JANUARY 18, 2000 - Ninth District Congressman Adam Smith today unveiled
legislation to restructure the federal role in K-12 education.
“Currently the federal government places too much emphasis on process, bureaucracy, and paperwork, and not nearly enough on flexibility, local control, and results,” Smith said. “We need a system that is more flexible, more controlled by locals, and focused on results. My legislation would do just that.”
Smith will formally introduce the Empowering Local Schools Act (ELSA) upon Congress’s return in late January.
Smith went to Tyee High School, his alma mater, in the Highline School District this morning. He was joined by Highline Superintendent Dr. Joseph McGeehan, a supporter of the bill.
Smith and various Pierce and Thurston County education professionals then introduced the legislation at Franklin Pierce High School this afternoon. “His [Adam Smith’s] proposed bill will add flexibility and enhance the ability of school districts to target local needs,” said Yelm Superintendent Alan Burke. “In Yelm we have been frustrated by the enormous paperwork burden that we endure to capture federal funds in grant programs such as Eisenhower Math and Science and Goals 2000.”
ELSA is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which governs the vast majority of K-12 federal education programs. ESEA was last reauthorized in 1994 and Congress must reauthorize it again this year.
ESEA authorizes more than sixty programs, from broad programs such as Title 1, which provides extra funding for low-income students, to narrow programs such as native Hawaiian education and School-to-Work Opportunities Grant. Smith argues that the current system has created confusion and red tape for local school districts who need federal funding.
“Under current law, some federal education programs are distributed through formulas that take poverty and population into consideration, while others are grant programs that school districts must apply for,” Smith explained. “Then, schools have to document exactly how they’re spending the money in each program. This puts our schools into a straitjacket because they have very little discretion and flexibility. For example, if a school receives funding under the much-touted 100,000 teachers program, but they really need to invest more money into keeping their new teachers instead of hiring brand-new ones, they can’t do it. We need to give local schools more flexibility so that they can tailor federal funding to their school’s needs.”
Smith’s legislation would condense existing programs into six funding streams and send the money directly to local school districts. The funds would be largely distributed through a formula based on poverty and population. “This will basically eliminate school districts’ need to hire professional grant writers so that they can receive federal funding,” Smith noted. “Instead, schools will be able to rely on a certain federal funding level, with the neediest school districts receiving the most money.”
The funding streams would be:
• Title 1 – Disadvantaged students ELSA retains Title 1 but makes two
important changes: it allows schools more flexibility in using Title 1 funds and
targets funds more towards low-income schools.
• Limited English Proficient
Students Smith’s legislation consolidates existing programs that focus on
non-English speakers (the 12 Bilingual Education grant programs and Emergency
Immigrant Education) into one funding stream that gives local schools
flexibility in choosing methods of instruction.
• Professional Development
ELSA consolidates existing teacher training and hiring initiatives such as the
Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, and the 100,000
Teachers program into one fund to be used for hiring new teachers, teacher
training, teacher pay, and lowering class size.
• Education Reform/Innovative
Practices ELSA consolidates other existing ESEA programs, such as Technology in
Education programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, school-to-work programs,
literacy programs, and after-school programs, into one fund distributed to local
schools to be used for a wide variety of priorities based on the school
district’s needs.
• Public School Choice ELSA strengthens federal efforts to
assist local school districts’ efforts to promote public school choice. It
condenses the current magnet school and charter school laws into one program and
increases funding.
• Impact Aid The legislation maintains current law as it
relates to Impact Aid, which supports those school districts that have a large
amount of federal property, such as military bases, to make up for the lower
property tax base.
• Accountability ELSA eliminates current law’s
program-by-program process-based evaluation and instead includes funding for the
state education agency to monitor the use of the federal funds. Local school
districts are required to establish five-year goal plans for each of the above
categories. States will annually monitor progress towards the goals, and if
local school districts are failing to meet their goals, the state must work with
the local school district to set up a plan for corrective action. After three
years, if the district or school is failing in any category and not taking
appropriate corrective action, the state may take over the administration of the
school district or individual school
Smith hopes to bring these new ideas into Congress’s debate over ESEA reauthorization. “I think it’s important that we move towards more flexibility, more local control, and less bureaucracy,” he said. “I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that we move in that direction.”