Policies and Action Resolutions
|
2009-2010 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the Education Committee
Early Childhood Education
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports early care and education and its benefits, especially in lessening the adverse effects of childhood poverty. Studies dramatically demonstrate that participation in quality early care and education programs can increase the percentages of young adults who are literate, employed, and enrolled in postsecondary education. Early childhood education can also reduce the number of youths who drop out of school, are incarcerated, become pregnant and use welfare. In the short-term, evidence shows that for all children these programs can help improve children's intellectual and social performance in school and ultimately can help children achieve greater school success and possibly greater socioeconomic success and social responsibility.
Federal Support for Early Childhood Care and Education
NCSL recognizes that the success of such programs is contingent on the establishment and application of clear, challenging standards for curricula and assessments, on the selection of appropriately trained teachers, on adequate facilities, appropriate teacher-to-student ratios, and active parent involvement. Such programs are relatively expensive, but show promise of a high return on investment.
To establish such programs on a broader basis than is currently available through Head Start or other state and locally initiated programs may require an enhanced commitment and partnership with the federal government.
NCSL's current policy, "Improving Opportunities for Early Learning," expands this partnership to include a pool of federal funds for early learning programs that is flexible enough to meet local needs and would allow states to supplement existing programs. This avoids the mistake of assuming that policy that fits one state can be generalized to the other forty nine. Such a partnership is in keeping with established policy that good education is in the national interest, but primarily a state responsibility and a local function it also recognizes that states have been leaders in early learning initiatives. NCSL also would emphasize that any state-federal partnership in this area would primarily be for the expansion of service to low-income children, not the alteration of existing programs.
If the federal government expands its involvement for young children before they enter school, these are the tenets on which such an effort should be built:
- Preservation of state flexibility, including maintaining the states' authority to determine how the program is administered, evaluated and what population is served;
- Promotion of early learning;
- Requirement for sufficient federal funding for early childhood education to assure school readiness for all eligible children;
- Preservation of state authority in these matters;
- Avoidance of unfunded mandates;
- Support for current flexibility that allows states to use Title I funds for children from birth to school entry;
- Support for early learning challenge grants that assist the development of the statewide infrastructure of integrated early learning supports and services for children from birth through age five; and
- Support for evaluation research and evaluation of new state initiatives.
Head Start
The federally supported Head Start program has been successful, despite only being funded to serve three out of five of the eligible children. With the numbers of children in poverty increasing and the need for more child development/child care services for low-income families increasing, it is essential that Head Start be fully-funded to assure school readiness for all eligible children. It should be emphasized that parental involvement, which benefits both parents and children, is the critical component of Head Start.
Head Start must be leveraged to support both school readiness and the needs of low income working families. NCSL supports:
- Greater coordination among Head Start, Early Head Start, early childhood and child care programs and elementary schools to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged populations;
- Funding for quality and access;
- Funding should be allocated for training staff and enriching program curricula. Staff development and training is critical for quality Head Start programs;
- Improved coordination of quality efforts in Head Start and Early Head Start with state quality improvement efforts;
- Expanded opportunities for federal grantees to use Head Start and Early Head Start funding to best meet the needs of communities in ways that complement state effort;
- Make available research findings from Early Head Start and Head Start evaluation; and
- Encourage legislative involvement in Early Childhood Advisory Councils.
NCSL commends the federal government on its legislative activity in recent years that allows states more program choice and fewer mandates in early education. NCSL would expect that any proposed legislation in early childhood education would do the same. States should be able to establish a flexible plan of action within federal parameters and to designate how the program will be operated and administered in keeping with state laws. Since state legislatures have ultimate responsibility for the establishment of state education policies and appropriation of state education funds, any new funding option should be part of state appropriations processes. A state coordinating or advisory body required by federal statute must include, at a minimum, a representative of each chamber of the state legislature selected by the presiding officer.
Better coordination between Head Start, Early Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and child care providers would strengthen the quality of early childhood education. Such coordination is the responsibility of the state, which can best define and determine its needs. NCSL's child care policy further details this coordination.
