ESEA

Is ESEA Reauth a Done Deal?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

For months now, the popular wisdom has been that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be reauthorized in 2011 (only three or so years late).  After all, John Kline (MN), the incoming House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman, and EdSec Arne Duncan have never been that far off on what they wanted from the law.  Duncan’s blueprint has been public record since March.  Kline has been hoping for more local control and greater attention on rural schools, two issues Duncan seems fine with.  Their only significant difference is that Duncan is the champion of Race to the Top and Kline would like to see the program carted off to an early death.  Otherwise, there is a lot to work with in the middle.

Following Tuesday’s elections, folks (including Eduflack) have been quick to say that education is the one issue Democrats and Republicans can probably agree on (to a degree) in the coming year.  If both sides are looking for a quick win and a chance to show they stand FOR something and can move something forward, ESEA is likely it.  The outstanding question, to many, is whether Hill Republicans want to give the White House and the Dems such a quick win.

Let’s be clear.  We aren’t talking about a comprehensive overhaul of No Child Left Behind.  When you take the March 2010 ESEA Blueprint, and mix in current political realities, we are really talking about a minor remodel of the law, not a rebuild.  Additional flexibility.  Revised accountability measures.  Greater collaboration.  More carrot and less stick.  A kinder, gentler (and now level-funded) NCLB if you will.

Last week’s congressional elections make pretty clear that any ESEA reauth likely means a new law that is level funded.  The incoming class (many of who ran on a platform to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education) is not looking to increase Duncan’s budget.  And those cockeyed optimists who believe a lame duck congress passing an omnibus appropriations bill means a third round of RttT clearly haven’t been listening to Kline or a number of others who can undo in two months that which is done in the coming weeks. 

But are we missing the bigger story in the reauthorization debate?  Most seem to couch this as a Democrats versus Republicans issue, failing to see what current House Ed Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) and Kline have been moving a good draft forward for much of this year.  And both Miller and Kline seem to be in tune with most of the priorities coming out of Maryland Avenue.

Instead, isn’t the real debate between the House and the Senate?  Even when both chambers were controlled by Dems and all Dems were complaining about NCLB, we didn’t see a shared vision.  If we couldn’t get a Dem Administration, a Dem House, and a Dem Senate to agree on K-12 education, what makes tomorrow different?

Has Sen. Tom Harkin (IA) been the stumbling block?  Harkin controls both the Senate HELP Committee and the appropriations subcommittee that oversees education funding.  While the senior senator from Iowa has held numerous hearings on specific issues related to ESEA, we haven’t seen the trial balloon drafts we come to expect during the reauth process.  In fact, the Senate has been downright silent regarding its hopes and dreams for next-gen ESEA.  So even if Duncan and Kline come to agreement on a bill that could work for their constituencies, will Harkin join in the fun?

In all honesty, we simply don’t know if ESEA is a priority for either the House or the Senate.  Both committees have a significant number of TBDs on the membership roster for the coming congress.  When we hear the list of priorities for the new House, education simply isn’t on the list.  And we are hearing nothing coming out of the Senate.

If Duncan is smart, he just prepares to work under the confines of the current NCLB.  He can do most of what he wants anyway, with the current law and some guidance (even of the non-regulatory variety) to make the shifts proposed in his blueprint.  Is it ideal, no.  But it may be the best choice in the current environment.
   

As the Election Dust Settles …

Eduflack Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

While we still don’t know where all the chips will fall once all of the votes have been counted and recounted, there are some drive-by observations we can make regarding yesterday’s results and the potential impact for education policy in 2011 and beyond.

One thing that becomes clear from yesterday’s results, folks are frustrated by how much money the federal government has spent in the past two years (dating back to President Bush’s TARP).  So those thinking there are new pots of money for additional rounds of Race to the Top, i3, edujobs, or other such programs are likely to be severely disappointed.  We’re back to doing more with less.

