|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Heritage Foundation
The Every
Student Succeeds Act: More Programs and Federal Intervention
By Lindsey Burke
In November 2015, Congress proposed reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left
Behind. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) would reauthorize ESEA
with high levels of spending and dozens of ineffective programs, while
creating additional programs. Any proposal to reauthorize ESEA should
include portability for Title I funding—the bulk of spending under the
law, designated for low-income school districts—in order to empower
poor children to access learning options that work well for them.
Proposals should also allow states to completely opt out of the
programs under ESEA, through the A-PLUS provision, in order to direct
dollars to state and local education priorities and limit federal
intervention in education. Any reauthorization should streamline
programs and end the federal education spending spree. As proposed,
ESSA does not accomplish these critical policy priorities.
KEY POINTS
The proposed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) contains a host of new
programs—from preschool and civics to “family engagement,” among
others. The 1,061-page proposal would also maintain high levels of
spending and dozens of ineffective programs.
The ESSA does not allow states to opt out through the A-PLUS provision.
The A-PLUS amendment is not part of this proposal.
Exit from Common Core remains a state leadership issue. Since states
have already adopted the national standards and tests, it is now up to
states to fully exit Common Core. Moreover, there are already
prohibitions in three federal laws against federal involvement in
curriculum-setting.
The proposed ESSA does not accomplish critical policy priorities, and
would maintain significant federal intervention in local school policy
for years to come.
In late November, Congress proposed reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) would reauthorize
ESEA, which has been due for a rewrite since 2007, marking a new period
for the law established exactly 50 years ago by President Lyndon B.
Johnson. The 1,061-page proposal, however, would maintain high levels
of spending and dozens of ineffective programs, while creating new
programs.
Any proposal to reauthorize ESEA should include portability for Title I
funding—the bulk of spending under the law, designated for low-income
school districts—in order to empower poor children to access learning
options that work well for them. Proposals should also allow states to
completely opt out of the programs under ESEA, through a provision
known as A-PLUS (based on the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success
Act), in order to direct dollars to state and local education
priorities and limit federal intervention in education. Finally, any
reauthorization should streamline programs and end the federal
education spending spree. The proposed ESSA does not accomplish these
critical policy priorities.
Change in Titles and Purpose of Titles from NCLB to ESSA
ESSA would make significant changes to the current NCLB authorization,
consolidating some programs, repurposing others, and adding entirely
new programs, including a $250 million preschool initiative to be
jointly administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and the Department of Education. Following is a brief review of
the nine titles in the proposed reauthorization:
Title I. Title I of the ESSA changes from “improving the academic
achievement of the disadvantaged” to “improving basic programs operated
by state and local educational agencies.” Spending under Title I, Part
A of ESSA increases from approximately $14.4 billion to an authorized
level of $15 billion in 2017, and to $16.2 billion by 2020. Funding for
reading programs (Part B), migrant education (Part C), and intervention
programs for at-risk children (Part D), remains steady.
Currently, states can set aside 4 percent of Title I funding for school
improvement purposes. In 2009, the Obama Administration created the
School Improvement Grant (SIG) program as a stand-alone initiative
funded primarily through more than $3 billion provided through the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), often referred to as the
stimulus package. The SIG program was geared toward turning around the
worst performing schools in a state through specific interventions tied
to the stimulus funds. Under the ESSA, the structure of the SIG program
is eliminated, but the existing 4 percent set aside in Title I is
increased to 7 percent, to be used for school improvement activities.
Although the SIG program is eliminated, states will now be able to use
a larger share of Title I funding for the same purpose, with overall
Title I funding increasing as well. So while the SIG program disappears
in law, funding for its functions effectively remains intact.
Title II. Title II of the ESSA remains geared toward preparing,
training, and recruiting high-quality teachers and principals.
Supporting Effective Instruction comprises the new Title II, Part A
funding, which remains relatively steady, at approximately $2.3 billion
annually through 2020. Supporting Effective Instruction grants provide
federal funding to states for recruiting and retaining high-quality
teachers and principals.
Funding for national activities authorized under Title II, Part B also
remains steady, at approximately $490 million annually through 2020.
National activities include, among other programs, teacher and
principal programs, literacy initiatives, civics and history programs
(a new initiative under the ESSA), and a new program known as the STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Master Teacher
Corps. The STEM Master Teacher Corps had been introduced as a
stand-alone bill by Senator Al Franken (D–MN) in February 2015 in an
effort to create a network of STEM leaders who would be eligible to
receive additional compensation funded through the federal program.[1]
Title III. Title III of the ESSA covers language instruction for
English Language Learners, as it did under No Child Left Behind.
