On Thursday, December 13th, the House passed President Bush's signature education initiative
by a vote of 381-41. Senate approval of the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) conference report is
predicted within the next few days. The bill is expected to be signed before Christmas. The conference report is
a bi-partisan victory for compromise. Congress, in its customary wisdom, has crafted legislation that everybody
hates halfway. Given the closeness of votes in the Congress, it is probably all that could be expected and may
set the stage for further action after 2002.
The lumps of coal in the stocking are the presence of unfunded and underfunded mandates, the giving in to teacher's
unions on the matter of parental choice and a sizeable expansion of the federal role. The current renewed legislation
exceeds 1100 pages and authorizes 45 separate programs. The original bill was just 34 pages.
The legislation authorizes $26.5 billion for the current fiscal year, up $8 billion over last year. The problem
is that much of the money goes to old and tired inherited education programs that have already proven to be ineffective
and full of waste. For 30 years, ESEA education legislation has featured appealing rhetoric and appalling results.
Some $130 billion of previous poor children federal programs have shown exactly no improvement in measurable student
achievement. On the most recent national science assessment, just 18 percent of students were proficient. Over
half of economically disadvantaged children were unqualified in reading, math and science in the 2000 test.
That said, the legislation offers great hope for further action in one area - accountability. While real school
choice has been denied to appease teacher's unions, the national fact-gathering programs will proceed. "Testing
will provide the power to transform a school or system," says The Heritage Foundation, "by the information
it gives parents. Armed with new information, parents will have the leverage they need at the local level."
The bill gives the federal government oversight over more curriculum and testing by requiring the use of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as the official unit of measure. Schools must use the NAEP if they accept
federal money. Millions of students in grades 3-8 will be required to take annual tests in reading and math beginning
in 2004. States and school districts would be required to issue annual report cards with mandated categories for
cross tabulation.
The idea that parent's could actually know how each school is doing has sent howls of protest from the educational
establishment. They want tens of billions of dollars in additional aid to weather the storm their anticipated poor
results will create.
Schools whose scores fail to improve two years in a row would be eligible for increased federal aid. If school
scores still fail to improve, students from low-income families could receive funding for tutoring or transportation
to another public school. Schools that fail to improve over six years would be restaffed. In schools that are already
considered poor performers, parents can receive tutoring and transportation funds as early as this coming fall.
Scores will be published in various sub-categories and gaps must be closed, for example, between rich and poor,
or white and minority students.
While federal aid is provided to build and operate charter schools, the issue of private education is ignored.
In sub-par districts, this creates an immediate problem. Often no public schools anywhere nearby are performing
up to standard. Therefore, transportation grants or switching rights have no practical meaning.
States are required within four years to assure themselves that all teachers are qualified in the subjects they
teach. On the other hand, greater flexibility is allowed on how districts spend federal teacher quality funds -
training, hiring or salaries.
Some less sweeping provisions give a large funds boost towards the goal of having every child able to read by third
grade. Some states and districts are allowed to use federal funds in any way they choose. It is hoped that innovative
pilot programs will result. Students with limited English skills are required to become proficient within three
years. Money is provided to help schools form partnerships with colleges and universities to improve science and
math instruction.
Finally, in an interesting twist on home schooling, churches or other religious groups can provide tutoring and
other after-school programs such as safety and drug abuse prevention programs.
Summing up, Heritage is cheered by the Bush program's offering of accountability, opportunity, flexibility, structural
change and efforts to improve quality. Its caution is that these politically possible improvements are only modest.
Parents must be able to use the bill's testing and reporting provisions in a meaningful way.
Congress and the states need to build on this foundation by enacting significant parental choice legislation. Without
true accountability to parents, the Foundation concludes, this bill could wind up being another massive funding
increase without any corresponding rise in student achievement. For the parents of children currently in poor public
schools, nothing will happen at the federal level in time to improve their student's lot for years and years.
