Less than a week after it was unveiled, the Obama administration鈥檚 blueprint for overhauling the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is drawing both bipartisan support and skepticism from the congressional committees tasked with the law鈥檚 reauthorization.
In a pair of Wednesday appearances, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan assured members of the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that the administration wants to extend flexibility to states and districts while boosting student-achievement goals.
The reception, particularly in the Senate, was generally positive to the plan unveiled March 13 for revamping the ESEA, whose current version鈥攕igned into law by President George W. Bush in 2002鈥攊s the No Child Left Behind Act.
Key Republicans called the plan a good jumping-off point for debate. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.鈥攈imself a former federal education secretary鈥攄eemed it 鈥渁n excellent beginning,鈥� particularly its support for rewarding districts that are making strides in raising student achievement.
Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the top Republican on the committee, said he thought that the blueprint stayed true to Secretary Duncan鈥檚 promise to be tight on goals for student achievement, but looser than the NCLB law on how districts and schools must get there.
The blueprint seeks to revamp the accountability system at the heart of No Child Left Behind by focusing federal resources and direction on the schools that are struggling the most to improve student achievement. It would give states and districts more flexibility to determine how to intervene in schools that are generally performing well but may have trouble reaching students in a particular subgroup, such as English-language learners.
The broad proposal would place more of an emphasis on students鈥� academic growth, rather than comparing different cohorts of students with one another. But it would retain NCLB鈥檚 testing regime and its requirement that states disaggregate student-achievement data by racial and ethnic group and by other populations such as students in special education.
Sen. Enzi鈥檚 main objection appeared to be the perceived lack of a good option for low-performing rural schools among the four 鈥渢urnaround鈥� models spelled out in both the blueprint and the regulations for $3.5 billion in School Improvement Grants, the bulk of which is being made available under the 2009 federal economic-stimulus law.
Those models, aimed at perennially low-performing schools, include some dramatic interventions, such as closing a school and reopening it as a charter. In nearly all cases, the school鈥檚 principal would be removed.
Mr. Duncan told Sen. Enzi that low-performing rural schools could try the so-called 鈥渢ransformation model,鈥� which is widely considered the least drastic of the four options. It requires schools to offer extended learning time, institute alternative pay plans, and try out new instructional programs, among other remedies.
Progressive Democrats have sometimes questioned the administration鈥檚 approach to K-12 education. But Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who is viewed as a liberal, told Mr. Duncan, 鈥淚 really love that you鈥檙e focusing on progress and growth and not just hitting an arbitrary score.鈥�
However, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., expressed displeasure that the administration has proposed in its fiscal 2011 budget request to make some money for teacher training available through competitive grants. She is worried that troubled programs wouldn鈥檛 have the resources to improve.
House Appearance
In the House panel鈥檚 hearing, the Obama administration鈥檚 emphasis on competitive funding also sparked skepticism among House Democrats.
Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said that, given the still-sluggish economy, districts need to target money to averting layoffs and heading off programmatic cutbacks, and may need all the federal aid possible. While he said he appreciated that the administration鈥檚 education redesign goals are furthered through the competitive grants, he worried that it may not be the right time to go forward with that approach.
Republicans also questioned key aspects of the ESEA blueprint. Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the committee, praised the bipartisan approach to reauthorizing the law, but said he worried about the impact of the administration鈥檚 proposal to stop mandating school choice and supplemental education services for students in schools that are failing to meet achievement targets.
鈥淭hese tools would become optional鈥攂ut no longer required鈥攆or some struggling schools. In reality, this means few if any students would have access to the immediate lifeline that tutoring and transfers provide,鈥� Kline said.
Rep. Kline also appeared skeptical of language in the blueprint that would identify some states as 鈥渃hallenge鈥� states. The administration鈥檚 plan says that such states would 鈥渇ace additional restrictions on the use of ESEA funds and may be required to work with an outside organization to improve student academic achievement.鈥�
Meanwhile, the House education committee鈥檚 chairman, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. said the blueprint 鈥渓ays the important markers鈥� as Congress begins to rewrite the law. But he also asked about the research behind the four strategies for turning around low-performing schools.
Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., the chairman of the subcommittee overseeing K-12 policy, said he is worried about the administration鈥檚 push to expand charter schools. He is concerned that such schools siphon resources from regular public schools. The former teacher also said that the administration鈥檚 push to revamp teacher evaluation should take into account the kinds of students a teacher is dealing with.
But Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., who is retiring from Congress after his current term is up, echoed his Senate counterparts, calling the blueprint 鈥渁 good place to start.鈥�
