Congress Focuses on Flexibility Under NCLB

Last Thursday, the Committee on Education and Labor’s subcommittee on early childhood and elementary and secondary education held a hearing on the flexibility required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “Many state and local educators have told us that while they strongly support the law’s goals and the discussion about accountability that it has fostered, better flexibility would help them to reach those goals,” said subcommittee chairman Dale Kildee (D-MI).

The Witnesses included:
• Jack Jennings, President of the Center on Education Policy;
• Rick Melme, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Education;
• The Honorable Kathleen Straus, President, Michigan State Board of Education;
• Carol Johnson, Superintendent, Memphis City Schools; and
• Chester E. Finn, Jr., President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The common theme among the panelists was to move the reauthorization toward a new federal and state relationship where the U.S. Department of Education (ED) continues its focus on academic accountability while implementing the law with more deference to state innovation. Secretary Rick Melme posited that “Congress must continue to hold states accountable for improving student achievement and closing the achievement gap, while also providing [states] with the flexibility needed to implement innovative models for accomplishing these vital national goals.” Checker Finn echoed this sentiment with a mantra that has been a cornerstone of the Fordham Foundation for years: to be tight about the ends and loose about the means, strict about academic outcomes, but flexible about the means of delivery.
Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) used the hearing to introduce H.R. 2577, the State and Local Flexibility Improvement Act, a bill that would provide considerable funding flexibility. The bill would allow states and districts to transfer all of their funding from other federal grants, such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, education technology and teacher quality, into Title I. Any money that is transferred would still be subject to Title I requirements. The purpose behind the bill, according to sponsors, is to help ensure that money is not diverted from poor students, a criticism of other Republican proposals. H.R. 2577 would also:
• Allow states to waive some statutory or regulatory requirements, consolidate federal education programs, and use an alternative method for making allocations to local school districts (instead of the current formula), but only if the new proposal targets more money to the highest-poverty schools and districts;
• Lower the poverty threshold for schools to create schoolwide Title I programs; and
• Allow states to develop and use growth models to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP).
The bill exemplifies the shift in Republican policy back to more traditional conservative ideals. Republicans have been shifting their priorities to allow greater flexibility, less federal control, and an emphasis on supplemental education services and school choice. Although the bill will gain a majority of Republican support, it is unlikely to gain much support from Democrats. Democratic leaders, such as Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who were architects of the original legislation, will not support any bill that they believe will take the teeth out of NCLB. As such, this bill will likely only serve as a marker for the Republican’s reauthorization identity. Greater flexibility will be the battle cry for Republicans as reauthorization language is drafted.
Resources:
Sarah Sparks, “McKeon Proposes Transferability Plan,” Education Daily, June 7, 2007.
Author: DAD, SAS