|
ESEA Reauthorization: New Stirrings
 Just when it appeared that no significant movement toward the long-overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would occur prior to next year's presidential election, a comprehensive bipartisan bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. The newly proposed legislation is co-authored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), the Chair and Co-Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, respectively. A press release issued by the committee casts the bill as the product of, "...10 months of bipartisan negotiations" that will "...address many of the problems created by ESEA's most recent reauthorization, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), while advancing America's commitment to helping all children succeed." The text of the 860-page bill, as introduced, can be accessed, here.
The newly proposed bill would jettison what has proven to be the single most controversial element of the existing law by eliminating its adequate yearly progress feature. In lieu of AYP, states would be required to identify elementary, middle, and high schools in which student achievement is among the lowest five percent and provide such schools with intensive interventions. The criteria employed to identify such schools will, apparently, be left to each state. According to this Politics K-12 blog piece: "There would be no specific achievement targets, either for entire groups of students, or for particular subgroups, such as minority students, English-language learners, or students with disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, states would decide how-and whether-to intervene in schools."
A group of civil rights groups that includes the National Council of La Raza, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund have sharply criticized the bill's elimination of growth targets for subgroups of students. In a letter addressed to Senators Harkin and Enzi, the group notes that, " States would not have to set measurable achievement and progress targets or even graduation rate
goals. Congress, parents and tax-payers would have no meaningful mechanism by which to hold schools, districts, or states accountable for improving student outcomes at the pace our economy demands." The letter concludes by observing that the proposed legislation, "...contains much that could help low-income students, students with disabilities, students of color and English-language learners. But without goals and progress targets it is all but impossible to ensure that these good intentions will actually add up to better outcomes for
students. In fact, past experience suggests they will not; something neither our students nor our country can afford."
The legislation has also encountered cautionary pushback from several key education interest groups, including the National Education Association, over teacher evaluation provisions designed to promote a more even distribution of effective teachers among public schools situated in more and less affluent communities. A recent letter to the bill's co-authors expresses concern, "...about the capacity of states and local school districts to develop meaningful evaluation systems that do not become mechanisms for forced teacher and principal distribution," and underscores the "...need to prevent the mandating of evaluations that overemphasize standardized test scores at the expense of other important indicators of teachers and principal
effectiveness."
In addition to its above-mentioned features, the bill incorporates several of the Obama Administration's favored programs, including Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods. Additionally, the proposed law would require states to adopt college-and career-readiness standards.
One feature of the bill that has introduced a degree of uncertainty with respect to the participation of private school teachers, students, and other education personnel involves the proposed law's fiscal flexibility features. In affording local public school districts broader latitude in transfering funds between programs, it is not clear that dollars generated by private school students will be required to be spent on programs and activities designed to promote their achievement. In a letter to the Senate HELP committee, CAPE Executive Director Joe McTighe urges lawmakers "...to include in all applicable titles the requirement currently found in Title I (Sec. 1120(a)(4)) and elsewhere that funds generated by the count of students in a district who attend religious and independent schools be reserved for the benefit of those students. Such a reservation must be made before a state or district elects to 'flex' its funds or direct them into programs that would not serve private school students and teachers."
Update
Last Thursday, following committee markup that began the preceding day, the Harkin-Enzi ESEA reauthorization bill was passed out of the Senate HELP Committee by a vote of 15-7. It's authors hope to move the bill forward so that a Senate floor vote can be accomplished prior to Thanksgiving.
While various amendments were accepted and rejected during the markup process, the bill still faces criticism from civil rights and business groups whose members are concerned that the proposed rewrite of the nation's major federal education law is taking a significant step backward in the realm of accountability. Moreover, the Obama Administration has reacted cooly to the newly tailored legislation.
Writing for his department's blog, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan endorsed the bill's movement toward granting greater flexibility to states and local school districts, but went on to caution, "...it is equally important that we maintain a strong commitment to accountability for the success of all students, and I am concerned that the Senate bill does not go far enough. Parents, teachers, and state leaders across the country understand that in order to prepare all of our young people to compete in the global economy, we must hold ourselves and each other accountable at every level of the education system- from the classroom to the school district, from the states to the federal government. In addition, I am concerned the Senate bill lacks a comprehensive evaluation and support system to guide teachers and principals in continuing to improve their practice." |
|
High Court Hears "Ministerial Exception" Argument
 The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case that holds important implications for private religious schools' personnel practices. The High Court's eventual ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC will determine whether teachers of primarily secular studies employed by religiously oriented schools can be legally regarded as "ministers," who are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The "ministerial exception" also serves to protect religious organizations from most employment-related lawsuits brought by employees performing religious functions. A concise article addressing the nature and background of the case can be found, here. A transcript of the Oral Argument in the case can be accessed, here. The SCOTUSblog contains a full compendium of documents and articles relating to the Hosanna-Tabor.
