Reauthorize ESEA ASAP
I have not met many teachers, principals, or superintendents who think highly of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). While some grudgingly admit that it has helped them focus on lower-achieving and at-risk children, they also point to the narrowing of the curriculum, the over-the-top focus on standardized testing, and the putative remedies that don’t adequately address needed education reform. Its implementation has been highly controversial, and the annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes toward their Public Schools confirms that it has very little public support.
If that’s the case, then why would the Learning First Alliance (LFA), a partnership of 17-major national education associations including PDK, send a letter to President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan offering support to reauthorize ESEA during the current legislative session? (For more information, visit the PDK Newsroom where you can read a press release and the letter.)
ESEA was first passed in 1965 and has been reauthorized several times since. The last reauthorization took place January 2002 when the act was renamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB). For over 40 years, ESEA has provided significant funds to state education agencies and local school districts. Simply abandoning the legislation is not an option.
However, even the original architects admit that while it has helped the nation focus on the needs of ALL children, now eight years after its passage, we know the legislation is deeply flawed in several ways. That’s why the LFA executive board, which represents over 10 million parents, educators, and policymakers, voted unanimously to fix this legislation as soon as possible. A delegation of LFA members will meet with Secretary Duncan to discuss plans on how we can work with the administration and Congress.
You should know that the 17 member associations are not in complete agreement on the changes necessary to improve the legislation, and the associations with advocacy interests will address those independent of each other.
In this political climate, it is possible that ESEA will not be reauthorized prior to the fall elections. If that happens, LFA will work with Secretary Duncan and his staff as they disseminate policy directives designed to reduce the negative features of NCLB while keeping its important focus on helping all children reach their full potential, particularly children at risk.
What are your thoughts?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bill,
I just read your latest and recent blogs on education issues.
I would agree that NCLB was/is flawed but it is the basis we will need to move education reform to the next level.
I enjoyed your many good thoughts and comments.
I will share them with my grad students at Siena Heights.
The law is deeply flawed. As all schools become failing schools, as designated by the DOE of each state, children will suffer. When will personal responsibility ever be taught or encouraged? When will parents ever be help accountable? Schools need to be held to high standards, but not as other partners fail to step up.
We all know the law is flawed. The problem is finding better methods. Hopefully the new law will allow states to have their own system as long as it meets certain criteria. Most states had their own system before NCLB and continue to assess school and district progress in that way. Prior to full reauthorizaton, a small amendment to NCLB that allows ED to grant waivers to states that meet these criteria would be helpful. If the administration wants innovation, they need to get rid of all the complicated rules.
I do not support the letter sent. No one asked for the opinion of members! Many of us are also members of NEA which doesn’t support such action. I really enjoy your publications, but I am concerned that I am supporting an organization isn’t in alignment with my vision, and the vision of my colleagues.
I am a long time member of PDK and am disappointed that educators who have been on the “front lines” during NCLB as well as with other well intentioned federal programs designed to address the lack of achievement among the lower performing schools. There is usually a correlation between socio economic status of families and student acheivement. Do ALL children have the same opportunities in life? As long as we set the same standards for ALL students, shouldn’t ALL students and teachers be exactly the same? There are too many variables in education to expect the same results across the board. We are encouraging parents to choose private schools rather than deal with the sterile, lock step curriculum imposed by test scores tied to federal funding of education. The NCLB will possibly help those students who need more rote learning but it will never encourage a student to reach “beyond his grasp” and makes teaching not an art but a drill.
It’s great to see so many responses to this posting.
Once again, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is a law that over 40 years has provided billions of dollars of federal funds to support education at the local level, particularly for at-risk children. Honestly, I haven’t met educators who don’t believe the law should continue. So the question is not whether the law should be reauthorized, its what provisions should be included in the law to provide adequate funding and to address accountability.
Because the current law, while addressing some very important equity issues, is also deeply flawed in some important ways, the member organizations within the Learning First Alliance believe that it needs to be reauthorized as soon as possible to correct the flaws while maintaining our collective focus on helping all children succeed to their greatest potential.
