99first

A Legislative Proposal for Reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Authority for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement; and Goals 2000: Educate America Act
January 22, 1999
The House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and President Clinton have an extraordinary opportunity in the 106th Congress to set the federal role in support of state and localities to strengthen elementary and secondary education. The challenge is no less than helping students in the United States be first in the world for the 21st Century.
In meeting this challenge, the Administration and Congress have importance precedents for federal action which go back over two centuries of United States' history. Major examples in support of higher education are the Land Grant College Acts and the GI Bill. The major precedents for elementary and secondary education include the National Defense Education Act, Vocational-Technical Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Civil Rights Act, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first enacted in 1965.
The reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), and Goals 2000: Educate America Act are extraordinarily important. There are now four decades of experience with many of the federal programs, starting with the National Defense Education Act and the ESEA. In this authorization, it is essential to adopt a vision of the federal role in elementary and secondary education which draws on the foundations of the past, and sets a dynamic and effective federal role for beginning the next century.
Specific goals and targets for students, schools and systems associated with these Acts are needed to set expectations for high nationwide performance for all students and for accountability. The relationships among the three levels of education governance--local, state and federal--must be reviewed and strengthened. New concepts of flexibility must be developed to assure more effective use of funds, while including strong accountability and support for equity and quality.
The three Acts considered for reauthorization by the 106th Congress together provide about four percent of the total spending for elementary and secondary education in the United States. The Acts, therefore, must target federal expenditures to help states and localities address nationwide education issues worthy of federal taxing and programs. These Acts include central purposes which have guided federal funding to support improvement in student achievement for decades. The funds:
Help states and localities set high standards and assessments for students, teachers and schools, and assist in their strategies for school improvement;
Target the greatest portion of federal assistance on students in poverty, immigrants, migrants, limited English proficient, and homeless students who need extra assistance to meet standards;
Support specific reform efforts in mathematics and science, uses of new learning technologies and provide teachers and school leaders with help to teach more challenging curriculum; and
Support research and development, and testing to obtain the state-by-state, national and international comparisons of education which are essential to help states and localities benchmark targets of excellence for their students.
The use of federal funds for these purposes establishes a specific federal role in the partnership among localities, states, and the federal government to improve education. Through these purposes the Congress and the President address national challenges by targeting the uses for which the funds are appropriated and, yet, provide for control of the uses of these programs by states and localities related to their priorities.
Throughout the two centuries of federal support for education, the Congress has designated constitutionally and statutorily established state education authorities to administer federal education programs. This structure has served the nation effectively for these reasons:
Reliance on state education agencies as the constitutional and statutory authorities, places responsibility at the state level to establish the plans, priorities and the means of quality control and reporting for the use of federal funds in states and localities.
Using state education agency authorities to administer the programs enables the states to link their own state resources with the federal resources to amplify the impact of the federal funding.
Using state education agencies to administer the federal programs decentralizes control on the use of funds from the Federal level, places administrative responsibility close to local authorities and minimizes the need for federal intervention and administrative expenditures in implementation of programs.
Through the carefully constructed relationships of localities, states and the federal government developed in the past half century, an effective balance has been achieved between the establishment of specific and targeted nationwide initiatives supported by federal funds and the control and flexibility in use of the funds by states and localities. This partnership of support and governance is unique to our educational system in the United States.
As the Congress and the Administration develop new legislation to prepare our students for the 21st Century, we urge they focus on three goals for the nation and use the structure of federal program administration carefully designed in the several federal Acts upon which the reauthorizations build in this Congress. The goals are: Excellence in Student Achievement; Acceleration of Student Achievement; and Quality in the Classroom. The goals and programs will be addressed shortly. Before doing so, it is important to comment on the background for the 1999 reauthorization.
Context for the 1999 Reauthorization. The Council of Chief State School Officers recommendations to Congress and the Administration on the reauthorization of the major programs of federal support for K-12 education due to expire in 1999, provide a new vision of the federal role in improving elementary and secondary education. This vision is informed by the Council's proposals for the 1993-94 reauthorization of ESEA, as well as experience with the 1994 Act.
