Federal Issues

View all documents related to this topic by clicking on the document library tab at the top of this page.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) enacts the largest federal K-12 education programs, representing 40% of the U.S. Department of Education’s budget.  The latest reincarnation of ESEA, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law in January of 2002.  It was due to be reauthorized by October 1, 2007.  To date, Congress has not completed reauthorization, although both the Senate and House committees of jurisdiction have held numerous hearings on the topic.    This page will provide the latest information on ESEA reauthorization.

---

ALERT: ESEA Reauthorization Bill Passes Senate Committee Vote

On Thursday, October 20, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) by a vote of 15-7. The yet unnumbered bill was sponsored by the Committee’s Chairman, Senator Harkin (Iowa) and Ranking Member, Senator Enzi (Wyoming), and gained the support of Republican Senators Kirk (Illinois) and Alexander (Tennessee). The bill would scrap the accountability system at the heart of the nearly 10 year old No Child Left Behind law, the current iteration of ESEA. Additionally, this bill:

• Calls on states to craft career and college ready standards;
• Retains the NCLB testing structure of testing math and reading in grades 3-8 and once in high schools;
• Continue the requirement that states disaggregate data by particular subgroups of students; and
• Focuses turnaround strategies on the 5% lowest performing schools.   An amendment offered by Senator Alexander, adopted by a vote of 15-7, would allow states to submit their own turnaround plan as an option, subject to approval by the Secretary.

Senators Harkin and Enzi announced that the Committee would hold an additional hearing on No Child Left Behind on November 8 prior to the bill coming before the Senate floor. This hearing was scheduled in response to Senator Paul (Kentucky) who, citing the length of the bill and the speed of the process, used a Senate rule to stop committee proceedings on the first day.

Senator Harkin has expressed optimism that the bill can be taken up by the Senate before Thanksgiving, and be considered in the House before Christmas. However, the House Education & Workforce Committee is currently committed to strategy of adopting numerous discrete bills instead a single comprehensive reauthorization bill. To date only one of the House bills (regarding the federal charter school program) has been passed by the House of Representatives, leaving the true timing of ESEA being reauthorized unclear at this point. 

Charter School Legislation Passes House

On Wednesday, September 13, the House of Representatives passed the “Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools” act (H.R. 2218) by a vote of 365-54, a vote that highlights the bill’s bipartisan support. The bill makes changes to the federal charter school grants to allow them to be used for charter school development and strengthens quality authorizing practices and transparency on financial audits. The bill authorizes $300 million for each of Fiscal Years 2012-2017 for federal support for charter schools.  During floor debate on September 8 and 13, the House considered eight amendments. 

The following amendments were accepted (sponsor’s name and state noted):

• Manager’s Amendment providing for technical and clarifying changes to the bill that was reported out of Committee on Education and the Workforce, and also added some provisions regarding parental input and education for at-risk students (Kline, Minnesota)
• Amendment adding to the purpose section of the bill the importance of innovation in public education to prepare students to compete in the global economy (Davis, California)
• Amendment changing the duration of the subgrants from five years to three years to allow successful and eligible charter schools to replicate and expand (Paulsen, Minnesota)
• Amendment to include instruction and professional development in science and technology, engineering, and math studies as an objective, where appropriate, in the requirements for running a quality charter school program (Lujan, New Mexico)
• Amendment to add a priority for federal charter schools funds for states that allow charter school authorizers besides local educational agencies (Polis, Colorado)

The following amendments were rejected (sponsor’s name and state noted):

• Amendment removing governor’s eligibility to apply for federal grant funding to oversee charter school operations in their states (Moore, Wisconsin)
• Amendment that would encourage the Secretary for Education to accord priority in awarding grants to states that support “green” building practices (Holt, New Jersey)
• Amendment striking from the definition of what constitutes a high-quality charter school the academic improvement of disabled, minority, and economically disadvantaged students (King, Iowa)

At the end of the floor consideration, Representative Hanabusa of Hawaii made a motion to recommit the bill to the House Education and Workforce Committee, with instructions that it be reported back immediately with an amendment requiring each state entity receiving grants have policies in place to require criminal background checks for school employees and deny employment to individuals convicted of certain crimes. This motion was rejected 189-231.  House Education and Workforce Chairman Kline indicated his desire that such a provision be consider under circumstances in which it would apply to all schools, not just charter schools. 

NCSL Action Policy

Passed at NCSL's 2011 Legislative Summit in San Antonio, Texas

NCLB significantly shifted control of K-12 education to federal officials and away from state and local elected officials. While the original intent of NCLB—to identify the unmet needs of all children in our education systems and promote education reform—is commendable, state legislators believe that current federal policy dilutes the impact of limited federal resources. NCLB also mandates the use of a flawed and discredited method of measuring academic progress that over-identifies failure and promotes a process and compliance model of federal-state interaction, instead of allowing for state innovation.