Historically, Republicans prefer to fund education research and assessment, while Democrats prefer to fund implementation.  So it is fair to assume that the House Education and the Workforce Committee, under the leadership of likely new chairman John Kline (MN) will swing the pendulum back to the data.

Changes are coming to the education committees.  On the Senate side, because of last night’s results, we are likely to see the GOP pick up two seats on HELP, while Dems lose two seats.  And we have at least two Senate Dems, Dodd and Goodwin) who leave the Committee because they didn’t seek re-elect (and we still need to see what happens to Murray out in Washington and Bennet in Colorado).  More importantly, we have two GOPers — Gregg and Roberts — who move off the Committee (and possibly a third, Murkowski, depending on write-in vote tallies in Alaska).  A potential for five new Republicans on HELP in 2011.  So Chairman Harkin will have major changes to deal with on a Committee that hasn’t quite been in the education game for the last year.

On the House side?  Huge changes coming.  Kline will be the new chairman.  Rumors are already circulating that outgoing Chairman George Miller (CA) may retire rather than returning for the 112th Congress.  And then we will have a slew of new Republicans added to the roster, while a bunch of Dems rotate off.   

And don’t forget, the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner (OH), was one of the key architects of NCLB, when he himself chaired the House Education and Workforce Committee.  

What about the states?  The map of governors is looking awfully red.  Republicans picked up the chief chair in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, and others.  And we are still waiting for results in Florida, Illinois, and Oregon.  Among RttT states, we are seeing an awful lot of Race states with Republicans at the helm.  

No doubt, changes are coming to the edu-scape.  Many candidates calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education were elected last night.  There was little talk, if any, about the role of charter schools or school choice.  And the incoming majority party was swept in on promises of smaller government, reductions in spending, and a return of local control.  All of these promises have very real impact on federal and state education policy.  

So what now?  Expect Kline to move quickly with a plan to reauthorize ESEA … and expect EdSec Duncan to jump at the opportunity.  It won’t be a major change to NCLB — some improvements, some changes, but the same core framework with some accountability and flexibility returned to the states/localities at roughly a level funding level.   But that may be our only true edu-shot in 2011.
 

Education Policy and 2010 Elections

Eduflack Arne Duncan, assessment, early childhood education, ESEA, i3, Math, NCLB, RTT

This time tomorrow (or possibly this time Thursday or Friday, depending on how close some elections out west may be) we will know what the 112th Congress will look like and we will have a clear sense of who will be sitting in the big desks in governors’ offices across the nation.  You have to be living in a cave (or be in complete denial) not to know that big change is coming.  So how will such change affect education policy plans for 2011 and beyond?

ESEA Reauthorization — We will likely see ESEA reauth in 2011, and it may actually be helped along by Republicans taking over the U.S. House of Representatives.  Rep, John Kline (MN) has already been working closely with Chairman George Miller (CA) on the legislation.  So while Kline is likely to give the draft a greater emphasis on local control and rural schools, it should still move. 

And the U.S. Senate will follow the House’s lead.  It is expected that Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will remain in charge of the HELP Committee.  But major changes on the committee (due to election results and retirements) may change the Senate perspective.  If anything, it may help focus Harkin and get him to move on a meaningful piece of legislation.

Common Core Standards — Tomorrow, we are likely to see a lot of governor’s offices change parties.  Inevitably, that is going to lead to many seeking new GOP governors to reconsider their states’ adoption of the Common Core Standards (all in the name of local control).  And we may well see a few states pull out of the process, particularly if said states were RttT losers and are particularly proud of their state standards.  Texas and Virginia can serve as the model for these “rebel” states.

Phase Three Race to the Top and Phase Two i3 — Many are hoping for another round of both RttT and i3.  But additional rounds mean additional dollars.  And if the lead-up to today’s elections mean anything, it is that folks are frustrated with how many federal dollars have been spent over the past 18 months.  If we are seeing new RttT and i3 processes, it likely means having to move money from existing programs and existing priorities, a task that can be difficult during the reauthorization process.

