ESEA Renewal…beyond the Pit and the Pendulum
January 18, 2015 at 12:49 PM Leave a comment
ESEA/NCLB renewal may be at hand, but polarization along party lines in both houses of Congress is already threatening the process. Perhaps this is just the natural starting point for debate and negotiations; however, a quick look at the State and Federal functions in education could help light the way to solid middle ground in lieu of a power play.
There is a very real need for Federal involvement in education. Global markets challenge the US to compete effectively beyond its borders even as States retain their rights within the US. We are a mobile society and interstate portability of education property is essential to ensure that students from one state do not become “more equal” than those from another, and that all are well-educated. Further, as a capitalist society, we cannot forsake citizens who fall into the chasm of “market imperfections,” the poor, the disabled, or the gifted agents of change who need to be empowered to lead through innovation. That said, the US Department of Education could do some good by getting out of the way of States by refocusing their data requirements on the mission of educating the children.
Back in 2011, I wrote a blog post entitled Updating Decision Architecture for Student Success in which I outlined the roles of different levels of government to highlight the mismatch between State and Federal functions and data standards. Essentially, the core management of education lies within the States while the data is organized around Federal exigencies to the point of becoming obtuse rather than informative for all other education authorities. As a result, LEAs and SEAs are managing costs and compliance for ancillary functions with more detail than their mission of excellence in student outcomes.
Instead of unraveling the data mess, new Federal regulations were added. NCLB and waivers thereof that had Common Core strings attached created at least the appearance of an uneasy extension of the Federal role in education. More recent involvement in regulatory oversight of teacher evaluations and teacher prep got the long arm of the Feds closer to the hot plate of Big Government. However, this constitutional conflict is not as difficult to resolve once all the pieces of the puzzle are laid out.
Link to table in Media – State Vs Federal role in education if needed.
|
Federal role |
State role |
|
| Education content | Guarantee Interstate portability of education property with common core of minimum standardsGuarantee equal access to content | District oversight· Customization of standards for curriculum development
· Quality assurance (baseline Fed’l compliance, pursuit of local goals for excellence) · Assessment of student achievement · Rules of engagement for schools and districts as deemed necessary |
| Education finance | Establishing student funding formulasManaging market imperfections· Disability benefits
· Food and transportation for the poor · Other inequities among individuals or institutions · Incubation of innovation |
Distribution of Federal funds· Matching resources to eligible students & districts· Monitoring compliance with Federal regulations
Rationalizing local funding · Subsidies for students and/or facilities in under-funded communities State education initiatives |
| Education data | Establishment of national data standard (for state/local analysis and oversight)· Student-centered finance, education service delivery, educator effectiveness, and student outcomesFederal regulatory compliance data
· Special grants, food, transportation, special student services · Summary-level spending and student outcomes data |
Customization of discretionary data setData analysis and reporting· Resource allocation
· Regulatory compliance · Education effectiveness and equity · Programmatic investments and results |
| Educator professionalism | Definition of minimum standard for educator qualification | Manage professional licensure, educator quality programs |
The goals set forth in No Child Left Behind legislation remain viable for the most part, including goals for near-universal proficiency in math and literacy, a sense of urgency in achieving those goals, and the expectation that every child should have qualified teachers. The exception would be the return to greater autonomy in State management of school transformations where needed.
Rather than question Common Core State Standards or make them discretionary, I consider them essential to interstate portability for education. Likewise, disaggregated data to verify equal access to civil rights should continue. And any otherwise successful school that gets caught marginalizing certain populations of children and under-serving them must be driven to correct that inequity in earnest.
As for the conundrum of funding formulas, educator effectiveness, and student outcomes…student-centered data must happen. And the standards must be national yet designed for micro-economic analysis of investments and outcomes of schools at the state and local levels. We cannot validate our methods behind a blind. Nor can we judge our peers with blunt instruments or achieve greatness based on best guesses instead of good information.
And, finally, testing must continue. Perhaps the one area of flexibility would come with greater achievement of 3rd grade benchmarks. If we reliably met our 3rd grade goals, we could probably worry a little less about every step going forward. So, let’s not leave any children behind in early elementary school…then test every other year after that, or even just 5th, 8th, and 10th grades.
Entry filed under: Common Core State Standards, Data, ESEA-NCLB.
SchoolsRetooled TM 
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed