ESEA proposal:A blind man’s elephant the GOP should embrace
It’s official: Arne Duncan has fulfilled his promise to propose a reauthorized No Child Left Behind law that is “tight” about the results expected while “loose” on the means. The ESEA blueprint released by the Obama Administration yesterday would represent, as Andy wrote, a dramatic change in the federal role in education–one that would be more targeted, less prescriptive, and use a lighter touch on the vast majority of America’s schools.
Under this proposal, there would be no more “Adequate Yearly Progress,” no more “public school choice” or “supplemental educational services,” no more “cascade of sanctions,” no more requirement for 100 percent of students to reach proficiency by 2014, no more getting labelled a “failing school” because some of your special ed students or English language learners failed the state test.
Except for the very worst schools in the country–which would be subject to serious turnaround efforts–the rest would be freed from federally-mandated accountability. (The fastest-improving schools would actually get cash rewards and extra flexibility.) It does call for 100 percent of students to graduate from high school “college and career ready” by 2020, but that’s purely an aspirational goal; there are no consequences attached whatsoever. (The transparancy of annual testing and reporting would continue.)
In a sane world, the teachers unions would be singing Amen, the accountability hawks would be screaming bloody murder, and the Republicans would be dancing in the streets. But that’s not the reaction found in press accounts in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and Wall Street Journal . It’s a classic blind man’s elephant: everyone seems to be focusing on just one part of the proposal they like or hate, but not seeing the big picture.
The unions are complaining that the blueprint, in Randi Weingarten’s words, “places 100 percent of the responsibility on teachers and gives them zero percent of the authority.” John Kline, the ranking Republican on the House education committee, warns that the proposal doesn’t square with Obama’s promise of more flexibity for the states. Meanwhile, Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust said that “getting all kids college-ready is absolutely the right aspiration.”* And Margaret Spellings praised “a more nuanced approach to accountability.”
Excuse me? This is a huge victory for the unions, as at least 90 percent of the nation’s schools would no longer live without fear of federal interventions.** Likewise for the GOP, as the federal role in most suburban schools would diminish significantly. It’s a big setback for special ed and ELL advocates, because the failure of their clients would no longer send schools into a buzz saw of sanctions. The civil rights types, who earnestly believe Washington can fix all equity issues from on high, should be apoplectic. And doesn’t Spellings understand that this violates all of the “bright lines” of accountability that she’s argued for over the past decade?
The only reactions that made sense were those from Daniel Domenech of the American Association of School Administrators (“we’re very encouraged by this proposal”) and civil rights warrior Christopher Edley (“I’m alarmed by the frequent references to ‘incentives,’ and the apparent intention to reduce the federal role in forcing compliance.”)
As for me, I’m thrilled that the proposal is largely faithful to reform realism. It uses federal power to give political cover to reformers at the state and local level, but focuses most of its muscle and prescriptiveness on a handful of the worst schools. With its call for common standards but its vast increase in flexibility over state accountability systems, it lives up to the “tight-loose” premise. And it acknowledges that NCLB’s sanctions–including public school choice and free tutoring–were a bust.
That’s not to say that it’s perfect. The move to make funding “comparable” from school to school could have all kinds of unintended consequences if implemented foolishly, and could tie schools in a whole new layer of red tape. A proposal to target schools with big achievement gaps might ironically shame the few racially integrated schools still in our midst. And the turnaround strategic envisioned for the 5 percent worst schools is still overly optimistic.
But on the whole, this proposal would right-size the federal role in education in a way that clear-eyed reformers should embrace. For the likes of John Kline it gets the feds off the backs of most of the country’s schools, and for the likes of Lamar Alexander it “catches schools doing something right” rather than just punishing them for doing something wrong. It’s a serious blueprint, and one that would be a huge improvement over current law.
* Though, as my colleague Eric pointed out to me, her quote in the Wall Street Journal was much more critical, and thus predictable: “You can’t say we’re going to get all kids college ready and ignore 85% of the schools. The rewards don’t reach them that far down and the negative consequences don’t reach that high. So there’s nothing in the middle. If you’re a school that is in the bottom 25%, you could just be in the bottom 25% and just sit there.”
** I understand that the unions are upset about a proposed new requirement for states to determine if individual teachers are effective, based in part on student learning. (Updated at 3:45.)
-Mike Petrilli
Related posts:
- Randi Weingarten says something nice about Obama’s ESEA plan
- Goodbye school accountability, hello teacher accountability
- A “reform realist’s” guide to ESEA reauthorization
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Career OR college? Are we going to bring back vocational school?
The bottom 5 or 10% will be closed. How is that a good thing?
March 14th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
This would right-size the federal role? The fed’s supply at most 20% of our $$ while most of what we do currently as a school (*see below) is focused on meeting the Federal Mandates. I see a real mismatch between funding and who controls the school day.
