Key Issues to Consider as Congress Looks at ESEA This Week

Today the Senate will begin debating a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), whose most recent version No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001.  Its five-year reauthorization is long, long overdue.  The House Rules Committee has also scheduled a meeting today to consider whether to resurrect the House version of the bill, which died after the Education and Labor Committee chose not to bring it to the House floor in March when sponsors realized they could not secure enough votes for passage.

Here is my view about what any new reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act should do:

  • address public school inequality by allocating federal resources for equity and pressing states to close opportunity gaps;
  • allocate Title I funds to support schools serving children in poverty through a fair formula, not a competition or any kind of portable voucher;
  • reduce reliance on standardized tests;
  • support and improve, rather than punishing, the public schools in America’s poorest communities;
  • address issues outside school that affect school achievement such as racial segregation, concentrated poverty and the need for pre-school that helps children before they fall behind;
  • reject market-based, technocratic policies that involve school choice and privatization; and instead
  • improve public education as the bedrock of our society and public schools as the anchors of communities.

How close can our current Congress come to these ideals? And why is ESEA so important?

ESEA’s Philosophy:   Beyond its specifics, this omnibus federal education law sets our society’s overall education policy and establishes the philosophy of education that underpins the law’s specific requirements.  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was originally passed in 1965 as the centerpiece of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.  As he signed the original ESEA, Johnson declared, “Poverty has many roots, but the taproot is ignorance.”  Title I, a huge formula program that has delivered extra funding to schools and school districts that serve a large number or high concentration of children in poverty, was the centerpiece of the original ESEA.  Later Congress added funding streams to support the education of children with special needs—the Individuals with Disability Education Act, and funding to support the added expense of providing instruction in English for immigrant children.  The philosophy under the original ESEA was expanding opportunity, supporting equity, and compensating schools, especially when their states did not provide an adequate opportunity to learn for children whose needs are greatest.

How did No Child Left Behind change the federal approach to education?   Then in 2001, as the culmination of over a decade’s infatuation with test based accountability, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, a version of ESEA with a very different philosophy.  The idea was to test all children every year, compare the scores of all groups of children by race and economics, rank and rate schools according to how quickly they were raising test scores among every group of children, and impose sanctions on the schools and teachers who were not raising scores for all groups of children.  The law originally said it would rank any school as “failing” if it did not bring all children to a standard of proficiency by 2014, but as 2014 got closer, and everybody realized such a utopian goal was impossible, the U.S. Department of Education began offering the chance for states to apply for waivers (from the “failure” label) if they would impose high standards and rate teachers by students’ test scores.  No Child Left Behind abruptly shifted the focus of ESEA away from equalizing opportunity to a new philosophy of equalizing outcomes.  It shifted the demand away from closing opportunity gaps to closing test score achievement gaps, without acknowledging that achievement gaps derive in large part from opportunity gaps. The original ESEA set out to try to ameliorate the ravages of poverty—however inadequately it was funded for such an ambitious goal.  NCLB instead blamed schools and teachers, and its mechanism was sanctions without significant added funding.

How has the Obama administration changed federal education policy?   Then as the Obama administration added its own programs on top of NCLB, the problems got worse.  NCLB’s sanctions became widespread as more and more schools failed to bring all children to proficiency.  Sanctions such as school closure, turnaround—that involved firing the principal and half the teachers, and conversion of public schools to charters—began to be imposed across our poorest big city school districts.  The Obama Department of Education even took some of the money in the Title I formula and turned it into competitive programs in which states—those that would agree to the Department’s requirements that caps on charters be eliminated and teachers ranked and rated by students’ scores—competed for big federal grants.  There were “winner” states and also the losers, even though they also had public schools that serve poor children who lost the benefit of some of their Title I funding—the very opposite the old Title I formula that assisted all school districts serving children in poverty.

What is Congress considering now?   Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill being considered in Congress right now is ideal, though the Senate bill is far better than the House bill.  Both bills, unless they are amended, retain the requirement that states test all children in grades 3-8 and once in high school and report out the scores.  The Senate bill as it was passed out of committee in April would shift responsibility for improving low-scoring schools away from federally prescripted punishments and give states more latitude for setting policy.  For details about what is in the Senate bill, read Monty Neill’s piece (Monty leads the National Center for Fair and Open Testing.) that was printed in Valerie Strauss’s Washington Post column yesterday.

Title I Portability:   Although the Senate bill maintains the Title I formula, the far more conservative House bill includes a damaging proposal called “Title I portability.” This provision would undermine the original purpose of the federal role in education: to add compensatory funding in schools and school districts where family poverty is highly concentrated but where no state is doing enough to equalize opportunity.  Under the House bill poor children would receive federal Title I funds to support their education, but they could carry that funding to any public school they might attend.  If a poor family moved, for example, from a poor urban school district to an apartment in a wealthy suburban district, the student would bring along a flat, per-child, Title I amount.  The problem with Title I portability is that in districts where poverty is concentrated, the poverty of the mass of children challenges the capacity of schools to provide adequate supports and services.  Title I portability would undermine targeting built into the Title I formula that weights support according to the school’s concentration of poverty.  Here is how Washington Post reporter Lindsey Layton described the effect last February: “For example, Phoenix public schools have a poverty rate of 61.4 percent.  The school system receives $8.5 million in federal Title I funds.  Under the House committee plan, the school district would receive $3.8 million less, a nearly 45 percent drop in federal funds, according to the U.S. Department of Education.”  Many people worry that passage of public school Title I portability would eventually lead to Title I vouchers that children could carry to private schools.

Will the Senate bill, as proposed, be improved during floor debate?   It is assumed that there will be significant amendments from the floor in the Senate.  One is likely to be from Jon Tester (D-Montana) to substitute grade-span testing—once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school—for the annual standardized testing requirement in the bill that came out of Committee.  Although a large group of civil rights organizations has demanded the continuation of annual standardized testing because they consider it the only way to hold schools accountable, three civil rights leaders earlier this month—John Jackson, President of the Schott Foundation, Judith Browne Dianis co-director of Advancement Project, and Pedro Noguera, the New York University educational sociologist—published an important piece in The Hill to demand a reconsideration of the need for annual testing: “Moreover, of all the topics that could be addressed as No Child Left behind (NCLB) is considered for reauthorization, why defend a policy that has proven ineffective in advancing the educational interest of children of color and disadvantaged children generally?  Schools serving poor children and children of color remain under-funded and have been labeled ‘failing’ while little has been done at the local, state or federal level to effectively intervene and provide support.  In the face of clear evidence that children of color are more likely to be subjected to over-testing and a narrowing of curriculum in the name of test preparation, it is perplexing that D.C. based civil rights groups are promoting annual tests.”

One hopes there will be an effort in the Senate to move the philosophy of ESEA closer to its roots with a shift toward closing resource opportunity gaps.  Earlier this spring,  the Washington Post reported that the National Education Association has been pressing the Senate to amend the law to address the inequities between high-poverty public schools and those in more affluent communities by demanding that a new ESEA would require schools to, “publish an ‘opportunity dashboard’ that would disclose how much each school spends on teacher salaries, the number of experienced teachers and counselors they employ, access to Advanced Placement and honors courses and other indicators, so that disparity between schools is transparent.” NEA officials recently reported they are pressing Congress to include at least one measure of resource opportunity (along with the test score data required today) in the disaggregated data by which school districts and schools are evaluated. The goal: to shift the paradigm away from the test-score-based evaluation scheme embedded in No Child Left Behind to a new framework that exposes inequity across each state’s school districts. Problems are acute in states known to have regressive school funding formulas that fail to direct extra state dollars to help overcome disparities in local resources from school district to school district.

Can the House bill be improved?  Will it be voted on?  There remain serious questions about the House version of the reauthorization.  Will it come out of committee onto the floor?  Will Title I portability remain a key part of the House version?  Will the Club for Growth and Heritage Action continue to limit what the House will consider?  These two organizations’ lobbying efforts to make the bill far more conservative are said to have blocked its passage in March.