The case revolves around a conflict between a Michigan Lutheran school, and a teacher who claims she was fired for having threatened to invoke terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act while on disability leave, rather than accept a "peaceful release" arrangement tendered by the school. The teacher taught a full secular studies regimen, but also taught a religion class four days a week, attended chapel together with students one day a week, and led prayers in class.
Lyle Denniston provides an interesting analysis of the oral argument, in which he describes the heart of the matter as follows: "The discussion focused not only on who within a church hierarchy or payroll may sue to complain about discrimination on the job, but more importantly on how the government is to examine that claim while respecting the autonomy of the religious group and avoiding second-guessing of religious doctrine."
The case is complex because it raises the issue of by whose authority a "minister" is to be defined - a religious establishment, or the government. Chief Justice John Roberts went so far as to wonder aloud whether the court could involve itself in the disposition of the matter, given the view of some denominations that all members of the faith are witnesses, and "ministers" of a sort. While some justices appeared to lean in favor of protecting their view of appropriate separation of church and state, others appeared to tilt in favor of protecting an individual's right to redress purported acts of discrimination.
Mr. Denniston reports that Justice Stephen G. Breyer attempted to stake out a middle ground position: "take the church at its word that its motive for firing [the teacher] was for a religious reason, since the ADA allows a church to insist that its workers obey its doctrine, but then decide the case on whether she had ever been told that resolving her claim internally was a condition of her employment. Presumably, if she was not told, she would win; if she had been told, the church would win - end of case." Apparently, no other justice expressed support for such a view, which may have appeared to be more of a side-step than a disposition of the underlying conflict.
Stay tuned! |
|
Quick Takes
 Affidavit Update
Some private schools have reported difficulty in complying with the law requiring the filing of an annual affidavit. Most such instances involved claims that the distinctive school codes and passwords needed to access the online filing site had not been received. Upon checking with the California Department of Education, CAPSO surmises that failure to receive the necessary information is likely attributable to the substitution of e-mail notification for letters send via U.S. mail - a practice that was initiated this year. The e-mail in question was sent out on September 22, 2011. Its title line read: Filing the 2011-12 Private School Affidavit and Password. The e-mail contained filing instructions, a link to the online filing site, the school's name, its unique CDS (county-district-school) Code, and password. Given changes in both personnel and e-mail addresses, a certain percentage of the notifications can be expected to have gone unreceived. Schools that have not received the e-mail and have not yet filed the affidavit may wish to ask all administrators to check their "junk" e-mail folders and/or e-mail filters for the presence of the correspondence. The CDE is sending out a second e-mail (albeit to the same addresses) to those schools that filed the affidavit last year, but have not yet filed for the current year. While such a tactic may not be effective in all cases, phone calls will also be made. To help our friends at the CDE cut down on the time it takes to make such calls, please check for the presence of these e-mails if your school has yet to file. Important Note: While the law calls for the filing of the affidavit between October 1-15, annually, the affidavit may still be filed, and will be processed. Doing so will ensure the eligibility of nonprofit private school students, teachers, and other education personnel to participate in federally funded programs.
The Blame Game Andrew Rotherham provides a characteristically balanced Time column in which he notes that, "Education policy debates are often like an argument between a couple in a bad relationship - about everything except the actual problems." On the one hand, he notes that those who make sincere efforts to address the problem of teachers who have no business populating classrooms are likely to be demonized as being party to a "campaign against teachers." On the other hand, writes Mr. Rotherham, "among too many conservatives, anything less that complete contempt for the teachers unions is seen as a sure sign of softness on reform. Yet the unions are not monolithic. Their positions on the issues vary and their local affiliates around the country differ in how much they're willing to do to solve today's problems." In the author's view, a focus on instructional quality would help to avoid the pitfalls that so often derail sustainable policy discussions in his highly charged area.
Can This be Happening in Silicon Valley?
CAPE's Facebook page contains a link to a New York Times article focusing on the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, a private school in California's Silicon Valley that educates a significant number of children whose parents are among the movers and shakers of the high tech universe. What makes the story noteworthy is that the school's classrooms contain nary a computer. The school is part of an international network whose pedagogy is grounded in the work of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner. More information about Waldorf education can be found, here.