The 1994 restructuring of ESEA, entitled the Improving America's Schools Act and complemented by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, enhanced the coherence, coordination, flexibility and accountability of federal elementary-secondary education programs. It restructured many programs of federal K-12 support around key national priorities in education, such as the opportunity for all students to achieve to high standards. It dramatically refocused federal K-12 programming on high standards and expectations for all students and on a new basis of program accountability -- student achievement to those standards -- which enabled better integration of federal support with state and local resources and reforms. The 1999 reauthorization must build on and advance these directions substantially to assure an American education system and student performance which is second to none in the 21st Century.
The following provisions of the 1994 restructuring of ESEA are strongly supported by the Council. These central provisions must be maintained in the 1999 reauthorization with appropriate restructuring of the bill:
Directing Federal Support for Elementary and Secondary Education to Help State and Localities Improve Their Schools to Enable All Students to Achieve to High Standards.
The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), which authorizes ESEA, incorporates a basic structure built on federal supports for systemic change in American education -- Goals 2000: The Educate America Act to provide each state resources to plan and implement systemic reform of K-12 schooling through competitive SEA grants to LEAs; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act to enable states to build systemic connections between school and employment through competitive local grants. The provisions for state and local school improvement plans and for grants to establish or upgrade state and local standards and assessments and reform strategies must be included.
IASA connects all planning for uses of ESEA funds and accountability to statewide and local reforms with adoption of high standards for all students, either through Goals 2000 or a comparable state planning and standards-setting process. These requirements for use of federal funds are essential.
IASA shifts the performance criteria for Title I and other ESEA programs from process and attainment of minimum standards of student progress through remediation, to the expectation that federally-identified students will achieve the same high standards expected of all students. The supplemental federal funds are targeted to accomplish this.
Streamlining Federal Support for Elementary and Secondary Education to Better Leverage and Integrate Funds and Programs with State and Local School Reform Efforts.
IASA streamlines and reorders the titles of ESEA to encompass programs with similar purposes. It provides states and localities the opportunity to submit a single comprehensive plan for school improvement and a "consolidated application" for funds. The advantages of consolidation touted for "block grants" are already present in ESEA.
IASA authorizes Title I schools with high percentages of students in poverty to use the federal funds in "schoolwide" projects, lowering the threshold for such projects to 50% of eligible students. This provision offers additional discretion and flexibility to local authorities in providing consolidated services.
IASA provides broad authority for the Secretaries of Education and Labor to waive federal requirements and regulations, including "ed flex" authority under which SEAs in twelve states have broad waiver powers in return for waiving their own restrictions and regulations on similar issues.
Encouraging Better Coordination Federal Elementary and Secondary Programs with Other Health and Social Services for Students.
IASA provides for states and localities to use up to 5% of funds under ESEA for health and social services for students.
These basic provisions must be carried forward in 1999 actions. They should be incorporated in a new framework for ESEA, with an overall structure of purposes, goals, and objectives; programs and uses of funds; and, specifications summarized as follows:
"FIRST IN THE WORLD" -- ESEA/OERI/Goals 2000 Reauthorization of 1999
Statement of Three Goals and Targets for Federal Funding to be Accomplished by 2004:
1) The Goal of Excellence in Student Achievement. The objective is for all states and localities to have standards, assessments, accountability systems, and strategies for use of resources that result in student performance which is second to no nation in the world. There is a critical federal role in supporting states and localities in these efforts, as well as in providing national leadership in research and development, assessments and data collection. National and international data and assessments of student performance are the indicators of educational excellence and should be used to set targets and evaluate progress for the next five years.
2) The Goal of Acceleration of Student Achievement. The objective is for all students identified as needing additional and supplemental resources (beyond those necessary for the success of "regular" students) to accelerate their learning to achieve to high standards, to be assisted through additional federal funds. A fundamental federal role is enhancing equity of opportunity for all students to close the gap in performance between those needing special assistance and other students.
The supplemental federal funds, matched by state and local funds, are targeted to the extra services and improved classroom instruction these students need to make achievement gains greater than one grade level for every year of schooling. States and localities are investing at least the equivalent of federal funds of their own resources on similar efforts.