Early Childhood Education — ECE has been the big loser in the last year.  Despite a great deal of rhetoric about the importance of early childhood education and plans on what should be done, ECE simply hasn’t been shown the budgetary love.  And that is unlikely to change.  ECE advocates will likely be fighting for the scraps in the larger picture for the coming year, particularly if they cannot find new champions on the Hill from both sides of the aisle.

Public/Private Partnerships — We have long relied on public/private partnerships to help move education issues forward, and STEM education is the latest in a long line of such efforts that the education establishment and the private sector have been able to work together on.  But will the Administration’s attack on business, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, make it more difficult to cut a deal to advance STEM in 2011?  Or will the business community move forward without Obama and company?  Only time will tell.

Teachers — EdSec Arne Duncan’s Teacher campaign is off and running, and it is likely to gain speed following the elections and stronger GOP representation in the states.  Many see the Teacher effort, led by Brad Jupp, as an alt cert campaign (an unfair characterization, but it has stuck).  So an anti-teachers union sentiment could give the recruitment effort some legs, particularly as new Republican governors look to model their administrations after NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

And what are the likely unsung issues in our post-election environment?  Parental and family engagement is at the top of ol’ Eduflack’s list, as folks see the need for community buy-in on reauth and other issues in a difficult budget year.  The assessments aligned with the Common Core will pick up steam.  And we are likely to see state legislatures take on an even stronger role in education issues, particularly as we look at the future for ESEA and Common Core.  And with all of our focus on reading for the past decade, math is likely to step into the forefront, particularly as more and more people raise issues with the math common core.

And so it begins …

The Pollsters Respond: More on ESEA as a Voting Issue

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

Earlier this month, Eduflack opined on a survey released by the Alliance for Excellent Education about reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the need for focus on high schools, and the role both topics may play on this November’s upcoming congressional elections.  While I found the findings interesting, I worried that we were reading a little too much into the numbers, giving the average voter a little too much credit for what they think they know about ESEA and its future direction.

I offered up the counterpoint to the data originally compiled on the Alliance’s behalf by Lake Research Partners.  The good folks over at Lake Research Partners — namely Celinda Lake and Chris Matthews — wanted to set the record straight and ensure that we (and I mean that collectively, dear ol’ Eduflack included) don’t misconstrue the findings.  So I’m going to yield the rostrum to Lake and Matthews to offer that clarification.  So without further ado …

“Eduflack made some assertions and questions about the recent AEE poll that we would like to respond to:

1. The poll finds that 8 in 10 voters want to see NCLB changed in the reauthorization of ESEA, while 11 percent say NCLB should be left as it is. Eduflack questions this finding, asking: “Are we to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year; and that 80% understand the components of the current NCLB bill well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered?”

The findings of the poll should not be construed in this way at all. The poll does not indicate that voters know that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year. As AEE and the pollsters asserted at the press conference introducing the poll, if we had to guess, we would agree with Eduflack and say that most voters don’t know this. However, we certainly can say from this survey that when ESEA is introduced to voters in the survey, with concise and accurate information, that ESEA reauthorization is seen as important to voters. And when it comes to NCLB, nearly 90 percent of voters in the survey have an opinion on the NCLB policy: 47% have a favorable opinion and 44% an unfavorable opinion. We agree with Eduflack, in that most voters do not fully understand all of the intricate components of the current NCLB bill, we see in this in the focus groups we conduct throughout the country. Yet, this research shows that they do have a base of knowledge about NCLB, which combined with their own experiences and views that public high schools are in urgent need of improvement, lead us to be confident that voters can weigh-in on whether NCLB should be changed or just reauthorized as it is.

So, to answer Eduflack’s question on whether the survey findings “assume an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far out of whack with reality” — they do not. We can say with confidence that the survey met voters where they were in terms of knowledge, gave them a small, neutral, and unbiased amount of information about ESEA, and then asked voters to evaluate and make a choice based on that information as well as all the other knowledge and experiences they already have about public education and NCLB.

2.Eduflack also questioned whether “education could really takeover the economy as a key voting issue in November.” AEE and the research team of Lake and Bellwether have not made that assertion, and we would not make it as education does not rank before the economy right now in any polls we have seen. The new AEE poll does allow us to say, however, that education is an important issue and when voters do focus on the issue it is seen as important factor in how they will evaluate Congressional incumbents this fall. The AEE poll also shows that voters link the quality of public high schools and the state and progress of the national economy and our ability to compete in the global economy as well.”

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Is ESEA a Voting Issue?

Eduflack ESEA, NCLB

For years now, we have heard how “education” is a top-five political issue for most Americans, usually falling behind the economy, jobs, and healthcare in terms of importance.  Despite its standing, though, most election results have shown that K-12 education issues simply are not deciding factors when one steps into the voter booth, particularly when we are casting votes for offices like U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator (and, of course, President).

As much as we may want education to be a voting issue on the national level, it simply is not (and the good folks at Ed in ’08 can back us up here).  Education is perceived by many to be a local issue, a topic best controlled by local school boards, city councils, and mayors.  We may need some state legislatures and governors to weigh in, particularly with the checkbook, but education simply is not seen as a national issue.  Even during the height of No Child Left Behind, we simply didn’t see national elections decided, or even influenced, by education issues.

Will 2010 be any different?  Yesterday the Alliance for Excellent Education released data from a recent survey conducted by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research insinuating that the upcoming congressional elections could be different.  In reporting on public sentiment on high schools and ESEA reauthorization, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and her team found:
* Those surveyed believe “the nation’s public high school are in urgent need of improvement”
* The quality of high schools through ESEA reauthorization is a voting issue for more than 80 percent of voters, with half saying failure to act this year will impact their vote in the 2010 congressional elections
* One in four surveyed gave our high schools an excellent (A) or good (B ) grade, with 20 percent giving them a D or F
* We think our local high schools are doing better than the national average
* Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed say a high school diploma isn’t enough to get a good job
* Two-thirds say high school drop outs have a significant impact on the nation’s economy
* A majority say Congress isn’t paying enough attention to high schools

These are interesting findings, and virtually all speak to the need for ESEA reauthorization and ESEA reauthorization now.  And it helps justify the recent buzz that NCLB will be renamed the College and Career Readiness Act when ESEA finally does come up for a congressional vote.

But Eduflack has to take issue with one of the findings.  According the public summary released by the Alliance yesterday, Lake says:

Eight in ten voters want to see No Child Left Behind (NCLB ) altered in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), while just 11 percent say NCLB should be left as is.  Reauthorizing ESEA this year in a way that improves public high schools is personally important to three-quarters of voters.  Overall, voters give mixed reviews to NCLB.

I’ll completely give you the last point.  For those that know about NCLB, it will always get mixed, at best, reviews.  But the rest of the point has me scratching my head.  Lake and company surveyed 1,000 likely voters through a telephone survey last month.  The data was weighted to reflect actual population (age, education, race, political affiliation, and marital status).

Based on this finding, we are to believe that virtually all likely voters recognize that ESEA is up for reauthorization this year (or know that it was supposed to have been reauthorized years ago).  And we are to believe that 80 percent of likely voters understand the components of the current NCLB well enough to know that the current law needs to be altered to better emphasize the role of high schools in the education continuum.  

Do we honestly think that virtually every likely voter in the upcoming elections is aware of NCLB, ESEA reauthorization, and the priorities that are being debated?  Last year, Brookings released a study showing that only 1.4 percent of national news coverage in the first three quarters of 2009 focused on education issues.   And I’m willing to bet that NCLB/ESEA was but a fraction of that 1.4 percent.  So where are we getting our information?

I’m not saying that the findings are wrong.  I just worry that those surveyed are telling us what we want to hear.  We all want to say that education is an important issue.  We all want to say that we need to do a better job with our schools, particularly our high schools when we hear about drop out rates.  But aren’t we assuming an education policy knowledge among likely voters that is far, far out of whack with reality? 

