Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
- Details
- Last Updated on Friday, 10 August 2012 14:45
Description:
This federal legislation, first passed in 1965, greatly increased federal involvement in public education through funding processes. That is, the federal government provides funding to the states for targeted educational purposes, which brings some control over educational processes to the federal level. The targeted areas are delineated by “title” programs.
- Federal Title I funds are to be used for the education and support of low income students in reading and mathematics.
- Federal Title II funds are to be used for educators’ professional development.
- Federal Title III funds are to be used for supporting the language acquisition and education of English Language Learners.
- Federal Title IV funds support educational programs to reduce the use of Alcohol and Other Drugs.
In 2001, the name of the ESEA legislation changed to No Child Left Behind. This was more than a name change in that in order to qualify for federal funding, states needed to comply with various requirements. States were responsible for designing the details of the requirements in delineated areas, but the state plans needed to be approved by the federal Department of Education. States and school districts now needed to meet specific targets in the percentage of student accountability test scores that are at least proficient. There are also specific targets for graduation rates, test participation, and some alternative areas like attendance. One of the most outstanding and often discussed targets was for all students to have achieved proficiency in reading and math by 2014. Another outstanding requirement involved mandatory reporting of student achievement on accountability testing by the subgroups of ethnicity, economic disadvantages, English language proficiency, and special education.
Accompanying the requirements were specific consequences for schools and school districts that were consistently missing the targets. These consequences ranged from having to develop and get approval for plans of improvement, to allowing students to transfer to other schools, to changing school leadership, to restructuring, including the possible closing of the school.
Context:
The passing of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation was the first and most bi-partisan legislation of the George W. Bush administration. Republicans supported it because it brought increased accountability to the institution of public education, perceived as troubled especially when considering international comparisons. Democrats supported the legislation because it brought increased attention to the disadvantaged subgroups by requiring separate reporting for them. Both sides of the aisle supported the concept of 100% proficiency by 2014.
Though neither ESEA nor NCLB was ever fully funded, funding was continually reauthorized by Congress until 2007. Because of various barriers, which include a general growth in the political chasm between the two main political parties and a growing awareness of shortcomings in the legislation, Congress has not reauthorized the legislation as of 2012. Some legislators did not want to reauthorize the bill without giving it a significant overhaul, and with economic and matters of international security taking precedence, the reauthorization of NCLB continues to be set aside.
With NCLB not having been reauthorized, and the increased recognition of the flaws in the legislation, the need for a change grew. In addition, Congress began to realize that the legislation painted them into a corner with the 100% proficiency requirement and the 2014 deadline for it coming up so quickly.
Enter the introduction of the concept of granting waivers of the NCLB requirements for states that submitted a plan to the federal Department of Education for approval. The plans needed to include the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing that is due for implementation in 2014, and other language that addresses increases in academic rigor and growth, educator effectiveness, and other various requirements.
Note: There is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to be involved in public education. According to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, the responsibility for public education falls to the states.
Consideration or Implications:
Some of the large-scale changes affecting public education in Wisconsin are related to the implementation of the requirements of Wisconsin’s waiver application. These include the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the testing associated with the work of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. In addition, the cutoffs on Wisconsin’s current accountability tests (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam — WKCE) are being revised upward to a level that is similar to that of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for two years (2012−13 and 2013 – 14). This revision will greatly lower the percentage of student scores that are proficient or advanced. This change is part of the increased rigor component of Wisconsin’s waiver application and is bringing a communication challenge to school districts as they explain to their local communities how these changes work and what they mean. Another component of Wisconsin’s waiver application is a focus on personalized learning, with the intention of increasing students’ engagement in their learning and increasing the use of alternative delivery models.
Resources:
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website:
http://dpi.wi.gov/esea/index.html
US Department of Education ESEA website:
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility
Michael B. Zellmer
Director of Assessment and Learning, Franklin Public Schools
Sandy Brauer
Principal, North Woods International
Supervisor World Languages and Social Studies