So Elizabeth, it doesn’t make sense to me that we wouldn’t recommend its reauthorization. We could lose billions of dollars of funds for our children. What I’m interested in hearing is what features should be enacted in the new ESEA?
I’m hearing Pete recommends changes in accountability and student assessment component in NCLB. Are there other issues?
Your initial post clearly implies that you expect many of your members to oppose your position. Count me among them. NCLB is “deeply flawed,” at best, and Race to the Top at least as bad. Yet Duncan — who clearly believes he is smarter than everyone else and who is willing to bribe the entire country to get what he wants — has said these will be the basis for the new ESEA. If you really believe the law needs significant change, why not say so in your letter. Rather than “strongly endorsing” it’s passage, you could at least have said that you have serious reservations and will support it if significant changes are made. He will now use the support of PDK and these other organizations to support his agenda.
I do believe that schools need the funding that has been provided through ESEA in the past. But this law has become corrupted. Going along with bad ideas on the basis of funding plays provides impetus for more of the same. Advantage, Duncan.
PDK used to be a voice for reason in the educational world. I hope that will continue, but it sounds like you’re just climbing on the bandwagon with everyone else. I will wait to see whether you come out for productive change to a set of policies that shows contempt for everything and everyone in the education world except test-makers. But if it’s just the status quo, you can count me out.
Sam Dillon at the New York Times wrote an excellent article published Sunday, January 31 entitled “Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in No Child Law.” The article (see link below) presents the administration’s initial thoughts on re-authorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in its current version called No Child Left Behind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?hp
“For over 40 years, ESEA has provided significant funds to state education agencies and local school districts. Simply abandoning the legislation is not an option.” YES IT IS!
A very, very sad day for the public schools. I’ll have to think very carefully about supporting PDK by renewing my membership. There are a host of things wrong with NCLB. I’ll mention a few, direct and indirect.
First, education in America is being controlled by one person, Arne Duncan. This is why we have a Constitution. And, the USDE is violating States’ rights to manage their schools through its unwarranted, destructive and wasteful intrusions. “Reading First” et al?
Second, no other profession guarantees the outcome. Do you expect a surgeon to guarantee the outcome; an attorney to guarantee the outcome et al? No! They will tell you they will do their best to provide the conditions through which the best outcome might ensue. And, they have more control over their environment than do the public schools, at least for now. But, they will not guarantee the outcome.
Third, listen to Duncan’s comments: “I think the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina. That education system was a disaster, and it took Hurricane Katrina to wake up the community to say that ‘we have to do better.” And, he called Colleges of Education “cash cows”. This is not the leadership you should be supporting. We heard this comment from Duncan just after we were certified by NCATE. So, NCATE certifies “cash cows”?.
Fourth, is Bracey, once one of your best contributors, still a “voice crying in the wilderness”? Has anyone read the “Manufactured Crisis in Education.” Has anyone been appalled at the suppression by the USDE of the “Sandia Reports.” And, A Nation at Risk? One thorough review suggested the title for ANAR should have been “An Economy at Risk” directed to the business sector not education.
These works confirmed my research: NO downward trend. Much of this goes back to Sputnik. Sputnik? Hmmm, thought you might appreciate this quote from a reviewer of the SAT in “The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook” (1985), p363: “One fact in the Handbook is newsworthy because of the furore about the ‘decline of SAT’ in self-selected samples: Norms for the preliminary SAT for representative high-school juniors show no downward trend from 1960 to 1983.”
Wonder why this wasn’t included in a “Nation at Risk, 1983″? The information was available before the review. There was no downward trend for which to blame the public schools!!!
Sixth, do you know the credentials of Arne Duncan, his board and all the State Superintendants of public schools? Those of the LFA? Speaking of surgeons, would you like to have someone with no medical or surgical experience operate on you in surgery? That is what is going on in the public schools through the illegal and harmful intrusions by the Duncan and the USDE.