Yes, we all should believe that federal policy should be changed to help improve our high schools.  But we also need to know that real improvement only comes when state and local policy, and buy in from practitioners, is part of the equation.  Policy itself does improve education.  It merely serves as a blueprint.

Perhaps I am wrong, and this November there will be an outpouring of votes cast because of ESEA and Congress’ inability to reauthorize the law.  But I doubt it.  I’d love to be wrong, but we have never enjoyed a year when congressional elections were decided on education issues.  And with the economy and healthcare still swirling, do we honestly think this is the year education moves from fifth to first place?

Is Education a National Job?

Eduflack accountability, ESEA, NCLB

Following yesterday’s election results in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Arkansas, and elsewhere, there is a great deal of buzz about what the latest collections of primary votes in an off-year election year truly mean.  The talking heads immediately keyed in on the “power” of President Obama’s support, the strength of the Tea Party movement, and other such harbingers of what is to come.

Such talk also has direct impact on current education improvement efforts.  Last fall’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia have had real edu-implications.  Just look at New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie has sought to revolutionize school finance efforts, freeze teacher pay, expand charter schools, single-handedly take down the New Jersey Education Association, one of the strongest state teachers’ unions in the nation.  As his reward?  The NJ legislature provides lukewarm, at best, support for his Phase II Race to the Top application, an application that seems to be strongly in line with what the feds are expecting.  This after they gave the strongest of endorsements to a Phase One plan that was a major loser. 
If yesterday’s elections told us anything, it is that the anti-government sentiment found in many a Tea Party statement has real strength.  Yesterday, the movement may have very well elected a U.S. Senator in Kentucky.  And growing frustration with support for federal policies and efforts may very well have brought down the sitting Senator from Arkansas (we will see after the runoff), and may have contributed to the demise of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania in his new-found political party.
So why does this matter?  Those of us who worked on the Hill at the time clearly remember the “revolution” of 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America brought down the decades-long rule that Democrats had enjoyed in Congress.  At the time, Gingrich promised a much smaller government, less intrusion, and more freedoms.  And one of the centerpieces of that agenda was the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.  The thinking here is that education is a local matter.  With the feds contributing less than a dime for every dollar spent in K-12, the thinking goes, it is far easier exclude the federal intrusion and let local school boards decide what is taught, what is measured, and what is paid for.
Today we are seeing much of the same rhetoric, particularly coming through the anti-government Tea Party movement.  Today, Education Daily (sorry folks, no link to share) has an interesting piece on how several state Republican parties, influenced by Tea Party supporters, are now advocating for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in their official policy platforms.  Cloaking themselves in the 10th Amendment, Republican parties in states like Maine, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Oregon have either officially adopted or are expected to sign on to calls to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
Is this backlash against eight years of No Child Left Behind?  Is it frustration that so many states worry that they will be excluded from the riches found in Race or i3?  Is it worry of strengthened accountability under ESEA reauthorization?  Or is it legitimate concern that public education is a local responsibility?  More importantly, is it something we need to worry about?
We all well know that the U.S. Department of Education is going nowhere.  Its role is too important, and its scope to large for us to pull back now.  But these political rumblings within local Republican parties can have real influence on topics such as reauthorization, particularly when Republicans pick up seats in both the Senate and House this fall.  Republican leaders on the Senate HELP Committee or the House Education and Labor Committee don’t want to anger their core constituencies back home, and those constituencies are only gaining more attention and strength by the month.
For reauthorization, that likely means greater scrutiny of plans, particularly when it comes to expanding Race, replacing AYP, adopting Common Core Standards, and all of the other goodies found in ED’s official ESEA blueprint.  If you couldn’t get some of these reforms through in 2007 and 2008, when Dems and GOPers were looking to deal on reauthorization, and you couldn’t get it through in 2009 and 2010 when Dems have the strongest majorities we’ve seen in quite a while, do we really see expansion of the federal education role in 2011 and 2012, when we could have razor-thin majorities and stronger anti-government sentiment?