ESEA Reauthorization

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. In the op-ed, Secretary Duncan sets the stage for a potential bi-partisan reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act. Indeed, education is considered to be one of the few policy areas where Democrats and Republicans may find some points to agree on, though previous attempts at reauthorization have fizzled. The Obama administration has made its priorities for reauthorization somewhat clear, particularly through a document it released last March called the Blueprint for Education Reform. But what does Congress want for the new ESEA? A look at recently proposed education legislation in the House and Senate can give us a preliminary picture.

1. A new take on teacher comparability – a provision of ESEA that determines whether districts are equitably funding low-income schools.
In April of 2010, Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA) introduced the ESEA Fiscal Fairness Act which would correct some of the major flaws in the existing teacher comparability provision of ESEA. The provision is supposed to ensure that school districts provide equitable state and local resources to both their high- and low-poverty schools, but loopholes exist. Currently, the provision allows districts to demonstrate comparability in several ways including providing evidence of a set teacher salary schedule or similar student-teacher ratios across schools. The Fattah bill would have changed the provision so that districts could only demonstrate comparability by showing that low- and high-income schools have similar state and local per pupil expenditures, including all salaries and non-personnel expenditures (except any additional funds spent on English language learner or special education instruction). Such a change would ensure that districts do not opt to use less rigorous methods to demonstrate comparability -- methods that misrepresent the amount of state and local funds Title I schools actually receive. The legislation would also mandate that districts include any staff salary variations due to years of experience, incentive pay, bonuses, and other compensation in their per pupil expenditure calculations for low- and high-income schools. The current rules allow districts to overlook such variation in teacher pay, perpetuating the uneven distribution of teachers where more experienced teachers tend to teach in higher-income schools.

Teacher comparability is a hot-button issue in education today. It often draws the ire of teachers’ unions because it threatens to upset the way teachers are currently compensated and assigned seniority. To make major improvements to the comparability provision in the law, legislators will have to tread carefully on these issues. For a full explanation of comparability, see here.

2. Less stringent models for the School Improvement Grant program.
In December of 2010, the Senate version of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2011 included language that would have overturned a requirement set by the Department of Education in late October to limit the number of schools that employ the transformation model for their school improvement efforts. The transformation model is considered the least intrusive of the four strategies for school improvement defined by the Department of Education and districts overwhelmingly selected this model in their applications for the funds.

In general, Congress has been less than thrilled with the Obama administration’s changes to the School Improvement Grant program, which have made the program stricter. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) released a report describing how the program’s models do not provide schools enough flexibility to take students’ needs into consideration. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA) complained in a congressional hearing that the program represented federal intrusion in local control of education and did not have proper congressional oversight. And Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) has expressed concern that the program is inappropriate for struggling rural schools. Given this vocal criticism of the program, it seems likely that Congress will limit the Obama administration’s influence over the School Improvement Grant program to ensure more flexibility.

3. A greater focus on increasing high school graduation rates.
The 111^th Congress submitted several pieces of legislation focused on improving high school graduation rates in the reauthorization of ESEA. These include the Graduation for All Act (Miller, D-CA), the Graduation Promise Act of 2009 (Hinojosa, D-TX and Bingaman, D-NM), the Turning Around Low-Performing Public High Schools Act (McCarthy, D-NY), the Fast Track to College Act of 2009 (Kildee, D-MI), and the Graduate for a Better Future Act (Burr, R-NC), among others. These bills mainly focus on providing grants for schools with low graduation rates to partner with local organizations or institutions of higher education to improve student achievement.

Currently, ESEA has a limited focus on the high school grades and improving student achievement in those grades. While students are currently tested in either 10^th or 11^th grade for NCLB accountability purposes, many districts choose not to give Title I funds to their high schools in favor of elementary and middle schools. The numerous bills submitted in the last congress that focus on high school suggest that the reauthorization of ESEA will likely include more programs directed at improving high school graduation rates.

Though it’s impossible to know exactly what Congress has in mind for ESEA, especially given the new Republican majority in the House, these recently proposed pieces of legislation give us some important insight. But many questions still remain:

Is there a future for Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation? What will become of the Early Learning Challenge Fund or other efforts to include early education in the law? And perhaps most importantly – Will the 112^th Congress get around to ESEA reauthorization at all?