"Identified students" include those now eligible for various federal programs under the terms:
Economically and educationally disadvantaged
Migrant
Immigrant
Limited English Proficient
Native American, Hawaiian, etc.
Homeless
States and localities must assure opportunity through specific plans of services and targets of performance for identified students to meet the same standards established for all students. Student achievement in national and state assessments disaggregated by eligible populations would be the indicators of progress in this goal. (Note: Children with disabilities served under IDEA would not be included in this Act.)
3) The Goal of Quality in the Classroom. The objective is for all schools to build their capacity and lift student performance to internationally-competitive standards, particularly in schools with high concentrations of low performance by identified students. The essential role of the federal government under this goal is to help states and localities leverage and foster improved student learning. The highest priority for funding for change must be directed to Goal 2, Acceleration of Student Achievement in schools with high concentrations of low performing students. States and localities would set measurable goals for quality indicators, such as teacher supply anc credentials for professional development, to evaluate progress toward their targets.
Concepts for the Reauthorizing Legislation:
1) Funding. The funding target to realize the three objectives is to raise the federal investment for the programs under reauthorization to 5% of gross public elementary/secondary expenditure in the nation--(The current federal expenditure is $14 billion of the over $300 billion national total, nearly 4%.) This target would be achieved through the establishment of a designated fund generated from a portion of the budget surplus to be invested in continued economic productivity and capacity of the nation to provide stability of Social Security, health care, and defense.
Of the total program, 4% is allocated for programs under Goal 1; 75% for Goal 2; and 21% for Goal 3.
2) Structure of the Act.
The current programs of ESEA, Goals 2000, and OERI would be included within the "clusters" under the three goals. Those parts of programs clustered under Goals 1 and 2 for use by localities and states could be consolidated by states and localities according to their comprehensive plans, or continued as separate categorical programs. In the case of Goal 2, Acceleration, the plans would enable the consolidation of funds at the school level through an integration of instructional services to eligible students. Programs under Goal 3 would be clustered under 5 priorities or functions: Professional Development, Learning Technology, School-by-School Improvement, Safe and Drug-Free Community Schools, and School Modernization. Programs grouped within each function could also be consolidated at state and local option, and plans would show how activities across functions are integrated to build quality in the classroom.
Congress and the Administration could merge some programs in the reauthorization. The remaining programs would be appropriated by category, thereby enabling Congress and the Administration to set nationwide priorities among the purposes by targeting appropriations and revising future reauthorizations. Impact Aid would remain a separate program.
3) Integration of Federal Programs Through State and Local Plans and Applications. Comprehensive Reform Plans. States and localities have comprehensive educational reform or school improvement plans which are the basis for their use of funds under Goals 2000 and/or ESEA, particularly Title I. Under the new Act, these plans would be reviewed, updated, and consolidated to specify how each goal would be achieved. Plans would be subject to approval by the Secretary of Education. The plan for Goal 1 would address state and local progress toward establishment of high standards for all students, alignment of assessments, curricula and professional development with the standards, and access to research/technical assistance to attain educational excellence. The plan for Goal 2 would indicate how federal funds will be used to accelerate student achievement and close the gap for those students identified under Goal 2, including targets and benchmarks for assessing their progress. The plan for Goal 3 would specify how state and local capacity to enhance quality in the classroom will be improved by addressing each priority, again, with targets and quality indicators for each.
States would continue to involve stakeholders for advice on revision of the plan for achieving the three goals and on evaluation and accountability for the use of funds. Advisory functions would be efficient, rely on existing mechanisms within the state, and be consolidated to avoid duplication.
Accountability. Accountability for use of federal funds would be directly based on (1) the net change in the performance of identified student populations toward local and state standards, no matter what mix of federal programs the state or locality applied to the population group, and (2) state and local progress toward their goals for each priority of quality in the classroom. Annual progress reports toward their goals for student achievement, acceleration of student achievement, and the priorities under quality in the classroom would be required.
Consolidated Applications and Audits. Each state and local district would submit a single, consolidated application for use of federal funds under its comprehensive plan for all three goals. The required annual reports would be on a consolidated basis. USED would adopt consolidated auditing to conform with the use of funds for purposes within goals or priorities.