*Countless meetings about getting kids to score proficient of above on the CAHSEE (maybe 15 different)
* Just finished four days of test prep that disrupted the whole school so that sophomores could have study sessions for the test. More days to come in April prior to state standard testing, but nothing as big as for the CAHSEE (used for the high school AYP score).
**All the non-core areas have to help teach to the federal test (CAHSEE) in some tangible way. That’s fine, but adding math problems to our band department (for example) is some what of a mismatch.
***Anyone teaching in the big two core areas (Math and ELA) are treated completely differently now that the Federal AYP is the main focus of the school. Science and Social Studies are still on the map due to state testing, and the non-core are just about ignored.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
How can you say that free tutoring and school choice was a bust? Most of the problems related to these two areas are a function of implementation not bad policy. As a parent, if my son was struggling in school, I would hire him a tutor because I can afford it. In addition, if his school was consistently ranked one of the worst schools in the state, I would move him from that school. Wouldn’t you if it were your kid? Of course, you would! The Administration’s blueprint effectively takes away the ability for low income parents to access tutoring and school choice. I think the Administration has made a big mistake and they are about to find out that most American’s believe free tutoring and school choice is a good thing not a bust.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:23 am
You are right that the GOP’s blind men should love this elephant. But remember the prime purpose of federal spending, and tell me how the bottom 5% of schools will be helped by focusing all of the accountability fury on them? The exodus of teachers from the inner city would be dramatic.
It COULD create more paperwork as systems fire and transfer large numbers of teachers? Comarability could have unintended consequences IF implemented foolishly? I doubt the “reformers” who think that top down mandates will solve everything will allow the most likely scenario where teachers from one failing school are rehired by other failing schools, so what happens when these teachers all head for low poverty schools?
And would happen to school boards if all of these policies hit at once?
This ESEA was revealed on take out the trash night, and I expect its DOA. It reads like a cut and paste job. If actually implemented it would take the suburbs off the hook but cause chaos in urban schools where the bottom 5% are concentrated. And we already have enough chaos in the hood.
If I could take consolation in angering the Amy Wilkens’ of the world, I would, but I can’t. In areas other than education they are good Democrats. I’m not taking any joy in having to fight Christopher Edly, who I respect and who I usually agree with.
All of the above will create an impetous for firing more teachers, and that isn’t all bad. But firing teachers badly is all bad, and this is hardly an environment where management will have an incentive to cross all of its legal t’s and dot their legal i’s. I expect a wave of court-ordered rehirings.
Yeah, it will step up the pressure to reduce the role of seniority, and that has its merits, but renegotiation of contracts must come first, and I doubt that “reformers” will suddenly see patience as a virtue.
Fortunately for teachers in the short run, it will be the hotheads who don’t pay much attention to the law who will strike first, and unions will pick their battles, defending teachers who they can prove to be effective who are selected to be fired by not-ready-for-prime-time growth models.
And principals will be the canary in the mine. Only adrenalin junkies or math illiterates would take a job leading a school in the bottom 5% if this became law.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Ironically I have children that fall in the spectrum of extremly gifted IQ level and extremly gifted in personality and charm but needing much help academically, or better known to others as special ed. I’m very lucky that my daughters school has such heart and cares so much. They go to great links for her. They have caught her up on her math in a year but her reading is only at best maybe 50 percent at where it should be. Believe you me they are doing all they can to get her the best help and me and her father are too. But she takes a lot longer to learn things and they start testing next year which scares me to death!! For some reason she can bomb tests on things we know for sure she absolutly knows. I don’t know what we can do about this. But I don’t want the teacher to be looked at as if they are not doing thier job when they are going above and beyond. Every school is different and has special circumstances. Just like our situation. I’m sure there are a million out there that are the same. The only real solution is to make a postion in the school board that actually gets involved. Maybe someone could write up a report on what is actually going on. Forward this onto the administration who can then gather what schools need and don’t need. Also this person could look at postive outcomes and let the others know what they need to do to get things turned around. Rewards-Punishments this should be about the kids! The money should be split up evenly by the number of children per school.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Weak ..proposal full of money, with no real accountability. The teacher firing is impossible you need to read the (state) tenure laws, all they would do is transfer the weak teachers to another school. Parents are left out no option to get out of the school or ask for assistance/ tutoring that would be reserved for the rich. Duncan and Obama sent or are sending the kids to private schools NO D.C schools for them. Another shining example of Washington “elites” complete detachment from reality, when was the last time or only time these policy makers ever taught an 8th grade class with kids who did not know the multiplication table, or basic math. Well I have and they have no creditability.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I have a great idea. Why don’t we get rid of the DOE? Let’s let states govern themselves, instead of making them jump through various hoops for the almighty dollar. Think our kids are any smarter than previous generations? Heck no, even after spending billions of dollars.
March 16th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
[...] [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
[...] in the federal role in education — one that would be more targeted, less prescriptive, and use a lighter touch on the vast majority of America’s [...]
March 18th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
[...] [...]