In case a proposal is introduced in Congress, NCSL supports a state option to have more control over Head Start and the authority to coordinate Head Start with other state early childhood education efforts. NCSL welcomes a more complete discussion about such an option, particularly the state legislative role in implementation. The positive role that community organizations play in providing head start programs and parental involvement will be maintained in the execution of any state option.
Family Support and Parenting
NCSL further recognizes that we cannot continue to treat family conditions as a matter separate from education and that such a focus is particularly important for younger children. Programs to support parents and family members as the first teachers of their children should be promoted and strengthened in both public and private sectors. Research shows the importance of building pre-literacy skills, especially for low-income children. NCSL supports efforts to expand community based (including faith-based) state-federal partnerships to work with parents and caregivers to promote pre-literacy skills.
States continue to implement strategies to support parents with young children. A majority of states currently operate one or more home visiting programs to support parents, prevent child abuse, improve child development, identify delays or provide referral to services. In some cases states are also supporting both home visiting and center-based approaches which have proven to improve child outcomes. NCSL supports expanded federal funding for these approaches:
Funds should support state initiatives to implement a broad range of home visiting strategies and support new initiatives designed to make them more effective.
Funds should not be limited to one approach or mandate specific administration but should allow for state flexibility in both design and implementation.
The federal government can play an important role in supporting further research about effective programs and state pilots to test program options.
August 2012
Public Charter Schools
The Public Charter School movement was created to provide a viable alternative to low-performing public schools. Freedom from the bureaucratic constraints of the public K-12 system was supposed to allow for the development of flexible and innovative approaches to the education of struggling students. Charters were expected to generate a productive sector that would help close the achievement gap between majority and minority students.
Recent reports from a variety of sources indicate that the experience of charters is marked by mixed results. In recent findings on charter school performance by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) a Stanford University-based think tank, students in charters fared better than their matched peers in traditional public schools in only 17% of the cases. They performed worse in 37% of the cases and neither better nor worse in the remaining 46%. A recent study across eight states, funded by the Gates Foundation and conducted by the Rand Corporation also shows mixed results. In addition, there are concerns among state policymakers that rather than close the achievement gap by providing alternatives for struggling minority students, some charters are having the effect, whether intended or unintended, of re-segregating public schools. One charter cited has no students on free and reduced lunch and all students with an average family income in excess of $100,000 - a clear indication that the school is not serving poor and minority youth.
On the positive side, the CREDO report also found that certain groups of charter students had better academic growth than similar students in traditional public schools, including students in poverty, English language learners, students in elementary and middle school grades. In addition, some parents and administrators point to the satisfaction of parents with charters as an indicator of their worth. Surveys have indicated that parents feel their children are safer and both parents and administrators recognize the some student demographic groups do respond well to the structure characteristic of charters.
Numerous states have included charters as one element in their overall mix of school reform and restructuring plans while other highly regarded state reform efforts have not included charters. The lesson learned by state policymakers is that charters can have some positive benefits beyond closing the achievement gap but are neither inherent nor essential to implementing successful state-wide reforms.
Despite the mixed results indicated by the body of research, the U.S. Department of Education is considering a plan to evaluate state charter school laws, rewarding states that meet whatever quota of charters is determined in Washington, DC and punishing states that fail to meet the quota. And while some will defend this position by emphasizing the 'voluntary ' nature of using federal funds to reward 'good' behavior, the withholding of any federal stimulus funds (in this case the "Race to the Top" funds) is a stick, not a carrot. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established four clear goals for states to focus their education reform efforts. However, ARRA does not dictate the processes for achieving these goals. The Department of Education's emphasis on charter schools as a means to improve struggling schools is a regulatory step that goes beyond the legislative intent of Congress. This action could have the effect of usurping state chartering authority and preempting state constitutions. It is also beyond the limits of the language creating the Department, but for what end? If a medicine were discovered that helps 17% of people, doesn't do anything for 46% and hurts 37%, would the Food and Drug Administration approve and encourage that medicine for all?