Flexibility. The need for waivers is lessened by the new option for states and localities to consolidate programs clustered around a single goal or priority and to address program purposes comprehensively in that portion of their plans.
Ed flex would be expanded to any state taking the option, on the following conditions: 1) that the state's accountability systems are fully in place--including standards, assessments, and student performance goals--as part of an approved comprehensive reform plan; and 2) that the state is fully implementing its responsibilities under Title I, including the identification of schools in need of improvement and provision of supports and resources to implement plans for the lowest performing schools and schoolwide projects.
States and local districts would continue to include any requests for waivers of other provisions of ESEA in their comprehensive reform plans and consolidated applications.
4) Clustering Federal Programs for State and Local Option to Consolidate.
Excellence in Education - Goal 1. Funds for programs under this goal support national actions by USED and would include continued allocations to states for strengthening standards and related assessments for accountability systems, school improvement strategies, and research and development. These funds would include at least $50 million for state education agencies to continue the work begun under the state share of Goals 2000 to develop high standards and new assessments in the core subject areas and to undertake statewide efforts to align professional licensure, initial preparation of teachers, and induction and professional development programs with the standards.
In addition to basic allocations for school improvement strategies, each state and large urban district would also have a "drawdown" account of research and development funds to direct to labs, research centers, and comprehensive assistance centers and technical assistance networks and design teams for technical assistance, professional development, and comprehensive school reform. The funds to support these accounts would be up to one-half of the appropriation for regional labs and centers.
Other funds under Goal 1, Excellence would be used by USED to support the following: an expanded state and national NAEP, under NAGB; expanded international comparative studies and benchmarking to compare U.S. achievement results with other nations; development and administration of voluntary individual student tests related to NAEP; research and development efforts related to "internationally competitive" standards; research to develop and identify new models of best practice and school improvement and to test out innovative pedagogy and reform strategies; evaluations; technical assistance centers and the remaining appropriation for regional labs and research centers; evaluations; and the Fund for Improvement of Education. National discretionary programs under Goals 2000, ESEA, and OERI which are reauthorized and administered by the Secretary of Education would be included with the goal or priority to which they are related, such as Star schools with the Goal 3 priority of Technology.
Acceleration of Student Achievement - Goal 2 Funds under this goal would include Title I and other programs serving "identified populations". The existing allocations of funds under Title I would be augmented by a new funding stream which is allocated by population counts and weighted for states and districts according to "need" e.g. numbers of migrant, immigrant, limited English proficient, homeless and Native American children.
The structure and major programmatic provisions of Title I would be kept intact, particularly its provisions for assessing the progress of eligible students toward high standards, identification of schools in need of improvement, and required technical assistance and supports to schools in need of improvement. States and local districts would be required to fully implement these provisions. The provisions for "schoolwide" projects and comprehensive school reform would be continued, coupled with an assurance that the plans for these schools use of funds are based on research-based best practice and are adequately supported by state and district resources under Title I. Any expansion of the schoolwide concept by lowering the poverty threshold would be coupled with provisions to assure participating schools have sufficient numbers and proportions of eligible students and federal funds to support an improvement plan of adequate size and scope to be effective. Heavy emphasis would be placed on directing funds for comprehensive school reform to schools with high poverty concentrations.
Other categorical programs targeted to identified populations would be clustered with Title I funding under Goal 2. State and local plans to enable school-level consolidation within the cluster would be coupled with requirements that student achievement data must be disaggregated by population groups served; and that states, districts and schools have strategies/specific goals for accelerating achievement and closing the gaps in performance of identified students related to other students. Funds would be driven by intense program improvement through school support teams and comprehensive school reform designs, with required use of Quality, Goal 3 funds to the extent that state and district allocations fall short of the need in low performing, high poverty schools.
Title I would also include the new reduced class size and 21st Century after school programs as categorical, state-administered programs under Goal 2, as well as the continued authority for Even Start. States which submit plans for linking Title I; Even Start; Head Start; State/Local Pre-K; IDEA, early childhood; and child care would be invited to apply for incentive grants under Goal 2. The plan would be developed by the SEA in consultation with appropriate agency officials.
