No Child Left Behind
Joint Statement of the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of School Administrators on ESEA Reauthorization
INTRODUCTION // THE FEDERAL ROLE IN IMPROVING K-12 EDUCATION // THE COST OF CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: COMPLIANCE VS. PROFICIENCY // PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS // SHAPING THE REVITALIZED FEDERAL ROLE IN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION
 Download PDF Version
INTRODUCTION
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), representing 7,300 state legislators and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), representing 14,000 school administrators, offer this joint statement for improving elementary and secondary education through reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (otherwise known as No Child Left Behind). The statement has three major components. The first emphasizes the organizations’ strong commitment to a workable state-federal-local approach, one that reaps the advantages inherent in a healthy and constructive federal system. The second calls for full federal funding of the costs imposed on state and local governments for complying with the requirements of federal education law. The third offers practical recommendations, based on the day-to-day experiences of state legislators and school administrators with No Child Left Behind, for fixing the current law.
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN IMPROVING K-12 EDUCATION
NCSL and AASA believe that the primary responsibility for determining educational methods and strategies resides at the state and local level, consistent with state and federal constitutions and the U.S. Department of Education Organization Act. The fundamental role of the federal government in education is to help ensure equal educational opportunity for each child by helping states and school districts overcome economic and social barriers through research and targeted resources. The U.S. Department of Education should fulfill its role as a national center for diagnostic data collection and scientific research and through that research and data analysis help states and school districts improve educational opportunities for all students. NCSL and AASA believe that Congress should create a revitalized state-federal partnership that focuses on results, not on processes, and fosters accountability without stifling state and local innovation:
- The federal government should supplement and support rather than dictate state efforts in education. NCSL and AASA insist that the decision-making role of the federal government in public education should be proportional to its financial contribution to the K-12 endeavor.
- NCSL and AASA strongly feel that federal dollars are more efficient, effective and have longer-lasting effects when they are driven by formula through states to local school districts. Competition for grants (such as Reading First) often disadvantages those school districts most in need because of limited capacity for the grant-writing process
- NCSL and AASA believe that Title I should focus on providing states and school districts with meaningful support and capacity for improvement, rather than sanctions and required set-asides.
The chief tools used by the Department in the implementation of the provisions of ESEA 2001— coercion and compliance —have hindered policymakers and administrators from making the changes needed to help all students succeed and have stifled innovation. In addition, arbitrary ESEA program rules and guidance produced by the Department have resulted in inconsistent definitions and accountability plans negotiated in isolation. This practice has hindered states from learning from each other.
The U.S. Department of Education’s process for state plan approval and amendment has not been uniform, transparent, deliberate, nor prompt. Waiver requests, both those approved and denied, have not been made readily available. NCSL and AASA believe that the federal statute should be amended from “allowing” the Secretary to approve to “requiring” the Secretary to approve innovative plan adjustments.
THE COST OF CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: COMPLIANCE VS. PROFICIENCY
Because funding for ESEA has never approached either the needed or promised levels, the requirements of the 2001 reauthorization constitute a significant cost shift to states and local school districts. The conditions on the receipt of federal K-12 funds are constantly in flux, creating unnecessary and unanticipated financial and bureaucratic burdens.
- Congress should require that GAO conduct a comprehensive study into the costs to states and local districts of complying with the administrative costs of NCLB as well as the costs of meeting the proficiency targets of NCLB.
- NCSL and AASA believe that Congress should increase federal funding as current levels, at best, meet only the compliance costs of NCLB, not the additional costs of meeting NCLB’s proficiency goals.
- The U.S. Department of Education should state unambiguously the restrictions and expectations placed on states for accepting ESEA funds.
- ESEA’s goal of 100% proficiency by 2014, while admirable, should be re-evaluated and examined as it is in practice unattainable, and puts states in the constant risk of litigation for not providing adequate resources for what appears to be an aspirational goal.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) methodology is insufficient and inaccurate, with calculations systematically over-identifying schools as failing. Accountability determinations would be improved by ensuring states’ right to use true growth models and multiple academic measures to accurately track student performance.
NCSL and AASA believe that Title I should support flexibility for states and school districts in using a variety of standards-based assessment and accountability systems that measure the academic progress of individual students, including value-added models, benchmarking models, computer-adaptive assessments and instructionally sensitive assessments.
NCSL and AASA believe that ESEA should affirm the authority of states to differentiate levels of achievement when determining the application of appropriate rewards, sanctions and consequences.
Special Education and English Language Learners: NCSL and AASA believe that each special education child should be measured based on the child’s individualized education program. Congress should recognize IDEA’s foundation in civil rights law and acknowledge IDEA as the prevailing federal law regarding students with disabilities.
NCSL and AASA believe that students with limited English proficiency should be appropriately assessed in English, math and other subjects as per individual student needs and not subject to arbitrary determinations or deadlines. States should be allowed to set separate starting points and AYP projection paths for students with disabilities as well as English Language Learners.
Flexibility for States to Address Unique Schools and Districts: The federal government should recognize the unique circumstances present in rural and urban schools and provide incentives and flexibility for improvement in these school systems, rather than impose penalties and sanctions for failure to comply with the process requirement of the law.
Highly Qualified Teacher And Paraprofessional Requirements: NCSL and AASA believe that states and localities provide an overwhelming share of the funding for teacher salaries and should determine conditions for certification as well as the definition of “highly qualified.”
The federal government could have a greater effect on student achievement by providing incentives to attract better teachers to challenging school districts, instead of creating burdens that exacerbate the supply of good teachers.
SHAPING THE REVITALIZED FEDERAL ROLE IN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION
Our federal system is predicated on a distrust of centralized power exercised arbitrarily from afar. The implementation of ESEA over the last five years has demonstrated that the nation is too large and complex for critical education policy decisions to be made so far from the actual practice of teaching and learning. The last five years have also demonstrated conclusively that a highly decentralized education system, consisting of 50 state statutes, 15,000 school districts and 92% of funding, cannot be effectively and efficiently run by the federal government.
NCSL and AASA are in agreement with many national organizations on the problems and fixes for the components of ESEA (accountability, assessments, teachers/educators, special populations) as are many members of Congress. Those issues are outlined in depth in the policy positions of both AASA and NCSL.
NCSL and AASA believe that while well intended, the current top-down federal education law focuses on process and compliance rather than on results. In order to change that focus, federal policymakers will not only have to fix the components of ESEA but will also have to take a realistic perspective on federalism. ESEA reauthorization without knowledge of and accommodation for the basic characteristics of the K-12 governance structure will ensure that ESEA remains a contentious and controversial reform that does little to accomplish its goal.
NCSL and AASA believe that when considering an appropriate role for the federal government in K-12 education, federalism should not be an abstract principle subject to a philosophical debate, nor should it be an afterthought. Federalism should be viewed as a practical framework within which the structure of a reauthorized and revitalized ESEA can be built and can be successful.
 No Child Left Behind
|