Seventh, I should add that the best predictor of college success is HS GPA. So, the first question we should be asking: “Why have standardized tests continued to fail to adequately describe student performance in the public schools”, which certainly includes Louisiana. And, another question: Why has educational policy “continued” to be driven by standardized test scores? And, please don’t fall back on grade inflation. The research simply doesn’t support this urban legend. You’re talking about prevalence. This issue is about alignment. Public schools are better aligned with higher education and the world. Standardized tests are an anomaly and need to be remediated.
Eighth, I’m reminded of the words of Franklin: “Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.” States must rise up and say NO to Duncan and the USDE! Control of public schools must return to the States and local school districts. And, what might happen? Well, maybe Duncan could be given a sabbatical to teach in the public schools. And, maybe someone might be appointed in his place. And, maybe this person might collaborate with States in bottom-up efforts with the experts, the teachers, with “guaranteed” funding based on what teachers see they need to do, not what someone up in the balcony thinks they need to do. And, maybe all USDE intrusions can and should be abolished, especially “Race to the Top”.
Sadly,
Steven
Don and Steven make some excellent points. Professional organizations should not embolden Arne Duncan. We should be calling for his removal.
I disagree that NCLB has encouraged us to focus on the neediest students. There is now far less focus on individual students’ strengths and needs. Instead it has scared school districts into supplanting multi-level, multi-source curricula with test prep curricula, expensive textbooks, and additional practice tests. NCLB/RTTT has turned teaching and learning into drudgery. Arne’s attempt at bribery will only intensify these reactions.
[...] The budget includes a $3 billion (yes, that starts with a “b”) increase in ESEA funding, but that increase is for competitive programs like the continuation of Race to the Top (RTTT) and the Investing in Innovation (I3) fund. Of course, this assumes that ESEA will be reauthorized during this session of Congress, something that the Learning First Alliance supports (see my earlier post, Reauthorize ESEA ASAP). [...]
Steven,
I don’t see how reports issued between the 1950s through the 1980s address the changes we need to make in public education.
Overall, 30% of our students are not graduating from high school (50% in our urban centers) and because of that, they’re relegated to a unfilled lives.
You’re right, doctors don’t guarantee the results of individual operations, but they also do not accept a failure rate of 50% for a surgical procedure without coming up with better techniques to save more lives.
As a 40-year member of the great teaching profession, I believe we need to be clear with all Americans that we have that same level of commitment as all the other professions–to do everything we can to help all of our children succeed, regardless of the color of their skin, where they live, how much money their parents have, or anything else that would block their path to a fulfilled life.
Bill
“I don’t see how reports issued between the 1950s through the 1980s address the changes we need to make in public education.”
I’m stunned but not surprised. You give general answers to specific issues I’ve described. These reports are those, along with others that have insued from them to date, that have been used to batter public education. And, you don’t see the relationship?
“Overall, 30% of our students are not graduating from high school (50% in our urban centers) and because of that, they’re relegated to a unfilled lives.”
And, you’re going to largely single out and blame public education
for students “relagated to unfulfilled lives.” This is largely a societal state of affairs where public education can be a part of the solution, and has been, but not the sole solution.
“As a 40-year member of the great teaching profession, I believe we need to be clear with all Americans that we have that same level of commitment as all the other professions–to do everything we can to help all of our children succeed, regardless of the color of their skin, where they live, how much money their parents have, or anything else that would block their path to a fulfilled life.”
Are you suggesting that being clear means: (1) being obsessed with standardized test scores, which are not sound predictors of success; (2) insisting on unrealistic guaranteed outcomes; (3) misleading Americans through comparing our public schools with other countries, which are not at all comparable; (4) deceiving Americans through suppression of sound reports like the Sandia report; (5) national standards for a country forged on State’s desire to manage their own “unique” affairs, especially public education.
I’m reminded of a quote by Arnold Glasgow: “The future is the past returning through another gate.” We don’t need reform. We need a revolution.
States are being driven by fear, deceived through substandard reports and wrongfully deprived of funding to which they are entitled to ensure their citizens are not cheated of the opportunity to be fulfilled. And, just what changes do you believe the USDE can do better than the States”?
I’m so glad you altered/deleted your original statement to Steven…name calling is ill-suited to PDK.