Includes updates and/or revisions.
As policymakers and education advocates await details on how the Obama administration plans to move forward with its recently unveiled blueprint for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the chances of an ESEA renewal this year remain tough to gauge.
Although the principles underlying have drawn praise in many quarters, influential members of Congress have qualms about specific points鈥攁nd the plan faces outright opposition from both national teachers鈥� unions, which together represent 4.6 million members.
鈥淚t has a chance of passing, but I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a probability of passing,鈥� said Jack Jennings, the president of the Washington-based Center on Education Policy. 鈥淭eachers鈥� unions are expressing pretty grave concerns. Republicans aren鈥檛 expressing great enthusiasm; they seem to be holding back.鈥�
Mr. Jennings, for nearly three decades an aide to Democrats on the House education committee, said the administration took a good first step March 13 by unveiling its blueprint to reshape the current version of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002.
Now the process of turning that 41-page blueprint into legislation is in the hands of education leaders on Capitol Hill.
The chairman of the House and Senate education committees, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, respectively, face a difficult task.
After focusing intensely for more than a year on health-care-overhaul legislation, Congress has scant time to finish this year鈥檚 business before members turn their attention to the midterm elections.
Still, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made three successive appearances on Capitol Hill after the ESEA plan鈥檚 release, trying to sell his reauthorization ideas鈥攁nd his fiscal 2011 budget proposals鈥攖o lawmakers.
The blueprint aims to retain the NCLB鈥檚 emphasis on assessments and accountability, while encouraging tougher academic standards and giving states and districts more leeway in targeting interventions to the schools that are struggling the most. It would include financial rewards and new funding flexibility for high-achieving districts and states.
The Obama administration鈥檚 blueprint for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act seeks to retain assessment, accountability, and other features of the existing law while offering states and school districts greater 铿俥xibility.
SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, 澳门跑狗论坛
Key members of Congress gave the draft a generally favorable review, while pressing for specifics on issues such as teacher quality and rural schools.
For instance, Rep. Miller asked about the research base behind the four interventions the Department of Education has proposed for turning around the lowest-performing schools.
Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said he thought that the blueprint stayed true to Mr. Duncan鈥檚 promise to be tight on goals for achievement and looser on how districts and schools get there.
But Sen. Enzi worried that there doesn鈥檛 seem to be a good option for low-performing rural schools among the four turnaround models in both the blueprint and the existing regulations for $3.5 billion in school improvement money under the ESEA.
NEA, AFT Discontent
The administration鈥檚 plan already has two significant detractors: the 3.2 million-member National Education Association and the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers.
Randi Weingarten, the president of the AFT, told the House Appropriations Committee this month that she doesn鈥檛 like the proposal to ask states to adopt college- and career-ready academic standards and implement new teacher-evaluation systems in order to tap Title I grants for districts, which go to help disadvantaged students.
Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the NEA, has said the blueprint, which would retain the testing regime in the NCLB law, still relies too heavily on standardized tests, rather than looking at other measures of student and school success.
At a House Education and Labor Committee hearing earlier this month, a leading Democrat on education issues voiced similar concerns.
鈥淗ow do we assure that any teacher evaluation is, first of all, developed in collaboration with teachers and really accurately measures teacher performance?鈥� asked Rep. Dale E. Kildee, the chairman of the House subcommittee that deals with K-12 policy.
Important Republicans also have some misgivings.
Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the ranking Republican on the House education 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his means few if any students would have access to the immediate lifeline that tutoring and transfers provide,鈥� Mr. Kline said during a hearing.
Fixing a 鈥楩lawed鈥� Law
The Obama administration contends that its long-awaited proposal is aimed at fixing the 鈥渇lawed鈥� No Child Left Behind law鈥攚hich has been up for reauthorization since 2007鈥攖o make it more flexible for states, while encouraging them to set higher standards for students.
Under the blueprint, the NCLB deadline for bringing all students to proficiency by the 2013-14 school year鈥攄eemed unrealistic by most observers鈥攚ould be replaced with a goal of ensuring that by 2020 all students were ready for college or a career.
But that target appears to be aspirational: During a rollout of the plan, Carmel Martin, the department鈥檚 assistant secretary for policy, program evaluation, and planning, said the 2020 date wasn鈥檛 an absolute deadline.
And, in a nod to flexibility, the blueprint would allow states and districts to use 鈥渄ifferentiated consequences鈥� to target interventions to schools. Former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, Mr. Duncan鈥檚 predecessor, already had introduced a pilot project experimenting with that concept.
The blueprint calls for focusing the most dramatic interventions on the most troubled schools鈥攖hose whose performance puts them in the lowest 5 percent in their states. Such schools would have to choose one of four intervention strategies spelled out in existing regulations for the $3.5 billion School Improvement Grant program.
The blueprint would retain key aspects of the NCLB law, including its requirement for annual testing in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and disaggregating student data for populations such as racial minorities, English-language learners, and students in special education.
The blueprint also calls for measuring student achievement based on individual student growth, in part to give schools credit for helping students advance, even if they failed to meet proficiency targets. Ms. Spellings had permitted states to adopt such a system through a growth-model pilot project.
Interest and Skepticism
Lawmakers in both chambers greeted the administration鈥檚 outline as a good jumping-off point for their work.
鈥淲e greatly agree on a number of ... things,鈥� Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate education subcommittee dealing with K-12 policy and a former U.S. secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush, told Mr. Duncan at a recent hearing. 鈥淭his is a very helpful blueprint.鈥�
Still, it鈥檚 unclear whether rank-and-file lawmakers will go along with the administration鈥檚 approach.
鈥淢y local schools are already telling me we just got done [implementing] one bad system,鈥� said Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., a prominent conservative, who is running for governor of his state. 鈥淣ow you quote-unquote 鈥榞eniuses鈥� in Washington are coming up with a new approach.鈥�
And a liberal Democrat, Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, surprised herself in echoing some of Rep. Hoekstra鈥檚 views.
鈥淚 hate to sound like Mr. Hoekstra鈥攈e and I never talk the same,鈥� Ms. Woolsey said. 鈥淏ut I really worry we鈥檝e got a new team in town and a new White House and a new secretary, so now we鈥檝e got to do something new, but it won鈥檛 be that different.鈥�
