House GOP pushes through curbs on No Child Left Behind

The House bill rolls back much of the accountability requirements for the No Child Left Behind law. It also locks in lower levels of federal funding. The Obama administration threatened a veto.

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) of Ohio, smiles as he walks to the floor of the House of Representatives as the GOP majority passed legislation to replace the No Child Left Behind law, in Washington, Friday, July 19. Supporters of HR 5, the Student Success Act, say it restores flexibility to local school districts, gives broader choice to parents, and encourages innovation by scaling back the federal footprint.

Six years after Congress was supposed to reauthorize the federal No Child Left Behind education law, the US House of Representatives passed a bill – with no Democratic support – that would roll back much of the law’s accountability requirements and lock in lower levels of education funding.

Supporters of HR 5, the Student Success Act, say it restores flexibility to local school districts, gives broader choice to parents, and encourages innovation by scaling back the federal footprint. Opponents say it would reverse longstanding efforts to improve education, particularly for the most disadvantaged groups of children.

In order for the law, formally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to be reauthorized, both the House and Senate would have to come to some agreement, but the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill (which has not yet come up for a vote) are so vast that many education stakeholders believe reauthorization is still a long way off.

The Obama administration issued a veto threat in advance of Friday’s House vote. The bill passed by a vote of 221 to 207. Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill.

Currently, dozens of states are operating under waivers from the US Department of Education, which relieve them from some provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that many agree are flawed and onerous. Those waivers come with conditions that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sees as key to keeping states moving forward on boosting standards to ensure that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.

To many Republicans, the Department has overstepped its bounds with such conditions, a point made by Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, when he urged his colleagues to pass the bill Friday. “It’s time for the Congress …  to step up and do its job … and get the [Obama] administration out of the business of writing education policy,” he said.

Rep. George Miller (D) of California, the top Democrat on the education committee, fiercely opposed the bill Friday, and argued for a substitute proposal, saying the fight was “about education justice and whether or not every student … is going to have a high quality education that no longer depends on their zipcode.”

In addition to letting states and districts off the hook for key accountability measures, Representative Miller said, the bill would lock in sequestration-level funding, cuts that would amount to “stealing from the poorest people in this country to achieve deficit reduction.”

Not only are such funding cuts “unsustainable,” but HR 5 “lacks a number of fundamental things to ensure equity in education,” says Kate Tromble, director of legislative affairs at Education Trust in Washington, which advocates for disadvantaged students. Along with many other civil rights and education groups, Education Trust criticizes HR 5 for taking away mandated goals to raise achievement and close gaps for groups of students such as those with low incomes, disabilities, or language disadvantages.

The one element HR 5 had that Education Trust supported was a requirement for teacher evaluations to include measures of student progress, but that provision was removed by an amendment on Thursday.

The current waiver system has been a “mixed bag” and should be temporary, but it’s better than what the system would look like under HR 5, Ms. Tromble says.

But from many local school boards’ point of view, HR 5 is on target in its broad philosophy, says Michael Resnick, associate executive director of the National School Boards Association, which supports the bill.

While the Senate bill would “continue a very top-down approach,” he says, the House bill says “the people closer to education in their communities should have better flexibility to design programs that meet their needs.”

The lower funding levels in HR5 would be a concern to school boards, he says, but he would hope those could be addressed in any reconciliation of House and Senate bills.

The School Boards Association would also like to see in any final bill the continuation of what’s known as “maintenance of effort.” HR 5 removes that requirement on states to maintain their own basic education funding levels in order to receive federal funds, so that the federal money is additional, rather than a substitute for state funds to education.

The debate over the House bill is representative of the partisan “schizophrenia” that has surrounded the federal role in education for several decades, says Maria Ferguson, executive director of the Center on Education Policy in Washington.

While HR 5 specifically would prohibit the Secretary of Education from imposing conditions on states regarding curriculum standards and assessments, Ms. Ferguson says, the move to the Common Core State Standards has actually been driven by state initiative and is largely embraced as a helpful tool for educators.

Among the provisions of HR 5 are the following:

• Elimination of the Adequate Yearly Progress measure of NCLB, allowing states to set up their own accountability systems

• Elimination of a mandate that states intervene in poorly performing schools

• Continuation of annual report cards disaggregated by race and other subgroups

• Consolidation of dozens of programs into a flexible block grant.

• A provision to allow states to let Title I funding for low-income children follow them to whatever public school they attend.

The Senate bill by Sen. Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa, which passed the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that he chairs, attempts to address the flaws of NCLB while continuing the administration’s approach to education accountability and reform. It also includes support for early childhood education. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to House GOP pushes through curbs on No Child Left Behind
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0719/House-GOP-pushes-through-curbs-on-No-Child-Left-Behind
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe