College and workforce preparedness, 21st-century skills, and the use of data to inform instruction are among the new points of emphasis in a draft version of a bill to reauthorize the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Proposed by Rep. George Miller, Democratic chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and the committee's senior Republican member, Buck McKeon, the draft bill is a response to "two dozen hearings in D.C., a review of written recommendations from more than 100 education groups, and conversations with constituents and colleagues in Congress," the two lawmakers say.

The proposal calls for extensive revisions to the nation's education law. It would focus more on low-performing high schools in an effort to boost graduation rates, and it would offer greater flexibility in assessing and measuring school and student progress--especially for special-needs students and those just learning English. In addition, it would distinguish between schools that narrowly fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and those that significantly miss AYP goals.

"This draft is a work in progress, subject to change in the coming weeks as the committee moves a bill through the legislative process," Miller and McKeon write. "However, we believe it represents a starting point from which to receive input."

The draft legislation would create a Graduation Promise Fund, which would establish new resources for high schools with the lowest graduation rates. These resources would support data-driven instruction, staff collaboration and professional development, and individualized student support--including counseling services for students at risk of dropping out.

The House draft also would provide incentives for states to develop standards aligned with the skills needed for success in the 21st century, such as problem solving, critical thinking, and collaborative skills.

In addition, it would allow states to use more than a single test for accountability purposes. States could use multiple, state-developed tests taken at different points in time to measure AYP, and they could consider more than just reading and math test results. Under this scenario, for example, schools could get credit for student performance on history, civics, or science exams, as well as for improvement in graduation or college enrollment rates.

The draft bill also would let states include students' academic growth over time in their definition of AYP. To use such a "growth model," states would need to have in place a longitudinal data system that can compare the progress of the same students from year to year.

In addition, the proposal would treat schools that fail to meet AYP in only one or two subgroups differently from those that fail to meet AYP in several subgroups.

The draft creates two separate categories for schools in need of improvement: "Priority Schools" and "High Priority Schools." And it offers a range of intervention options for these schools, including formative assessments and data-driven instruction.