|
|
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
Not Much for
Conservatives to Love in No Child Left Behind Rewrite
Lindsey Burke
November 20, 2015
There isn’t much for conservatives to love in the policies put forward
in the proposed rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization currently moving through Congress.
Proponents of the No Child Left Behind rewrite have argued that the
proposal would prohibit the education secretary from encouraging states
to adopt Common Core and would otherwise rein in the Department of
Education.
On the Common Core question, states have already adopted the national
standards and tests, and it is now up to states to fully exit Common
Core. Moreover, there were already prohibitions in three federal laws
against the federal government being involved in curriculum-setting. It
is unlikely that yet another prohibition will change much.
In regard to the proposal’s potential for somehow restraining the
Department of Education, we should first consider the amount of federal
direction that is retained.
Although the proposal would end Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
mandates, which required that all students in all states make
“adequate” annual progress toward universal proficiency in math and
reading or have the state risk federal sanctions, it retains the annual
testing requirement that students be tested every year in grades three
through eight and again in high school.
As was recently reported, states promulgate their own tests to assess
students in advance of the federally mandated state tests, resulting in
students in large districts taking an average of 112 mandated
standardized tests by the time they graduate. The proposal would keep
that structure in place. Regardless of what one thinks about the
relative merits of standardized testing, federally mandated annual
testing has a real effect on local school policy.
We should also consider the requirements included in the proposal 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. Reports suggest that
about 51 percent of a state’s accountability plan must be based on
quantitative measures such as graduation rates and performance on state
tests, and the other 49 percent may be based on other more subjective
measures, yet undefined. 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;
Intervene in schools in which fewer than two-thirds
of students graduate.
As The New York Times reported, “officials from the White House
insisted that states be required to intervene in the bottom 5 percent
of schools based on a range of metrics including test scores,
graduation rates and other measures of performance.”
The proposal is unlikely to meaningfully reduce federal intervention in
education. Here are five additional policy shortcomings:
States do not have the option to opt out of the law
(currently known as No Child Left Behind). Over the summer, the House
and Senate considered an amendment based on the APLUS proposal, which
would allow states to opt out completely and put dollars toward any
lawful education purpose under state law. The amendment received the
support of over 80 percent of conservatives in the House and Senate and
yet is not part of this proposal.
The agreement would also cement a new pre-school
program at the Department of Health and Human Services (which currently
manages Head Start). Some funding had been appropriated for the
pre-school program for the past two years. But now ESEA would codify
the new $250-million federal pre-school program, creating mission creep
in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Additionally, this move
would continue the trend of growth in federal programs affecting the
youngest Americans at a time when we have more empirical evidence than
ever on the shortcomings of government pre-school programs.
The policy expands rural education programs and
after-school programs and creates a new version of the Investing in
Innovation program (although the I3 program as it currently stands is
eliminated).
There is no option for Title I portability. Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has failed to meet
its objective of improving in the most effective way possible the
educational outcomes for children from disadvantaged families.
Conservatives had worked to transform Title I in a way that would allow
states the flexibility to make Title I dollars “portable,” so that the
dollars follow the child to the school or education option of the
parents’ choosing. That option has been left on the cutting room floor.
It appears that not a dime of spending would be cut.
Federal per-pupil expenditures have more than doubled in real terms
since the 1980s, while student academic achievement has remained flat.
The proposal would maintain high levels of spending and dozens of
ineffective programs, while at the same time creating even more new
programs. The absence of any Title I funding portability fails to
empower low-income parents. The proposal is likely to maintain
significant intervention by the Department of Education in local
schools. There is not much for conservatives to love.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
