Congress considers major changes to ESEA

NSBA is urging members of the Senate to reject two key provisions of the Education Opportunities Act (S. 2):

• The Title I "portability" provision, which works like a voucher, would allow Title I funds to be used to pay for private tutorial providers. If approved, this amendment would reduce the level of Title I funds available to schools with the greatest needs.

It also would create an administrative nightmare for school districts because they won't be able to plan their budgets if they don't know how many students will stay at their schools or opt out to take their allotments to a private provider.

• The "Academic Achievement for All" provision, also known as "Straight A's," would allow states to combine several education programs into a block grant.

NSBA opposes this measure because it would expand flexibility at the wrong level–the states and governors, instead of local school districts. NSBA believes this provision complicates the local decision-making process and undermines the financial equity of the federal role. It also could open the door to allow public funds to be used at private and parochial schools.

NSBA also urges the Senate to improve the bill by addressing these issues of concern to local school board members:

• NSBA is pleased the bill allows school districts to use Title I funds for preschool programs, but believes there should be a separate funding stream for this purpose.

• Local school districts should retain their leadership role in operating 21st Century Learning Centers, NSBA urges, while recognizing that districts should strengthen their collaborative ties with community-based organizations. These centers also need to retain their focus on academic achievement.

• According to NSBA, the bill needs stronger language supporting school districts' systemic improvements to raise student achievement.

The Education Options bill, reported out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce April 13, reauthorizes the remaining sections of ESEA not covered by bills passed by the House in 1999.

Unlike the Senate, the House has chosen to reauthorize ESEA on a piecemeal basis and has already passed the Teacher Empowerment Act, the Student Results Act, and the Academic Achievement for All Act.

The Options bill includes technology grants, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, innovative education grants, charter schools, civic education, Programs of National Significance, and other programs.

NSBA supports a provision in the Options bill that gives school districts more flexibility in how they use their funds. Under this "transferability" provision, school districts could transfer up to 35 percent of the funding among certain programs without state approval.

The programs covered under the "transferability" provision include technology, teacher training, school safety, immigrant education, and innovative education programs. School systems could transfer funding from these programs into Title I programs, but could not transfer funds out of Title I.

The bill's sponsor, committee Chair William Goodling (R-Pa.), says "state and local educational agencies, along with parents, are in a better position than we are in Washington to determine how best to use federal funds to help students improve their academic achievement."

NSBA also supports an amendment to the bill to allow schools to discipline disabled students who knowingly possess drugs or assault others on school grounds the same way they would discipline non-disabled students for the same offenses.

The debate on that proposal centered around the possibility of schools expelling students without providing an alternative setting and the lack of alternative schools for troubled students.

To address that issue, the committee passed an amendment to authorize states to combine 30 percent of their funding under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century Learning Centers programs to expand alternative education programs. Those funds could be used for in-school suspension, Saturday programs, charter schools, and alternative schools for troubled youths.

NSBA also is pleased that the committee rejected amendments that would have created a private school voucher program and allowed prayers at high school graduation ceremonies.

The committee debate on the Options bill centered around the major philosophical differences between the two parties. The Republicans generally favor proposals to give states and localities more flexibility in how they use federal funds, while the Democrats pushed, unsuccessfully, for more money for specific programs.

Education Secretary Richard W. Riley promised to urge President Clinton to veto the bill. Among his objections are the failure of the committee to pass Democratic amendments to increase funding authorizations for the Reading Excellence Act, school construction, and class-size reduction.

Reproduced with permission from the May 2, 2000, issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2000, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789.