Funding for the title’s three subparts increases from $737 million in
2015 to $885 million annually by 2020.
Title IV. Title IV of the ESSA remains the 21st Century Schools title.
However, the ESSA adds a significant new program under Part A. Part A
of Title IV—formerly the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
program under NCLB—had not been funded since 2007, when Congress
appropriated $270 million. The ESSA would reconstitute Part A into the
Student Support and Academic Enrichment program, and would authorize
the new program at $1.6 billion annually through 2020. That authorized
amount comes in addition to the authorized $1.1 billion in Part B,
which funds the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Part A
would then require states to spend 20 percent of those funds on
“well-rounded educational opportunities,” 20 percent of those funds on
“safe and healthy students,” and a portion of the funding on the
“effective use of technology.”[2] Part B authorizes $1.1 billion for
21st Century Community Learning Centers that offer after-school
academic enrichment programs. Part C includes federal funding for
charter schools, which would increase from $253 million in 2015 to $300
million by 2020. Funding is similarly increased for magnet schools,
which Part D of Title IV would increase from $92 million in 2015 to
nearly $109 million by 2020.
Part E of Title IV would also provide $10 million in federal funding
beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2020 to reconstitute the
Parental Information and Resources Center (PIRC)—which had not been
funded since 2010—into statewide Family Engagement in Education
Programs. These programs would, among other purposes, “assist the
Secretary, State educational agencies, and local educational agencies
in the coordination and integration of Federal, State, and local
services and programs to engage families in education.” The U.S.
Secretary of Education would award grants to statewide organizations to
establish family engagement centers to “carry out parent education, and
family engagement in education, programs; or provide comprehensive
training and technical assistance to State educational agencies, local
educational agencies…organizations that support family-school
partnerships, and other organizations that carry out such programs.”
Specifically, statewide family engagement centers would be able to
access funding to, among other goals, “assist parents in participating
effectively in their children’s education and to help their children
meet challenging State academic standards,” and assist parents “to
engage in activities that will improve student academic achievement,
including understanding how parents can support learning in the
classroom with activities at home and in after school and
extracurricular programs.”[3]
Part E of Title IV would also include funding for “education
innovation,” Promise Neighborhoods (funding to nonprofit and other
entities to benefit children in distressed communities), full-service
community schools, arts education, Ready to Learn television, and
gifted and talented education programs.
Title V. Title V, which previously consisted of the “promoting informed
parental choice and innovative programs” title, becomes the “state
innovation and local flexibility” title of the ESSA. Under the new
Title V, the ESSA enables some funding transferability, a pilot program
for weighted student funding, and nearly $170 million for rural
education programs from 2015 through 2020.
Title VI. Title VI of the ESSA would authorize programs for American
Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students, authorizing
approximately $160 million annually from 2015 through 2020.
Title VII. Title VII of the ESSA would become Impact Aid (formerly
Title VIII of NCLB), which would continue to authorize funding for
schools located on federal property not generating tax revenue. The
total authorized amount for programs funded under Title VII would grow
from nearly $1.3 billion annually to approximately $1.4 billion
annually from 2015 through 2020.
Title VIII. Title VIII of the ESSA (formerly Impact Aid under NCLB)
becomes the law’s general provisions section, providing definitions of
terms, outlining the use of administrative funding, and detailing
waivers, among other regulations. As with NCLB, a state may request a
waiver from the Secretary of Education for specific statutory or
regulatory provisions under the ESSA. However, the ESSA would
specifically prohibit the Secretary from requiring states or schools to
adopt specific standards or assessments, such as the Common Core State
Standards, or require adoption of specific state accountability systems
or teacher evaluation models to qualify for a waiver.
Title IX. Title IX of the ESSA (formerly the general provisions section
of NCLB) would become the title covering homeless children and youths.
The ESSA would increase funding under Part A of Title IX, which
provides funding for homeless children, from approximately $65 million
annually in 2015 to $85 million annually from 2017 through 2020.
Notably, Title IX would house the new federal preschool program
authorized by the ESSA, and authorize annual funding at $250 million.
The new preschool program would be housed at HHS, and jointly
administered with the Department of Education. The funding would be
available to states to help coordinate existing government preschool
programs, such as those operated by the states and Head Start, and to
establish new preschool programs.
ESSA: Federal Intervention in K–12, Mission Creep into Pre-K
Although the proposal makes important changes to current federal law
known as No Child Left Behind, it continues federal intervention into
local schools in too many areas, and expands it in several others.