The NCSL strongly urges the Department to refrain from linking a state's charter school laws with its eligibility for federal assistance. Charters are a reform idea that began as a state initiative and as a part of some states' overall reform plans and one that should stay that way. To this end, NCSL also strongly recommends that the federal government focus on the results of school reform efforts and not on the processes used to achieve reform goals. We have already seen and experienced the damage that can be done when the federal government adopts a component of reform from one state and imposes it upon the other 49.
August 2012
National Standards
The nation’s legislators support the need to improve elementary and secondary education so that all students have access to a challenging and rewarding public education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires states to test all children once a year in grades 3-8 and once in high school based on state standards and assessments. Recent discussions and proposals to create a system of national educational standards are generally based on two assumptions: the first that NCLB is generating test results with no comparability of academic scores from one state to another. The second is that states are lowering standards (or re-defining ‘proficiency’) to avoid the negative consequences of federal adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations.
Supporters of national standards point to the incomparability of state AYP results as a rationalization for their cause. However, comparability of state results is not critical to the potential success of NCLB nor is it a goal of the law. NCLB is supposed to be about improving individual student performance—a rising educational tide that raises the performance of all while closing the achievement gap.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures Task Force on No Child Left Behind, the primary problem with NCLB is that AYP falsely and arbitrarily over-identifies failure and prescribes punishments—driving states to broaden the definition of proficiency and/or relax standards. In this situation, states are reacting rationally to an irrational metric and the obvious action is to fix the metric.
Some consider national standards or tests as a legitimate quid pro quo for substantial overhaul of NCLB; others see voluntary regional or national consortiums on standards as a desirable outcome. But all states want educational emphasis to be on achievement; and not on process; as is emphasized by NCLB. Past efforts to create national standards or a national test have been proposed by every administration since the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Each federal attempt has proven partisan, divisive and unsuccessful.
We need rigorous state standards that are anchored in real world demands students will face after high school, that are aligned to K-12 curriculum, assessments, high school graduation requirements, college placements standards and other related policy tools and practices. This can be most readily accomplished through individual state refinement of standards or the voluntary participation of states in joint efforts like Achieve’s American Diploma Project, not through federal action—which flies in the face not only of the role of states since the inception of our system of providing education; but the historical role of states and local school districts in funding education with diminished federal support.
The federal government’s role in K-12 education policy has been greatly enhanced by the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Act prescribes new and far-reaching procedural, administrative and implementation conditions that states and local school districts must meet as conditions for receipt of those funds. Federal funding increases in NCLB are exhausted by the compliance costs of NCLB, leaving states with little or no funding to raise the proficiency scores of struggling students through remediation known to have an impact on performance. The current federal role then, is strong on monitoring procedural and administrative compliance and weak on successful interventions and rewards encouraging enhanced student performance.
Federal statutory construction in the legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education prohibits federal involvement in a national test. Similar language in NCLB prohibits federal involvement in standards, assessments and curricula. These protections against federal involvement in state and local issues should be adhered to and continued. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that there is no legitimate or constructive role for federal involvement in national academic standards or a unified national test, especially while the structural flaws of NCLB remain unaddressed.
All states want AYP to be a valid metric and all states want to evaluate students with disabilities and limited English learners with appropriate measures. All states want to believe that the granting of flexibilities and waivers to implement NCLB is fair, consistent and transparent. NCSL urges Congress to focus on fixing NCLB now, not by adding additional layers of national, one–size-fits-all statutory and regulatory requirements on the law. Absent a thorough and comprehensive review of existing provisions, continued support for state and local organizations that have historically provided the foundation for education policy and funding is essential.
Expires August 2010
The Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education
Legally and traditionally, elementary and secondary education policy has been defined broadly by state constitutions, specified by state statutes and implemented by state agencies, school boards and local school districts. For more than thirty-five years, federal involvement in education was modest in resources and limited in scope, targeting under-served populations with the expectation of raising student achievement for disabled and economically disadvantaged students.
