Senate ESEA Reauthorization

 

ACTION: AS S.2, THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT IS TAKEN TO THE SENATE FLOOR, ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO: (1) strike both versions of Straight A's from Title VI, as well as provisions for Title I portability; (2) restructure Title II, Part A, to support effective professional development and teacher quality programs that focus on national priorities, including class size reduction and math and science instruction; (3) authorize an increased SEA set-aside for Title I program improvement coupled with stronger accountability; and (4) amend Title III, 21st Century Community Schools as an academically related, targeted program administered by SEAs. OPPOSE S.2 UNLESS STRAIGHT A'S AND TITLE I PORTABILITY ARE STRICKEN AND TITLE II IS AMENDED.
 

STATUS:

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has marked-up and reported S.2, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for action by the full Senate. The action was approved on a straight party-line 10-8 vote. With the exception of the Teacher Empowerment Act provisions in Title II and the inclusion of two versions of Straight A's and Title I portability, the Committee bill provides a sound basis on which to build a strong, bipartisan ESEA reauthorization. Except for these provisions, the legislation uses the fundamental structure and key characteristics of the current law which must be advanced into the 21st century. The essential provisions of the bill include:

There are, however, several critically important amendments that must be made to the Committee bill to assure ESEA programs promote student achievement and support an American education system that is First in the World. We describe below those amendments which are most strongly supported by our Council.
 

ISSUES

A. Title I Accountability and Program Improvement
 

ACTION: SUPPORT SENATOR BINGAMAN'S AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE STATE AND LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT UNDER TITLE I, RAISE THE SEA SET-ASIDE FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT TO 3%, GROWING TO 5% OVER FIVE YEARS, AND INCREASE THE AUTHORIZATION LEVEL FOR TITLE I TO $15 BILLION. Amend the Committee bill to authorize an increased SEA set-aside for Title I program improvement, instead of the bill's provisions for the Secretary to allocate 50% of annual Title I appropriations above $8.076 billion to states for program improvement, development of new assessments, and academic achievement awards. The amendment must: (1) Increase the state educational agency set-aside for program improvement from the current .5% of each state's Title I allocation to 3%, growing to 5% over five years to provide a more focused, effective and sustainable increase in funds on improvement of low-performing schools; and (2) Provide a separate earmark of .5% for development of standards and assessments either within the state program improvement set-aside, or as a portion of an increased (1.5%) state set-aside for administration of the program by the state educational agency (SEA).

The Committee bill recognizes the need and authorizes a substantially increased earmark of resources for program improvement, as well as for continued development of state standards and aligned assessments. The bill retains current law provisions for the state educational agency (SEA) to reserve up to 1% of the state's total Title I allocation for administration of the program and, with a minor modification, an SEA reserve of ?of 1% SEA for program improvement. It also authorizes the Secretary to allocate to the states an additional 50% of each year's annual appropriation above $8.076 billion to be program improvement, standards and assessment development, and academic achievement awards.

The bill must be amended to provide an alternative mechanism -- an increased SEA set-aside -- for program improvement, including recognition of outstanding teachers and principals. An increase in the state-level set-aside to at least 2-1/2%, growing to 3-1/2% over 5 years, is a much more effective mechanism to assure substantial and sustainable resources for the improvement of low-performing schools. Unlike the earmark and allocation of half of new monies by the Secretary, the state-level set-aside is authorized for the life the statute and implemented each year by the SEA. Vital funds to serve schools identified for program improvement and corrective action must be a consistent, reliable percentage of the total Title I program, rather than rachet up and down, or be negated with annual appropriations bills. The increased state set-aside complements rather than thwarts the effort to serve more eligible children.

If Title I funds are to be the principal source of federal support for continued development of state standards and assessments, specific resources (.5%) for this purpose must be earmarked within either an increased SEA set-aside for program improvement (3%), or state administration (1.5%). Earmarking half of new Title I funds for both program improvement and development of standards and assessments, without any distinction between what portion of the allocation would be used to serve low-performing schools and students versus development of new assessments, would pit these critically important and complementary activities against each other.
 

B. Title II, Teacher Empowerment Act
 

ACTION: SUPPORT AMENDMENTS BY SENATORS KENNEDY AND BINGAMAN TO RESTRUCTURE TITLE II TO FOCUS AND SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO PROMOTE TEACHER QUALITY AND ADDRESS NATIONAL PRIORITIES SUCH AS MATH AND SCIENCE INSTRUCTION, AND BY SENATOR MURRAY TO AUTHORIZE THE CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM. CCSSO CANNOT SUPPORT S.2 UNLESS TITLE II IS AMENDED AND REFOCUSED. Amend Title II, Part A Teacher Empowerment Act provisions to assure: (1) use of federal funds to address national priorities for teacher quality through effective, comprehensive state and local programs, including class size reduction and mathematics and science instruction; and (2) planning and administration of the program, including the grants to LEAs and LEA-IHE partnerships, by the state education agency; and (3) accountability for teacher quality and certification.

The Committee bill includes the Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA) as part of Title II of the bill. The House-passed version has been altered in the Senate bill to provide a more adequate state-level set-aside for administration and leadership (10%), as well as a formula more targeted to high poverty states and districts (75% poverty). However, Senate TEA is still a block grant of professional development and class size funds which fails to focus funds on critical national priorities in teacher quality and supply. There are few accountability provisions to assure that programs will be comprehensive or effective. As with the House bill, the Senate version provides for "State" operation of the program and designation of the state higher education agency to take the lead in awarding partnership grants to local districts and institutions of higher education. These governance provisions supersede state authority for education, weaken the effectiveness and accountability for federal professional development funds by the responsible state education officials, and separate the program from the rest of federal and state elementary and secondary programming.
 

C. Title III, 21st Century Schools
 

ACTION: SUPPORT AMENDMENTS BY SENATOR DODD AND OTHERS TO REAUTHORIZE THE TITLE III 21st CENTURY PROGRAM AS A SUBSTANTIAL, NATIONAL INVESTMENT IN SCHOOL-BASED, ACADEMICALLY-RELATED BEFORE- AND AFTER-SCHOOL ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS, THROUGH A FORMULA TARGETED TO POVERTY AND SEA ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM TO LOCAL DISTRICTS IN EVERY STATE. Amend Title III, Part A authorizing the 21st Century Schools program to make the following changes to current law to: (1) authorization of a formula program to states and SEA-administration of the program; (2) provisions for states to assure program quality through explicit criteria for awarding grants to local districts on behalf of schools; and (3) a strengthened the focus of the program on academically-related before- and after-school enrichment programs targeted to disadvantaged youth.

The Committee bill retains current law providing for the U.S. Department of Education to administer the directly to local schools and communities. 21st Century School funds should be allocated to states on a formula targeted to poverty and administered through the SEA to local districts on behalf of local schools. No federal agency can effectively and efficiently administer a $500 million program directly to over 100,000 local communities. Moreover, federal programs of direct grants to local areas which by-pass the states are seldom sustained and expanded within the states. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides for the efficient and effective administration of federal K-12 programs by state educational agencies, which can then be held accountable, along with local districts, for program results.
 

D. Straight A's
 

ACTION: SUPPORT SENATOR KENNEDY'S AMENDMENT TO STRIKE ALL PROVISIONS FOR STRAIGHT A'S FROM TITLE VI. OPPOSE S.2 IF STRAIGHT A'S IS NOT STRICKEN. The Committee bill includes a 15 state demonstration of Straight A's with very few restrictions, as well as a modified version Straight A's for all 50 states, as part of Title VI. The modified version in which all 50 states can participate requires that if Title I funds are included in a state performance agreement, current Title I allocations will be held harmless down to the school level. Phased-in caps have been placed on state administration (1%) and the overall state set-aside (7%). Provisions have been added for negotiations between states which apply for performance agreements and the Secretary with respect to standards and accountability, although the Secretary still must enter into any agreement which does not violate Part G of Title VI. A list of thirteen uses of funds is added. The 15 state demonstration program, which was also added at the Committee level, contains few of the restrictions contained in the House-passed 10 state demonstration.

Both versions of Straight A's in the Senate bill authorize governors to convert the bulk of federal K-12 funds to education revenue sharing which can be used for any education purpose the state determines under a performance agreement with the Secretary. Straight A's is based on the deception that Congress and the President authorize and appropriate funds for certain purposes, such as the education of poor children or promoting math and science education, and then, through these provisions enable the governors to use the funds for virtually any education purpose they choose. It abandons the concept of focusing federal funds on specific education priorities that are national in scope. The provision will lead to an evaporation of these federal funds, as the public will find no purpose or accountability for the federal tax dollars.

The conversion of ESEA programs to revenue sharing under either or both versions of Straight A's is not needed to gain flexibility in use of the funds. We urge deletion of these provisions from the bill. Current law and the Committee bill contain a number of provisions for flexibility and program integration, including authorization of 50-state Ed Flex; opportunity for states and districts to seek waivers of federal requirements from the Secretary; consolidated plans, applications and reporting; special provisions for small rural districts to combine funds; and use of up to 5% of funds to be transferred among programs for coordinated services and collaboration. The funds Congress appropriates for the several ESEA programs should be used for the purposes addressed by the program.
 

E. Title I Portability
 

ACTION: STRIKE PROVISIONS FOR TITLE I PORTABILITY. Eliminate provisions which would authorize up to 10 states and 20 districts to change Title I from a program targeted to students in schools with concentrations of poverty, to a per child subsidy for supplemental educational services in any school or by private providers at the direction of the parent. OPPOSE S.2 IF THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT STRIKEN.

The Senate Committee adopted an amendment which would authorize a demonstration of Title I portability in 10 states and up to 20 districts. These provisions would substantially erode the focus and effectiveness of Title I funds by diluting and spreading appropriations, which are sufficient to serve only one-third of eligible students, to all eligible students whether or not the student is in a school with a sufficent concentration of poverty to receive funding under current law. Research has consistently shown that educational disadvantage and low achievement strongly correlate to concentrations of poverty. Where there are concentrations of poverty, all children in the school face an educational disadvantage, while economically disadvantaged students in affluent or low poverty schools achieve the educational advantages and performance levels of their peers. Title I portability has a twofold effect: It substantially reduces resources for eligible students currently being served in schools where there are concentrations of poverty. It also eliminates the economies of scale and the focus of resources on programs of sufficient size and scope to be high quality and effective.

As adopted in the Senate Committee bill, there is no accountability for the quality of services purchased on a per child basis, nor effective provisions for determining the effect of the "demonstration" on student achievement. Like a vouncher, the per child funding could be "directed" by the parent to any Title I or non-Title I public or private school, or to any proprietary or private provider of supplemental services. There is no accountability of the provider to the state or local district, nor provisions for the district to assure the quality of services to the child or that they are secular, neutral and non-sectarian. The portability amendment raises serious questions with respect to how the demonstration would be administered; how funds would track the child; and how provisions for assessing average yearly progress, identifying schools for program improvement, and fulfilling the Title I reporting and accountability requirements would be implemented.

To serve more eligible students under Title I, funds for the program should be substantially increased, rather than cutting the per child benefit of the program by two-thirds. Title I should continue to be targeted to schools where there are concentrations of poverty. 

March 2000
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW · Suite 700 · Washington, DC 20001-1431
voice: 202.408.5505 · fax: 202.408.8072