Last week Democratic leaders in the Senate proposed and then retracted an omnibus appropriations bill that would have funded all federal education programs subject to the annual appropriations process through fiscal year 2011 (which began on October 1st). Though the bill was never brought to a vote, and Congress looks set to put a decision on fiscal year 2011 funding off until early next year, it does give us some insight into things to come for education policy. For example, Congress buried language in the bill that would overturn a key Obama Administration rule affecting the School Improvement Grant program.

The School Improvement Grant program provides funds to school districts to help turn around schools that have repeatedly failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress according to No Child Left Behind. The Obama Administration released new regulations governing the program in 2009 because of the dramatic increase in funding available for the program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. These regulations created four models school districts can use in their turn around efforts. These models include turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation.

The proposed omnibus bill would have overturned a requirement set out by the Department of Education in late October to limit the number of schools that employ the transformation model for their school improvement efforts. The transformation model is considered the least intrusive of the four strategies defined by the Department of Education for school improvement efforts. According to Ed Week, school districts overwhelmingly chose the transformation model over the other models available, likely because it was the least disruptive.

While the transformation model does require that school districts replace the principal, it does not require them to fire any teachers. In comparison, the turnaround model requires school districts to fire at least 50 percent of existing teachers, the restart model requires districts to reopen the school as a charter, and the closure model requires them to shut down the school entirely. In drafting the regulations, Secretary Duncan likely chose to limit the number of schools for which districts could use the transformation model to ensure a certain level of rigor in the school improvement process.

But the Senate Omnibus bill attempted to reverse this regulation. After specifying that 2011 funding for the School Improvement Grant program would be $545.6 million, the same spending level as 2010, the bill states:

Provided further, That the grants provided in accordance with the previous proviso shall not be subject to the requirement published by the Secretary in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66368) that a local educational agency that has 9 or more tier I and tier II schools not implement the transformation model in more than 50 percent of those schools.

The Obama Administration has significantly strengthened the School Improvement Grant program with its rules, much to the chagrin of many members of Congress and many local stakeholders. By specifying four specific models that districts can use to improve their schools, the Obama Administration has made the program much more prescriptive and rigid. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have decried these changes as favoring federal control over local control of schools. Similarly, the models that require firing existing teachers or turning schools over to charter operators are wildly unpopular with teachers unions.

Though it’s impossible to determine the origin of the language in the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill that would have overturned the Obama Administration rule, it’s pretty clear that its inclusion was intended to make the School Improvement Grant program less offensive to the teachers unions and appease members of Congress who believe the program is a federal intrusion into local education policy. Such political wrangling is not unheard of in appropriations bills, though it is disappointing to find such a policy shift buried in this last-minute appropriations bill. We hope this isn’t a sign of what’s to come with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

This week, the National Education Association (NEA) added its voice to a group of organizations calling for relief from the regulations of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The NEA and other groups (like the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association) are calling on the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to ease regulations under the law, giving schools, districts, and states increased flexibility as they await reauthorization.

Citing increased financial pressure on school districts caused by the economic recession, the NEA letter suggests eight ways for ED to relax regulations without compromising the original intent of NCLB. Currently, these regulations place several restrictions on school districts such as requiring 100 percent of students to score proficient or above on NCLB tests by the 2013-14 school year or 100 percent of teachers in classrooms to be considered “highly qualified.” The fourth recommendation in their letter caught our eye. It suggests that ED “expedite the invitation and approval of valid and reliable growth models to measure changes in student performance.” This proposal would enable all states to use student growth models instead of achievement levels to determine whether their schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Currently, states use assessments developed under NCLB guidelines to test students’ math and reading proficiency in each grade in a given year and determine AYP status. Under this model, a school does not reach AYP if a certain percentage of any subgroup of students does not score proficient or above in a specific grade or subject matter. Progress or growth does not currently factor in to AYP determinations. Many have argued that this system doesn’t adequately measure student achievement because it does not recognize gains in student learning, only whether or not a certain percentage of students have reached a somewhat arbitrary goal. Under a growth model system, AYP would be determined at least in part by growth in student learning throughout the year, allowing educators to measure the degree to which students have made achievement gains in that time span.

ED has already begun to invest in the development of growth models in the states. ED started an NCLB growth model pilot program in 2005. States that had showed progress under the original AYP system were eligible to apply to the pilot program, which would allow them to incorporate growth models into their AYP determinations. Eight states were approved to participate in the growth model pilot program in the first school year, and seven more states were added in subsequent school years for a total of 15 participating states. According to a 2010 ED report on the original eight states in the pilot program, the use of growth models in AYP determinations lead to more schools making AYP each year. The effect was especially great in high-poverty schools (about an 8 percent increase in the number of schools meeting AYP when growth models are used, versus 3 percent in low-poverty schools). According to the report, this could help states and school districts target efforts at schools where both proficiency and growth are low.

