ESEA: What's in Store...

1. ESEA: What's in Store... David A DeSchryverLegislative CounselBrustein & ManasevitJanuary 2010 bruman.com

2. Original Infrastructure • President Johnson’s legacy: The War on Poverty, announced on January 8, 1964. • Original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Johnson in 1965, • ESEA in 1965 = 32 pages • NCLB of 2001 = 670 pages • NCLB “Discussion draft” nearly 1,000 pages bruman.com

3. NCLB: An Historic Shift • NCLB marked both a revolution and an evolution in federal policy. • It extended two decades of reform efforts, and • “It has no precedent: it creates stern federal directives regarding test use and consequences; puts federal bureaucrats in charge of approving state standards and accountability plans; sets a single nationwide timetable for boosting achievement; and prescribes specific remedies for underperforming schools.” - Chester E. Finn Jr. bruman.com

4. Reauthorization, 2007 • House: The complexity of the state accountability system with the proposed multiple indicators and tiered interventions, in combination with the clash over teacher performance pay, prevented George Miller, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, from advancing his “discussion draft.” • Senate: "The better part of valour is discretion...." (Falstaff, Henry IV). bruman.com

5. Reauthorization, 2007-2009 • Much has changed in two years. • Growth: State accountability programs, growth models in particular, continue to improve. • SLDS: Improved accountability data allows States and districts to better deploy interventions. • Human capital: The matter of teacher quality and effectiveness is now a critical point of planning and discussion. • Meaning of "proficiency." • ARRA is accelerating State and district discussion / planning on these topics. bruman.com

6. The stakes are high • "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." • Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu, Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC) bruman.com

7. The stakes are high • The ethical motive diminishes the closer we get to school year 2013-2014 without an reauthorization. • Illustration: The Center in Education Policy (CEP) analyzed five states’ restructuring efforts and found that they often choose the least prescriptive option: “other” (Option 5) bruman.com

8. The Stakes are high • Federal budget: entering period of dire scarcity and competing interests. • USED FY 2009: $62 billion • USED FY 2010: estimated $64 billion • ARRA ED: $100 billion • Beyond? bruman.com

9. The Stakes are high bruman.com

10. The Stakes are high bruman.com

11. The Stakes are high • Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal budget deficit for 2009 will total $1.6 trillion…which will be the highest since World War II. • “Putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course will require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected.” bruman.com

12. The Stakes are high bruman.com

13. The Stakes are high • The US-China announcement that capped the two day Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington on July 28 included a U.S. commitment to: • “…reform its health care system with the aim of controlling rising health care costs for businesses and government . . . [and] reducing the federal budget deficit relative to GDP to a sustainable level by 2013." bruman.com

14. The Stakes are high Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste, they are opportunities to do big things. - Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, New York Times, November 10, 2008. bruman.com

15. ARRA - reauthorization data • ARRA promotes essential education reform in four areas: • College- and career- ready standards and high-quality, valid and reliable assessments for all students; • Development and use of pre-K through post-secondary and career data systems; • Increasing teacher effectiveness and ensuring an equitable distribution of qualified teachers; and • Turning around the lowest-performing schools bruman.com

16. ARRA - reauthorization data • ARRA assurances address many of the substantive details that stalled the 2007 reauthorization. • Data systems & identification systems • Interventions or school turnaround • Teacher effectiveness • The ARRA process (SFSF II, RTT) also addresses 2007 criticism that “Washington insiders” drafted the language. • ED’s 2010 blueprint will be the opposite, a product of State and local ingenuity (?). bruman.com

17. What outlook does ARRA provide? • "Tight about the ends and loose about the means?" • Can the 90s mantra for charter schools work for federal program and fiscal compliance? • Really? • Really? • Really? bruman.com

18. Outlook: Standards & Assessments • Consensus: NCLB got it backwards! • By mandating that all students reach "proficiency" by 2014, it tempts states to define proficiency downward. • Although there has not been a "race to the bottom," there has been a "walk to the middle," as some states with high standards saw their expectations drop. • (Source: The Proficiency Illusion: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation: October 2007). • ARRA outlook: • Standardize the meaning of "proficiency" bruman.com

19. Outlook: Standards & Assessments • Consensus, 50 years in the making?: • 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower called for “national goals” in education. • 1983, A Nation at Risk, began the focus on standards-based reform. • 1988, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was revised to include state-by-state comparisons of student achievement • 1989, President George H.W. Bush pushed for “voluntary national standards” • 1994, President Clinton's Goals 2000 created the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) • All failed... bruman.com

20. Outlook: Standards & Assessments • 2009 – 2010: Common Core Standards • National Governors Association & the Council of Chief State School Officers, in partnership with Achieve, ACT, and the College Board, are trying to complete the mission. • 48 states have “signed on” to the initiative. • Critical selection criteria for the Race to the Top grant: (B)(1). • http://www.corestandards.org/ bruman.com

21. Outlook: Standards & Assessments • Common national assessment • $350 million, to a consortia of States for the development of common assessments aligned with common set of K–12 standards. • ED has been soliciting input from assessment experts, directors of large-scale assessment programs, States, other key stakeholders, and members of the public to inform the design and development of this program. • Critical selection criteria, RTT (B)(2),(3) bruman.com

22. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • Consensus: • HQT has been ineffective and not well implemented • "Federal law should stop focusing on “quality,” as measured by front-end qualifications, and start focusing on “effectiveness,” as measured by whether teachers have actually helped students learn." - Michelle Rhee, Superintendent of D.C. Public Schools. • ESEA fiscal comparability is ineffective bruman.com

23. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • ARRA outlook: • Alternative certification pathways (RTT (D)(1)). • “Effective teachers” require “effective principals” (SFSF II (a)(2); RTT (D)(3)-(5)). • Rating and acting on teacher & principal effectiveness, based on performance, student growth (SFSF II (a)(3)-(5); RTT (D)(2)). • Data reporting & plans to assure low income, minority students are not taught at higher rates by inexperienced, unqualified or out of field teachers & have access to effective principals (SFSF II (a)(1)(2); RTT (D)(3)-(5)). bruman.com

24. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • Review and revise ESEA comparability requirements. • Title VIII of the ARRA: • Provided further, That each [LEA] receiving funds available under this paragraph shall be required to file with the [SEA], no later than December 1, 2009, a school-by-school listing of per-pupil educational expenditures from State and local sources during the 2008–2009 academic year: • Provided further, That each State educational agency shall report that information to the Secretary of Education by March 31, 2010. ARRA Public Law 111-5, http://sn.im/arra-111-5 bruman.com

25. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • These data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Title I comparability requirement under ESEA Section 1120A(c) in ensuring the equitable distribution of state and local resources at the school level. ARRA Public Law 111-5, http://sn.im/arra-111-5 bruman.com

26. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • LEAs and SEAs should report the following four categories of school-level expenditures from state and local funds: • Personnel salaries at the school level for all school-level instructional and support staff, based on the Census Bureau’s classification used in the F‑33 survey of local government finances. • Personnel salaries at the school level for instructional staff only. • Personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only. • Non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if available). ARRA Public Law 111-5, http://sn.im/arra-111-5 bruman.com

27. Outlook: Teacher Distribution & Effectiveness • Additional instructions for reporting non-personnel expenditures. LEAs and SEAs are asked to include the following types of expenditures, if this information is available at the school-level: • Professional development for teachers and other staff • Instructional materials and supplies • Computers, software, and other technology • Contracted services such as distance learning services • Library books and media center learning materials ARRA Public Law 111-5, http://sn.im/arra-111-5 bruman.com

28. Outlook: Data Systems • Consensus: • NCLB got disaggregation of academic data right • NCLB got AYP wrong - status model is "ham fisted" • ARRA outlook: • Full implementation of SLDS (SFSF II (b)(1); RTT (C)(1) – including higher education data • Using data to drive instruction, operations, and overall "effectiveness." (RTT (C)(2),(3).) • Focus on student growth to inform instruction (See SFSF II (b)(2),(3); RTT (C)(2)). • Incentivize growth for all students, not getting some over the bar. bruman.com

29. Outlook: Data Systems bruman.com

30. Outlook: Data Systems bruman.com

31. Outlook: School Turnaround • Consensus: • Consequences must have meaning! • The Wizard of OZ effect? • The withering of the perceived power and mystery of the Wizard when Dorothy pulls the curtain on the Wizard and discovers that he is just a diminutive (and manipulative) man. bruman.com

32. Source: United States Department of Education bruman.com

33. Outlook: School Turnaround • ARRA outlook: • ED redefines how SEAs may define “greatest need” for the funds and “strongest commitment” to implement rigorous interventions. • Greatest Need is a three tiered model • Strongest Commitment requires prescribed interventions bruman.com

34. Outlook: School Turnaround • Greatest need. An LEA with the greatest need for a School Improvement Grant must have one or more schools in at least one of the following tiers: • Tier I schools: A Tier I school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is identified by the SEA under the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools.” • Tier II schools: A Tier II school is a secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds and is identified by the SEA as “persistently lowest-achieving schools.” • Tier III schools: A Tier III school is a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school. An SEA may establish additional criteria to use in setting priorities among LEA applications for funding and to encourage LEAs to differentiate among these schools in their use of school improvement funds. bruman.com

35. Outlook: School Turnaround • Strongest Commitment: An LEA with the strongest commitment is an LEA that agrees to implement, and demonstrates the capacity to implement fully and effectively, one of the following rigorous interventions in each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits to serve. • Turnaround model • Restart model • School closure • Transformation model bruman.com

36. What outlook does ARRA provide? • Note the key definitions: • “Persistently lowest-achieving schools” • “Student growth” • “Student achievement” • “Effective” teachers & principals • “Rapid time” • See Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g); Race to the Top Application for Initial Funding. bruman.com

37. Outlook: Reporting bruman.com

38. Outlook: Reporting bruman.com • See Recovery.gov

39. What outlook does ARRA provide? bruman.com

40. Politics & Personalities matter • The Obama administration now enjoys a comfortable Democratic majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate - that may change. • The midterm elections may result in Republican gains in the House and Senate, making the reauthorization of ESEA more difficult. bruman.com

41. Politics & Personalities matter • The moment of bipartisan support for an expanded federal role is distant. • The Senate lost a principle architect and champion of ESEA when Senator Kennedy passed away. • The Ranking member on the education committee on the House side, Rep. Kline (MN) is a strong critic of the law. • Few members on the House education committee were in office in 2001 when Congress negotiated and passed NCLB and, in fact, many of the new members (Republican and Democrat) ran against the law in their previous campaign. bruman.com

42. Politics & Personalities matter Inverse relation to health care? bruman.com

43. ESEA Outlook • The time for State ESEA reauthorization planning began, again, with the signing of the ARRA. • States must be prepared to reconcile their work on the ARRA and their positions on the ESEA reauthorization and present their ESEA recommendations immediately. bruman.com

44. Legal Disclaimer • This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service.  This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit.  You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.