Correction
In the previous edition of the "E-Mailer," an incorrect e-mail address was provided for Bob Tyra. The correct address is:
Please drop Bob a note if you wish you have your e-mail address added to a free informational list serve and monthly newsletter that focuses on student support professional development conferences, webinars, college and career infomation, and other events and resources.
|
|
Government and Moral Hazard
 I am not a Libertarian. I can't imagine how adequate national defense could be provided in the absence of government. (The notion of private armed forces doesn't tickle my fancy.) I like our interstate highway system. I believe government has a certain role to play in the provision of a social safety net for those truly in need (even though I'd prefer to see families, friends, neighbors, churches, synagogues and mosques providing people-to-people assistance first). And when it comes to education, I have taken a pass when it comes to endorsing the proclamation of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State.
My support for government at its various levels goes beyond voluntary submission to is coercive elements - I don't complain, at least not very loudly, about paying taxes - and theoretical concurrence with the concept. I venerate the Constitution of the United States, regard our system of government as the best of any with which I am familiar, and know plenty of government employees, some of whom happen to be members of my own family, who are among the most dedicated, hard working, and highly principled people I know.
My personal declaration of allegiance notwithstanding, I confess that there are plenty of times when I'm just left shaking my head, and finding myself admitting that the late, great economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman - who was a Libertarian - got it right when he addressed the moral hazard that arises from spending other people's money.
The most recent illustration of the problem was driven home in the form of a memorandum issued by Michael Yudin, the U.S. Department of Education's Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. The memo, which was released near the tail end of September, offered states and local school districts an opportunity to seek an extension of the deadline by which so-called federal stimulus funds had to be obligated (committed). States will now have until October 31 to submit a waiver request which, if approved, would extend the deadline for obligating stimulus funds until September 30, 2012. Here's a portion of what Mr. Yudin had to say:
Although I believe it is important that each State educational agency (SEA) and its sub-recipients local educational agency (LEA) ensure that Federal funds are obligated in a timely manner, I am acutely aware of the enormous need to provide continued support for meaningful education reform across the nation and the need to offer flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to give them further time to make spending decisions wisely.
While such a declaration sounds like a wise and kindly policy, here's the problem: State departments of education and local public school districts have been laboring under the understanding that all such funds were to have been committed by September 30, 2011. Mr. Yudin's memorandum was issued just four days prior to the deadline. The upshot is that those who tried to make the best possible decisions within a "use it or lose it" timeframe were left with little or no money to spend more wisely. I know, because I personally participated in such decision making.
When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed in winter, 2009, the Los Angeles Unified School District received close to an additional $1 million in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds to be spent to benefit children with special needs who have been placed by their parents (rather than by an agency of the state) in private schools. The law does not afford such children individual entitlement to any particular service. Instead, these students become members of an undifferentiated class of private school kids with special needs, with funding to be spent in a manner designed to help the greatest number. The law also requires public school districts to consult with private school officials to help determine how the funds should most effectively be spent.
I was one of several such officials to participate in such consultations, which were initiated with appropriate seriousness of purpose and a commitment, at least, initially, to cost effectiveness. At the conclusion of the second two-hour planning meeting, we had come up with several programs that seemed to be on-point. But when we looked at the bottom line, we realized that we hadn't made much of a dent in the $1 million. At the ensuing meeting, our criteria for the assignment of funds became somewhat more relaxed. Still, a very substantial amount of money remained, and if we didn't obligate it, it would be lost. In the end, we signed off on various decisions we might not have approved had we known that we'd have an extra year of time to allocate the money. In other words, we fell victim to the moral hazard of which Dr. Friedman warned. Mea culpa.
This is not a partisan criticism. Whatever one's opinion of the Stimulus Bill, the practice of setting standards only to ignore them is common to Democrats and Republicans, alike. In this particular instance, however, there are a couple of kickers. For one, the intent of the law was to move dollars into a flagging economy as quickly as possible. Yet, more than two-and-a-half years after its passage, a good portion of the funding has yet to be spent, prompting a non-Libertarian like yours truly to wonder whether the money might have been both better (and sooner) spent had it simply remained in the pockets of the taxpayers. Finally, knowing that so many private schools are committing funds with painstaking deliberation only serves to increase my sense of uneasiness about the process in which I participated. When it comes to this variant of moral hazard, e pluribus unum prevails.
Ron Reynolds |
|
E-Mailer on Hiatus
 From now through the end of November it's all convention, all the time in the CAPSO office. Therefore, the next edition of the Midweek E-Mailer will be published December 7, 2011.
Here's hoping to see you in Long Beach, November 21-22! |
|