And then there is the question about whether Senate and House versions could be reconciled in conference committee, even if they were to pass in their respective chambers.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Key Issues to Consider as Congress Looks at ESEA This Week

  1. Thank you once again, Jan, for clearly explaining an urgent and complex topic. Here is the letter I emailed to my Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, who is on the Senate H.E.L.P. committee:
    Dear Senator Whitehouse,
    I have written to you and called your office a number of times in support of measures that support meaningful teaching and learning in our public schools. I taught English Language Arts at the RI School for the Deaf for more than 25 years before retiring in 2011. My two young adult children graduated from Cranston public schools. I am a staunch believer in and defender of public education. I think that everyone now recognizes that the No Child Left Behind Act has been a disaster for an entire generation of America’s children. I understand that the House and Senate are working diligently to come up with a better version in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I know that you have been listening to RI teachers and have a grasp of the significance of this legislation and the complexity of it. I would like to express my opinion on the versions now under consideration.

    I have been listening weekly to an online radio program called the War Report on Public Education, hosted by Dr. James Avington Miller, Jr. On the June 21, 2015 broadcast, his guest was Dr. Victoria Young, a long-time advocate for public schools. http://bbsradio.com/podcast/war-report-public-education-june-21-2015
    Dr. Young has thoroughly researched both the House and the Senate versions of the potential reauthorization for the ESEA. I strongly agree with her insights and her conclusions, and will paraphrase them here.

    Dr. Young reviewed the history of the ESEA by explaining that when enacted in 1965 it was part of the War on Poverty, and its charge was to focus on children in poverty and to provide them with educational quality and educational opportunity. There was no mention of “achievement.” When NCLB was enacted in 2002, the original laudable goal was jettisoned for a focus on closing the “achievement gap,” which was a test-based focus that touted national accountability, flexibility, and choice. This totally changed the focus of the ESEA, and not for the better. She claims, and I agree, that NCLB led the way to a huge overstepping of authority on the part of the federal Department of Education. I believe that this overstepping has been intensified since President Obama came to office and with Arne Duncan as the Secretary of Education.
    According to Dr. Young’s analysis, both the Senate version (Every Child Achieves Act) and the House version (Student Success Act) continue the misguided focus on accountability, flexibility, and choice. They go even further in squelching the rising tide of resistance to the standardization/test and punish/data collection and mining that has been proliferating in RI and across the country in opposition to the overreaching of the Race to the Top mandates and the requirements for waivers from NCLB. As you may know, I have been very vocal in RI in the past few months about the validity of parents’ right to Opt Out/Refuse the PARCC testing. I have written quite a bit about this, and have spoken at public forums with representatives from RIDE, as well as testified for or against education related bills in the RI state house. The bottom line is that the only way parents can make themselves heard about their deep dissatisfaction with the standards/testing movement that is robbing their children of a meaningful education is to protest the PARCC by opting out. The last thing we need is a law that presents more pressure to disallow parents having this right.

    Dr. Young believes that if both versions pass their respective bodies, there will need to be a compromise, combined version. This would be likely to weaken the resistance movement by making false promises and allaying the concerns of many who oppose the Common Core standards and the associated testing. Parents, teachers, and concerned citizens who have educated themselves about the profound inappropriateness of the Common Core standards, the curricula aligned to them, and the testing, do not want lip service. It is not enough to do away with “Common Core,” but to do away with the misguided understanding that undergirds it.
    If the 95% participation rule is retained in the final bill, and especially if each of the tested sub-groups must participate at at least 95%, there will be no leverage left to push back against this harmful educational regime.

    In Dr. Young’s view, which I concur with, there is really no way to “fix” NCLB. What is needed is to go back to the original purpose of the ESEA, which was to focus on providing the necessary supports to children living in poverty so that they can enjoy a truly high quality education. A high quality education is not an education stripped of the arts, music, drama, phys. Ed, and recess in order to sit at a cubicle and endlessly prep for developmentally inappropriate, convoluted, and ambiguous test questions. Children do not need or deserve a law that closes their neighborhood schools based on test scores, to turn the schools over to charter operators. Children need fully resourced neighborhood public schools.

    As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, you are in a pivotal position to influence the bill that the full Senate will consider. I implore you not to let a new version of NCLB that continues the worst of accountability and privatization provisions pass the Senate. The children of RI and the country deserve a law that enhances their well-being throughout their educational lives, and prepares them to become self-actualizing adults participating in a diverse, vibrant society, rather than cogs in a corporate wheel. Thank you for considering my concerns.

    Sincerely,
    Sheila Resseger, M.A.
    Retired teacher, RI School for the Deaf

  2. Pingback: U.S. House Passes Harmful Version of an ESEA Reauthorization Yesterday Afternoon | janresseger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s