Annual Testing and AYP. The Obama Administration and others have made
much of “over testing” in recent months. Because many states use their
own tests to assess students in advance of the federally mandated state
tests, students in large districts may take an average of 112 mandated
standardized tests by the time they graduate.[4] Although the ESSA
would end the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandates under NCLB, which
require that all students in all states make “adequate” annual progress
toward universal proficiency in math and reading or have the state risk
federal sanctions, the proposal would keep the annual testing structure
in place. The proposal would retain the annual testing requirement that
students be tested every year in grades three through eight and again
in high school. Regardless of the relative merits of standardized
testing, federally mandated annual testing would continue to have a
real effect on local school policy.
The ESSA would also include requirements for the new “state-based”
accountability plans. Although less prescriptive than AYP, the proposal
is specific about the types and the proportion of accountability
options that must be included. Within a state’s accountability plan,
“substantial weight” would have to be given to quantitative measures,
such as graduation rates and performance on state tests, with much less
weight allotted to subjective measures, such as school climate and
educator engagement. Under the new proposal, states would also be
required to intervene in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools,
have school-level interventions in schools in which subgroups of
students perform poorly, and intervene in schools in which fewer than
two-thirds of students graduate.
Preschool Programs. As noted, the agreement would also cement a new
preschool program at HHS (which currently manages Head Start). Some
funding has been appropriated for the preschool program for the past
two years. However, the new ESSA would codify the new $250 million
federal preschool program, expanding the scope of the ESEA.
Additionally, this move would continue the trend of growth in federal
programs affecting the youngest Americans at a time when there is more
empirical evidence than ever on the shortcomings of government
preschool programs.[5]
New Federal Programs and Spending. The proposal would expand rural
education programs and after-school programs and create a new version
of the Investing in Innovation program. (Although the i3 program, as it
currently stands, is eliminated.) It reconstitutes the Parental
Information and Resources Center—not funded since 2010—into statewide
Family Engagement in Education Programs. The ESSA would also establish
a new program known as Presidential Academies for the Teaching of
American History and Civics, which would provide professional
development to improve the teaching of history and civics to between 50
and 300 teachers annually, selected from public and private elementary
and secondary schools throughout the country. Funding would be
available to teachers to attend a two-week to six-week seminar taught
by “primary scholars.” “Congressional Academies” would operate
similarly, but would be open to high school juniors and seniors at the
recommendation of their principals. The proposal would retain a
labyrinth of federal programs, and high levels of federal spending. The
ESSA authorizes historically high levels of federal education spending,
continuing a trend that has increased federal intervention in local
school policy while failing to improve educational outcomes for
children.
Missed Opportunities to Restore State, Local, and Parental Control. The
ESSA does not include an option for Title I portability. Title I of the
ESEA has failed to meet its objective of improving educational outcomes
for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.[6] A better strategy for
reaching that goal would be to transform Title I by allowing states the
flexibility to make Title I dollars “portable,” so that the dollars
follow the child to the school or educational option of the parents’
choosing. Any reauthorization of the ESEA should allow states to make
Title I dollars portable, following students to a public, charter, or
private school of choice. The lack of Title I portability in the ESSA
proposal is a missed opportunity for empowering parents and making
Title I work better for the low-income children it was designed to help.
The ESSA would also require states to stay in the labyrinthine federal
framework by not including the A-PLUS provision. Over the summer of
2015, the House and Senate considered an amendment based on the A-PLUS
proposal, which would allow states to opt out completely and put
dollars toward any education purpose allowed under state law. The
amendment received 195 votes in the House and 44 votes in the Senate
(amounting to 80 percent of Republicans in Congress), yet is not part
of this proposal.
Exit from Common Core Remains a State Leadership Issue. Proponents of
ESEA reauthorization have argued that the ESSA would prohibit the U.S.
Secretary of Education from encouraging states to adopt Common Core and
would otherwise rein in the Department of Education. However, since
states have already adopted the national standards and tests, it is now
up to states to fully exit Common Core. Moreover, there were already
prohibitions in three federal laws against federal involvement in
curriculum-setting. It is unlikely that the additional prohibition in
the ESSA would have a different effect since federal involvement has
already served to inculcate Common Core.
Conclusion
Although it makes some important changes to NCLB, such as eliminating
AYP mandates, the proposed ESSA would not accomplish important policy
priorities of allowing states to make funding for Title I portable,
allowing states to completely opt out through the A-PLUS provision, or
cutting programs and spending that have accumulated over the decades in
a manner that has failed students and burdened school leaders with red
tape. As such, the proposed ESSA does not accomplish conservative
policy priorities and would maintain significant federal intervention
in local school policy for years to come.
—Lindsey M. Burke is the Will Skillman Fellow in Education Policy in
the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage
Foundation.
|
|
|
|
