Senate panel approves major changes to ESEA

3/21/00 – A Senate committee has approved legislation that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions approved the Educational Opportunities Act (S.2) March 9 by a party line vote of 10-8.

The key changes involve Title I "portability," block grants to the states, and public school choice. "Taken together, these provisions would have an adverse impact on local school districts," says NSBA Associate Executive Director Michael A. Resnick.

NSBA is opposed to the Senate committee-passed bill and "urges the Senate to make fundamental changes" when the bill is taken up on the floor, Resnick says. "The objectionable features must be removed if we are serious about improving student achievement."

Education Secretary Richard W. Riley says he will recommend that the President veto the bill if it is enacted by Congress. He calls it an "unfocused and undemanding piece of legislation."

Currently, Title I funds are distributed to school districts and schools according to a formula based on the concentration of disadvantaged students.

The portability amendment, proposed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), would allow up to 10 states and 20 school districts to distribute these funds directly to parents who could choose to have the money remain at their child's school or use it for "supplemental educational services," such as tutoring provided by a private or religious school.

"This proposal would divert resources from public schools and would reduce the targeting of Title I funds on schools and pupils with the greatest need for assistance," Resnick says. "In addition, it would impose an administrative burden on school districts, because they would not be able to plan their budgets if they do not know how many students will stay at their schools or opt to take their allotments to an outside provider."

Speaking against the measure during the committee debate on the bill, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said dispersing Title I funding among an entire district means "schools are not guaranteed enough funds to implement effective, schoolwide programs."

The committee also passed another amendment by Gregg, the "Straight A's proposal," to allow up to 15 states to combine funding from more than a dozen federal programs--including Title I--into block grants controlled by the governors if they agree to enter into a "performance agreement" with the Education Department.

"Under the Straight A's proposal, the design and focus of the flexibility is at the wrong level because it is focused on the states and the governor, not local school districts," Resnick says. "This will complicate, not simplify, the local decision-making process and undermine the financial equity of the federal role. NSBA supports program consolidation at the local level."

The Gregg amendment also says the block grant funds could be used for any elementary and secondary educational purpose permitted by law in any participating state. That means a state with a voucher program on the books might be able to use federal funding for private school vouchers.

A third amendment offered by Gregg and passed by the committee would expand the federal emphasis on public school choice. Under this provision, school districts would have to provide all students in a failing school with an option to transfer to any other public school in the district that has not been identified for school improvement.

The amendment also would allow students who are victims of a violent criminal offense on school grounds, or attend an unsafe or failing public school, to transfer to another public school.

NSBA also has concerns with the Teacher Empowerment Act, a section of the Senate's ESEA bill that would consolidate several programs, including the Eisenhower professional development, Goals 2000, class-size reduction, and teacher quality programs, into a block grant. School districts could use the funds for a variety of activities, including teacher recruitment, signing bonuses, and professional development.

"NSBA supports the concept of consolidation, but this provision contains a serious defect," Resnick says. "It does not make a commitment to increase funding to ensure that the new program will be funded at a level that exceeds that of the programs it would replace."

The committee rejected--along party lines--several amendments proposed by Democrats. These included a proposal by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to preserve President Clinton's class-size reduction initiative and an amendment by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) for a $2 billion program aimed at raising teacher quality.

Following committee passage of the ESEA bill, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) announced plans to a bill to increase federal funding for education by $35 billion over the next five years, increase Title I targeting to the neediest schools, and establish a more limited block grant.

Lieberman's bill is expected to be offered as an amendment when the full Senate takes up the ESEA reauthorization.

Reproduced with permission from the Mar. 21, 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.