Major changes required for ESEA

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) goes before Congress for reauthorization in 2007, teachers plan to make sure the education community is not blindsided like it was the last time. In 2002, the reauthorization took the form of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, which couples federal funds for education with regulations that punish schools struggling to deal with the neediest student populations.

“We must work together to change the focus of ESEA from punishing schools to helping schools improve,” says CTA President Barbara E. Kerr. “This reauthorization is crucial to teachers, students and the future of public education.”

“CTA is organizing to make sure that our legislative leaders and others understand what this reauthorization means,” says CTA Board member Pixie Hayward Schickele, chair of CTA’s ESEA Workgroup. “The whole thing has to be done differently this time, there’s no doubt about it.”

CTA’s 1,100 delegates to the NEA Representative Assembly in July were the driving force behind the body’s decision to approve a reauthorization strategy that will put “education” back in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The newly adopted Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization calls for improving student learning, closing the achievement gap and providing every student with a quality teacher. Rather than judging students on the basis of a single standardized test, the plan calls for replacing the flawed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) assessment model with multiple measures of student achievement. It also calls for giving states the flexibility to design appropriate and reliable assessments; restoring the federal class size reduction program that existed prior to NCLB (setting the optimum class size at 15 students); and providing equitable and sustainable funding.

One priority is to make sure ESEA reverts back to its original purpose.

When it was first passed in the 1960s, ESEA was a law that offered supplemental help to low-performing schools and districts in a supportive way. Until the most recent reauthorization, states were allowed to use the funding as they saw fit as long as it helped students improve.

The last reauthorization lacked sufficient funds to compensate for all the additional accountability measures it imposed. Even though they weren’t fully funded, they were required, and they impacted schools’ general funds. Approximately 80 percent of school districts surveyed by NEA say they have costs associated with NCLB that are not covered by federal funding.

The administration continues to cut the amount of money it spends on public education. An appropriations bill approved by a House committee on June 13 would shortchange education by billions of dollars, including a $500 million cut for schools struggling to comply with the unfunded mandates of NCLB. That comes on top of last year’s cut of more than $1 billion. If approved, the appropriations bill would decrease funding for NCLB by 6.2 percent over two years. Overall, NCLB funding would be less than it was four years ago.

NCLB’s unrealistic goal of 100 percent proficiency in math and English by 2014 — including special education students and English language learners — means all schools will likely be undergoing Program Improvement and suffering sanctions by then, paving the way for the privatization of public schools.

CTA leaders and workgroup members are making it crystal clear that the old “fix and fund” approach will not work when it comes to the upcoming ESEA reauthorization. The law in its current form is not “fixable.”

“At the federal level, we need to revamp the whole thing so it’s more practical,” says Alum Rock Educators Association member Martha Wallace, who serves as the CTA ESEA Workgroup liaison to the State Board of Education. “If the goals are laudable, we can find a way to reach those goals. We have to recognize that kids don’t all start at the same point and move toward the same goal at the same speed.”

Everyone wants to eliminate the negative aspects of NCLB, say workgroup members, but NCLB is not going to go away. If it did, schools would lose all the federal money for entitlement programs. It is possible, however, to get rid of its present form. ESEA can be reauthorized in a much better form than presently exists.

“Momentum is building to change NCLB,” says John Hein, executive director of Communities for Quality Education [www.qualityednow.org], a national education advocacy group concerned about NCLB’s impact on public schools. “In our polling at the national level and in about 10 states, it is very clear that the law requires major change.”

The reauthorization should include some key reform elements, says Hein, the former manager of CTA’s Governmental Relations Department. Among those elements would be encouraging districts to institute small class size, modernize school technology, update classroom materials and set up a system that emphasizes rewards over punishment.

“The public believes that the law should also promote stronger parent-teacher relationships as well as multiple measures of accountability besides testing. There is also support for measuring growth and achievement over time.”

California will be instrumental in changing NCLB when it comes up for reauthorization, predicts Becky Pringle, chair of the NEA ESEA Advisory Committee and a member of the NEA Executive Committee. “California is no stranger to hard, grassroots work, which is exactly what it’s going to take to convince members of Congress that the law is adversely impacting schools and public school educators.”

In addition to banking on the ability of educators to make their case, California has several politicians who will be major players. Among those holding sway will be California’s senior Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee; Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), the chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), the committee’s senior Democrat and an author of NCLB.

In addition, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is participating in a new ESEA Reauthorization Task Force, formed by the Council of Chief State School Officers.

“The Reauthorization Task Force is in the process of putting together a working group, which will include CTA and Education Coalition members, to help make recommendations for modifications to NCLB,” says O’Connell. “It’s critically important to have a united front, to speak with one strong voice and to get involved early in the process. The group will also include a representative from the governor’s office. Some of the best minds will come together and see what is realistic and what kind of changes we can request.”

Two years ago, O’Connell went to Washington, D.C., and attempted to convince federal officials that California should merge its API and AYP accountability systems. “I was basically shown the door,” he says. “But now they are opening a window and allowing 10 states to participate in a pilot project using a growth model.”

Unfortunately, there is a requirement that participating states have a “student identifier” system in place to keep track of students in the public school system, and California is at least two years away from that. O’Connell says he has requested that California be allowed an “index model” that measures growth without being able to keep track of all students, but so far the idea is getting resistance.

Flexibility is the No. 1 priority when it comes to reauthorization, says O’Connell, commenting that California has asked for much more flexibility from the federal government than it has received. So far, the Department of Education has allowed just two states flexibility — North Carolina and Tennessee.

“We need more flexibility because one-size-fits-all isn’t the best approach. NCLB is overly prescriptive and underfunded. It’s heavy on punishment and light on assistance as well as positive, helpful intervention techniques. If we don’t see some changes, eventually all schools will be in Program Improvement — and what kind of accountability system is that?

“We need to target resources where they are needed the most. And we can’t do that if 100 percent of schools are labeled as failing by the NCLB definition.”