Additionally, growth models play a significant role in Race to the Top, a new $4.4 billion federal competitive grant program to encourage state reform efforts. One of the four areas of focus in the Race to the Top (RttT) grant competition was “building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction.” As a result, several states included plans to integrate student growth models into their teacher assessment systems in their winning applications. For example, Florida will use past research on value-added analysis and the expertise of a special committee to build a measure of student growth as part of its state assessment system. School districts in Florida that are participating in Race to the Top will integrate the student growth model into their teacher and principal assessment systems. Teachers will be able to access their own student growth data through a new data portal that will also be created through the Race to the Top grant.

Both the RttT and the NCLB growth model pilot program have laid a solid foundation for states to develop meaningful growth models. And the Obama Administration made clear in its “Blueprint for Education Reform” that a measure of student growth should be included in the reauthorization of ESEA. No doubt, growth models will play a significant role in educational assessment in the coming years, particularly as the research is more refined and states become more familiar and comfortable with using them. Until ESEA is reauthorized by Congress, however, adjustments to NCLB regulations will just tinker around the edges of a flawed piece of legislation. We hope Congress prioritizes tackling ESEA in the coming months so that growth models and other important reforms can be implemented soon.

Imagine for a moment that a rich, innovative company is looking to draft the best and brightest high-school grads from across the globe without regard to geography. Let’s say this company’s recruiter has a round-the-world plane ticket and just a few weeks to scout for talent. Where should he go?

One Wednesday afternoon this summer, 55 young men and women filed into a dark movie theater for a private screening. Sundance  this was not. There was no Robert Redford, no Diesel swag. But this audience had one important qualification: sometime recently, they had all dropped out of high school. So for a movie about America's malfunctioning education system, it was an unusually qualified focus group.

Whether we like it or not, student performance on standardized tests under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the most widely available method of determining school district quality and success. Typically, this information is difficult to find all in one place – every state stores its school district student achievement data on a separate, but publically accessible, website. Luckily, the Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP), Ed Money Watch’s parent initiative, compiles achievement data from all 50 states for nearly 14,000 school districts and makes it available all in one place on its website, www.edbudgetproject.org. These data include the percent of 4th, 8th and high school students in each school district that score proficient and above in mathematics and reading on state No Child Left Behind accountability tests. Ed Money Watch took a closer look at what these data tell us about student achievement and found that state academic standards vary widely across the country.

It would be inaccurate to compare these standardized NCLB test results among school districts from different states because each state develops and administers its own NCLB test based on its own set of academic standards. It is possible, however, to compare achievement across states using student outcomes on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing data. NAEP is a standardized test the U.S. Department of Education administers to a representative sample of 4^th and 8^th graders in each state every two years.

Additionally, we can use NAEP results to compare state academic standards to a common benchmark by calculating the difference between the percent of students scoring proficient or above on a state’s NCLB test and on the NAEP test for 4^th and 8^th grade reading and math. Using the most recent NAEP and NLCB state achievement data, Ed Money Watch did just that. The results suggest significant disparities between state standards and the standards measured by the NAEP test.

While an average of 33 to 42 percent more students scored proficient or above on a state’s test than on the NAEP test in each grade level and subject, some states saw significantly higher gaps. Tennessee’s state test outcomes, for example, were 60 percentage points higher than its NAEP outcomes for each grade level and subject area. It had the largest gap of all states for 4^th grade reading (62.3 percentage points), 4^th grade math (62.2 percentage points), and 8^th grade math (65.1 percentage points). Texas, however, had the greatest discrepancy between the two tests for 8^th grade reading (67.3 percentage points). This suggests that Tennessee’s standards are significantly different (and likely less rigorous) than the NAEP standards.

The only state to have a higher percentage of students score proficient or above on the NAEP test than on the NCLB test was Massachusetts with 9.1 percent more in 4^th grade math and 3 percent more in 8^th grade math. Massachusetts also had the smallest discrepancy between the two tests in 4^th grade reading (6.6 percentage points), while Missouri had the smallest discrepancy on 8^th grade reading (16.2 percentage points), suggesting that these states have standards that are most closely aligned with the NAEP standards.

