A Look at Changes to Proposed ESEA Bill

We’ve been writing a lot about the recent bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as No Child Left Behind. Last week, we wrote about three early learning amendments introduced and then withdrawn during the Health, Education, Labor and Pension’s (HELP) meeting on October 20 to mark up the proposed bill. Today, we will provide an overview on seven of the 24 amendments that were adopted by that committee and are now an official part of the proposed legislation.

One change, offered by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), alters Title I to specify criteria for replacing a principal under the school turnaround strategies for states’ 5 percent of lowest performing schools. Nearly all of the turnaround strategies require the principal to be removed if they have been at the school for at least two years. With the approval of Hagan’s amendment, the proposed ESEA bill would require principals to be replaced with a principal who has:

·       A demonstrated record of success in increasing student achievement;

·       Training or experience in raising student achievement; or

·       Training or experience in turning around low-performing schools.

The committee also accepted Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)’s proposal to allow states to use computerized adaptive testing under Title I to measure whether a student is performing on grade level, above grade level or below grade level. A second successful amendment by Franken would amend Title II, adding a program that aims to recruit, support and prepare principals to improve student achievement in groups of schools that are defined by the new legislation, such as high-need schools, achievement gap schools and persistently low-achieving schools. The organizations that receive grants under that program would be required to provide coursework on instructional leadership, organizational management and the various purposes of data, including for improving instruction, evaluating and developing teachers and creating strong schools.

Also approved was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)’s amendment to Title I that would add another school turnaround strategy allowing for more state flexibility in how to improve persistently low-achieving schools. With the approval of Alexander’s amendment, states would have the option of seeking approval from the U.S. Secretary of Education to establish alternative state-determined strategies in addition to turnaround strategies outlined in Title I. There is already a strategy that allows flexibility, but it is at the local level—The Whole School Reform Model. Additionally, the “Restart” Model allows districts to choose a new type of structure for the school, such as a charter school or a new innovative school, as defined by the state. The big difference here is the state can preemptively develop its own school reform strategy for districts to choose.

In the original Alexander amendment, districts choosing to adopt the state’s strategy would not have been required to undertake the set of “Required Activities for all School Improvement Strategies” outlined in the bill. These include: providing professional development, providing feedback to teachers and principals, providing time for staff collaboration, considering the issue of school readiness and other initial steps prior to adoption of an improvement strategy. That piece, though, lacked bipartisan support and was eliminated to ensure the amendment would pass. It did – 15-7.

Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D-CO) persuaded the committee to change Title II, inserting language from his GREAT Act that would allow states to establish or expand teacher or principal preparation academies. It would require the academies to employ a rigorous admissions process, provide teacher candidates with high levels of “clinical preparation” (lots of experience in the classroom) and show proof of candidates’ abilities to improve student achievement before they graduate. A second Bennet amendment, also approved, would create the “Commission on Effective Regulation and Assessment Systems for Public Schools” under Title XI. The Commission would be charged with:

·       Examining federal, state and local regulations on elementary and secondary education;

·       Making recommendations on how to align and improve those requirements to improve performance and innovation;

·       Examining the quality and purpose of assessment requirements; and

·       Making recommendations to improve and align assessment systems to provide quality and useful information to parents, teachers and students to improve student achievement, teacher performance and innovation.

Sen. Robert P. Casey (D-PA)’s proposal to include a section related to a “well-rounded education” was also accepted.  It adds a section to Title IV. Subject areas under this program include: arts, civics, economics, environmental education, financial literacy, foreign language, geography, health education, history, physical education and social studies. The amendment reintroduces and consolidates several content-specific programs eliminated under Harkin’s bill and combines them into one program. Under the new program, grantees would be required to undertake at least one of the following activities:

·       Improving the knowledge and skills of teachers through evaluation systems, professional development and other instructional supports;

·       Providing assistance to high-need school districts to improve low-income student access to a wide-range of subject areas; and

·       Developing or building local capacity to develop high-quality curricula, instructional supports and assessments in the above subject areas.

The next step is a hearing on the bill on November 8 at 10 a.m., but there is much speculation about the bill’s fate. Education legislation is not currently a top priority for Congress. Some of these amendments, and others, are seen by education-reform and civil rights groups as watering-down an already weak bill. In addition to those groups’ concerns, some Republicans believe the bill still imposes too many federal regulations on states.

Don’t miss our special page on Early Learning in ESEA, where you’ll find previous blog posts, issue briefs and recommendations from the Early Education Initiative and other groups.