Funding
The flow of federal funding directly to state education agencies creates state governance issues and aggravates oversight concerns by bypassing established state budget processes. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that all federal funds should be incorporated into the state's budget process for open and deliberative hearings and deliberations. Federal funding should not bypass constitutional and statutory provisions by going directly to state or sub-state bureaucracies or agencies.
Despite the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, K-12 education remains a state and local financial responsibility. The federal government provides about $40 billion of the $550 billion currently expended on K-12 education, making up 8% or less of the nationwide K-12 budget. Every additional $1 billion in federal appropriations increases aggregate K-12 expenditure by two-tenths of a percent.
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Appropriations increases associated with the enactment of NCLB increased federal resources modestly but greatly enhanced the role and reach of the federal government into the day-to-day operations of public schools by mandating the use of a flawed and discredited academic metric that over- identifies 'failure' and leads inevitably to a process and compliance model of federal-state interaction. States were left with the responsibility for figuring out how to reach an admirable yet statistically unattainable goal of 100% proficiency for all students, all to be accomplished with the 2% net increases in K-12 funding made available through increases in federal appropriations.
The nation's legislators commend the Congress for its efforts to identify the unmet needs of children in our education systems and efforts to improve federal education policy. However, current federal policy attempts to leverage reform and improvement for all students, diluting the impact of limited federal resources. The nation's legislators expect federal policy to supplement, not supplant state policy and to respect the progress, improvements and innovations made in our state systems by providing the flexibility to implement reforms according to specific conditions in our states. NCLB reaches too far and violates basic principles of federalism, significantly shifting control of K-12 education to federal bureaucrats and away from state and local elected officials.
State legislators take their authority and accountability for public education seriously and expect the federal government to honor its commitment to a federal system by calling upon the Congress to amend ESEA as follows:
- Incorporate the recommendations of the NCSL Task Force on No Child Left Behind, which range from the need for a revitalized state-federal partnership to specific recommendations for overhauling Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), to amending the state plan approval process to make it more transparent, less arbitrary and less subject to the whims of political influence, to changing the sequence of consequences for under-performing schools.
- Follow the concept of incentive-based programs as opposed to the coercive, punitive system at the heart of NCLB.
- Acknowledge state constitutions and state elected officials as well as basic principles of federalism.
- Avoid any reduction in federal K-12 funding for any state that can show continuous improvement in student achievement, and/or a closing of the achievement gap in that state, using any legitimate metric that is incorporated into state policy.
The nation's legislators expect federal education policy to be an effective and efficient tool. This can only be done by re-thinking ESEA in its entirety, not by a piecemeal approach that grants regulatory relief to a few states on a few select issues while ignoring the systemic problems imbedded in the federal law.
Expires August 2011
Federal Preemption of State Postsecondary Tuition
Under the 1982 Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, states are required to provide resident immigrants, regardless of legal status, with a free primary and secondary education. States agree that denial of an education to these children would stamp them with an enduring disability and would harm the state’s economic viability by creating a permanent underclass drawing on state resources rather than contributing to them. It is in the state’s interests to see all children become productive members of society by maximizing their educational opportunities.
In conflict with this position is a 1996 provision of the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104-208) that preempts state laws regarding postsecondary education benefits (“in-state tuition”) for immigrant students, even when the child has successfully graduated from the state’s K-12 system. The federal law prohibits states from providing in-state tuition benefits to those not lawfully present unless all students, regardless of state residence, are eligible for such benefit– effectively preempting state law determining who is and who is not eligible for in-state tuition. Before the 1996 preemption, states routinely determined these issues without help or interference from the federal government.
It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that this underlying federal preemption of state authority should be amended or repealed by federal action on this issue with authority for the determination of eligibility for post-secondary education benefits restored to the states.
August 2012
For more information, contact: David Shreve and Robert Strange, NCSL Staff Liaison.
|