A group of key U.S. Senate Republicans鈥攍ed by Sen. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, a former U.S. secretary of education鈥攁re going their own way on reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Back in January, the top lawmakers on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee pledged to work together on a bipartisan, comprehensive bill to fix the NCLB law, the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But almost eight months later, those talks haven鈥檛 resulted in a bill.
Sens. Alexander, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Mark Kirk of Illinois, unveiled a series of four proposals aimed at renewing pieces of the law.
Sen. Alexander鈥檚 bill would 鈥渃larify鈥� U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan鈥檚 waiver authority. Secretary Duncan announced this summer that he would offer states flexibility on parts of the ESEA, in exchange for the states embracing certain education reform priorities. The waiver rules are expected to be unveiled this month.
At a Sept. 14 briefing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Alexander said that he supports the secretary granting waivers from certain requirements of the NCLB law 鈥渂ased on what states have asked for.鈥� But he doesn鈥檛 want to see the secretary spell out for states what they have to do in areas such as teacher evaluation.
鈥淚f by doing waivers, the secretary tries to do through waivers what he can鈥檛 do through the Congress, I would object to that,鈥� Sen. Alexander said. 鈥淚f he鈥檚 trying to recognize that states have really good programs that enhance student achievement, I think that鈥檚 fine.鈥�
Daren Briscoe, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education, later said of the forthcoming waiver process, 鈥淲e think we have a very fair, transparent process while ensuring continued rigorous accountability and improvement.鈥�
Hoping for Agreement
Sen. Alexander insisted that the bills aren鈥檛 an indication that senators will not support Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and the top Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, in their ESEA renewal efforts.
Sen. Harkin had initially hoped to introduce a bipartisan, comprehensive bill by spring 2011, but that legislation never materialized.
But Sen. Harkin said that the discussions with Sen. Enzi have been fruitful.
鈥淲e鈥檝e made a tremendous amount of progress,鈥� he said. 鈥淚n my view, we have agreement on all but a few issues for a comprehensive reauthorization. I remain hopeful that Sen. Enzi and I can resolve these and present a comprehensive bill to our fellow committee members. A piecemeal approach will not provide our nation鈥檚 children, teachers, principals, and schools with the reform they need.鈥�
Sen. Enzi supports the efforts of Sen. Alexander and the others, but will also continue working with Sen. Harkin on a bipartisan plan, an Enzi aide said.
鈥淲e鈥檙e moving ahead on two tracks,鈥� Sen. Alexander said. The bills just unveiled, he said, are a chance for the Republicans to spur the process and outline their own vision for renewing the law. He said the differences between the two sides boiled down to just what the scope of the federal role should be in fixing schools.
But others see a political motivation in the timing of the bills鈥� introduction. A House Democratic aide familiar with the ESEA reauthorization process said the Senate GOP lawmakers timed the release to coincide closely with the introduction of Secretary Duncan鈥檚 waiver plan.
Senate Republicans are 鈥渃ontinuing to play politics with education policy, and not doing anything serious for kids,鈥� the aide said. The move is 鈥渇ully in line鈥� with the GOP鈥檚 desire not to give Obama a victory on education, the Democratic aide argued.
Smaller Pieces
The Senate Republicans have broken reauthorization of the ESEA into smaller bills. The general topics seem to closely mirror those that U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee, is working on through a piecemeal reauthorization process in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The bills reflect much of the administration鈥檚 blueprint for renewing the ESEA law, released in March of 2010, Sen. Alexander said.
鈥淢any of the ideas here are completely consistent with what Secretary Duncan and the president have proposed,鈥� Sen. Alexander said.
Alex Nock, who until recently served as a top aide for Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House education committee, sees a lot of common ground between the GOP proposal and the Obama blueprint. Mr. Nock, now the executive vice president of Penn Hill Group, a government-relations firm in Washington, said those similarities could limit the scope of policy prescriptions under discussion.
鈥淒ue to the bills鈥� similarities to the administrations鈥� blueprint, [the package] could force the political discourse on ESEA to narrow,鈥� he said.
Vic Klatt, a former aide to Republicans on the House education committee, said the commonalities have left him wondering why Congress hasn鈥檛 been able to complete reauthorization.
鈥淚t sort of leads to the question of what is taking these guys so long. They鈥檙e not that far off,鈥� said Mr. Klatt, who is now a principal at Penn Hill Group. 鈥淭here are not that many huge differences here that can鈥檛 be resolved.鈥�
But he added that he doesn鈥檛 expect to see ESEA reauthorized this year. 鈥淚t鈥檚 too late in the process for ESEA to get through the Senate this year even if suddenly everything were to fall into place tomorrow,鈥� he said.
Details Emerge
One bill, sponsored by Sens. Isakson and Alexander, would make changes to the Title I program, the main federal program for disadvantaged students. It would keep NCLB鈥檚 annual schedule of testing students in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math, and once in high school. It also would require states to keep reporting on results for different groups of students, such as racial minorities, English-language learners, and students with disabilities.
States would be required to adopt 鈥渃ollege- and career-ready鈥� standards that are aligned with state post-secondary, career and technical, and workforce skills.
But there is no language encouraging states to embrace a specific set of academic standards, such as those put forward in the , which more than 40 states have endorsed.
The federal government would continue to support interventions in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools through a menu of improvement models largely consistent with the four options the administration created for the School Improvement Grant program. The measure would add two additional options to the mix, including one aimed at broadening remedies for rural schools.
But the Title I bill would let states decide how to label and intervene in the other 95 percent of schools.
Mr. Isakson said the teeth of the proposed legislation lie in the continued requirement to report on student progress.
鈥淭he hammer is transparency,鈥� he said.
Another bill would effectively scrap the law鈥檚 鈥渉ighly qualified teacher鈥� provision, which spells out that teachers must be certified in their subject area. Instead, states would have to come up with their own evaluation systems. The measure also would authorize the Teacher Incentive Fund, which provides grants to districts to create pay-for-performance programs. The TIF has been receiving funding since fiscal year 2006, but has never been officially written into the ESEA law.
Another measure, modeled on a that passed the House on Sept. 13, would bolster charter schools. And a fourth bill would consolidate 59 federal education programs into two flexible funding streams.
Early Reaction
The package got a good initial review from Noelle Ellerson, the assistant director of policy analysis and advocacy for the American Association of School Administrators.
She said the AASA is still examining the details of the legislation. But she likes the direction the senators are heading.
鈥淭hey are really taking a step toward trusting the ability of states and locals鈥� to improve student achievement, she said. 鈥淭he best education policy doesn鈥檛 always come straight from the Beltway.鈥�
But Kate Tromble, the director of legislative affairs for the Education Trust, in Washington, which advocates for poor and minority students, said, 鈥淭he last thing our country or our children need right now is to roll back hard-won progress in education reform and student achievement, particularly for low-income students and students of color. But that鈥檚 exactly what these bills would do.鈥�
