Elementary and Secondary Education Act The Issue The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) comprises the major part of the federal government's commitment to K-12 education. The dual emphasis of ESEA, especially for the Title I programs has been to: 1) raise the bar for educational programs through a focus on high standards provided by the states and localities; and 2) ensure that children living in high poverty communities could effectively achieve higher standards. Collectively, ESEA and its related programs authorize $16 billion in funding for states and school districts to expand the opportunities for the success of all children. These programs include Title I for Disadvantaged Children and most other major federal programs except vocational and special education. Virtually every school district receives some federal funds through ESEA programs. ESEA, first passed by Congress in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, expired on September 30, 1999. Since that time, the existing programs have been extended through the appropriations process. Legislative Focus During the 106th Congress The Senate and House chose two significantly different strategies in addressing ESEA during the 106th Congress. The House chose to address the education programs through several pieces of legislation. The Senate, on the other hand, chose to draft a single comprehensive piece of legislation. During both sessions, major debates focused on the federal role in public education and the extent to which the federal government should be directly involved in the design and delivery of public educational programs. Central to the partisan debate were the issues of vouchers in a variety of forms, and block grant funding to the states. Additionally, the debate focused on increasing accountability on the part of state education agencies and local education agencies and included the identification of specific sanctions for schools in need of improvement. With increased partisan posturing and significant differences in the strategies for addressing the programs between the Senate and the House, it soon became apparent that reauthorization would not be completed by the end of the 106th Congress. Further, both the Democrats and the Republicans appeared to be of the opinion that failure to pass ESEA would not carry any political liability. In fact, both political parties appeared to take the position that if their party gained control of the White House and the House, there would be greater chance to have even stronger legislation in support of their specific agendas. Given the election-year politics, Congressional calendar, and other legislative issues that had to be addressed, the hopes for ESEA reauthorization evaporated. ESEA was not reauthorized during the 106th Congress. NSBA's ESEA Priorities NSBA has identified a substantial number of recommendations related to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The following represent NSBA's highest priorities: Authority for local school districts, under Title I, to have a separate $2 billion funding stream to expand early childhood/pre-K development programs. School boards would have the following options: 1) establish school-based programs; 2) contract such services on or off-site; 3) develop and promote educational products and services including pre-school curricula; or 4) provide leadership and coordination among programs like Head Start to ensure the pre-school curricula for disadvantaged children are properly aligned with the academic school readiness goals of the local school system. Authority for increased funding for professional development for teachers and principals, with targeting to schools most in need, and authority for local school districts to consolidate federally funded professional development programs. Research findings suggest that student achievement is more likely to occur when students have access to highly competent, well-trained teachers and administrators. School districts would benefit from access to more research and support for professional development activities to improve the knowledge and pedagogical skills of teachers through programs developed by the school system or obtained from a variety of sources including state educational agencies, universities and the private sector. Authority that encourages local school districts to allocate a portion of their Title I funding to support school district-wide strategies, innovations, and acquisition of "know-how" to improve the capability of all schools, and the district as a whole, to raise the achievement of Title I students. Title I should actively encourage school districts to use program funds to build school system-wide strategies and to be able to access information and data that can improve programs for educationally disadvantaged students. These capacity building activities could include using funds to raise standards, realign curricula, improve assessments, provide technical assistance and provide appropriate professional development, as well as to engage in strategic planning and effective implementation strategies. All of these activities can have tremendous value in improving student achievement for all students, especially those eligible for Title I funds. Authority for maximum local school district flexibility to transfer funds among select federal programs to better meet the critical needs of their students. Oppose legislation that gives state governments sole authority to spend and distribute increases in federal education funds. School districts should have the authority to transfer the funds they receive among certain categorical programs. Not only are local school districts being held more accountable, they (rather than the states) provide the direct educational services. By devolving flexibility to local school districts, Congress can more effectively carry out its role to promote the national interest and to leverage federal investments to meet local needs. However, funds should not be transferred from the Title I program. By contrast, state block grants work to politicize the process, eliminate funding formulas based on need, and influence the application process toward state priorities, not local programs. State block grants should be opposed. Return to Advocacy