Marathon NCLB Hearing

On Monday, September 10, the House Committee on Education and Labor conducted a marathon six hour, forty minute hearing on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft. Over 40 witnesses, making up 6 panels, testified before the committee covering a wide array of topics.

The panel topics included:
• The Big Picture
• High School Reform & College and Career-Readiness
• Civil Rights
• Business, Foundation and Innovation
• Teaching and School Leadership
• State and Local Administrators

The Committee advertised the panel discussions as part of a hearing on the Title I, Part A discussion draft, but the day covered a broader scope of topics that included Title II, III, IV and more. The breadth of coverage diffused the emergence of any clearly dominant themes, but there were notable highlights.

First, there was general support for the Committee’s efforts to broaden the accountability measures under the law using multiple measures. Many panelists supported the idea in theory, but not as drafted. Mike Cohen, President of Achieve, for example, supported the effort to increase variable measures, but stated his belief that it could result is less academic accountability. “It will paint a confusing picture to educators and the public, and set up incentives for states and schools alike to figure out ways to game the system in order to reduce the number of schools that fail to make AYP.” Dan Losen, the Senior Education Law and Policy Associate for the Civil Rights Project, was also encouraged by multiple measures, but he expressed a common concern about retaining the goal of 100% proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. “This uniform deadline assumes that the schools and districts furthest from the goal can make the most extraordinary gains,” he stated. “But the assumption directly contradicts what research tells us about the rates of improvement we can expect from the most successful districts.” In the end, most agreed with the notion of multiple measures but did not agree with the particulars of the discussion draft.

Teacher quality was another notable topic. Most of the panelists who addressed the topic affirmed that excellent teachers are prerequisites for excellent schools. However, pay and distribution of quality teachers sparked considerable debate. Regarding distribution, the Title I discussion draft would require districts to show that the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in the schools is equal to or greater than the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in non-Title I schools. Regarding teacher pay, the Title II discussion draft would provide funding for high-need school districts that choose to apply for performance pay bonuses of up to $10,000 for outstanding teachers (and of up to $12,500 for teachers of math, science, special education and other shortage subjects) and annual bonuses of up to $15,000 to outstanding principals who transfer into the hardest-to-staff schools for four years.

Some panelist liked the proposals. Germaine Brown, a teacher at the Stewart Street Elementary School in Florida applauded the Committee for the inclusion of the program. “I hope that this committee will provide funding for programs to allow more schools and districts to reform their compensation systems for teachers,” she testified. Kristan Van Hook, Senior Vice President at the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, also testified in support of performance pay, tied into the school and districts academic accountability measures and in support of innovation through the Teacher Incentive Fund. She stated that the new demands on teachers and schools should be compensated through performance pay.

The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) disagreed with Ms. Brown and the Committee on these proposals. Reg Weaver, the President of the NEA, testified that the comparability provisions and the pay for performance provisions were an attack on public teachers everywhere. “We are gravely disappointed that the Committee has released language that undermines educators’ collective bargaining rights. This is an unprecedented attack on a particular segment of the labor community—the nation’s educators.”

The AFT also rejected the draft’s comparability language and pay for performance language, albeit in a less confrontational manner. “The AFT believes that the approach proposed in Title II of the draft would impose a top-down policy that jeopardizes buy-in from the teachers and, ultimately, the success of the program,” stated AFT Executive Vice-President Antonia Cortese. “It also interjects federal law into the collective bargaining process– a matter that is within the purview of state and local law.” The federal government should not be in the business of mandating employment contracts.

The outright rejection of the language by the unions offended Chairman Miller and he let Mr. Weaver and Ms. Cortese know it. “The language you are objecting to is identical to the language in the TEACH Act that you supported…. This is language that was mutually arrived at.” It is the language, he observed, that their organizations negotiated, accepted and promoted over the last few years and the fact that they now rejected it outright was, according to the Chairman, a misrepresentation and a poor negotiating position.

The moments of animosity were also matched by moments of welcomed support for the draft provisions. In particular, the panelist and Chairman agreed wholeheartedly that workforce readiness is an important part of the reauthorization. Janet Bray, the Director for the Association for Career and Technical Education thanked the Committee for including the career and technical educator’s voice as part of the draft discussion. In particular, she applauded the new Graduation Promise Fund for high schools with the lowest graduation rates to support school-wide improvement activities and the new funding in the proposed section 1111A that would provide incentives to states to align their standards vertically and to review what students should know in order to be successful in postsecondary education and the workplace.

“There are distinct purposes and reasons to have both NCLB and Perkins as two separate and distinct laws, but there is much more that can be done to align the two pieces of legislation,” said Bray and, to which, Chairman Miller agreed. “Too often within the beltway CTE [career and technical education] is viewed as the technical education that we grew up with 30 years ago and we do not recognize how complicated it is today,” said the Chairman. “I am quite pleased at the attention [this is] getting.”

The hearing concluded nearly seven hours later with Chairman Miller promising to digest all the comments and make changes to the draft. Committee staffers report that the Chairman may introduce the House version of the revised draft during the week of September 24, but that is merely speculation and subject to change.

Resources:
“Miller/McKeon Discussion Draft of ESEA Reauthorization,” House Committee on Education and Labor, September 10, 2007, http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/fc091007.shtml.
Author: DAD