Of funds allocated by formula to states under Goal 2 programs, the SEA would be authorized to reserve up to 1% for all administrative functions, including program operation and administration of all parts (including comprehensive school reform, reduced class size, 21st Century after school grants) compliance monitoring, data gathering and identification of schools in need of improvement, program evaluation, etc. Up to 2% of all funds would be authorized for state services directly to local districts and schools, with the requirement that all provisions for technical assistance to schools in need of improvement and schoolwide projects be fully implemented. Such services would be agreed upon by the SEA and the district and could include support teams, mentors, contracts with design teams, etc.
Quality in the Classroom - Goal 3. Funds under this goal would include federal programs designed to build state and local capacity to improve schools and teaching and learning for all students. Programs would be clustered under 5 priorities or functions -- Professional Development, Educational Technology, School-by-School Improvement, Safe and Drug Free Community Schools, and School Modernization -- as described below. States and localities would have the option of consolidating funds within each priority under that component of their comprehensive plan if they desire, but use of funds under each part is limited to the "uses" under the antecedent programs.
Professional Development would include the current Title II programs of Eisenhower Professional Development, including Reading Excellence and foreign language instruction.
Educational Technology would include all the current Title III technology programs, Star Schools, and any other technology programs.
School-by-School Improvement would include the funds that are currently allocated by states to local districts under Goals 2000; Title VI Innovative Strategies; Magnet Schools; Charter Schools; Arts in Education; and related programs. States or localities could include their plans for funds received under this priority in their plans for professional development, technology or safe and drug-free schools, so long as their plans for those components comprehensively address school-by-school improvements and are accountable on an individual school basis.
Safe and Drug Free Community Schools would include the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program, programs of health education, and the 5% of funds under current law which can be reallocated from any program to initiatives to connect and coordinate health and social services to education.
School Modernization would include the currently authorized school infrastructure programs, as well as identification of needs and priorities for any newly authorized tax credits for building and modernizing schools.
State and local plans and applications must demonstrate how use of funds for the priorities under the goal of Quality will assist the state in reaching its objectives for quality and what benchmarks or "quality indicators" will be used to assess progress in each priority area. Ultimately, the use of funds under Quality should result in improved student achievement, with the performance of identified students in high poverty, low performing schools and districts as the first priority.
Funds for programs under this goal would be allocated among states and localities by a 50% Title I/50% population formula. Of all funds allocated to states for programs under this goal, the SEA should be authorized to use up to 3% for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance; up to an additional 7% for statewide and targeted leadership projects and regional delivery of services to schools and districts which benefit students and teachers in the classroom; and up to an additional 5% in competitive or directed grants to local school districts and consortia of districts.
5) Increase Participation of Non-public School Students within Constitutional Limits.
Students in non-public schools should participate under all three goals. ESEA, especially in the form of Title I, is a sound alternative to vouchers. For thirty years federal support for elementary and secondary education has served and benefitted eligible students in both public and non-public schools, with accountability and targeting. This reauthorization must continue ESEA in its appropriate role of support for all American students.
6) Assistance to Extra-State Jurisdictions. Continue current eligibility and set-asides for extra-state jurisdictions.
7) Impact Aid. Federal funding for education where actions of the federal government, such as location of a military base, impact localities and their schools should be continued. Impact Aid would be reauthorized as a separate program. Of special importance is continuation of Section 8009, which permits a state, under clearly delineated and limited circumstances, to take basic Impact Aid payments into consideration in allocating state aid to local districts.
8) Programs Not Included. Vocational-Technical Education; School Nutrition; IDEA; HEA are not in this reauthorization.
CONCLUSION: These goals and concepts represent a substantial new vision for federal support to education. They focus strongly on three goals and purposes for federal funding and recast current programs related to performance targets and improved accountability. Our Council is prepared to assist the Administration and Congress in every way to establish a new direction for federal action which will help our students become "first in the world".

Council of Chief State School Officers One Massachusetts Avenue, NW · Suite 700 · Washington, DC 20001-1431 voice: 202.408.5505 · fax: 202.408.8072