Additionally, some states scored similarly to each other on the NAEP test, but differed greatly in their proficiency levels on state NCLB accountability tests. For example, 35 percent of students in both Maine and Nebraska scored proficient or above in NAEP 4^th grade reading. However, far more students scored proficient or above on Nebraska’s 4^th grade reading test (59.9 percent) than on Maine’s test (35.8 percent). This could indicate that while both state’s standards overlap with NAEP standards to a similar extent, the state standards include other aspects of reading for which their students have not completely mastered.

These results tell us a few things about testing in the states. First, with an average discrepancy of over 30 percentage points for every grade level and subject, it is clear that state standards are not aligned with NAEP standards.

Additionally, in every state except Massachusetts, more students score proficient or above on state tests than on the NAEP test for every indicator. Though one could argue that the state accountability tests are more aligned with the curriculum in each state causing students to have greater success, the magnitude of the scoring discrepancy would suggest that NAEP standards are set higher than those set by the states.

Finally, the results tell us that the NCLB proficiency standards vary vastly from state to state. Even in states where NAEP test results were similar, NCLB proficiency levels were sometimes very different. This tells us that the standards set by each state are not consistent, and implies that some states set higher proficiency standards for their students than others.

However, all this is likely to change with the recent push toward common standards across states. So far, 35 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core of Standards, a movement initiated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). As these states begin to implement these new standards and the tests that are aligned with them, state test outcomes and NAEP outcomes should begin to look more similar across the nation.

Ed Money Watch will continue to follow this process to see whether common standards succeed in lifting student achievement.

You can download a PDF of Ed Money Watch's comparison of state results on the two tests here.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about teachers. State budget crises have forced school districts to pink slip thousands of teachers across the country and teacher union contracts require inexperienced teachers to be let go first. This has left many, primarily low-income, schools to increase class sizes or rely on substitutes to fill teaching gaps.

At the same time, much media attention has been focused on the two Obama administration one-time competitive grant programs signed into law as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The $4.4 billion Race to the Top (RttT) program requires that states design programs that improve the distribution of teachers in order to win grants. This requirement has led several states to pass teacher-focused legislation to comply with these requirements. Similarly, the $650 million Investing in Innovation (i3) program includes an “improving teacher distribution” category under which 354 local education agencies and organizations applied for grants.

But RttT and i3 are not the only federal programs that address teachers – despite all of the media attention they have received. In fact, the federal government funds 15 individual programs, run by the Department of Education, that provide either formula or competitive grants to local education agencies, states, institutions of higher education, and partnerships with non-profits, or grants or loans directly to teachers. In 2010, the federal government spent $3.9 billion – 5.9 percent of the Department of Education’s discretionary budget – on programs addressing teacher training, distribution, compensation, and retention.

Nine of these programs fall under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), accounting for $3.7 billion in spending. The Obama administration’s proposed program consolidations for ESEA reauthorization would fold these programs with other instructional and leadership initiatives into several larger programs relating to teaching and learning. This would include one $2.5 billion formula grant program for efforts to improve teacher effectiveness and several smaller competitive grant programs targeted at improving teacher quality and instruction in specific subject areas.

Detailed information on these federal programs is not readily available through a centralized source, making it difficult to judge the federal government’s support for teachers. In response, the Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP) has published a Background and Analysis page as part of the FEBP website that explains the size, scope, and purpose of federal programs that support teacher training and development programs. This timely new resource helps provide clarity on the many different federal teacher programs.

The Federal Programs for K-12 Teachers page includes summaries and funding information for the 15 federal teacher programs in the table below.¹

¹These programs are labeled as K-12 programs. However, it is often unclear whether they might also apply to pre-kindergarten teachers too. Our colleagues at Early Ed Watch raise that question in a post today.

Picture an arborist puzzled by an ailing tree. He has tried giving it more water. He has protected it from blight. Why won't it grow?

If the tree stands for public education, the arborist is today's education reformer. Ideas continue to pour forth on how to help students, fix schools and revamp No Child Left Behind. But none tackles the environments the tree experienced as a sapling, when its roots never got the chance to stretch out and dig in.

Yesterday, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in reading. This biennial test attempts to measure how the nation’s students are performing on a uniform set of standards. This test is completely separate from the reading standards defined by each state under No Child Left Behind. Much has been said about the nation’s stagnating 4^th grade reading scores since the results were released (no growth in scores was demonstrated from 2007 to 2009). But little has been mentioned about how state NAEP proficiency levels in both reading and math relate to other state information like per pupil expenditures. While it is impossible to draw a clear connection between student test scores and per pupil expenditures, the recent NAEP data reveals some interesting patterns.

