowed to choose the order of initiating either choice of supplemental services so that services can be developed or secured in response to student need; and
Whereas, school districts should be allowed to develop the capacity of receiving schools to meet the needs of target populations before school choice is implemented; and
Whereas, small, rural, isolated, and special purpose schools and special education teachers should be allowed additional time to meet the highly qualified requirements if progress toward the goal is demonstrated; and
Whereas, these teachers should be allowed to meet these requirements in high priority core academic areas determined by the State, and without penalty of label for not having met the arbitrarily restrictive, "highly qualified" requirements in all core academic areas to which they may be assigned; and
Whereas, new teachers in small rural, isolated and special purpose schools and teachers certified in special education should be allowed to meet highly qualified status and to be hired to work in schools supported with Title I funds if they meet the state certification and House criterion as opposed to requiring an academic major in each core subject area; and
Whereas, the law already allows excusal of students who have not been enrolled for an academic year as defined by the State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, express concern with provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and urge Congress to review and modify the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the majority leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to the members of the South Carolina Congressional delegation.
This web page was last updated on Monday, December 7, 2009 at 10:39 A.M.