Alexandria, Va. (October 18, 2011) – The National School Boards Association (NSBA) is urging the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) to postpone its mark-up of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2011, that is scheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10am, in order that its local impact can be fully ascertained to improve the legislation to best advance student achievement.
Dear Senators:
On behalf of the nation’s 14,000 local school boards that are responsible for governing our nation’s local school systems, the National School Boards Association offers its position on the Manager’s Amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2011 that is scheduled to be marked up by the Senate HELP committee on Wednesday, October 19, 2011.
In addressing this legislation, NSBA’s pre-eminent goal is to increase the achievement of all students—especially those with the greatest educational needs. The attached document addresses specific provisions relating to educational policy that are of high priority for local school boards. The following paragraphs frame our overall reaction to the bill leading to NSBA’s recommendation that the Committee postpone the markup in order for it to obtain adequate local response to how this comprehensive bill in its entirety will function at the school district level, thereby ensuring that improvements can be made in order for the legislation to be the most effective tool possible, in practice, for supporting student achievement.
There are significant features of the bill that both support raising student achievement while eliminating serious counter-productive requirements contained in current law. Those include 1) setting goals based on college and career readiness while eliminating the current AYP system, 2) strengthening the use of growth as one element in a set of multiple measures for determining accountability rather than relying totally on cohort cut scores for that purpose, 3) focusing improvement strategies on the lowest performing schools while eliminating the inappropriate labeling and interventions for strong schools which under the current system inaccurately set up all schools for failure, 4) advancing the improvement of standards and assessments while not subjecting them to federal approval and 5) supporting improved teacher evaluation systems, among other measures, as an overall change in general direction. Although positive in direction, these broad components must be refined, including greater recognition for local flexibility and school district capacity, in order to fully achieve the desired goals.
The bill also contains many operationally unrealistic features that will need to be addressed. For example, it contains extensive data collection and reporting requirements, as well as overbearing specificity in several key programs areas that cross well into the micro-management of our schools. Likewise, the bill does not adequately recognize the capacity building needs of local school districts to adjust to, and maintain, the many operational changes that this legislation will bring. These capacity needs not only relate to the professional development of teachers and principals (as provided by Title II), but to other personnel as well, curriculum redesign and course material acquisition, personnel management, technology acquisition and on-going data maintenance outreach and coordination activities, etc.
Especially at a time when school budgets across the country have been cut to the bone, with restoration of state and local funding to the 2008 service levels unlikely for at least several years, this legislation should not excessively burden school districts with new requirements if educationally they produce no or marginal benefit in relation to what else school systems must struggle to do or sacrifice in order to comply with them. Given these realities, the total operational impact of this legislation requires the removal of overly burdensome requirements on all schools and school districts -- not just the smallest -- as they simply don’t have the staff or financial resources to do everything the bill as drafted will require of them.
Given with the bill’s comprehensive scope, the fundamental changes in the delivery of education that it would bring, and the likely duration of the legislation before reauthorization occurs again, NSBA strongly recommends that the committee postpone its mark-up in order that its local impact— where education actually occurs – can be fully ascertained. By so doing the Committee can avoid the risk of repeating the unfortunate history of how the lack of public airing of the final No Child Left Behind bill resulted in that well intended legislation to be broadly flawed and quickly lose support among local educators and policy makers as an effective and inspiring program for raising student achievement.
NSBA believes that the main focus of this legislation is headed in the right direction and we look forward to working with Members of the Committee to make the refinements needed, including any amendments that you may be proposing. If you or your staff has any questions, please contact Reginald M. Felton, Director of Federal Relations at 703-838-6782, or by e-mail, rfelton@nsba.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Michael A. Resnick
Associate Executive Director
Founded in 1940, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is a not-for-profit organization representing state associations of school boards and their more than 90,000 local school board members throughout the U.S. Working with and through our state associations, NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. www.nsba.org