We used Federal Education Budget Project data on state poverty levels and per pupil expenditure and merged it with 2009 NAEP data for the percent of 4^th and 8^th graders scoring proficient or above in reading and math. These data suggest that in some cases, high per pupil expenditures are connected to high student performance. For example, more 4^th and 8^th graders score proficient or above on both math and reading in Massachusetts than in any other state. Massachusetts had the 8^th highest per pupil expenditure in the country in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have data) - $12,857. Similarly, New Jersey, the state with the highest per pupil expenditure, has high student achievement scores relative to other states. It ranks in the top five on each 4^th and 8^th grade test.

But not all high spending states demonstrate high achievement levels. The District of Columbia (though not technically a state) spends the third most per pupil in the country - $15,511 in 2007 – but has the worst student achievement. Seventeen percent or fewer of DC’s 4^th and 8^th graders score proficient or above in reading and math. Only Louisiana and Mississippi come close to such low achievement levels. It should be noted that these two states and DC have the highest student poverty rates in the country.

Some states that spend relatively less on a per-pupil basis do, however, demonstrate impressive NAEP results. Idaho, with the second lowest per pupil expenditure in the country at $6,648 (less than half of what New Jersey spends), still displays reasonable achievement levels, particularly in 8^th grade. Thirty-eight percent of Idaho’s 8^th graders scored proficient or above in math, the 16^th highest in the nation. South Dakota’s students also perform well given the state’s low per pupil expenditure (42^nd in the country at $8,064). Their 8^th grade math performance levels rank 8^th in the country and their 8^th grade reading levels rank 9^th.

Clearly, how much a state spends per pupil matters far less than how that state spends that money on education services. Unfortunately, these spending methods probably aren’t standardized either. Hence, good outcomes are far more expensive in New Jersey or Massachusetts than they are in Idaho or South Dakota. But one conclusion should stand out above all others – proficiency levels in even the most impressive states never break 60 percent. In fact, national averages on all four tests hover in the mid-30 percent range. That means that far more than half of the nation’s 4^th and 8^th graders are still scoring below proficient on both math and reading. Given that finding, it seems like every state needs to start rethinking how they spend their education dollars.

These data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia can be downloaded here.

On Monday Ed Week published an article positing that the priorities outlined in Race to the Top, a $4.35 billion competitive grant program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, could be a template for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). One former Department of Education official interviewed for the story suggested that these priorities - including improving supports for struggling schools, quality and distribution of teachers, state data systems, and standards and assessments – could become compulsory for states receiving ESEA Title I funds, a wide departure from the current requirements for these funds that focus on equitable distribution of funds.

While the Race to the Top priorities closely reflect the Obama administration’s agenda for education, the administration made it clear from the beginning that they wanted an ESEA that was strong on outcomes but not on methods. One of No Child Left Behind’s greatest weaknesses, they believed, was that it was very strict about methods (i.e. testing and teacher qualifications) but weak on outcomes (i.e. standards and assessments).

In other words, 50 states currently measure student achievement based on 50 different sets of academic standards, resulting in vastly different ability levels across the county. A reauthorized ESEA that mandates the types of activities supported by Race to the Top would be considered exceptionally strict on methods in addition to being potentially strong on outcomes.

It is much more likely, as the Ed Week article also suggests, that Race to the Top priorities will be used to strengthen existing ESEA competitive grant programs, such as State Longitudinal Data Systems grants, or create new ones. The Obama administration has already shown its commitment to such efforts via its support for the large fiscal year 2010 funding increases for programs like the Teacher Incentive Fund and Charter School Grants.

Another likely area for significant change in ESEA is the comparability provision of Title I, which attempts to ensure that state and local funds are evenly distributed among schools within a school district.

The administration’s focus on teacher distribution suggests that they will support strengthening the provision to include pay variation based on years of experience when determining whether funds and teachers are equally distributed across schools. While such a change will be unpopular with teacher’s unions, it will encourage a redistribution of teachers and open the doors for career ladders and other ways of differentiating teacher pay. (You can read more about this issue here.)

Of course, it’s possible that the Obama administration has changed its mind and will support a stricter version of ESEA moving forward that mandates methods like those proposed in Race to the Top. But both Congress and state officials are unlikely to appreciate or approve of such efforts that would require drastic changes to both local and state education laws and practices.