2008- 2009 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the:
Education Committee
Note: In order to print one policy, you must highlight it and click on selection in your print option.
Education Standing Committee
Standing Committee Main Page
Staff Contacts
Policies:
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports early childhood education and its benefits, especially in lessening the developmental deficiencies of childhood poverty. Studies dramatically demonstrate that participation in preschool 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 those at-risk, 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.
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 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. 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. 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 in prekindergarten education, 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 federal funding to meet the expectation of the state;
- Preservation of state authority in these matters and
- Avoidance of unfunded mandates.
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. NCSL urges federal policymakers to consider the importance of greater coordination among Head Start, early childhood and child care programs and elementary schools to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged populations. It should be emphasized that parental involvement, which benefits both parents and children, is the critical component of Head Start.
NCSL commends the Congress 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, prekindergarten, 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.
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, and notes that the following issues must be addressed in such a proposal:
- There should be language in the proposal describing and limiting the expenditures that are part of an MOE requirement, and child care expenditures should not be included;
- Head Start teachers in a state controlled program should meet state, not federal certifications;
- State policy processes must govern the approval of a decision to participate or not participate;
- Funds for a Head Start program run under this option must be integrated into the state budgeting process and appropriated by state legislators;
- States must be able to set accountability measures and performance expectations; and
- States must be able to determine which state agency will administer the program.
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. Staff development and training is critical for quality Head Start programs. Funds should be allocated for training staff and enriching program curricula. 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.
August 2009
Twenty First Century globalization, along with advances in technology, compel parents, educators, and policymakers to ensure that every child is equipped with the education necessary to compete in today’s emerging global economy. Advances include new and exciting means for achieving these education goals.
Advances in technology expand teaching potential and efficiency that enable increased ability to customize and monitor each child’s educational experience. These enhancements diminish the significance of geographic distance and makes possible access to students, records, assessments, remediation, and an unprecedented scope of information--- 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
While education is primarily and properly a state responsibility, the federal government can play an important supporting role for applying technology to: increase personalized instruction; decrease student boredom and teacher burnout; stimulate discovery, innovation, and creativity; achieve NCLB requirements related to tutorial services, supplemental services, provision of highly qualified teachers, and meeting the reporting requirements; and to provide education equity for every student, regardless of location or economic status.
The federal Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT or "E2T2") block-grant program is the primary source of federal funding for school technology. In FY-06, EETT received $275 million, down from $496 million in FY-05. The administration has asked Congress to eliminate the program and EETT funding in each of the last three budget cycles, including the current budget proposal for FY-08.
The National Conference of State Legislatures believes that this an example of a critical program necessary to ensure that every child is equipped with the creative thinking, problem solving, and analytical skills needed to compete in today’s global market place. Funding for EETT should be restored and enhanced because the program represents a national state-based educational partnership that can serve as a model of innovation and excellence.
August 2009
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
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.
August 2011
The nation's legislators support equal opportunity for all citizens and support the purposes and spirit of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This law and its subsequent amendments, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004 mandates that states provide a free and appropriate education and procedural safeguards for all children with disabilities without regard to costs incurred by the states and local school districts.
States have enacted their own statutes and regulations to comply with federal laws and, in many cases, have gone beyond what is mandated by the federal government in providing services. State and federal laws and regulations, combined with the extensive and increasingly complex case law that has developed around this act, have made the practice of delivering services to students with disabilities complex and costly for states and communities.
The federal special education law includes a provision that authorizes the federal government to fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditures (APPE) in K-12 nationwide, an estimate at the time of the excess cost for educating a special education student that the federal government would bear. Since its enactment, the federal government has appropriated funds at levels between 8% and 17% of APPE. The U.S. Department of Education Budget Service estimates that FY 2006 appropriations of $11 billion leave states and localities $11.5 billion under the 40% mark.
Recent reports indicate that actual spending for special education services is 95% above average K-12 costs. In effect, this means that states and localities are shouldering a burden of $40 billion in the current year alone, which according to the original legislation, should be borne by the federal government.
In a system already strapped for funds, federal statutory and regulatory changes further erode federal support for special education services. Medicaid reimbursement for services to special education students provides states with $3 billion on top of the federal contribution of $11 billion dollars, bringing the current federal total to $14 billion. Under the administration’s FY07 budget, the federal government is proposing to severely curtail Medicaid reimbursements, effectively reducing the overall federal commitment to states for special education by 22 percent.
For 30 years the Congress has put off meeting its commitments to special education funding. In the 2004 reauthorization, the Congress attempted to address this issue by setting voluntary spending targets in a glide path to full funding by 2011. The targets were ignored in the first cycle of appropriations after the reauthorization. NCSL strongly urges the Congress to honor its original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of the Average Per Pupil expenditures as authorized by the Act and to move state allotments for special education from the discretionary side to the mandatory side of the federal budget.
NCSL further urges the Congress to reject any action that would curtail or eliminate legitimate Medicaid services for special education students.
August 2009
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 2009
David Shreve, Senior Committee Director
Diana Hinton Noel, Policy Associate
Last Updated July 30, 2008
|
The Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education